A decline in quality in everything or am I just getting old??
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
The interesting test is to see if the stuff of today is worst I think will be in the future when we look back and see how much of the current stuff is still popular and whether much of it has a timeless appeal to it much like TOS.Classic Star Wars,Back to the Future etc. Will people 20 years for now still be huge fans of the MCU for example. Will all these Disney remakes hold up or in the end will the old cartoons of Ariel and Jungle Book etc will go back to being the definitive versions. I think we already know which Ghostbusters people will still love in 20 years and chances are even if this new one is good it still will be kind of forgotten and the 1984 version will still be the best.
Heck nobody has even been able to do a modern Superman movie that matches the 78 version. I think this is a issue when you have era dominated by remakes and reboots. They are almost doomed even if they are good to always live in the shadow of the classic versions that came before them. In this regard I do think the MCU does stand a chance to still be loved because it has basically defined the Marvel brand.
Jason
Heck nobody has even been able to do a modern Superman movie that matches the 78 version. I think this is a issue when you have era dominated by remakes and reboots. They are almost doomed even if they are good to always live in the shadow of the classic versions that came before them. In this regard I do think the MCU does stand a chance to still be loved because it has basically defined the Marvel brand.
Jason
When you think of it, the Christopher Reeves Superman and even Michael Keaton’s Batman were reboots, since Adam West had starred in the 1966 Batman: The Movie (based on the TV series) and there were the Batman & Batman and Robin Columbia Theatrical Serials in the 40’s. And George Reeve had starred as Superman in Superman vs The Mole Men in 1951 (it was later re-edited to fit into the 1950’s TV series), and before that you had the 40’s Columbia Superman serials.
But today, a lot of those Super Hero movies rely on the CGI to tell the story, rather than an actual, good plot. One thing with the older stuff is that they developed the plot first, then worked on the special effects. It wasn’t the other way around.
And with Superman, and this might be because of all the political correctness in the world today, but in the past they seemed to depict Superman as just another man (with an off-planet origin) who was really strong and smart, but nowadays because the PC thing is to say everyone is equal in strength and brains, the modern producers more or less cast Superman as a god and really make him above human standards, and there is a disconnect, and it really makes him boring.
On this point it depends on how it is handled. I think the Injustice comics handle it amazingly.
Dial what back? Nothing I said was an overreaction in any way.
Which is why I work hard (not perfect nor is this prescriptive) to not compare past versions and present versions. Yeah, it's a weird challenge to myself but I find that constantly going back to the past as that measuring stick is detrimental to my enjoyment of new things.
And the more that I get older the more I hear that and see things in a new way. Instead of it being "Oh, another Star Trek" I treat it as a "Oh, a show that I want to see." I'm struggling with the Marvel films because that is definitely a *sighs* "Another Marvel movie" and trying to treat them more independently.
To go out beyond just the three franchises in the first post, I really don't think there's that big of a change in overall quality. The thing to remember is that the show people look back on fondly are a very, very small fraction of what was actually out there, and that they are loved because they are the best. Even back in the day there was a lot of crap out there, it's just that nobody looks back on the crap fondly like they do the good shows.
I think the big thing that makes a lot of older people dislike the stuff that is coming out today is that it is very, very different from the kind of shows that were made before the turn of the millennium, so a lot people who grew up back then are still wanting the old style of shows.
I think the big thing that makes a lot of older people dislike the stuff that is coming out today is that it is very, very different from the kind of shows that were made before the turn of the millennium, so a lot people who grew up back then are still wanting the old style of shows.
Nope. Star Trek doesn't have the timeless appeal you think it does, and this is coming from someone who's favorite show all his life has been Star Trek. To my teenage nephew, Chris Pine is Kirk. He looks at Shatner Kirk the same way my generation looked at George Reeves or Kirk Alyn. Star Trek doesn't resonate with him because it's not a vision of the future that resonates with him or his generation, it doesn't conform to the cinematic sensibilities he's used to, in both FX and acting. I'd hazard he'd feel the same way about the 24th century shows because they were made almost two decades before he was born.
Nope. "The Maltese Falcon" was made three times in the span of twelve years. The first was a success, the second less so, and the third, one of the most iconic films in Hollywood history. And that's the real reason behind the rancor. The pants shitting fear that someone will make a better version and people will enjoy that one more than the older one.
"Political Correctness". A couple of you really don't know what those words mean and this paragraph just comes off as nonsensical rambling.
Last edited:
To me what people really remember when looking back at something and what makes something timeless is the characters more than the actual stories. To me what makes a successful show that lasts isn't the stories because many of them will always be hit and miss in any time period but the drawl will always be in wanting to revisit the characters of said time period. Well mostly with tv. Movies work a little bit different. I've always felt tv was always more about characters you sort of want to hang out with and movies it's always been about story though some of the special ones are when the characters do become like friends in away like great tv characters do such in Star Wars,Back to the Future etc and I would add the MCU which to me actually functions not to different like the biggest most grandest tv soap opera ever. It's one big show that never ends but instead has individual episodes and tosses in some big twists every now and then.
Jason
I give Kurtzmantrek a B+. It has flaws and some eyebrow raising canon moments. But it has great characters, compelling stories and the soul of Star Trek.
It does not always match my prescriptive view of what Trek should be. Although Picard actually kind of does. It bears passing similarities to stuff I said in 2001 about what I wanted instead of Ent and to a webcomic I wrote (Except eugenic shapeshifter assassins with narcotic reactions to fulfilling missions instead of androids).
But prescriptive views ruin enjoyment. Ditch them and you will be happier.
If they changed Superman because modern audiences aren’t as into one sided power dynamics it has nothing to do with political correctness. Just a different attitude toward power.
It does not always match my prescriptive view of what Trek should be. Although Picard actually kind of does. It bears passing similarities to stuff I said in 2001 about what I wanted instead of Ent and to a webcomic I wrote (Except eugenic shapeshifter assassins with narcotic reactions to fulfilling missions instead of androids).
But prescriptive views ruin enjoyment. Ditch them and you will be happier.
If they changed Superman because modern audiences aren’t as into one sided power dynamics it has nothing to do with political correctness. Just a different attitude toward power.
You probably wouldn’t know PC if it bit you on the hand.
The truth is in the middle, but keep in mind - over the last decade or so - we've been told how more sophisticated audiences are. Yet subjected to sci-fi plot lines that are beneath them.
Doctor Who had frequent crude bodily function jokes aimed at the audience. The original run of the show, at worst, and not often either, made a comment about eating eggs.
Doctor Who didn't have a sonic screwdriver for over half its original run. When introduced, it was given a technical description and used for specific things - with some flexibility but still within the scientific concept of controlled sound vibrations as a tool. In the 2005 reboot, it was used as a magic wand and increasingly so in frequency. The 2018-present era ramped up its callow misuse as well. Now remember 1979 when critics of the show were lambasting it for being too silly and overusing the screwdriver. Sit them in front of anything from 2005-present and be sure to bring the popcorn because your watching them is going to be quite entertaining.
So, so far, it's not quite "in the middle" but a tangible drop in storyline quality and there are other avenues in that show alone that only go on to strengthen the point, far more than just the Doctor saying "I'm socially awkward" because the hack writers didn't have the creativity to show an alien balance done in the original run quite often...
And that's the rub; Capaldi's era struggled to get the show back on form and by series 10 it pretty much had. A shame the viewers didn't come back. It had three total clunkers, Lie of the Land, Eaters of Light, and Oxygen, but was otherwise a big step up. The finale was a refreshing reminder that modern day sci-fi could actually be good.
But, yeah, when a show has a robotic gun turret constantly miss the heroes and there's no reason given, that's just **** scripting. Even Star Wars has a better excuse for 10% of the occasions when the highly vaunted sharpshooting Stormtroopers miss. (ANH, when the rebels are clearly allowed TO escape... every pew pre since then is just down to the writers - even back then - being lazy. The original trilogy is not a pot of gold for crying out loud, they had plot gaffes and mistakes as well. And Johnson should have had the third movie but the media spin was saying Johnson wrecked it, despite the media saying before TLJ came out that there was no preplanned storyline for the new trilogy so it's clearly not Johnson's fault in that regard. And at least Johnson was writing something different and not putting a piece of tracing paper over ANH to make a copy of it the way Abrams did for the 2015 extravalameza. The cliches and fake-outs in the 2019 conclusion were just bad and done to death already.)
Star Wars and Star Trek took the heroes of the previous era and tried to give them Shakespeare tragedy endings. Worked for Luke (arguably, it did for me) but not for Han or Kirk. The episode and clips of Picard I did see were not promising, but Picard's stuck in the middle of rotten admirals and (to an extent) rotten scripting.
TL;DR version: Show writers can be hit or miss, regardless of show or era and they still make it based on their own perceptions of how they want it to be. There can be examples of sloppier scripting but things weren't perfect in the past either. It just hurts more when something is done that, in the universe of the show, is so outlandish to established canon that it becomes more difficult to believe. I still found things to enjoy in modern WHO (until after 2017 but briefly in 2019), liked a fair bit of Star Wars... But Trek? Nope, 21st century Trek is definitely not, to coin a phrase, "****ing cool." It's been treated like a Star Wars copy, though "Beyond" is by far the best of 21st century Trek so far.
That is not untrue and not just because TOS has casual sexism, which is not palatable to sit through. It is true that every show is made within the time it is made, showing reflections, aspirations, contemporary points thrust into a future setting for various reasons, or whatever else in a fictional form, or at least n imitation or compilation of best bits from the older shows. I could go in three different directions on that alone, but I accidentally already proved it can be timeless because the human condition isn't going anywhere. Why else would Shakespeare remain popular in some circles despite his being almost five centuries old?
Also, given some people in Star Trek and Doctor Who found incarnations made long before they were born and enjoyed them as well... So what you're suggesting isn't entirely not untrue either.
^^this
Each remake has the hopes it will be better.
But that's not always the case. I may as well use "V" as an example. The 1983 version is taut and claustrophobic with an authentic feel but devolved into a soap opera. Considering it's a blending of a novel from the 1930s, the Nazis (with loose association via the alien logo but they didn't treat the audience so poorly by using namedropping to connect the dots to blatantly. Especially when the Visitors pretty much were their own thing... the 1983 retelling of classic fascist drama worked wonders. The sequels, not so much but they did prove the franchise is best served as an action adventure fare and not soap opera.)
The 2009 version starts as a loose soap opera, with a few plot points of interest, which weren't handled consistently, never mind the dumbed down use of "teh V's", never mind the crass sledgehammer namedropping of real life people regardless, complete with an absolutely stupid design for ship interiors (this isn't candyland fantasyville folks - give it a utilitarian feel), and it took the season two finale to ditch the lame soap opera and finally ramp up the action and suspense properly and convincingly, which was over a season too late. Though the premise hinted at didn't have to be "V" at all.
Depends on its definition. I usually define it as being inclusive of all and in the same way. Which really isn't a great or complete definition. What's your complete definition of it?
There is no 'both' so your poll is invalid.
Modern Trek is boring.
Disney Star Wars is garbage.
However I will continue to defend Doctor Who like I do in the forum. Doctor Who is a rather shitty family show. It's all over the place, but it has NEVER , not even in 50+ year history has it been great long term. There are stand out episodes, but most of the time it's rather garbage. And classic Who is boring as hell.
Modern Trek is boring.
Disney Star Wars is garbage.
However I will continue to defend Doctor Who like I do in the forum. Doctor Who is a rather shitty family show. It's all over the place, but it has NEVER , not even in 50+ year history has it been great long term. There are stand out episodes, but most of the time it's rather garbage. And classic Who is boring as hell.
No one thinks you're wrong for liking the things you do, it's just not objective fact shared by every other living human. People like what they grew up with and some tend to dislike newer things as they grew older. Media made before a certain date is not better, you just like it.
I dont' feel that TOS is comparable to Shakespeare?
I remember here in Ontario 20 years ago the education system was getting English high school teachers to teach Star Trek scripts alongside Shakespeare, with Trek being our modern Shakespeare (that’s how I found out about the 2 script books since an English teacher showed them to me—-unfortunately they weren’t starting until a year after I had been in Grade 10 since a new curriculum had been started years earlier and I was in the last class of the old).I dont' feel that TOS is comparable to Shakespeare?
