Again, not sure you're getting into the whole "comedy movie" groove here.
"Galaxy Quest 2" Back On?
- Thread starter Danja
- Start date
Again, not sure you're getting into the whole "comedy movie" groove here.
Galaxy Quest doesn't need a sequel.
It was Tim Allen’s best work, and him being a tool is why. Sort of like how uncanny valley HELPED make CGI Tarkin more threatening than Cushing himself did. Maybe F. Murray Abraham for the re-cast?
Nah...
The sequel is this. Tim plays at least two parts. One the sci-fi actor, the second? The REAL starship captain in an alternate universe where Galaxy Quest is real.
Rickman’s character died heroically in both. Saving a child from a theatre fire in one, and perhaps another as well.
We see Tim Allen as himself, Buzz Lightyear, last action hero style, as a garbage man, etc.
The last scene?
Alan’s character, we learn
“...was a hero in every universe...”
Roll Credits
That’s how you do the sequel.
That and have Tim—as himself—in the looney bin with multiple personalities, or have Johnny Depp in there, arguing with Ricky Gervais and Steven Merchant about how Allen is THE comedic genius of our time...
Last edited:
That argument makes sense for a novelist, say, or a stand-up comic, or anyone who's basically a solo act. But a movie starring Actor X is not Actor X's work. Actor X is just one of the hundreds of people the filmmakers hired to do their work. And it hardly seems fair to penalize those hundreds of other people because you don't like just one guy.
Besides, many great works of entertainment have been the creations of awful people. Alfred Hitchcock was horribly abusive to his actresses. Julius Schwartz, probably the most important editor of DC Comics' Silver and Bronze Ages, was a serial sexual harasser. Gene Roddenberry probably was too. If we throw out every creation by a creator who was a jerk in real life, we'd have to throw out a huge percentage of our most acclaimed popular entertainment.
So it's important to separate the creation from the creator. You wouldn't blame a child for the sins of their parents, so a brainchild shouldn't be blamed for its creators' sins either, except in cases where it actively promotes their harmful values, like Birth of a Nation, say. The same person can be responsible for both good things and bad things in the course of their life, because people are complicated. Celebrating the good they did is not endorsing the bad.
Maybe they could do it as a mocumentary following the characters as they become Earth's first real starship crew. They could throw in a by the book Air Force or Navy officer who is suddenly finding themselves having to deal with a bunch of crazy actors.
So, you'll be first in line for the next Kevin Spacey movie, then?
I hit the see the ignore comments button to see what the Spacey comment was about to see Christopher's quote
No it's not.
Tim is of course nowhere near the level of Kevin Spacey who despite being in many fine films, I simply feel uncomfortable to watch after everything we found out by Kevin. Tim is just an idiot who I don't want to support or see in my entertainment. There was a reason Disney dropped as the voice actor of Buzz Lightyear for Chris Evans, one isn't a douche that comes with bad PR when he opens his gob.
Galaxy Quest doesn't need a sequel - A complete reboot maybe.
No it's not.
Tim is of course nowhere near the level of Kevin Spacey who despite being in many fine films, I simply feel uncomfortable to watch after everything we found out by Kevin. Tim is just an idiot who I don't want to support or see in my entertainment. There was a reason Disney dropped as the voice actor of Buzz Lightyear for Chris Evans, one isn't a douche that comes with bad PR when he opens his gob.
Galaxy Quest doesn't need a sequel - A complete reboot maybe.
I never really liked Spacey much anyway, though I know how that sounds in retrospect. But he's been in movies that I think are excellent, like Baby Driver. Those movies are not his sole responsibility; he just happened to be in them. And his characters are not him.
And there are people out there who've done worse things than Spacey did but whose work as actors or filmmakers is still worthwhile. There's a very good actor named Charles S. Dutton, whose acting career began after he served a prison sentence for manslaughter (and other sentences for other crimes). He killed someone, and I was uncomfortable knowing that about him when I found it out, but he paid his debt to society and he went on to make something of himself. And ultimately it has no relevance to whether his performance as an actor is worthwhile, which it usually is. A person's job is not the person.
Acting is just a job. Would you refuse to drive on a road if you knew it was paved by convicts? When you pick a store to shop at, do you investigate all its clerks to determine if they have checkered pasts? We can't ever guarantee that everyone who does a job that benefits us is morally pure and perfect. But that rarely matters, because our incidental contact with their work does not connect us to their personal lives, no matter how much acting creates the illusion that it does.
That's not the analogy here. The equivalent would be a store with Kevin Spacey as their greeter, or Bill Cosby as their spokesperson. I would not shop at that store, and neither would you.
According to Sigourney Weaver, they appear to be skewering the reboot trend:
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2563759/galaxy-quests-sigourney-weaver-gives-update-on-the-sequel
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2563759/galaxy-quests-sigourney-weaver-gives-update-on-the-sequel
What about "Buckaroo Banzai vs. The World Crime League"?
An actor once asked Hitchcock what their motivation was in doing a scene.
Hitchcock replied, "Your paycheck."
That's been my pitch for years. It makes sense to incorporate modern sci-fi trends into the fabric of the new story. And since the aliens in the first movie still didn't seem to understand that the show was fictional, I would continue on with that. I figure that, mirroring the petty online arguments of today, the existence of a Galaxy Quest reboot would fracture the aliens into a civil war with each side recruiting their respective crews of actors to fight for them.
I don't think that they should recast Alan Rickman's character but maybe the younger actor playing Dr. Lazarus in the reboot ends up being the character who bridges the gulf between the old & new crews. (Kind of a mirror image of how old Spock ended up being the bridge between the original Star Trek and the Kelvin timeline.)
People die. Franchises lose actors.
SW has lost actors (Carrie Fisher, David Prowse, Peter Mayhew, Kenny Baker). We've lost actors (Bulk of TOS cast, Aron Eisenberg, Anton Yelchin, Rene Auberjonois).
GQ should deal with it head-on.
Maybe they recast him in the show and everyone is resenting him for it, then when they get wrapped up in real scifi stuff the new actor is flipping out but everyone else is like "Oh, this again?"
"Bulk?" We've lost three out of the seven TOS cast. That's only 42%, a little below half. That's not really my definition of "bulk."