How Will This Movie Stand the Test of Time?

[Chrisisall]

"Revitalizing" is all too often a euphemism for spreading it yet further and thinner until the substance is finally gone and only the veneer remains and all a franchise has become is a Trojan horse for other writers and their own philosophy.

Fascinating. I see what you're saying, but really, Superman, Batman, Spidey, Kirk & Spock are with us for the long haul now. There will be good & bad moments. I'll take 'em as they come, and always want more.

 

[Lorien]

Fascinating. I see what you're saying, but really, Superman, Batman, Spidey, Kirk & Spock are with us for the long haul now. There will be good & bad moments. I'll take 'em as they come, and always want more.

Superman, Batman and Spidey have been around all along. You apparently miss that neither movie nor TV is their primary medium. While DC is a subsidiary of Warner Entertainment nowadays, they still enjoy a great deal of control on how their characters are perceived in the public - all the more this is true for Marvel, which constitutes a largely independent company. The situation is entirely different for Paramount.

 

[Chrisisall]

Superman, Batman and Spidey have been around all along. You apparently miss that neither movie nor TV is their primary medium.

You apparently miss that I am referring to the ingraining of the charaters/mythos in our popular & sustained culture.
Where in "There will be good & bad moments" did I mislead you into thinking that I was commenting on a company's quality control of their product?

 

[Lorien]

Superman, Batman and Spidey have been around all along. You apparently miss that neither movie nor TV is their primary medium.

You apparently miss that I am referring to the ingraining of the charaters/mythos in our popular & sustained culture.
Where in "There will be good & bad moments" did I mislead you into thinking that I was commenting on a company's quality control of their product?

Please refer again to the first sentence in the above quote. You're missing the key point.

 

[FlapJoy]

I, for one, think that when something has really outlived itself (which is not to say that's necessarily the case), it's good to let it die. "Revitalizing" is all too often a euphemism for spreading it yet further and thinner until the substance is finally gone and only the veneer remains and all a franchise has become is a Trojan horse for other writers and their own philosophy.

I would agree with you, and in Treks case, that is what was happening. But in this case, instead of building upon the original premise over and over, it revists the original premise and characters, expands on it and them, but also preserves it. Mabye even deconstructs it a bit so new viewers and writers can have at it. Something that really would have been considered unheard of by certain factions of Trek's fandom not so long ago, but it's that very fandom that would have let Trek die instead of breathing in new life, which is what Trek really needed. There are still Star Trek stories to tell !