You do that, Jar-Jar. Have lots of fun with it.
On some other forum.
To everyone else: stop feeding the troll, please. It only encourages them to stick around.
Orci strikes back
- Thread starter Mountie1988
- Start date
On some other forum.
To everyone else: stop feeding the troll, please. It only encourages them to stick around.
Good point, but... Ignoring the fans to give them what you, as the writer or director, want instead of what they want is a recipe for disaster - as it was with Prometheus. If Prometheus II continues to diverge in the way that Ridley Scott wishes without answering the questions that fans of Alien want to learn, it will again be a disaster.
Scott's inspiration was to focus on answering the question of who was the Space Jockey. We had this huge, beautiful creature in a crashed spaceship on LV-426. What the fans got was not that ship or that moon. And it was not that creature, but a different creature in a different ship on a different moon. And, importantly, what were clearly bones in the original were changed into spacesuit instead to fit the plot, ignoring what fans really wanted to learn.
Lindelof and Scott did not answer the question they set out to answer - the one fans wanted - and now there is no recovery because they could not possibly change the spacesuit back into bones. We will never learn why that particular alien is in that particular ship on that particular moon. Nor will we see the creature that inhabited those bones. It's lost to us because the writer and director did not give the fans what they wanted. If there is a different agenda for the film and it wishes to ask bigger questions, as were the ambitions of Prometheus, fine, but make damn sure you honor fan expectations without insulting their intelligence along the way.
But which fans do you listen too? If you ask twenty-five Star Trek fans what they want, you'd likely receive twenty-five different answers.
Wasn't Prometheus a reboot, and if so, doesn't that negate the importance of those questions as the franchise is now building new pathways? [sorry, off topic]
All I know is that Roddenberry said if he listened to fans, Star Trek would be shit. Based on some fan ideas I've seen, I tend to agree.
No, it was a parallel story in the same reality or universe. And the same silliness about whether it was a prequel or not (it was) reminds me alot of the silliness behind denying STID brought back Kahn. Lindelof was deeply involved in both and, according to his co-writers, was responsible for Kahn. Hmmm.... Silly guy.
Man, you pounce on my posts so fast that my edits don't have time to settle in.
And once again: No. It was not a reboot. And, for the record, I'm growing to despise that word. As if movies or franchises were computer systems. And I think whole fad itself growing quite tiresome, but I guess that's for a different thread.
Man, you pounce on my posts so fast that my edits don't have time to settle in.
And once again: No. It was not a reboot. And, for the record, I'm growing to despise that word. As if movies or franchises were computer systems. And I think whole fad itself growing quite tiresome, but I guess that's for a different thread.
Fad? We've been retelling the same stories for thousands of years. All of Shakespeare's classics were retellings of other works. There are no new stories, there are simply new arrangements.
I had always heard it was a reboot. Sure played like a reboot.
Man, you pounce on my posts so fast that my edits don't have time to settle in.
And once again: No. It was not a reboot. And, for the record, I'm growing to despise that word. As if movies or franchises were computer systems. And I think whole fad itself growing quite tiresome, but I guess that's for a different thread.
Fad? We've been retelling the same stories for thousands of years. All of Shakespeare's classics were retellings of other works. There are no new stories, there are simply new arrangements.
The term is a fad. And so is the practice. Retelling a story is different than rebooting it even if the retelling is abstracted, like writing the Wizard of Oz as a contemporary tale in New York City. That's not a reboot.
No, no, a thousand times NO! God save us from any kind of artistic creators who feel obligated to give "the fans" what "they want" instead of making something the creators themselves want. I want to see what the creators want to give me--and then I will decide if I like it or not. I do not want to be "consulted", "listened to" or in any other way catered to, other than providing me with an artistic creation that I can experience and then decide if it is satisfactory to me. If it is, great. If not, then I'll be less likely to spend my money on further efforts from those creators. But any time an artistic creator starts to listen to the self-appointed guardians of The Committee of the Way Things Ought to Be as their default starting point, I know I'll be getting something bland and boring.
I have all the Alien films (except those vs. Predator), I'm a huge fan of Ridley Scott's body of work and I thoroughly enjoyed Prometheus. So, no, not necessarily a disaster (even if it proves to be for you).
Good for him. He's the maker of the art. You are free to be disappointed (as you clearly are) with his choices. You are IN NO WAY entitled to satisfaction ahead of time. No artist is in any way obligated to "give the fans what they want". EVER.
Nope. No need to "honor fan expectations". They can choose to do so if that is what they wish to do. And doing so can certainly make for some interesting creations--if it is not done out of some sense of obligation. But "fan expectations" should matter not at all for artistic endeavours. Fans are entitled to nothing but their right to be happy or displeased with the final product.
You characterize this as my singularly personal opinion while I am considering an overwhelming amount of similar opinion that you can easily find. And you appear to ignore that overwhelming opinion of dissatisfaction, but if you enjoyed it despite stupid scientists, gigantic plot holes, and running in straight lines under a crashing spacecraft that only perpetuates the myth that women always trip when they try to run, great. That said, great visuals and I did purchase the Blu-ray because I did not entirely dislike the movie. It just didn't do for me and a lot of people what Scott told us it was going to do.
Last edited:
I don't care if I'm the only person on the planet who thoroughly enjoyed it and the rest of humanity considers it an affront to whatever deity is currently in vogue. My point was entirely about fan "expectations" being irrelevant to artistic endeavours of any type. Artists are under no obligation to "listen to the fans". None. The "fans" have exactly the same rights as the rest of the audience--to decide if they like the final product, or not. That's it. They are not entitled to be consulted, "listened to", to be satisfied or anything else they might believe is their "right".
Where do "fans" get off thinking their so entitled anyway? That they should be "listened to"? Artists put something out--they hope it will be well received. Audiences hope that what they spend money on for artistic appreciation will be pleasing to them in some way. But neither is "entitled" to anything other than the right to put the artistic endeavour out to the public on the one hand, and expressing an opinion as to its quality on the other.
I agree that "artists are under no obligation to 'listen to the fans.' And I would write the same post knowing I agree with you. I assume then that you disagree with Orci trying to listen to fans. If they want our loyalty, the reality is they are going to have to take our sensibilities into account. To know us they will have to listen to us. Startups (new businesses or franchises) don't have to do that because that's the nature of brilliant innovation - there's someone with their own vision. But once they're successful and popular and want to retain their clientele, they have to listen. But we are under no obligation to like it and not post about our dissatisfaction.
Actually, they don't have to listen to fans at all. They can choose to do so, if they believe it will make their offering better for having done so. What I find objectionable, though, is the idea that "fans" have any expectation of satisfaction before the work is out. I never feel entitled to be satisfied by my favourite band, filmmaker, painter, poet, novelist, etc. I feel varying degrees of confidence based on previous experiences (my favourite band has satisfied me more consistently than my favourite novelist, but my favourite novelist's best work has been more impressive than that of my favourite band). But I do not ever feel "cheated" because my favourites failed to "listen to the fans" (among which is me).
As for Abrams and co., I don't view them as a continuation. I view them as a "start-up". And even if Roddenberry was still around, I would not for one second think he was obliged to "listen to the fans". No artist should EVER feel that way about any of their work.
As for Abrams and co., I don't view them as a continuation. I view them as a "start-up". And even if Roddenberry was still around, I would not for one second think he was obliged to "listen to the fans". No artist should EVER feel that way about any of their work.
Ah, but, doing Wizard of Oz, 3 times by the time 1939 rolled around were reboots. Seems like some fads just last forever
On that note, (hehe) very little new music from my once favorites bands suit my tastes anymore but you'll never see me on their web sites retching venom at how they failed me. I simply don't buy the albums, change the station when their new stuff airs or put on some Classic I do like.
This reads as a parody.
As it should be. I salute your gracious attitude (which stands in stark contrast with the ridiculous sense of entitlement on display across various fandoms).
Similar threads
