Reasons to be happy / not happy about a 4th film.

[Dales]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

When watching the new Jurassic Park, I actually wondered how the 'STID is unoriginal!' crowd dealt with that movie. Literally every other scene had a shot that imitated the original, or some sort of other really obvious homage ('obvious' being 'If you're like me and watched the first three films about 50 000 times growing up').

I admit it was starting to bug me by the end ('that Dilophosaurus is literally from the first movie!'), but I'm in the minority there (which is fine). On the other hand, I was totally okay with STID, except for maybe 'KHAAAN!'. A fine line indeed.

my sister said the difference between the homages of Jurassic world and STID is that in Jurassic world the homages were subtle but it STID it was too in your face and over the top

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

I don't know, wandering into the old Jurassic Park, picking up the banner, finding and driving the same truck and the T-Rex ass-pull were a bit heavy handed. Not quite up there with "Khaaaaaaaaan!" but...

(And I say that having loved Jurassic World)

 

[Timewalker]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

It was more about the even-numbered films being good than the odd numbers being bad (glass half full). And it started long, long before anyone heard of Simon Pegg. Nemesis was a fluke. Maybe there was a too-even-to-fail hubris?

I thought Spaced was where the curse was put into the 'mainstream' media, and figured it was relevant when we were talking about public perception. Unless Timewalker was suggesting that even the Trekkies hanging out on message boards, magazines and fan clubs were simply judging Generations based on reputation?

Generations was released 10 years before I ever went online. As I said, reviews and ticket sales are irrelevant to me. I judge movies on whether or not I like them, and other people can either agree or disagree as it may please them to do so.

But I was reading Starlog back then and attending two science fiction conventions per year, which were also attended by people from all the western Canadian provinces, plus fans from Washington and Idaho. Add to that the Guests of Honor from further away (authors; those conventions never had actors as guests). So I wasn't entirely cut off from hearing what other people thought of the movies. The general consensus was that the even-numbered movies were good and the odd-numbered movies were not good. I thought Generations was bad, but didn't seriously entertain the superstitious idea that it was bad because it was the seventh movie. I thought it was bad because the story was ridiculous.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

my sister said the difference between the homages of Jurassic world and STID is that in Jurassic world the homages were subtle but it STID it was too your face and over the top

Subtle!? Have you seen that movie? I think it was very purposefully a nostalgia-fest, and for most people it seemed to work. For all my bitching, it even mostly worked for me.

I think part of it might be that Jurassic Park doesn't have 'fans' quiet like Trek does. It has heaps of people that like it, but it's not 'serious business' like Trek is. I mean, you don't see demands to celebrate Jurassic Park's anniversary.

It was more about the even-numbered films being good than the odd numbers being bad (glass half full). And it started long, long before anyone heard of Simon Pegg. Nemesis was a fluke. Maybe there was a too-even-to-fail hubris?

I thought Spaced was where the curse was put into the 'mainstream' media, and figured it was relevant when we were talking about public perception. Unless Timewalker was suggesting that even the Trekkies hanging out on message boards, magazines and fan clubs were simply judging Generations based on reputation?

Generations was released 10 years before I ever went online. As I said, reviews and ticket sales are irrelevant to me. I judge movies on whether or not I like them, and other people can either agree or disagree as it may please them to do so.

But I was reading Starlog back then and attending two science fiction conventions per year, which were also attended by people from all the western Canadian provinces, plus fans from Washington and Idaho. Add to that the Guests of Honor from further away (authors; those conventions never had actors as guests). So I wasn't entirely cut off from hearing what other people thought of the movies. The general consensus was that the even-numbered movies were good and the odd-numbered movies were not good. I thought Generations was bad, but didn't seriously entertain the superstitious idea that it was bad because it was the seventh movie. I thought it was bad because the story was ridiculous.

You brought the supposed curse up, apparently as a reference to others opinions being beholden to perception. There seemed to be the implication that Generations is only considered bad because it's 'traditional' (or something) to consider odd-numbered movies bad.

Something the responses here somewhat disprove. Not many believe in a rule or a curse, and some don't even think Generations is really 'bad.' The ones who did criticise Generations, criticised it on its own merits - as no doubt people were doing over 20 years ago. Throw in the consensus is that Nemesis is bad, showing that 'the consensus' doesn't really give a fig about catering to a fandom joke, and there ya' go.

So what is the point of this argument? No one accused you of following the crowd, or said that the majority consider Generations 'good.'

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

I don't know how that happened, but double post.

 

[Kilana2]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

As to the remake thing: at least I have to confess that the new Star Trek movies - despite not being my cup of tea - are very different from Roddenberry ST.

Depends on which Roddenberry you're referencing?

Let's rephrase it: the reboot movies vs Roddenberry Trek including people like Berman, Braga and others involved.

I really tried to watch the reboot movies on tv, I couldn't. They were too flashy and fast for me.
I had to switch off tv and grab a good old ST novel instead.

Some goes for ENT. If I had the choice, I would rather start to watch ENT from the beginning. One might argue, that I'm sooner finished with watching the nuTrek movies.

For the sake of the survival of the franchise I hope many people will watch the upcoming movie.

It's simply that Nichelle Nichols will always be Uhura for me. Sorry, Zoe Saldana.
To be fair: Quinto and Co. went right into the theaters/cinema and didn't have the chance to develop their characters during the run of a series over several seasons like Nimoy and Co.

It was different with watching the new Planet of the Apes movie on TV (2001, with Mark Wahlberg). I liked the new version to a degree that I followed it through.
But I didn't really follow up afterwards. I guess I saw parts of the movie with James Franco.

I lost interest in the Spider man movies when Tobey Maguire stopped playing Spiderman.

Sometimes it's the actors who manage to enthuse the audience (or in some cases, they don't).

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

There ones that came out since Markey Marks really are the better ones, but the 'focus' isn't really the human characters. I thought Serkis did a really good job carrying the movie as Caesar, but the uncanny valley exists for a reason I guess. If you're into the actors performances, I can see why the cgi ape 'masks' might be a problem.

Though admittedly, I did like the makeup, actors and score in Burtons movie.

You're not the only one who went 'huh?' throughout Burton's. If you look around, you'll still probably find an argument somewhere on the Internet that's trying to make sense of the ending. It wasn't simply a case of the movie being too flashy and fast to follow, the actual story was just plain jumbled.

 

[Kilana2]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

There ones that came out since Markey Marks really are the better ones, but the 'focus' isn't really the human characters. I thought Serkis did a really good job carrying the movie as Caesar, but the uncanny valley exists for a reason I guess. If you're into the actors performances, I can see why the cgi ape 'masks' might be a problem.

Though admittedly, I did like the makeup, actors and score in Burtons movie.

You're not the only one who went 'huh?' throughout Burton's. If you look around, you'll still probably find an argument somewhere on the Internet that's trying to make sense of the ending. It wasn't simply a case of the movie being too flashy and fast to follow, the actual story was just plain jumbled.

The apes in the James Franco movie were too artificial. Granted, the actors in the old movies had to sit for hours to get their prosthetics and make-up applied. But those apes were more authentic.

 

[Timewalker]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

I thought Spaced was where the curse was put into the 'mainstream' media, and figured it was relevant when we were talking about public perception. Unless Timewalker was suggesting that even the Trekkies hanging out on message boards, magazines and fan clubs were simply judging Generations based on reputation?

Generations was released 10 years before I ever went online. As I said, reviews and ticket sales are irrelevant to me. I judge movies on whether or not I like them, and other people can either agree or disagree as it may please them to do so.

But I was reading Starlog back then and attending two science fiction conventions per year, which were also attended by people from all the western Canadian provinces, plus fans from Washington and Idaho. Add to that the Guests of Honor from further away (authors; those conventions never had actors as guests). So I wasn't entirely cut off from hearing what other people thought of the movies. The general consensus was that the even-numbered movies were good and the odd-numbered movies were not good. I thought Generations was bad, but didn't seriously entertain the superstitious idea that it was bad because it was the seventh movie. I thought it was bad because the story was ridiculous.

You brought the supposed curse up, apparently as a reference to others opinions being beholden to perception. There seemed to be the implication that Generations is only considered bad because it's 'traditional' (or something) to consider odd-numbered movies bad.

Yes, I brought it up. So what? It's a perception that has existed among some fans or fan groups over the years. Most people look at it as one of the fannish jokes or 'traditions' (like a proverb of sorts): "Of course it's bad. It's an odd-numbered movie." I've heard that said in RL, I've read it in magazines, fanzines, and it's repeated countless times in online discussions. There is a perception among SOME fans that the odd-numbered movies are bad. I know that doesn't mean it's true, and I'm not stating this as some kind of Holy Fact or Doctrine. It's just been my experience, and of course your experiences have evidently been different. That doesn't make my experiences wrong.

Something the responses here somewhat disprove. Not many believe in a rule or a curse, and some don't even think Generations is really 'bad.' The ones who did criticise Generations, criticised it on its own merits - as no doubt people were doing over 20 years ago. Throw in the consensus is that Nemesis is bad, showing that 'the consensus' doesn't really give a fig about catering to a fandom joke, and there ya' go.

So what is the point of this argument? No one accused you of following the crowd, or said that the majority consider Generations 'good.'

What is going on here, then?! I really get the feeling that it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to come back with "nobody said that" and then go on with telling me what I think and mean that I actually don't.

I do not give a damn about Nemesis. I really don't. It was a really crappy movie and a waste of my time. All that ever mattered to me about Generations was "Why the hell did they kill off Robert and Rene", "Who is this Antonia person we never met before" and that really pathetic death scene they gave Shatner/Kirk.

I'm done here.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

There ones that came out since Markey Marks really are the better ones, but the 'focus' isn't really the human characters. I thought Serkis did a really good job carrying the movie as Caesar, but the uncanny valley exists for a reason I guess. If you're into the actors performances, I can see why the cgi ape 'masks' might be a problem.

Though admittedly, I did like the makeup, actors and score in Burtons movie.

You're not the only one who went 'huh?' throughout Burton's. If you look around, you'll still probably find an argument somewhere on the Internet that's trying to make sense of the ending. It wasn't simply a case of the movie being too flashy and fast to follow, the actual story was just plain jumbled.

The apes in the James Franco movie were too artificial. Granted, the actors in the old movies had to sit for hours to get their prosthetics and make-up applied. But those apes were more authentic.

I can remember when Burtons movie was coming out, there was actually some mocking of him for going with make up. I don't know how long it lasted after the movies actual release (I would have been around 12 years old), but can you imagine what the apes would have looked like in CGI of that time?

But yes, I do get why the mo-cap apes would bother you. I really liked Dawn, but the human characters weren't that engaging all on their own. Those filmmakers underused their Gary Oldman, man.

As for Timewalker...I just wanted to know what Point A has to do with Point B. That's why I kept saying that I m guessing at what you mean. What did Generations and the odd numbered rule have to do with concerns that the NuMovies might lead to the sort-of 'erasure' of the original movies (for eg. People will remember the third Star Trek movie as 'Star Trek Beyond and eventually collectively forget TSFS)? Something to do with public perception, but what if not 'Well look at Generations, misguided public perception lead to it as accepted as bad'? What argument does your example support?

And yes, no doubt I'm just talking to myself at this point.

Soooo Star Trek is about due for some of those Star Trek: Blah Blah Part 1/Part 2 movies, isn't it? It's what all the other cool ki...franchises are doing these days.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

my sister said the difference between the homages of Jurassic world and STID is that in Jurassic world the homages were subtle but it STID it was too in your face and over the top

Jurassic World's homages to Jurassic Park were about as subtle as a T. Rex fart. Early in the film a nerdy tech is wearing a Jurassic Park t-shirt (with the logo) he bought on eBay and goes into a speech talking about how much respect he has for the first park which was "legit," which is clearly a parallel for openly complimenting the first film. That's just one of dozens of homages and plot points referencing the original ranging from blatant to subtle, but mostly favoring the former.

STiD's not subtle in referencing TWoK either, but Spock would have to deliver a line like "Captain, I am concerned that detonating those torpedoes has caused us to incur the wrath of Khan should he ever wake from cryogenic freezing again" and then turn and wink at the camera in order to come close to matching Jurassic World's "subtle" homages.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

I would argue that treating the new movies as a new thing, and even (gasp!) casually referring to the third new movie as the third new movie doesn't mean that the previous cycles of films are being forgotten or erased from history. Pretty much everybody knows that there were earlier TREK movies and TV shows before the reboot, just like most people know that there was a previous cycle of APES movies a few decades ago, and that MAN OF STEEL was not the first SUPERMAN movie, and that DRACULA UNTOLD was not the first DRACULA movie, etc. Calling the third NuTrek movie the third movie is just shorthand; it doesn't mean the entire world has suddenly contracted a massive case of amnesia where STAR TREK is concerned.

Here's the thing: a remake does not erase or invalidate any previous versions. And you don't have to choose one or another. Anticipating STAR TREK BEYOND does not mean rejecting THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK.

(By coincidence, I was having this same debate yesterday with some GHOSTBUSTER purists, who were already rejecting the new remake on principle, sight unseen.)

Oh, Timewalker, I thoroughly recommend the new APES movies, which are actually very good films. Feel free to skip the Tim Burton version, though.

 

[Timewalker]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Oh, Timewalker, I thoroughly recommend the new APES movies, which are actually very good films. Feel free to skip the Tim Burton version, though.

For you, I will say "I'll consider it."

Honestly, though, my summer TV/online watching is spoken for with several series on Netflix and the annual mess that is Big Brother.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Oh, Timewalker, I thoroughly recommend the new APES movies, which are actually very good films. Feel free to skip the Tim Burton version, though.

For you, I will say "I'll consider it."

Honestly, though, my summer TV/online watching is spoken for with several series on Netflix and the annual mess that is Big Brother.

Tell me about it. I've only managed to make it to one movie this summer and I'm already three episodes behind on DARK MATTER.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

 

[Kilana2]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

I love the Neverending Story. Written by author Michael Ende.

I loved the first movie, which was already criticized severly by Ende.

The second was bad and the third crap. One reason for me was not only the digression from the novel, but only the change of the cast and unlikeable characters.

I don't watch Harry Potter, but at least they kept the cast.

Neither another Neverending story movie nor a remake would be desirable. I simply love the novel for what it is: one of my all time favorite childhood books.
(Wikipedia tells me that Leonardo DiCaprio planned and failed to produce a remake - good grief!!!! And I can't picture DiCaprio in the upcoming Star Trek movies. Tom Hanks, yes. Leo, no.)

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

There was a Neverendering Story cartoon as well. My recollections of it are 'trying to be Disney.'

 

[Jedi_Master]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Hell, I'm 55 and I didn't feel "forgotten" then and I don't feel that way now.

Well, you do have a more inclusive perspective, as part of the Star Trek machine, than I; hardly typical.

The fan that feels he or she is "forgotten" is hardly typical.
While the Internet has a way of amplifying the thoughts of a vocal minority, it is obvious from Trek's continuing successes that the majority of fans do not feel forgotten or left out by the direction the franchise has taken.

 

[gazomg]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

Correct

There are ten star trek movies, and then these things

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

Correct

There are ten star trek movies, and then these things

It's completely clear that that's not at all what I meant.