Those two (though contradictory) are imo inherent in the source material. The latter in particular is something that has been emphasized constantly at Marvel and stands out as something that Marvel has constantly wanted to emphasize.
Star Wars: Episode VII: The Nerd Rage Awakens
- Thread starter cooleddie74
- Start date
Those two (though contradictory) are imo inherent in the source material. The latter in particular is something that has been emphasized constantly at Marvel and stands out as something that Marvel has constantly wanted to emphasize.
I've never seen Captain America as being flawed, Stark and Thor needed to be humbled, but that was true of their comic book characters as well.
Truthfully the idea of repetition seems to coming from The Froce Awakens, the First Order replaces the Empire and the Rebellion becomes the Resistance. No doubt there's a super weapon and we already seen some kind of Sith wantabe.
Certainly not Captain America, but characters like Doctor Strange or Spider-Man or those in the Avengers corner such as Hawkeye/Black Widow/Scarlet Witch/Quicksilver (who pretty much started out as villains) or those in the X-books such as Wolverine & Emma Frost (or Cyclops right now). There are many more examples, but Scott Lang is hardly unique and I think it's a very deliberate part (and limitation) of the Marvel publishing universe.
That might be true of Strange, but Peter Parker was a high school teenager with a number of problems. Scott Lang's backstory though fits with his comic book origins. And really except for teh understandable changes in Iron Man's origin the MCU have more or less followed their comic book counterparts. Sadly that is up til the Avenges movies, where some big changes were made.
I think my post failed to communicate what I was trying to say namely that characters like Peter/Stephen/Hawkeye/Wolverine/etc all fit into the flawed protagonist category. Strange is a good example since his origin story is pretty much an asshole who got what was coming to him.
Totally agree.
IMO pretty much everything I hate about the MCU.
I certainly hope so. DHS has become almost a ghost town with how much they've closed down. At best, it's a half-day park right now.
Even back in the day, it was a task to find time to go to DHS. Disney World is vast and it takes a day to go through Epcot Center alone. If you only have the weekend, you probably will only get to two of the parks, maybe three unless you want to trade fun for more places.
Lots of closures with no new attractions isn't good.
At least they got rid of that awful hat.
DHS has been on life support almost from the day it opened. Without Rockin' Roller Coaster and Tower of Terror, it would have been shuttered a long time ago.
Star Wars will save that park, but for how long?
Star Wars will save that park, but for how long?
Those are definitely two different states of being.
At open MGM Studios had a lot of attractions. The problem is they've cut a lot of them. The additions you've mentioned plus Toy Story Midway Mania and Lights, Motors, Action are about all there is to do there. (plus revamped Star Tours, to get back on topic)
People wished for less Star Trek so it could happen.
But regarding the "superhero fatigue", I waited four decades for good super-hero movies so I have no desire to see them go away anytime in the next four decades.
For what it's worth I never wished for less Star Trek and wasn't prone to "franchise fatigue" (which some of the actors playing the Captains don't believe existed to nearly the extent that many fans and the studio did), but I could theoretically see so many movies or TV episodes of the Star Wars universe being released and broadcast in such a compressed period of time that many fans would become bored or desensitized from the exposure.
I don't think it'll happen, though, unless Disney and Lucasfilm really overestimate the public's hunger for the franchise and go bat-guano insane with too much marketing and promotion, and I doubt they're that clueless or clumsy.
I don't think it'll happen, though, unless Disney and Lucasfilm really overestimate the public's hunger for the franchise and go bat-guano insane with too much marketing and promotion, and I doubt they're that clueless or clumsy.
I think the only time franchise fatigue sets in is when thing start to drop in quality. The only reason franchise fatigue set in with Star Trek is because people didn't like the later stuff, like Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection and Nemesis as much as the earlier stuff. If the stuff coming coming out continued to be as good as TNG, DS9, and First Contact, I don't think people would have minded having so much Trek.
We'd have probably gotten another Picard-era movie (even if it had featured Captain Will Riker and the Titan or another TNG-era crew altogether) had Nemesis not flopped so badly. Paramount seemed determined to crank out a new Trek movie every two to four years until Nemesis bombed at the box office and ENT's ratings on television began to plummet.
Happens when you only have Berman running the franchise (into the ground). The lack of creative diversification for Trek ultimately doomed the franchise and the split of Viacom and the ascension of Les Moonves guaranteed the death of the tv franchise.
Moonves was definitely no friend of the franchise. The studio and corporate politics at Viacom and Paramount didn't help matters whatsoever and the flopping of Nemesis just encouraged the suits to further distance themselves from B&B-era Trek.
Star Trek's ratings began falling with DS9, with two TV shows, a movie every two years and endless media exposure people were quite tired of Star Trek.
With Star Wars we're going from a movie every three years to a sequel every two years with a prequel inbetween and a TV show with two possible live action TV shows. It's a recipe for audience fatigue, no matter how people might think it is.
Yeah, the post-TOS Trek ratings drop started with DS9.
One other thing, which is that the standard for people not minding so much Trek wasn't that it be as good as TNG. It was that it be engaging to the general audience, period. Post-TNG TV Trek wasn't engaging to the general audience, in every instance, even in the case of DS9. As advanced as DS9's writing was for Star Trek, it was still behind the curve when it came to other TV drama out there. Hill Street Blues already had DS9 in the rear view mirror a decade before "Emissary" aired.
I make this point, because being as good as what has come before in a franchise is just treading water. You don't want to tread water. Every new entry has to keep upping the game, to keep pace with the times. People are starting to get tired of MCU films, because they're starting to look too cookie-cutter. Arguably one thing that hurt post-TNG TV Trek was succumbing to the temptation to stay too close to cookie-cutter mode.
If the new SW films and other spin-offs, e.g. Rebels and Rogue One, can keep innovating and just plain being good, period, then people won't tire of them, ever.
