Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

[JD]

I think sometimes people forget that movie making is business, not just art, so they're always going to go with what's going to bring in the most money. As much as us hardcore fans might be annoyed by it, the stuff that people know and recognize is going to bring a lot more attention to a new entry in a franchise, and is going to bring a lot more people who know the franchise but aren't huge fans.

I feel like they got off to a good start. ST09 was like a shot in the arm ( but in a good way, haha ). Then Abrams was like, "It's my second film, I must do Khan. You gotta do Khan in the second film. I don't make the rules."

I was a little annoyed at first that they went with Khan, but overall I thought the story was different enough that I was OK with it, and I ended up really enjoying the movie. My only problem is the fact that they cast a very white, British guy as an Indian character, all it would have taken is a line about changing his appearance and I would have been happy. I think they did include that in the Khan sequel/prequel comic, but it would have been nice if it was in the movie too.
If they insisted on casting Cumberbatch as the villain, they should have just made him one of Khan's followers, and then maybe brought in an Indian actor to play Khan later.

Of the three Kelvin-verse films, I enjoyed Beyond the most. It felt most like a Trek episode to me--with a movie budget of course. My only complaint is that we didn't need to see the destruction of yet another Enterprise.

Beyond is one my absolute favorite movies of the whole franchise.

 

[fireproof78]

I was a little annoyed at first that they went with Khan, but overall I thought the story was different enough that I was OK with it, and I ended up really enjoying the movie. My only problem is the fact that they cast a very white, British guy as an Indian character, all it would have taken is a line about changing his appearance and I would have been happy. I think they did include that in the Khan sequel/prequel comic, but it would have been nice if it was in the movie too.
If they insisted on casting Cumberbatch as the villain, they should have just made him one of Khan's followers, and then maybe brought in an Indian actor to play Khan later.

Yes, that is in the Khan comic and shows the cosmetic surgery being done.

Which, they can change ears for other espionage missions so why not?

I think sometimes people forget that movie making is business, not just art, so they're always going to go with what's going to bring in the most money. As much as us hardcore fans might be annoyed by it, the stuff that people know and recognize is going to bring a lot more attention to a new entry in a franchise, and is going to bring a lot more people who know the franchise but aren't huge fans.

Agreed. It is important to keep in mind that the creation of art is a business, regardless of the additional artistic goals. That fans gravitate towards it doesn't change that business aspect.

 

[Set Harth]

If they insisted on casting Cumberbatch as the villain, they should have just made him one of Khan's followers, and then maybe brought in an Indian actor to play Khan later.

And the people they were looking at before Cumberbatch were Hispanic, not Indian.

 

[Phoenix219]

I don't know of any fandom that is destroying anything. Toxic production teams, on the other hand.......

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't know of any fandom that is destroying anything. Toxic production teams, on the other hand.......

 

[The Wormhole]

Don't you know? Anyone who isn't the Blessed Lord Terry Matalas, Patron Saint of the Wank is automatically toxic.

 

[fireproof78]

And the people they were looking at before Cumberbatch were Hispanic, not Indian.

So...like Montalban?

I don't know of any fandom that is destroying anything. Toxic production teams, on the other hand.......

As long as previous works continue to exist nothing is ruined.

 

[Set Harth]

So...like Montalban?

Clearly that's what they were thinking. But it's not the 1960s anymore.

 

[Owain Taggart]

It's the same basic thing that tainted much of the Star Wars ST for me. Everything I liked about it was were it tried to do something new and different, and what dragged it down for me is where it just tried to recreate what's already been done, but without understanding what made it work in the first place was that it was new and bold. It's all so superficial. That's not the product of a coherent creative and philosophical vision; it's a cargo cult.

The more time passes, the more and more I think the people that say that Lucas needed someone to tell him "no" in the PT are just flat wrong. He knew what he wanted, he knew what he was doing; he was very deliberately not just mindlessly repeating the greatest hits. He was doing something new! Same thing he did before with the OT, same thing he did after with Clone Wars.
Can you imagine what "Star Wars II" would have been had Fox kept hold of the sequel rights instead of letting Lucas keep them in lieu of his fee? You don't have to imagine it; just go watch 'The Force Awakens'.

Yep, agreed and I'd say pretty much the same thing. And it's why I felt that so much of what happened in the ST was disappointing to me with so much of it being a retread, including reusing the Emperor. I remember being in the theatre and I had only heard rumours up to that point, and when it finally hit, there was a wave of disappointment for me. So much was left unrealized within the ST, and much of it felt like it had happened in a vacuum, and to this day, I still don't think Disney really knew what they had when Lucas signed the franchise over, because if they had, they would have doubled-up on a plan for the trilogy and made sure the directors were following it from the start.

 

[fireproof78]

Clearly that's what they were thinking. But it's not the 1960s anymore.

I feel like there's more wiggle room with a character who is meant to be genetically engineered/selectively bread, but point taken.

 

[Set Harth]

I remember being in the theatre and I had only heard rumours up to that point, and when it finally hit, there was a wave of disappointment for me.

Lucky you, I had seen the trailer beforehand. ( Even worse, I had read a certain website's review of the trailer even before seeing the trailer. I have no excuse for that one. )

 

[Nerys Myk]

Clearly that's what they were thinking. But it's not the 1960s anymore.

I think Orci, who's Mexican-American, wanted an Hispanic actor but at the same time didn't want to cast someone from the Middle East or West Asia as a terrorist. So we got Benadryl Cattlecatcher.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Orci, who's Mexican-American, wanted an Hispanic actor but at the same time didn't want to cast someone from the Middle East or West Asia as a terrorist. So we got Benadryl Cattlecatcher.

I think it was initially supposed to be Benicio del Toro but then the stupid script delays.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Lucky you, I had seen the trailer beforehand. ( Even worse, I had read a certain website's review of the trailer even before seeing the trailer. I have no excuse for that one. )

I've trained myself to not watch trailers these days especially for highly anticipated ones, as they tend to give far too much away. The movies then usually speak for themselves once I'm watching them. Seeing the twists happen on the screen without knowing a thing before hand can be a rewarding experience. The downside is that high-profile movies are almost impossible not to hear anything beforehand due to general way the internet works these days. But if you can do it, I can highly recommend it. It changes the experience.

 

[fireproof78]

I do not care about spoilers. Never have, and I don't think I ever will. If a movie is good then I'll be invested in it and along for the ride. I ignore most stuff in trailers because trailers are poor samplings of the film given the way they are put together. So, even if I see a trailer I'll likely ignore it.

Movies speak for themselves once watching it. Foreknowledge will not change that experience for me.

Mileage will vary.

 

[Set Harth]

I feel like I did pretty well with major spoilers ( major character deaths, etc. ) where the ST films were concerned. I was spoiled for a few relatively minor things about episode 9 from a certain forum, but Rebels was where I really got frequently spoiled about stuff.

 

[UssGlenn]

but at the same time didn't want to cast someone from the Middle East or West Asia as a terrorist.

We deride "subverting expectations" think about the movie we could have gotten if Khan turned out not to be the villain. You avoid the terrorist baggage, so casting isn't an issue. We know from Space Seed Khan was a defensive fighter, and didn't massacre anyone, so it's only a small jump to reformed Khan. Marcus stays the villain, who frames Khan, much like in the final film. But Kirk and Khan team up to defeat him. Then Khan gets a colony to found that isn't on Ceti Alpha 5. "The truly superior leader has no need to conquer, people will follow him willingly". You can even have a bit where Kirk teaches Khan how to fight in 3 dimensions.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Mileage will vary.

Obviously. Watching a movie is a highly subjective experience and will be different for everyone. The moviegoing experience has changed drastically since the 80's and 90's. Before the internet, you wouldn't have much chance to get spoiled as talk was far more localized and pretty much the only place to see trailers were in theatres themselves. Now it's much harder to avoid.

 

[Set Harth]

We know from Space Seed Khan was a defensive fighter, and didn't massacre anyone, so it's only a small jump to reformed Khan.

Wasn't some of that supposed to be a little tongue-in-cheek?

 

[UssGlenn]

Wasn't some of that supposed to be a little tongue-in-cheek?

I don't think so, there's noting to indicate those aren't correct facts. It's sort of like how Napoleon is more favorably looked upon today than in the early 20th Century because we have Hitler to compare him to.