 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This is a comments thread about Blog Post: Franchise Fatigue by Lukas Kendall |
| |
|
The one big-budget film of recent years that Hollywood considers a certifiable bomb is "John Carter".
!
I ... Disney avoided L Frank Baum after their RETURN TO OZ, another classic that unjustly belly-flopped.
"Unjustly"?
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
The one big-budget film of recent years that Hollywood considers a certifiable bomb is "John Carter".
"John Carter of Mars" is one of the best movies of this decade!
Are you serious?
bruce
I liked it better the second time, myself. 
Greg Espinoza
You and me, we are finished professionally!
|
|
|
|
|
|
More food for thought from Lynda Obst. This book sounds like it's going to be a must-read;
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/
So since DVD revenues are drying up, studios are following the money. People bitch and rail about how 3D isn't doing well, and as a cycle it'll go away. The money is all overseas. I look at Box Office Mojo a lot and I look at worldwide/overseas grosses for certain films. It's really telling how much more 3D tentpole films take in. When 3D starts to die in overseas markets, you'll really see some panic from the studios.
Greg Espinoza
You really should get into the exhibition enf of the movie biz, Greg!
Have you ever tried working for a movie theater?
brm
Maybe I should move to China, LOL. 
Greg Espinoza
They probably pay better there
ahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right!
Roddenberry was explicitly putting forth an anti-imperiailsm critique that was inspired by the US
intervention in countries like Vietnam. The "prime directive' was born out of this.
Nick Meyer made the same mistake in his book, calling STAR TREK's mission a US imperial
crusade.
bruce
This has been repeated so much in the last 40+ years that it's taken at face value. Even though it's not true.
One of the things that has become one of the gags of Star Trek is how often Kirk actually cared about the PD. Almost any time it's referenced is when they're going to ignore it. That even made it's way into JJ-Trek.
Anti-Vietnam? Are you talking about A Private Little War? That's where Kirk says "We've got to give the good guys guns otherwise they're going to get creamed by the bad guys with their guns! We don't want to but the bad guys have forced our hands!" Sounds like 1960s U.S. foreign policy to me.
What other eps? I'm weak on third season, I admit.
Meyer had it right. The Enterprise always negotiated at the point of a gun. (I don't see anything wrong with that, btw. I grew up watching Star Trek.) There's more than once where the only reason Kirk is talking is because shooting didn't work. (The Changeling, Metamorphosis, Arena.)
How many cultures did Kirk "re-boot" because they weren't doing it "right"? The Apple? Return of the Archons? A Taste of Armageddon? Errand of Mercy? (He tried with the Organians. He really tried.)
Speaking of Errand of Mercy and Trek's famous optimism: They came up with the Klingon Empire, the Soviet analogue. Then they put forward that the only way all out war between the two cultures could POSSIBLY be avoided is deus ex Organia. (Incidentally, in TOS Trek history we are unable to avoid having nuclear holocaust before the 21st century. Real life is more optimistic that Star Trek.)
Heck, the Federation has a cease-fire that's a hundred years old that is so stringent that either side can't even TALK to each other.
The Enterprise may be seeking out new life and new civilizations, but it's also so heavily armed that it could lay waste to an entire planet.
Now, keep in mind, in 1966 it was pretty normal and very much a "shining the light of civilization". Back in 1966 the U.S. had a space program that was doing amazing things every few MONTHS. It was almost ASSUMED that we were going to have a starship Enterprise someday. That just made sense. NOW I'd say that it's optimistic to say the least.
Having Sulu and Uhura was ground breaking. But as Herb Solow points out in his book hardly limited to Star Trek at the time. But make that same show today and it would be seen as very militaristic, imperial, and a whole bunch of white guys. Oh and sexist. Craaaaazy sexist.
I love Star Trek more than is healthy. But a lot of what is considered its optimism and peaceful ways were invented well after the fact.
*ahem* There are a lot of other good points in the article as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right!
Roddenberry was explicitly putting forth an anti-imperiailsm critique that was inspired by the US
intervention in countries like Vietnam. The "prime directive' was born out of this.
Nick Meyer made the same mistake in his book, calling STAR TREK's mission a US imperial
crusade.
bruce
This has been repeated so much in the last 40+ years that it's taken at face value. Even though it's not true.
One of the things that has become one of the gags of Star Trek is how often Kirk actually cared about the PD. Almost any time it's referenced is when they're going to ignore it. That even made it's way into JJ-Trek.
Anti-Vietnam? Are you talking about A Private Little War? That's where Kirk says "We've got to give the good guys guns otherwise they're going to get creamed by the bad guys with their guns! We don't want to but the bad guys have forced our hands!" Sounds like 1960s U.S. foreign policy to me.
What other eps? I'm weak on third season, I admit.
Meyer had it right. The Enterprise always negotiated at the point of a gun. (I don't see anything wrong with that, btw. I grew up watching Star Trek.) There's more than once where the only reason Kirk is talking is because shooting didn't work. (The Changeling, Metamorphosis, Arena.)
How many cultures did Kirk "re-boot" because they weren't doing it "right"? The Apple? Return of the Archons? A Taste of Armageddon? Errand of Mercy? (He tried with the Organians. He really tried.)
Speaking of Errand of Mercy and Trek's famous optimism: They came up with the Klingon Empire, the Soviet analogue. Then they put forward that the only way all out war between the two cultures could POSSIBLY be avoided is deus ex Organia. (Incidentally, in TOS Trek history we are unable to avoid having nuclear holocaust before the 21st century. Real life is more optimistic that Star Trek.)
Heck, the Federation has a cease-fire that's a hundred years old that is so stringent that either side can't even TALK to each other.
The Enterprise may be seeking out new life and new civilizations, but it's also so heavily armed that it could lay waste to an entire planet.
Now, keep in mind, in 1966 it was pretty normal and very much a "shining the light of civilization". Back in 1966 the U.S. had a space program that was doing amazing things every few MONTHS. It was almost ASSUMED that we were going to have a starship Enterprise someday. That just made sense. NOW I'd say that it's optimistic to say the least.
Having Sulu and Uhura was ground breaking. But as Herb Solow points out in his book hardly limited to Star Trek at the time. But make that same show today and it would be seen as very militaristic, imperial, and a whole bunch of white guys. Oh and sexist. Craaaaazy sexist.
I love Star Trek more than is healthy. But a lot of what is considered its optimism and peaceful ways were invented well after the fact.
*ahem* There are a lot of other good points in the article as well.
Your equating the theme of the show with the plots of the show.
Sure, the PD was not always observed, but that does not negate its importance to the ST universe and GR's philosophy. Does an anti-gun drama lose its credibility because it shows a crime committed with a gun?
Meyer is dead wrong when he says the Enterprise used "gunboat diplomacy"
'nuff said
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your equating the theme of the show with the plots of the show.
Sure, the PD was not always observed, but that does not negate its importance to the ST universe and GR's philosophy. Does an anti-gun drama lose its credibility because it shows a crime committed with a gun?
Meyer is dead wrong when he says the Enterprise used "gunboat diplomacy"
'nuff said
brm
An anti-gun drama loses credibility when the protagonists solve most of their problems with guns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, my take? Someone is going to figure out a way to make a TON!!!!!!!!!! of money outside of Hollywood using characters that nobody has ever heard of. The next "Star Wars"-like phenomenon is going to have nothing to do with Disney. (But then they'll buy it. Everyone wins?)
For all the (somewhat justified) talk of gloom and doom all it takes is someone to make money. No one saw Easy Rider coming. No one saw American Graffiti coming. And of course NO ONE saw Star Wars coming.
As much as I love them, why are we still making Star Trek and Superman? How many movies are coming out this summer that are not a "property" that are getting any buzz? Hell, PIXAR is even making another sequel this summer! Pacific Rim is the only one I can think of! See? That's what you do. You don't make Godzilla. You say "Hey! Don't you wish they'd make more movies like Godzilla?" Or even (Heaven help me) Avatar. Lucas couldn't make Flash Gordon so he made Star Wars! I would LOVE someone to make the "new" Star Trek. (I say that, but then I go watch my TOS DVDs some more.)
The only thing of my Dad's that I watched as a kid was Superman and the Lone Ranger. I suppose one could argue James Bond. Star Trek was mine. Star Wars and Six Million Dollar Man and Battlestar Galactica were absolutely mine.
And before I tell all you kids to get off of my lawn, why on Earth to we accept the term "Franchise"? It's one thing to know that Hollywood thinks we're cattle. It's another to buy into it ourselves and be ok with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Unjustly"?
brm
Yup! Especially given all the trash out there making scads of money, especially all those superhero movies that, even when better than average still feel like soulless McMovies, RETURN TO OZ is a cut well above, with a winning actress playing Dorothy, wonderful production values, endearing supporting characters, a scary villain played by Jean Marsh, and a fabulous David Shire score.
The score is fabulous , the rest of the film is not
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
