 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 11, 2016 - 8:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
I'm going to have to cite the three gargoyles (Victor, Hugo, and Laverne) in the 1996 Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Breakfast at Tiffany's.
You guess which character.
Oh, agreed. Mickey Rooney's character's scenes ought to have been terrible even when the movie was released, and certainly drag the whole movie down today.
To take a contrary approach to the query posted by the OP, I'd suggest that Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall & Spectre would have all been vastly improved if they had INCLUDED the character of James Bond 
I think most Bond movies would be better without the obnoxious Bond, though.  
"Mutt" Williams from Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Added NOTHING to the movie except clutter (Indy already had a sidekick in Ray Winstone). Fold his role into Winstone's character arc, and you'd have a far better film.
I think removing Mutt would make Crystal Skull a less terrible movie but it would still be awful.
I would remove Mutt, Oxley (the dullest character in any Indy adventure ever), Cate Blanchett and the ridiculously overrated Ray Winston.
While I agree the movie is flawed, I have to say there'd be less "there" there if Mutt weren't in it. Aside from him being crucial to setting up the main quest, he also helps develop Indy's own character. I think Mutt, Oxley, Spalko and Mac might all benefit from being better-written, but I don't really think removing any of them would improve the movie.
I would have removed Capt. Will Decker from STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE. He sidetracks the story. I also would have proceeded without bringing Mr. Spock back into the series; Nimoy was a jerk and an egomaniac. He derailed the 1980s STAR TREK movies. All they had to say is that he's left Starfleet. STAR TREK would get along just fine without him. If MASH and other programs can survive and flourish by letting go of principle characters and the spoiled brats who play them, so could STAR TREK.
Capt. Picard became tiresome and redundant after four seasons on THE NEXT GENERATION. I'd have bid him adieu and turned command of the Enterprise over to Capt. Riker. Also, I'd have turned the feature films over to Capt. Riker as well. Jonathan Frakes knew what he was doing and could have taken the franchise in the right direction if all Stewart and all those competing producers had stayed out of the creative process.
I could hardly disagree more. Different strokes, I guess...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's sales at the time, but adjusted for ticket price inflation in the years since.
I don't know when you were born, so you might not have seen it on the big screen in 1986, but the only point I'm trying to make about TVH is that your opinion of it as some kind of failure is the minority opinion. It was NO kind of failure. It made TFF possible, and Shatner's directing deal inevitable.
Number one: yes, I saw it on the big screen.
Number two: that has zero reflection upon the failure or success of a film.
Depending on what site you use, it had a budget of $21 to $25 million dollars, not including advertising costs which can often be several million, didn't even make that back the opening weekend and only managed to profit because it lingered in theaters for a full month. If it wasn't for rentals and worldwide box office and a prolonged theater release, it would have been known as the flop about whales that didn't profit and make back the advertising costs.
Siskel and Ebert both gave it thumbs up, but simply because as Ebert put it, it was a sequel better than the original film. That's a pretty damn small hurdle to jump. Siskel's praise was for the character einteractions. Barely a word about the plot.
And again according to the Trivia page, the failure or success of TVH had nothing to do with Shatner directing TFF, he simply was promised to be the drector to appease a legal agreement he signed about money and control of the whale of a film. And let's not pretend Shatner doing TFF was some great thing, he wanted Sybok to ride in on a unicorn -- a friggin' unicorn. And giant rock people.
And in the end, as an aside, it's widly panned by most of the Trekkies. Not as much as TFF though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about? On a budget of $21-25 million it made $247,704,300! It was a critical, and financial hit. Your free to hate it, but those are the facts.
You apparently skipped the rest of that paragraph where I layed it out. You're talking long after-the-fact, where even movies that bombed can make a profit of some kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, if Will Decker had been removed from ST-TMP, what would they have done for the end of the movie?
And at the risk of indulging in enlightened self-interest, I am compelled to mention that those interested in learning about how Decker got into the movie in the first place could do a lot worse than to read RETURN TO TOMORROW: THE FILMING OF "STAR TREK - THE MOTION PICTURE."
***
An interesting thread could be devoted to movies in which a single character WAS removed. I'd get the ball rolling by citing THE BIG CHILL, from which all of Kevin Costner's flashback scenes were excised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And in the end, as an aside, it's widly panned by most of the Trekkies. Not as much as TFF though.
I admit I'm getting tired of this discussion, but I'm still curious where Justin got the idea that the second-biggest-grossing original cast Star Trek film (after ST:TMP) was a failure. Where can I read about "most of the Trekkies" panning it? The box-office figures I quoted above were from Wikipedia. What are you quoting?
As an aside, TVH also earned four Oscar nominations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 13, 2016 - 2:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
I'll also join in and note I've never gotten any indication in all my years of Star Trek fandom that Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was widely disliked. I have met a few fans here and there who weren't as fond of it, but they've generally been few and far between (and for progressively stronger levels of dislike, they get rarer and rarer). While few serious fans seem to rate it as their absolute favorite (that usually seems to be Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan), it does seem to be in most fans' "better half" columns (the top 50%), at the very least. I will also note it got very appreciative audience reactions when I saw it in the theater.
Perhaps Justin has simply happened to have most of his discussions of the movie in rare pockets of fans that are mostly turned against it, in a statistical fluke; surely a few must exist somewhere, after all, even if they're clearly not the norm. But anyway... yeah, most Star Trek fans love Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Joe, I totally agree.
Prior to TNG - which kind of killed my enthusiasm for Trek - I was (and still am) a huge fan of TOS and, by varying degrees, the movies with the original cast. Personally, I quite enjoy a fair amount of TVH - it isn't perfect by any means and has some bits I absolutely hate (the score, every frame with Walter Koenig) but it is very close in tone to some of the more light hearted episodes such as A Piece Of The Action (which I love) and at its core it is a good Trek story. And the chemistry between Shatner & Nimoy has never been better, with some brilliantly funny dialogue.
Back in the day I was pretty active in Trek fandom and I don't think I've ever met anyone who really hated TVH or indeed ranked it low on their list of favourite movies with the original cast.
As for myself, I have to say it is a zillion times better than The Search For Spock, a film that I consider to be incredibly poorly directed (you'd have think someone would have told Nimoy that the camera could, you know, like... move) and which looks very very cheap (despite having a higher budget that Wrath of Khan).
I have no idea why anyone could claim TVH isn't popular, either with general audiences (it performed well at the box office) or with partisan Trek fans - that is simply wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chester, as played so annoyingly by Dennis Weaver, in GUNSMOKE..
"Meester Deelon, Meester, deelon"
ughhhhh!
the show was at its best when it was 1/2 hour and featured Burt Reynolds as Quint.
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
