Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:But is there really a noticeable "lasting negative fan reaction" that's any greater than other franchises?

Well prob have the answer based on the performance of Beyond.

Perhaps. But there are plenty of hardcore fans that dislike a lot of the movies. I don't see many hardcore fans singing Insurrection's praises, for example. And that was basically an epic episode. Or the original movie. Plenty of "true fans" are lukewarm at best on that one.

Right but those later TNG movies effectively killed the franchise. Even the hardcore fans weren't showing up. Its never been cool to like Star Trek and its one of the few geek properties that still isn't cool. They need those people and the last Trek really alienated them.

They apparently don't need those people since regardless of how alienated those hardcore fans feel, Into Darkness was still the highest grossing film in franchise history and the 11th highest grossing film in the US in 2013.

Typically you have to watch something first before it alienates you. If Beyond is a huge hit you can say 'told you so'.

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:But is there really a noticeable "lasting negative fan reaction" that's any greater than other franchises?

Well prob have the answer based on the performance of Beyond.

Perhaps. But there are plenty of hardcore fans that dislike a lot of the movies. I don't see many hardcore fans singing Insurrection's praises, for example. And that was basically an epic episode. Or the original movie. Plenty of "true fans" are lukewarm at best on that one.

Right but those later TNG movies effectively killed the franchise. Even the hardcore fans weren't showing up. Its never been cool to like Star Trek and its one of the few geek properties that still isn't cool. They need those people and the last Trek really alienated them.

They apparently don't need those people since regardless of how alienated those hardcore fans feel, Into Darkness was still the highest grossing film in franchise history and the 11th highest grossing film in the US in 2013.

Typically you have to watch something first before it alienates you. If Beyond is a huge hit you can say 'told you so'.

I certainly won't do anything like that. I'm just hashing stuff out. I have no idea what I'm doing, really.

We'll be back to square one if hardcore fans like it but critics don't.

I have a feeling Into Darkness made so many mistakes it would take a remarkably good third movie to save this iteration of Trek. This franchise just isn't has bullet proof as others. It can chug along on TV forever but if studios want huge perennial blockbusters Trek is a toughy.

bada wrote:

I have a feeling Into Darkness made so many mistakes it would take a remarkably good third movie to save this iteration of Trek. This franchise just isn't has bullet proof as others. It can chug along on TV forever but if studios want huge perennial blockbusters Trek is a toughy.

I agree. Which is part of the reason I was so excited by JJ's first movie. It seemed like it was finally going to be able to take Trek to the big screen in a major, successful way.

I'm hopeful for Beyond. I think it looks strong based on the second trailer. If it's the last of the alternate timeline Trek films, so be it. At least I have three of them. It's been a fun ride.

I'm not blind to it. I know it exists. I've seen similar articles and such. But I guess what I don't see is how it's any bigger or worse or whatever than other franchises. That article only talks about Into Darkness. Which isn't my favorite Trek movie either and is well below JJ's first Trek film in my estimation.

The prequels are probably a good comparison for what fan reaction has been. The difference is that in this case the casual viewer reaction is extremely positive, where pretty much everyone was in line about the prequels (which still made shitloads of money, so...). It's not hard to see why casual viewers would prefer this approach. Not only were Star Trek's production values and increasingly conservative approach to character and story abysmal, but the new movies are just big adventures in space.

That article does focus on Into Darkness, yes. Which is exactly what makes it the tiniest fraction of the most surfacy surface. If only I'd noted that before.

I guess I could google it for you, and link to the Reddit discussions, the movie site forum discussions, the Variety article wondering if then-upcoming Into Darkness will undo the disgust the 2009 reboot resulted in among fans, the hilarious petitions, etc...But I'll just assume you know how to use the tool and move on.

Wow.

Really? Okay. Message received.

I didn't mean that as snarky as it reads. My point was just, there's so much out there about fan reactions to those movies, there's no reason to be "I'm not sure"ing on a message board about it. It's easily explored. My sarcasm read as bitchy, and I apologize.

I simply intended to pose a question as to whether or not JJ Abrams' Trek would lead us down a rabbit hole that resulted in legalizing incest and promoting inbreeding, and that question was ultimately misguided, though valid.

McParadigm wrote:I didn't mean that as snarky as it reads. My point was just, there's so much out there about fan reactions to those movies, there's no reason to be "I'm not sure"ing on a message board about it. It's easily explored. My sarcasm read as bitchy, and I apologize.

I simply intended to pose a question as to whether or not JJ Abrams' Trek would lead us down a rabbit hole that resulted in legalizing incest and promoting inbreeding, and that question was ultimately misguided, though valid.

I obviously wasn't being clear. We're good.

Shane Black discussing Iron Man 3's portrayal of Mandarin (and subsequent backlash from fans). Felt relevant to this conversation:

“The minute you start to govern your creative impulses based on anticipation of someone else's response or their expectations then you're going to fail. You're going to fail them too. Because you're not going to surprise anybody – you’re going to be busy second-guessing what other people want and indulging that people-pleasing side of yourself.”

http://www.trendread.com/2016/06/iron-m ... darin.html

durdencommatyler wrote:If it's the last of the alternate timeline Trek films

Let's talk about why I think that Nu-Trek is incorrectly labeled as an alternate timeline and in fact the Romulan's and Prime Spock actually went to parallel universe and then back in time. You see Star Trek has always operated under the Back To The Future laws of time travel. You can go back and forth on a single time stream and any changes you make affects that single time stream. If Marty goes back in time and his parents don't couple up he and his siblings cease to exist. In order for Nu-Trek to exist and the Prime Universe to exist (the powers that be says it does) under those rules Nu-Trek must be a parallel universe like the Mirror-Verse. Otherwise Nu-Trek erases Prime Trek.

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:If it's the last of the alternate timeline Trek films

Let's talk about why I think that Nu-Trek is incorrectly labeled as an alternate timeline and in fact the Romulan's and Prime Spock actually went to parallel universe and then back in time. You see Star Trek has always operated under the Back To The Future laws of time travel. You can go back and forth on a single time stream and any changes you make affects that single time stream. If Marty goes back in time and his parents don't couple up he and his siblings cease to exist. In order for Nu-Trek to exist and the Prime Universe to exist (the powers that be says it does) under those rules Nu-Trek must be a parallel universe like the Mirror-Verse. Otherwise Nu-Trek erases Prime Trek.

Sure. I don't really care what we call it.

So if Beyond is the last of the parallel universe Trek films, so be it. At least I have three of them. It's been a fun ride.

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:If it's the last of the alternate timeline Trek films

Let's talk about why I think that Nu-Trek is incorrectly labeled as an alternate timeline and in fact the Romulan's and Prime Spock actually went to parallel universe and then back in time. You see Star Trek has always operated under the Back To The Future laws of time travel. You can go back and forth on a single time stream and any changes you make affects that single time stream. If Marty goes back in time and his parents don't couple up he and his siblings cease to exist. In order for Nu-Trek to exist and the Prime Universe to exist (the powers that be says it does) under those rules Nu-Trek must be a parallel universe like the Mirror-Verse. Otherwise Nu-Trek erases Prime Trek.

Though... In Back to the Future 2 Doc talk about creating a tangent timeline, an alternate 1985, an "alternate reality." So...

durdencommatyler wrote:

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:If it's the last of the alternate timeline Trek films

Let's talk about why I think that Nu-Trek is incorrectly labeled as an alternate timeline and in fact the Romulan's and Prime Spock actually went to parallel universe and then back in time. You see Star Trek has always operated under the Back To The Future laws of time travel. You can go back and forth on a single time stream and any changes you make affects that single time stream. If Marty goes back in time and his parents don't couple up he and his siblings cease to exist. In order for Nu-Trek to exist and the Prime Universe to exist (the powers that be says it does) under those rules Nu-Trek must be a parallel universe like the Mirror-Verse. Otherwise Nu-Trek erases Prime Trek.

Though... In Back to the Future 2 Doc talk about creating a tangent timeline, an alternate 1985, an "alternate reality." So...

You know I think about this stuff from time to time and I get to a point where my head just hurts. I'm there now.

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:If it's the last of the alternate timeline Trek films

Let's talk about why I think that Nu-Trek is incorrectly labeled as an alternate timeline and in fact the Romulan's and Prime Spock actually went to parallel universe and then back in time. You see Star Trek has always operated under the Back To The Future laws of time travel. You can go back and forth on a single time stream and any changes you make affects that single time stream. If Marty goes back in time and his parents don't couple up he and his siblings cease to exist. In order for Nu-Trek to exist and the Prime Universe to exist (the powers that be says it does) under those rules Nu-Trek must be a parallel universe like the Mirror-Verse. Otherwise Nu-Trek erases Prime Trek.

Though... In Back to the Future 2 Doc talk about creating a tangent timeline, an alternate 1985, an "alternate reality." So...

You know I think about this stuff from time to time and I get to a point where my head just hurts. I'm there now.

Wow. This grew legs. I was jus sayin is all

Love when you guys get articulate

RIP star wars

Details about Forrest Whittaker and Mads whatshisnames characters have leaked. You'll have to look it up yourself it's too spoilery for me if true.

Weird. If you watch a new hope the whole synopsis for rogue one is in the crawl at the start.

dimejinky99 wrote:Weird. If you watch a new hope the whole synopsis for rogue one is in the crawl at the start.

duh

durdencommatyler wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Weird. If you watch a new hope the whole synopsis for rogue one is in the crawl at the start.

duh

You should see my post on the episode 9 thread.


I bring good news.