• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

Star Wars & Star Trek Need To Die So Other Sci-Fi Can Live

As both a fan of (mostly old but some of the new) Star Trek and (mostly of old but some of the new) Star Wars I agree.

I don't think they need to die but they need a pause.

Scalenex said:
Knives Out
Click to expand...
One of the most fun movie experiences I had in recent years.

And just a few words concerning some of the mentioned SciFi:
For me the Expanse is great. I absolutely cannot understand how it isn't extremely popular and successful. In fact I heard that without a certain SciFi fan named Jeff B. we wouldn't even have gotten a third season which would have been a damn shame.

As for Firefly: cheesy and overrated IMO. I absolutely didn't see the appeal. I watched parts of it but quickly lost interest.

Babylon5 on the other hand I liked a lot. Just not the end.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Need? It’s more like humans want such stories, rather than actually need them. We don’t need anymore repeats of the hero’s journey because we have loads since, as you say, the early days of written mythology (Jason and the Argonauts, Perseus and Medusa, Theseus and the Minotaur), though for some reason some people never seem to tire of hearing those stories so always like to hear them again with the characters simply reskinned with varying levels of difference and altered settings. Hence, glorified cliches. Why have remakes when you can have the original and usually best?
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I think there is a human need to tell these kinds of stories. I don't know this for a certainty, but I feel that the "hero's journey" specifically is representative of the human experience in many cultures (maybe all). It's about the process of simple "innocence", loss, trials, rising out of those trials, and hopefully success and growth. Why do children almost always not listen to their parents/guardians? So many must go about something their own way. Fail. Struggle. Hopefully succeed or at least learn and move on. Often, storytellers elevate the stakes in these stories to grand events because those are exciting. Another reason I think these stories get retold is simply because it might be the first time anyone has heard this type of story. It's why Marvel had someone mention Wolverine's adamantium claws/skeleton and his healing factor in almost every book. Ditto to the fact that Cyclops couldn't control is eye beams, or that Rogue couldn't control her powers, etc. It could be the first X-Men comic someone picked up. Marvel wanted the reader to know a little about those characters without having to go back and read every X-Men book.

That's just my view on it anyway.
 
Last edited:
*Briefly drops in*

I heard Wells and had to materialise. :P

Honestly, the only adaptations of War of the Worlds i've ever enjoyed have been Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds musical and Orson Welles' radio version. I just feel a lot of his works don't translate well into a movie setting, at least not the kind that would appear on the silver screen. Few of his stories i'd argue are that action packed, they instead take their time and peer at the nature of man, man's place in the world, and society itself. His characters often are observors and not men of action. To do so otherwise I feel would likely lose the essence of the story. Though my tastes I suppose are a bit odd, I recall being the only person long long ago in my class who really enjoyed Harold Pinter's The Caretaker (which is effectively a play centred on three characters in a single room and does not seem to go anywhere, with the ending scene close (but actually different) to the opening scene.)

Onto the original topic, I agree and disagree with the sentiment. In their current forms both Star Wars and Star Trek have gone on for a very long time and have become bloated and dare I say stale. So much feels like rehashing or otherwise poorly made. And yet their universes are so vibrant and so full of potential. With the right angle and right writing a magnificent phoenix could rise from the ashes. But I can't see that truly happening on anything beyond the odd spin off (I probably should see this Mando thing that keeps being talked about...) I suppose you could just run an rpg in either of the universes and create your own stories that probably would be better than anything that'd come out of the official sources.

I did rewatch an episode of Trigun this morning, i'd forgotten just how enjoyable it was as a show. I really ought to rewatch it all as well as Space Dandy again...

Anyway, these are just my rambling thought-things. Don't mind me. :P

*Pops back out of reality*
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Dune yet, I really enjoyed the first trilogy and I thought the rest were pretty good. I have low expectations for the upcoming movie, though, as it's going to quite difficult to echo the power of the novel. Dune bucked a lot of sci fi tropes, with laser guns and space battles not really making an appearance. It had very complex characters and many interesting commentaries on society as a whole. I would love a high quality movie franchise but realisticly that's never gonna happen.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Shouldn’t this have been put on the regular Star Trek vs Star Wars thread? That’s where you normally spam Baby Yoda pictures
Click to expand...
Yup... but I suppose it works here as well. Let's call it an official objection to the proposed idea of Star Wars needing to die.
 
I am not on Netflix...for reasons, so I have not seen the new Masters of the Universe show, but I have followed the buzz on it closely.

I was a casual fan of the 1980s He-Man fan, I had the toys as a kid but I rarely got to watch the show, and I was a bigger fan of the 2002 He-Man series because I was able to watch it all the way through.

I am convinced that Kevin Smith or the executives pulling Kevin's strings have deliberately tried to destroy the franchise. Also Kevin Smith spent months promising that the series would not be woke garbage and the various rumors were all false, but they were true. All of them.

Whoever ultimately green lit this, was not trying to make art or money. This was deliberate cultural vandalism. I don't see how a combination of stupidity and greed would lead to this kind of mistake, so someone with power wanted to attack the franchise. I don't see how this could have happened were it not the case.

But why?

Who gains from this?
 
Scalenex said:
But why?

Who gains from this?
Click to expand...

worldburn-top.jpg
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
Spoilers...

Click to expand...

Every time I watched a movie and then watched the review Critical Drinker made of it, I pretty much agree with everything he says. Though I did like Spiderman Far From Home more than he did.

I don't watch a movie anymore unless he green lights it as good.
 
This is the sort of toxic masculinity Kevin Smith bravely fought against with his new remake of He-Man!

Nevermind the parts spoken by female characters. Those aren't toxic masculinity, that's internalized misogny. Kevin Smith should watch the one at 12:28 but he has no friends to come to his rescue...

Also 22:10 when Smith made a promise and chose not to keep it.

 
Last edited:
So about a week ago, I saw a good analysis video on Who Framed Roger Rabbit by the Youtuber known as Nostalgia Critic.

Today, some of the pop culture bloggers I follow mentioned that the Roger Rabbit ride at Disneyland is censoring and revamping "problematic" aspects of Jessica Rabbit's character.

They haven't touched the movie yet, but I need to buy me a physical blue ray or DVD. With all the digital censorship of "problematic" if there is a classic piece of cinema you like, you should own the physical media because streaming it might not be what you think.

Rewatching Who Framed Roger Rabbit, I cannot help but marvel at the technical genius of the movie.

I always appreciated the clever premise, the compelling character arcs, and the expert direction to make make seemless tonal shifts as the movie balances serious and whimsical tonal shifts amazingly.

This movie was made, without computers in 1988. From a technical standpoint I am hard pressed to come up with a computer graphics that did this better.

The live actors were literally looking at nothing, and the cartoon characters were drawn in, but when you watch the movie, the live and animated characters make eye contact and play off each other.

Animated characters in the real world in this movie have shadow effects and reflections. I cannot think of a modern movie with CGI characters mixed with live action characters that does this better. Even very high budget films like the Star Wars prequels.

I like Ewan McGregor but whenever he is interacting with a CGI character, it feels like Obi Wan is looking in the general direction of the CGI creature and not at the creature. Star Trek attempts at graphics like this are even cringier.

The motion capture suit technology for Gollum in Lord of the Rings, Ceasar in Planet of the Apes, and the Navii in Avatar was very good but not quite the same.

Not related to the CGI, but I liked how Nostalgia Critic pointed out that Judge Doom's costume was brilliantly constructed because it was almost good human disguise with some flaws poking through. Not unlike the Bug wearing the "Egar Suit" in Men In Black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top