Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Wrath of Khan was enjoyed by all sorts.
The Voyage home too.
And Star Trek XI.However it seems that the final frontier was the polar opposite of this.
As was Nemesis.
Up to the The Voyage Home is was still a franchise that was watched by most people. The Next Gen (as much as I loved the show) made it more cult. And the Next Gen movies were bad news for Trek movies.
But good old Abrams had made it appeal to the wider audience again.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Up to the The Voyage Home is was still a franchise that was watched by most people. The Next Gen (as much as I loved the show) made it more cult. And the Next Gen movies were bad news for Trek movies.But good old Abrams had made it appeal to the wider audience again.
Yes even after ST:TMP!!! That was down to the mass appeal and genius of the Khanage.
First Contact was decent, at least.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No unless. Rights until you're wrong is something the Kim dynasty would enact.
Kims can kiss my ass. However, internet regime on verbal level sometimes is just as harsh, especially sci-fi movie forums. 😉 Those who are wrong, quite often get flamed! I am ready to be sent to reeducation camp, if I'm wrong about the new director being a hack.
More From Lawrence Kasdan On His Involvement
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/BatFreak/news/?a=74037
. "I’m trying to start fresh. There are certain pleasures that we think the saga can bring to people that they’ve been missing, and we’re hoping to bring them that, and at the same time, have them feel that it’s all new," Kasdan says"George sort of brought me into this part of it, and he’s stepping back from the company. He’s sort of given his blessing to everybody, and he’ll be there if you need him. I think everyone’s interested to see where this can go. It’s been some very different places over 30 years. I think with J.J., we’ll get something entirely new."
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually, this is about as circular as you get. You claim that it is male-centric because it is aimed at guys, but what about if what guys want is influenced by the way these films present themselves? It becomes a self-perpetuating concept that is hard to break, and you start to use 'we are trying to hit our target audience' as en excuse for what you might actually be doing, which is influencing your audience to suit what you produce. So, these films make it so people are influenced to want more of these films... in a circle.Now, as a profit making mechanism, fine. But as an excuse, for why the films are like this, it's rubbish, because it was only films being like that that made people want them like that in the first place (or by more complicated extension, all fiction and not just films, but for simplicity this is best looked at in isolation). That's why I'd reject "it's catered for males" as a viable argument. It's only the existence of such things that make people think you have to cater to males in that way. It effectively comes down to "The films are male-centric because they are male-centirc."
No. It effectively comes down to "What'll make us the most money with this particular product? And that's catering to this particular group/demographic, as history's shown."
Originally posted by Ushgarak
b. Star Wars itself would never have been made.
I disagree: 2001: Space Odyssey was well loved by the mid 70s. Sure, it took a while to get its following. I think a movie like Star Wars was bound to happen. If Lucas didn't make it, someone else would have.
How does that even apply to Ep. VII, though? Was it inevitable that someone would make Ep. VII?
I figured we would get Ep. VII when George died and I was in my 40s. I am glad to see it happening much sooner. 😄
2001 as a style has nothing to do with Star Wars in the slightest, and no-one thought Star Wars was going to make any money. If FOTN is arguing on the basis that films get made to suit profit-making objectives only, it completely fails in regards to SW, which didn't fit any sort of established profit draw at the time and was made basically because GL wanted it,
Originally posted by Ushgarak
2001 as a style has nothing to do with Star Wars in the slightest,
You're making it seem as though I want the two movies to be the same style.
My point was it inspired too many people. Sure, there are some stylistic similarities, but they are definitely not the same...I am at a loss for the word, here...I forget the term...
Anyway, George said he was heavily influenced by it. That's all the information I need to conclude that George did do some of the stuff he did because of the influences of 2001.
But don't take my word for it:
http://www.canopycanopycanopy.com/4/star_wars__a_new_heap
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dpstyles/3131177464/
Originally posted by Ushgarak
...and [b]no-one thought Star Wars was going to make any money. [/B]
Then why was there a frenzy to purchase movie paraphernalia (shirts, collectibles, etc.) before the movie was even released? What about the book? If everyone thought Star Wars was going to fail, then why did it get all of that funding, promotions, and such a huge/wide theatrical release? If they really thought it would fail, then it would not have gotten such a ginormous theatrical release.
Or are you referencing a time from the development or pre-production stage?
Yes, I agree, the 2001 comparison is facile and is in no way connected to any discussion about GL's creation of Star Wars, which was really about the likes of Buck Rogers, The Hidden Fortress and westerns.
As for the rest- Star Wars wasn't an underground cult movie. It had SOME support, but an Alan Dean Foster novelisation is hardly the mark of super-success (and, of course, his contract included writing a sequel to SW on the general idea that SW was not going to get a filmed sequel, which is why that Splinter crap got made). Sci-fi was not a high performing genre and the stories about people thinking it would flop- including the directors who GL showed the early cuts to, and the crowd in the final scene who were laughing because they thought the whole thing was a disaster- are very prevalent. Two major studios passed on it because they had no confidence in it making money. Fox actually gave the film little marketing (and actually had trouble getting cinemas to agree to show it; it only got the wider cinema release AFTER it came out and proved a bigger hit than expected); it was actually private deals that GL's people made with the like of comic book producers that got it any traction. GL himself thought Spielberg's Close Encounters would make more money.
It was given the same sort of budget and expectations as Logan's Run, the last major sci-fi movie before Star Wars. That took a quietly respectable take. Star Wars beat it by over ten times. No-one even vaguely suspected this was going to happen.
(This is also why Alec Guiness negotiated a share on takings so easily. They thought they wouldn't be worth much., He got the last laugh there).
So, anyway, by an overwhelming degree, Star Wars was not made because it was meant to be a massive financial earner conforming to some demographic. It was made because GL wanted it to and was willing to back it. Hence the idea that Star Wars might be male-centric as that is where the profit was makes no sense in that regard.