Jump to content


Photo

The Kelvin Movies - Were They All That Bad?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 13 March 2018 - 12:03 PM

Reboots, remakes, sequels, and prequels have been growing as a staple of the studios since the 70's. Planet of the Apes was one of the first big successes there.

 

That original franchise had 5 movies, each (arguably) worse than the next. By contrast the recent reboot has been much better in every aspect. Still... I might suggest that the studios know they have a name brand that people will recognize and its easier to get butts in seats that way.



#22 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 March 2018 - 09:15 AM

Yes, studios have become far more interested in creating franchises than creating quality, standalone films.

 

There are benefits to brands to be sure but they wouldn't do it if moviegoers responded to them the way they did the Planet of the Apes sequels in the 20th century. Each one of those made less and less money, partly because the studio kept lowering the quality by axing the budgets. Fast forward to the 21st century reboots with higher budgets and they're making much more money. (Whether they're profiting as much is a different matter.)

 

I still believe that, when it comes to the higher cost of a night out at the theater (tickets, concessions, child care), audiences are more likely to stick with the familiar than take a chance with something new unless there's terrific word of mouth. That's when movies like Titanic and American Sniper happen. It's also when a new franchise like Avatar is born.



#23 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 March 2018 - 01:59 PM

Your probably right MisterPL. i specifically go to see most movies at budget theater that has a budget matinee so I can spend maybe $6 vs $10 (or more) some of the bigger chain theaters now charge.... or just wait for it to come out on redbox and spend $2. For what tickets cost I think people want a reason to be in the theater... so some low budget drama, no matter how good, just doesn't appeal to most people. 

 

To (I think) whirlygs point... a quick look at movies with "legs" reveals the trend that movies are in and out of the theaters pretty quickly these days.  Almost anything in the last decade is below the 50 mark on that list (only Birdman cracked it in 2012). Anything else that cracked the top 100 in the last decade have been more independent, art type films.

 

But those newer films that are managing to crack that and go the distance do seem to make some good money... maybe more than those big tent poles since they typically have much lower budgets... so I think people do go see those types of movies, and they do exist... they just don't get hype and aren't going to become mainstream franchises. 



#24 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 14 March 2018 - 05:17 PM

I would love to get back to seeing more low budget dramas in the theater myself, but 2 things prevent it at the moment:

- 9 year old daughter means I either go to movies she will be OK to see, or have to figure out where she will go for 2 hours...

- Relatively rural, conservative, small town means a small theater which doesn't like libbrul arthouse fare; closest place to see art & lim release films is about an hour away...

#25 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 14 March 2018 - 06:35 PM

I would love to get back to seeing more low budget dramas in the theater myself, but 2 things prevent it at the moment:

- 9 year old daughter means I either go to movies she will be OK to see, or have to figure out where she will go for 2 hours...

- Relatively rural, conservative, small town means a small theater which doesn't like libbrul arthouse fare; closest place to see art & lim release films is about an hour away...

The day when studios do more low budget dramas will come again and I think in some ways it is slowly happening. Yes studios are always looking for the next big franchise and looking to their own established franchises for the almighty dollar but...

And theres a big BUT...

These big franchises are suffering because filmmakers are trying to push them in different directions. Star Wars got absolutely grilled with The Last Jedi - to some it may have just been a bad movie but to many others it just didnt live up to Star Wars and its legacy, DC movies are in a complete state of turmoil, Transformers has been dumped to be rebooted, TMNT movies: dumped...

In the end studios wont make as much off of these big franchises as they do now because fans will continue to get irate about things they dont get. Instead of judging a movie or story or whatever on its own merits, fans judge these big franchise movies based on what they expect - in Star Wars The Last Jedi you dont expect Luke to behave like that or to be underserved - but actually its Luke 31+ years after we knew him in Jedi... in Star Trek, Abrams gave us an alternate version of Star Trek; fans did not expect Kirk to be a drunk, or Vulcan being wiped out but actually, its just a new idea of what Trek is to someone else. Eventually fans will turn away from a big franchise movie or TV show when the filmmaker decides to do something different with the material...

Over time fans will just not go into the cinemas, and studios will make less money and like TV did, cinema will have to change from investing billions into franchises, to investing less money into a stand alone movie that just tells a decent story.

The only film franchises that I can see never getting old and moving and adapting with the times because they have is Marvel and Star Trek because both can go anywhere, be anything and be either big action block busters like Infinity War, Civil War and Into Darkness or Star Trek or small, character driven stories made on a lower budget like the first Iron Man, Logan, Deadpool or First Contact or Khan.

#26 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 March 2018 - 07:35 PM

Marvel is doing well because they (Marvel Studios) realized their mistake of fracturing their IP like DC did, and made a concerted effort to reverse the trend of just trying to cash in on it and took back some creative control. Marvel has 80 years of stories to pull from... DC has even more, but they can't figure out how to adapt it to the screen. Marvel Studios has also done a bang up job with casting... Downey is perfectly cast, as is Reynolds. 

 

When Trek (starting with TNG) decided it wasn't just about Kirk, Spock and McCoy, then it had a lot more to offer.. but they keep seeming to need to go back to them... and I think that constrains the franchise. 



#27 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 March 2018 - 08:06 AM

The frustrating part of the DC vs. Marvel debate has always been that's it's not really DC vs. Marvel. It's WB vs. Marvel Studios.

 

DC's been under WB's thumb for a very long time. They never had the kind of creative freedom to produce their own films. They've always had their big studio parent company undermining their decisions and focus-grouping films into mediocrity. Marvel Studios managed to take the leftovers no one else wanted – Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America – and come up with a plan to treat their movies just like their comics, to have them exist in the same universe.

 

After Iron Man became a huge success, Disney took note, acquired Marvel, but left them alone. The only time WB has left a filmmaker alone was when Christopher Nolan managed to successfully reboot their Batman franchise and deliver the first billion-dollar comic book flick. But that creative freedom also scuttled plans WB and DC had to relaunch the Batman and Superman franchises together and have them dovetail into Batman vs. Superman. (The disappointingly ill-conceived Superman Returns didn't help either.)

 

Marvel also had found a safe, successful storytelling formula; pit the protagonist against an evil doppelgänger. Iron Man vs. Iron Monger, Hulk vs. Abomination, Thor vs. Loki, Cap vs. Red Skull. That formula has continued with Ant-Man vs. Yellow Jacket, Doctor Strange vs. Kaecilius, and Black Panther vs. Killmonger. They found a great way to introduce audiences to these characters and build a movie brand moviegoers can trust along the way.

 

DC has had to deal with WB's meddling rather than their support. Three of their biggest tentpoles, Batman v Superman, Justice League and Suicide Squad, were all criticized for being watered down, homogenized after reactions by test audiences. We're talking about a movie studio run by men who never shot a frame of film. Their backgrounds are in finance and legal. They don't understand the creative process and they don't trust people who do (like just about everyone at DC).

 

WB also hasn't managed to find its Avi Arad or Kevin Feige. Both of those guys were integral champions to the success of Marvel movies, at Sony, Fox, and Marvel Studios. DC has Geoff Johns but WB doesn't seem to give him the autonomy that Disney's given Marvel Studios and it's not helping.

 

As for Star Trek, I understand why they went back to the NCC-1701. Poetically, only Kirk could save the franchise. Like it or not, that crew was what people remembered when they think "Star Trek."

 

The studio has managed to get people to see these movies again. Now they need to keep people coming back so they can continue to be profitable. That means more modest budgets, new crew members at lower salaries, and recycling bridge sets rather than destroying them.

 

It may even mean moving forward in the Kelvin timeline to reintroduce the crew of the NCC-1701-D.



#28 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 March 2018 - 10:43 AM

Again... can't argue with anything you said MisterPL.  I can only add that DC has some equally fantastic works... its just always been a pity they can't realize it.  Average movie goers have no idea how difficult it was to even get a Justice League Movie made due to all the fractured IP rights!

 

I also agree with your comments on Trek... but I think if your forced to be constrained in that manner it does put some real limits on the franchise. 

 

Marvel is still dreaming up new characters... and getting them incorporated into movies!  Also the success of Marvel Studios has made those that hold IP rights... mostly Sony at this point sit up and take notice that maybe working with them will be better for everyone's bottom line. 

 

Part of the Irony is that Marvel realized that their licensees were putting out garbage... so a big part of their strategy was to wait and let the IP default back to them after the licensees failed to execute.  in some cases... like with the Hulk, they bought the rights back... so its not true no one wanted the Hulk... MS just realized they couldn't do avengers w/o him... and they were right.



#29 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2018 - 07:27 AM

This is what bugs me. WB had a HUGE advantage over Marvel. All the DC rights were under their umbrella. It wasn't like Superman was at Sony, Batman and Suicide Squad were at Fox, and Wonder Woman was at Universal. They had all their crayons in one box.

 

The other advantage was that DC characters were generally more well known. No one really needed an introduction to Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman thanks to the films, TV shows, and cartoons of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Heck, thanks to the various animated series, even Cyborg enjoyed a relatively high Q score. WB could have started their DCU with a Justice League movie but they couldn't make a decision how to proceed fast enough and Marvel beat them to the punch.

 

The advantage Marvel Studios had over DC films was that Marvel only did Marvel movies. WB wasn't just producing comic book flicks. They were making comedies and dramas and chick flicks and horror films. Marvel could focus on making the best Iron Man movie they could. WB execs had a much bigger, broader schedule.

 

Star Trek is in a similar boat as DC. While it's a valued part of Paramount's library, it's not the only book on the shelf. So if studios are really interested in matching the success of Marvel Studios, they've got to look beyond the "shared cinematic universe" aspect and see what really makes these movies work; the process.

 

Long story short; Star Trek needs its own production company.



#30 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 16 March 2018 - 12:39 PM

WB had a HUGE advantage over Marvel. All the DC rights were under their umbrella. It wasn't like Superman was at Sony, Batman and Suicide Squad were at Fox, and Wonder Woman was at Universal. They had all their crayons in one box.

 

On the surface this seems to be true... but I had heard from insiders that IP rights to individual characters was, un-like marvel, more fractured and in the hands of different creators.. not that I understand it all... because tey managed to do cartoons... but who knows how some of these deals are setup. 



#31 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 17 March 2018 - 07:05 PM

I think several things need to happen before Star Trek is as CREATIVELY successful as Marvel Studios have been with their properties and that is firstly, both Paramount and CBS need to be brought back together as one studio. Secondly, just as Disney have sub studio production houses like Pixar, Licasfilm and Marvel, Paramount CBS would do well to create a Star Trek Studio that is headed up by... A Kevin Feigy/Rick Berman type of guy; someone who is both a nerd for Star Trek, understands the importance of its universe of characters, its tone, its visual continuity and canon and what defines a Star Trek story, someone who will have the confidence to produce an origin story of Kirk or Scotty or Q and have them be the next big character kids want to buy toys of because he or she has put the right team in place to make that character, originally set out decades ago, cool and relevant for todays audiences. The ingredients are there for some massive Star Trek fan to identify the most obscure things we can think of in the Star Trek universe and make them the next biggest thing in cinema and on TV. Lets have an origin Kirk story that is decades before he gets command of the Enterprise, lets tell a McCoy origin story and then once weve had these solo movies, we figure out that theyve all been building up to this huge event movie where Kirk gets command of the Enterprise in a retelling on Where No Man Has Gone Before where Kirks friend Gary Mitchell is killed and his body used by a god like being... Thats the person we need in charge of Star Trek, someone who can see the creative potential in the ingredients already there but also someone who is a studio guy, a guy or indeed a girl who can draw from an amazing amount of talent and both please the studio as well as be seen to allow the creative freedom for STAR TREK FANS to create new and exciting content in a way that both engages with long time Star Trek fans as well as inspires a new generation of fans both young and old through contemporary storytelling and exciting characters.

While the Kelvin movies and Discovery are successful in their own right, they creatively fail, on many levels, the Star Trek brand because they try and turn Star Trek into something it isnt, something it never set out to be and something that doesnt appeal to hardcore fans but new audiences who DONT know Star Trek

If youre not appealing to your fans, who are you appealing to with your stories and characters?

While I think many of us here can appreciate aspects of JJ Abrams Star Trek and Star Trek: Discovery, is anyone here of the belief that these new movies and Discovery are better all round than TOS or TNG?

Its great that the Kelvin movies and Discovery have reached out to a new audience but I think Im going to have to say that like Star Wars, Star Trek is failing to respect what made it so popular, do enduring in the first place by not learning from what Marvel Studios has been doing for 10 years; respecting the source material.

Had Marvel Studios and Kevin Feigy made Star Trek in 2009; Im more sure than ever that while the aesthetics may have changed, the characters and the tone of the original series would of been completely respectful; with JJ Abrams, he changed those characters, especially Kirk so he could find something he could relate to within them because as a kid he never could relate to Kirk or Spock or McCoy... thats terrible.

With Discovery its kind of a different story and one I have already dissected to death so Ill leave it here but I have to completely agree with MrPL. WB are a joke and just sum up the problems with these studio executives not learning lessons from those who are miles ahead creatively and financially.

Every studio could do with learning a lot from Marvel Studios and indeed Disney.

#32 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 18 March 2018 - 04:38 AM

Marvel, and especially Disney aren't w/o their failures. 

 

For example, Disney managed to royally screw up John Carter... one the properties that a lot of sci-fi, including star wars and star trek, have been stealing from for decades. 

 

IMO, we've now had more disappointing movies from both the Star Wars and Star Trek Franchises...

 

and I went to see the reboot of Tomb Raider, and that was pretty forgettable as well.  As others have said studios like the franchises because they feel they are sure thing, but rarely execute well on them . 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users