PDA

View Full Version : Let Star Wars and Star Trek Die


Ryan_Liam
03-29-2015, 01:25 PM
As much as I love both Star trek and Star Wars, I think it has created a block on anything else which could be as creative. With re hashed Star Trek and a new Star Wars film coming out, it lead me to think where is our version of those types of Science Fiction and Science Fantasy? The closest I can think of is the Matrix, or Babylon 5. (I discount Battlestar Galactica because it's a remake, and I didn't see Firefly, although I do know it was cancelled)

wolfman
03-29-2015, 01:39 PM
A lot of it moved to video games, ass Effect for example.M

E-DUB
03-29-2015, 01:43 PM
If your point is that ST and SW are sort of sucking up all the SciFi oxygen in the room, I don't think that it's so. ST:TMP only got made (as a movie) due to the success of Star Wars. If any big budget SF movie makes it, that's an argument to do more of them.

"ass Effect", heh, heh.

wolfman
03-29-2015, 01:47 PM
How the hell did my "M" get moved there, I definitely left it in front of the "ass"

XT
03-29-2015, 01:47 PM
Not sure I'm understanding the OP. Are you saying that there aren't new science fiction movies coming out that aren't Star Wars or Star Trek? Off the top of my head I can think of several, if that's what you are saying. To name a few you have Avatar, Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion and if you are into Marvel then Guardians of the Galaxy...none of which are either Star Wars or Star Trek, and there have been several other sci-fi type movies in the last few years.

I actually kind of like the Star Trek reboot...I thought it was pretty clever the way they spun off an entirely new universe in the many worlds theme yet tie it together. No idea how the new Star Wars will be, but I'll be going to see it, at least the first one. I think there is a lot of potential there in continuing the story after the events in Return of the Jedi, and there is a pretty rich amount of content in the various books, stories and even RPGs made in that universe, assuming they figure out how to make a good movie with it all.

Master Wang-Ka
03-29-2015, 01:52 PM
Not gonna happen.

Trek and Wars are cultural touchstones. They have been very successful. They've made a lot of money, and they've sold a buttload of merch. Hell, "Phantom Menace" broke even before it was even released, due to the sales of merch and a fat tie-in deal from Pepsico... and that's a studio's wet dream, to break even BEFORE you even release the movie; after that, it's all pure profit, profit, profit, mm-mm, yummy licky drool money moolah $$$$$....

Best of all, both Trek and Wars are now in a position where their creators can no longer interfere with anything their current owners want to do with them. Roddenberry's dead, and Lucas sold the rights. So if Disney wants to sell Darth Mickeys, or Paramount wants to put Vulcan ears on Eddie Murphy, there is not a thing to stop them.

So as long as the money fountains continue to be profitable, there will be new product. When the makers can no longer make viable product, they'll license out the rights to those who can, like TV cartoons, novels, toys, tie-ins, and other things that just make the money flow in.

Forever.

CarnalK
03-29-2015, 01:59 PM
If your point is that ST and SW are sort of sucking up all the SciFi oxygen in the room, I don't think that it's so. ST:TMP only got made (as a movie) due to the success of Star Wars. If any big budget SF movie makes it, that's an argument to do more of them.

But that was 30 years ago. Yes, SW paved the way for ST movies when everyone was scared to make a big Sci Fi movie. They are both kind of whales in the aquarium now is the point of the OP istm. Does anyone think a successful ST or SW movie nowadays paves the way for a new franchise?

Anyway, Marvel kind of backdoored a successful Space Opera with Guardians of the Galaxy, so I don't agree that it's totally killing other movies' chances.

Master Wang-Ka
03-29-2015, 02:08 PM
A good film is going to get noticed, particularly in the genre.

A bad film will be seen, and then ignored. I've noticed this with a lot of Peter Jackson's stuff lately. And, for that matter, the most recent Star Trek film.

I would go so far as to say that the studios are more likely to fund "Peter Jackson's Star Wars" than "Master Wang-Ka's Hamlet On Mars With Robots," despite the fact that my film may be the better of the two.

Or, for that matter, they may well prefer to go with "Peter Jackson's Famous Guy Standing On A Stage Jingling His Car Keys For Two Hours," as opposed to "Master Wang-Ka's Serious New Star Trek Movie With A Script By Joss Whedon," simply because it sounds like a better bet for the bank balance...

Bijou Drains
03-29-2015, 02:08 PM
James Bond movies are still around after 50 years. Hollywood loves to put out familiar stuff.

running coach
03-29-2015, 02:09 PM
"Never give up, never surrender!"

doorhinge
03-29-2015, 02:43 PM
Let Star Wars and Star Trek Die

(post shortened)

NOOOOOOoooooooooooo!

SW and ST will die when they die. When the fans are no longer interested, or when something better comes along.

At one time, horse operas were all the rage (any Palomino is a Pal-Of-Mine-O ), followed by detective/police stories, monster movies (Dracula, Wolfman, etc.), horror, and science fiction. I believe Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier was the Star Wars of the late 50's but it eventually ran it's course, and lost viewers. Life goes on.

Chessic Sense
03-29-2015, 02:53 PM
You're asking Hollywood to stop making sequels? That's an absurd notion on its own, regardless of what franchise we're talking about. When was the last time you saw a major blockbuster without a number after it?

Simplicio
03-29-2015, 03:04 PM
To name a few you have Avatar, Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion and if you are into Marvel then Guardians of the Galaxy...none of which are either Star Wars or Star Trek, and there have been several other sci-fi type movies in the last few years.

...Elysium, After Earth, Interstellar, Limitless, Source Code, Gravity, Her, Pacific Rim, Snow-piercer, World War Z, Automata, Big Hero 6, Lucy, Transcendence, Earth to Echo, Chappie, Jupiter Ascendant, Ex Machina, John Carter, Looper, Ender's Game, Last Days on Mars etc, etc,

One can argue that there haven't been many good sci-fil films lately, but its hardly been for lack of studio willingness to try and fund non-franchise sci-fi films.

You're asking Hollywood to stop making sequels? That's an absurd notion on its own, regardless of what franchise we're talking about. When was the last time you saw a major blockbuster without a number after it?

See above. Non-franchise films don't do as well, but there are still several big-budget non-franchise films a year, and a dozen or more not-so-big budget ones. Presumably because Hollywood realizes the public will get sick of Superheroes at some point, and they'll need to have developed some new IP to take their place.

Ryan_Liam
03-29-2015, 03:07 PM
Not sure I'm understanding the OP. Are you saying that there aren't new science fiction movies coming out that aren't Star Wars or Star Trek? Off the top of my head I can think of several, if that's what you are saying. To name a few you have Avatar, Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion and if you are into Marvel then Guardians of the Galaxy...none of which are either Star Wars or Star Trek, and there have been several other sci-fi type movies in the last few years.

I actually kind of like the Star Trek reboot...I thought it was pretty clever the way they spun off an entirely new universe in the many worlds theme yet tie it together. No idea how the new Star Wars will be, but I'll be going to see it, at least the first one. I think there is a lot of potential there in continuing the story after the events in Return of the Jedi, and there is a pretty rich amount of content in the various books, stories and even RPGs made in that universe, assuming they figure out how to make a good movie with it all.

How many of those current films will still be making a cultural impact 40 years from now?

doorhinge
03-29-2015, 03:18 PM
How many of those current films will still be making a cultural impact 40 years from now?

The fact that SW and ST are making a cultural impact is a pretty good indicator that the paying public not is willing to let them die.

Ryan_Liam
03-29-2015, 03:35 PM
The fact that SW and ST are making a cultural impact is a pretty good indicator that the paying public not is willing to let them die.

But I'm not asking that, I already know they do, I was asking the previous poster how many current films they picked out would have the same sort of cultural impact 40 years later from now.

When both of those films/TV series first came out, there was a paradigm shift in terms of entertainment and they both opened up new avenues for people to look into, they've done their job, now it's someone else's turn. Again, I love them both, I'm a fan of both, but someday they've got to be put to rest and something else has to reinvent the sci-fi genre.

Master Wang-Ka
03-29-2015, 03:51 PM
But I'm not asking that, I already know they do, I was asking the previous poster how many current films they picked out would have the same sort of cultural impact 40 years later from now.

When both of those films/TV series first came out, there was a paradigm shift in terms of entertainment and they both opened up new avenues for people to look into, they've done their job, now it's someone else's turn. Again, I love them both, I'm a fan of both, but someday they've got to be put to rest and something else has to reinvent the sci-fi genre.

When Star Trek came out, the most sophisticated science fiction/interplanetary stories being told on TV were on Captain Video and Space Patrol*. The general idea was that spaceships were for kids. Some people would STILL have this idea if not for the fact that the same summer Trek was cancelled, Neil Armstrong and his posse done surprised everyone with his Giant Leap For Mankind. I personally think that between that and reruns, we can account for Trek's postmortem popularity. Please note that it was around this time that the networks were realizing that there was gold in them thar reruns; I never saw Trek when it broadcast originally. Every episode I saw was in the early seventies, in reruns.

Trek was a BOMB.

When Star Wars came out, the most sophisticated science fiction films to have hit the mass market were... the Planet of the Apes movies. And the first one was supposed to be an allegory. And the second one kind of tried to do the same. And the other three were just monkey fests, guys in fancy makeup running around in the woods.** The message was plain: SF was just simpleminded crap.

Wars was a BOMB.

More importantly both franchises are money fountains. And as long as the money continues to spout, I can't see their owners letting them lie fallow for all that long...

*Yes, I remember The Twilight Zone. I also know that it was an anthology show, and only reached the level of bein' an iconic classic YEARS after it came out.

**Yes, there were others -- Westworld did well, as did others -- but now that I think about it, seems like most of the popular SF films of the seventies were invariably postapocalyptic. Star Wars and Star Trek were among the few to portray the future as being a place where people lived and worked and continued on a daily basis without having to fight mutants for cans of dog food.

Admittedly, the first Star Wars film sorta implied we left all the black folks back on Earth, but, hey, nobody's perfect...

marshmallow
03-29-2015, 04:08 PM
People still pay money to watch movies based on 2,000+ year old Greek myths and Bible stories.

The Other Waldo Pepper
03-29-2015, 04:10 PM
People still pay money to watch movies based on 2,000+ year old Greek myths and Bible stories.

Not to mention Thor!

bup
03-29-2015, 04:17 PM
How do you propose we overcome capitalism? Are we going to outlaw ST and SW?

XT
03-29-2015, 05:50 PM
How many of those current films will still be making a cultural impact 40 years from now?

Well, that seems to be a different question to what I was answering in the OP. It's hard to say, really, if any of them will capture the public's imagination like Star Trek or Star Wars. I was a a kid when Star Trek first came on TV, and it wasn't as popular then as it became later. When Star Wars came out I was in college and I remember going with my uncle to the first showing in Las Vegas and the theater being pretty empty. I was totally blown away because I hadn't really heard much about it (or any really) before going...we really just went on a whim since it seemed to be sort of sci-fi-ish.

What movies today might have similar impact? Well, depending on the followup maybe Avatar...it was visually stunning and people seemed to really like it (I was less impressed, but then I couldn't help but pick it apart as I was watching it). As you said, the Matrix, though it's sequels didn't really help the franchise. The Marvel universe and possibly the Guardians of the Galaxy might have a similar impact if Marvel follows up with another block buster. The thing is, movies that have that level of impact are very rare. But the question I thought you were asking was whether we'd have any new non-Star Trek/non-Star Wars sci-fi franchises, and the answer to me seems clearly 'yes'. As Simplicio says:

One can argue that there haven't been many good sci-fil films lately, but its hardly been for lack of studio willingness to try and fund non-franchise sci-fi films.

I think that pretty much sums things up at least from my perspective.

The Other Waldo Pepper
03-29-2015, 06:00 PM
There's another HUNGER GAMES movie on the way, and another TERMINATOR, right?

CalMeacham
03-29-2015, 06:05 PM
When Star Trek came out, the most sophisticated science fiction/interplanetary stories being told on TV were on Captain Video and Space Patrol*. The general idea was that spaceships were for kids. Some people would STILL have this idea if not for the fact that the same summer Trek was cancelled, Neil Armstrong and his posse done surprised everyone with his Giant Leap For Mankind.


I'll dispute this. The most sophisticated science fiction on TV was arguably Man Into Space, which is virtually forgotten now (It's never been in syndication, or on popular video format). It was hard near-future SF about Man exploring our own solar system.

After that, you had The Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, both featuring some top-notch SF (although TZ had a lot of fantasy, as well) by some impressive writers. I still think that Harlan Ellisoin's Demon with a Glass Hand from Outer Limits is the single best episode of any SF I've ever seen on TV.

There were others, too, if not as good -- One Step Beyond (which, like TZ, was mostly fantasy and hortror, but had some SF, and Science Fiction Theater (which was generally pretty sub-par, but was directed at adults, not kids). It was even mentioned in Backj to the Future!


When Star Wars came out, the most sophisticated science fiction films to have hit the mass market were... the Planet of the Apes movies. And the first one was supposed to be an allegory. And the second one kind of tried to do the same. And the other three were just monkey fests, guys in fancy makeup running around in the woods.** The message was plain: SF was just simpleminded crap.

Wrong again. Did you forget 2001: A Space Odyssey? Definitely a Big Time Mass Market film. There were plenty of others, although you can argue about how mass market they were -- Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Destination Moon, When Worlds Collide, War of the Worlds, The Time Machine, Robinson Crusoe on Mars....

Even if youy restrict yourself to the decade before Star Wars, you had The Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man, Logan's Run and others.


Wars was a BOMB.


No argument there.


*Yes, I remember The Twilight Zone. I also know that it was an anthology show, and only reached the level of bein' an iconic classic YEARS after it came out.

Not true. It wouldn't have run as long as it did if it weren't "iconic". It was immensely popular.


**Yes, there were others -- Westworld did well, as did others -- but now that I think about it, seems like most of the popular SF films of the seventies were invariably postapocalyptic. Star Wars and Star Trek were among the few to portray the future as being a place where people lived and worked and continued on a daily basis without having to fight mutants for cans of dog food.


As I observe, they weren't all postapocalyptic. There were LOTS of After-The-Bomb
films, but it was the times. The atomic bomb and its tensions were everywhere. But even something as awful as Moon Zero Two depicted an optimistic future, not a postapocalyptic wasteland.

You jusat weren't THERE, son.

CalMeacham
03-29-2015, 06:45 PM
My objection to Star Trek and Star Wars is that they seem to have pigeonholed science fiction so that people tend to think that SF is one or the other, while fans like me feel that science fiction is a lot of other stuff, too.

Both series, when they started, were extremely fresh, in part because they introduced the general public to ideas that were common coin in literary SF, and might have made it into a couple of films, but which Hollywood types had avoided because they were afraid people wouldn't "get it", or wouldn't accept. The classic example is Mr. Spock's greenish skin and pointed ears, which the publicity goons at NBS airbushed out and recolored in the publicity stills sent out, until Roddenbery confronted them. But there was a lot of other stuff, too.

As I note above, Star Trek wasn't the first SF for adults. It wasn't even the first non-anthology SF show for adults, but it was considerably splashier than its predecessors, and featured humans on a non-cigar-shaped spaceship flying at faster-than-light speeds*. What's more, they got a lot of noted SF writers (and the to-be-noted ones) to write for the series -- Harlan Ellison, Theodore Sturgeon, Normal Spinrad, Robert Bloch, David Gerrold. They credited one to Fredric Brown. That's something the later Trek series really didn't do (although the aborted Star Trek -- Phase II had scripts and treatments by known SF writers, as well, as did the short-lived animated series, which had stuff by David Gerrold and Larry Niven).

I do love the Trek seriues, asnd the movies, but the Trek universe ios too caught up in itself, and people need to be reminded that this isn't the only possible image of the future.


Star Wars, on the other hand, came when, despite other SF properties being around, there wasn't any big thing going on. Trekkies were holding their conventions, but the hoped-for Star Trek movie looked no closer, and Harlan Ellison had even written an article saying why he didn't think it was ever going to happen.

Star Wars was unique because it embraced all those tropes that Hollywood had been avoiding for years -- the Spaceport Bar with multitudinous aliens, some VERY non-human aliens, dogfights in space, weird space religions, robots as part of everyday life -- lots of robots, not just one or two. The public ate it up, despite the fears of the head honchos that they wouldn't Get It.

Of course, it's a kid's-eye view of Science Fictioin, as Lucas admitted at the time. Heck, he'd made an adult science fiction film before -- THX-1138. He then said he retrogressed to his teen years for American Graffiti, before embracing his inner child with Star Wars.

SW took those SF tropes and strung them out on the Planetary Romance framework that had evolved into Flash Gordon, and which SF writers had been making fun of in the 1950s. Heinlein has Hazel Stone writing serials about rebels fighting the Galacti Emperor in her spare time in The Rolling Stones. Arthur C.; Clarke made fun of Space Epics where they still fought with swords in Tales from the White Hart. L. Sprague de Camp inveighed against SF Nobility with made-up names like Darth Vader and titles like Lord of the Sith and nouveau Ruritanian fiction.

The public didn't care -- they hadn't read that stuff, and SW had a visceral good-vs.-evil punch, with obvious Bad Guys and underdog Good Guys. For the sequel, he persuaded Golden Age SF writer Leigh Brackett (who'd been writing John Wayne scripts since she gave up SF) to get back in the SF saddle to writer The Empire Strikes Back** Despite their problems, the original SW trilogy really hit home, and I've watched them more times than I can count.

The sequels and spin-offs didn't quite do anywhere near as well. I don't rewatch the second trilogy, or the animated series.

Again, though, the SW vision from the earliest films is a pretty childish place, while the second trilogy is a confusing one. But it's a peculiar mishmash of ideas making up its reality. I'm not satying mainstream SF doesn't have its share of illogical and questioinable premises, but not as many as the concentrated Sytar Wars franchise has.

Because of the concentration on SW, I suspect other, very different visions haven't been able to come out, possibly because they are too different from the SW/ST model, and the Hollywood suits don't like taking chances. We've been lucky to get two different versions of Dune, but I don't think they did really well. Heinlein (Starship Troopers, The Puppet Masters, Jerry was a Man) and Asimov (Nightfall, I,Robot) have only reached the Big Screen in grotesquely altered versions. James Cameron and the Wachovskys, Ridley Scott, and Veerhoeven have produced very different visions of the future. But we need more. And different.








*I, and plenty of others, feel pretty sure that Roddenbery strip-mined the film Forbidden Planet for a lot of the details, despite his claims to have searched through SF magazines an illustrations. But watch that film and then watch an episode of ST. He even stole the flying-saucer ship shape from FP!

**I know others say that others rewrote her script after her death and before filoming, but the claim that none of her innovations survived vto see celluloid isn't true -- there's Brackett stuff in the version I saw.

kopek
03-29-2015, 07:44 PM
I liked Mel Brook's idea --------- SpaceBalls 2: The Search for More Money

Grrr!
03-29-2015, 08:07 PM
The thing with the New ST reboot is that it pretty much killed any chance of a new ST based TV series happening.

Unlike a lot of ST fans, I enjoyed all of the TV series that came out. Even Voyager! :eek:

boffking
03-29-2015, 09:05 PM
There's another HUNGER GAMES movie on the way
Hunger Games was a complete and utter rip-off of The Running Man. Just because it was in a forest instead of a city does not make it an original story.

Aeschines
03-29-2015, 10:19 PM
How the hell did my "M" get moved there, I definitely left it in front of the "ass"That's what she said.

foolsguinea
03-30-2015, 05:25 AM
By 1990, I thought Star Wars was basically over. Well, in some ways it was.

Originally, Star Trek was a big deal for being actual no-kidding science fiction on television. But it's been mishandled a bit, and got seriously overblown with the whole 'Trekker' thing.

I guess I agree with you. Or at least they can be put on a shelf for a bit?

I'd add that I don't really want to see another DC superhero TV show right now.

foolsguinea
03-30-2015, 05:41 AM
Hunger Games was a complete and utter rip-off of The Running Man. Just because it was in a forest instead of a city does not make it an original story.I haven't seen The Hunger Games, so I can't say. But The Running Man (the movie) is a bit different from The Running Man (the novel) and both resemble an old short story by (I think) Robert Sheckley.

And The Hunger Games is very often compared to Takami Kōshun's Battle Royale, which it fortuitously resembles.

TropesAreNotBad. Tezuka Osamu even riffed on the concept once, I think.

Urbanredneck
03-30-2015, 05:47 AM
Well, what hasnt been done yet? Not just Star Trek and Star Wars but also Aliens, Starship Troopers, War of the Worlds, Stargate - its all been done. Its darn tough to come up with something new.

Aeschines
03-30-2015, 06:38 AM
I haven't seen The Hunger Games, so I can't say. But The Running Man (the movie) is a bit different from The Running Man (the novel) and both resemble an old short story by (I think) Robert Sheckley.

And The Hunger Games is very often compared to Takami Kōshun's Battle Royale, which it fortuitously resembles.

TropesAreNotBad. Tezuka Osamu even riffed on the concept once, I think.The 10th Victim by Robert Sheckley, which was both a short story and a novel. I was surprised to learn just now that there is a movie of this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059095/

foolsguinea
03-30-2015, 07:51 AM
I'm pretty sure I was actually thinking of Sheckley's "The Prize of Peril," wherein the protagonist is a game show contestant, and dodging the general public, who can phone into the game show and report his whereabouts while he tries to avoid being nabbed (and killed!) for a defined length of time.

Simplicio
03-30-2015, 11:34 AM
Hunger Games was a complete and utter rip-off of The Running Man. Just because it was in a forest instead of a city does not make it an original story.

And just because its in a City instead of the Colosseum doesn't make it an original story.

Originally, Star Trek was a big deal for being actual no-kidding science fiction on television. But it's been mishandled a bit, and got seriously overblown with the whole 'Trekker' thing.

It was sort of a victim of its own success. TNG was an incredibly successful TV show, and so Paramount decided to launch three over-lapping spinoffs and six features films in the same relatively short span of time (not to mention a glut of similar space opera shows from various imitators). Some of these were great, some of them terrible, but we hit Trek-saturation pretty quickly, and there's only so many interesting plots you can churn out for what's basically re-iterations of the same setting. By the end of Enterprise, I think even most hard-core fans were pretty happy to let the franchise rest for a while.

That's hardly true now though. Over the past ten years there's just one (not very good) film franchise still around, releasing one movie every couple summers. So I'm not sure I really see where the OP is coming from. We're hardly being inundated with Trek stuff anymore, and that's been the case for more than ten years.

Quimby
03-30-2015, 01:40 PM
No, in fact we need more Star Trek. Real Star Trek. A show that shows a future where people are at their best and that you would want to live in.

Voyager
03-30-2015, 02:34 PM
Star Wars was unique because it embraced all those tropes that Hollywood had been avoiding for years -- the Spaceport Bar with multitudinous aliens, some VERY non-human aliens, dogfights in space, weird space religions, robots as part of everyday life -- lots of robots, not just one or two. The public ate it up, despite the fears of the head honchos that they wouldn't Get It.


Not only did the public get it but a new generation of film critics also got it. The reviews of 2001 reprinted in Agel's book show a bunch of top line critics who had no idea about what was going on, even stuff that was pretty obvious.

As for everything else you said - you saved me a lot of writing.

Voyager
03-30-2015, 02:41 PM
There is a big difference between the two franchises. SW has a universe, but it is build around a story arc. You can obviously keep adding stuff to make money, but it is a bit artificial. I don't know how the sequels will be, but I'm not that hopeful. I'm for stopping when you get to the end. We don't need Harry Potter and the Real Estate Agent, do we?

Star Trek on the other hand is in a basically open universe. Even when you have arcs, they are not dominant. I'm beginning to watch DS9 all the way through and I'm enjoying that it is firmly in the ST universe while having a very different flavor from TNG.
The big problem I have with the reboot is that they show a lack of imagination. Find us new characters in a new part of the galaxy, not the same old characters with a new paint job.

Ryan_Liam
03-30-2015, 02:44 PM
That's hardly true now though. Over the past ten years there's just one (not very good) film franchise still around, releasing one movie every couple summers. So I'm not sure I really see where the OP is coming from. We're hardly being inundated with Trek stuff anymore, and that's been the case for more than ten years.

But there seems to be nothing else which will be that game changer to surpass Trek or Star Wars, so those two cultural icons are now dragged out of retirement, given a rinse down, and shoved out again and again to top up their pension money. It's not so much about being inundated, it's about them both being a block on creativity.

Simplicio
03-30-2015, 02:53 PM
But there seems to be nothing else which will be that game changer to surpass Trek or Star Wars, so those two cultural icons are now dragged out of retirement, given a rinse down, and shoved out again and again to top up their pension money. It's not so much about being inundated, it's about them both being a block on creativity.

I don't really see that. We've listed tons of non-SW, non-ST sci-fi films that have been made in recent years. Far more than the number of SW and ST films that have been made over the time period (or total, even). I don't see how you can perceive the existence of those two franchises exercising some sort of "block on creativity".

Anon01245
03-30-2015, 03:25 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing a new Star Trek series. That would be cool.

Ryan_Liam
03-30-2015, 04:39 PM
I don't really see that. We've listed tons of non-SW, non-ST sci-fi films that have been made in recent years. Far more than the number of SW and ST films that have been made over the time period (or total, even). I don't see how you can perceive the existence of those two franchises exercising some sort of "block on creativity".

Name a Science fiction film or tv series which has surpassed ST or SW impact.

Again, it's not about numbers, it's about cultural impact. I agree, there haven't been as many SW or ST films knocking about in recent years, but their cultural legacy hangs over Sci Fi like an albatross.

Master Wang-Ka
03-30-2015, 05:05 PM
You jusat weren't THERE, son.

I must respectfully disagree.

You do make some good and valid points. And yet, by the early to mid nineteen seventies... WHERE WERE THEY?

2001 was a good movie... but it was seldom shown on TV.
Moon Zero Two had its merits... but I didn't know it existed until the 1980s.
Forbidden Planet was quite good... but unless it surfaced on the Late Show, you were hosed.

I could keep going, but I won't. Good things appeared and were appreciated, and were mostly forgotten. The crap followed two of those stages, skipping the middle one. I saw and liked Rollerball, starring James Caan, for example, but it hit the theatres and was seen and appreciated... and vanished. It did not become a phenomenon. It did not cause a cult.

Because I WAS there, I remember the pop culture phenomena quite well. In the age before home video, back when you were at the mercy of the local theatre or your local TV affiliate to feed the SF monkey atop one's back... there were a variety of games in town, sure. But most of them were Star Trek or Star Wars, unless you were an early adopter of Beta or Laserdisc or Selectavision, or any number of clunky expensive things that finally lost out to VHS.

Trek got showed half to death in reruns.
Planet Of The Apes got showed half to death on televisions, and I well remember all night "ape-a-thons" at certain drive-ins and theatres, YEARS after the first movie came out.
Star Wars sat at the Playhouse 3 in Victoria, Texas, for YEARS after it came out. A dollar a ticket. I must have seen it fifty times in the summer of '78, alone.
Lost In Space got showed half to death in reruns, I suspect largely because another affiliate was showing Star Trek.

Sure, there were other items. But none with the power, the pop culture impact. 2001 was made in 1968, but I notice that James Bond movies didn't decide to include rocketships and zap guns, per se, until 1979... after Star Wars came out.

Hell, for that matter, I recall the tidal wave of insane space crap that came out in 1978, crested in 1978, receded by 1981, and arguably gave birth to ET by 1982.

Disagree if you like. Argue if you think it worthwhile. But don't tell me I wasn't there.

Simplicio
03-30-2015, 05:13 PM
Name a Science fiction film or tv series which has surpassed ST or SW impact.

I don't think the existence of more ST or SW are keeping new movies from having the same impact. Star Wars particularly, wasn't really impactful on Sci-fi (as Cal notes above, it was basically a pastiche of earlier ideas), but on the film industry on a whole. It (along with Jaws) created the modern big budget blockbuster. That isn't really something you can do twice, so the fact that another film hasn't done the same thing doesn't really mean anything.

Again, it's not about numbers, it's about cultural impact. I agree, there haven't been as many SW or ST films knocking about in recent years, but their cultural legacy hangs over Sci Fi like an albatross.

They certainly have a strong cultural legacy, but I disagree that that legacy is hurting anything. I don't think a world without new ST or SW movies/shows would really look any different than the actual world. People are still making new movies and films, some of which will live on in sequels and repeats and such, some won't.

foolsguinea
03-30-2015, 05:17 PM
No, in fact we need more Star Trek. Real Star Trek. A show that shows a future where people are at their best and that you would want to live in.There are sort of fannish small-budget Star Trek movies, using crowdfunding, with some of the cast from the DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise series. I haven't seen any of them, though.

Voyager
03-30-2015, 05:24 PM
I must respectfully disagree.

You do make some good and valid points. And yet, by the early to mid nineteen seventies... WHERE WERE THEY?

2001 was a good movie... but it was seldom shown on TV.
Moon Zero Two had its merits... but I didn't know it existed until the 1980s.
Forbidden Planet was quite good... but unless it surfaced on the Late Show, you were hosed.

I managed to see 2001 about a dozen times before it came out on VHS - theaters during the original showing, revivals, at Cons. But more than that its influence was all over the place. You played Also Sprach Zarathustra and everyone knew what you were talking about.
As for not being on TV, 2001 was a terrible movie for TV. Way too long for movie of the week shows. It lost something not being shown in Cinerama, shown on the TVs of the day it really sucked. And too cerebral.
As an example of a closed universe movie, it wasn't going to inspire any conventions. No one was going to a Con dressed as Heywood Floyd. If fanfic is your definition of influence, then it does indeed suffer.

Aeschines
03-30-2015, 05:26 PM
I'm pretty sure I was actually thinking of Sheckley's "The Prize of Peril," wherein the protagonist is a game show contestant, and dodging the general public, who can phone into the game show and report his whereabouts while he tries to avoid being nabbed (and killed!) for a defined length of time.Ah right, another great one. You and I are the rare Sheckley fans, it seems!

Voyager
03-30-2015, 05:29 PM
I don't think the existence of more ST or SW are keeping new movies from having the same impact. Star Wars particularly, wasn't really impactful on Sci-fi (as Cal notes above, it was basically a pastiche of earlier ideas), but on the film industry on a whole. It (along with Jaws) created the modern big budget blockbuster. That isn't really something you can do twice, so the fact that another film hasn't done the same thing doesn't really mean anything.

They certainly have a strong cultural legacy, but I disagree that that legacy is hurting anything. I don't think a world without new ST or SW movies/shows would really look any different than the actual world. People are still making new movies and films, some of which will live on in sequels and repeats and such, some won't.

It seems that the average person these days, when you mention scifi as you say, thinks movies and TV. Books, what are they? That is SW at work. Big influence on scifi, on science fiction, not so much.

I know I'm showing my age by even mentioning bookstores, but go to one and look at how much space is devoted cookie cutter ST and SW books. That is shelf space that could have been devoted to original work. That's a bad influence, right there.

DrDeth
03-30-2015, 05:34 PM
James Bond movies are still around after 50 years. Hollywood loves to put out familiar stuff.

and we love to watch it. They put out what sells- for the most part.

Master Wang-Ka
03-30-2015, 06:17 PM
I managed to see 2001 about a dozen times before it came out on VHS - theaters during the original showing, revivals, at Cons. But more than that its influence was all over the place. You played Also Sprach Zarathustra and everyone knew what you were talking about.
As for not being on TV, 2001 was a terrible movie for TV. Way too long for movie of the week shows. It lost something not being shown in Cinerama, shown on the TVs of the day it really sucked. And too cerebral.
As an example of a closed universe movie, it wasn't going to inspire any conventions. No one was going to a Con dressed as Heywood Floyd. If fanfic is your definition of influence, then it does indeed suffer.

I'm not saying that fanfic proves or disproves anything. Lord, I remember when everyone and their dog in the advertising business started using "Zarathustra" in their radio and TV commercials, due to the association and the fact that it was public domain music.

It impacted the culture, sure. Any good movie does that. It did not inspire a wave of imitations, merchandise, spinoffs, or even, really, continuation. It got a sequel. Whoopee. So did "The Godfather."

The distinction I am drawing here is that it did not generate a cult following. And even some cult objects fall into disinterest; I don't see a whole lot of Planet Of The Apes cosplay. Or merch. Even though the modern remakes were pretty good.

As opposed to a certain Fox TV series, a "sci fi western," that was mishandled, cancelled, brought back for a movie, and then left and forgotten... which has begun to spawn a cult.

Or a TV show that is approaching its fiftieth anniversary, and still remains fresh in the public's mind's eye.

The Other Waldo Pepper
03-30-2015, 06:47 PM
Name a Science fiction film or tv series which has surpassed ST or SW impact.

Well, after the insanely disappointing NEMESIS killed off the TNG franchise, years and years and years went by before the STAR TREK reboot hit the big screen...

...and, y'know what? It did okay. It wasn't, like, in the top five for the year or anything; that's just crazy talk, it obviously wasn't going to have that kind of impact; but it made a respectable showing, I guess. And it came out the year after IRON MAN (which was a much bigger hit), and the year before IRON MAN 2 (which was also a much bigger hit).

After that, THE AVENGERS was, of course, the biggest movie of the year. And the year after that, Trek hit back with INTO DARKNESS which -- well, it didn't crack the top ten, because (a) c'mon, be serious; especially since (b) IRON MAN 3 came out that year, obliterating it.

And the year after that -- well, TREK took a year off, but WINTER SOLDIER was a colossal hit; and so was X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, though I'm not sure whether that counts; and so was GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, which I'm quite sure counts; and the year after that is now, when AGE OF ULTRON is upcoming and everybody is very excited, and TREK -- is taking another year off.

But, man, come 2016 we'll all be real excited about a new TREK movie, right? I mean, probably not as excited as we'll be for CIVIL WAR -- because those TREK flicks can't even really compete with the THOR flicks -- but, hey, that's still pretty good.

Voyager
03-30-2015, 06:52 PM
I'm not saying that fanfic proves or disproves anything. Lord, I remember when everyone and their dog in the advertising business started using "Zarathustra" in their radio and TV commercials, due to the association and the fact that it was public domain music.

It impacted the culture, sure. Any good movie does that. It did not inspire a wave of imitations, merchandise, spinoffs, or even, really, continuation. It got a sequel. Whoopee. So did "The Godfather."

Not true about the merch. I had a Moon bus model kit. Howard Johnson's had 2001 themed kids menus when it was out. I believe Marvel even did a comic based on it, with Bowman as the Star Child fighting bad guys, though I've only seen one page of one and am pretty fuzzy on it.

Pounding a franchise into the ground is a recent development. Gone with the Wind did not have a sequel. Neither did the Wizard of Oz movie for decades. (The book did, of course.) ST-TOS didn't have a lot more merch than 2001, despite Roddenberry's best efforts. I think I still have the catalog created during the show somewhere.
SW create the doll ^h^h^h^H action figures from characters boom.

The distinction I am drawing here is that it did not generate a cult following. And even some cult objects fall into disinterest; I don't see a whole lot of Planet Of The Apes cosplay. Or merch. Even though the modern remakes were pretty good.

As opposed to a certain Fox TV series, a "sci fi western," that was mishandled, cancelled, brought back for a movie, and then left and forgotten... which has begun to spawn a cult.

Or a TV show that is approaching its fiftieth anniversary, and still remains fresh in the public's mind's eye.

I bought everything 2001 related I could find, and also lots of early ST stuff. I was one of the letter writers during its run.
I think Cal's point though is not that they had no influence, which would, be silly to say, but that they have a bad influence, and other things you ignored, like 2001, had major influences also. And not as negative.

ST was an Astounding style space opera - EE Smith or Edmund Hamilton or Campbell. SW was a Planet Stories space opera. 2001 was more golden age "thought variant" kind of a story.

Trinopus
03-30-2015, 07:28 PM
Ah right, another great one. You and I are the rare Sheckley fans, it seems!

The same to you doubled! ;)

Ryan_Liam
03-30-2015, 07:31 PM
Well, after the insanely disappointing NEMESIS killed off the TNG franchise, years and years and years went by before the STAR TREK reboot hit the big screen...

...and, y'know what? It did okay. It wasn't, like, in the top five for the year or anything; that's just crazy talk, it obviously wasn't going to have that kind of impact; but it made a respectable showing, I guess. And it came out the year after IRON MAN (which was a much bigger hit), and the year before IRON MAN 2 (which was also a much bigger hit).

After that, THE AVENGERS was, of course, the biggest movie of the year. And the year after that, Trek hit back with INTO DARKNESS which -- well, it didn't crack the top ten, because (a) c'mon, be serious; especially since (b) IRON MAN 3 came out that year, obliterating it.

And the year after that -- well, TREK took a year off, but WINTER SOLDIER was a colossal hit; and so was X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, though I'm not sure whether that counts; and so was GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, which I'm quite sure counts; and the year after that is now, when AGE OF ULTRON is upcoming and everybody is very excited, and TREK -- is taking another year off.

But, man, come 2016 we'll all be real excited about a new TREK movie, right? I mean, probably not as excited as we'll be for CIVIL WAR -- because those TREK flicks can't even really compete with the THOR flicks -- but, hey, that's still pretty good.

The quote you referred too is in reference to CULTURAL IMPACT, not box office sales. ST and SW have been around significantly in popular culture for over 30 years.

The Other Waldo Pepper
03-30-2015, 07:41 PM
The quote you referred too is in reference to CULTURAL IMPACT, not box office sales. ST and SW have been around significantly in popular culture for over 30 years.

I figure the box-office returns suggest something about cultural impact: little kids dress up as Marvel characters for Halloween, and grown-up cosplayers do their thing year-round; folks are watching the primetime TV series sure as SNL riffs on them as an easy pop-culture reference; and I understand some people even read the comic books.

Horatio Hellpop
03-30-2015, 08:08 PM
Prior to Star Wars, Science Fiction movies were an embarrassing ghetto in Hollywood. Low budgets, has-been actors, and guys in rubber monster suits were the norm. Charlton Heston went from "Leading Man" to "that guy in The Omega Man and Soylent Green." 2001 was brilliant, of course, and kind of an anomaly. It also lost a metric crapton of money in its initial release (as, in those days, did most movies of course) and did not inspire the major studios to sink real money and talent into SF movies. Prior to Star Wars, the model of a successful SF movie was the anemic Logan's Run.

Star Wars did for Science Fiction movies what Iron Man did for superheroes--made it something that non-nerds would go watch unironically. And the unending line of SW and Trek sequels doesn't crowd out the kind of new, innovative SF movies you'd rather watch. On the contrary, it makes it likelier they will get produced. And if you genuinely don't want to watch the new sequels, you'd be surprised how easy it is not to go see them.

Aeschines
03-30-2015, 09:11 PM
The same to you doubled! ;)Lol, NICE! I'm glad you're keeping your Options open.

Aeschines
03-30-2015, 09:14 PM
I'm sympathetic to the OP, but one big reason is this:

I'm not a fan of the latest ST movies. I saw one, didn't like it, and the second one looked like ass.

The SW prequels were an abortion, and I am very, *very* leery of the upcoming Ep. VII. I think it's gonna suck.

So yeah, one reason not to like the latest *goods* is that they ain't good (or seem about to be not good).

If they were superior entertainment, then, well, there would be little room to complain. But when they are crap, yeah, they are taking $ away from other movies that could do better.

AtomicDog
03-30-2015, 09:17 PM
No, in fact we need more Star Trek. Real Star Trek. A show that shows a future where people are at their best and that you would want to live in.

*Stands up and cheers*

Dale Sams
03-30-2015, 09:28 PM
Prior to Star Wars, Science Fiction movies were an embarrassing ghetto in Hollywood. Low budgets, has-been actors, and guys in rubber monster suits were the norm. Charlton Heston went from "Leading Man" to "that guy in The Omega Man and Soylent Green." 2001 was brilliant, of course, and kind of an anomaly. It also lost a metric crapton of money in its initial release (as, in those days, did most movies of course) and did not inspire the major studios to sink real money and talent into SF movies. Prior to Star Wars, the model of a successful SF movie was the anemic Logan's Run.

Star Wars did for Science Fiction movies what Iron Man did for superheroes--made it something that non-nerds would go watch unironically. And the unending line of SW and Trek sequels doesn't crowd out the kind of new, innovative SF movies you'd rather watch. On the contrary, it makes it likelier they will get produced. And if you genuinely don't want to watch the new sequels, you'd be surprised how easy it is not to go see them.

Please.

1) Charlton Heston was STILL a leading man in quite a number of high-profile movies from Planet of the Apes to The Omega Man and welllllll after.

2) Plenty of non-nerds saw: Logan's Run, Omega Man, Soylent Green, all five of the Planet of the Apes, Silent Running, The Forbin Project, Westworld, Futureworld, The Andromeda Strain, Rollerball, Capricorn One....etc...etc...

They didn't keep making Sci-Fi movies because they love losing money.

Aquadementia
03-30-2015, 10:49 PM
There's Flash Gordon, Gundam and Futurama. All these other things are filler.

I have mixed feelings the current state of Star Trek and Star Wars.

I want more Trek and Wars. However, I've done the unthinkable and stopped watching.

I made it through Voyager, Enterprise and Nemesis without bailing. But when Trek gave us a new Kirk and original crew that went where man has gone before and that was a deal breaker for me. Back when TNG came out I might have accepted a reboot with continuing adventures but going into the future with a new crew seems like a better plan.

I can find a lot to complain about the Wars prequels but I did enjoy them as spacey action movies. Where they lost me is by doing a second, and inferior, Clone Wars cartoon. It makes so much less sense to do one after Revenge of the Sith came out. It started with a horrible movie and maybe I always picked the worst time to check back in with the series but it kept being a disappointment and I had to consider it unwatchable.

I really hope the new series of Star Wars films are going to be good. There is more then I care to think of against it.

Frankly, I expect I'll like the next Guardians of the Galaxy more.

No, in fact we need more Star Trek. Real Star Trek. A show that shows a future where people are at their best and that you would want to live in.
That's exactly what I want. But everyone else seems to think if it isn't dark and the Federation isn't being torn apart by internal conflict then it's boring.
(I almost wrote "borging")

Ah right, another great one. You and I are the rare Sheckley fans, it seems!
I don't know. He seems like a second rate Finn O’Donnevan.

Urbanredneck
03-30-2015, 11:19 PM
I wished they would have kept the tv shows "Space 1999" and "UFO" as well as the saturday morning "Space Academy".

Aeschines
03-30-2015, 11:52 PM
I don't know. He seems like a second rate Finn O’Donnevan.lol!!!

Horatio Hellpop
03-31-2015, 07:44 AM
Please.

1) Charlton Heston was STILL a leading man in quite a number of high-profile movies from Planet of the Apes to The Omega Man and welllllll after.

Clearly, we define "leading man" differently. His career before Planet of the Apes was characterized by leading roles in El Cid, Ben Hur and Touch of Evil. His career after--you don't share my low opinion of Omega Man and Soylent Green, I'm not sure we have a common referent to discuss this--was characterized by SeaQuest 2032 and Dynasty.

2) Plenty of non-nerds saw: Logan's Run, Omega Man, Soylent Green, all five of the Planet of the Apes, Silent Running, The Forbin Project, Westworld, Futureworld, The Andromeda Strain, Rollerball, Capricorn One....etc...etc...

No. Not a single non-nerd I'm aware of watched all five Planet of the Apes movies. I don't think you know what the word means. Such an action defines nerds.

Master Wang-Ka
03-31-2015, 08:04 AM
Not true about the merch. I had a Moon bus model kit. Howard Johnson's had 2001 themed kids menus when it was out.

True. I remember.

So let's go to Wal-Mart or any comic shop right now, and you can show me all the 2001 tie ins and merchandise and books and so forth.

Master Wang-Ka
03-31-2015, 08:10 AM
I wished they would have kept the tv shows "Space 1999" and "UFO" as well as the saturday morning "Space Academy".

I can still watch the first three Star Wars movies, and I still enjoy the old ST:TOS shows.

I adored Space Academy, and its sequel, Jason Of Star Command, when it was new. I recently found and bought both series on DVD. They do NOT hold up well, and very much qualify as part of the wave of Space Crap that came out to capitalize on Star Wars Fever.

Some have the oomph to become legend. Some do not. But I will agree with some who say that while some parts (ST:TOS, Star Wars: A New Hope) have it... some parts (Nemesis, ST5, the Star Wars prequels)... do not.

Master Wang-Ka
03-31-2015, 08:16 AM
Some people seem to think I'm saying either that there was no SF before Trek and Wars, or that there was no merchandising. I said no such thing, nor did I mean it. One of the funniest things I've ever seen is a Space Patrol segment where the show was apparently running a bit long, and the stars of the show are shilling a space helmet that can be had with cereal box tops, and they're obviously making it up as they go along to desperately fill the airtime until we cut to something else...

There was sf. But it wasn't on demand, and short of buying a projector or Selectavision, depending on your time frame, very little of it was available when you wanted it. Trek and Wars managed this through sheer ubiquity and demand.

THAT's what I'm saying.

AncientHumanoid
03-31-2015, 09:00 AM
I wished they would have kept the tv shows "Space 1999" and "UFO" as well as the saturday morning "Space Academy".

Just this weekend, I Roku-ed a couple of eps of Space 1999. For what it's worth, it's held up pretty well for a show of its era. The costumes look silly, and the FX are low end, but the pacing, the diolog, the character interaction, all were decent. The premise? Eh... Needed talking apes.

Voyager
03-31-2015, 11:52 AM
True. I remember.

So let's go to Wal-Mart or any comic shop right now, and you can show me all the 2001 tie ins and merchandise and books and so forth.

Lucas started the flooding the market with product stuff. Before SW there was relatively little ST stuff around - my point was that it was on the order of 2001 stuff, with a few more books.
The question is whether all the shlock is a good thing. I'm really quite fine with 2001 stuff limited to interesting stuff like Richter's memoir. I don't really need Bowman and his wise-cracking sidekick Hal running around the solar system fighting crime.

And again, importance is not measured by shelf space in WalMart.

Just Asking Questions
03-31-2015, 12:09 PM
Just this weekend, I Roku-ed a couple of eps of Space 1999. For what it's worth, it's held up pretty well for a show of its era. The costumes look silly, and the FX are low end, but the pacing, the diolog, the character interaction, all were decent. The premise? Eh... Needed talking apes.

Which episodes? Did you watch it when it was new? I find one's appreciation of S1999 depends a lot on which eps they see first. Episodes like Dragon's Domain make you want to come back for more, eps like Missing Link make you go "what the hell was that"?:)

Master Wang-Ka
03-31-2015, 12:14 PM
Lucas started the flooding the market with product stuff. Before SW there was relatively little ST stuff around - my point was that it was on the order of 2001 stuff, with a few more books.
The question is whether all the shlock is a good thing. I'm really quite fine with 2001 stuff limited to interesting stuff like Richter's memoir. I don't really need Bowman and his wise-cracking sidekick Hal running around the solar system fighting crime.

And again, importance is not measured by shelf space in WalMart.

True. But I would argue that it's a pretty major sign of societal impact.

And having grown up around the same time as ST and 2001, I remember the impact made by each one. And I recall a hell of a lot more ST still lying around in 1976 than there was 2001. If you found a Pan Am Space Clipper in a store in '76, it was because it had been sitting there gathering dust since '69. If you saw a USS Enterprise, it was because the AMT corporation was making more money off it than it was off any of their other products, and it had likely rolled off the line last Tuesday.

Master Wang-Ka
03-31-2015, 12:19 PM
And as long as I'm yammering about societal impact, y'notice how you don't see a whole lot of ET stuff any more?

Between 1982 and 1985, I literally could not go from my house to my job without seeing ET, either on a billboard, a Happy Meal, an ad, a commercial, or some damn thing or other. And yet, with the wave of 80s nostalgia, you don't see ET, arguably one of the most impactful films of the eighties.""

And yet, the other day at Target, I saw action figures from Big Trouble In Little China, of all things.

No, shelf space and merch depth does not equal quality, nor is it the best measure of a film or TV series. But it can sure give you a hell of an idea how many people remember it...

Dale Sams
03-31-2015, 01:51 PM
Clearly, we define "leading man" differently. His career before Planet of the Apes was characterized by leading roles in El Cid, Ben Hur and Touch of Evil. His career after--you don't share my low opinion of Omega Man and Soylent Green, I'm not sure we have a common referent to discuss this--was characterized by SeaQuest 2032 and Dynasty.



No. Not a single non-nerd I'm aware of watched all five Planet of the Apes movies. I don't think you know what the word means. Such an action defines nerds.

I define leading man as being the lead actor in a film. The fact that he was the lead man in a number of high-profile films* (and at age 50) after his Sci-fi trilogy just adds more credence to him not being as 'has-been'

*Midway
Earthquake
Airport 75

Yeah, they're bloated or disaster films. No, he didn't get the lead in films like "The Sting", cause like I said, he was fifty. But they were money makers and seen by millions.

Then there's the leads in the other Sci-fi films I mentioned, James Brolin, Richard Benjamin, Hal Holbrook, Bruce Dern, Elliot Gould. Those guys weren't washed up at the time and were fairly hot property when they made their films.

If the right project came along, I could see a Redford or Newman signing on. It's not like they didn't sign on for dubious western or disaster films.

Master Wang-Ka
03-31-2015, 01:58 PM
There have been movies I thought Samuel L. Jackson in where I thought he was brilliant, and there have been some I thought were not so hot.

But I would hesitate to call him washed up just because he was in "The Phantom Menace." Even though I didn't much care for the movie.

Dale Sams
03-31-2015, 02:10 PM
If anything, Star Wars *dumbed down* Sci-Fi films.

Soylent Green
Rollerball
THX-1138
A Boy and his Dog
Silent Running
Dark Star
2001

Those are some plodding films there. Most of which are cult high-concept films.

AncientHumanoid
03-31-2015, 07:16 PM
Which episodes? Did you watch it when it was new? I find one's appreciation of S1999 depends a lot on which eps they see first. Episodes like Dragon's Domain make you want to come back for more, eps like Missing Link make you go "what the hell was that"?:)

Yeah, I saw them new. I saw TOS new. :eek:

Watched the first three eps of season one. I decided to think about overall entertainment instead of my usual hyper alert nitpickery.

Just Asking Questions
04-01-2015, 01:19 AM
Yeah, I saw them new. I saw TOS new. :eek:

You ARE ancient! I had to wait for syndication in 1970.

Do you remember the dinosaurs?

AncientHumanoid
04-01-2015, 09:12 AM
Thems was good eatin!

The Other Waldo Pepper
04-01-2015, 10:31 AM
Let Star Wars and Star Trek Die

[William Shatner]

Then LET them die!

[/dismissive hand gesture]

You Klingon BASTARD! You've Killed My SON!

gnoitall
04-01-2015, 10:53 AM
NM

AncientHumanoid
04-01-2015, 01:02 PM
NM

I have no response to that

Voyager
04-01-2015, 01:16 PM
If anything, Star Wars *dumbed down* Sci-Fi films.

Soylent Green
Rollerball
THX-1138
A Boy and his Dog
Silent Running
Dark Star
2001

Those are some plodding films there. Most of which are cult high-concept films.

But SW came from the tradition of dumbed down science fiction, namely Planet Stories (not counting Bradbury stories.) Dumbed down but great fun, just like SW was great fun.

Master Wang-Ka
04-01-2015, 01:24 PM
...well, if you wanna get right down to it, none of it was horribly original... except when it was.

Star Wars got made because Lucas couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon. Flash Gordon got made because it was a hit newspaper cartoon. The newspaper cartoon started out as a ripoff of Buck Rogers... which wound up eclipsing the original due to the artist's superior style and imagination (Buck Rogers' art was about what you'd expect for the 1920s funny pages).

I suppose you could call it an evolution.

Trek's ancestors include the Lensmen series and several other classics, although I am led to consider a story of organized space exploration: Voyage Of The Space Beagle, as one of its spiritual ancestors. But it went its own way. Except when it was ripping off and codifying ancient tropes (computer wakes up and tries to kill you, hostile androids, negative space wedgie threatens the ship, alien horror runs loose aboard, shapeshifting alien impersonates important crew, and so on).

Eventually, someone will put a new twist on either or both, file off the serial numbers and paint it a different color, and we'll be off again. Complete with action figures and coloring books.

Miller
04-01-2015, 01:30 PM
If you strike Star Wars down, it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Master Wang-Ka
04-01-2015, 01:38 PM
If you strike Star Wars down, it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Hasn't that happened already? Last I heard, Lucasfilms, at the point of sale to Disney, was the seventh most powerful economy on the planet.

...oh, wait, no, that was Deathklok. Never mind...

RTFirefly
04-01-2015, 02:30 PM
and we love to watch it. They put out what sells- for the most part.Mostly they put out movies similar to movies that have already sold well, of course. (Or turning bestselling books into movies, e.g. Hunger Games.) And what can be more similar to a movie that has sold well than a sequel to that movie? And if it can be turned into a whole string of sequels, then so much the better.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.