Red X said:
Frybird said:
Because...seriously, i like "The Avengers", very much so, but what risk has Whedon taken on that Abrams didn't.
many more.
Both have made a movie based on a risk THE STUDIOS have taken and managed to not piss off the Fanboys (admittedly, Whedon moreso) by delivering a decent Action Flick with some cool scenes, a by-the-books forgettable premise, a fun new look at a well established character (Hulk/Spock) and a seemingly crazy decision that may or may not be fully explored in the sequel.
Star Trek wasn't much of a risk considering how many there are and how bad the last ones where. The Avegers is a type of movie no one has done before (properly), it took other IPs and fused them in one congealed universe. Star Trek is reboot, bigger risk? Not really. And really the Hulk in the Avengers isn't new, it's about the same as it's always been a troubled scientist and a green monster with a big heart. (simplified, i know)
By that logic, we would have had a new Batman Movie by 1999, and yet we did not.
Star Trek was something that was slowly but surely turning into box office poison considering that the movies used to be somewhat excluding to the general audience as is, but also becoming something it's actual fans started to hate. And with the decision to make it a prequel with young versions of beloved characters (wich worked sooo well for the Star Wars Prequels) as well as literally destroying the established continuity still succeding as a well liked movie (i know people who don't like the Reboot, sure, but as i see it most people like it) is a feat not to be taken lightly.
And while the Avengers is technically a movie no one has done before, as an archivement it's nowhere near...let's say Peter Jackson adapting something deemed unfilmable within one long production.
"Avengers" undoubtely had a lot of luggage to carry with many many years of comic book mythology, but at it's heart it's a movie about a bunch of sort-of-misfits having to and succeding in a common goal even though they could not be more different from each other...something that, in the end, has been done before.
A deserved success: Yes. A groundbreaking archievement in moviemaking? No, and neither is Star Trek, but as it stands i have a hard time truly considering one of them to be far better or more impressive than the other.
It just happened to be that Bob liked one more than the other for reasons i reeeeeeeeeeaally couldn't possibly fathom.
you mean other than it being the first movie Avengers ever that was more than decent, clever dialogue, awesome visual, great set pieces, and more memorable scenes.
The only Major criticisms of the Avengers i can say is that the plot was too simple, the idea of those people in the dark controlling shield and nuking New York is silly and the overall solution was a rip-off of Independence day which was a rip-off of war of the worlds. A rip-off of a rip-off i'll admit is just sad
Star Trek's writing was more complex but I honestly could tell you what the story was about (excluding the Top Gun thing)
See above. What i wanted to say with that statement is that Moviebob tends to say a lot how an Avengers Movie is what he has always dreamed about but didn't dare to imagine. Of course that makes it kind of a bigger deal for him...while at the also making it hard to imagine that he's completely objective about it.
Even as for "deserved better", you have to look at how massively skeptical everyone was before Star Trek based on it being a while that the movie series that has always been shaky at best brought up something that actually entertained more people than just the fanboys. It may not have been all the Geeks have hoped for, but it worked out pretty well.
i think it goes both ways, in one sense it's a bunch of kids not wanting to share their toys but going deeper it's the fact the small fanbase that support the franchise in begin are being left behind so everyone can enjoy. I'm all for sharing but if people aren't going to enjoy what you get out of it give them something else don't just change it.
Don't get me wrong they can and they will regardless for their money but it's going to suck the life out of our little neck of the woods.
I don't understand how the small (ha!) fanbase of Star Trek was "left behind" by the filmmakers. You make it sound a bit like that one Onion News Parody in wich "Trekkies" complained about the movie being fun and watchable.
Including one group does not always have to exclude another. And since i have a hard time believing that any Star Trek Fan truely LOVED "Nemesis" or "Insurrection", i don't see what has been taken away here. As i see it, Star Trek as a movie franchise was failing on EVERY Front.
EDIT: And yes i actually like every one of Abrams' MOVIES beyond just finding it "okay and forgettable" and go so far as to say that MI3 is the best of the series, even if it is less clever than the first one.
that explains a lot...
Does it?
Yes, i like Abrams' output as a filmmaker, and therefore wrote something in defense of him....wich is not to say that i don't find faults in each of his movies, but still crying foul over him being chosen as Star Wars Director feels to me like a premature overreaction.
but i kinda agree with you with the MI franchise, i'm struggling with MI1 and 3 because both have equal pros and cons IMO.
As do i, but in the end i find MI3 to be the most well-rounded in terms of plot and pacing, and it does have undeniably the bonus of having an amazing Badguy.