Zobovor <
zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:06:44 AM UTC-7, Gustavo Wombat, of the
> Seattle Wombats wrote:
>
>> We all grow old, and many of us still have value.
>
> Yes, but I still maintain that the main draw, the primary appeal, of Star
> Trek was never the actors, but the world and the message.
The characters and the world, hand in hand. Deep Space 9 would not be
beloved if it were all about the message — it has one of the bleakest
triumphs ever.
> Many of the actors they ended up choosing were quite excellent, but the
> whole reason the Picard series exists is because somebody decided Star
> Trek needed star appeal, so they dug up Patrick Stewart and somehow
> convinced him to resume the role despite being 81 years old.
Stewart also reprised Professor X, so I think he knows what he is doing.
> But now instead of being wise and virile, he's ancient and decrepit.
Professor X is old and decrepit in Logan. Picard is old and disillusioned,
but finds some meaning in his life other than puttering about with his
weird Irish Romulans — his body is failing, but his spirit is rekindled by
having a sense of purpose, ultimately along with his body.
I think you have to take the two roles side by side to see that Stewart is
trying to show different forms of aging. I think Logan was the more
successful of the two, but liked ST:Picard well enough.
> We all know he's only got a few years left in him, and they're trying to
> squeeze a few more seasons' worth of entertainment value out of the man
> before he kicks the bucket, and I don't think it's right.
Pretty sure that Stewart could have any life he wants right now, and work
on any type of project. I’m not so worried about elder abuse here.
If Ty hey dragged out Gates McFaddon from wherever she’s been hiding and
gave us “Star Trek: Beverly” I might feel differently, but Stewart clearly
wants to work.
(If “Star Trek: Beverly” was Quincy In Space, with Dr. Crusher quickly
explaining that she became more interested in geriatric care, and that
medical examiner was the obvious progression past that, I would watch it
though)
> It's a symptom of a larger problem, where Hollywood has inexplicably
> decided that we all want to see elderly, wrinkled versions of our favorite 1980's heroes.
People want the stories to continue. There’s new stuff with new characters
elsewhere, go watch that instead if it’s more your jam.
Shatter is probably angry Kirk is dead.
> Yes, a lot of these actors are still chugging along and, yes, I suppose
> they appreciate the paycheck. But it's geriatic exploitation. They did
> it in recent years with Arnold Scwarzenegger as a grey, wrinkly
> Terminator. They did a new Rambo movie starring a 75-year-old Sylvester
> Stallone. There's a new Top Gun movie coming out, just in time for Tom
> Cruise to qualify for the senior citizen's discount at Denny's. And as
> Travoltron said, they did it with the latest Ghostbusters movie, trotting
> out a bunch of washed-up old men and putting them in the jumpsuits and
> proton packs again.
Yeah, and I watched none of those because they didn’t seem interesting. I
don’t care what Maverick and Goose are up to 30 years later, unless it’s
surprisingly awesome.
> It's not inspiring. It's not awesome. It's just sad. And it's
> orchestrated only to put the butts of middle-aged men in movie theater
> seats for a couple of hours.
>
> Mark Hamill conducted a series of interviews leading up to his role in
> the new Star Wars films, reprising the Luke Skywalker character.
> Obviously he couldn't bad-mouth Disney, but he got the point across. You
> can tell he strongly disagreed with all of it. Now, unlike a lot of the
> above characters, George Lucas always envisioned bringing Luke Skywalker
> back one day as an aged, wisened Jedi to train a future generation. He's
> been talking about it since the 1980's. But the way they brought Luke
> back, and what they turned him into, was a complete travesty. Apparently
> the Mouse thought we all wanted to see our childhood heroes turn into
> bitter old farts and/or get killed on-screen.
Hamill said he initially disagreed with it, but then came to like it. I’m
not going to try to read more into Hamill’s words than what he said.
The Last Jedi was a fascinating movie in many respects — the necessary
course correction after the retread of The Force Awakens, and a brilliant
way to end the saga. Deconstruct the story and set the stage for a new
beginning. The Skywalker family is ultimately not important, heroes come
from anywhere and even broom boy might be the next hero.
It had lots of flaws, but it inherited a mess that it had to respond to.
After The Force Awakens just retold the general plot of A New Hope, and set
up Rey to have the exact same character arc as Luke, with the same Hero’s
Journey following the same pages of Joseph Campbell’s book, where do you
go? Tear apart the hero’s journey, but end on a note of hope and
emphasizing the power of the story.
The prequel trilogy is the fall of a hero. The original trilogy is the rise
of a hero. The two sequels smash the very concept of a hero.
Pity they tacked another movie on after it. That one was unnecessary and
shit.
> My point, and I do have one, is that they've got to stop doing this. It's awful.
You may not want to watch the Boba Fett series.
>> The Netflix series, that Machina thing, and Cyberverse try to be almost G1.
>> It’s the worst of both worlds.
>
> I still don't see why everybody rags on the Netflix series so hard. I
> mean, it wasn't perfection, but it was entertaining for a few hours. I
> didn't hate it. It's incompatible with the G1 cartoon, but so is
> basically every other Transformers continuity that exists, but that's nothing new.
But it also wasn’t good. The characters were flat and lifeless.