Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Sep 18, 2021 - 10:51 AM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)

I am not above critiquing certain shows in how they manage 'diversity' in their products.

Star Trek Discovery for example. The first female black lead in a Star Trek series? Nice. Actual gay couples? About time. Execution? Horrendous. The first season of Star Trek Discovery really seemed to forget that it was an ensemble show because the character of Michael Burnham is such a spotlight hog that it makes the first season an excruciating endurance test, especially for those who don't like Michael. With other Star Trek shows, if you didn't like a certain character, odds were really good that other characters you do like would have their episodes. That is not the case for Discovery, a show that puts Michael front and center for every episode. Even if other characters somehow manage to get their own stories, it's usually in the service of Michael's character growth.

And the show really doesn't give Michael any time to earn the audience's respect before giving her monumental opportunities to do "awesome" things. She defeats the imposter captain, saves ALL of existence (Not just one reality) and stops a war where the Federation was on the brink of losing before Season One even ends.

If you want me to stack more against Michael, I am also not a fan of show runners who create characters and use them to retcon other established characters. Take Spock for example. Making Michael his sister was not only an idea that didn't work (Spock may be private about his family, but THIS private?), but having her relationship with Spock be done in such a way that the show literally tells us that Spock would never have been the Spock we know if he didn't have such a wonderful sister. This just feels like the show runners taking a beloved science fiction icon that has been recognized world wide for over half a century and saying "He's like this because of a new character we created. So if you like Spock, thank us!". That is a far greater disrespect to a character than simply switching their genders just for the heck of it.

 
 Posted:   Sep 18, 2021 - 4:12 PM   
 By:   King Solium   (Member)

I am not above critiquing certain shows in how they manage 'diversity' in their products.


That's the critique. Destroying the legacy of established pop culture characters and putting in replacements who are horribly written only for the sake of virtual signalling.

 
 Posted:   Sep 18, 2021 - 6:16 PM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)


That's the critique. Destroying the legacy of established pop culture characters and putting in replacements who are horribly written only for the sake of virtual signalling.


The only way I can see a 'female Indiana Jones' ruining the franchise's legacy is if they establish that all the films starring Harrison Ford were just dreams for female Indy. That 'could' ruin the legacy because it's pretty much saying that the films didn't happen because it was all in her head. On the other hand, I still wouldn't say that would destroy the legacy because... you don't have to accept the new movie! Just like me with Star Trek V (A film that came 'this' close to actually destroying the original series legacy), I choose not to accept it as canon. Going from IV to VI flows much better as it continues the themes more directly from the previous movie and the original crew aren't portrayed as incompetent backstabbing idiots.

Now I highly doubt that the new movie is going in this direction. Even if it doesn't meet your expectations, how can it destroy the Legacy? It certainly can't destroy what it's meant for you if you still have the original movies to go back to.

 
 Posted:   Sep 18, 2021 - 9:02 PM   
 By:   King Solium   (Member)


That's the critique. Destroying the legacy of established pop culture characters and putting in replacements who are horribly written only for the sake of virtual signalling.


The only way I can see a 'female Indiana Jones' ruining the franchise's legacy is if they establish that all the films starring Harrison Ford were just dreams for female Indy. That 'could' ruin the legacy because it's pretty much saying that the films didn't happen because it was all in her head. On the other hand, I still wouldn't say that would destroy the legacy because... you don't have to accept the new movie! Just like me with Star Trek V (A film that came 'this' close to actually destroying the original series legacy), I choose not to accept it as canon. Going from IV to VI flows much better as it continues the themes more directly from the previous movie and the original crew aren't portrayed as incompetent backstabbing idiots.

Now I highly doubt that the new movie is going in this direction. Even if it doesn't meet your expectations, how can it destroy the Legacy? It certainly can't destroy what it's meant for you if you still have the original movies to go back to.


But its Disney/Kathleen Kennedy. In Star Wars they made Han a bad dad who leaves his family and abandons his wife!!! Luke once a white knight succumbs to the dark side of the force, and almost kills his nephew. After failing in murdering his sisters son goes off to some isolated island to be a loner bum. A young lady who is the daughter of the emperor is the last person standing and takes the legacy Skywalker name for herself.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 19, 2021 - 3:00 AM   
 By:   Rameau   (Member)

Maybe this new one will be so bad that it will end the franchise (Crystal Skull bad), but with George Lukas out of the picture, at least it has a chance to be good.

 
 Posted:   Sep 19, 2021 - 3:31 PM   
 By:   Lukas Kendall   (Member)


I have deleted some inflammatory posts. Please behave yourselves.

Lukas

 
 Posted:   Sep 19, 2021 - 4:44 PM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)


But its Disney/Kathleen Kennedy. In Star Wars they made Han a bad dad who leaves his family and abandons his wife!!! Luke once a white knight succumbs to the dark side of the force, and almost kills his nephew. After failing in murdering his sisters son goes off to some isolated island to be a loner bum. A young lady who is the daughter of the emperor is the last person standing and takes the legacy Skywalker name for herself.


Some valid points there. I did feel that the portrayal of Han removed all that progression he went through in the original trilogy. You kind of get the notion that JJ just wanted to do a movie with Han Solo as he was in 'A New Hope' so he recycled practically everything. I find that exchange between him and Leia about "going back to what they do best" laughable because me immediate thought upon hearing him say that was "You were NEVER good at smuggling!"

I'll save my thoughts on the Last Jedi in a more appropriate thread, but I will say that Rey choosing the Skywalker name was something that I did like. Palpatine has grown to hade the name Skywalker so much that he practically makes that point when he tried to kill Kylo. So having Rey take the name Skywalker was sort of a neat way of defeating Palpatine's legacy by choosing a different one. Granted I would have gone with Organa since that name never gave up on anything or anyone, but I digress.

But back on Indiana, there is one important person that you left out who plays an important role in the next film. James Mangold. Just look at how he went from 'The Wolverine' and straight into 'Logan'. Two completely different films with different tones but still successful in their own way. And if introducing female successors to iconic characters is still a worry, just look at how he introduced X-23. I'm not that film's biggest fan but the way she was handled and executed was one of the very few excellent moments that I can recall from all of these X-Men films. I think James Mangold will do the Indiana Jones legacy justice. That's my hope at least.

 
 Posted:   Sep 19, 2021 - 5:38 PM   
 By:   King Solium   (Member)

Thing is, it's Indiana Jones series. Take away IJ's and its just something else altogether. I have no issues with a well written female lead for a new series. The "National Treasure" series was a lot of fun. Do something like that. I really enjoyed Jungle Cruise (for the most part) and I thought Emily Blunt was fantastic in the role.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 20, 2021 - 1:15 AM   
 By:   paulhickling   (Member)

Harryhausen's peak was the run from 7th Voyage to Gwangi. The three after that are a slow demise. Despite some great moments and ideas the remaining films are just not good all- rounders. Catching the climax to Eye of the Tiger last night I couldn't help thinking how cheap it looked. The pink end titles over the final moments looked so tacky. Never felt that about the 60s films.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 20, 2021 - 2:54 AM   
 By:   Rameau   (Member)

I was a big Harryhausen fan in the sixties, but I'm down to just two now, Mysterious Island & Jason & The Argonauts (his high point). I couldn't quite warm to First Men On The Moon & Gwangi was released as a support feature to the western, The Good Guys & The Bad Guys (in the UK anyway). I have great looking Blu-rays of Island & Jason, so I'm happy.

My nephew's name is Jason. My sister & her husband were wondering what to name their new born baby boy, & Jason & The Argonauts came on the telly, so that was that.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 20, 2021 - 11:21 AM   
 By:   TheAvenger   (Member)

Thing is, it's Indiana Jones series. Take away IJ's and its just something else altogether. I have no issues with a well written female lead for a new series. The "National Treasure" series was a lot of fun. Do something like that. I really enjoyed Jungle Cruise (for the most part) and I thought Emily Blunt was fantastic in the role.

I loved Jungle Cruise. It could have done with less “Pirates of the Caribbean” influences but that aside I thought it was a terrific romp. And I agree about Emily Blunt, she was fantastic in it. To be Frank I’d be more interested in a sequel to that than another Indy movie, but that’s simply because I still haven’t ever got the foul taste in my mouth that Crystal Skull left.

 
 Posted:   Sep 21, 2021 - 7:17 AM   
 By:   King Solium   (Member)

Thing is, it's Indiana Jones series. Take away IJ's and its just something else altogether. I have no issues with a well written female lead for a new series. The "National Treasure" series was a lot of fun. Do something like that. I really enjoyed Jungle Cruise (for the most part) and I thought Emily Blunt was fantastic in the role.

I loved Jungle Cruise. It could have done with less “Pirates of the Caribbean” influences but that aside I thought it was a terrific romp. And I agree about Emily Blunt, she was fantastic in it. To be Frank I’d be more interested in a sequel to that than another Indy movie, but that’s simply because I still haven’t ever got the foul taste in my mouth that Crystal Skull left.


Agreed on JC! I guess what let me down was the last act. The CGI wasn't very good and the climax was kinda so so.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2021 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved...