Super-contest of 2009// Blockbusters of 2009

...Anyways... (Moving on...)

...[M]ost importantly, I don't think this attempt to broaden the appeal will work. It's Star Trek. It's title alone will be enough to ensure any female aged 15-40 will steer clear of this baby. Not even Sylar will be enough to make this a substantial hit.

You may be right, though I should point out that the recent box-office successes of films like the Spider-Man, The Lord of the Rings , Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean series (not to mention, The Dark Knight and Iron Man) would seem to indicate that it's not IMPOSSIBLE to broaden Trek's appeal, only very very difficult. What I'm most concerned about frankly is that Trek will be seen as a specifically and irrevocably Boomer and Gen-X phenomenon, with no relevance or appeal to the younger, ticket-purchasing generations, much like The Godfather and, I am beginning to suspect, Superman (and even Star Wars).

I rather suspect that, should Star Trek succeed and inspire more than one sequel, we may well see some significant and substantial couplings (story-wise... stop that) occuring onscreen, particularly between Kirk and Carol Marcus, McCoy and Sulu and their respective wives, and perhaps even some Uhura-Scotty flirtation.

Looking at the release date, the film is out on May 8th, the dreaded 2nd May week. It's nestled between Wolverine (which will be a hit), and Angels and Demons (as much as most of us hate [T]he Da Vinci Code, there's plenty of people who enjoyed it because they enjoyed those awful books, and with Hanks on board it will do well) as well as Bruno.

Yeah... I agree, particularly with regard to your assessment of the second-weekend-in-May syndrome, but of the three you mentioned, it's actually Bruno that scares me most. It's weird how closely May '09 resembles May '06, when Abrams' M:I III, X-Men: The Last Stand, The Da Vinci Code, Over the Hedge and Poseidon were all fighting for that last $100M chair (Poseidon was the title left, very very deservingly in my opinion, without a seat at that particular table). This year, we'll have Star Trek, Wolverine, Angels & Demons, Up, Terminator Salvation and Night at the Museum II: Muse Harder. At least two of these films will be bona fide disappointments, and, I must admit: If ANY of them is angling for a Poseidon-sized flop, it's Star Trek... My bet is that although all of them will break $100M, only three will have a legitimate shot at doubling that total: Trek, Wolverine, and Terminator Salvation. (Though my initial feelings about all three of Pixar's last films (Cars, Ratatouille, and Wall-E) were similarly dismissive, and I was eventually won over.)

In short, and to sum up, I agree with every single one of your -- and geez's -- opinions, concerns and misgivings, but, perhaps irrationally, remain obstinately convinced that Abrams will conquer 'em all.


So true

Oh dear,


Two full posts, several browser windows long. My index finger is hurtin' from repetitive strain. I regret saying anything in the first place!

[Grin] Another potentially worthy opponent vanquished, bludgeoned into submission and buried under the sheer weight of words I can pile on top of 'im.


The Order of Nicodemus, presented to the Fantaversian best upholding his legendary standards of maximum unnecessary verbosity

Though, to be fair, I am far, FAR MORE a Star Wars nut than a Trekker

So you speak to your family in R2d2's language. What's "your mother has lungs" in beeps and chirps?

Okay, it's fair enough that the idea of a reboot will always face criticism by someone (look at the reaction the new Doctor Who, for example). But there is a difference between resistance to a revival of something people were quite happy with (Batman, for example) and who just didn't see the point, and what seems to be an almost violation of what made the original appealing. The best example I can think of is Batman and Robin compared to Burton's Batman. Actually, come to think of it, a good comparison may be Alien Resurrection. The Alien series always based itself on a level of seriousness, and a dark style and tone. While it makes sense to revamp it in terms of style and tone also, to produce a whole new direction (and your points about Star Trek and possibly why Enterprise failed are excellent), most people felt that it lost what made the franchise appealing in the first place. You're the Trekkie, how has the general Trekkie response been to the trailer of Melrose Space?

While I do admit that JJ Abrams is a master of publicity, I wonder is his real talent simply his understanding of viral marketing. He did an amazing job at Lost, especially the online "game" that was between series 1 and 2. But, there's something about Abrams... his talent almost seems frontloaded. He knows how to hook people in, but the problem is keeping them there. I almost gave up on Lost for the awful Season 3, and a I know a lot of people who actually did, and missed out on an almost redeeming Season 4. MI3 was a pleasant surprise after the indigestible flamboyance of MI2, but I find it hasn't stood the test of time, it's actually quite forgettable, meaning that it only gets the silver after De Palma's (and I normally hate de Palma) appropriately convoluted MI. Cloverfield was another great marketing strategy, and I looked forward to it after the unnerving trailer, but I was disappointed with the result, and I wasn't the only one, considering the monster drops the film faced after the opening week. Again, he can pull them in....

This doesn't bode well for One Trek Hill. It's a hell of an uphill struggle to get audiences in, but the film is going to need exceptional reviews and word of mouth as much as a great marketing campaign to even make 100 mil (sorry, Nic- I mean Swedge, but there's no way on earth this baby will come close to 200mil).

As for your examples of franchises that managed to obtain a broad appeal, I'm afraid there's too much a stigma attached to Star Trek to anyone older than 24 to see at as more than something rather stuffy. Again, an uphill struggle. I just think there's too much going against Abrams and his baby to ever see Star Trek shine. But then again, I didn't think anyone would watch Alvin and the Chipmunks...

So you speak to your family in R2d2's language. What's "your mother has lungs" in beeps and chirps?

Erm, that's 'R2D2' (or, informally, 'Artoo'), and don't be silly. I use Shyriiwook (Wookiee-speke) at home, not binary, and as the indigenous sentient population of Kashyyyk in fact HAS lungs, your snarktastic little attempt at insultery would be meaningless, if not outright offensive in its senselessness. The closest phrase that translates is RooHAHruh mumrahWAH awfwhuh muAHMwa RAHngrOG uhhMAH haaMWUAH MAAH-rhuf, which is actually a quite nuanced sociopolitical observation but could reasonably be interpreted by scrawny hairless human meat-bags as "Your mother has little fur on her bosom".

Okay, it's fair enough that the idea of a reboot will always face criticism by someone (look at the reaction [to] the new Doctor Who, for example). But there is a difference between resistance to a revival of something people were quite happy with (Batman, for example) and who just didn't see the point, and what seems to be an almost violation of what made the original appealing.

Interesting that you phrase it that way. Actually, I'm kind of encouraged by the tone of the more recent Star Trek trailer, that the franchise is finally going back to its roots and embracing a sort of high-spirited adventure, an enthusiastic -- naive, even -- sense of wonder and discovery, and even sexual liberty and frankness, that hasn't been seen since the original sixty-odd (not getting into that, just now) Trek episodes went off the air. I don't think the younger generations (damn, I sound like Carl from the Up trailer) appreciate just HOW optimistic, HOW idealistic, HOW groundbreaking, The Original Series WAS, how very very revolutionary and impactful , especially at a time when the world was being ripped apart by global war and domestic social unrest, when our best and brightest (JFK, RFK, Dr. King, Malcolm) were being cut down like so much chaff, when the Red Scare was still very much at the forefront of the national consciousness, when Global Thermonuclear War was not so much a WarGame as a fact of future history, when those damn kids were growing their hair long and participating in sit-downs and talking about free love and singing about peace, and man was only months away from landing on the moon... and, even more miraculously, RETURNING. Star Trek was both mirror of and catalyst for the enormous events that were unmaking and remaking the planet, and it came at a time of maximum fear, suspicion, loss, grief, and chaos. (Sound familiar?) In those years between the moment when Camelot burned and when a king (President, really) abdicated his throne, Star Trek was a beacon of humanism, understanding, and progress quite unlike anything popular culture had ever seen... Or would ever see, to this point anyway. That's why it was so very very profound, so extraordinarily influential, why it remains so important, so precious to persons of a certain age. Not because we were bludgeoned into submission by a slick multimedia marketing campaign, not because we were wooed by big-name actors or wowed by cutting-edge special effects (though, in the context of the Sixties...), but because WE BOUGHT INTO IT. In the shadows of Dealey Plaza, the Ambassador Hotel, the Lorraine Motel and the Audobon Ballroom, here was a society that seemed sane and serene. In the aftermath of McCarthyism, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and while Viet Nam was raging, here was a depiction of Americans and Russians working side-by-side. In the midst of race riots that tore the South apart, here was an attractive Caucasian leading man locking lips with a nubile Nubian goddess. With the world being what it is, here at the dawn of the Third Millennium, I can't imagine a BETTER time to attempt to re-ignite the fires of hope and fraternity, to recapture the spirit of cooperation and social integration, to re-conceive a world without ceaseless and meaningless discord, than RIGHT FRAKKING NOW. So I applaud Mr. Abrams for not only attempting to resurrect, but to revive and re-invigorate a tired franchise, a dream deferred, a future the rest of us have all but given up on.

Btw, I'm just curious: WHICH Batman were fans ever really happy with? I mean, I find the Tim Burton films tolerable (my fave, by leaps and bounds, being Batman Returns), but the Schumacher installments were simply awful... Unless you're referring to the Adam West TV series, in which case, well, either you really, really appreciate good (read: bad) high camp, or you seriously need immediate and sustained mental health attention.

And I, a Whovian from waaay back when Tom Baker -- the Fourth Doctor, for those of you scoring at home -- eps were first-run on PBS ("Would you like a jellybean?") happen to out-and-out DESPISE the current BBC series, while my great good friend Skrykey flat-out ADORES it. go figger.

...[A] good comparison may be Alien Resurrection. The Alien series always based itself on a level of seriousness, and a dark style and tone. While it makes sense to revamp it in terms of style and tone also, to produce a whole new direction (and your points about Star Trek and possibly why Enterprise failed are excellent), most people felt that it lost what made the franchise appealing in the first place. You're the Trekkie, how has the general Trekkie response been to the trailer of Melrose Space?

[Snort!] Well, to answer your question: Deeply, substantially mixed, almost schizophrenic. But, see, you talk about Trek fans as if they were a singular, homogeneous, coherent whole. They're not. You've got the social idealists, the tech 'shippers, the high-minded genre snobs, the effects junkies, the Church of the Trek Trinity (Kirk-Spock-McCoy), the real-world space enthusiasts, not to mention an entire subculture of the variously closeted and outcast who see in Star Trek the promise of a more loving and tolerant world. (I am pretty much a hybrid of the first six, but, then, I'm not precisely your garden-variety anything.) There's rampant anxiety (particularly when it comes to the details... No one obsesses over minutae QUITE like a Trekker), but also growing optimism and even what might be termed giddiness. That being said, there is a significant fraction of Trekdom that will NEVER accept ANY deviation from what is sincerely, if laughably, referred to as "Trek canon".

...And I'm not a 'Trekkie'... I'm a Trek-ker. [Grin] No, really, I'm kidding. If I were that freakishly, geekishly anal, I'd never have moved out of my parents' house, let alone gotten married, certainly not to a former sorority officer and cheerleader, unless, like, she'd had a massively impairing stroke, or aneurysm, or something.

While I do admit that JJ Abrams is a master of publicity, I wonder is his real talent simply his understanding of viral marketing. He did an amazing job at Lost, especially the online "game" that was between series 1 and 2. But, there's something about Abrams... his talent almost seems frontloaded. He knows how to hook people in, but the problem is keeping them there.

It's a fair point, though I wonder if there's really enough water under the dam, yet, to say that for a certainty. There's no question but that there's much to what you say. Alias, a particularly troublesome conceit from Day One, went off the rails almost immediately, and never found its footing again after its second season. But Lost, after frankly foundering in S3, is now fully back on-track, perhaps the strongest narratively, character-wise, and in terms of its dramatic impact that it's ever been. And I find that many, many showrunners have that problem with follow-through, particularly David Milch and David E. Kelley, but also J. Michael Straczynski, even (consternation! uproar!) Ronald D. Moore. And let's not forget how many incarnations (most of them, ultimately, disappointing) 24 has had, and will have...

I almost gave up on Lost for the awful Season 3, and a I know a lot of people who actually did, and missed out on an almost redeeming Season 4.

Well, I'm very glad you didn't, and that we'll have something else to discuss and debate this Winter and Spring.

M:I3 was a pleasant surprise after the indigestible flamboyance of M:I2, but I find it hasn't stood the test of time, it's actually quite forgettable, meaning that it only gets the silver after De Palma's (and I normally hate [D]e Palma)...

I actually score M:I III well above the first film installment -- no matter who Jon Voight plays, he's still friggin' Jon Voight -- but, then, I think De Palma's just about the most overrated director working.

Cloverfield was another great marketing strategy, and I looked forward to it after the unnerving trailer, but I was disappointed with the result, and I wasn't the only one, considering the monster drops the film faced after the opening week. Again, he can pull them in...

You may have a point there as well -- even I, who never once considered Cloverfield for my Super Contest slate, was shocked (shocked, I say!) to witness how precipitous and unrecoverable its fall was post-opening weekend. But, I LOVED Cloverfield.

This doesn't bode well for One Trek Hill. It's a hell of an uphill struggle to get audiences in, but the film is going to need exceptional reviews and word of mouth as much as a great marketing campaign to even make 100 mil (sorry, Nic- I mean Swedge, but there's no way on earth this baby will come close to 200mil).

You're correct on all specifics there, though I suspect that $150M is a given no matter WHAT Star Trek ends up being, which could be anything from Casino Royale to Batman Begins to Starship Troopers to Lost in Space. What I will say with certainty at this point is the following: If Trek fails to break $200M, it will be roundly trashed as a Superman Returns-sized flop, and anything short of $275M will be considered a potentially franchise-halting disappointment by Paramount.

As for your examples of franchises that managed to obtain a broad appeal, I'm afraid there's too much a stigma attached to Star Trek to anyone older than 24 to see at as more than something rather stuffy. Again, an uphill struggle. I just think there's too much going against Abrams and his baby to ever see Star Trek shine. But then again, I didn't think anyone would watch Alvin and the Chipmunks...

Again, fair points all around, and I quite agree: He's swimming upstream against an extremely powerful current. But I have faith (I have to; I'm a Trekker). [Grin]

And, not that it matters, but I saw Alvin thrice in-theaters, though, to be fair, only twice willingly. (What can I say? Kids.)


Nuff sed.

Swedgin! wrote:And I, a Whovian from waaay back when Tom Baker -- the Fourth Doctor, for those of you scoring at home -- eps were first-run on PBS ("Would you like a jellybean?") happen to out-and-out DESPISE the current BBC series, while my great good friend Skrykey flat-out ADORES it. go figger.

Actually, that's not QUITE accurate... I adored Eccleston in the role, which, sadly, he vacated after only one full season (or two mini-seasons, however you count it). I watched his replacement (can't think of his name at the mo) for a season, for which the writing seemed to decline sharply, and when Billie Piper's Rose left the show, that was it for me.

I have 90% of the available original series, with sporadic Hartnell and Troughton, most of Pertwee, and practically all of T.Baker, Davison, C.Baker and McCoy, on VHS. It's been a long time since I've dug any of them out and watched them, and I begin to wonder if I ever will. My wife wants me to throw them away, but it would seem sacriligious to do so, given how much they meant to me in my twenties (and how ass-backwards hard it would be to replace them). I just wish I had the TIME to watch them again, to revel in the crappy effects, the substandard set-design, the foam-rubber monsters - the series was ALWAYS about the stories and the characters, to gauge the show on any other level would have been self-defeating, and just harken back to my younger days when I would catch the eps on late-night PBS, and during which I had a SERIOUS boner for Sarah Sutton.

So they want to make the new Doctor, his 11th incarnation, a very young man? So be it. I don't know if I will ever tune in again, as it is clear to me that it will never recapture the magic it once had. Reducing a story line to 45 minutes, over and done with with a whole new story next week, just doesn't have it's appeal to me. To me, that's the same as watching an episode of Law & Order or CSI... and I do NOT want to view those programs the same way I view Doctor Who. I applaud the BBC for whatever they do to keep the show alive for a whole new generation, but it's a generation that I'm just not a part of any more.

And it's "jelly BABY", not "jellybean", you wanker. Even a blind speelsnape knows that. Sheesh.

I'm with you shryke, I watched the Eccleston series in nearly a single sitting, and was quite distraught with the ending and change of doctors. I may be madly in love with Chris Eccleston though *shifty eyes*... Its the accents that get to me.

Ah Nico- I mean Swedge, it's good to have you back. Not only do you pay close attention to arguments, but when quoting my arguments you highlight the important points AND correct the grammar mistakes!

What's the difference between a Trekkie and a Trekker [dodges the replica phaser that was set to "fling"]?

Your point about the original Star Trek is a great one. You're right, I never realised what the original series was achieving until you pointed it out. That originally it was racy, it was entertaining, yet also based on the desires and fears of the public at the time. But is that idea distinctly old, and un-updatable? I honestly don't know, but somehow I feel the Abrams film won't be the one to prove me wrong. And here's something I just thought of: I think Abrams should have rebooted Star Trek as a TV series, and NOT a movie. Sci-fi reboots have worked with Dr Who in the UK and with Battlestar Galactica in the US. Would either of these worked as a movie (look how well the Dr Who TV-Movie, with Paul McGann, was received)? I don't think so. Now may be an opportune time to revisit what made Star Trek so iconic, but not when it's nestled between Hugh Jackman's man-spikes and Tom Hanks's greasy, myth-busting mullet (and Bruno's fashion-sense).

You've got the social idealists, the tech 'shippers, the high-minded genre snobs, the effects junkies, the Church of the Trek Trinity (Kirk-Spock-McCoy), the real-world space enthusiasts, not to mention an entire subculture of the variously closeted and outcast who see in Star Trek the promise of a more loving and tolerant world.

I read: nerd, nerd, nerd, nerd, nerd, nerd, nerds. And that makes you....

Btw, I'm just curious: WHICH Batman were fans ever really happy with? I mean, I find the Tim Burton films tolerable (my fave, by leaps and bounds, being Batman Returns), but the Schumacher installments were simply awful... Unless you're referring to the Adam West TV series, in which case, well, either you really, really appreciate good (read: bad) high camp, or you seriously need immediate and sustained mental health attention.

Hah, I was referring to Burton's first Batman film. Sure, it was a reboot (but probably welcomed by the comic book fans in relation to the BOOF! THWACK! of the Adam West series), but it topped the box office and was broadly well received by critics. For what it's worth, I too prefer Batman Returns, the characterisation of The Penguin and Catwoman has yet to be equaled in ANY comic book movie adaptation. But I think it's safe to say that most people welcomed Burton's Batman (with the exception of some Frank Miller fans), and that audience grew to resent what Hollywood did in the Schumacher years. The figures are there as evidence.

But does this relate to Star Trek? It's hard to say, though perhaps it's more important to access a new audience (and generation??), rather than cater to the hardcore fans. This is the problem for Abrams, and I think his first problem is the film's title. Kirk and Spock's Sexy Adventures in Starfleet Academy has a better chance.

Speaking of Dr Who, the British audience actually voted David Tennant as the best Dr Who- for the first time ever Tom Baker didn't win. I've only seen too Tennant Dr Who's, and he was a bit irritating, but I've been told he's good. I liked the idea of Eccleston (oh when, when will he return to Heroes?), but never saw much. But having watched repeats on TV as a young-un, Baker's quirky (if not demented) Who is the one for me.

If list submissions are still open, here is mine:

1) Harry Potter
2) Terminator: Salvation
3) Star Trek
4) Avatar
5) Where the Wild Things Are
6) Transformers 2
7) Up
Monsters vs. Aliens
9) Wolverine
10) Angels & Demons

becs, just add a total for your top 10...

Responding...

...I adored Eccleston in the role, which, sadly, he vacated after only one full season (or two mini-seasons, however you count it). I watched his replacement (can't think of his name at the mo) for a season, for which the writing seemed to decline sharply, and when Billie Piper's Rose left the show, that was it for me.

As I suspected: There are no male Doctor Who fans, only would-be Doctor Who Companion stalkers. [Grin] Hey, I sympathize. Time was, I had the hots for Tegan and Nyssa, and wished flaming destruction would rain down on the less-than-appreciative space dork Adric. (It did, or rather he did, huzzah!) ...And then I entered middle school and puberty, all at the same time, and began to admire ACTUAL, you know, females.


Very, very, very good, Master

I rather liked the idea of Eccleston more than the show featuring him, but honestly none of the new-generation Doctors can hold a candle to the indescribable awesomeness that was the decade and a half of Jon Pertwee-Tom Baker-Peter Davison Doctors. (Don't even get me started on f@$%ing Colin Baker, the British William Shatner, or his equally retarded successors pre-Eccleston.)

Eccleston's inheritor was David Tennant, btw, who actually rather reminded me of Tom Baker, but by that time I no longer gave a shit.

I keep hoping that Guy Pearce eventually gets hired as an nth Doctor, but as long as the showrunners keep driving the series into the ground, it probably won't matter.


You see it. You know you do

I have 90% of the available original series, with sporadic Hartnell and Troughton, most of Pertwee, and practically all of T.Baker, Davison, C.Baker and McCoy, on VHS.

And I have Journey's Escape on 8-track, and E.T. for the Atari 2600.

McCoy... Blargh. How dare that obscenely bepoofdahed little git have such an awesome last name. I loved William Hartnell, but fan fave Patrick Troughton for me was just... meh.

It's been a long time since I've dug any of them out and watched them, and I begin to wonder if I ever will.

Get yourself to a higher-end antique shop and pick yourself out a nice late-Twentieth Century RCA Video Home System player. Maybe they'll throw in a nice classic Hummel figurine.


"The Passion of the Tapes", made from recycled VHS casettes

My wife wants me to throw them away, but it would seem sacriligious to do so, given how much they meant to me in my twenties (and how ass-backwards hard it would be to replace them). I just wish I had the TIME to watch them again, to revel in the crappy effects, the substandard set-design, the foam-rubber monsters - the series was ALWAYS about the stories and the characters, to gauge the show on any other level would have been self-defeating, and just harken back to my younger days when I would catch the eps on late-night PBS, and during which I had a SERIOUS boner for Sarah Sutton.

F@$% me, that was too bloody much information, mate. Please refer to my comments above. (Something tells me, NOW you'll dig those tapes out...) [Grin]


Commercial break

So they want to make the new Doctor, his 11th incarnation, a very young man? So be it.

Meet the Eleventh Doctor: Master Terrence Sebastian Fenchurch Codswallop St. John-Smythe, age 4 mos.

I don't know if I will ever tune in again, as it is clear to me that it will never recapture the magic it once had. Reducing a story line to 45 minutes, over and done with with a whole new story next week, just doesn't have it's appeal to me. To me, that's the same as watching an episode of Law & Order or CSI... and I do NOT want to view those programs the same way I view Doctor Who. I applaud the BBC for whatever they do to keep the show alive for a whole new generation, but it's a generation that I'm just not a part of any more.

[Nodding] That's pretty much MY reason for throwing in the towel, too... You get used to eight-hour episode arcs after a couple decades or so, and their reduction to 48-minute telefilm novellas -- and not terribly GOOD ones, at that --feels a little like taking a pair of garden shears to Henry V and thereby reducing it to one-third of an act. Plus, I got sick of the "last human", Her Nasty Flayed PMSing Opaque Crustiness, every other hour.

And it's "jelly BABY", not "jellybean", you wanker. Even a blind speelsnape knows that. Sheesh.

Just making sure you were paying attention.

...[It's] the accents that get to me.

Right, let's make an effort, then, to keep becs away from old WB cartoon shorts featuring Pepé Le Pew .


Danger, Will Robinson

Ah...Swedge, it's good to have you back. Not only do you pay close attention to arguments, but when quoting my arguments you highlight the important points AND correct the grammar mistakes!

'Preciate it, Six. The name may have changed, but the tight-assed obnoxiousness remains the same. I put the 'anal' in banality.

What's the difference between a Trekkie and a Trekker [dodges the replica phaser that was set to "fling"]?

The same difference as separates a 'groupie' from a 'band aid'.

...But is that idea distinctly old, and un-updatable? I honestly don't know, but somehow I feel the Abrams film won't be the one to prove me wrong.

As I've said (many, many times), he has a very uphill struggle ahead of him, but I sure do like his spunk. ("I HATE spunk!) As far as whether it's even possible, let me just remind (again, especially the young and inexperienced): Before Star Wars ushered in an entirely new era of fresh, enthusiastic, swashbuckling cinema, both the hero-quest and science fiction genres were effectively DEAD. Now, I'm not so far 'round the bend as to suggest that Star Trek will change the course of early-21st Century cinema in a similar capacity to the impact Star Wars had on post-Sixties culture... But, if your question is whether it's possible, I would have to say, yes, certainly, and, moreover, given enough time and the right combination of a tired, hidebound filmed status quo and young, bright-eyed innovators, I'd have to say it's pretty much inevitable. (I just hope I live long enough to see it, one more time.)

And here's something I just thought of: I think Abrams should have rebooted Star Trek as a TV series, and NOT a movie. Sci-fi reboots have worked with [Doctor] Who in the UK and with Battlestar Galactica in the US. Would either of these worked as a movie...? I don't think so. Now may be an opportune time to revisit what made Star Trek so iconic, but not when it's nestled between Hugh Jackman's man-spikes and Tom Hanks's greasy, myth-busting mullet (and Bruno's fashion-sense).

Two years ago, I would have ABSOLUTELY agreed with that, and may well again. But, again, Abrams likes to take on the roughest seas, and I believe I remember him fielding this question at a panel last year, to which he replied somewhat along the lines of, But that's [resurrecting a popular genre franchise as an ultramodern television series] already been done. What I'm trying to do is harder, and that's what makes it fun and worthwhile. He may well be committing something very close to career suicide, but, damn, I like his style.

And, erm, that bit about man-spikes and grease mullets (thought they were extinct in the Lower 48, hm) leads me to once again emphasize: If you don't get help at Charter, please, please, get help somewhere.

...look [at] the [Doctor] Who TV-Movie, with Paul McGann...

No, thanks. Really.

I read: nerd, nerd, nerd, nerd, nerd, nerd, nerds. And that makes you....

Ahem. Get it right, Six: I'm no 'nerd'. I'm not nearly creative or intelligent enough to be a 'nerd'. (Plus, I actually HAVE relations with the other sex, and am not actually allergic to physical activity). Neither am I a 'geek' (not rich or successful enough). I am a Dork.

... I think it's safe to say that most people welcomed Burton's Batman (with the exception of some Frank Miller fans), and that audience grew to resent what Hollywood did in the Schumacher years.

Being a big comics guy, I sort of straddled the fence, there, for some years, blown away by the spectacle but ultimately enmaddened by the lack of substance. But otherwise I'm in total agreement.

...I think [Abrams']first problem is the film's title. Kirk and Spock's Sexy Adventures in Starfleet Academy has a better chance.

Starring Sacha Baron Cohen (Spock) and Ben Stiller (Kirk), no doubt. Erm. Hm. That actually sounds pretty damn good.

Speaking of [Doctor] Who, the British audience actually voted David Tennant as the best [Doctor]- for the first time ever Tom Baker didn't win.

The f@$%ing limeys have gone completely f@$%ing out of their f@$%ing tree.

...Baker's quirky (if not demented) Who is the one for me.

I love the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Doctors pretty much equally, and for very different reasons. But I can't argue your taste, Six. Erm. Poorly phrased, that.


Set phasers on 'sponge'

I absolutely don't understand why people act like J.J. Abrams is the next Spielberg. I mean, he has yet to do a film based upon an original idea (American Godzilla II doesn't count). In fact, today's Spielberg's are the guys who do one ambitious idea against the will of the studio, see the studio dump it or promote it to the wrong audience and let if flop and end up getting left out in the cold while hacks like J.J. Abrams get hired to do Transformers VIII: Avenging Bumblebee. Sad world.

I absolutely don't understand why people act like J.J. Abrams is the next Spielberg.

Well, for once subjecting myself to a ruthlessly fair examination here, I'd say it's a combination of three factors: [A] unintentionally transposing fan enthusiasm for one's creation (Alias, Lost, Cloverfield) with perhaps an undeserved reverence for its creator -- hardly the first time that's happened, I should point out: note Lucas, Ridley Scott, Cameron, Milch, the Cohens, Whedon, M. Night Shyamalamaramadingdong, the Wachowskis, perhaps Zack Snyder, not to mention, Spielberg -- [2] irrationally, not to mention, illogically, wishful thinking; and [C] a deep-seated desire to actually SEE "the next" Spielberg, Coppola, Kubrick, Welles, Lean, Fellini, whoever.

I mean, he has yet to do a film based upon an original idea (American Godzilla II doesn't count).

Yah, well, not to quibble, but, early in his career, there was actually a point when three out of five of James Cameron's theatrical projects to-date could be characterized similiarly: Piranha II: The Spawning (director); Rambo: First Blood Part II (screenwriter), and Aliens (director and screenwriter). The other two being his first, ten-minute film, Xenogenesis, and, of course, the first Terminator (1984). And, lest we forget: Abrams' concept for Lost (though perhaps not so much, Alias) was COMPLETELY original, and Cloverfield was pretty damned innovative for a giant-monster, big-city genre entry.

In fact, today's [Spielbergs] are the guys who do one ambitious idea against the will of the studio, see the studio dump it or promote it to the wrong audience and let if flop and end up getting left out in the cold while hacks like J.J. Abrams get hired to do Transformers VIII: Avenging Bumblebee.

Well, damn. Let's have a throw-down.

I could point out that Spielberg, himself, at this point has pretty well "sold out," reducing himself and his legacy over the course of a good decade-and-a-half to concentrate on remakes of classic genre giants (War of the Worlds, the forthcoming When Worlds Collide) tepid mass-merchandising-oriented Disneyfied emasculations of kick-ass, mature-themed sci-fi / horror classics (Jurassic Park), adaptations of other peoples' inventions (The Flintstones, Men in Black and its sequel, The Mask and Legend of Zorro, Transformers and its sequel(s), the upcoming Tintin) and increasingly unnecessary relentlessly mediocre, soul-raping derivations of his own previously fairly innovative and beloved classics (Jurassic Parks II through IV, either of the last two Indiana Jones chapters, and if that's bordering on sacrilege for some of you lot, too bloody bad... I refuse to lower my standards for anybody [says the man who worships Starship Troopers]!). Or, Hell, just flat pirating a dead man's last project (A.I.) When was the last time Spielberg actually SUCCEEDED with a demonstrably NEW idea? Sure, I love The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can, not to mention his version of War of the Worlds, but lots of people didn't... When was the last time Stevsie scored a bona fide hit that wasn't dependent on some earlier version or product? Minority Report (2002)... And if you want to get technical, since that was based on a Philip K. Dick work, well, we might have to reach all the way back to Deep Impact (or, if you're feeling particularly cruel, Twister). But perhaps I'm being unfair. Spielberg paid his dues, had his original ideas, and has earned the right to earn some easy paychecks as he approaches his Golden Years. ...Just like Lucas. [Evil grin]

Interesting, btw, that you should cite the Transformers franchise as proof of Hollywood hackery, since it was Spielberg himself who insisted on bringing the property to Paramount and who had to CONVINCE a REAL soulless "hack" like MICHAEL F@$%ING BAY to change his mind about directing the film, after Bay had turned it down flat, dismissing it as a "stupid toy movie". Which is sort of like Rod Blagojevich turning down an envelope full of money by protesting, "I don't take bribes".

Look, I hear what you're saying, I do, and perhaps I (and others... Well, no, really it's just me) am laboring to construct a pedestal for Mr. Abrams he doesn't quite deserve, and that will crumble to dust the moment Star Trek opens to a pathetic $28M three-day figure. You certainly have a point about Abrams' lack to date of a demonstrably new film idea, but, then, this is only his third film (he has upcoming projects The Dark Tower and Cloverfield 2 on his calendar, tho). I understand why you're cynical, and your comments about modern film and its -makers are well taken. Off the top of my head, in fact, I can only think of five recent up-and-coming directors (well, in point of fact, seven) who actually meet your criterion for innovation and creative authorship: Peter Jackson, M. Night Shyamalan, Mr. Whedon, the Cohens and the Wachowskis. Though I feel I'm missing a few names, here.

Sad world.

If you say so. When even Richard Simmons can be reduced to fat, hairy tears, I'm inclined to agree...


Snivelin' to the Oldies

[quote="Swedgin!"]Responding...

As I suspected: There are no male Doctor Who fans, only would-be Doctor Who Companion stalkers. [Grin]

Swed,

I had a Tom Baker scarf when I was in college, so there!!!!!!!! (Thought it might help me attract a DW Companion)

I had Jelly Babies (note, Shryke: Jelly BABIES... dork) once when I was in college. Does that count?


You will be consumerated

Airing on February 1st on NBC, Super Bowl XLIII will feature trailers for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Star Trek, G.I. Joe, Monsters vs Aliens, Angels & Demons, Land of the Lost, Fast and Furious, Pixar's Up, and Wolverine. It's also likely we'll see trailers for Night at the Museum 2, Ice Age 3, Race to Witch Mountain, G-Force, and maybe even Terminator Salvation.

source

What do you think about Watchmen and other potential blockbusters missing on this list?

February 1st, as we decided, is also the last day we can post/ edit here our choices for Super-contest of 2009// Blockbusters of 2009, and the total of our elected Top 10...

We have until now 18 movies elected by just 10 courageous players:
Alyson
becs
Buscemi
IPKI$$
J.I.
JackO
numbersix_99
SuperShaan
transformers2
undeadmonkey

I have a short list of 20 movies and I'm waiting for the latest news about the 4-5 movies which can be delayed for 2010...
How about you?

Yeah, same here. There were two major factors for me holding off. The first being the Watchmen court case and the other being the potential SAG strike. However with SAG being split in half over the strike authorization vote issue, I am not too concern with the potential strike as much. So I am just really waiting to see what happens with Watchmen which could be potentially resolved by this week.

We'll watch the Watchmen!!! this year! as schedule: 06/03/09 source 1 source 2

And for Americans... 3/6/09, don't want anyone to get confused and think that means it was pushed to june

yes, 6th of March

Okay, finally my top 10 can proceed:

1. Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
2. Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince
3. X-Men Origins: Wolverine
4. Up
5. Night At The Museum 2
6. Star Trek
7. Watchmen
8. Avatar
9. Ice Age III
10. Angels And Demons

Total 2.3 Billion

Interesting selection, SS- you've no hope in T4?

I think it will make similar numbers to T3; ie around 150m-160m. That, I don't think will be enough to make the top 10.

OK...I'm gonna be bold here

1. Transformers 2
2. Harry Potter 6 (is that right? the one that comes out this year!)
3. New Moon
4. Night at the Museum 2
5. T4
6. Ice Age 3
7. Avatar
8. Wolverine
9. Watchmen
10. UP

Total: 2.15 Billion

I know I questioned those of you who took Wolverine from the beginning, but after seeing the trailer, I am now a believer!

SO... Are we allowed to change our movies or not? deadlines coming up here in 2 weeks