First off, @NeilT, since you have @d_osborn blocked (I'm pretty sure), he actually responded to this from you:
with this:
That's more or less how I think I've pieced it together over the years.
This, and what NeilT touched on with Transformers, GI Joe, TMNT, and so forth... Kids tend to internalize things. It's how we learn. That function tends to dwindle as we get older, to greater or lesser degree. I've worked hard to keep my mind flexible and open and absorptive, so I've acquired some new fandoms at the same time I've retained a couple of old faves. It was commented on in Star Trek that the more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simple pleasures of play. This is considered why mammals play, moreso the higher the order of intelligence.
There tend to be two conflicting things at work with us, though. On a biological level, as we (and out brains) mature, the play becomes more complex. At the same time, we have the societal message of "grown-ups don't play or have toys". "I put aside childish things", and all that. I consider that view unhealthy, but I won't get into data and anecdata to back up that assertion here. I will say, though, that most of us here have seen through that line of fertilizer and we still play -- our games have just blurred with the real world, and our toys have become much more expensive and complex.
It seems to me perfectly natural and justified that when we see a fictional universe that we've so internalized as to not only watch or read the original offerings, but have projected ourselves into that universe, be it through fan fiction or costuming or building models or props or going to conventions or otherwise acting out an adopted or autoinsertion persona... Well, we consider it a part of who we are as individual identity, and us a part of it. So when someone comes along that doesn't "get it", there's a schism between the fictional universe and we who inhabit it.
Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Transformers, GI Joe... and yes, Ghostbusters. All were attempts by their creators to tell an engaging enough story to draw an audience and make some money. All became something bigger than their creators imagined or intended. I don't mean in terms of viewership. I mean unintentionally putting some deep and compelling contextual lore in their creations. Lightning in a bottle. Too often the original creators don't see or understand what it is they did, and when they try to recapture the whatever-it-was later, it tends to not go as well. When inheritors of those fictional universes decide they want to try to cash in on the appeal of the original, it's almost always awful unless they're fortunate enough to have a truly creative person or people involved.
Star Trek: The Next Generation was a mess getting going, and for the first several years, and almost didn't make it. Rampaging egos, studio politics, creative differences, and Gene's declining health and increasing desire to leave a Legacy... Whoo, messy.
The new Battlestar Galactica was good, but should have been its own thing and not touched that brand, as it certainly all but completely ignored the lore of the original. Dated production values and studio interference aside, there was a strong enough mythic undercurrent it attracted some seriously loyal fans (and actors), and its absence (plus the general pettiness and unlikability of the principle characters) make the new series stand out starkly in contrast.
All the way back to test screenings of the original Star Wars, there was a disconnect between George and his audience. They didn't laugh at things he thought were funny, and laughed at things he hadn't intended to be funny. If Marcia hadn't told him to let it be because people were responding to it, even if not the way he wanted, we might have ended up with something very different, and not nearly as organic.
Hasbro had the comics and cartoons to market its toy lines. There was a lot of chaff put out -- especially in the cartoons -- but also some seriously tasty grains of Universal Truths. Transformers had become, all over Hasbro's head, an epic and mythic saga of creation versus entropy, order versus chaos, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. GI Joe explored the psychology of those who volunteer to serve, those who seek to rule, and the now-more-pertinent-than-ever question of how far to go to protect the people before you become the villain yourself. *looks at the recent film offerings, ordered and approved by Hasbro* Yeah, I don't think they actually paid any attention to what the last batch of people they had marketing their toys came up with.
And we know all about the messy evolution of GB. I'm one of those who liked GB2 a lot. I didn't expect it to be a tone-match to the original. I expected the characters to have evolved, and they did. I expected things to have changed since the first film, and they had. The cartoons and comics and video games are always a coin-toss, and thus I liked some and didn't like some. I am one who adores the '09 game for its expansion of the lore and addition of compelling new characters. Regardless of any other issues, I call that a win.
So all of what I've written is why I am negative about this new GB. Lack of respect for the original setting and characters, lack of understanding what made it work, lack of respect for the fans of the original (and the kids they'd bring with them to see a well-done new film), cynical cashgrab mixed with an exec and a filmmaker with an agenda to push/axe to grind... Not a healthy mix.
Phoenix...?
...Moving on.
Well, as far as what's up with this female Thor, I'll quote myself from the Ragnarok thread:
I'll interject here to say that when this female Thor was announced, Marvel shouted from the rooftops that this wasn't a gimmick, it really is Thor, just a reimagining of the character as a woman. Not sure how they expected that to work without some sort of alternate reality or time travel or whatever, but --
I have more faith for Marvel Studios getting that right than I do Sony and Paul Feig getting Ghostbusters right. This despite a few missteps (Iron Man 2, Avengers: Age of Ultron -- both good, both with the potential to be much better if the creative teams hadn't been shoehorned into certain things by studio interference).
People have mentioned the difficulty of doing something original that borrows from a particular IP. My solution has been to play to it. Have the various characters be interested in paranormal investigation, for whatever reason(s), like the Ghost Hunters. Let them be fans of the Ghostbusters films and such, let something seriously real and threatening happen, let them track down Dan Aykroyd because they know he's actually really into this stuff, let them drag a scientist friend into it to help them build real proton packs, let Dan totally geek out over how cool that is, let them save the day calling themselves Ghostbusters and wearing the logo, let Sony threaten to sue, and Dan tell them to stick it. It can be done. Just as easily as my thirty-second stream-of-consciousness proposal for a true sequel quite a few pages back*.
[*So anyone interested who doesn't remember or want to dig:
]
So yeah. I feel badly-done-by, and worse because my legitimate complaints and criticisms are ignored, dismissed, or lumped in with the irrational haters, which I am not.
--Jonah
with this:
That's more or less how I think I've pieced it together over the years.
This, and what NeilT touched on with Transformers, GI Joe, TMNT, and so forth... Kids tend to internalize things. It's how we learn. That function tends to dwindle as we get older, to greater or lesser degree. I've worked hard to keep my mind flexible and open and absorptive, so I've acquired some new fandoms at the same time I've retained a couple of old faves. It was commented on in Star Trek that the more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simple pleasures of play. This is considered why mammals play, moreso the higher the order of intelligence.
There tend to be two conflicting things at work with us, though. On a biological level, as we (and out brains) mature, the play becomes more complex. At the same time, we have the societal message of "grown-ups don't play or have toys". "I put aside childish things", and all that. I consider that view unhealthy, but I won't get into data and anecdata to back up that assertion here. I will say, though, that most of us here have seen through that line of fertilizer and we still play -- our games have just blurred with the real world, and our toys have become much more expensive and complex.
It seems to me perfectly natural and justified that when we see a fictional universe that we've so internalized as to not only watch or read the original offerings, but have projected ourselves into that universe, be it through fan fiction or costuming or building models or props or going to conventions or otherwise acting out an adopted or autoinsertion persona... Well, we consider it a part of who we are as individual identity, and us a part of it. So when someone comes along that doesn't "get it", there's a schism between the fictional universe and we who inhabit it.
Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Transformers, GI Joe... and yes, Ghostbusters. All were attempts by their creators to tell an engaging enough story to draw an audience and make some money. All became something bigger than their creators imagined or intended. I don't mean in terms of viewership. I mean unintentionally putting some deep and compelling contextual lore in their creations. Lightning in a bottle. Too often the original creators don't see or understand what it is they did, and when they try to recapture the whatever-it-was later, it tends to not go as well. When inheritors of those fictional universes decide they want to try to cash in on the appeal of the original, it's almost always awful unless they're fortunate enough to have a truly creative person or people involved.
Star Trek: The Next Generation was a mess getting going, and for the first several years, and almost didn't make it. Rampaging egos, studio politics, creative differences, and Gene's declining health and increasing desire to leave a Legacy... Whoo, messy.
The new Battlestar Galactica was good, but should have been its own thing and not touched that brand, as it certainly all but completely ignored the lore of the original. Dated production values and studio interference aside, there was a strong enough mythic undercurrent it attracted some seriously loyal fans (and actors), and its absence (plus the general pettiness and unlikability of the principle characters) make the new series stand out starkly in contrast.
All the way back to test screenings of the original Star Wars, there was a disconnect between George and his audience. They didn't laugh at things he thought were funny, and laughed at things he hadn't intended to be funny. If Marcia hadn't told him to let it be because people were responding to it, even if not the way he wanted, we might have ended up with something very different, and not nearly as organic.
Hasbro had the comics and cartoons to market its toy lines. There was a lot of chaff put out -- especially in the cartoons -- but also some seriously tasty grains of Universal Truths. Transformers had become, all over Hasbro's head, an epic and mythic saga of creation versus entropy, order versus chaos, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. GI Joe explored the psychology of those who volunteer to serve, those who seek to rule, and the now-more-pertinent-than-ever question of how far to go to protect the people before you become the villain yourself. *looks at the recent film offerings, ordered and approved by Hasbro* Yeah, I don't think they actually paid any attention to what the last batch of people they had marketing their toys came up with.
And we know all about the messy evolution of GB. I'm one of those who liked GB2 a lot. I didn't expect it to be a tone-match to the original. I expected the characters to have evolved, and they did. I expected things to have changed since the first film, and they had. The cartoons and comics and video games are always a coin-toss, and thus I liked some and didn't like some. I am one who adores the '09 game for its expansion of the lore and addition of compelling new characters. Regardless of any other issues, I call that a win.
So all of what I've written is why I am negative about this new GB. Lack of respect for the original setting and characters, lack of understanding what made it work, lack of respect for the fans of the original (and the kids they'd bring with them to see a well-done new film), cynical cashgrab mixed with an exec and a filmmaker with an agenda to push/axe to grind... Not a healthy mix.
Phoenix...?
...Moving on.
Well, as far as what's up with this female Thor, I'll quote myself from the Ragnarok thread:
I'll interject here to say that when this female Thor was announced, Marvel shouted from the rooftops that this wasn't a gimmick, it really is Thor, just a reimagining of the character as a woman. Not sure how they expected that to work without some sort of alternate reality or time travel or whatever, but --
I have more faith for Marvel Studios getting that right than I do Sony and Paul Feig getting Ghostbusters right. This despite a few missteps (Iron Man 2, Avengers: Age of Ultron -- both good, both with the potential to be much better if the creative teams hadn't been shoehorned into certain things by studio interference).
People have mentioned the difficulty of doing something original that borrows from a particular IP. My solution has been to play to it. Have the various characters be interested in paranormal investigation, for whatever reason(s), like the Ghost Hunters. Let them be fans of the Ghostbusters films and such, let something seriously real and threatening happen, let them track down Dan Aykroyd because they know he's actually really into this stuff, let them drag a scientist friend into it to help them build real proton packs, let Dan totally geek out over how cool that is, let them save the day calling themselves Ghostbusters and wearing the logo, let Sony threaten to sue, and Dan tell them to stick it. It can be done. Just as easily as my thirty-second stream-of-consciousness proposal for a true sequel quite a few pages back*.
[*So anyone interested who doesn't remember or want to dig:
Paranormal investigation is more mainstream and accepted, Egon, Ray, and Winston have been doing lectures and writing books and helping out new groups. Egon dies. Ray and Winston and Lewis and Janine have a moment driving back from the funeral talking about seeing Peter and Dana there after so many years of not, how they've moved on with their lives in a different direction. Awkward, but it reminded them how much they missed the old days. Something Happens. They acknowledge they're getting too old for this [stuff], call in Ilyssa Selwyn (Alyssa Milano's character in the game), check to see how the franchises they started are doing as far as having people who could handle something of this magnitude, and go from there. Get a good script and Rick Moranis would have been happy to come back. And Bill Murray and all his difficultness could be glossed over ("You get royalties and don't have to do anything").
So yeah. I feel badly-done-by, and worse because my legitimate complaints and criticisms are ignored, dismissed, or lumped in with the irrational haters, which I am not.
--Jonah
Last edited:
