I would've watched it if they called it She-Man

Much of that backlash comes from trying too hard to shoehorn in ideas they have for new games (and certainly would be new games had they been created in the 90s / 2000s) but are too lazy to market them as new games. Likewise, a lot of "resistance to change" is often far more like "franchise fatigue", ie, it's not that people don't want new things, it's more that many people want new things in new games a lot more than they want Call of Duty 782, etc, remade so often that the franchise loses its core character (which is the whole point of a franchise in the first place).

Perfect example - "Tom Clancy's Rainbow Splinter Ghost Recon Future Spear Predator Conviction Cell Blacklist Division Siege Chaos Endwar Vegas Extraction" is a franchise that's been so overly spammed that it's become completely meaningless and has absolutely nothing to do with Clancy's work (who died 8 years ago) and has diluted rather than added to earlier games. It's just generic mush. That's not really 'fear of change', it's dislike of bad marketing / "sequel spam".

Hollywood & TV series are little different. No-one expects new TV shows to be radically different but when you step back and look at the big picture of wall to wall spam of 80's remakes (Lethal Weapon, MacGyver, Hawaii 5-0, Magnum PI, Ghostbusters, Robocop, The Karate Kid, etc), the lack of creativity is painfully cringey, and all of the sequels have far less to do with adding or reinventing anything and far more the fact the big studios have "quotas" to make a certain number of movies / TV shows per year which is consistently double / triple their ability to actually think of new stuff to make...

It isn't about change...

... even long-time fans of content are open to change...

... it's lack of "respect" for what came before that fans react to poorly.

But change for the sake of change (lack of ideas) or in order to undermine what came previously is the problem. But the post-modernist aesthetic -- where nothing really means anything of consequence and everything is ultimately a joke -- is a prime objective of the money. They actively want to tear down meaning and popular mythology.

From what I've seen it's not that talent is completely absent, but that the industry has no interest in using that talent of telling those stories... because the money is telling them otherwise.

I have been in the meetings where "what do we need to make in order to make _______ happy?" And unlike the past, that _______ is not the audience.

Avenue of entry where?

Through the remake. Remakes and sequels are a fantastic opportunity to bring new fans into the series. For example, Star Trek: I got into the series thanks to the JJ Abrams films. I started watching the shows thanks to Discovery. Meanwhile, both of those received decent amounts of criticism. I, on the other hand, love them just as much as the old stuff and without them, I probably wouldn't have been into the series at all.

that makes not much sense , why not just make it to the old fans and probably new ones will join
at least they will get the old ones for granted
but with changes they probably lose the old ones and nothing guarantees new ones will like it, especially if it is mostly the new go broke system
you like Discovery?:O omg
how can you put your standards that low?

Because oftentimes, old fans love a product of a different time. That's certainly the case with Masters of the Universe. As times change, audiences and expectations change as well. Sometimes, to adapt something old to make something appealing to new audiences, a visual change is all that's needed. Other times, it's significant change to the overall formula.

As I said, I'm not saying this new Masters of the Universe show did it the right way. I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment on it in fairness, but I do know that a lot of the times, people are resistant to anything new because they refuse to accept that the thing they love came from a different time when audiences were different as well.

but if they change the overall formula , then why not just make a new series?
the new formula isnt the old series at all ,it just resembles it like an alien which steals the skin of its victim

I bet they want the old name for the old fans why else would they want that?
they want the old fans but they want to push their stupid ideology and very bad taste most of the times.
STD is perfect example

And I started watching Fringe thanks to its similarity to X-Files. I also played C&C because it was similar to Dune 2. And Control piqued my interest because it had many Ideas from my favourite MMO The Secret World.

As you can see, there is no need for similar things to belong to the same franchises so you can go from one to another.

Just out of curiosity - what exactly do you love about Star Trek (classic and new)?

I'm not saying EVERY franchise needs to make drastic changes, I'm just saying that sometimes it's a necessity.

As for me, with Star Trek, I really like the exploration of space combined with real, human drama and conflict. It somehow simultanenously encourages the imagination while also feeling very real. I'm much more of a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek fan but I love both and Star Trek definitely has a more realistic feel.

I can understand to take an approach to pull in a new audience, perhaps a younger audience. Although, I am not sure why that would be necessary.
The thing is, that the respective fictional universes have been defined by characters and their stories, constraints and characteristics of the universe which made them/it successful or pertinent.

I do not get at all why shitting on the old characters, stories and fing over the characteristics and constraints which made the fictional universe successful is an approach to pull in an audience?

They could make as well a new fictional universe and series. Or is it only the name of the franchise that remains as the pull factor for these people who produce the stuff to put in their agendas and own visions, so that nothing remains of the universes that were once created?

Which would mean it is about destroying those fictional universes and it's characters and not making a continuation of that fictional universe.

To quote a writer that pitched herself for the upcoming LOTR series "Western canon has to die."

About the joke, I'm sorry. As I was writing, it seemed funny, because I included myself in the lazy watchers, but after posting it, I kept having that feeling that it would rub someone the wrong way and I should edit and remove. When I came back, you had already made your comment, so the edit would be pointless.

About Luke, he also mentions that the Jedi were defeated and nearly wiped out at the height of their power and pride. The point of the movie's story is failure. Failing and learning from it and growing. By the end of the movie, everybody has failed a lot, but only the heroes were able to learn and grow and do better.

From you comments on all three characters, you seem to want them to be infallible, or, at least, only able to commit "agreeable mistakes". The thing is, that makes writing good drama terribly difficult. There's a reason "Mary Sue" is not a particularly appreciated trope: more often than not, it's boring as fuck.

It doesn't even make sense to expect Randor and Teela to be stellar examples of people in positions of power acting rationally: in the real world, we see people in positions of power being irrationally emotional all the time. In fact, it's so often incredibly trashy, pathetic, evil, corrupt behavior, that the two fictional characters ares still leagues above real world powerful public figures in terms of class and justifiability of their acts.

Superman, for example, is usually considered a hard as hell character to write properly because not only he is incredibly overpowered and he's literally the best and most humane person around. More often than not, DC comics reboots him, nerfs him and tries to portray him younger, still learning, because it makes for easier and better drama. It, usually, takes a great writer to do him justice.

There is a very good quote: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." That's basically the main criteria for any good remake, sequel or adaptation. Yes, changes can be made, they can even be necessary, but despite even the most drastic changes, core ideas of the franchise/universe should stay the same.


Well, that explains your love for JJ Trek. But I honestly can't understand why you consider "Discovery" drama to be real. To me all the drama and conflict in the first season (because I couldn't force myself to watch more) were felt very artificial, as the story always propped Burnam usually by degrading all other characters around her.

And that statement literally contradicts canon, as during Prequels Jedi Order was on the decline for a long time.

It's funny that you mentioned Mary Sue, because the main problem with such characters is not that they are infallible or overpowered. The defining trait of Mary Sue is that Mary Sue is always able to do what the story (and the writers) needs her to do, regardless of her established abilities or personality. Mary Sues can fail (like Rey failing to turn Kylo Ren to the light in TLJ) or make an error (Burnam falling for Klingon trap in STD pilot) if the plot demands it. But those failures aren't the result of character flaws - they are simply there to force the story in the direction writer wants it to go.

And the problem with Luke, Teela, and Randor is the same problem, I described above. Their mistakes are not the result of established character traits but are simply actions that the writer wanted those characters to do. Luke always saw good in people and accomplished Jedi training exactly to be able not to act on impulse. If he were to fail, the failure should've come from those traits. Like, he would always believe that despite his visions Ben Solo wouldn't turn to the Dark Side. And when Ben killed all his "classmates" because Luke didn't act - that would be a failure for Luke that fits his character.

Teela and Randor were characters that were established to be responsible and mature. It doesn't make sense for either of them to put their emotions before their responsibilities. As I've said before if it was keeping secret of Adam being He-man was the reason for his death - that indeed could be a reason for the king to be mad at Man-at-Arms. Mad to such a degree to exile him. And Teela, who always loved her father would follow him to exile.

But throwing a fit like was in MotUR? For their characters that wouldn't make sense. No more than for Skeletor to decide abandoning his villany and offer He-man a tea party.