It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
It is like you would come home from work and you see your kid playing Heroes of M&M Reforged, but all you can see is
colorful dancing tiktok champions in a battle royal map.
You mention thats not HM&M at all and get an Ok booomer. reply.
The game had to be modernized, right?
Post edited July 29, 2021 by Orkhepaj
avatar
JakobFel: I'm not saying EVERY franchise needs to make drastic changes, I'm just saying that sometimes it's a necessity.
avatar
LootHunter: 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.

avatar
JakobFel: 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.
avatar
LootHunter: 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.
Yup I don't get what is so human in Discovery, they don't act like what humans act nor today nor in the ST universe.
Threaten the Klingon Empire with planetary holocaust... yeah.
Giving a ship to a totalitarian leader from a parallel universe...

ST is about an optimistic future where humanity weeded out most of the bad things like racism, sexism, women wage gap etc. and how they can solve problems with that attitude. Discovery is nothing like that. It doesn't fit into ST.
That other show The Orville is more ST than Discovery.
low rated
avatar
JakobFel: I'm not saying EVERY franchise needs to make drastic changes, I'm just saying that sometimes it's a necessity.
avatar
LootHunter: 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.

avatar
JakobFel: 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.
avatar
LootHunter: 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.
To each their own. Personally, in most cases, I think remakes are at least enjoyable. I guess maybe it's because I don't take it so personally when a remake doesn't meet my expectations or live up to what it's remaking.

Discovery is underappreciated, IMO. It's definitely different in its overall feel, it feels more like Star Wars to me which may be why I loved it so much. I get some of the criticisms, no doubt, but I like it. I also don't feel like they propped up Burnam by degrading other characters. If anything, I thought it was refreshing to have a female lead that wasn't just magically in charge of everything, good at everything and respected by everyone. I liked how she made deep-seated mistakes, she had to prove herself to most people and even after she did, there were some that still didn't trust her. Like I said, I understand some of the criticisms for the show but I also feel like it is unfairly hated at times.
avatar
Orkhepaj: That other show The Orville is more ST than Discovery.
The rest of your post is just subjective so I won't argue that but come on, The Orville? Really? If anything, it feels like a poor parody of TNG rather than actual Star Trek.

But anyways, I digress, I won't derail things further with the ST talk lol
Post edited July 29, 2021 by JakobFel
avatar
JakobFel: If anything, I thought it was refreshing to have a female lead that wasn't just magically in charge of everything, good at everything and respected by everyone.
What was Burnam not good at? And I don't mean "not good" as something that others do instead of her (like Stamets being an expert engineer) but something, she tried and failed and had to learn. Or was there a situation when she was wrong and another crewmember was right?

As for the "refreshing" part, I honestly don't know what to say. Haven't you seen StarGate, Babylon 5, Dark Matter, Andromeda? There is also Farscape where the main lead is male but female co-leads are pretty great characters too.

As I understand you consider TOS, TNG and DS9 captains to be leads and Janeway in VOY to be "magically in charge and good at everything" (though honestly, I never thought of her to be "overpowered"), but there are many other space operas.

avatar
JakobFel: The Orville? Really? If anything, it feels like a poor parody of TNG rather than actual Star Trek.
Yes, it's a parody. And it still feels to be more Star Trek than Discovery or Picard.
Post edited July 29, 2021 by LootHunter
avatar
JakobFel: With some exceptions, I typically find that the backlash toward remakes or sequels tends to be based off of nostalgia and resistance to change rather than legitimate criticism.
And I typically find that what you just said is just a lazy way of responding to legitimate criticism in the abscence of counter arguments.

There are many sequels, reboots and remakes that were, in general, very well received - Nolan's Batman movies, Mad Max Fury Road, Ash vs Evil Dead, Rogue One, Bill & Ted Face the Music, BBC's Sherlock (before it jumped the shark in season 3)... Fans aren't nearly as resistant to new things as some people like to say. But it's easier to paint fans as toxic, perpetual displeased grognards who will always hate everything then to face the truth - when a new installment in a franchise is received as poorly as something like Discovery or this Masters of the Universe, it's almost always because the writng is bad, plain and simple. It's particularly laughable to say backlash comes from "resistance to change" when pretty much the chief criticism of Force Awakens, for example, was how much of an unoriginal New Hope rip-off it was.

Discovery also a great example of how wrong you are, as it doesn't really do anything new, except for sucking. Darker tone, themes of war and morally questionable actions? DS9 dealt with all of that decades ago and people love it, some consider it the best of the Trek shows. Discovery is just extremely poorly written and, with few notable exceptions, very badly acted. And that's why fans hate it. As a fan I want people to be introduced to the franchise I love, but I want them to be introduced to it at its best, not its worst.

avatar
JakobFel: The Orville? Really? If anything, it feels like a poor parody of TNG rather than actual Star Trek.
avatar
LootHunter: Yes, it's a parody. And it still feels to be more Star Trek than Discovery or Picard.
In season 2 it pretty much stops being a parody and becomes a straight up Trek show in all but name. Really good one too.

Sidenote - I still think Picard was ok (though surely flawed), it just would have been way better as a movie.
Post edited July 29, 2021 by Breja
avatar
kai2: snip
avatar
kai2: snip
Interesting & thanks for sharing kai2. I've heard about that but haven't heard for the rest of the money cycle. (investment return). May I ask you then:
-What happens with the part of making money?
-What's the process when the expected success (generate money) doesn't happen? (Who is blamed and axed for, how those big decisions makers sneak their failure, how the no-decision makers (the mortals) survive the failure?, how the financiers keep making business? or money doesn't matter at all?)
avatar
kai2: snip
avatar
tag+: Interesting & thanks for sharing kai2. I've heard about that but haven't heard for the rest of the money cycle. (investment return). May I ask you then:
-What happens with the part of making money?
-What's the process when the expected success (generate money) doesn't happen? (Who is blamed and axed for, how those big decisions makers sneak their failure, how the no-decision makers (the mortals) survive the failure?, how the financiers keep making business? or money doesn't matter at all?)
Currently the "Hollywood system" is built on 3 things:

1. promises of entrance into larger markets; the Western market is being sacrificed for unrestricted exploitation of other markets in the future.

2. studios are being paid to promote ideologies via production partnerships that are actually backdoor payment channels from governments

3. debt. Hollywood is carrying huge debt owed overseas that cannot easily be repaid. Even if Hollywood wanted to make product that the Western market wanted (independent of specific ideologies), it can't.

ie. Kevin Smith pretty lying to fans about He-Man is a ridiculous example... but exactly what's happening.

Look to Disney. Iger was going to be the ambassador to...? Now there's a "civil war" between Iger interests and those that don't want to go down publicly to the West as the leadership that killed Disney

Unfortunately, I can't see a way out of this problem without current Hollywood being exposed as essentially propagandists, the Hollywood system imploding due to audience completely leaving, and a new independent system being built that is only beholden to their audience.

Now, pls understand I'm not saying that a studio or production must stay away from all ideologies. That's not the case. But what's happening ATM is specific ideologies are being demanded by those who hold the money... and their purpose is not to make entertainment.
avatar
kai2: snip
Wow... just wow. Thanks again kai2 for being brave and share. Something else to analyze deeply.