I was a little confused at first, but I think it works. Thanks for splitting this off to it's own topic.andersonh1 wrote:Thread split off from IDW sales since the conversation has taken on a life of its own.
A general discussion forum, plus hauls and silly games.
You're having a completely different conversation than I am. My point hasn't been focused on whether or not we like the current content, that's more something you keep shifting it towards. What I've been saying is that the quality of the content is pretty bad. Maybe not in terms of special effects, sound and so on, but in terms of the writing? You can objectively evaluate the quality of writing, which is what I'm saying. That's not an opinion.Shockwave wrote:Not when you're talking about your opinion of whether or not you like something. At no point were we talking about the technical side of anything like special effects, editing, sound, etc... we've only been talking about whether or not we like the current content, which is opinion, which is subjective.
See now, I've never agreed with that argument that Star Trek is "too cerebral for a mass audience". Even as a kid, I still loved the show, despite I'm sure a lot of it went over my head back then. I only appreciate it more as an adult. And there in lies the problem. The creators these days seem to think they have to dumb Star Trek down and make it more about the action to appeal to a mass audience, but at that point, they're forgetting about what made it Star Trek in the first place. I'd also have to say appealing to a mass audience doesn't have to be a double edge sword. Appealing to new audiences by making the franchise into something it else is no way to bring in new fans to that franchise. In the end, you'd just end up alienating all of your audience. Again, there is a reason why they can't get a fourth movie off the ground, and it's not just because of contract issues with Pine and Hemsworth. And you seem to be forgetting, everything Kurtzman has written in Star Trek has tried to use the original characters to try and appeal to older audiences, not just the Picard series. The 2009 film/Into Darkness had Spock, as well as rebooted versions of all the original characters. Discovery had Pike, Spock and Number One. And now Picard. But like you said, he can't write his way out of a paper sack, so the way it comes off tends to have an effect he doesn't intend. I mean like, introducing Pike to Discovery made audiences want a series about him, rather than Discovery and those characters."Proper" Star Trek has always been considered too cerebral for a mass audience. That's why it had low ratings in the original series and why most Trek films haven't had the same success as a lot of other big budget movies. Appealing to a mass audience is a double edged sword, on the one hand, you gain new fans, but then you alienate (or at least risk alienating) existing fans. Again, now that they have new fans, they should start producing content that can appeal to or reference both. I think that's what they're trying with Picard, but the problem there is they have Kurtzman running it and he could write his way out of a paper sack.
Or look at the Sonic the Hedgehog movie. After they received a huge backlash for trying to reinvent Sonic's design (and honestly, what audience did they intend that design for?), they actually decided to listen to the audience, and delayed the film in order to do it right. And the movie has been receiving a positive reception as a result. Again it just goes to show, you cannot forget about what worked about the franchise to begin with, or the fans of it.
"Dark Age" just implies something is still there, but whatever that is, it isn't good. I mean, it's not like all of Europe just stopped existing when it went through the Dark Ages. But that said, it sort of depends on if the industry/franchise comes back or not. I mean, if it's dead, and stays dead, then a "dead franchise/industry" seems appropriate. If it's just discontinued for some period of time, but eventually comes back... "dormancy".Alright, fine, then what term do you want to use for an industry or franchise that has completely stopped producing any new content and is effectively dead? I thought "Dark Age" worked fine, but you go ahead and suggest something better. We're discussing the possible death of an industry by referencing franchises and properties that have had periods where they were dead. I don't care what we call that period, just pick a term and we can stick with it. And remember, we're discussing periods of NO content, good or bad.
Well you've been disagreeing with me on every little thing here, so it came off as being sarcastic.LOL yeah, that's why I was laughing. It wasn't sarcastic. I mean, I said it, so obviously I agree with you
It wasn't just existing fans and critics that hated the films... Have you actually looked at the audience scores? On Rotten Tomatoes, only the first Transformers film scored better with the audience than the Bumblebee film. And that's likely only because it had the benefit of being the first one, while Bumblebee had the shadow what the films had become known for hanging over it.There is often a disparity between critics and audiences. Critics tend to hate mass appeal movies while audiences tend to like them. Look at almost any movie's Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores and there's usually a difference. The Transformers movies were pretty universally hated by existing fans and critics alike, but they kept making so much money that they... kept making more of them.
I wouldn't say it is thanks to that. And this is what I've been saying. The right way to mass appeal is to appeal to BOTH new and old audiences AT THE SAME TIME.But, thanks to that we know have a franchise that can reference the old and the new in the same content. We have Barricade in IDW's current comic and toy line along with classic fan favorites. That's the way to do mass appeal right.
No. I'm sorry, but just... no. I specifically stated what I meant by using that term and why I thought that definition works in this context at the beginning of this discussion. If you're just going to ignore that and debate based on whatever definition you want then I think we're done here. There's no point in debating when you can't even agree on what words mean.Sparky Prime wrote:"Dark Age" just implies something is still there, but whatever that is, it isn't good. I mean, it's not like all of Europe just stopped existing when it went through the Dark Ages. But that said, it sort of depends on if the industry/franchise comes back or not. I mean, if it's dead, and stays dead, then a "dead franchise/industry" seems appropriate. If it's just discontinued for some period of time, but eventually comes back... "dormancy".
Yes, you did state what you meant by using that term. That doesn't change the fact I don't agree with how you've applied it, nor is that how the term is actually defined, for which I have specifically pointed out several times. I haven't ignored anything here, you're the one coming up with your own definitions apparently based on a Time magazine article which also didn't apply it correctly in the first place. Then you said: "I don't care what we call that period, just pick a term and we can stick with it". So now you're backtracking on your own comments here and trying to spin it like I've somehow just made up what "Dark Ages" actually means? There's no point of debating if you can't be honest enough to stick to your own comments while trying to make it seem like I'm the one somehow just making up whatever definitions I want.Shockwave wrote:No. I'm sorry, but just... no. I specifically stated what I meant by using that term and why I thought that definition works in this context at the beginning of this discussion. If you're just going to ignore that and debate based on whatever definition you want then I think we're done here. There's no point in debating when you can't even agree on what words mean.