We've already seen that. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. And once again I have to ask, do you
really think that that's what made that movie the success it was? Do you really think that the GA honed in on that one scene and said, "Yeah, this movie is great, cause Vulcans have different schools than us". Do you really think that they went out and suggested to their friends to go see the movie because of that scene? Is that really your argument?
I said things like 'one of the many things.' So, no, that can't be my argument, can it?
Then more human than the TOS movies, which the GA has seen.
Uh, no, they haven't. The target audience of the 70s is not the target audience of 2009.
Quote them, then. I'd like to know what he said word-for-word, because given some of the things you've said here, I'm guessing you're taking anything he said wildly out of context.
Why would I quote them? If you'd like to know, go get the Star Trek DVD and look at the deleted scenes with the commentaries on. Or google it, maybe its on youtube. If you don't care about getting the facts yourself, then who cares?
And yet Star Trek is a 40-year-old franchise with several hit movies to its credit, including Abrams' movie, where the alien villains were humans with pointy ears. So once again I ask you, point to an instance where the GA, which made that movie a hit, were turned off by the villains having nothing more than pointy ears. And if "alien" aliens are all that's needed to make sci-fi non-niche, then why do countless sci-fi shows and movies with really alien aliens bomb and vanish into the ether?
Statements like this show me you're not really listening. This has nothing to do with what I said.
Your notion that the GA critiques the fake science behind the technology is ludicrous, though. Only the most diehard of nerds care about things like that.
I have no such notion. Again, I really wonder if you're arguing with me, or just repeating an arguemet you've had in the past.
Cameron wouldn't have made them with rubber foreheads, but really, look at the Na'vi. They're taller blue-skinned humans with tails and cat eyes. That's it. And what really sold that movie was the 3d-world of Pandora created by Cameron more than anything else, not to mention the incredible hype surrounding it.
Why wouldn't he have? Good effort trying to downplay their alienness and its relevance.
I was asking for a sci-fi franchise. That you had to go into soap operas and James Bond proves my point. You can't find a single sci-fi franchise outside of Star Wars that lasted even five years, half the time of Star Trek at its worse, much less one which had far more "alien" aliens to it. Babylon 5 and Farscape are two great examples. They both had very distinctly alien species in them, not just rubber forehead aliens, as well as being incredibly good shows, and both franchises whithered on the vine and died after about five years.
IF that's what you were asking for, you should have said so. All of the things you're saying are correct, but how does this answer my question, which you quoted in order to make a point, but never responded to the point of, oddly: all things being equal, franchises that require less suspension of belief last longer. You're using examples of shows that put the audience off for other reasons. Many such shows exist. This does not logically, or in any other way show that the unalien aliens are not off putting.
And again, on the topic which you don't address: if you have to be Star Trek in order to get away with rubberforeheads and be successful, then partial masks, which is what is proposed for Galactus, are an absolute no go.
You assume that you can get brand recognition while at the same time putting audiences off. How in the world does that work? It's not hard for the GA to suspend disbelief with Star Trek at all. They've certainly never had that problem with a good portion of the 11 movies that've come out so far.
It works by having a target audience. Most people are put off by the Disney channel shows, but they still have plenty of brand recognition.
Most of the modern Trek movies bombed, so, obviously, the current GA was put off by them for some reason.
LMAO! Right, because a guy spontaneously bursting into flames is completely realistic.
You're using sarcasm to avoid the point. Are some things more realistic than others or aren't they?
The fact that Galactus is gigantic and eats planets is a pretty big indicator that he's biologically different.
Which is why the visual needs to support that story instead of detract from it.
Umm... we do. Where've you been? When we all go to see a Spider-Man movie we tend to expect to see him in his red-and-blue costume, as opposed to some black leather get-up. When we go see a Fantastic Four movie we expect a guy who bursts into flames, a rock man, and a guy who can stretch a lot. We demand that of every character that's put to film. Galactus is no exception.
I've been to Batman Begins and seen characters that don't resemble their comics counterparts but vaguely, and even brand new characters thrown in the mix for story purposes.
I've been to the Spider-Man films and seen radically different costumes, organic web shooters, Mary Jane replacing Gwen Stacy and a host of other visual and emotional changes to these characters.
I've been in this type of argument over nearly every film where minor changes (an obscured face) are compared to major changes (a black leather get up, which, incidentally, was wildly successful in the X-Men films). You seem to think you understand what I'm saying and thinking, but you routinely question why I have notions or arguments that I've never made. I really don't think you're reading to communicate, I think you just want to make your point no matter what it takes, and that makes for a very frustrating discussion for someone who is reading what you're *actually* saying, and not just what I think you're saying because I think I've been in this argument before. The fact that you're centering on the Star Trek issues and not the Galactus ones just makes trying to restate what you didn't read the first time seem even more irrelevant.
No one's going to put Galactus with a partial mask in a serious movie. Perhaps a CGI Cartoon or a videogame, or something whimsical, like Alice in Wonderland, but if they take it serious, they're going to give him at least a slight redesign, just like they give all comics characters,
especially the cosmic ones. History speaks to this, whether you accept it, or compare it to Spider-Man in leather pants is up to you, good sir.
