Don't Let a Bad Movie Ruin Your Childhood
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- ▶Join this channel to get access to perks:
www.youtube.co...
▶Patreon: / steveshives
▶PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
▶Venmo: venmo.com/that...
▶Twitter: / steve_shives
▶Facebook: / thatguysteveshives
▶Instagram: / steve.shives
Listen to the Late Seating podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / late-seating
Listen to The Ensign's Log podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
#movies #starwars #startrek #commentary
![Beginners Guide To Being A Director In The Movie Industry - Jason Satterlund [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sxR8EJnMKkE/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the things I loved about The Last Jedi was it's attitude that no matter how precious fans might be about certain characters, that doesn't mean the universe has to be.
Is Poe a beloved central character? Yep, but his superiors don't know that. So when he screws up, he suffers consequences. He loses trust and isn't owed explanations of his commanders' orders anymore. Is Phasma a badass positioned to be a major antagonist? Yep, but the universe doesn't know that. So she's not immune from dying in a gantry collapse as the ship disintegrates around her. All these touches undermining main character syndrome were a strength of the movie to me, as much as they seemingly upset a lot of the fandom.
This, this, this. That "they disrespected the lore," "they humiliated the characters" attitude that so many of the whiniest superfans display is rooted in the fact that they view the characters as cherished toys rather than characters in a story. That's why it's so creatively disastrous when storytellers cater to those kinds of fans, because they don't want stories, they just want to admire their toy collection.
EXACTLY. And that’s why I greatly respected the choices The Last Jedi made at every turn. Yes even Canto Bight. All of it was Rian trying to get fans to open their minds about what SW can be about. Alas, pearls before swine and all that…
@@SteveShives I can, to some extent, respect the nerdy worldbuilding complaints about hyperspace mechanics in the B-plot--taken with good humor that's the kind of nitpicking that can give watching science fiction another layer of fun... but it seems to be making them miserable.
But the complaints that they turned Luke into a washed-up grump, instead of the superhero he became in the pre-Disney Expanded Universe novels... yeah, they were attacking one of the most interesting things about the movie because it wasn't running on the rails they had grown to love.
I do get similar feelings about iconic characters I love, sometimes (*cough*Superman) but this was a Luke that was a completely believable continuation of the Luke we knew from the original trilogy, knocked out of the park by an Oscar-worthy performance from Mark Hamill even though it wasn't the Luke *he'd* imagined either.
@@MattMcIrvin Totally agree with this, especially because I feel like Luke being an all powerful hero who always knows exactly what to do would have been the most boring way possible to continue from The Force Awakens. Because it's exactly what both the audience and Rey expect to find on that island, but it makes perfect sense that's not what she finds. If he was really a god who could fix everything himself, why exactly did he hide to begin with? No matter how you slice it, wasn't that a selfish choice?
This movie dares to answer "Yes" and then elaborate. It explains why, it turns the idealized hero into a person with regrets, and fears, and flaws, and then it turns around and makes him a hero again. He saves the day not with a tremendous display of terrifying individual power (honestly defeating Fascists like that isn't very satisfying because their worldview rests on might makes right) but by leveraging his reputation, the thing that he'd been hiding from.
No, your childhood hero wasn't perfect. He wasn't perfect in those old movies either. But at his core he's still a hero in the end, and shouldn't that be the part that matters?
Yes, I prefer a balance between too much "plot armor" and wanton killing off of characters just to shake things up or be edgy. It's more realistic, without being too literally realistic, which loses any fantasy or fictional vibe.
Regarding Go Tell A Watchman, I think it has legitimate value. Scout is an adult and has a better understanding of the nuances if the world and can see that her father, while still a decent man, is not perfect. In To Kill A Mockingbird, Scout is a child. The book is told from the perspective of a 6yo girl who idolizes her father and sees him as the best person ever.
I have a similar relationship with my own father. When I was a kid, he was my hero. He even felt like a literal superhero because he was a Navy rescue swimmer. He taught me how to swim, surf, cliff dive, start fires, climb mountains, all kids of crazy stuff. He also studied history, was a military veteran who was outspoken about the horrors of war, encouraged me to think critically and question authority (even him), and to always learn more. He was my hero.
I, like Scout, grew up. And learned that my father wasn't perfect. He could be sexist without realizing it, he could be homophobic without realizing it. He doesn't take much value from fictional stories and art in general, he only sees value in nonfiction and real world artifacts. He'll watch a movie and enjoy it (he's a big Star Trek fan), but he likes it because it reminds him of life on a ship and the conflicts play out like submarine warfare (he was a sonar expert and sub-tracker). He doesn't engage with the core stories that question what it means to be human, he just likes seeing a good portrayal of how people act on ships.
My father is my own Atticus Finch, and Go Tell A Watchman made me feel like Scout. I didn't lose my father and the way I idealized him as a child still shaped me into the person that I am. But he's more complicated than that, as are we all, and it took adult me to realize that.
As he is a huge fan of ST ask him to watch The measure of a man from ST NG with you. I doubt be will not engage to the core of it and of what it means to be human on this episode. Basically it happens in a room.
I think is the only ST NG episode that really really nailed it.
This is so amazing how you view your family growing up vs as a adult as your self is tough. I feel that way my self many days that I grew up one way and now seeing what is going on as a member of the gov't my self is sad.
This echoes conversations I've had with friends who've said that RFK Jr has ruined the legacy of JFK and RFK, and i think, "No. Anyone can have a shitty child, and it's not his ability as a father that i ever appreciated about RFK."
@warshield924 Perhaps my words were unclear, but it sounds like we 100% agree.
That's really absurd and offensive. It's thereby actually a really interesting example. Fascinating. 🖖
When I was in my 20s, I left college to help my grandfather deal with cancer, driving him to appointments and such. When I was in my 40s, I had to deal with losing a child due to cancer. These types of real world tragedies put things like a movie in its proper place. In this life, you will experience disappointment and hardship. If a movie, something that you can voluntarily watch or not watch, is listed among your greatest hardships in life, then you really have another thing coming.
I know, right?
Steve, I think you are missing the point. Star Ward was an imprint on many people as a child. It’s no different than many adults being despondent when their sports team loses. It’s a childhood memory is cherished. Luke Skywalker was never my favorite character but the way the movie destroyed his character was terrible. Even the actor who portrayed the character was baffled. You don’t need to destroy the past to build the future. If Star Wars can only move forward is by tearing down old Star Wars they can count me out. If Star Trek can only continue is to have Captain Kirk become despondent and give up so that another character seize the mantle of hero from him by lecturing him not to give up and that THEY don’t believe in the no win situation, I would stop watching Star Trek. I don’t need corporate media destroying my beloved characters and then tell me to get over it. Screw them
@@solowolf7418 Oh man, this post made my day, saying that Steve 'missed the point.' What if The Last Jedi never existed? Would that make it better? Does the existence of 'The Last Jedi' impair your ability in any way of enjoying any other Star Wars movie on its own? If you say that your person is somehow damaged due to Rian Johnson's portrayal of Luke Skywalker, then you are simply too much identified with that character, and this is an opportunity for growth.
@ I respectfully disagree. The world needs myth, legends and heroes. I don’t object that Luke needn’t be the focus of every Star Wars story. I object to his character being trashed just because Ryan wanted to be edgy. It’s lame. We tell stories to uplift and inform each other. I don’t enjoy seeing well known heroes being knocked down a peg to serve the cynicism of corporate bosses who only care about making a buck. Why get invested in their new , shiny heroes which the track record of the parent company points to then as being expendable? Why care about Rey when she will just get the Skywalker treatment when the new flavor of the day comes along?
@@solowolf7418 It's perfectly fine to not like a movie. If you don't like "The Last Jedi", then that's great. It's a bad movie. But people who say that it ruined their childhood is another thing altogether, almost that if their person is so tied to the character, bordering on worship, then Star Wars has become kind of a religion.
It would have been great stroytelling if, in the Rise of Skywalker, Rey had indeed been nobody, born of nobody, as Kylo said, but through her journey and choices *become* all that being a Skywalker represents, and thus adopted the mantle of the name. Like Banderas' vagabond nobody assumed the mantle and then the name of Hopkins' Zorro.
I think it's the pain of missed potential that upsets some people. That RoS had such incredible potential and proceeded to completely shit the bed in order to appease reddit chuds, in addition to being awful on it's own merits, is why I feel it does earn it's scorn.
Guess what? I still enjoy watching TFA and TLJ though.
Yes I agree with you it would have been much more emotionally relatable because it inspires people who feel like they are that nobody who gets treated for the longest time as a nobody and they use that to make themselves stronger for the good of the world around them.
I think that's exactly where Johnson wanted to lead the mythology. It's why he showed us broom boy. Too bad Disney decided not to make a sequel to TLJ.
24:00 to be fair, all dvds of TNG being enigmatically blank after the release of the Kelvin timeline sounds like a pretty good episode of Star Trek.
Lmao that sounds like something that would have been a joke from lower decks which I did like but it's because I felt I needed a star trek that didn't take everything so seriously. Sometimes we want to enjoy something within a universe we love but will make us laugh more than the jokes in the live action shows and films, not to diminish Worf being dropped into the ocean by a disappearing plank, that was hilarious. But lower decks I appreciated it, I also love Rick and Morty so that plays into it a bit.
@@angrysaxman2246What I hear you saying is that Disco was a 5-season-long nightmare.
7:22 it also falls in line with the whole "conservatives don't get subtlety" thing. They don't get allegory, or hyperbole, or sarcasm, or whatever, when it's on the screen in front of their face. They don't think that way, so why would they talk that way?
Their lack of nuance also allows them to flip their views based on who said it. They'll violently disagree with anything Biden or Obama ever said, but will fully support it if told it comes from Trump.
The last scene of Atticus in Watchman is very moving for me. He is not as good as the hero of Mockingbird, but his pride in his daughter redeems him. He is proud that his daughter can go farther than he can. He raised her to be better than he is.
Some times the best thing we can do, the only thing we can do is show people the flaws we have so they don't, won't make the mistakes we did. We show them there's a way to be better, do better and to be more than the past. To be kinder, to be more open and aware.
Some of the time, that's enough too.
I agree with very nearly everything you say here. The _sole_ exception is that the theatrical versions of the original Star Wars trilogy is, in fact, *not* readily available (through legitimate means) for us to get hold of anymore. I totally respect the right of Lucas as an artist, to modify his art to his liking, but I do think it was a very poor decision to make the versions that many people originally fell in love with inaccessable.
The DVDs I have of the original Star Wars have the original theatrical releases as well as the Special Edition Versions. You just need to go into the Features section to change it so you can watch them.
@@HGVIII Those dvds are no longer available. They were also never properly remastered for dvd. The point is the original versions ought to be available. It shouldn't take a treasure hunt to see them.
@@GeoffreyToday They are a google search away (4k77 etc). Don't get me wrong it would be nice to get the original cut from an official source, but it is worth noting that it is extremely easy to find the original cuts and the sites offering them have not been taken down (ask Nintendo about emuparadise if you want to know how this could go). Should they be available on like D+ or AppleTV? Sure but to be fair there are several films that don't make their original cuts available these days. This isn't some injustice, it's how the system works (which is why you should feel fine circumventing the system).
@@GeoffreyToday The original version of Star Wars was only released in theatres for one year and has never been made available on the home market.
@@BrotherAlphaI’m sorry but your statement that the original Star Wars never being given a home video release is simply incorrect. I know this bc I have the OG trilogy on VHS from 1992, which were released 5 years before the first Special Edition versions.
I've only really felt that kind of loss when an artist died before their time. Jim Henson died when I was 11, and I felt like I lost a piece of my childhood. I had a similar sense of loss about Robin Williams and Terry Pratchett. The fact that a movie or show or book was made that didn't appeal to me is entirely inconsequential.
There's so much good stuff out there that it's laughably easy to move on to other stuff and chalk up that two hours watching a movie as lost time.
GNU Terry Pratchett
I have a knitting buddy (only known her for a year or so). Imagine my utter bafflement when as a result of me recounting (or starting to recount) a funny story about how my little brother when he was 6 was trying to sing "jingle bells" and got stuck in a loop going round and round "o what fun it is to ride in a one horse open sleigh-ay!" As the sound came out of my mouth (imitating my brother) this *adult woman* stood up from her chair and yelled I CAN'T TAKE IT! I HAVE TO LEAVE! Well thanks a lot for taking the wind out of my reminiscence (never got to finish).
Turns out her bastard of an ex-husband was *really* into Christmas.
PTSD triggers are an unpredictable force. I hope you two managed to patch over this unlucky incident.
If watching TLJ was the worst experience of your life, you've had it *really darned easy.*
EXACTLY.
Seriously. What, you've never had to attend a funeral? Never been unemployed? Never experienced rejection? That's baseline stuff there. Life gets so much harder than a disappointing movie experience.
Recently bascialyl said that to a person who said that "Venom 3 is the worst movie they ever seen". Like, they never seen a genuinely bad movie in their life if THAT is the lowest bar.
@@LordDarthHarry I'll take the entire Venom trilogy over 5 minutes of any given Michael Bay movie.
They are weak and will not survive the winter.
I had the exact conversation (almost verbatim) with my friend in regards to the Netflix Series “Lost in Space”; where he was almost in tears because, “Dr. Smith is now a woman?!” and I asked what he thought of the 1998 Matt LeBlanc movie? He said that he boycotted it ~ meaning you didn’t go and see it, I queried… No, he actually was involved in an internet urge to destroy the film that (he never saw by~the~way) that “RUINED HIS CHILDHOOD”❓❗️
Yea, i love that excuse as well. "Did you go see it?" "No, BUT......"
GTFOH!!
The thing that actually is ruining your childhood is capitalism. The entire reason they're bringing back finished stories from the dead to suck some more blood out of them instead of trying new things is because they're running a risk/return calculation on ROI before committing to anything, and zombified nostalgia is always the safer bet.
Cultural stagnation is tinder on the bonfire to come.
I think the last 5 years have proven that zombified nostalgia is NOT always a safe bet
@@KayleighBourquin Not artistically, but financially it's been worth more than gold.
@@while_coyote Not all the movies and TV shows that have been atavisticly nostalgic have been successful, quite a few of them have been financial disasters. It's only a handful that have been truly financially successful
@@KayleighBourquin do you have some examples? Asking because I'm intereste
I made a conscious decision a few years back to stop saying a piece of entertainment was bad and instead saying its not for me. I walked out The Rise of Skywalker 30 minutes in and was not really that upset because it just was not for me. Nothing personal. Maybe some people love it. Just not for me and I get to go on with my life.
This! I recently tried to read the manga Berserk. I got to volume 15 (out of 34 volumes I think) and I realised I was just not enjoying the story. I didn't like the main character, I liked some of the supporting characters but I didn't like what the author did with them. I could see the author was a very good artist, it just wasn't for me and it wouldn't give me anything I enjoyed. So better for me to just step away and read something else.
I would concur with what you said about The Rise Of Skywalker, albeit for a different reason; It had about 40 or 50 percent approval rating, indicating that roughly as many people favored as opposed it. When I say a piece of entertainment is bad, I'm referring to the critics' consensus. An overwhelming share of the films I name to my worst-of-the-year lists were universally panned by critics.
I agree. When I learned the phrase, "I'm not the target audience." I found it so much easier not to get morally wounded by movies. I find that I can even shrug off "BvS:DoJ".
Lemme guess, you made it to “somehow, Palpatine has returned” and peaced out.
@chapablo haha yup
"Go Set a Watchman ruined Atticus Finch!"
Yes. And that's the point. The story is about how we shouldn't hold our personal heroes up to unattainable standards. We are all human, as was Atticus Finch. Scout, and the audience by proxy, saw her father as Superman in To Kill a Mockingbird, and in Go Set a Watchman, we learned he was just... man. Faults and all. We are all capable of screwing up depending on whose eyes are on us.
What I find interesting is that reading To Kill a Mockingbird with this idea in mind, you can see moments where it's clear Scout is unconsciously reading his actions in the best possible light.
Well no. You're acting like Harper Lee intended for that to be the case. When as , Steve alluded to, it seems to be pretty clear that she was taken advantage of in her old age to make a quick cash grab.
Go Set a Wacthman was the story Harper Lee set out to write, but the publisher she worked with guided her in a direction where the end product was To Kill a Mockingbird. Both stories are based on her life experiences, and whether or not she would have wanted Go Set a Watchman to be published does not undermine the truth of it. Her father was a prominent lawyer, Dill is based on her childhood friend Truman Capote, she did have a older brother that they played with. He did die young, only a year or so before Go Set a Watchman takes place. Her father did defend black man in court. Her father was a segregationist.
She may have wanted that part of the story to remain untold because she saw that To Kill a Mockingbird had a profound impact on our society, but both are equally true. AC Lee really did believe in seperate but equal. In the first book scout starts at age 6 and ends at age 10. To a child of that age, of course their father is a perfect man who does no wrong. In the later, she sees him for the man he is as a woman of her own. I think its foolish to hate the later and try to use any and every tactic to discredit it when it is still the truth she experienced. Atticus can be both a hero and a flawed man. All heroes are flawed. Atticus Finch was a segregationist. Scout just didnt realize it as a child.
@@asianmalaysianable How so?
@@asianmalaysianable When I said "how so?" I was asking you to explain how you think that Harper Lee's flaws were exposed. A claim you made, and have done nothing to support.
I grew up up with the SW “sequels” that were in the “expanded universe” books that are no longer canon.
Luke agonizing about his failures and running away from the academy after a failed attempt at resurrecting the Jedi Order while the Empire attempts to bring back the Emperor is nothing new.
Agreed. When I learned about Palpatine's return in RoS my first thought was "huh, I guess they're rehashing Dark Empire of all things." I distinctly remember several times in the EU where other characters had to give Luke pep talks in the wake of some failure he was responsible for, and the Jedi Order itself was destroyed and rebuilt more times than I can remember across the entire timeline.
As you've likely surmised, I also grew up reading lots of EU stories. I didn't like many of them, including Dark Empire. I absolutely despised the New Jedi Order series, where the Yuzzhan Vong were introduced and upended just about everything in the Star Wars galaxy. It taught me an important lesson, however; if it's popular enough, a series you love WILL have installments you won't like, and you have to learn to accept that. Allowing bad entries to retroactively taint an entire franchise is a decision that doesn't have to be made. You can simply acknowledge that it's not for you and move on while continuing to enjoy the entries that you value.
They also seem to miss the fact that Luke failing to resurrect the Jedi and going into hiding, ashamed of his failure, was part of Lucas' outline when he sold the rights. It was Lucas' idea!
The thing is your childhood can't retroactively be ruined, so by saying that something from now ruins your childhood is actively admitting that you are acting like a child.
On the other hand, maybe it's a *good* thing if a movie/tv show/game/whatever "ruins your childhood," because that can only mean you were fortunate enough to live a blissful, utterly contented and fulfilling childhood. Imagine, living a life so bereft of trauma that *fiction* can injure you so profoundly. It's a *blessing,* is what it is.
If seeing movie is the worst experience of your life you've lived a charmed life.
What if it's one _of_ the worst experiences in your life?
One of the facts of life that people have trouble with is that everything changes. I'm not who I was 20 years ago. No one and nothing stays the same. Some cannot accept that. I'm 73 and find that things I enjoyed as a child are not interesting to me. I grew up.
People seem to have forgotten that Bill Shatner's infamous line "Get a life" was a bit of dialogue in a sketch on an episode of "Saturday Night Live," and not something that he actually said to a real fan in the real world...
...But it probably should have been;
Because, despite its origin in a work of comedic fiction, it's still good advice.
I strongly suspect that William Shatner had a huge hand in writing that sketch.
Compartmentalization. I’m with Steve on this one. Archie Bunker’s Place didn’t ruin All in the Family.
I saw the 2016 Ghost Busters remake in a theatre the first week it was released. I thought it was okay. Not as good as the original but neither did it "ruin" the original for me. I did, however, love the Chris Hemsworth role as the empty headed character that in practically every other movie is a woman. We definitely need much more of that subversive flipping of stereotypical roles.
The only reason the public hatred of it became a popular culture sensation was because of Gamergate and the alt-right. I wish it would've been forgotten about as befitting a film with neutral reviews.
I watched the 2016 "Ghostbusters" movie. I found it to be okay and enjoyable. That reaction had nothing to do with it being an all female (main) cast. It had everything to do with some very 2D characterization, and what felt like attempts to mimic the original cast.
The chemistry was lacking. Some of the acting was wooden.
Still overall enjoyed it.
I enjoyed the 2016 Ghostbusters and even though I'm not a big Melissa McCarthy fan, I liked her in that movie. I already like Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, so no notes there.
I feel that GB2016 better captures the comedic tone of the first two films more than the recent sequels (which I also like).
I thought it was a scream, though there was a bit too many cringe scenes that weren't really jokes, but that's all. I loved Hemsworth in it, I thought Bill Murray truly understood the awfulness of his characters and played it to perfection.
I've never seen a movie so wildly aware of the cultural situation it was released into and I thought they handled that brilliantly and it was funny.
Only real notes was that it seemed Leslie Jones got nothing. She should have been an impactful character and she just wasn't. Not sure why it happened, writers stuffing it up or none of her bits really working out.
@@mkang8782 no, the reaction to that movie had EVERYTHING to do with sexism and racism. If the cast hadn’t been women, if Leslie Jones hadn’t been a part of the cast (she was viciously attacked for that movie, much more so than her costars - wonder why?), it would have been at worst casually dismissed and at best lauded. Definitely wouldn’t have gotten the hate it did.
Speaking of Ghostbusters 2016, as a woman and as a paranormal investigator, I enjoyed the women Ghostbusters team. Was it objectively great movie? No. But I like it. A friend absolutely hated it. He spent a lot of effort trashing it and claimed the women-led sequel ruined the original Ghostbusters movies and ruined his childhood. I made the point that the sequel cannot destroy the original because the original will always exist and if girl Ghostbusters ruined his childhood that he had much bigger problems. Bad adaptations cannot destroy the source material.
I didn't like it because I found it plotwise pretty uninspired - the actors were their usual ***ing awesome selves, but the story could have been WAAAAY better.
It was fun!
@queenannsrevenge100 totally agree with you.
It was fun for sure. My biggest issue with it really was how quickly the inventions escalated, and how loud the .. loud one is. Also a few scenes just went on way too long after their punchlines. But as a movie it's perfectly competent!
“Man of Steel” made me sad and even a little angry because this was going to be how a generation experienced Superman. It didn’t ruin my childhood, but it took something away from people who came along later. We’ve gotten some good Superman since then, but a whole bunch of kids/now-adults will never understand what makes him a great character.
Given how some of those fans have acted years after its release, there is merit in being aggravated over it.
@@CurseTheCosmos The people who hated it aren't much better.
These kids are going to be fine.
I thought Man Of Steel was average. Definitely not one of the worst films of its year, and publicly overcondemned. But I concur it could've been more and could've accomplished more.
I feel the same way about Transformers. There's a whole decade of kids whose view of that franchise is tainted by Michel Bay's trash slop.
Optimus Prime might not have a history anywhere near as long and prestigious as Superman, but in most incarnations he's still every bit as much an idealistic paragon... and then there is the cynically bitter bloodthirsty psychopath of the Bayverse.
“I am….. and always shall be… your friend.”
Live long, and prosper.
I've been subscribed to this channel since I was three, and this video totally ruined my childhood.
WTF???
Good one!! 😂😂😂😂
Ah, but is that a sincere statement or hyperbole? ;-)
Yeah! We shouldn’t let *a* bad movie ruin our childhoods, we should let *multiple* bad movies ruin our childhoods!
***watches video***
Kay, so obviously that’s not the direction Steve went with this one. Probably should have seen that coming. “Let’s just have a healthy relationship with the media we consume and be adults about it.” Pft. Typical Steve.
If a movie/TV show "ruined your childhood", it's because you never stopped being a child.
A thing I didn't like about 2001 is that all people look robotic, detached, emotionless, even Dave when his life is threatened. The most human character in the movie, is ... HAL. I could never pinpoint if it was bad action, bad direction or on purpose..
Every story is a new story. Enjoy it for what it is. Let things change and grow. It allows what we love to live on and be enjoyed be new generations and allows for new perspectives in the universes of what we love
Even when a happy ending turns out to not be happy at all? That's not how fairy tales are supposed to work.
In the foreword to his third Odyssey novel, Arthur C. Clarke wrote "Just as 2010: Odyssey Two was not a direct sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, so this book is not a linear sequel to 2010. They must all be considered as variations on the same theme, involving many of the same characters and situations, but not necessarily happening in the same universe. Developments since 1964 make total consistency impossible, as the later stories incorporate discoveries and events that had not even taken place when the earlier books were written." If only Star Trek and Star Wars fans were that sensible.
You loved the part about Rey being nobody - did you miss the possibility that Rian Johnson was making a point about negging, rather than about progeny of heroes? That interpretation was the first thing that came to my mind, especially in light of Kylo's overall character arc. He either knows that she's a Palpatine; or doesn't really know anything about her at all; but either way, is willing to use HER lack of information to his advantage. For someone who's witnessed such manipulation exercised against emotionally vulnerable people many times, it was actually a relief to find out that she came from somewhere, and that fit her ultimate validation in turning the whole galaxy away from the dark side in the end. For whatever egalitarian impulse that Rey's purportedly humble beginnings might have played to for you, the fact is that Kylo is saying that in order to control her. And of that we must always be wary.
Anyone who says that a movie ruined their childhood, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, is a “drama queen“. It’s just preposterous and ridiculous. And like you said in your previous video, they really need to take a serious look at their priorities.
Right? Like how pathetic is your childhood that a movie can ruin it? That's what your parents are for!
I also found the 26Teen version of Ghostbusters merely average rather than a complete blemish on childhood. It passed the time, but didn't boast anything special and didn't add anything to my life or the lore. At worst, forgettable. But the social media / tech industry could've handled the drama with Intellectual Dark Web followers a lot better.
@@dominicfucinari1942The majority of the hate for that movie was because all of the Ghostbusters were women.
What if they're being facetious?
Could be. I don't get the sense they are. Maybe there's a few. But I get the sense that if just a few of us with absolutely ruined childhoods shared our stories, I think they'd be really embarrassed.@@JordanShipp-w1d
I feel very much like you do about 2001: A Space Odyssey. It sparked my fascination with space movies and science fiction in general. I ran out and read the book immediately afterward and was somewhat dismayed at the differences due to the fact that it was written about the same time as the movie was being made.
2010 is a perfectly fine movie, but it's no 2001. It was cool to see the Discovery again and to see and hear HAL again, but otherwise it's a completely different movie.
When I was in college we went to see the biggest movie of the year, Network, all about the rise of infotainment to the detriment of "real news," but afterward ALL we could talk about was that teaser trailer they showed before the movie for something called "Star Wars." And it wasn't supposed to be released for another eight months! Who the hell does that?!
I watched that movie twenty-two times that next summer, as we were all doing. But I was a Star Trek fan. I was only there to try to figure out haw they did the special effects. My very favorite effects shot in all of Star Wars is still the Millennium Falcon high-tailing it out of the Death Star.
I hated the prequels, but it was The Force Awakens (that SO many Star Wars fan boys decried) was the one that FINALLY turned me into a REAL Star Wars fan. While the rest of the audience was cheering the reveal of the Millennium Falcon I was shouting "What a piece of junk!"
People just tend to take these things WAY too seriously. To quote somebody around here, "It's only a movie!"
I've always loved ALL the Ghostbusters movies. They ALL a LOT of fun!
For that matter, the Alien movies are all quite good, though often quite different and of varying quality.
Yeah, the Back to the Future sequels were kinda hard for me because they messed with the formula a bit, but they're a lot of fun as well.
Saving Mr. Banks didn't ruin Mary Poppins for me, the Lindsey Lohan Herbie Fully Loaded didn't ruin The Lobe Bug for me, both were movies I saw very early in my childhood. For that matter Race to Witch Mountain was a noble update to the original Escape to Witch Mountain, and even its 1995 remake.
To Kill a Mockingbird is a child's view of her father as a child and Nightwatchman is the same person seeing their father as an adult. She is able to see his flaws. I remember seeing my father as a loving man when I was a child. They conflict with the man I know now. I have not spoken to my father in the last 10 years since I came out. When Nightwatchman came out I felt a stronger connection with Scout.
I never read "To Kill a Mockingbird" until I was an adult, and I read "Go Set A Watchman" shortly after. This is exactly how it came across to me.
I've got the somewhat complicated perspective with my mother too. The version of who she was in my childhood memories vs who I know her to be as an adult just don't quite line up, and it can be a bit of a bitter pill to swallow sometimes.
It's not even that she's a bad person, and we still see each other regularly, but sometimes maybe that makes it all the more disappointing every time I'm reminded that she's not as perfectly flawless as the child inside of me insists she should be.
Then again, my relationship with my father has had almost the exact opposite trajectory, so maybe it all balances out.
There's really no contradiction with Atticus Finch. He's not a hypocrite. There was a difference between believing in segregation - even state segregation - and thinking a black man should be lynched for a crime he didn't commit (or even for a crime he did commit, for that matter). Many of the most hardened real-life segregationists came to oppose lynching without giving up their pro-segregationist views. More to the point, at no point in the book or the movie does Atticus condemn segregation in general; he is focused only on the one case. I had never noticed that before; indeed, I didn't notice it up until only about a half-hour ago while watching this video. The problem is with us. We made assumptions about a man based on things we imagined him saying that he never said.
@@SeasideDetective2: Funny, but that's sorta same thing for fans who hate TLJ for what it "did" to Luke Skywalker.
They were so focused on their perception of Luke as the "perfect" ideologic hero he was in RotJ, that they completely missed the part where his entire character arc in TLJ was actually setup in TFA.
I've seen so many fans, absolutely convinced that Luke always wanted to be found and for someone to come and bring him back to save the galaxy when the time was right. It's why he left the map behind after all, or so they try to claim. Only Luke isn't the one who left that map behind, and it wasn't even a map of where to find him. It was a map showing the location of the first Jedi temple, someplace he was only ever rumored to have gone to and where there would be no guarantee he was still there even if he had.
Moreover, the person who tells us about no one actually knowing where Luke went is Han. Meaning Luke didn't even bother telling his best friend or sister where he was going. That doesn't sound even remotely like anyone who ever wants to be found.
Not to mention the entire notion of Luke coming back only when the time was right and he is needed most is even more ludicrous. The "right" time for him to come back would have been before he even left in the first place. It's not like he left while the galaxy was in a state of peace and prosperity. He left right when the First Order was staring out and immediately after Kylo had joined up with them. If Luke had still been any kind of hero, he would have stayed to help Leia's resistance.
Bitter old hermit Luke might not have been what the fans wanted, but given what the TFA setup, it was the most logical place for TLJ to go with his character. Besides, young and idealistic people becoming increasingly cynical and disillusioned with age is relatably normal progression, especially if they lived through the trauma of one war only to see another war repeating all the same mistakes follow, while also knowing both wars were just an extension of a generational conflict which started before they were even born.
But petty shallow fans didn't want Luke Skywalker the man, they wanted Luke Skywalker the legend.
@@EmeralBookwise You make excellent points here. Nevertheless, since Star Wars is all fantasy and mythology anyway, and not a psychology course or even good literature, given a choice I'd choose Luke Skywalker the legend.
I think the only time I would ever say something from my childhood was "ruined" for me was when I learn that the creator of said thing is an irredeemable scumbag.
For example, Rurouni Kenshin was a very influential anime for me and my siblings, but when we learned what the creator was using the money he was earning for, none of us could look at it the same.
(I'm being intentionally vague so I don't get flagged.)
This is exactly why fan fiction exists. This is the kind negative response from a few vocal people regarding the new Superman. If you don't like the way a sequel is told, write your own. If you don't like the way a reboot is told, write your own. Episodes 7-9 were TERRIBLY planned out (or not at all). That's easily fixed through fan fiction you can likely find all over the internet.
I LOOOOVE writing fanfiction and one of my favorite genres to write in is alternate universe canon divergence!
Remember, women writers were until very recently very rare in Hollywood and female characters were too often sidelined as supporting or love interests. So young women used their imaginations to create their own stories. They never deluded themselves into thinking they had a right to shout to the studio that their lives had been destroyed because they didn't get what they wanted. Women never had the luxury of being enraged that a franchise didn't put a woman of their own race at the center every single time. They just went and wrote their own stories, and they were often ridiculed for it. Now, if a man writes a Batman reboot, he's obviously a genius who is reimagining a classic character. And so it goes.
That's what I did when I was so angry with the third book in the _His Dark Materials_ trilogy. Not an entire replacement story, but I did write one additional scene for something I was so mad at the book for not including even any allusions to.
I never ever actually put anywhere on the internet for anyone else to read. It was more something I wrote just to sooth my own personal frustration. Although I'm pretty sure I've still got it buried somewhere on my hard drive.
In the end, whether Rey was a Palpatine, Skywalker, Kenobi or Whatever, it doesn't matter because she is the one making decisions. Same thing with the dreaded "Timeless Child" reveal in Doctor Who, it's a new backstory but doesn't really change who the person was due to their actions while not knowing that.
I worked with a girl who was born years after I had graduated from high school, who had never seen the original Star Wars trilogy -- for her, the Prequel Trilogy WAS Star Wars, and she was just as hyped for Star Wars as me or anyone else who grew up with the original trilogy, even tho she had never seen it (she said it was "too old" for her to watch)... and I imagine the same is true for the next generation, where the sequel trilogy was their first Star Wars experience.
It's all a matter of perspective, and honestly it doesn't really matter what happens in a sequel or remake scores of years down the line -- if the content you first saw had a deep impact on you that shaped your views or path in life, then that impact is still there no matter what happens years after the fact.
This video raised a question in my mind. Many of us are good at making "head cannon" for our favorite fictional universes when the writers put in something we don't like. We can just decide it didn't happen, after all, it's fiction. For most of us more liberally minded folks, we do this with fiction, but we can openly accept reality. Does that ability free us to accept reality? Is that what conservatives do in reverse? Is it that they can just pretend big swaths of reality don't exist? Is it not connected at all and I'm just trying to make sense of chaos?
I can think of two ways in which a movie can "ruin" the old experience. 1) If you rewatch a movie you remember liking as a kid to find it doesn't hold up at all. 2) If you find out the main actor or someone else heavily involved was a terrible person and can no longer watch it without your brain constantly reminded of that. So both cases it's basically the same movie "ruining" itself.
25:48 the obsession with canon is just giving big studios and companies more power than it should. Remember how upset many SW fans were when Disney decononised the EU (expanded universe, something Lucas also did when he made the prequels)? I have been saying for years if there is a book or show that you love that contradicts the "official canon" who cares?
You got the nail on the head with "childish" reactions.
There's a vast swaith of people that are still working on a childish set of assumptions for life.
Probably far far more than the people that grew to understand nuance, logic and rhetoric and so live far fuller lives.
Small minds are childish
Thanks!
6:00 - this sounds like me when I found out Lincoln was against slavery, but still a segregationist.
bonus ; just moments ago in real life actually ; i learned why Tyler Perry named his woman after a murderous witch demigoddess. He didn't . Madea is a colloquial word for grand mother /mother/ great grand mother. I was totally unaware of that. SOMEtimes we know both too much and too little.
Right there at the end when you were talking about canon you hit the nail on the head. If someone goes so far to say a franchise has been ruined, it’s because they can’t stomach the idea something they hate is canon.
"Rey Nobody" was brilliant. Absolutely fucking stunning.
It was much stronger thematically that she not have a legacy through her blood but only through her power while Kylo was swamped with baggage from his own bloodline.
@@foxesofautumn: Exactly, and it would have made her a better heir to Anakin's legacy than Kylo. Just like Rey, Anakin was a destitute nobody from a baren wasteland of a planet who only ever became important because of the random quirk of fate that he was born strong in the Force.
Of all the narrative crimes Rise of Skywalker is guilty of (and there are MANY) and it walking back everything interesting TLJ did just to appease Reddit chuds, insisting Rey just HAD to be related to an Original Trilogy character was the worst.
@@ShinGallon I know there were some very vocal and very toxic people that didn't like TLJ but I think your attitude is dismissing people who weren't part of that crowd but still didn't like the movie. Rian Johnson ignored the interesting things JJ had set up as well. And some of the actors expressed their disappointment with the direction the trilogy took beginning with TLJ. That shows that it's not just the toxic ( right wingers mostly) fans.
"Rendezvous with Rama" is one of the best, hardest pieces of science fiction ever written. And a personal favorite that I first read in my early teens, so definitely part of my formative years. The sequels are utter trash. So know what I do? I don't reread the sequels and generally just pretend they don't exist. Problem solved.
I let my bad childhood ruin good movies.
For me, this is how I enjoy Aliens and can't stand Alien 3. Alien 3 doesn't replace Aliens.
Same. I just pretend it doesn't exist.
Netflix really nailed He Man and Shera in the best way 😅
That statement in Last Jedi wasn't necessarily undermined by Rise of Skywalker. I view it as an attempt by Kylo to break down Rey in order to turn her. It is completely in character for a Sith to deceive someone to convince them to become an apprentice (just look at how Palpatine groomed Anakin in the prequels). Last Jedi disappointed me when it failed to properly turn Kylo from being a brooding Vader type character to a true Sith lord. When he killed Snoke, I was hoping he would become a true menace like the emperor, but he continued to be impetuous, allowing his emotions to rule him.
I loved that concept in TLJ: it doesn't matter who you are or where you've come from. Just as i lived as she was unafraid of the dark side, that she was learning about herself from both sides while Kylo was trying so hard to stick to the side he didn't want to be on.
TRoS was not just a slap in the face of the ideas of the previous two, but the treatment of Rose made it overt. All the previous movies, prequels and original movies, had the friends support as a key to the good guys' success. Then they get Kelly Marie Tran in just for the Team to blank her on screen. It was a disgusting movie. All that was good left in it was John Williams.
TLJ was the last good movie in Star wars that had any good ideas.
I completely agree with you. Most of the time the hatred towards some reboots or sequels stems from people being bitter and throwing tantrums because they don't get what they want, without comprehending that what they want is not always possible. It's equivalent to despising a stepfather before even meeting him, when a divorce is inevitable and not even giving him a chance to prove himself.
Back To The Future IV should be about someone going back in time to ruin your childhood.
It's funny because I've read the book and seen the movie, and I never felt that Atticus Finch was in any way a human rights proponent. In fact, I felt he defended Tom Robinson almost despite his upbringing because he so fervently believed in the law and that it demanded everyone be given a fair trial and the ability to defend themselves.
That is exactly what I've always thought. Atticus loved the law, and defended Tom out of passion for the law. Glad I'm not the only one who saw that. Cheers!
I had to teach myself this with Dragon Ball Z vs Dragon Ball Super. DBS has in many ways stripped away what made DBZ a compelling and unique narrative, as well as assassinating many a character including Goku. It is considered the new "canon". For a while it bummed me out. But just as you said, Dragon Ball/DBZ is still there, and is still spectacular and has its own conclusive ending. Nothing after has or ever will strip it of its greatness.
Nor should one let a bad childhood ruin a movie.
As someone who did NOT have the privilege of growing up with comic books and their assigned "canon," this video ECHOES my attitude towards it all.
I watch them to be Entertained.
WERE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? I shout to my bros.
This concept of poor art not detracting from good art may parallel the core principle behind freedom of speech. That is what censorship proponents fail to comprehend, isn't it? The idea that it is less important to ever suppress any harmful idea than the importance of ensuring that helpful ideas never be suppressed.
While I totally agree, I think that this would be the default position of most people in a world where artists and ideas aren't wringed out for cash like a dieing grandma at a nursing home. We simply see too much lost potential in this weeks famous franchise reboot, sequel, prequel, or the ocational squandered golden goose of an original idea to look at it objectively anymore.
I was 14 and in maybe my first bout of feeling nostalgic for a prior phase of my life when the movie of Inspector Gadget starring Matthew Broderick came out. It really sucked. I went on a decidedly 1999 web forum to complain afterwards and I used the phrase “this movie ruined my childhood” and tried to argue it had tainted my cherished memories of a cartoon I loved since I was a preschooler. Someone pointed out that the cartoon still exists and is unchanged by the movie, so if you have any episodes on tape go watch them and stop complaining. They were right. I’ve never forgotten it. This dumbest possible version of “childhood ruined” that I engaged in got shot down instantly and I’m glad it did, because no, my childhood was not ruined, and no, there’s no reason for fans of anything to act that way, ever.
I don't think a movie has ruined other movies for me, but authors can tamper with how I view their work. I grew up on Harry Potter, I loved that world and those characters, my love of video games is largely from growing up on Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings games. I dressed in the only cosplay of my life for the truck delivery of the first print of half blood prince to my home town. I'm trans. And hearing the author repeat lies, say such heinous things about me and people like me, trying to sniff us out in cis women in sports like we're an infestation. It hurts, and it's hard to separate the world I loved- where an outcast could be special, with the author who acts like I'm vermin.
And in 2012, my friends who found great comfort in the Enders Game books were aghast at what Orson Scott Card was saying. It's such a shame that this kind of stuff keeps happening with influential authors.
I think it's a bit different with books than films, because we feel like the author is talking to us and we all have our own unique perceptions of the events in books as a result. So, especially when the authorial voice is so similar, it can be hard to disconnect the two.
I haven't been able to read those books again, but I do sometimes still enjoy the Half Blood Prince film. Specifically that one, because of Jim Broadbent. "This _is_ purely academic, yes, Tom?" always gets me, especially because I can think of it as applying to her "early interest" in trans topics before she went full mask off. Oh yes, this 2019 tweet is just academic, surely, Joanne?
The Last Jedi was by far the best of the sequel trilogy, and was better than every single prequel. I will die on this hill.
I love Spider-Man. My favorite fictional character period. His treatment in the main marvel comics are...not to my preference often. He's had some bad (real bad) stories in his history. None of them ruined the character. Sometimes the writers have Peter make choices I would call dumb or even out of character. No story can ruin a past story. It can frustrating to no end, a story can be truly and devastatingly bad in terms of impact or quality but the character is not ruined.
Seriously people? They are just movies. Meant to entertain. Period. Stop.
my fiancee and i loved TLJ on release, and we stayed defenders of it throughout the entire time the sequel trilogy had any relevance to the world. some few years past the end of the trilogy, we watched TLJ again. and after it was over, my fiancee and i, those long-time defenders of the film, we looked at each other and said... 'oh my god, i actually forgot how good that movie really is.' it threw us for a loop that even while maintaining general positivity, we realized we'd let the general negative tone of conversation around the movie and trilogy, and our disappointment in RoS, taint our memories of it. but when we went back and watched it again after... it was still the same movie. and we loved it again for all the reasons we loved it before.
i've thought about that a lot, since. how i let that happen, let myself believe TLJ wasn't as good as it was when i saw it before even while actively claiming fondness for it. how even while taking a positive opinion, the loud negativity ended up influencing that opinion all the same. and how when i did revisit it, none of that mattered. the whole experience has made me more aware of my opinions, more thoughtful on my feelings towards things, how easy it is for my own brain to be misled by outside things. and it reminds me that, no matter what else happens outside a thing, around a thing, good is good is good, no further qualifiers needed.
While i do agree with the general concept that it shouldn't ruin your enjoyment in general i do have few counter points
1.) a bad sequel/remake taints the original even if you rewatch/reread the original simply by how our brains perceive patters one cannot watch something without out brains connecting anything related to it.
2.) a bad sequel/remake taints the conversation around the franchise and makes it next to impossible to talk about the originals especially when it explains something unexplained or retcons something because we are humans and our memories aren't perfect so things inevitably blend. That's not even getting into how the new one dominates the public consciousness making it harder to find anything talking about tge original.
3.) sometimes you literally cannot return to the original, they don't exist anymore or aren't sold in your region anymore or the rights holder refuses to allow any more copies to be made. Ect this is especially true with video games.
2 is the one I run into the most. It's hard to be a Star Wars fan and talk about the stuff you like when everyone else would rather talk about something else. I can't talk about Maul or Anakin or Obi-Wan or Palpatine without someone bringing up the Clone Wars. It makes a big disconnect with the rest of the fandom (or in my case, makes the disconnect somehow even bigger)
I can guarantee you one thing: Any adult who sincerely says going to see a certain movie (as an adult) was the worst experience in their life is also going to act like you just said the most horrible slur in the world if you call them priviliged, even though there's no greater proof of privilige than sincerely thinking seeing a movie is the worst experience in their life.
I never got invested in the Sequels to the extent that some people did. My opinion of Force Awakens and Last Jedi is the same now as it was then "Kinda fun, but I prefer the pre-Disney books"
Steve, I wish you a very Patrick Swayze Christmas!
You're right. The first jaws movie is great, and even the 2nd was good, but after that, they lost their way, and I think it was just to make money.
I'm told that lawyers discuss Atticus Finch and cite his case as if he were a real attorney, like Clarence Darrow. "Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passin'."
It's said "never meet your heroes." I have, and I understand the sentiment. They're all just people, with all our flaws and foibles. But if you hang around long enough you'll see flashes of the genius that made them legendary.
My dad gave me a copy of The Hobbit for Christmas. I adored it, couldn't shut up about it. He smiled and said with a glint in his eye, "you know... there is a sequel...." So after devouring Lord of the Rings, twice, the Bakshi animated film came out. I left the theater nearly in tears from disappointment, and I still can't abide Bakshi. But it couldn't interfere with my love of Tolkien.
Happy ending: I went to see The Fellowship with nine friends, many of whom had no idea who John Tolkien was. When Gandalf comes over the hill, Frodo tells him, "you're late." It took a hard effort of will not to blurt out to the screen, "twenty-three years late!"
I'm not even familiar with Bakshi.
Ralph Bakshi. You can find snippets of his version right here on TH-cam.
@@asianmalaysianable And to this day, I don't see why anyone would sit on the fence and excuse the Tronald Sr presidency or candidacy as an ordinary political campaign with a good-faith idea how to improve life in the nation.
@@asianmalaysianable That's the worst case scenario. The best case would be that the good-natured United Staters merely have minimal electoral representation.
If I had to play armchair psychiatrist, I'd suspect that one of the driving internal forces of such feelings is not that it has ruined "thier childhood" but rather the fear that it brings something different to a new set of "childhoods" that isn't their own. Thus it makes them the outgroup of the new fandom and terrifies the hell out of them.
Add in a mix of social media tribalism and you've got the modern day fandom discourse.
Again, not qualified to speak with any authority, just an educated guess from an layman.
Indeed someone else here says characters becoming bitter as they age is "calling the viewer a fool for ever believing in them". That seems like a heck of an overreaction.
But does speak to once feeling included, perhaps film was the _only_ way they felt included in life, and now feeling excluded.
If your entire childhood is ruined by a movie, then you REALLY need to seek professional help.
All those people bitching about "Such and such ruined my childhood!" Meanwhile, Sonic fans are screeching about how their love for the blue blur is being validated.
Yes I’m with you. If one compartmentalise the different works, it becomes a much nicer experience. Also brand loyalty does mean one has to watch or like everything, it get your foot in the door to try new versions but not garrienty commitment.
I’m really sorry for my spelling mistakes, I just read it back. Dam dyslexia.
Steve: "The one piece of advice I have for you ....... is this, grow up."
Me "Well, isn't that the root of the problem? Those people don't want to grow up."
If I don't like something, I find it's quite easy to head-canon it out of existence.
I'm with you on 2001 vs 2010, but 2010 did have one scene I loved. "It's important that you believe me. Look behind you." As a kid watching that it gave me chills.
For me, it was the first J.J. Abrams Trek (the Kelvin timeline). I was so adamant about not watching it because I was such a Trek purist. Several years went by and I folded and watched it... and it's one of my favorite movies now.
"Dr. Chandra?"
"Yes?"
"Will I dream?"
"I don't know."
That's the chill moment for me.
Thank you! The absolutist thoughts that lead to the "That has ruined X for me" make my teeth itch.
Edit: It just occurred to me that this is part and parcel of the "If you didn't post it to the internet, it didn't happen" mentality that we've seen spring up in the wake of social media, it's just the reverse. For some people, anything that gets made AFTER what they love somehow supersedes and replaces it. That's sad.
I agree generally but with a caveat: when a sequel changes the ending of the original. At the end of Aliens, after many many setbacks, losses and scrapes they escaped and saved the brave child survivor . A great "yes!!" moment. They lay down to rest for the journey home, end of movie. But in Aliens 3 they take away that moment....Ripley wakes up alone, everyone else was killed in their sleep and they had failed. They Stole My "Yes!!".
Well, so did Episode 7 of Star Wars, so I treat Aliens 3 the same way as the Force Awakens- it's just a bad dream.
@@Tareltonlives Exactly, we can just ignore them...
The "real world" doesn't even respect canon.
This is a valuable approach to fictional media, but I don't most people can apply it quite as broadly as you're able to, and I can see why. For something like 2001/2010, or Ghostbusters original/2016/afterlife, or different eras of Star Trek, it's relatively easy, because these are stories created by different people at different times, each essentially using its predecessors as raw materials with which to construct something new. It makes a lot of sense to approach them individually.
But not all works are as disjoint as that--some pieces of media have stronger connections to bind them. When the same author is responsible for both works, that creates a connection. When the same people are involved in the production, that creates a connection. When the original work was written with its followup in mind, that creates a connection. When works are intended as parts of the same whole, that creates a connection. The more connections two pieces of media have, and the stronger those connections, the harder it becomes to see them as separate entities.
Everyone is going to have a point at which there's enough connective tissue between two pieces of media that they become intertwined and are no longer able to view them as entirely separate. I know that (for example) DS9 and Voyager are pretty easy for you to separate. Probably also separate seasons of DS9. How about sequential episodes of DS9 that follow the same threads of the overarching plot while still technically being self-contained? How about an episode that's a direct sequel to another? How about different parts of a multi-part episode? The parts of a single episode before the commercial break and the part after? (For the book equivalent, different chapters of the same book.) At some point you're going to have a line where "two works" becomes "two parts of the same work".
I'd be interested to hear where that line lies for you.
The biggest actual damage done by a bad show/movie is the opportunity cost, that they made /this/ instead of something better, and because of that, they might never make the better thing.
The example I always think of is World War Z. The movie is a great zombie movie, but a terrible adaptation of the book... and the hypothetical /good/ WWZ movie we could get (actually think a miniseries would be the best way to go) might now never get made, because the time when there was the best chance of that happening, they made the movie they did instead.
I guess that's what fanfiction is for. I know I play with making my own episode 7. Would it ever replace the movie made? No. Would my version ever be a box office hit? No. But it makes me happy, so you make your own story for yourself.
I don't, but as I said, I can't stand the Kelvin timeline because it destroyed my favorite character in a way I identified with it in my childhood.
Spock was the man with no home except for on the enterprise. He wasn't accepted by Vulcans for being too human, and wasn't accepted as human by humans. He had no home and no place to go except for the enterprise. As a young mixed race child growing up in the early seventies, this is something I identified with. The Kelvin timeline rendered his internal conflict irrelevant.
So for me, I ignore the Kelvin timeline movies.
And beyond that, to me, those movies just weren't that good. They tried to turn Star Trek into an action show which it never was. It was an exploration and Adventure Show set in a Sci-Fi setting that talked about what it meant to be human. That's largely missing from the Kelvin movies. All in the name of big budget action. Mind you there are some good moments but overall they're not very good.
The space combat was fairly boring and terrible. Just charge it your enemy blasting everything you have. Boring. Look at the space combat from Wrath of khan. There's suspense. There's strategy and tactics. Kelvin timeline had none of that.
All that said, my childhood is intact.
I view JJ Abrams movies as bad fan fiction simply because that's all they are. He's just another fan making his own stories- he just sucks at it. It's not part of the story you like.
@Tareltonlives agreed. A friend of mine who is the next TH-camr has a son who is an actor and he has worked with JJ abrams. He doesn't think well of Abrams
Yup. I've been a Ghostbusters fan all my life. 2016 came and went, I saw the movie on TV, I bought the Lego set for that movie, and I'm still a Ghostbusters fan to where I have a full cosplay. I even just got the Two in the box bundle from Haslab, kind of a final Christmas present from my late mom.
But yeah, the originals will always be there.
Also, speaking as a comic book fan, I've loved stories from the "big 2" (Marvel & DC), and one of my (many) gripes with these publishers is how they're torn between love letters to past eras, and how they want us to focus on the shiny new thing, and forget all the old stuff. I think in that industry, that mentality is enabled; "this shiny new thing invalidates all of the old stuff, including, but not limited to all the stuff from your childhood that you like. "
But you know what?
"One More Day/Brand New Day" doesn't erase "invasion of the Spider-Slayers"
"The New 52" doesn't invalidate "Justice League International"
No matter how much the creators/corporate masters wish it were so.
I was never a big comic fan. But, I did sometimes read the comic books my brother collected in the 60's and 70's, mostly Superman and Batman.
If I remember right, they were always doing alternative story lines right alongside other storylines being released, especially with Superman.
Amen. That's the best way to treat things you don't like in fiction.
I think you are right that the main issue is whether someone is able or willing to process something primarily from an out-of-universe / story / fiction perspective or from an in-universe / lore / "reality" perspective. If the latter becomes too overbearing, one might take a step back and reflect on why that is.
Clark actually said all of the space Odyssey books (and movies) we’re in separate universes. I think about this every time I watch franchises with deep Canon. Every episode of Star Trek is in its own universe. Every Star Wars movie, own universes. Every DC story, separate. In Batman dark Knight, superman doesn’t exist, unless the character becomes important and then he exists. The canon is only useful when it’s useful.
I actually treat Rogue One, Solo, Obi-Wan and the Mandalorian like that: they're not in my continuity, but they're still fun Star Wars.
I was just out of high school when the Star Wars prequels came out, and while I disliked them I never ever voiced the cringe “they ruined my childhood” opinion. BUT I must say I am very entertained by the comedy metal song “My Childhood Died” by Lost Souls where a cartoon metalcore band complains about The Last Jedi. Check it out it is catchy and funny! Our childhoods are safe from crappy media y’all, let’s worry about real pain in the world. 😂
This video misses something important. For a lot of these fans these franchises are their religion. They aren't just stories. They are pieces of a shared culture that in their eyes are destroyed when they are changed. I see this often when I try talking to fans of a lot of long running series. For them these characters these stories are in a certain sense, real. They live inside them. So when they see their hero killed, it is if you are telling a Christian that god is dead.
For me personally it makes engaging with them impossible. For me the stories and worlds I like are the products of artists I admire. And are at their best, inspiration. Fertile ground to explore new ideas. Something I use to create my own art. My own worlds
But this is something that people like this cannot understand. And have no interest in hearing about. For them, anything that changes, contradicts or takes from THEIR religion, is blasphemy.
Finally! Someone else who likes The Last Jedi and hates Rise of Skywalker because it undid a lot of the stuff from TLJ!
You are not alone!
O, there are many of us.
I don't say I hate a movie often, a movie being plain terrible doesn't get more than some second hand embarrassment from me. It's just no crime to fail.
If a movie seems to be made basically as an apology and a "fix" for something you love, I just cannot respect that.
…still, it doesn't actually sour my enjoyment of Last Jedi and I do feel we got a successful sequel on a thematic level in Andor.
There's dozens of us!
@ There's probably millions, really.
Unlike what the internet screamers make you think, the Last Jedi actually got a generally positive response, Rise of Skywalker got a response that was quite a bit worse.
An author’s horrible views can re-lens my view of a story they told. Because I feel a bit of guilt that maybe I agreed with or subconsciously papered over their twisted worldview in order to enjoy the story.
But a reinterpretation decades later written by someone else? People need to grow up.
2010… I feel I didn’t really answer anything. It lays out some new discoveries. But then leaves things unanswered. The third book then goes on to have humanity do something to “interfere” with the unknown alien plan. And the consequences? Again unclear.
I have a weird agree/disagree take on this. Sometimes you just can’t feel the same way after seeing the owners of the property make decisions that make canon things that, if accepted, are ridiculous.
But it’s still only a movie.
And yet, again, you have to accept strong emotions regarding media. Think of the magic of Buffy’s Hush - just a staggering piece of art.
One final thought: you can never see something for the first time again, all of your experiences have changed you. That’s why rereading or rewatching something can be so valuable
19:02 and then he goes on to say the best line in the movie: "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to"
I LOVED THAT. The framing of Rey/Kylo as Light/Dark and the lessons we learn from Luke about the Force makes it compelling that Kylo is so close to understanding something but he doesn't quite get there. IT'S WHAT MAKES HIM A TRAGIC VILLAIN. And Rey is so close to realizing that she needs to forge the future with her friends and NOT isolate herself like so many of the Jedi do and that ALSO makes Kylo's offer so tempting. It was so good!
@@BreezyBeej: It really makes me wish so badly I could live in a world where instead of caving to the loudest most obnoxious fans and frightened investors, Disney actually stuck it out, but then again, it's not like Disney ever had any real plan to stick to.
Still, imagine if when the first director they hired for episode 9 dropped out, instead of going crawling back to Abrams, they had let Johnson wrap thing up. Even if he was also under orders to do damage control, I think we still would have gotten a more coherent finale that way.
I have mixed feelings when it comes to sympathizing with Ben Solo about that. I agree with him that you should kill the past if it's painful, and I understand that his past was painful; but, unlike him, I saw, and can appreciate, everything it took to get to the point where it was even possible for him to be trained as a Jedi in the first place. I'm sure his parents and his uncle told him all about that, but that it was merely anecdotal to him. When he's looking at his grandfather's mask, melted down from the bonfire on Endor, and says, "I will finish what you started," he is completely forgetting that his grandfather is now a redeemed Force ghost, and doesn't want ANYONE to finish his work as Vader. Why Anakin didn't appear to mentor his grandson when he had every opportunity to do so is something Disney mysteriously never bothered to explain.
@@SeasideDetective2 It's not just about killing the past because it's painful. It is the legacies of all of these families and factions that have put the universe where it is. The galaxies have not known peace for a long time at this point. It's not about his personal history as much as everyone's history. He has to cut ties with his family, he has to cut ties with Snoke, with the Sith and the Jedi.
When he makes the offer to Rey, He is telling her to stop finding some reason that she is special from the past and accept that she can make these changes to the universe without that. She can make herself special
It's tragic because he's so close to being correct but his solution is literally killing the past and not just discarding it.
I mostly agree with you Steve. Though I should note that I spend way too much time on twitch, some i channels with heavy rule 34 Super Mario content.
And that has significantly impacted how I relate to Nintendo's games.
I am about to play Mario and Luigi Brothership. We'll see how that goes.