Nick1Ø66

The simple truth is that, in every case, release order is the preferred order for watching a film series for the first time. 
 

Is a "Star Trek origin story" when they invented replicators and created the land of plenty? 
 
Or maybe it's the Earth vs Romulans war. 
 
Or the launch of the Federation? 
 
All are terrible ideas... don't explain the backstory. 
 
Of all the things Star Trek doesn't need, it's an origin story. If this turns out to be an amazing film, I'll happily eat my hat, but it sounds like the idea absolutely no-one was hoping to see.  
 
Enterprise effectively worked as a prequel (as opposed to "origin") but I'd really like to know what the thinking is, in Hollywood terms.  

The simple truth is that, in every case, release order is the preferred order for watching a film series for the first time. 
 

Yeah, but then we got Rogue One, Solo, Obi Wan etc...
 
Imagine watching all that stuff and then seeing the original for the first time:
 
Vader's entrance? Meh. Seen him plenty for that to maintain its drama.
The Droids wandering through the dunes? Meh, we've seen endless amounts of far-more-impressively-framed desert shots AND we know Tatooine so its no longer about the Droids venturing into the unknown.
The cantina? Pfft, we've seen more weird aliens than stars in the sky.
The Death Star blowing up Leia's home? Pfft, please! We've seen the Death Star blow up several planets by this point.
The lightsaber battle? Pfft, we've seen people - including Vader and Obi Wan - slash and jump and throw objects at each other, so these two geezers gently poking at each other? NEXT!
 
etc... You get my point.

Exactly. Never liked Ford as Jack Ryan. 

“What do you mean I’m funny? Funny how”? 

I've always struggled with Rosenman, although I'm fascinated by the person (and his self-aggrandizing comments in interviews). I like LOTR (sorta) and ST4, but most other things have left me cold, including the classics mentioned in this thread (James Dean flicks, THE COBWEB, FANTASTIC VOYAGE, CROSS CREEK, POTA). ROBOCOP 2 is total overblown cheese. I think he said once that the only reason he didn't do the first was because he wasn't available, which of course it totally false. This was also before his dementia, so can't blame it on that either.
 
I mostly struggle with his tone pyramids and that layered, insistently dissonant sound. But hey, I aim to give him another chance soon.

Love FYEO. Both films and score!!!

What a film is “trying to say” isn’t as important as what a person hears. Once art is released into the world, all that matters is how people interpret it.
 
I’m not sure about declaring what’s the right or wrong message from Barbie. It’s a Rorschach test. The director’s intentions are largely irrelevant.  If Barbie’s not open to interpretation, then it’s just sermonising, and if it is, then people are free to interpret it as they wish.

See, this is exactly why you'd like the Barbie movie. In the end, it's not about trying to make men or women feel bad, it's about finding yourself without being conformed to what society expects of you. I don't think the movie is a masterpiece or something, but it's telling that the so-called "villain" (Ryan Gosling's Ken) ends up becoming the most memorable character.
 
Whatever. Suit yourself. I won't prolong this discussion any further because I don't want to break the forum's rules. I just think it's kinda funny you throwing a temper tantrum because some singer whose music you don't even care about said she didn't care about what she thought was the message of a Hollywood movie about dolls.
 
Just be careful with that whole "right side of history" angle. Believe me, my positions are closer to yours than, say, most people who'd agree with Shakira's comments on Barbie, but that don't stop me from protesting when I see people supposedly doing the "right thing" and "protecting marginalized minorities" engaging into harmful behavior, destroying people's lives and careers, threatening to doxx J.K. Rowling's daughter and even driving some people to suicide.
 
Offending people online and throwing your (perhaps righteous) rage at the injustices of the world into people on the internet won't do any good, nor for you, neither your family and especially not the world in general. Maybe you'll feel good for a moment for having "owning the Trumptards" but it will only increase the amount of rage and thus radicalism on the internet that will spill to the real world.

What a film is “trying to say” isn’t as important as what a person hears. Once art is released into the world, all that matters is how people interpret it.
 
I’m not sure about declaring what’s the right or wrong message from Barbie. It’s a Rorschach test. The director’s intentions are largely irrelevant.  If Barbie’s not open to interpretation, then it’s just sermonising, and if it is, then people are free to interpret it as they wish.

Edmilson certainly didn't

You seem a little bit nervous. Don't need to cry: we're all just debating stuff here and an opinion that goes against your own is not gonna hurt you. I advise you to take a deep breath and count to ten before answering a comment you didn't like on the internet (not only here on JWFan, in hellholes like Twitter or Reddit people would be way less polite than me you said these things to them).
 
Also, if you haven't seen the movie, go do it. You will look less of a fool in a discussion about a movie.
 
Anyway, I don't even know if you opened the link I posted and read the news article (don't worry: it's Variety, not Fox News) or if you just read the headline. But she said:
 
TL;DR: She's a mother of two boys who want them to have positive role models of masculinity that also respect women. She doesn't want them to grew up with their self esteem damaged because society taught them men are evil but bumbling fools while women are perfect (in the ending of the movie it's clearly stated that their Barbie utopical world is utter perfection with all women in charge). Just that. She didn't say that women can't be empowered or something.
 
It's not a zero sum game. Men can be decent people while keeping some positive traits of masculinity and respecting women. Women can be empowered and have lives of their own without becoming the very oppressor they were fighting against for centuries. Men and women, straight or queer, cis or trans, they should all compliment each other and unite for a common cause: the survival of mankind.
 
Instead, the internet incentivates division, anger, hatred, rancor, etc. Thanks to people like you, who start throwing offenses and attacks whenever confronted with an opinion that's not your own.

Well, sure. But so is everything that goes on here, from conspiracies on the spelling of Palpatine’s name to arguing the whether Superman wears underwear. And how many people outside the first world count their biggest problem to be missing cues from Mr. Mom?
 
They're all first world problems. I mean, everything else has been banned!
 
 

Well, sure. But so is everything that goes on here, from conspiracies on the spelling of Palpatine’s name to arguing the whether Superman wears underwear. And how many people outside the first world count their biggest problem to be missing cues from Mr. Mom?
 
They're all first world problems. I mean, everything else has been banned!
 
 

“What do you mean I’m funny? Funny how”? 

All the MCU films are made this way. I mean, maybe there was a bit more freedom on the first few, but by and large they're all very tightly controlled, producer-driven films.
 
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, it's worked very well for Marvel, and there wouldn't be the continuity they've had without it. There's a reason it's the only truly successful shard universe. They just used to be a lot better at it.

All the MCU films are made this way. I mean, maybe there was a bit more freedom on the first few, but by and large they're all very tightly controlled, producer-driven films.
 
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, it's worked very well for Marvel, and there wouldn't be the continuity they've had without it. There's a reason it's the only truly successful shard universe. They just used to be a lot better at it.

Well, sure. But so is everything that goes on here, from conspiracies on the spelling of Palpatine’s name to arguing the whether Superman wears underwear. And how many people outside the first world count their biggest problem to be missing cues from Mr. Mom?
 
They're all first world problems. I mean, everything else has been banned!
 
 

I actually prefer Peck to Quinto, the latter of whom played Spock like a thinly veiled psychotic who always seemed seconds away from a murderous rampage. It was like the producers handed him some Star Trek episodes to prepare for the role, he watched Amok Time and said “I’ll go with this”.

Shatner's Kirk is probably one of the most unfairly maligned characters in pop culture history, and subject to some seriously distorted historical revisionism. He's hardly the sexist, "shoot first ask questions" later misogynistic dinosaur he's made out to be. Those traits, while there to a certain extent, have been vastly blown out of proportion. Kirk is actually an incredibly thoughtful leader who almost always sought out a diplomatic solution first. 
 
Your point about how well Kirk's ageing was handled is something I hadn't considered before, and it's a very good one.
 
 
Well, that's true enough. And clearly they're trying to update the characters for "modern audiences". But when you're creating what's essentially an entirely new character and simply slapping the old name and rank on them, why not just create new characters altogether? For a show about the future, NuTrek does a lot of looking back. 
 
No, I'm pretty sure it's about erasing Shatner. You simply cannot rationalize minimizing James T. f*cking Kirk in Star Trek. Especially given that every other significant Trek captain is featured in that poster. I mean…you can have Archer and not Kirk? Do newer Trek fans even know who Archer is? Give me a break. Your point about Spock being iconic is well taken, but Kirk’s an icon as well, so why not have both? There are two TNG characters after all. How is Geordi more iconic than Kirk? They don’t like Shatner. He’s said so himself.
 
And if the purpose of the poster is to “balance the demographics” rather than featuring Star Trek’s iconic characters and history…well then, you’ve summed up NuTreks priorities, and problems, nicely.

Shatner's Kirk is probably one of the most unfairly maligned characters in pop culture history, and subject to some seriously distorted historical revisionism. He's hardly the sexist, "shoot first ask questions" later misogynistic dinosaur he's made out to be. Those traits, while there to a certain extent, have been vastly blown out of proportion. Kirk is actually an incredibly thoughtful leader who almost always sought out a diplomatic solution first. 
 
Your point about how well Kirk's ageing was handled is something I hadn't considered before, and it's a very good one.
 
 
Well, that's true enough. And clearly they're trying to update the characters for "modern audiences". But when you're creating what's essentially an entirely new character and simply slapping the old name and rank on them, why not just create new characters altogether? For a show about the future, NuTrek does a lot of looking back. 
 
No, I'm pretty sure it's about erasing Shatner. You simply cannot rationalize minimizing James T. f*cking Kirk in Star Trek. Especially given that every other significant Trek captain is featured in that poster. I mean…you can have Archer and not Kirk? Do newer Trek fans even know who Archer is? Give me a break. Your point about Spock being iconic is well taken, but Kirk’s an icon as well, so why not have both? There are two TNG characters after all. How is Geordi more iconic than Kirk? They don’t like Shatner. He’s said so himself.
 
And if the purpose of the poster is to “balance the demographics” rather than featuring Star Trek’s iconic characters and history…well then, you’ve summed up NuTreks priorities, and problems, nicely.

I wouldn't care if all traces of NTTD were erased from existence.

I actually prefer Peck to Quinto, the latter of whom played Spock like a thinly veiled psychotic who always seemed seconds away from a murderous rampage. It was like the producers handed him some Star Trek episodes to prepare for the role, he watched Amok Time and said “I’ll go with this”.