Really, the biggest point I'd have to make about Midnight's Edge has already been made:
Worffan101 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:11 pm
Midnight's edge is also a major-league rumor-monger whose sourcing is at best questionable.
My problem with people like Midnight's Edge, ultimately, isn't whether they're right or wrong about something- he could very well be right about everything, and he does have a good amount of facts (or at least, decently substantiated rumors) weaved into his videos. My problem has always been that he always takes those facts and tries to present them in the most negative way possible (while also weaving in guesswork which doesn't help his credibility when it's clear he hates Discovery), so basically any discussion held under his assumptions have a poisoned well. Like they say, the best lies are partially true.
And I don't get this general theme of "New Trek creators hate the fans". If you want to say the suits have disdain or at least cold indifference for the fans, I don't see how that's not just business as usual. If you think the actual people who have worked on the show are so, it means you include people like Joe Menosky, Jonathan Frakes and Kirsten Beyer in that. Probably includes Nicholas Meyer too, whatever his contribution was. It just comes off as a "if you like Discovery, you're not a REAL Trek fan" kind of gatekeeping ridiculousness. FTR I say this as someone who thinks Kurtzman is a terrible writer, but I have little reason to think he hates Trek or even "doesn't understand" it.
Even considering some of the non-Trek writers, you could go either way. Akiva Goldsman for instance has a really uneven history, so if I wanted to spin Akiva Goldsman as poorly as possible I could constantly cite the fact that he wrote those two shitty Schumacher Batman movies, or I could try to make him look good by citing the fact he wrote the screenplay for A Beautiful Mind.
Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:37 am
I don't think BEYOND unperformed just because of the ad campaign but also because of how INTO DARKNESS killed that momentum. The first film was a pretty decent hit that revived the brand, but Paramount made a pretty bad decision by not striking while the iron was hot and opting to wait for JJ to finish his pet project, which resulted in a four year wait. Marvel wouldn't have waited four years to make a sequel to a hit film of theirs, they would have immediately looked for another director to take over. Had they been on their game, a second film would have hit 2011, thus a third would have come out in 2013, not 2016 which was seven years after the first.
While I'm sure faster releases would've helped, consider that Into Darkness actually made more money than Trek 09. Arguably by a significant margin too. And while people around here love to crap on Into Darkness, both audiences and critics of the time seemed to like it just fine.
For comparison also consider, say, The Dark Knight trilogy- the space between those films isn't that much larger than the ones between the Trek Kelvin Trilogy and those movies didn't really have any problem staying afloat. Though perhaps that might be a unfair comparison, so maybe also consider something like the Jason Bourne movies- anywhere from two to nearly five years between movies, and they were also decently consistent. With movies I don't think people mind waiting a couple years between them.
