Shatner responds to J.J. Abrams

[rhiannon]

About the movies I mentioned, Undersiege with Colm Meany.. I loved Undersiege.. one of the only Segal movies I liked...

And The Santa Clause 2 and 3, the ones I mentioned Micheal Dorn were in, they were really popular actually.. you said movies that weren't that popular, those movies were pretty popular.. maybe not where you're from but over here they were. And yeah, he didn't have a big part in the 2nd movie but his role as The Sandman was decent size for the third movie.

Ohh, and I was watching Theodore Rex just now and it reminded me about Whoopie.. I know you said recuring people don't count because they're not main but she played Guinin in quite a few episodes and she was also in Generations.. and she's pretty big.. Everyone loves Whoopie 🙂

Well, I guess you could discuss about the definition of popular here. 🙂 Popular like "Titanic"-popular or "Santa Clause"-popular....plus...if it says 2 and 3 it's already a sign the movie can't be that great! 😉

And Whoopie definitely doesn't count! 🙂 She was really famous before she got in the show, and she got in the show BECAUSE she was famous and loved Star Trek. She asked Roddenberry to write a role for her! 🙂

 

[TheTickleMonster]

Well, I guess you could discuss about the definition of popular here. 🙂 Popular like "Titanic"-popular or "Santa Clause"-popular....plus...if it says 2 and 3 it's already a sign the movie can't be that great! 😉

And Whoopie definitely doesn't count! 🙂 She was really famous before she got in the show, and she got in the show BECAUSE she was famous and loved Star Trek. She asked Roddenberry to write a role for her! 🙂

The defination of popular can be two things, how many people saw the movie in theatres or how many people like the movie, you can pick which one you want i suppose, but alot of people saw the movie and alot of people like the movie, but I don't believe you're from the USA so I don't know about your country, but here the Santa Clause movies were popular..

And I don't know where you get your logic about a movie having 2 or 3 in the title means it's not that great.. most shows have sequals bc so many people liked them, I mean LOTR is popular and there's like what? 3? 4? 5? I don't remember.. and There are going to be 8 Harry Potter movies.. still pretty popular I believe.. Bad Boys II was pretty popular, so was Men In Black 2 (even though that movie could have been better) but I'm a huge fan of Will Smith, but anyways.. How about the 4 Lethal Weapon movies.. So I don't see where you're getting your logic about that..

And I know she was popular before Star Trek, but I think Star Trek probably boosted her career even more becuase that's just one of those shows that can do that.. Plus I just think her character on Star Trek was her best.. I loved her...

but I guess I'm done...

PS: Titanic sucks.. as I told a few people on this forum before.. the best part, and I clapped.. when Leo died..

 

[rhiannon]

I think in Germany the Santa Clause sequels didn't even make it to the theaters, they were shown right on TV and DVD.

You are right, most movies have sequels because so many people liked them - and they make sequels which get worse, worse, worse until nobody wants to see them anymore. That's how true works of art get killed!

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are not good examples. Those "sequels" are not sequels, the stories were written long before the movies were planned, and there are more than one movie because the story is just too long to press in one! 🙂

Of course, there are a few sequels which are okay, but still not great! Usually, the first part is the best and the ones that follow aren't quite as popular. Just look at Shrek! Although I really enjoyed all three of them, I don't think part 2 and 3 were necessary.

There's just always that bitter taste of wanting to ride the money train with sequels.

I don't know if Guinan boosted Whoopie's career....maybe it made her more popular among Trekkies, but apart of that...don't know!
But I also don't think Guinan was her best role....she has done so much stuff that was better!

 

[TheTickleMonster]

I think in Germany the Santa Clause sequels didn't even make it to the theaters, they were shown right on TV and DVD.

You are right, most movies have sequels because so many people liked them - and they make sequels which get worse, worse, worse until nobody wants to see them anymore. That's how true works of art get killed!

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are not good examples. Those "sequels" are not sequels, the stories were written long before the movies were planned, and there are more than one movie because the story is just too long to press in one! 🙂

Of course, there are a few sequels which are okay, but still not great! Usually, the first part is the best and the ones that follow aren't quite as popular. Just look at Shrek! Although I really enjoyed all three of them, I don't think part 2 and 3 were necessary.

There's just always that bitter taste of wanting to ride the money train with sequels.

I don't know if Guinan boosted Whoopie's career....maybe it made her more popular among Trekkies, but apart of that...don't know!

Yeah, I didn't mention the Shrek movies because there shouldn't have been sequals.. maybe the second one, but.. no more.. and actually there were 4 Shrek movies bc there's a Christmas special...

And um, you said that LOTR and Harry Potter aren't sequals because the stories were writen way before the movies were planned.. don't take this the wrong way but that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say.. THOSE ARE SEQUALS! Books have sequals too.. not just movies. They're not sequals because they were already writen before the movie were planned? THE BOOKS ARE SEQUALS.. I just think that's stupid of you to say, and well I had to point that out.. and I know I'm probably gonna get alot of people upset with me and say i'm an ass, but yeah.. oh well..

 

[rhiannon]

Those books are not sequels in the way I mean it. 🙂

A movie sequel most of the time is something that is not planned beforehand. Someone comes up with a second movie if the first one was popular. In the cases of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, everybody knew there would be three or seven movies before they even filmed the first one, because the story is already there! In case of Lord of the Rings, the movies were even filmed simultaneously!

The Harry Potter Books are not closed in themselves, they are open at the end, they need each other to be a complete story. Shrek doesn't! Santa Clause doesn't! Sister Act doesn't! Bruce Almight doesn't!

You know what I am trying to say?

 

[TheTickleMonster]

Those books are not sequels in the way I mean it. 🙂

A movie sequel most of the time is something that is not planned beforehand. Someone comes up with a second movie if the first one was popular. In the cases of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, everybody knew there would be three or seven movies before they even filmed the first one, because the story is already there! In case of Lord of the Rings, the movies were even filmed simultaneously!

The Harry Potter Books are not closed in themselves, they are open at the end, they need each other to be a complete story. Shrek doesn't! Santa Clause doesn't! Sister Act doesn't! Bruce Almight doesn't!

You know what I am trying to say?

Actually that's not always true, yes it's true that they don't make sequals to movies if they aren't successful, however alot of the time they do plan to make a sequal in hopes that movies are successful. So they do plan for it, they just don't make the sequals unless the movie is successful. They wouldn't make all the LOTR books as movies unless the first movie was sucessful, same with Harry Potter, they figured they'd be successful so they made the first one but if it tanked the other one wouldn't have been made, same with Chronicals of Narnia.. and same goes for Eragon, which probably won't get another movie becuase I don't think Eragon will make another movie bc the first one didn't do as good as it should have..

And as far as books being sequals, you know LOTR is related to the Hobbit right? And by what you're saying then the LOTR books should be considered Sequals because I don't think Tolkien? That's his name right? Would have made LOTR books unless The Hobbit was successful so therefor your defination of sequals is wrong because the same thing applies for LOTR.. The only one that was planned out was Harry Potter. She said she'd make 7 books and then be done with him. But it doesn't matter because they are still sequals.. A sequal is a continuation of the story in another story.

 

[rhiannon]

They wouldn't make all the LOTR books as movies unless the first movie was sucessful

They filmed all three movies simultaneously, as I said! So they did plan for all three movies! I highly doubt they wouldn't have shown the other two if the first one flopped!

But then, with stories like Harry Potter and LOTR, it was just highly unlikely they flopped!

The only one that was planned out was Harry Potter. She said she'd make 7 books and then be done with him.

Yeah...she said she'd make 7 books, and that's what she did. If an 8th book came out just because the 7 she made are so popular, then that would be a sequel in the way I mean it.

Of course, a sequel is by definition nothing more than "a story that plays after the other story". But in my opinion, there are different kinds of sequels. Movies like LOTR or Harry Potter are not finished without the sequels. Movies like Shrek, Home Alone and so on could very well do without them! Those are "money making sequels", and they usually are not very good!

 

[TheTickleMonster]

They filmed all three movies simultaneously, as I said! So they did plan for all three movies! I highly doubt they wouldn't have shown the other two if the first one flopped!

But then, with stories like Harry Potter and LOTR, it was just highly unlikely they flopped!



Yeah...she said she'd make 7 books, and that's what she did. If an 8th book came out just because the 7 she made are so popular, then that would be a sequel in the way I mean it.

Of course, a sequel is by definition nothing more than "a story that plays after the other story". But in my opinion, there are different kinds of sequels. Movies like LOTR or Harry Potter are not finished without the sequels. Movies like Shrek, Home Alone and so on could very well do without them! Those are "money making sequels", and they usually are not very good!

Okay I don't normally say this because opinions aren't facts so they can't be wrong, but your opinion is wrong since they're still sequals whether you think they should be considered that or not so you're opinion is actually wrong because by defination its a fact that they are sequals.. whether there are money making sequals or just normal sequals they are still sequals. Most book sequals can be money making sequals as well, like LOTR.. I have never seen those movies but I think he wrote them to make money, not to continue a series, like i said The Hobbit came first, it was popular so to make money he decided to write LOTR.

Yes, you can consider the Harry Potter movies not money making sequals (but yes they are still sequals by any defination so your defination is wrong). Because she did say she would write 7. But the LOTRs are money makers because I don't think he planned on making them but wrote them because The Hobbit was so popular.

 

[rhiannon]

You did read that I wrote "there are different kinds of sequels", right??

 

[TheTickleMonster]

You did read that I wrote "there are different kinds of sequels", right??

yes, but orriginally you kept saying they're not sequals at all, not that there are different kinds of sequals.. and I thought I'd clearify that they are sequals whether you think so or not..

but it doesn't matter, i'm done arguing about what's a sequal and what's not..

back to star trek which is what this was about orriginally...

 

[rhiannon]

I said they are not sequels to me in the way I was referring to. 🙂

Ok, back to topic. I can't even remember how we got here anyways! 🙂