[ SECRET POST #2744 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2744 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #392.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[skippydelicious]

Seems a reasonable position to take to me.

[(Anonymous)]

The thing that pisses me off about Trek 2009 is that if you criticize the film you'll inevitably get people pointing to the comics and novels. But they're not even canon! Star Trek has never considered non-filmed material canon and even the new stuff isn't canon since one of the writers said as much online. I'm not going to pay for freaking fan fiction. Most of isn't all that well written (and the art in the comics sucks…).

So…yeah…make the goddamn film stand on its own please.

They're probably missing the point of "tie-ins".

[nyxelestia]

Tie-in comics, deleted scenes, etc. - they aren't meant to stand on their own as much, but they also aren't meant to be a fully integrated part of the central work (in this case, a movie). They are meant to supplement a central work, but the central work is meant to be able to function without them.

i.e. I can fully enjoy the MCU movies on their own. I can enjoy them more and get more out of them if I read the tie-in comics, but the movies make perfect sense without the tie-in comics and I don't need them to enjoy the movies.

I think the problem is that movie-makers are starting to rely on fans/movie-watchers getting involved with the movie and everything around it too much to focus on the movie itself. Seriously, even Order of the Phoenix, when it cut out like half the book to make it fit for the movie, ultimately stood up on its own, even if not very well and a little more hollow/haphazard compared to the other movies.

Re: They're probably missing the point of "tie-ins".

[(Anonymous)]

I guess I just hate it when people try to dismiss criticism by pointing to supplementary materials. In Trek 2009, for instance, there's Nero's backstory and what the crap he was doing for 25 years. And don't even think of bringing up any criticism in regards to the romance.

I agree with you on Order of the Phoenix -- it made sense on its own -- same with Lord of the Rings. Which is why I feel like original movies don't have an excuse.

Re: They're probably missing the point of "tie-ins".

[nyxelestia]

In the case of the Star Trek movies, that attempt to dismiss criticism carries double-irony for me because most of my issues with movies don't get cleared up at all with the tie-ins, anyway. :D