BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm still hurt from Into Darkness. Not sure I'm ready to trust again.
Also my sentiments.
I think the premise is intriguing, but in the same way that Into Darkness embraced the worst aspects of the first JJ Trek, I worry this film might in turn embrace the worst aspects of Into Darkness. I'd really like to see them go back to that first one, which had the formula so right, even if the execution was a little hack jawed. This looks like a giant chase movie, with the crew stranded on some planet with no ship. Dark edgyness for the sake of being dark and edgy just ain't gonna carry another movie.
Looks way too explodey-wodey... Not that I want to go down this tangent again (it was done to death just recently in the Star Trek TV thread), but that's really not what ST is about. I was hoping we were going to get some Bold Going and Seeking Out in this one, after the last 2 were just things exploding and lens flares, but this just looks like more of the same.
Is it weird that the trailer for Independence Day Resurgence makes it look like a more thoughtful science fiction film than this trailer makes Star Trek Beyond look? It feels weird.
I'm hoping the Enterprise getting blown up is a trailer fake out like the Dreadnought crash in Into Darkness was. Could be the command crew is along for a shakedown cruise on another Constitution class ship. Fingers crossed. I'm really tired of the Enterprise getting it's butt kicked.
I mean, Quinto is great acting as Spock but the character doesn't ring true to me.
I dunno... I always felt that Nimoy's Spock always acted too closely to "full Vulcans" in the shows/movies, whereas Quinto's Spock seems to have a more visible conflict between his human and vulcan half.
gorgon wrote: The farther they get from captains lecturing on the finer points of Federation protocol over tea, the happier I am.
As long as uhura doesn't travel back in time and dance naked, i'll be happy.
Interestingly, I actually wouldn't have a problem with that. Unless you're talking about Nichelle Nichols. Then I'd have a problem. Yea, I'd be very sad to see that.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm still hurt from Into Darkness. Not sure I'm ready to trust again.
Also my sentiments.
I think the premise is intriguing, but in the same way that Into Darkness embraced the worst aspects of the first JJ Trek, I worry this film might in turn embrace the worst aspects of Into Darkness. I'd really like to see them go back to that first one, which had the formula so right, even if the execution was a little hack jawed. This looks like a giant chase movie, with the crew stranded on some planet with no ship. Dark edgyness for the sake of being dark and edgy just ain't gonna carry another movie.
Frankly, I didn't see a single "edgy" aspect in this trailer lol. I mean it certainly doesn't look like the slow and ponderous tone from a TNG episode, but this seems to be more in the vein of Guardians of the Galaxy than anything else. Half the trailer was basically light-hearted jokes, with the other half being explosions.
I must admit I was not the biggest fan of Star Trek (the series). I would watch it if it was on as hey it was sci-fi and well there wasnt too much of that when I grew up.
I did however enjoy DS9 mainly for the more action based story line and I have found the Abrams films to be entertaining, which lets be honest is the most important thing. I pay my cash to be entertained for 2 or more hours.
DS9 was my favourite of the Treks as well. A big part of that was for the action-eyness of the Dominion War. But DS9 did still have the classic Trekness of it too (in my eyes), it was still about the utopia-ness and hope for the future. DS9 just demonstrated that it was hard work keeping that dream going but humanity, as a whole really *are* capable of it.
This film, well... Ironically, Star Wars Episode 7 seems more 'thoughtful' than it and it wouldn't surprise me if that ends up asking bigger questions than this Trek film. - Which does look like a cross between John Carter of Mars and Avatar.
DS9 has the 'peregrine' class attack fighter for the Federation and the Hidecki fighters for the Cardassians. (I only ever found out their names from Attack Wing of all places.)
The way DS9 seemed to treat it was, the fighters go off and have their own battle while the larger ships engage themselves. I imagine that makes sense, really. - Fighters only having an impact on the larger scaled battles once the winner of their smaller ones are determined.
Utter utter crap, this movie looks awful and seems to be continuing to trample on everything that made star trek decent, if they want to appeal to mindless morons that only want "pew pew" then just make a generic sci fi film and leave star trek alone.
Formosa wrote: Utter utter crap, this movie looks awful and seems to be continuing to trample on everything that made star trek decent, if they want to appeal to mindless morons that only want "pew pew" then just make a generic sci fi film and leave star trek alone.
So.... all of us who think it'll be pretty good are "mindless morons".... good to know
I enjoy the new films well enough, so I'll give this a go. I also enjoy the originals, and can reconile the differences enough so I enjoy both takes on Star Trek.
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
There are also Star Trek fans who realize that there are many different interpretations and aspects of Star Trek between all the different series and movies and who are looking forward to another Star Trek to add to the mix.
Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.
d-usa wrote: Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.
I think it looks great. I know the purists don't seem to like the newer movies and I can see why, but I like action and explosions and even lens flares I liked the last 2 so I'm sure I'll like this one too
Formosa wrote: Utter utter crap, this movie looks awful and seems to be continuing to trample on everything that made star trek decent, if they want to appeal to mindless morons that only want "pew pew" then just make a generic sci fi film and leave star trek alone.
So.... all of us who think it'll be pretty good are "mindless morons".... good to know
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
There are also Star Trek fans who realize that there are many different interpretations and aspects of Star Trek between all the different series and movies and who are looking forward to another Star Trek to add to the mix.
Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
There are also Star Trek fans who realize that there are many different interpretations and aspects of Star Trek between all the different series and movies and who are looking forward to another Star Trek to add to the mix.
Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.
There are many ST fans who wildly overrate and overstate the cerebral nature of the various series. Action and adventure have always been key components of the ST formula, and in fact many of the best films, show runs and episodes have been more action-oriented.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Looks like a fun action SF movie that looks like star trek but ignores all the original gist of the original star trek.
The 'general gist' of the original Star Trek was largely 'Crew winds up in a difficult situation, Kirk punches something, shoots something and/or sleeps with something, roll credits'.
With a liberal sprinkling of 'most illogical's and 'dammit, I'm a doctor, not a wilderbeast!'s scattered through for dramatic effect.
Trailer looks pretty spot on, to me.
The issue that most old-school Trek fans seem to have with the new stuff is that it's more action-oriented. Which, frankly, is unavoidable, I think... Today's audiences are more action-oriented. But I don't really have a problem with it... I enjoy action movies and story-driven movies for different reasons, and I think there's plenty of room for both in the Trek universe.
The movies have always been action oriented though, so deem rosey glasses . Ever since the first one kind of doggy paddled out the gate, every film that followed was more fast paced and tense. Save the 5th film, which everyone knows sucked horribly
... and the 10th - Nemesis.
Which ended the "even numbered ones are good" theory.
"The same heart beats in both our chests ..."
Picard had an artificial heart - and had for years - due to a defect in his natural one. It was mentioned in several seasons and operated on a couple of times.
gorgon wrote: The farther they get from captains lecturing on the finer points of Federation protocol over tea, the happier I am.
As long as uhura doesn't travel back in time and dance naked, i'll be happy.
Interestingly, I actually wouldn't have a problem with that. Unless you're talking about Nichelle Nichols. Then I'd have a problem. Yea, I'd be very sad to see that.
I was sad to see it the first time. I'm not sure i could unsee it a second time.
Formosa wrote: Utter utter crap, this movie looks awful and seems to be continuing to trample on everything that made star trek decent, if they want to appeal to mindless morons that only want "pew pew" then just make a generic sci fi film and leave star trek alone.
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
There are also Star Trek fans who realize that there are many different interpretations and aspects of Star Trek between all the different series and movies and who are looking forward to another Star Trek to add to the mix.
Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.
Then there are those who don't care what other people do, and think this movie looks like poo.
Ok I'm gonna try to articulate why I loved star trek, I'm not great at this so bare with me.
Star trek (to me) was all about hope, showing people of all races and creeds working together to try and make the best of a nasty universe, humans learning that war isn't the answer and trying to bring peace and diplomacy to the for, sure this didn't always work, but it was the first and most important tenent of the star trek universe, it had morals and while initially the o's scripts were not great, next gen showed this very well.
These new movies lack what made trek great, I don't know if it's the bad scripts, bad acting (spock and bones being the only good ones) or total lack of true exploration of the universe, I understand that as a feature film it needs to appeal to a larger audience and having a very simple plot and bright lights brings in the kids as well as the adults, but does it need to do this at the expense of good writing, character exploration (again spock was good) and intelligent thought provoking ideas, no, it's lazy, it's bolter porn, and that has its place, but not with the star trek logo on it.
I thought the whole idea of building warships and sending the crew to Kronos in the second part, was to prepare us for the third part which was supposed to be the Federation at war with the Klingons?
Frazzled wrote: Yes, Admiral Garth taking down the Klingons with lots of fleet battles would have been epic.
The whole point of bringing Khan out of stasis was for him to design new ships to fight the Klingons...and now they're saying there's no federation/Klingon war!
Maybe the Klingons and Federation sat on their borders, Bunker Hill style when outta nowhere these dudes showed up in their tiny ships and all hell broke loose?
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
Add a third category: long-time Star Trek fans who were shocked by the first reboot film, understand the new vision for Star Trek is inferior to what we grew up with, but just got over it and decided to allow ourselves to enjoy the new Star Trek for what it is.
I'm a long term Trek fan and I've really enjoyed the rebooted movies. But then again I'm not deep on movies with space ships and aliens in them. I just want to like the characters and have cool stuff happen so meh. I'm in
Hulksmash wrote: I'm a long term Trek fan and I've really enjoyed the rebooted movies. But then again I'm not deep on movies with space ships and aliens in them. I just want to like the characters and have cool stuff happen so meh. I'm in
I liked the first one. The second one I thought was abysmally bad.
I can see people not liking the second one if they love Wrath of Khan. But while I liked Wrath of Khan, Into Darkness was actually better to me. Bear in mind I'm to young to have been around during ToS so I didn't have any more depth to the animosity than the movie gave me.
I like the current crew more than the ToS crew. I like the style more, and honestly I felt like Cumberbatch (sp?) was an amazing super human.
The main problem I have with the Khan portrayal is that Ricardo Montelban played a flamboyant, virile, and charismatic leader, while Cumbercrunch played a brooding, sullen, loner-type figure, and IIRC you never once encounter a single one of his followers in the new film.
If there was never an original Khan to compare against, the new Khan wouldn't have been shocking at all.
jasper76 wrote: The main problem I have with the Khan portrayal is that Ricardo Montelban played a flamboyant, virile, and charismatic leader, while Cumbercrunch played a brooding, sullen, loner-type figure, and IIRC you never once encounter a single one of his followers in the new film.
If there was never an original Khan to compare against, the new Khan wouldn't have been shocking at all.
True. Had they changed the premise to Star Fleet having found other superhumans from the era (another group then Botany Bay) that would have been better. It still would have been replete with 1,500 plot holes though, but would have been less annoying.
My favorite Star Trek Episode is DS9 first season. Progress.
Kira has to deal with an old man who is refusing to leave. Kira has to deal with the fact she is no longer an Underdog and is now part of a system that oppresses people still, even if it is for progress. Only one phaser is shot during the whole episode.
IF the New Trek made that episode. They would beam down with motorcycles phasers and knife and charge the old people compound which would turn out to be a secret kabal of gun smugglers and the whole episode would be a war movie......
I hate new trek, it has lost the nuance and the flavor of old trek and replaced it with generic action.
Star Trek used to be morality plays that happened to take place in space. Even in the older feature films, every one of them had some underlying moral to the story. The big difference between Old Trek and New Trek is that Abrams jettisoned that formula entirely in preference of Marvel-style, save-the-universe action with no morale to the story whatsoever. But once you allow yourself to abandon your expectations of any kind of intellectual stimulation, and just watch the movies like you'd watch a Marvel movie, they're really not so bad.
jasper76 wrote: Star Trek used to be morality plays that happened to take place in space. Even in the older feature films, every one of them had some underlying moral to the story. The big difference between Old Trek and New Trek is that Abrams jettisoned that formula entirely in preference of Marvel-style, save-the-universe action with no morale to the story whatsoever. But once you allow yourself to abandon your expectations of any kind of intellectual stimulation, and just watch the movies like you'd watch a Marvel movie, they're really not so bad.
jasper76 wrote: Star Trek used to be morality plays that happened to take place in space. Even in the older feature films, every one of them had some underlying moral to the story. The big difference between Old Trek and New Trek is that Abrams jettisoned that formula entirely in preference of Marvel-style, save-the-universe action with no morale to the story whatsoever. But once you allow yourself to abandon your expectations of any kind of intellectual stimulation, and just watch the movies like you'd watch a Marvel movie, they're really not so bad.
In essence, he turned Star Trek into Star Wars.
It's only fair after George Lucas turned Star Wars into Star Trek.
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
I'm a Star Trek fan, and I think this looks pretty awesome.
I should have been more specific. I was commenting on this thread in particular at that point in time, where a large number of the posts resembled "This doesn't feel like Star Trek," and "This looks exciting, not like that boring Star Trek."
If you don't mind me asking, what about the trailer looks awesome to you?
Personally, I am hoping that Karl Urban plays a bigger part in this movie and that the Beyond actually takes place beyond Earth, Vulcan or Qonos. Emergent patterns in the series are keeping my expectations nicely managed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.
If that's what your take on my post is, fair enough.
For me, Star Trek Into Darkness was exactly the same quality moviegoing experience as Transformers 2. You can imagine how skeptical I was when Transformers 3 was announced... Never did see that one. Hear I didn't miss much.
Formosa wrote: Utter utter crap, this movie looks awful and seems to be continuing to trample on everything that made star trek decent, if they want to appeal to mindless morons that only want "pew pew" then just make a generic sci fi film and leave star trek alone.
So.... all of us who think it'll be pretty good are "mindless morons".... good to know
Well, how did you feel about Transformers 2? How do you feel about people excited to see the next Transformers movie? (Is it 5 already?)
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
There are also Star Trek fans who realize that there are many different interpretations and aspects of Star Trek between all the different series and movies and who are looking forward to another Star Trek to add to the mix.
Missed this part. Without Quibbling too much, to me there are very few TV or film "interpretations" of Star Trek. Unlike Batman or Sherlock Holmes or whatever franchise that gets a fresh start every decade, Star Trek had a long-running continuity that required all of the series to at least pretend to fit into one coherent interpretation, up until AbramsTrek. Old Star Trek had a flavor or a feel to it that made the franchise different from other Sci Fi TV shows. ST2009 didn't quite have the same feel, yet was a valid and fresh take on Star Trek even if the Trekkier aspects had been watered down for mass consumption. But Into Darkness is so much worse in so many ways that I have trouble pointing to any one thing as its crucial flaw. As a stand-alone film, it would be a tonally-schizophrenic mess. As a franchise film, it is as soulless and clumsy as the Star wars prequels. Some people love it, and that's great for them, but I'm not going to care about their opinions any more than I care for the opinion that The Phantom Menace was just as good as any OT film.
As a stand-alone film, it would be a tonally-schizophrenic mess. As a franchise film, it is as soulless and clumsy as the Star wars prequels. Some people love it, and that's great for them, but I'm not going to care about their opinions any more than I care for the opinion that The Phantom Menace was just as good as any OT film.
there you go. As a standalone film its just not very good either.
Formosa wrote: Ok I'm gonna try to articulate why I loved star trek, I'm not great at this so bare with me.
Star trek (to me) was all about hope, showing people of all races and creeds working together to try and make the best of a nasty universe, humans learning that war isn't the answer and trying to bring peace and diplomacy to the for, sure this didn't always work, but it was the first and most important tenent of the star trek universe, it had morals and while initially the o's scripts were not great, next gen showed this very well.
These new movies lack what made trek great, I don't know if it's the bad scripts, bad acting (spock and bones being the only good ones) or total lack of true exploration of the universe, I understand that as a feature film it needs to appeal to a larger audience and having a very simple plot and bright lights brings in the kids as well as the adults, but does it need to do this at the expense of good writing, character exploration (again spock was good) and intelligent thought provoking ideas, no, it's lazy, it's bolter porn, and that has its place, but not with the star trek logo on it.
That is pretty much my opinion, with one difference. I think most of the New Trek acting is great, when the actors are given a chance to act. The action would be more meaningful for me if we were given more time to connect with the characters and see what makes them worth caring about.
Formosa wrote: Ok I'm gonna try to articulate why I loved star trek, I'm not great at this so bare with me.
Star trek (to me) was all about hope, showing people of all races and creeds working together to try and make the best of a nasty universe, humans learning that war isn't the answer and trying to bring peace and diplomacy to the for, sure this didn't always work, but it was the first and most important tenent of the star trek universe, it had morals and while initially the o's scripts were not great, next gen showed this very well.
These new movies lack what made trek great, I don't know if it's the bad scripts, bad acting (spock and bones being the only good ones) or total lack of true exploration of the universe, I understand that as a feature film it needs to appeal to a larger audience and having a very simple plot and bright lights brings in the kids as well as the adults, but does it need to do this at the expense of good writing, character exploration (again spock was good) and intelligent thought provoking ideas, no, it's lazy, it's bolter porn, and that has its place, but not with the star trek logo on it.
That is pretty much my opinion, with one difference. I think most of the New Trek acting is great, when the actors are given a chance to act. The action would be more meaningful for me if we were given more time to connect with the characters and see what makes them worth caring about.
That's fine to disagree, I'll explain why I didn't like the acting on some of the characters.
Kirk: he is just a pretty face, shatner wasn't, his hammy acting, easy charm and general charisma just came across very well for me, new kirk is just a pretty face, forced charm and basically there for people to look at, I'm yet to connect with new kirk as he just doesn't have the charisma.
New uhura: old uhura was believable, new uhura has the same issues as above, I also dislike forced "sassy" just because she's black, old uhura was distinguished, came across as intelligent and felt more real to me.
Scotty: basically the same issues as above, peg is a comedy character and doesn't come across as a competent person, at all, old Scotty had the comedy but again, it didn't seem forced, he also came across as competent and knowledgeable, when he said something you could believe it, when peg says something, you don't care or don't believe it, if he was an engineer under my command I'd replace him.
Sulu: I actually liked, but same issues as above.
Chekov: same issue, just a child and very irritating.
Basically it all comes down to the new actors all seem very fake in thier deliveries, forced hammy lines and massive plot holes hand waved away.
Missed this part. Without Quibbling too much, to me there are very few TV or film "interpretations" of Star Trek. Unlike Batman or Sherlock Holmes or whatever franchise that gets a fresh start every decade, Star Trek had a long-running continuity that required all of the series to at least pretend to fit into one coherent interpretation, up until AbramsTrek.
See, that's where I just have to disagree. The different shows just all had a different feel from each other. The Original Series has a different tone and looks at the Star Trek Universe in a very different way than The Next Generation. TOS almost felt more like "Cowboys in Space" and focused very much on the crew and their adventures. TNG focused more on diplomacy, science, the interactions between the crew, and to an extend the lives of the crew on the ship itself. And while some themes carried over from episode to episode, most episodes were stand-alone adventures with very few multi-episode stories.
Deep Space 9 is a very different show from both of those. It's all about the individual characters and their lives on that station. Unlike TOS or TNG the characters were mostly stuck on the station and you didn't have the "what world will we find today" plot to drive the story forward. The entire series was a set of very long stories and episodes would revisit earlier plots to drive the characters forward. It was also a lot darker than the previous shows, both in set design and story telling.
Voyager was once again a very different story, as is Enterprise. The 5 shows were all part of the Star Trek Universe, but they all featured a very different aspect of the universe and told their stories in different ways. TOS was more about action, TNG was more about exploration and diplomacy, DS9 was about conflict and characters, Voyager was about a hot Borg (I admit that I never really got into that show, same as with Enterprise).
Then there are the movies, which are all very different interpretations from the individual shows that they originated from. The movies include epic space battles, borderline theology, ethical dilemmas, hanging out in 80s San Francisco to bring back whales, a prison escape, detective stories, and debates about artificial intelligence and life itself.
Trying to combine all the previous shows and movies into one standard version of "Star Trek" and claiming that the new movies departed from that is just not something that is really possible because Star Trek was very much all over the place before shooting began on the first new Trek.
That's fine to disagree, I'll explain why I didn't like the acting on some of the characters.
Kirk: he is just a pretty face, shatner wasn't, his hammy acting, easy charm and general charisma just came across very well for me, new kirk is just a pretty face, forced charm and basically there for people to look at, I'm yet to connect with new kirk as he just doesn't have the charisma.
New uhura: old uhura was believable, new uhura has the same issues as above, I also dislike forced "sassy" just because she's black, old uhura was distinguished, came across as intelligent and felt more real to me.
Scotty: basically the same issues as above, peg is a comedy character and doesn't come across as a competent person, at all, old Scotty had the comedy but again, it didn't seem forced, he also came across as competent and knowledgeable, when he said something you could believe it, when peg says something, you don't care or don't believe it, if he was an engineer under my command I'd replace him.
Sulu: I actually liked, but same issues as above.
Chekov: same issue, just a child and very irritating.
Basically it all comes down to the new actors all seem very fake in thier deliveries, forced hammy lines and massive plot holes hand waved away.
Kirk: I mostly agree with you. I don't think the problem is so much Pine as the character of New Kirk as written. Unfortunately for Pine, he's an okay actor filling some legendary shoes. The next guy to play Indiana Jones is going to suffer from comparisons to the iconic original, too, unless he is amazing.
I like New Uhura, even though she is a very different character than old Uhura. I feel like that change needed to be made for the character to hold her own in the New Trek Universe*.
Scotty is pretty much written as if the writers only ever saw The Trouble with Tribbles. Peg at least owns the material he is given, even if it means New Scotty is a goofball. Sulu and Chekov also come across as younger-and-edgier versions of the originals, but it works because the old characters were never really developed until the later movies, and even that was a bit halfassed. I enjoy watching those two actors in their roles because I find their performances seem to be geared towards being entertaining rather than technically complex. There's a lot about acting I don't know, so feel free to mock me.
Spock: Quinto is the undisputed stand out of New Trek as far as I'm concerned. Karl Urban could probably match him if they ever gave McCoy something to do. A few good Spock-and-McCoy scenes could really make the movie for me. The trailer hints we might get to see some of that, but Star Trek trailers lie, lie, lie, like they're trying to kill androids.
*I get the impression that a lot of what you don't like about the characters come from the direction and writing of the new Trek series, which cleaves strongly to the younger-and-edgier school of film making.
Missed this part. Without Quibbling too much, to me there are very few TV or film "interpretations" of Star Trek. Unlike Batman or Sherlock Holmes or whatever franchise that gets a fresh start every decade, Star Trek had a long-running continuity that required all of the series to at least pretend to fit into one coherent interpretation, up until AbramsTrek.
See, that's where I just have to disagree. The different shows just all had a different feel from each other. The Original Series has a different tone and looks at the Star Trek Universe in a very different way than The Next Generation. TOS almost felt more like "Cowboys in Space" and focused very much on the crew and their adventures. TNG focused more on diplomacy, science, the interactions between the crew, and to an extend the lives of the crew on the ship itself. And while some themes carried over from episode to episode, most episodes were stand-alone adventures with very few multi-episode stories.
Deep Space 9 is a very different show from both of those. It's all about the individual characters and their lives on that station. Unlike TOS or TNG the characters were mostly stuck on the station and you didn't have the "what world will we find today" plot to drive the story forward. The entire series was a set of very long stories and episodes would revisit earlier plots to drive the characters forward. It was also a lot darker than the previous shows, both in set design and story telling.
Voyager was once again a very different story, as is Enterprise. The 5 shows were all part of the Star Trek Universe, but they all featured a very different aspect of the universe and told their stories in different ways. TOS was more about action, TNG was more about exploration and diplomacy, DS9 was about conflict and characters, Voyager was about a hot Borg (I admit that I never really got into that show, same as with Enterprise).
Then there are the movies, which are all very different interpretations from the individual shows that they originated from. The movies include epic space battles, borderline theology, ethical dilemmas, hanging out in 80s San Francisco to bring back whales, a prison escape, detective stories, and debates about artificial intelligence and life itself.
Trying to combine all the previous shows and movies into one standard version of "Star Trek" and claiming that the new movies departed from that is just not something that is really possible because Star Trek was very much all over the place before shooting began on the first new Trek.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but I feel that there was more of an optimistic utopianism throughout all of the series that the Newt Trek minimizes. TOS had a very early-empire feeling to it, with the frontier feeling and characters trying to live up to their ideals and sometimes failing. There was a lot of action (although on rewatch it really wasn't as much as I thought I remembered), but there was also a lot of talk about where humanity/civilization was going and what it was doing right or wrong. Spock and McCoy provided a lot of that. TNG doubled down on the inclusiveness and the smugly utopian Federation, yet much of its run was about people improving themselves, reaching out to help others, or getting their noses rubbed in their false sense of superiority. DS9 looked at the fragility of utopia and the cost of maintaining it, as well as the obligation of its citizens to their neighbors. Voyager was all about the adventures of a hologram and an exBorg. Enterprise was a series of fart noises aimed at the audience. Frankly, each one of the series had a lot of crappy episodes, but the best parts of the best episodes stood out from something like Babylon 5 or BSG because of that Star Trek hippy sense of hope. I wonder how many times Gene Roddenberry listened to John Lennon's Imagine while he wrote the TNG series bible.
The old movies each had their own themes, some of which were pretty stupid. I ignore about half of them. The Ships Only edits are pretty sweet, though.
jasper76 wrote: Star Trek used to be morality plays that happened to take place in space. Even in the older feature films, every one of them had some underlying moral to the story. The big difference between Old Trek and New Trek is that Abrams jettisoned that formula entirely in preference of Marvel-style, save-the-universe action with no morale to the story whatsoever. But once you allow yourself to abandon your expectations of any kind of intellectual stimulation, and just watch the movies like you'd watch a Marvel movie, they're really not so bad.
That's my impression too. Good SF / action movies, nothing really binding them to the distinctive qualities of Star Trek except character names and some background details. You'd hope the success of movies like 'Gravity' or 'The Martian' would get the message across that SF movies don't need to have things exploding, action girls pirouetting across screen, or motorbike stunts every few minutes to keep the audience from nodding off.
Well, how did you feel about Transformers 2? How do you feel about people excited to see the next Transformers movie? (Is it 5 already?)
Was that the one with the "old guy" robot SR-71??? If so, I went into it knowing it was 2+ hours of mindless fun, so I enjoyed it about as much as I did the few F/F movies that I watched.
Also, it is entirely possible to enjoy many different movies, for entirely different reasons. Not everything has to be uber deep, philosophical work.
Well, how did you feel about Transformers 2? How do you feel about people excited to see the next Transformers movie? (Is it 5 already?)
Was that the one with the "old guy" robot SR-71??? If so, I went into it knowing it was 2+ hours of mindless fun, so I enjoyed it about as much as I did the few F/F movies that I watched.
Also, it is entirely possible to enjoy many different movies, for entirely different reasons. Not everything has to be uber deep, philosophical work.
I think that's TF2. The one with the racist robots and "I'm standing directly beneath the creature's scrotum."
I find it odd that you think anyone has to be looking for a deep, philosophical work to dislike movies like Transformers 2 and Into Darkness. It's not a zero sum game; a movie can be both dumb and tedious. I loved Pacific Rim an Godzilla Final Wars because they were dumb fun. TF2 and STID? They weren't fun. I'm glad you enjoyed it, though.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If you don't mind me asking, what about the trailer looks awesome to you?
All of it?
It looks like fun.
Personally, I am hoping that Karl Urban plays a bigger part in this movie and that the Beyond actually takes place beyond Earth, Vulcan or Qonos. Emergent patterns in the series are keeping my expectations nicely managed.
They had said early on in the development of this one that they wanted to get back to the 'exploration'-style storyline, and the unfamiliar alien designs would seem to verify that they have indeed gone down that road.
For me, Star Trek Into Darkness was exactly the same quality moviegoing experience as Transformers 2.
The Transformers movies weren't quite what I had hoped for (too much slapstick and emphasis on the humans' story) but beyond that I've quite enjoyed them so far.
Into Darkness, by contrast... I went into it expecting it to be more or less a retelling of Wrath of Khan with a few New-Trek twists, and I wasn't disappointed. I've enjoyed the hell out of both of Abrahms' Treks.
Having said that, I can understand why some Trekkies don't like them. People want their Star Trek to go on being just the way they remember it, and any deviation from that is going to be somewhat disappointing. For me, though, I'm happy to see different storytellers explore the setting in different ways... I've enjoyed most of the various movie incarnations of Batman, despite them all being so very different from each other, so far for the same reason. It's fun to see how different directors interpret them.
Maybe it helps that I've spent so many years reading the (in some cases really, really dire) Star Tre novels... So I'm not as wrapped up in Cannon as some Trekkies might be... The fact that New-Trek is technically a continuation of the original series doesn't (for me) require it to be a 1:1 fit with it. I see it more as a re-telling based in the same origins, rather than a straight continuation. Whenever I find myself wanting old-school Trek, I can just watch the original series instead.
I would say I've had a very positive reception of the last two Trek movies, but this trailer just looks... awful. Did not get me going at all, whereas trailers for ST2009 and Into Darkness definitely had me excited. I'm really not a typical diehard Trek fan though. While I love TNG, DS9, and even Voyager, I was never a fan of the original series and only got around to try watching the original series films this past summer. I made it to the third movie before having to stop, and now consider Wrath of Khan to be one of the most overrated sci fi films ever. Of the TNG movies I loved First Contact and Nemesis (yeah yeah, I know, I'm a heretic), but loathed Generations and Insurrection.
Anyway what I'm trying to say is, despite my love of 90's Trek, I never had a problem with Abrams' take on the Trek universe. It was pretty much exactly what I expected, and while none of them so far have been particularly deep or meaningful films they did enough things right to keep me interested. Frankly, that kind of thing is much more suited to TV shows anyway. There's only so much depth and character development you can cram into a 2-hour film, especially when you have an entire crew and not just a few characters, and especially if they don't have countless hours of TV time to flesh them out before throwing them onto the big screen.
Mr Morden wrote: Alot of Trek fans somehow liked ST: Insurection - can't stand it myself..........its just a long even duller Next gen episode
I have this problem with all the TNG movies. They play like television episodes and that's bad for a movie. The one good thing Abrams did in 2009 is that he brought back adventure to Star Trek. He made it fun and enjoyable. Yes there was much that was wrong with it but I liked it more than the TNG movies and even more than most of the ToS movies.
Mr Morden wrote: Alot of Trek fans somehow liked ST: Insurection - can't stand it myself..........its just a long even duller Next gen episode
I have this problem with all the TNG movies. They play like television episodes and that's bad for a movie. The one good thing Abrams did in 2009 is that he brought back adventure to Star Trek. He made it fun and enjoyable. Yes there was much that was wrong with it but I liked it more than the TNG movies and even more than most of the ToS movies.
The other good thing he did was reset the entire Trek Universe - I loved that part!
Breotan wrote: I have this problem with all the TNG movies. They play like television episodes and that's bad for a movie.
I think that really depends on the movie... Serenity plays like an episode of Firefly, and was awesomeness incarnate.
Generations certainly had the feel of a TV special, but was still reasonably watchable regardless, and I quite enjoyed First Contact and Insurrection. Nemesis, I think they just got too carried away with trying to inject final-movie-gravitas and forgot to have fun with it... and without the fun, it was trying to be a serious movie built around a pretty ridiculous storyline, and that just didn't work.
Abrahms' reboot put the fun back in, and I'm all for that. These days, it seems that SciFi really needs to either be hardcore, verifiable science-based stuff, or it needs to be light-hearted fluff. Anything in between just irritates people. And the Star Trek universe is built on too much hand-wavium and psuedo-science to ever be squeezed into the former category.
One of the writers who loved the original trek was told when he was writing for into darkness, he was told to make it more like the avengers so they can rake in the non trek audience. Ztar trek movies are not made with the fans in mind, but joe sixpack
I think the thing I probably most disliked about any Star Trek material is the preachiness. TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise I think stand out for their ability to have the captain/character spend entire episodes preaching to the audience about w/e. This carried over into some of the TNG movie. First Contact I think was the best, and one of the least preachy of all the Star Trek films. Granted, Star Trak IV and VI were very preachy and managed to still be fun and enjoyable. It just seems that Star Trek has a problem where it tends to delve a bit too deeply into itself.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One of the writers who loved the original trek was told when he was writing for into darkness, he was told to make it more like the avengers so they can rake in the non trek audience. Ztar trek movies are not made with the fans in mind, but joe sixpack
And why should a studios interests be limited to pleasing fans? Fans are gonna go see it anyway. They're fans it's what they do Being a fan does not entitle one to some abstract preferential treatment.
Wouldn't the point of rebooting a franchise be to recapture the essential qualities of the franchise that gave it a fan base in the first place? If they don't want the Star Trek magic/formula, why bother with the brand in the first place?
I doubt AbramsTrek is replacing the dwindling, old Star Trek fans with equally loyal fans.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wouldn't the point of rebooting a franchise be to recapture the essential qualities of the franchise that gave it a fan base in the first place?
What would be the point of that, given that people who liked the original version of the franchise can still go and watch it?
There was an interview with Sam Raimi back when his first Spiderman movie came out that had a comment that I foind particularly relevant here - He basically asked the question (although I'm paraphrasing here): 'If you're just going to tell the story exactly the same way it was told before, what's the point of doing it?'
Different storytellers tell stories in different ways, even if they're all based on the same original setting. Present exhibit A: All of the 14 quintillion different novels all based around the King Arthur mythos, without anybody screaming about how they're doing it wrong if there is some aspect of a new King Arthur story that doesn't quite mesh with the 'original' source material. Instead, we all go 'Hey, cool, a new spin on King Arthur!'... (Well, assuming we're not completely bored with King Arthur stories by this point, and avoid them like the plague regardless of how fresh and new they are...)
The whole point of a reboot is to allow you to discard the bits you don't think are relevant any more and start over with the bits that still are, with some new stuff thrown in to keep it interesting and/or relevant to the modern era.
If they don't want the Star Trek magic/formula, why bother with the brand in the first place?.
Presumably because they want aspects of the Star Trek brand that they think can be rebranded into something that will appeal to today's audience.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wouldn't the point of rebooting a franchise be to recapture the essential qualities of the franchise that gave it a fan base in the first place?
No, the point of rebooting it is to make money, and the tastes of the audience change.
I think that really depends on the movie... Serenity plays like an episode of Firefly, and was awesomeness incarnate.
If you like that kind of thing, sure... I've never, ever been a fan of Firefly, perhaps it was too drummed up that by the time I actually started watching it, it was a huge let down.
IMO, the days where movies like ST, 2001: A Space Odyssey and the like are made are largely gone. Even "thinking" Sci-Fi of today has more action in it than those older movies did. Also, I think that the point of a reboot, aside from $ is to bridge generations. What I mean is that a person who was a kid when ST 1-4 came out and has fond memories of the theater with friends/family is going want certain movies to be able to share that joy with their offspring. The thing is, as mentioned, if you're rebooting, you cannot simply redo the exact same movie over again, you have to make changes, adjust for the times, etc.
Scary thought: due to the success of the Fast and Furious franchise, don't be surprised if 20 or 30 years from now, they get a reboot as well.
LordofHats wrote: I think the thing I probably most disliked about any Star Trek material is the preachiness. TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise I think stand out for their ability to have the captain/character spend entire episodes preaching to the audience about w/e. This carried over into some of the TNG movie. First Contact I think was the best, and one of the least preachy of all the Star Trek films. Granted, Star Trak IV and VI were very preachy and managed to still be fun and enjoyable. It just seems that Star Trek has a problem where it tends to delve a bit too deeply into itself.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One of the writers who loved the original trek was told when he was writing for into darkness, he was told to make it more like the avengers so they can rake in the non trek audience. Ztar trek movies are not made with the fans in mind, but joe sixpack
And why should a studios interests be limited to pleasing fans? Fans are gonna go see it anyway. They're fans it's what they do Being a fan does not entitle one to some abstract preferential treatment.
No, They dont, Im a Trek Fan and I have yet to see the Abrams movie. Cause that isnt star trek.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One of the writers who loved the original trek was told when he was writing for into darkness, he was told to make it more like the avengers so they can rake in the non trek audience. Ztar trek movies are not made with the fans in mind, but joe sixpack
Ah I didn't realise that Star Fans by default were all intellectuals - I am a fan of the show and some of the later stuff and I am certainly not.
They made the new Star Trek films in the wake of commercial disasters like Nemesis - if you are going to re-launch a dead or dying franchise you need it to have wide appeal - which they managed.
I am unsure about what exactly causes so much problem with the new films - I would say they have far more in common with the original series than Next Gen ever did. I didn't mind Next Gen but like others I found it preachy and much preferred DS9 - although again that was different to the OS but worked.
In the new films, the characters are similar - they went out of their way to craft Spock and McCoy in this manner. Personally I found Scotty and the "Ewok" annoying but not something that put me off the film. The weapons look a bit different but to me that's so much less important than making sure the themes and more importantly the goals and motivations of the characters follow.
I respect the people who make ST and Avengers and yep even the first Transformers much more than those who "claim" to be making "intelligent films" which are often just means overlong, characterless and effects driven.
I will go and see the new film - I enjoyed the first two - they both had problems - aforementioned "Ewok" and the end of the 2nd film went on too long but they are thousands of miles ahead of what George Lucas did to Star Wars with the Prequals - I just hope that the new SW film is not the same.
I'm a star trek fan as well, but I thought the first of the 'new' star trek films was pretty meh. It was a box ticking exercise with constant action scenes to make you overlook the plot holes.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One of the writers who loved the original trek was told when he was writing for into darkness, he was told to make it more like the avengers so they can rake in the non trek audience. Ztar trek movies are not made with the fans in mind, but joe sixpack
Ah I didn't realise that Star Fans by default were all intellectuals - I am a fan of the show and some of the later stuff and I am certainly not.
They made the new Star Trek films in the wake of commercial disasters like Nemesis - if you are going to re-launch a dead or dying franchise you need it to have wide appeal - which they managed.
.
Its not about intellectualism, its about the show not insulting you as a viewer.
Here compare startrek Wrath Of Khan Trailer to Into Darkness
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
The Original has a slow buildup with a small action scene, and then winddown with the voiceover of khan.
The Intodarkness starts of straight with explosions, fist fights, explosion again, jumping off a cliff and finally women in lingerie? You see what I mean? The new trailer doesnt think highler of the viewer, it things it will get you in the seat with just action and boobies.....and apparently that works.
I thought 2,3 and 6 were the best of the Kirk era. Because it wrapped up the whole thing with Kirk's loss of his best friend and his son, David.
As for the Uhura comments I've seen in here, Saldana's version works better. She comes off as a more competent Comms officer than Nichols (sp?) being able to translate Vulcan and Klingon and actually speak the languages of non-human species. Without the need for books (VI)or a universal translator.
I agree with splosions and bewbs critique though.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One of the writers who loved the original trek was told when he was writing for into darkness, he was told to make it more like the avengers so they can rake in the non trek audience. Ztar trek movies are not made with the fans in mind, but joe sixpack
That seems awfully elitist of you - just what are you learning in University again?
Wait, you say im elitist because as I said, I want star trek to be like star trek and not like avengers? and you ask for an explanation, when I already gave you one. Your trolling me arent you, I again ask, why am I acting elitist?
And I use "Joe Sixpack" Because it was the term Bonnie Hammer used when she took over Sci Fi, removed alot of the older shows to get, in her words "Joe Sixpack" because sci fi fans are not where the money is, but now they are
This trailer actually got me re-excited again. I heard this movie was going to be all explosions....and maybe it will be but from the looks of it they might actually do some Star Trek stuff as well. I mean they do appear to be on a alien planet doing some exploring and stuff...
Ahtman wrote: Does it seem like they still haven't gone to deep space on a five year mission after two movies?
The end of the second one was where they announced the five year mission...
They also said the Enterprise was designed for it in the first one, but it seems like they have barely moved away. I think Galaxy Quest had the characters move further from Earth....
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Wouldn't the point of rebooting a franchise be to recapture the essential qualities of the franchise that gave it a fan base in the first place?
What would be the point of that, given that people who liked the original version of the franchise can still go and watch it?
The same reason TV shows get a second, third or fourth season even though fans can just watch the first over and over again?
The whole point of a reboot is to allow you to discard the bits you don't think are relevant any more and start over with the bits that still are, with some new stuff thrown in to keep it interesting and/or relevant to the modern era.
Well, my argument is more that they've already discarded much of what the franchise viable and threw in new stuff that harms the brand without being particularly interesting or relevant to the modern era.
If they don't want the Star Trek magic/formula, why bother with the brand in the first place?.
Presumably because they want aspects of the Star Trek brand that they think can be rebranded into something that will appeal to today's audience.
Then they should add some shiny robots and Hong Kong, apparently.
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
I am a Star Trek Fan.
The new movies are better than any of the old ones, except Wrath of Khan.
If you can't see that, your taste in anything is suspect and your mom probably dresses you, even if you are 39 years old.
I'd agree that ST2009 is a better film than many of the old movies, except for 2, 4, and 6, but Into Darkness was a mess. I wouldn't say that ST09 was better Star Trek than most of the old ones, though.
Simon Pegg has given me a small measure of hope in the film. - He's kind of come out against the trailer saying something along the lines of, "the film isn't really like that, there's more to it."
They also said the Enterprise was designed for it in the first one,
And then stuff happened that delayed the start of that mission.
Well yeah, which doesn't explain why three movies in they appear to have hardly moved. It was never said they needed to be out and about in the first movie, or really even the second, but here we are at the third and still more San Fransisco.
Well yeah, which doesn't explain why three movies in they appear to have hardly moved.
Yes it does. The Enterprise was only just completed at the start of the first movie. Stuff happened, and then the 5-year mission was announced at the end of the second.
It's a little difficult to tell from the trailer how much of the story actually takes place on Earth, and if any of that part of the story directly involves the Enterprise and crew.
Besides, that 5-year mission in the original series saw the Enterprise skipping all over the place... sometimes near Earth, sometimes on the Romulan or Klingon borders, and sometimes pushing out into new territory. It's not like Voyager, where they're on the other side of the galaxy.
Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.
Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.
I am a Star Trek Fan.
The new movies are better than any of the old ones, except Wrath of Khan.
If you can't see that, your taste in anything is suspect and your mom probably dresses you, even if you are 39 years old.
I feel the need to answer and insult with an insult, if you can't see the new films are aimed at the mindless "call of duty generation" that your fooling yourself, all I want from a sci fi film is at least some thought provoking theme or message, none of the new treks have done that yet, not all the old ones did either, but at least they tried.
I want to sit down and watch the new trek films without the feeling that the writers and directors are treating me like an idiot, sticking thier middle fingers up at me while laughing into the millions of dollars they are raking in, to coin an argument I always have with my brother "just because it's popular, doesn't make it good" new trek may be popular, but it isn't good.
If you like it fine, but don't crap on others who want true trek back.
Well yeah, which doesn't explain why three movies in they appear to have hardly moved.
Yes it does..
Reiterating the point that was already agreed on doesn't do much. We know why on the first two films they haven't done much exploring but that doesn't say why in the third they still seem to not be exploring much; it isn't Short Trek it is Star Trek.
insaniak wrote: It's a little difficult to tell from the trailer
I agree, but that doesn't mean I don't have concerns.
Star Trek is not supposed to be an action film. Its not Fast and the Furious in space. Its supposed to be social commentary, philosophy, and plot with the occasional space battle when diplomacy fails. The three main characters are supposed to play off each other. Kirk the impulsive one, Spock the logical one, and Bones, the emotional one. All three are aspects of the kirk character. These new movies are ridiculous and might have been good if they did not call them Star Trek and were instead their own franchise. I have faith that Simon Peg will write a good movie and wasn't over ridden by JJ wanting yet another franchise busting action movie. Don't get me wrong, I like action movies, but Star Trek isn't about action, to think otherwise, then you do not understand Star Trek.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Almost all of the Trek movies are about action. The TV shows are more about exploration and Treking.
Maybe the newer ones were, but the original series was not.
ST1: very little action. It's called Star Trek: The Motionless Picture for a good reason.
ST2: there's action and space battles but they don't dominate the movie. And there's quite a bit of thought behind the action, with the consequences of Kirk's past catching up with him.
ST3: like the previous movie, there's action but it's far from a constant thing and exists to support the story/theme elements.
ST4: it's a comedy movie. Very little action, and quite a bit of "save the planet" preaching.
ST5: again, very little action, and a plot that is almost entirely focused on exploration.
ST6: this is the closest we get to a straightforward "end the cold war" action movie, and it still manages to consider the themes of the old generation moving on and how enemies can become allies.
So no, the Star Trek movies were not just about action.
And the action was star trek action. IT wasnt highly cherographed fist fights. And yes, alot of original Trek had fist fights, But those looked like two men FIGHTING, not doing flurry of blows monk style. They looked like what two men who where trying to kill eachother, looked like, clumsy and low blows.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And the action was star trek action. IT wasnt highly cherographed fist fights. And yes, alot of original Trek had fist fights, But those looked like two men FIGHTING, not doing flurry of blows monk style. They looked like what two men who where trying to kill eachother, looked like, clumsy and low blows.
Hard to tell who the red shirts were through those tinted glasses, though, I suspect...
The fights in the original series looked every bit as choreographed... Just not as professionally.
They looked like normal people who were not highly trained and conditioned fighters fighting each other, as opposed to 10+ minute long crouching tiger martial art fests which are completely unbelievable for a normal person to be able to do. IE, they looked realistic. Even trained soldiers and knights in the middle ages or swashbuckling bravos in the renaissance didn't have ten minute duels with each other outside of training for war. Fights are very quick and usually one side takes the other down quickly. Its also very exhausting and normal people and even above average shaped people cannot keep up that tempo very long. There's a reason professional fighters train for hours every day for months on end to fight a 10 minute fight(or 30ish seconds with Rhonda) and that's without weapons.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And the action was star trek action. IT wasnt highly cherographed fist fights. And yes, alot of original Trek had fist fights, But those looked like two men FIGHTING, not doing flurry of blows monk style. They looked like what two men who where trying to kill eachother, looked like, clumsy and low blows.
Hard to tell who the red shirts were through those tinted glasses, though, I suspect...
The fights in the original series looked every bit as choreographed... Just not as professionally.
Yeah, the fights in TOS tended to look like barroom brawls because the stuntmen of the era did a lot of their work on westerns. It wasn't because of some undying devotion to "realistic" hand-to-hand combat, LOL.
But that's kind of what real world fighting is when not in a prepared environment. Its a slugfest. When was the last time you went to a bar and saw "everybody was Kung-fu fighting and it was fast as lightning?" I have seen and have been involved in bar fights (almost unavoidable in some of the more interesting places in the world) and even with some combatants trained, they still tended to be slugfests. Seen a few knees thrown, a knife once(who got disarmed after a single attempt at a slice), even seen a pool queue used as a weapon. But I guarantee the fighting I saw by trained soldiers are more realistic and look like old school Star Trek than the over done, over choreographed, Mortal Combat fighting we have seen in modern movies. That was one of the high points of old star trek, yeah you had the science part that you could justify by calling it sci-fi, but at least the human parts were fairly accurate and real.
True, but the point remains, action in Star Trek isn't supposed to be hyper choreographed fight scenes. It is supposed to be forgettable. Star Trek isn't about the action.
Your logic here seems to be that because TOS was, Star Trek is and the modern films should be.
The fight scenes were the way they were because A) that was the style of the era, B) it had the aggressive shooting schedule that comes with a TV show, and C) they had a shoestring budget.
None of these things are true with the recent films. Should they also ditch the modern special effects too?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Almost all of the Trek movies are about action. The TV shows are more about exploration and Treking.
This feels exactly like the Star Wars thread's Action Movie vs Adventure Movie tangent. The complaints are the same. The subtle(?) distinction being made and lost is the same. I happen to agree with the complainers, to no one's surprise. Star Trek was adventure, where the action developed from the story. Abrams Trek is action, where the story serves the action. The difference is pretty clear to me even if not to others, kind of like the difference between Diet Coke and Coke. And just like Diet Coke vs Coke, one side of the action/adventure dichotomy only tastes delicious until your hindbrain has had time to warn you it's actually cancer of the soul.
Honestly, SWTFA has made me much more hopeful for STB--it's pretty clear now that Abrams is the hack responsible for all the worst aspects of Into Darkness, and now he's gone.
Well I am have been a fan of Peg since Shaun of the Dead, I have faith he will finally do justice in writing a modern ST. Although I think I heard him mention he had to go through 7 scripts before the studio gave the thumbs up because they didn't like the direction towards older ST he was trying to push it in. To me it sounds like he is an old fan and was trying to take it away from the action/effects fest JJ was taking it.
Col. Dash wrote: True, but the point remains, action in Star Trek isn't supposed to be hyper choreographed fight scenes. It is supposed to be forgettable. Star Trek isn't about the action.
Well, clearly the people currently behind developing the franchise in the modern era disagree with you...
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Almost all of the Trek movies are about action. The TV shows are more about exploration and Treking.
Maybe the newer ones were, but the original series was not.
ST1: very little action. It's called Star Trek: The Motionless Picture for a good reason.
ST2: there's action and space battles but they don't dominate the movie. And there's quite a bit of thought behind the action, with the consequences of Kirk's past catching up with him.
ST3: like the previous movie, there's action but it's far from a constant thing and exists to support the story/theme elements.
ST4: it's a comedy movie. Very little action, and quite a bit of "save the planet" preaching.
ST5: again, very little action, and a plot that is almost entirely focused on exploration.
ST6: this is the closest we get to a straightforward "end the cold war" action movie, and it still manages to consider the themes of the old generation moving on and how enemies can become allies.
So no, the Star Trek movies were not just about action.
I was thinking of I and IV which definately lack action. Also, they are terrible. Also, I was including the TNG ones which once again are mostly action.
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly the awful writing duo Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman is probably the more likely culprit for the flaws of Into Darkness.
I used to think so. I still believe they bear a lot of the responsibility. But after TFA, I am more convinced that Abrams is the kind of director who just keeps sending a script back for changes until he finally gets something he can understand is happy with. Then he starts cutting out the parts he feels aren't important...
There were moments of true brilliance in TFA's script, but they were smothered by the relentless bulletpoints Abrams mistakes for plot and character development. If he weren't surrounded by such capable people, with such a strong cast and the firm guidance of Disney, Abrams would have failed just as hard as prequel Lucas. Into Darkness lacked some of those elements, which is why it had so few saving graces. Now that he's gone, the Star Trek talent pool has almost certainly raised in quality.
The reality is that nothing anyone made was going to please everyone, especially not in long running franchises like the Stars shows/films. People build up so many ideas into their heads about these stories and the characters to the point that what they see has no clear resemblance to what was actually on screen. There's no way for anyone to live up to that. There will always be that section of fans with their specific ideas who feel betrayed and bemoan everyone involved regardless of quality. if it wasn't one thing it would just be another.
So people can throw their arms up and complain that Star Trek 27: Trek Harder wasn't a 'true' Star TreK film, or people can just accept that their personal opinions on something made 40 years ago has no relevance to something being made right now. There'd be a lot more happy people I think if they started looking outside their own preset notions of a given franchise
You have a very good point. However, Into Darkness would have been a disappointment even without the Star Trek legacy to fail to live up to. It was just a bad movie.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: You have a very good point. However, Into Darkness would have been a disappointment even without the Star Trek legacy to fail to live up to. It was just a bad movie.
I agree. Into Darkness had straight up problems not as a Star Trek film, but just as a film.
However, in both the cases of the rebooted Star Trek and Star Wars, people are overly obsessing superficial things, or proclaiming 'depth' where there frankly is none and never was. Star Wars and Star Trek are cultural icons and their logevity is partially driven by a lack of depth.A narrative simplicity that makes them kind of universal. People have so engrained those stories into themselves, that they take on a meaning far beyond anything the shows really had. Expecting the makers of new films to be able to read your mind and know what those stories mean to you is setting yourself up for disappointment because no one can do that.
. Ever since the first one kind of doggy paddled out the gate, every film that followed was more fast paced and tense. Save the 5th film, which everyone knows sucked horribly 
