Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just this morning i saw a poster for Star Trek into the darkness and it caused me to do a double take. It looked like any action movie poster , I thought the whole point of star trek was it was less action movie style and more cerebral , y'know with things like moral dilemmas ect.

I'm not a big trekky I just watch the series on TV when there is nothing else on.

Is this movie a true action movie or is it just being marketed as one?

I have no idea what to make of this new movie. Looks decidedly un-Trek as you mentioned.

Yeah, and people wonder why i dont like it. Action isnt everything.
Talks in star trek where decidely more tense.

The first one was an alright action movie, but a crap trek movie. This one looks like it will probably be the same.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, and people wonder why i dont like it

No one was wondering that.

All I get from these posts is "I fear change". If you just want the old stuff over and over again, well they are on Netflix and home video. Occasionally you have to mix things up a bit, and that is ok; people get to stuck in their ways and their ideas.

Is repeating the same style of action movie new things, I abhore most of them and was actually sad that it seemed that Star Trek was going to be turned into a mindless explosion fest with no plot, or characters (except for cardboard cut outs)

Bullockist wrote:
Is repeating the same style of action movie new things, I abhore most of them and was actually sad that it seemed that Star Trek was going to be turned into a mindless explosion fest with no plot, or characters (except for cardboard cut outs)

You strike as someone who not be pleased no matter what was done, so I can't see how catering to your myopic viewpoint on what a thing should or shouldn't be would of concern to people who actually matter in relation to the making of a product. Just looking at what you wrote here you come across as a jilted lover trying to get back at their ex, even though they moved on.

I just don't see why most movies that come out of the US have to be rom coms or action movies. Star trek always stood out to me as a franchise that had avoided being homogenised. This was a good thing.

I cannot be trying to get back at an ex lover since I'm not particularly "involved" with Star Trek.

I cannot say that hoping for something out of hollywood other than another action movie is particularly myopic, i like to call it eternally hopeful.

Wrath of Khan showed that great characters can drive a plot better than any sub-average action scene. People seem to forget that characters have always been the engine of trek.

Sacred cows are meant to be slaughtered.

Star Trek died awhile ago, and we killed it. It begun to groan under its own weight and sense of self importance. It had no room to breathe and thus suffocated. Sure, the diehard fans stuck with it, the ones that would buy anything with the logo on it, but for most the signs of decay go way back. It needs this cleansing of the palette if it wants to survive, as the die-hards spasm in their fanboy death throws of 'not my Star Trek', like all things, it moves on and changes. There are a lot of criticisms that can be leveled at the last film, but "it isn't Star Trek" is the worst, and most ridiculous, of them. Star Trek isn't some religion, it isn't a philosophy, it is a product of Paramount corporation. Selling a thin veneer of 'we're so deep' worked for awhile but eventually that well dried up so now they are repackaging the product to try and get some more life out of it. At worst the new films are a necessary evil to revive interest in a steadily declining franchise, and best it will breathe some much needed oxygen into the old girl and allow it some time to expand and find new life. Everything changes and so must Star Trek. If it survives long enough again it will probably undergo other radical changes. It isn't as if the series is free from the rules that all other things must follow; change is inevitable.

Bullockist wrote:
Just this morning i saw a poster for Star Trek into the darkness and it caused me to do a double take. It looked like any action movie poster , I thought the whole point of star trek was it was less action movie style and more cerebral , y'know with things like moral dilemmas ect.

I'm not a big trekky I just watch the series on TV when there is nothing else on.

Is this movie a true action movie or is it just being marketed as one?

I guess you haven't seen the first J.J. Abram's Star Trek movie, Star Trek has been going for a more action oriented idea is old news now (as of 2009) and shouldn't be a surprise no more.

I don’t mind action orientated Star Trek films, after all Wrath of Khan and First Contact where action orientated and where by far the best Star Trek movies.

But the action orientated does not have to mean dumb, and the 2009 film was very dumb. There where allot of things wrong with the script, dialog, characterization and the plot was ludicrous and full of holes.

 Ahtman wrote:
Sacred cows are meant to be slaughtered.

Star Trek died awhile ago, and we killed it. It begun to groan under its own weight and sense of self importance. It had no room to breathe and thus suffocated. Sure, the diehard fans stuck with it, the ones that would buy anything with the logo on it, but for most the signs of decay go way back. It needs this cleansing of the palette if it wants to survive, as the die-hards spasm in their fanboy death throws of 'not my Star Trek', like all things, it moves on and changes. There are a lot of criticisms that can be leveled at the last film, but "it isn't Star Trek" is the worst, and most ridiculous, of them. Star Trek isn't some religion, it isn't a philosophy, it is a product of Paramount corporation. Selling a thin veneer of 'we're so deep' worked for awhile but eventually that well dried up so now they are repackaging the product to try and get some more life out of it. At worst the new films are a necessary evil to revive interest in a steadily declining franchise, and best it will breathe some much needed oxygen into the old girl and allow it some time to expand and find new life. Everything changes and so must Star Trek. If it survives long enough again it will probably undergo other radical changes. It isn't as if the series is free from the rules that all other things must follow; change is inevitable.

What are you talking about, here? Star Trek or the Republican party?

Back OT. I agree that a re-boot can breath life into a franchise, but these new films seem by the numbers, average action efforts. It doesn't take much to impress me, but I wasn't impressed by the first one.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Back OT. I agree that a re-boot can breath life into a franchise, but these new films seem by the numbers, average action efforts. It doesn't take much to impress me, but I wasn't impressed by the first one.

Agreed, rebooting isn’t a bad thing in of itself, it saved James Bond and Batman. A Star Trek reboot should have been a great idea. It was just executed very poorly.

The whole thing felt designed by committee.

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Back OT. I agree that a re-boot can breath life into a franchise, but these new films seem by the numbers, average action efforts. It doesn't take much to impress me, but I wasn't impressed by the first one.

Agreed, rebooting isn’t a bad thing in of itself, it saved James Bond and Batman. A Star Trek reboot should have been a great idea. It was just executed very poorly.

Which isn't the same argument as when people just say 'it isn't Star Trek'. There were some pretty bad Star Trek films and tv episodes long before JJ Abrams showed up.

 Ahtman wrote:


Which isn't the same argument as when people just say 'it isn't Star Trek'. There were some pretty bad Star Trek films and tv episodes long before JJ Abrams showed up.

Oh I don’t doubt that there were plenty of bad Star Trek movies long before JJ Abrams go involved, but mostly they tried and failed. The 2009 one on the other hand didn’t even try.

I’d actually rather watch the 1979 motion picture than the 2009 film and I don’t say that lightly.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I don’t mind action orientated Star Trek films, after all Wrath of Khan and First Contact where action orientated and where by far the best Star Trek movies.

But the action orientated does not have to mean dumb, and the 2009 film was very dumb. There where allot of things wrong with the script, dialog, characterization and the plot was ludicrous and full of holes.

Wasn't one of the original Star Trek films about whales saving the world?

Or the Voyager probe attempting to destroy the Earth?

And how many episodes are based around holodeck malfunctions?

Star Trek has never been high art- it is mostly serious sci-fi fun, and some of the weird ideas they throw out absolutely fall flat on their faces.

Gitzbitah wrote:


Wasn't one of the original Star Trek films about whales saving the world?

Or the Voyager probe attempting to destroy the Earth?

And how many episodes are based around holodeck malfunctions?

Star Trek has never been high art- it is mostly serious sci-fi fun, and some of the weird ideas they throw out absolutely fall flat on their faces.

Non of which contradicts my problems with the 2009 film. I have no issue with Star Trek being fun and I’ve no idea where you have gotten that idea from.

My problem is with the poor continuity, bad dialog and illogical plot holes.

Ah, I thought providing examples of ludicrous plots from the previous movies would illustrate that that is what Star Trek is all about. Boldly going where no man has gone before, or no Star Trek series has. Only after they go do they ask themselves if it was a good idea to go there.

In that light, having a remake where some of the original cast actually comes back from the future to attempt to make sure this alternative timeline comes out the way it is meant to was a revolutionary idea for a reboot. I can't think of any other films that actually came out and said that the other films were destroyed in another universe.

Well to go into specifics the film was a revenge story. Nothing wrong with that, Wrath of Khan and First Contact where also great revenge stories. But the specifics made no sense.

Having arrived over 100 years in the past Nero could have just gone to Romulus and warned them of the approaching Super Nova. I know all the stuff about them becoming stuck on a Klingon Prison world, but there was still no real logical reason for Nero to go on a genocidal rampage. Also why even bother drilling? If you have the power to create a black hole, just create on right next to your target, the effect will be the same.

Also if one small droplet of that red stuff can create a black hole large enough to destroy a planet, surely the whole solar system would have been engulfed when the entire supply went off at the end of the film?

There were other little things as well. Kirk bumps into Pike who convinces him to join Star Fleet, fair enough. So he just turns up the next day and jumps in a shuttle? No application process, no entrance exams, nothing like that?

Then there is the Ice World, it’s clearly very very close to Vulcan for Spock to have been able to witness it’s destruction from there so clearly. Certainly far closer than Earth is to any of its neighbors. But the planet isn’t affected Vulcan’s destruction the slightest? And since why would there have been an isolated Star Fleet outpost on one of Vulcan’s neighboring planets anyway?

Oh and don’t get me started on Kirk being made a Captain straight out of the Academy. I don’t care how heroic he was in one given incident, no way does anyone come out of any military academy as a Captain. It would be the equivalent of giving a West Point graduate command of an entire Regiment straight after graduation.

Any decent proof reader with even the slightest bit of common sense, let alone knowledge of Star Trek should have pointed these out.

Like I say I’m fine with action and fine, but neither of these have to mean putting up with a dumb shoddy script.

 Ahtman wrote:
Sacred cows are meant to be slaughtered.

Star Trek died awhile ago, and we killed it. It begun to groan under its own weight and sense of self importance. It had no room to breathe and thus suffocated. Sure, the diehard fans stuck with it, the ones that would buy anything with the logo on it, but for most the signs of decay go way back. It needs this cleansing of the palette if it wants to survive, as the die-hards spasm in their fanboy death throws of 'not my Star Trek', like all things, it moves on and changes. There are a lot of criticisms that can be leveled at the last film, but "it isn't Star Trek" is the worst, and most ridiculous, of them. Star Trek isn't some religion, it isn't a philosophy, it is a product of Paramount corporation. Selling a thin veneer of 'we're so deep' worked for awhile but eventually that well dried up so now they are repackaging the product to try and get some more life out of it. At worst the new films are a necessary evil to revive interest in a steadily declining franchise, and best it will breathe some much needed oxygen into the old girl and allow it some time to expand and find new life. Everything changes and so must Star Trek. If it survives long enough again it will probably undergo other radical changes. It isn't as if the series is free from the rules that all other things must follow; change is inevitable.

*applause*

 Ahtman wrote:
Sacred cows are meant to be slaughtered.

Star Trek died awhile ago, and we killed it. It begun to groan under its own weight and sense of self importance. It had no room to breathe and thus suffocated. Sure, the diehard fans stuck with it, the ones that would buy anything with the logo on it, but for most the signs of decay go way back. It needs this cleansing of the palette if it wants to survive, as the die-hards spasm in their fanboy death throws of 'not my Star Trek', like all things, it moves on and changes. There are a lot of criticisms that can be leveled at the last film, but "it isn't Star Trek" is the worst, and most ridiculous, of them. Star Trek isn't some religion, it isn't a philosophy, it is a product of Paramount corporation. Selling a thin veneer of 'we're so deep' worked for awhile but eventually that well dried up so now they are repackaging the product to try and get some more life out of it. At worst the new films are a necessary evil to revive interest in a steadily declining franchise, and best it will breathe some much needed oxygen into the old girl and allow it some time to expand and find new life. Everything changes and so must Star Trek. If it survives long enough again it will probably undergo other radical changes. It isn't as if the series is free from the rules that all other things must follow; change is inevitable.

We did not kill it, Gene Roddenberry killed it.

His sacred legacy killed it, in the 60s he was indeed a visionary, in the 90s he was a millstone about it's neck, it's what the DS9 folks had to constantly battle in order to make a good series, it's what the Voyager folks acquiesced to and produced a below par series. It's why, as previously discussed, they went with the dire Enterprise instead of the Section 31 series, effectively killing the franchise on television, it's why they stepped backwards in the movies from the dark precipice discovered and loved in First Contact and chose the safe route to their own extinction in Insurrection and Nemesis. That old bird of the galaxy didn't even want Patrick Stuart as the Captain in Next Gen, because he wanted a 'big muscly guy with a full head of hair and way with the ladies'... It shows how out of touch he was with viewer tastes even then, in the first series of TNG, he rewrote 15 episodes because his 'divine vision' of human interaction had no place for greed, lust or hate.

I absolutely agree that it was suffocated by it's 'noble' 'family' 'lite' viewing principals, things that were demonstrative of Roddenberry's dysfunctional family of inheritors, it had become better but was forever a warring between the 'die hard' acolytes of the Great Bird and those who realized, quite correctly, that the franchise would die off if it did not move with the times and become a darker and more aggressive show. It did not change fast enough and died off. Nemesis is a principal example of this, it dalliances with darkness, the power struggle and coup d'etat of the Romulans, the Remans being monstrous slaves, the 'mind rape' of troi, the Anti-Picard as dictator and devil, but won't explore those things deeply or too graphically (and Marina Sirtis is a gak actress). So, because of fear of becoming too dark, because of the warring camps of those for progress and those who are afeared of Roddenberry coming back to haunt them, we have the sad Pinocchio Data story, the rape of Troi becomes a mild headache she sobs about and her husband has to go sort Shinzon's viceroy out instead of her getting some kind of brain frying opportunity at revenge, Shinzon is nothing short of Dr Evil from Austin Powers instead of the Intergalactic Alexander the Great/Joseph Stalin he should have been... The Next Gen films failed past First Contact because they tried to make a Big 3 of Picard, Data and Riker and because they had not learned that the audience wants something more dark, more violent, more political these days, the mob wants their heroes with flaws a mile wide and with more capacity to break rules and demonstrate their own inner darkness to conquer the external threat. If we'd skipped the Data Pinocchio bs in Nemesis and the 'buggy fun ride' bs and instead concentrated on Picard facing the monstrous side of himself and seeing him lose all that pompous federation principal to defeat Shinzon (monsters we are lest monsters we become), it would have been a vastly different film.

Right, the reimagined Star Trek movie.

I fething hated it. Time travel shenanigans, bland crew, awful bad guy concept, awful end of the world concept, wedged in old Spock... And they blew up Vulcan, causing me to ponder if they haven't just shat on 30 years of lore/timeline because they just had to turn vulcans into dying space elves... Entire film stank, I hope for a lot better from the new one, but I'm cautious.
Also, please, less lensflare...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We did not kill it, Gene Roddenberry killed it.

I think trying to connect them was there failure. I wish they would have just started it over with a clean slate without any connection to the other series. Hopefully without the need to try and set things up and introduce characters the new film will jettison some of the detritus of the 'origin' film.

As a big fan when I was a kid of the The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine and admittedly the first season or two of Voyager (before I just couldn't take it anymore) I really enjoyed the reboot.

It had no more plot holes than any other trek films. I liked the cast they picked for the crew and felt they worked well together. It was a fun movie and the pacing was solid. And for once they didn't try to gloss a veneer of "deep and cerebral thought" over the whole thing.

Star Trek isn't that smart. I can't even watch episodes of the The Next Generation anymore. DS9 in my opinion is the only one I can still watch and that's because it didn't have that same smug feel, especially as the show moved on.

One persons opinion but I'm excited about the new movie.

Gonna be honest, I thought the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie was the best thing that's ever happened to Trek. Especially compared to the godawful original series.

It's just leagues better and miles more entertaining than anything that's been put out before with the Star Trek name on it.

I'm looking forward to Into Darkness.

Ahtman wrote:
I think trying to connect them was there failure. I wish they would have just started it over with a clean slate without any connection to the other series. Hopefully without the need to try and set things up and introduce characters the new film will jettison some of the detritus of the 'origin' film.

Concurred 100%. Fresh start should have been fresh, instead there was a half hearted pandering which utterly backfired. Abrams should have just left off tampering with any established lore (no explode Vulcan Mr...) and had the balls to go with a fresh new story.

Hulksmash wrote:
It had no more plot holes than any other trek films. I liked the cast they picked for the crew and felt they worked well together. It was a fun movie and the pacing was solid. And for once they didn't try to gloss a veneer of "deep and cerebral thought" over the whole thing.
Star Trek isn't that smart. I can't even watch episodes of the The Next Generation anymore. DS9 in my opinion is the only one I can still watch and that's because it didn't have that same smug feel, especially as the show moved on.

For me, DS9 was by far the smartest of them, it was the deepest and most cerebral because it wasn't forcing a moral message down your gullet every episode and instead concentrated on story past series one, with the other ST series I kept waiting for the 'He-Man After Story Message for Kids' about what we'd learnt that program, with Data or Neelix (the gakker) addressing the audience about sharing or the perils of talking to strangers. DS9 had some amazing episodes Duet, for example, is very clever, moving and highly cerebral for a family viewing scifi show, Garak would be every bit as at home in a John Le Carre novel, Dance with the Devil was very clever (and fairly dark).

That smug feel is the Roddenberry effect, that 'all aliens we meet are somehow culturally inferior because we've given up greed, anger, paranoia and such' bs, that's the ramrod of Roddenberry and his after effect preventing any kind of movement from a stiff backed position of lofty goodness that drowns out all flavor with it's saccharine sweetness.

@MSG

Probably just me not being clear. It's pretty much the smugness and the feel that they were clubbing us over the head with how "smart" they were. They should have let the writing and acting take care of that for them. Honestly I think the only thing that saved the TNG at all was Patrick Stewart. But even my love for that man can't get me to watch TNG anymore. Odd considering I have all the SG Series, DS9, and Babylon 5 on DVD. Not a single TNG season though....

I didn't think DS9 was that "smart" in the sense of ramrodding it like the other treks did. It was just a well written and good show.

So I think we're on the same page except for your dislike of the reboot

 Ahtman wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, and people wonder why i dont like it

No one was wondering that.

All I get from these posts is "I fear change". If you just want the old stuff over and over again, well they are on Netflix and home video. Occasionally you have to mix things up a bit, and that is ok; people get to stuck in their ways and their ideas.

I do not fear change, I fear a loss of what made star trek unique. It was never about action, it was about new life and new possibilities. Many of the TNG episodes didnt have a single shot fires or punch thrown, and those where great. Th thing i liked about Starfleet is that while they are militarized their first goal isnt conflict, it is peacemaking. Making an action film of a film where one of the most tension inducing scene was a medical proceedure(Picard being a borg) is just wrong.
It woulbd be if they tried to make a remake of citizen cane, but made it where Kane was a hero.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
I think trying to connect them was there failure. I wish they would have just started it over with a clean slate without any connection to the other series. Hopefully without the need to try and set things up and introduce characters the new film will jettison some of the detritus of the 'origin' film.

Concurred 100%. Fresh start should have been fresh, instead there was a half hearted pandering which utterly backfired. Abrams should have just left off tampering with any established lore (no explode Vulcan Mr...) and had the balls to go with a fresh new story.

Hulksmash wrote:
It had no more plot holes than any other trek films. I liked the cast they picked for the crew and felt they worked well together. It was a fun movie and the pacing was solid. And for once they didn't try to gloss a veneer of "deep and cerebral thought" over the whole thing.
Star Trek isn't that smart. I can't even watch episodes of the The Next Generation anymore. DS9 in my opinion is the only one I can still watch and that's because it didn't have that same smug feel, especially as the show moved on.

For me, DS9 was by far the smartest of them, it was the deepest and most cerebral because it wasn't forcing a moral message down your gullet every episode and instead concentrated on story past series one, with the other ST series I kept waiting for the 'He-Man After Story Message for Kids' about what we'd learnt that program, with Data or Neelix (the gakker) addressing the audience about sharing or the perils of talking to strangers. DS9 had some amazing episodes Duet, for example, is very clever, moving and highly cerebral for a family viewing scifi show, Garak would be every bit as at home in a John Le Carre novel, Dance with the Devil was very clever (and fairly dark).

That smug feel is the Roddenberry effect, that 'all aliens we meet are somehow culturally inferior because we've given up greed, anger, paranoia and such' bs, that's the ramrod of Roddenberry and his after effect preventing any kind of movement from a stiff backed position of lofty goodness that drowns out all flavor with it's saccharine sweetness.

Most of what you said is spot on, but this is your final warning: DO NOT CRITICISE NEELIX That goes for the rest of you as well!

Meh, Docter Phlox is better