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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like we have two groups here:

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.

That looks pretty awesome

good stuff

Humour - nice lines already
cute girl
looks like good action and drama

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like we have two groups here:

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.

Also a good point, and a problem common in films these days. There is no time for character development. Its on to the next baysplosion.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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.

 Formosa wrote:

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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


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.

Star Trek: Nerd Rage Episode ∞: Alpha: Gold

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?)

The first film was fantastic - the second average but thats often the way with sequals. Anyway its alll subjective - one persons gem is anothers POS.

Alot of Trek fans somehow liked ST: Insurection - can't stand it myself..........its just a long even duller Next gen episode

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like we have two groups here:

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.

Oh come one, Star Trek IV was awesome in the one liner department.
"Everybody remember where we parked."

"what does it mean, exact change?"

"Double Dumbass on you!"