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.

 Frazzled wrote:
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!"

Don't forget 'these are not the hell your whales!'. And, of course, the nuclear wessels.... IV was definitely the funniest ST movie.

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.

Look, there's Scotty. Tick box.

Hey, let's get McCoy in there. Tick box.

Chekhov? Come on down. Tick box.

And so on...

 Frazzled wrote:
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!"

I think eps 2,3, & 4 all hold up really well and make a cracking trilogy.

Always had a soft spot for seeing how our heroes act as/when they get older.

Agreed.

Frazzled wrote: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!"

I think the great one liners and use of humor is part of what made ST IV so enjoyable despite of being one of the preachiest of all Star Trek entries.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
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!"

I think eps 2,3, & 4 all hold up really well and make a cracking trilogy.

Always had a soft spot for seeing how our heroes act as/when they get older.

It was a golden age of sorts for ST films.

 Frazzled wrote:
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!"

My personal favorite:

"He did too much LDS back in the 60s"

Does it seem like they still haven't gone to deep space on a five year mission after two movies?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 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


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.

We really haven't seen enough yet but I am getting really tired of them destroying or near-destroying the Enterprise.

 Frazzled wrote:
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!"

Nuclear wessel?

 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?

how is it elitist to want a movie from a series I love to be like the series I love?

Good question - please answer!

We could ask "joe sixpack" what he thinks too...

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...

 insaniak wrote:

 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....

 insaniak wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk 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 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."

 Ahtman wrote:


They also said the Enterprise was designed for it in the first one,

And then stuff happened that delayed the start of that mission.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


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.

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

 kronk 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 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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

Almost all of the Trek movies are about action. The TV shows are more about exploration and Treking.

 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.