Originally posted by ktanner3 The old dinasours will always have the ten movies and 5 series. That's quite a collection for them to go back and reminist. Of course, they've spent the last 20 years griping about every new movie and series so I doubt they were ever going to be happy unless you threw the old crew back on the screen.(which is impossible now since two of them are dead) Sort of like how old school bond fans will never be happy unless Sean Connery is playing the lead role of 007. Some people just can't let go of the past.. Thankfully, this movie was able to broaden the audiennce, who will in turn be looking forward to the next one with great anticipation.
Actually, this old dinosaur would have been just fine with the new crew and the ugly new ship if there had been a plot with some depth to it. This is why I say better luck with the next one.
And I'm with Gene on the 2-6 movies being too militaristic.
I don't mind the casting/acting either (Sulu sucked though), I actually have said I think they did a good job there. Nor do I have a beef with the ship style but to be honest it was hardly in this movie much, the exterior anyways, and the interior and sounds seemed good enough. The problem was the absolute lack of any depth or anything with which to build anything from going forward. I mean it is just ridiculous that the very reason we accept this green punks as a bridge crew is because the hold the same names of the characters from the very timeline the movie erased or replaced. It doesn't hold water and offers nothing from which to make a meaningful re-imagination or retelling of the Star trek universe, it only affords a platform for another ST themed Hollywood formula action flick or two.
By example, had they had Earth get destroyed then it could have been an interesting setup for retelling things and exploring many of the ST themes in against a new backdrop. It would explain why a green crew is trusted with such positions and it could serve as an interesting launch point for some good character development seeing how these versions grow differently than their counterparts. Even doing something like that they would need to trim some of the non meaty parts of JJ ST like the Sulu not-a-light-saber fight. I would even say leave out the Nemoy parts as it is really contrived to have the basis of the Kirk/Spock relationship come down to "because future Spock told me too"). Substituting in some meatier character development scenes in their place would do nicely. I think you get my meaning.
Ultimately, the problem with JJ ST is that it was all dressing and no salad and it doesn't leave much of anywhere to go save another mindless action sequel or two. How about this comparison, old Star Trek was "to boldly go where no man (no one) has gone before" but after this new version it mind as well read "to timidly go where everyone has been before" if you where aplying that mission statement to the film's themes.
Originally posted by ktanner3 The old dinasours will always have the ten movies and 5 series. That's quite a collection for them to go back and reminist. Of course, they've spent the last 20 years griping about every new movie and series so I doubt they were ever going to be happy unless you threw the old crew back on the screen.(which is impossible now since two of them are dead) Sort of like how old school bond fans will never be happy unless Sean Connery is playing the lead role of 007. Some people just can't let go of the past.. Thankfully, this movie was able to broaden the audiennce, who will in turn be looking forward to the next one with great anticipation.
Actually, this old dinosaur would have been just fine with the new crew and the ugly new ship if there had been a plot with some depth to it. This is why I say better luck with the next one.
And I'm with Gene on the 2-6 movies being too militaristic.
To each his own. I thought the first one was a boring piece of shit that never went anywhere and had a weak villian. And I never understood the "too militaristic" argument when in the series you had captains,starfleet command,yeoman,port, starboard and countless military jargon spoken on a routine basis. The only difference was the uniforms, which in my opinion was hundreds of times better than any of the other designs.
Originally posted by ktanner3 The old dinasours will always have the ten movies and 5 series. That's quite a collection for them to go back and reminist. Of course, they've spent the last 20 years griping about every new movie and series so I doubt they were ever going to be happy unless you threw the old crew back on the screen.(which is impossible now since two of them are dead) Sort of like how old school bond fans will never be happy unless Sean Connery is playing the lead role of 007. Some people just can't let go of the past.. Thankfully, this movie was able to broaden the audiennce, who will in turn be looking forward to the next one with great anticipation.
Actually, this old dinosaur would have been just fine with the new crew and the ugly new ship if there had been a plot with some depth to it. This is why I say better luck with the next one.
And I'm with Gene on the 2-6 movies being too militaristic.
To each his own. I thought the first one was a boring piece of shit that never went anywhere and had a weak villian. And I never understood the "too militaristic" argument when in the series you had captains,starfleet command,yeoman,port, starboard and countless military jargon spoken on a routine basis. The only difference was the uniforms, which in my opinion was hundreds of times better than any of the other designs.
Pretty sure we watched the movies (and television series) from different perspectives. 3-5 weren't too bad in that regard, but 2 and 6 were definitely over the top.
Originally posted by ktanner3 The old dinasours will always have the ten movies and 5 series. That's quite a collection for them to go back and reminist. Of course, they've spent the last 20 years griping about every new movie and series so I doubt they were ever going to be happy unless you threw the old crew back on the screen.(which is impossible now since two of them are dead) Sort of like how old school bond fans will never be happy unless Sean Connery is playing the lead role of 007. Some people just can't let go of the past.. Thankfully, this movie was able to broaden the audiennce, who will in turn be looking forward to the next one with great anticipation.
Actually, this old dinosaur would have been just fine with the new crew and the ugly new ship if there had been a plot with some depth to it. This is why I say better luck with the next one.
And I'm with Gene on the 2-6 movies being too militaristic.
To each his own. I thought the first one was a boring piece of shit that never went anywhere and had a weak villian. And I never understood the "too militaristic" argument when in the series you had captains,starfleet command,yeoman,port, starboard and countless military jargon spoken on a routine basis. The only difference was the uniforms, which in my opinion was hundreds of times better than any of the other designs.
Pretty sure we watched the movies (and television series) from different perspectives. 3-5 weren't too bad in that regard, but 2 and 6 were definitely over the top.
We definitely have different perspectives, because to me 2 and 6 were the best of the original cast. Still had the humor , but it didn't take away from the seriousness of the story. I also highly doubt that the military will cease doing military customs in 200 years, that's why that argument never jived with me.
"Star Trek saw the lowest decline of all nationwide releases. The sci-fi adventure dipped 14 percent to an estimated $4.7 million, and its total climbed to $239.4 million in 45 days."
Been away for a while, was taking an MMO break. Just logged in to see your last couple comments and now that the summer has settled out I think what I was saying is holding true. Yes, JJ ST was a successful movie but hardly a massive hit like it was portrayed to be by the 'buzz' and some folks here. As it stands now it is not even top 5 in the last year in WW gross (is like 8 or so). Failure, of course not - but smash hit - hardly. It still is nearly spot on gross wise with Wolverine which you roundly call a flop - there is just no way you can reconcile JJ ST as a massive hit at just a few million gross more than Wolverine that you, and most folks, consider a flop.
Comments
Actually, this old dinosaur would have been just fine with the new crew and the ugly new ship if there had been a plot with some depth to it. This is why I say better luck with the next one.
And I'm with Gene on the 2-6 movies being too militaristic.
I don't mind the casting/acting either (Sulu sucked though), I actually have said I think they did a good job there. Nor do I have a beef with the ship style but to be honest it was hardly in this movie much, the exterior anyways, and the interior and sounds seemed good enough. The problem was the absolute lack of any depth or anything with which to build anything from going forward. I mean it is just ridiculous that the very reason we accept this green punks as a bridge crew is because the hold the same names of the characters from the very timeline the movie erased or replaced. It doesn't hold water and offers nothing from which to make a meaningful re-imagination or retelling of the Star trek universe, it only affords a platform for another ST themed Hollywood formula action flick or two.
By example, had they had Earth get destroyed then it could have been an interesting setup for retelling things and exploring many of the ST themes in against a new backdrop. It would explain why a green crew is trusted with such positions and it could serve as an interesting launch point for some good character development seeing how these versions grow differently than their counterparts. Even doing something like that they would need to trim some of the non meaty parts of JJ ST like the Sulu not-a-light-saber fight. I would even say leave out the Nemoy parts as it is really contrived to have the basis of the Kirk/Spock relationship come down to "because future Spock told me too"). Substituting in some meatier character development scenes in their place would do nicely. I think you get my meaning.
Ultimately, the problem with JJ ST is that it was all dressing and no salad and it doesn't leave much of anywhere to go save another mindless action sequel or two. How about this comparison, old Star Trek was "to boldly go where no man (no one) has gone before" but after this new version it mind as well read "to timidly go where everyone has been before" if you where aplying that mission statement to the film's themes.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Actually, this old dinosaur would have been just fine with the new crew and the ugly new ship if there had been a plot with some depth to it. This is why I say better luck with the next one.
And I'm with Gene on the 2-6 movies being too militaristic.
To each his own. I thought the first one was a boring piece of shit that never went anywhere and had a weak villian. And I never understood the "too militaristic" argument when in the series you had captains,starfleet command,yeoman,port, starboard and countless military jargon spoken on a routine basis. The only difference was the uniforms, which in my opinion was hundreds of times better than any of the other designs.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Actually, this old dinosaur would have been just fine with the new crew and the ugly new ship if there had been a plot with some depth to it. This is why I say better luck with the next one.
And I'm with Gene on the 2-6 movies being too militaristic.
To each his own. I thought the first one was a boring piece of shit that never went anywhere and had a weak villian. And I never understood the "too militaristic" argument when in the series you had captains,starfleet command,yeoman,port, starboard and countless military jargon spoken on a routine basis. The only difference was the uniforms, which in my opinion was hundreds of times better than any of the other designs.
Pretty sure we watched the movies (and television series) from different perspectives. 3-5 weren't too bad in that regard, but 2 and 6 were definitely over the top.
Actually, this old dinosaur would have been just fine with the new crew and the ugly new ship if there had been a plot with some depth to it. This is why I say better luck with the next one.
And I'm with Gene on the 2-6 movies being too militaristic.
To each his own. I thought the first one was a boring piece of shit that never went anywhere and had a weak villian. And I never understood the "too militaristic" argument when in the series you had captains,starfleet command,yeoman,port, starboard and countless military jargon spoken on a routine basis. The only difference was the uniforms, which in my opinion was hundreds of times better than any of the other designs.
Pretty sure we watched the movies (and television series) from different perspectives. 3-5 weren't too bad in that regard, but 2 and 6 were definitely over the top.
We definitely have different perspectives, because to me 2 and 6 were the best of the original cast. Still had the humor , but it didn't take away from the seriousness of the story. I also highly doubt that the military will cease doing military customs in 200 years, that's why that argument never jived with me.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
"Star Trek saw the lowest decline of all nationwide releases. The sci-fi adventure dipped 14 percent to an estimated $4.7 million, and its total climbed to $239.4 million in 45 days."
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2597&p=.htm
Yearly Domestic
1 Star Trek $239,444,000
2 Up $224,113,000
3 Monsters Vs. Aliens $195,501,000
4 X-Men Origins: Wolverine $177,259,000
5 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian $155,953,000
Yearly worldwide
1 Angels & Demons Sony $444.6
2 Monsters Vs. Aliens P/DW $366.9
3 Star Trek Par. $358.0
4 X-Men Origins: Wolverine Fox $356.8
5 Fast and Furious Uni. $349.0
Franchise all time
ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION:
Star Trek (2009): - $239,444,000
The Motion Picture - $239,115,674
The Voyage Home - $212,328,919
The Wrath of Khan - $192,290,437
The Search for Spock - $163,237,856
First Contact - $149,493,266
Generations - $129,980,545
The Undiscovered Country - $127,720,425
Insurrection - $107,451,468
The Final Frontier - $93,951,918
Nemesis - $53,387,173
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Star Trek just passed Batman Begins.
Box Office Mojo
Star Trek
Batman Begins
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Been away for a while, was taking an MMO break. Just logged in to see your last couple comments and now that the summer has settled out I think what I was saying is holding true. Yes, JJ ST was a successful movie but hardly a massive hit like it was portrayed to be by the 'buzz' and some folks here. As it stands now it is not even top 5 in the last year in WW gross (is like 8 or so). Failure, of course not - but smash hit - hardly. It still is nearly spot on gross wise with Wolverine which you roundly call a flop - there is just no way you can reconcile JJ ST as a massive hit at just a few million gross more than Wolverine that you, and most folks, consider a flop.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD