I still remember the big arguments after the announcement of Shatner's non involvement. People thought this movie would fail and Shatner himself said it wasn't a wise business decision. Looks like they were wrong.
I think it is far too early to say if it was good business or not. The movie did do well for the first weekend but not so well that it can be already declared a hit or the needed rekindling of the franchise, not by a longshot.
Wolverine, a roundly criticized and poorly reviewed movie, earned $10 mil more the weekend before (something like $85 mil) and then tanked. Star Trek, with rave reviews and excellent buzz, brought in only $72 mil. Not terrible but nowhere near enough to break even and without a solid second weekend and some legs it will not be considered a big hit and not be what the franchise needs to reboot.
My guess is the movie was good enough to get another movie and like many 2-3 film series these days it will likely dwindle with each release and then where will the franchise be? It will have alienated a good chunk of the 'old' fans, the new fans will have their ADD focused on whatever new flashy action summer popcorn flick is in vogue and what was a 40+ year franchise will be truly in trouble.
Holy crap, I never thought anything or anyone would have dragged me into posting on this site. Like many, I really only use MMOrpg for game info and forum entertainment. I am also forever grateful for having been introduced to EVE in '05 while lurking around here.
However the more I read through this thread, the more I realised that all the bitching here sounded an awful lot like some serious nerd rage over having the masses actually like the Franchise again. No, Star Trek is not just for you!
Myself I am long time fan as well. I have seen every series (including Enterprise), and every film. I loved this movie. I really needed a new Trek film like this, I've been starved for one. All the negatives that are being repeated in this thread over and over again just don't hold any water with me, or any of the many friends I have that like Star Trek that have seen the movie.
If your a fan see the movie and please take this thread with a grain of salt.
And AgtSmith you've made your points quite clear and several times. You have warned people. But if you truly feel the need to constantly and repeatedly save people from something new, whether it be a movie or game. Don't worry, this site conveniently already has a forum for you. I don't think I need to name it, and you might even be able to add a little extra textual hilarity to my day.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by AgtSmith
Originally posted by ktanner3
I still remember the big arguments after the announcement of Shatner's non involvement. People thought this movie would fail and Shatner himself said it wasn't a wise business decision. Looks like they were wrong.
I think it is far too early to say if it was good business or not. The movie did do well for the first weekend but not so well that it can be already declared a hit or the needed rekindling of the franchise, not by a longshot.
Wolverine, a roundly criticized and poorly reviewed movie, earned $10 mil more the weekend before (something like $85 mil) and then tanked. Star Trek, with rave reviews and excellent buzz, brought in only $72 mil. Not terrible but nowhere near enough to break even and without a solid second weekend and some legs it will not be considered a big hit and not be what the franchise needs to reboot.
My guess is the movie was good enough to get another movie and like many 2-3 film series these days it will likely dwindle with each release and then where will the franchise be? It will have alienated a good chunk of the 'old' fans, the new fans will have their ADD focused on whatever new flashy action summer popcorn flick is in vogue and what was a 40+ year franchise will be truly in trouble.
"Combined with the proceeds of its No. 1 domestic debut, "Trek's" early global boxoffice total stands at $112.4 million"
Need to take into account the rest of the world Mr Smith
I believe the main cast has also signed up to do 3 movies total so far already too.
"Trek's" weekend take alone represents 11.5% of the combined total ($312.9 million) grossed offshore by all 10 of its theatrical predecessors, according to distributor Paramount." "Openings to come for "Trek" include debuts in Egypt (Wednesday), Japan (May 29), Hong Kong (June 4), Indonesia (June 10) and India (June 12)."
By the end of the weekend, Star Trek had opened with $79,204,289, as well as $35.5 million from other countries. Adjusted and unadjusted for inflation, it beat Star Trek: First Contact for the largest US opening for a Star Trek film. The film made $8.5 million from its IMAX screenings, breaking The Dark Knight's $6.3 million IMAX opening record.
Business wise it looks successful with Paramount choosing to delay the film till May from Xmas.
I enjoyed the movie, I think it gives a good premise for the next installment.
Personally I found it far better than ST: The motion picture.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by AgtSmith
We shall see, I seriously doubt this movie will reignite the interest and passion that spawned a 40 year following and multiple series and movies.
Even after the first season of the original series it was nearly cancelled, releasing to poor viewing results.
Same again at the end of the second season.
And then cancelled at the end of the Third season into its 5 year mission.
It wasn't until some 10 years later the original show became popular via syndication.
It takes time for a following to happen, Star Trek 2009 is just a branch off from the original.
How many Bond films are there now
Best to give it some time. Something the studio did for this movie. And who knows what the future will bring. There is a good core cast in the movie, the scripts / story just have to be up to par.
We shall see, I seriously doubt this movie will reignite the interest and passion that spawned a 40 year following and multiple series and movies.
Will it drive a really small number of people into such rabid fandom that they memorize every last available detail offered by the new material? Probably not, but so what? A franchise doesn't need to inspire fanaticism to survive, it just needs to make a healthy profit. The new direction is far more likely to keep the franchise alive in the 21st century than something designed only to appease hardline Roddenberry worshippers. Warts and all, this movie was easily more true to the cinematic "Star Trek" tradition than DS9 or Voyager could have been, and arguably better than the TNG movies. And I am generous to say arguably, because to myself and most who aren't in a frothing rage over the perceived defilement of the Holy Canon, it is clearly superior to any of the TNG movies, as well as at least half of the first six movies.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I find it amazing that the frothing fans don't seem to realize how lucky they are that the franchise still exists at all. The original series only became popular in syndication, the first movie only got made because Paramount wanted something to compete with Star Wars, and then came the Wrath of Khan. Wrath was a great movie even if you were someone who had never had any experience with Star Trek, and its outside the trekkie-box appeal is one of the primary reasons for its success.
Without the success of Khan, there would have been no Search for Spock, no Voyage Home, no Final Frontier, no Undiscovered Country, no Next Generation tv series or movies, no Deep Space Nine, no Voyager, no Enterprise. The bulk of the history and canon that fans love so much exists *only* because of a movie designed to appeal to a mass audience. The franchise managed to live for two decades primarily on the residual goodwill from Wrath of Khan.
The first seasons of the Next Generation weren't even up to the quality level of the (cancelled) original series, and were a far, far cry from the quality of the movies. It got better as time went on, but it still owed its original audience to two primary factors: the Wrath of Khan, and a lack of other science fiction shows on television. It was pretty much the only game in town. Then came Deep Space Nine, and it was distinctly subpar compared to the contemporaneous seasons of the Next Generation, and arguably not even as good as TNGs early seasons. The TNG audience tried out DS9, and many stuck around, but a fair number did not, and the new show failed to draw viewers from outside the TNG audience. TNG reruns even typically had higher viewership than new episodes of DS9
Then came Voyager, and again the TNG/DS9 audience gave it a try, and again the new show failed to keep even the whole audience of its predecessors, and failed to bring new viewers into the fold. Noticing the trend yet? Every subsequent Trek outing was less than the one before. Weaker characters, recycled plots, smaller audiences, an increasingly more devoted audience whose devotion was matched only by their tunnel vision and ultimate irrelevance.
By the time Enterprise came around, the residual goodwill from the Wrath of Khan had pretty much run out for almost everyone who wasn't a hardcore trekkie. They had been burned by bad fan fiction quality shows too many times, and most of them never even gave the new show a chance. The perception that had been created (fairly so) by the previous shows was that Trek shows were only for Trekkies, and combine that with the fact that many trekkies (as they are doing now) began to froth at the mouth over the new show not being in the 24th century, and you had a recipe for a show that barely lasted longer than the original series. Which is sad, because frankly, Enterprise was closer to the quality and spirit of the characters of the original crew than any of the series in between were. But it was almost stillborn because of the stigma of low-quality that had attached to Trek in the public's eyes, and died an early death when even the Trekkies who largely created that stigma rejected it.
So, as of the end of Enterprise, the coat-tails of the original crew had lost any ability to motivate the general public into giving a chance to weak imitations, and the "hardcore" trekkies had indicated that they couldn't be relied on to support any future endeavor that didn't meet their exacting and unrealistic standard of canonical orthodoxy. So what, exactly, was Paramount supposed to do?
They could have set something in the post-TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline. But why would they want to set themselves up for failure that way? Since the end of TNG there had been a steady decline in ratings and support for the Trek offshoots, to the point where Voyager was almost cancelled several times before completing its run, and Enterprise did end three years early. If they had designed a show to follow the "40 years of canon" that is being so venerated by so few, then almost the only people who would have even tuned in to give it a chance are the hardcore trekkies, who it has already been established are not numerous enough to support a show on their own. And if the new show had been made in a way that satisfied the hardcore, it likely would have retained the trekkie stigmata, and driven away whatever small number of non-trekkie viewers would have tuned in out of curiousity.
Paramount did the only thing they rationally could do. They went back to the only crew that had ever enjoyed real cinematic success. They couldn't go with the old actors, because between the idiotic death of Kirk in Generations, the deaths of the actors who played Scotty and Bones, and the extremely advanced age of Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig, and George Takei, it just wasn't feasible. So they knew what crew they *had* to use if they were going to do a new movie, and they knew they would have to do new actors. They could have done a straight reboot, but they showed *more* respect for the franchise's history than that, using the long and honorable Trek tradition of the time-travel story to provide an opportunity for new stories with the old crew, while still giving a respectful nod to the past history.
It seems to me that those who are mad about the new movie's direction must primarily fall into two categories. The people who didn't bother to think things through and realize that a movie like this was the only way to keep the franchise alive, and the people who *do* realize it, and would rather see the franchise die than evolve into something that renders their painstakingly memorized trivia irrelevant.
The last time Trek made a movie with mass appeal, it spawned 8 more movies, and 4 television series, a legacy that lasted more than 20 years. Thank you Paramount, for realizing the reasons for your past success, and giving us a chance at another 20 years.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Originally posted by CazNeerg The last time Trek made a movie with mass appeal, it spawned 8 more movies, and 4 television series, a legacy that lasted more than 20 years. Thank you Paramount, for realizing the reasons for your past success, and giving us a chance at another 20 years.
But that movie wasn't mostly all fluff and flash and silliness such as this great SciFi character going from drunken brawler to Starship captain with no experience and questionable justification. That movie also didn't wipe out everything that came before it alienating many of the previous fans in favor of the new ones it hoped would come on board. This new Trek has no real substance to it that can possibly be the basis for the kind of franchise that was wiped to make room for it. The ADD stricken audience this movie tried to attract, and possibly got, are easily distracted by the next shiny thing to come along leaving Star Trek where when that newness wears off?
Originally posted by CazNeerg The last time Trek made a movie with mass appeal, it spawned 8 more movies, and 4 television series, a legacy that lasted more than 20 years. Thank you Paramount, for realizing the reasons for your past success, and giving us a chance at another 20 years.
But that movie wasn't mostly all fluff and flash and silliness such as this great SciFi character going from drunken brawler to Starship captain with no experience and questionable justification. That movie also didn't wipe out everything that came before it alienating many of the previous fans in favor of the new ones it hoped would come on board. This new Trek has no real substance to it that can possibly be the basis for the kind of franchise that was wiped to make room for it. The ADD stricken audience this movie tried to attract, and possibly got, are easily distracted by the next shiny thing to come along leaving Star Trek where when that newness wears off?
I will have to disagree with your assertions.
I am old enough to have seen the original series on television. When i went to see the film at the IMAX theatre its probably safe to say that many folks were long time fans of the IP and there were as many people near my age as younger ones.
When the movie ended, we all applauded (a stupid practice when you think of it, sort of like cheering at your team on TV) and everyone seemed to really enjoy it.
I'm a fan of Star Trek, but I did feel the IP had run its course, if not run completely into the ground.
This new movie/time line gives the franchise to evolve in a new direction and perhaps go another 10 or 20 years.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Another 10 - 20 years based off what? Explosions and effects and ass shots of Uhuru and a universe where 3 year college cadets get instantly promoted to captain of the fleets flagship?
Originally posted by CazNeerg A franchise doesn't need to inspire fanaticism to survive, it just needs to make a healthy profit. The new direction is far more likely to keep the franchise alive in the 21st century than something designed only to appease hardline Roddenberry worshippers.
So you are saying that to build a uniquely broad franchise spanning 5 series, movies, comics, conventions, and myriad other incarnations you need to toss out what worked the first time to build that unique franchise and make the new reboot for the franchise a carbon copy of most everything else coming out of Hollywood? In other words, the depth or the cannon and lore that attracted all the fans that carried Star Trek over 4 decades is not the way to build what Star Trek had built? I think that is the most insanely stupid thing ever said.
Star Trek is unique among movies and series as being extremely long lasting and building a strong fanbase. How can one argue that tossing out all that built that unique franchise is the way to build it again? Where is the new Mission Impossible (another JJ reboot) TV series and movies and conventions and comics and Sat cartoons? Where is all those things in James Bond (another reboot)? Hrm, nothing? Gee, maybe the way to build something unique like Star trek was, and not just a franchise that pops out a summer flash in the pan here and there, is to do what trek did the first time and hold true to the universe built over 40 years.
I agree that from TNG movies on Star Trek had really fallen flat, I recall not even knowing Nemisis came out until it was on cable not long after (admitingly I am not an Ent Tonight type though). Yes, Star Trek needed freshening up and need to appeal to non Trekies to get some new legs. Although I would argue that the problem with Star Trek was that it increasingly got less Strek Treky over time and more than anything that the TNG cast just sucked for the big screen (in part because ensemble casts are not right for big screen in part because they are just not big screen starts). But come on, what is the point of appealing to people outside your genre if you have to become something other than what you are to do it? Not to mention erase all that was built before over 40 years. The issue is not the actors they picked, the ADD style of the movie, or the attempt or need to try to be more mass market - the issue is if in doing this reboot whether Star Trek lost all of what made it Star Trek in the first place and ultimately is still as done and gone is if they made another bloody TNG movie with Riker using a joystick to steer the stupid ship.
Another 10 - 20 years based off what? Explosions and effects and ass shots of Uhuru and a universe where 3 year college cadets get instantly promoted to captain of the fleets flagship?
Originally posted by CazNeerg A franchise doesn't need to inspire fanaticism to survive, it just needs to make a healthy profit. The new direction is far more likely to keep the franchise alive in the 21st century than something designed only to appease hardline Roddenberry worshippers.
So you are saying that to build a uniquely broad franchise spanning 5 series, movies, comics, conventions, and myriad other incarnations you need to toss out what worked the first time to build that unique franchise and make the new reboot for the franchise a carbon copy of most everything else coming out of Hollywood? In other words, the depth or the cannon and lore that attracted all the fans that carried Star Trek over 4 decades is not the way to build what Star Trek had built? I think that is the most insanely stupid thing ever said.
Star Trek is unique among movies and series as being extremely long lasting and building a strong fanbase. How can one argue that tossing out all that built that unique franchise is the way to build it again? Where is the new Mission Impossible (another JJ reboot) TV series and movies and conventions and comics and Sat cartoons? Where is all those things in James Bond (another reboot)? Hrm, nothing? Gee, maybe the way to build something unique like Star trek was, and not just a franchise that pops out a summer flash in the pan here and there, is to do what trek did the first time and hold true to the universe built over 40 years.
I agree that from TNG movies on Star Trek had really fallen flat, I recall not even knowing Nemisis came out until it was on cable not long after (admitingly I am not an Ent Tonight type though). Yes, Star Trek needed freshening up and need to appeal to non Trekies to get some new legs. Although I would argue that the problem with Star Trek was that it increasingly got less Strek Treky over time and more than anything that the TNG cast just sucked for the big screen (in part because ensemble casts are not right for big screen in part because they are just not big screen starts). But come on, what is the point of appealing to people outside your genre if you have to become something other than what you are to do it? Not to mention erase all that was built before over 40 years. The issue is not the actors they picked, the ADD style of the movie, or the attempt or need to try to be more mass market - the issue is if in doing this reboot whether Star Trek lost all of what made it Star Trek in the first place and ultimately is still as done and gone is if they made another bloody TNG movie with Riker using a joystick to steer the stupid ship.
First of all, and I've been wanting to say this for a while now, it is canon. Not cannon, those are the weapons that used to stick out the sides of wet-navy ships in the age of sail.
Second, screw the conventions. The conventions didn't help keep the franchise alive, they just gave those with an unhealthy degree of obsession a way to pretend they had a social life.
Third, you don't seem to understand the evolution of the franchise very well. It took a *long* time for the original series to become popular, the first movie only got made because of Star Wars, not because of trekkies, and without the second movie, the entire franchise wouldn't have been forty years, it would have been 15 years, consisting of one cancelled three season tv series and one crappy movie. It didn't last another 25 years because the stuff that came after Khan was so great, it lasted another 25 years because *Khan* was great, and what followed was just barely good enough to take a long time to erode away all that good will.
Is the new movie as good as Khan? As far as I am concerned, no, not that good. But it is the best the franchise has managed to do since Khan, and even if it doesn't spawn 20 more years, it could spawn 15, or 10, or 5, in which time the new crew could grow into their roles enough that we get another Khan, or an even better movie, which will rejuvenate the franchise even further.
Another thing you don't seem to realize, the definitive elements of Trek for most people aren't the forty years of accumulated and often contradictory trivia, it was the quality of the characters, the relationships between them, and the way those characters dealt with extraordinary situations. The new movie didn't lose "what makes Trek, Trek," that has been getting lost for years. You can argue about when it started to get lost, whether it was in TNG, DS9, Voyager, or the TNG movies, but by the time they even started considering this movie, what made Trek relevant and exciting to most people had already died. It was gone. This movie was an attempt to bring it back, and for the vast majority of those seeing it, that attempt has been a success.
What is the point of designing a movie that only appeals to people who memorized 40 years of trivia? You really wanted them to put the final nail in the Star Trek coffin that badly?
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Second, screw the conventions. The conventions didn't help keep the franchise alive, they just gave those with an unhealthy degree of obsession a way to pretend they had a social life.
I think those conventions are weird myself, and I wouldn't go near one - but to deny that the series and early movies had substance enough to generate that kind of loyalty and that in large part that enthusiasm was not part of the franchise spanning over 40 years and so many incarnations is just idiotic.
Originally posted by CazNeerg
Third, you don't seem to understand the evolution of the franchise very well. It took a *long* time for the original series to become popular, the first movie only got made because of Star Wars, not because of trekkies, and without the second movie, the entire franchise wouldn't have been forty years, it would have been 15 years, consisting of one cancelled three season tv series and one crappy movie. It didn't last another 25 years because the stuff that came after Khan was so great, it lasted another 25 years because *Khan* was great, and what followed was just barely good enough to take a long time to erode away all that good will.
I understand things fully, I was one of the original Trek fans brought in by the syndication of TOS and the movies in the late 70s and early 80s and the animated series in the mid 70s that I watched as a kid. I watched TNG not sure of the new Captain but liking where it ultimately went and same with the other various incarnations. And FYI - the first Star trek movie came out barely 1 1/2 year after Star Wars, it would have been underway well before Star Wars was shown to be a big hit so try again. That isn't to say Star Wars success didn't help Star Trek out but it didn't get it made.
Originally posted by CazNeerg
Is the new movie as good as Khan? As far as I am concerned, no, not that good. But it is the best the franchise has managed to do since Khan, and even if it doesn't spawn 20 more years, it could spawn 15, or 10, or 5, in which time the new crew could grow into their roles enough that we get another Khan, or an even better movie, which will rejuvenate the franchise even further.
I am not even really talking about the quality of the movie, it isn't so much about that. I said the style and acting was good enough as was the effects - what I said was not good, terrible even, was in trying to reboot the franchise of several premises that fly in the face of what the franchise was built on (rookie captain and crew, poor character stories some incidents of characters engaged in things they wouldn't, and various liberties all to common with Hollywood movies in terms of the basic plot). But all that aside, you cannot rejuvenate that which you first obliterate.
Originally posted by CazNeerg
Another thing you don't seem to realize, the definitive elements of Trek for most people aren't the forty years of accumulated and often contradictory trivia, it was the quality of the characters, the relationships between them, and the way those characters dealt with extraordinary situations. The new movie didn't lose "what makes Trek, Trek," that has been getting lost for years. You can argue about when it started to get lost, whether it was in TNG, DS9, Voyager, or the TNG movies, but by the time they even started considering this movie, what made Trek relevant and exciting to most people had already died. It was gone. This movie was an attempt to bring it back, and for the vast majority of those seeing it, that attempt has been a success.
The trivia is not the foundation of Star Trek, I agree, but the depth of the stories, characters, and universe that gave birth to all that canon (or trivia as you call it) is the foundation of the franchise and there was no need to erase that in order to put a new and fresh face(s) on the IP. I also agree that since TNG went to the big screen and Berman took over the franchise has declined but I would argue it has declined by forgetting its roots and trying to appeal to the broad audience and ending up appealing to neither.
Originally posted by CazNeerg
What is the point of designing a movie that only appeals to people who memorized 40 years of trivia? You really wanted them to put the final nail in the Star Trek coffin that badly?
Look, we agree that Star trek got stale, maybe it needed some time off to get some good ideas. But in dropping all that made Star trek what it was to so many people across many generations (something few IPs have done beyond Star trek) it didn't need to become Star Trek in name only and, simultaneously, erase all that was built and loved from before.
You cannot broaden your appeal by ditching who and what you where because in most often those new folks you bring in to the fold are easily attracted elsehwere by the next flashy and shiny thing. Star Trek needed to show some of that good 'ole Hollywood creative talent, in short supply of late I know, and respect the past in more than name only while appealing to old and new alike. This new movie clearly, and seemingly intentionally, trashed the past to reach out to new folks and in the end I think it will end up losing both.
On most of these points we are going to just have to agree to disagree. We clearly have different conceptions of what constitutes the core of Star Trek. I think the new movie is true to the aspects which are important to me, you think it failed to uphold the ones important to you, neither of us is likely to change that opinion.
One thing though, the first movie was green-lit because of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. They were able to get it done fairly quickly because they adapted the pilot script from the Star Trek Phase II series that got cancelled before going into production. That wasn't just something I made up, lol. Also helps explain why that movie stank so much, it was originally intended for 45 minutes of a television show, not a 2 hour + cinematic experience.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I think it is specious to suggest that one day Star Wars comes and and is a big success so they go digging up Star Trek to get it out as if it wasn't already in the worked to one degree or another. Obviously, Hollywood is very much a monkey see and monkey do place and that plays in to everything happening there but there is more to Star trek coming back from a 3 year series in the 60s than Star Wars being a hit as what I am saying.
Anyways, you are correct that we have to agree to disagree on some of the preferential things about the movie - such is life. However, can we not agree that this movie failed to reach out to new fans without shunning a good bit of the old fans. Clearly this movie made choices beyond casting and style and even plot issues that seems to go out of its way to shun more traditional Star Trek fans and that just seems pointless. There are plenty of ways this new crew could have brough a new style and dynamic to Star trek without erasing the Star Trek many of us made in to what it is with out patronage over the years.
1. Director J.J. Abrams Tries & Fails to Avoid Stealing Stuff from Star Wars
Abrams has said he was a Star Wars, not a Star Trek, fan growing up. It shows. In this Star Trek movie, Kirk is basically Luke Skywalker with the charm of Han Solo. He’s a troubled young farm boy who leaves home at the urging of a wise older man who claims he knew the farm boy’s father. Sound familiar?
How about the early cantina scene featuring a wacky-looking alien and a bar fight? Or the scene near the end when one character announces the humorously low odds of a plan’s success? Or the scene where the bad guys blow a planet up? C’mon now.
2. Product Placement is Slightly More Obnoxious than Usual
I don’t really have much against product placement — if it helps offset the budget, thus allowing the movie to be made in the first place, who cares?
Turns out, in a futuristic space movie, it’s kind of annoying to hear a familiar ring tone and then see Kirk playing around with some kind of phone/GPS hybrid with a big “NOKIA” symbol on it.
By the way, did you know Budweiser is still around in 2265?
3. The Villain: Not That Cool
When Star Trek was casting its roles, the rumor was that the producers were trying really hard to lure Russell Crowe into playing Nero, the bad guy. It was a smart idea: typically, the better the villain, the better the movie, and Crowe would’ve made a great villain. He eventually turned it down, and they offered the role to Eric Bana, another Australian, who accepted.
Bana does a fine job, but now I know why they were trying to hide the role behind a famous actor: because it’s crap.
His motivation is reasonable enough, and he has a cool toy — he drills a really long chain into the center of planets and then creates a black hole that implodes them — but he’s pathetically weak. His plan is easily thwarted — if you break the chain he’s using, which isn’t hard to do, he’s out of luck — and he’s easily dispatched. The Enterprise basically trips and falls into victory. Hell, he and Kirk don’t even have a big satisfying climactic fight. Kirk briefly fights one of his underlings and that’s it. Lame.
4. You Can Drive a Truck through the Logic Holes and Coincidences
At one point, Kirk gets temporarily exiled from the Enterprise and stuck on an ice planet, seven or so miles away from a Federation outpost. He wanders around for a little while, a big space monster starts chasing him, he finds a cave, runs in it, and meets…Leonard Nimoy, playing Spock from the Future.
The plot does a pretty good job explaining why Spock would be in roughly the same solar system as Kirk. But Kirk happens to land on the same planet, happens to land within a one-mile radius of where Spock is hanging out, and happens to run into him?
Let’s go a little further. Turns out Spock has been stranded on the planet by Nero. Nero was kind enough to drop him off, as I said before, roughly seven miles from a Federation outpost. Another coincidence. But the bigger question: why has Spock been hanging out in a cave instead of heading over there? As it turns out, for absolutely no reason.
5. What’s with All the Exposition?
Laughing in the face of screenwriting teachers everywhere, writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci decide to reveal the back stories of both Nero and Future Spock not organically through action or dialogue, but through two really long monologues.
Way to grind the momentum to a halt.
6. And Finally…the Green Alien was a Bad Idea.
Seriously, she looks absolutely ridiculous.
I definitely agree with him on #1 as well as #3, #4, and sort of on #5.
I think it is specious to suggest that one day Star Wars comes and and is a big success so they go digging up Star Trek to get it out as if it wasn't already in the worked to one degree or another. Obviously, Hollywood is very much a monkey see and monkey do place and that plays in to everything happening there but there is more to Star trek coming back from a 3 year series in the 60s than Star Wars being a hit as what I am saying. Anyways, you are correct that we have to agree to disagree on some of the preferential things about the movie - such is life. However, can we not agree that this movie failed to reach out to new fans without shunning a good bit of the old fans. Clearly this movie made choices beyond casting and style and even plot issues that seems to go out of its way to shun more traditional Star Trek fans and that just seems pointless. There are plenty of ways this new crew could have brough a new style and dynamic to Star trek without erasing the Star Trek many of us made in to what it is with out patronage over the years. *EDIT* I read this and though it was funny and on point:
1. Director J.J. Abrams Tries & Fails to Avoid Stealing Stuff from Star Wars
Abrams has said he was a Star Wars, not a Star Trek, fan growing up. It shows. In this Star Trek movie, Kirk is basically Luke Skywalker with the charm of Han Solo. He’s a troubled young farm boy who leaves home at the urging of a wise older man who claims he knew the farm boy’s father. Sound familiar?
How about the early cantina scene featuring a wacky-looking alien and a bar fight? Or the scene near the end when one character announces the humorously low odds of a plan’s success? Or the scene where the bad guys blow a planet up? C’mon now.
2. Product Placement is Slightly More Obnoxious than Usual
I don’t really have much against product placement — if it helps offset the budget, thus allowing the movie to be made in the first place, who cares?
Turns out, in a futuristic space movie, it’s kind of annoying to hear a familiar ring tone and then see Kirk playing around with some kind of phone/GPS hybrid with a big “NOKIA” symbol on it.
By the way, did you know Budweiser is still around in 2265?
3. The Villain: Not That Cool
When Star Trek was casting its roles, the rumor was that the producers were trying really hard to lure Russell Crowe into playing Nero, the bad guy. It was a smart idea: typically, the better the villain, the better the movie, and Crowe would’ve made a great villain. He eventually turned it down, and they offered the role to Eric Bana, another Australian, who accepted.
Bana does a fine job, but now I know why they were trying to hide the role behind a famous actor: because it’s crap.
His motivation is reasonable enough, and he has a cool toy — he drills a really long chain into the center of planets and then creates a black hole that implodes them — but he’s pathetically weak. His plan is easily thwarted — if you break the chain he’s using, which isn’t hard to do, he’s out of luck — and he’s easily dispatched. The Enterprise basically trips and falls into victory. Hell, he and Kirk don’t even have a big satisfying climactic fight. Kirk briefly fights one of his underlings and that’s it. Lame.
4. You Can Drive a Truck through the Logic Holes and Coincidences
At one point, Kirk gets temporarily exiled from the Enterprise and stuck on an ice planet, seven or so miles away from a Federation outpost. He wanders around for a little while, a big space monster starts chasing him, he finds a cave, runs in it, and meets…Leonard Nimoy, playing Spock from the Future.
The plot does a pretty good job explaining why Spock would be in roughly the same solar system as Kirk. But Kirk happens to land on the same planet, happens to land within a one-mile radius of where Spock is hanging out, and happens to run into him?
Let’s go a little further. Turns out Spock has been stranded on the planet by Nero. Nero was kind enough to drop him off, as I said before, roughly seven miles from a Federation outpost. Another coincidence. But the bigger question: why has Spock been hanging out in a cave instead of heading over there? As it turns out, for absolutely no reason.
5. What’s with All the Exposition?
Laughing in the face of screenwriting teachers everywhere, writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci decide to reveal the back stories of both Nero and Future Spock not organically through action or dialogue, but through two really long monologues.
Way to grind the momentum to a halt.
6. And Finally…the Green Alien was a Bad Idea.
Seriously, she looks absolutely ridiculous.
I definitely agree with him on #1 as well as #3, #4, and sort of on #5.
We can certainly agree that this new take alienates some old Trek fans. However, the impression I have gotten from both this forum, personal conversations, and general impressions I have seen on the internet, is that far more old Trek fans loved it than hated it, while a large number of people who don't consider themselves Trek fans loved it as well. Like I said before, it wasn't Wrath of Khan, but as a *practical* matter the franchise is in a better position than it has occupied in many years, questions of taste aside.
As to the points from the post/article or whatever it was that you quoted, I am going to take them in reverse order. 6 is just incredibly stupid, and shows that the guy who wrote it must not be anything resembling a real Star Trek fan, the Orion slave girls have a very venerable history. 5 is also stupid, it isn't a rollercoaster, it is a movie, it is ok if people take a breath and concentrate on the story once in a while. I would have prefered if they had added about an hour to the movie for *more* character development and exposition. They had exactly the right amount of action to tell the story they were trying to tell, but as much as I loved the movie, I still would have liked more quiet stretches developing the relationships between characters.
On number 4, if you are going to criticize one Star Trek movie on wanting us to suspend our disbelief a little too much, you are going to have to criticize almost all of them. The unbelievably convenient coincidence is a venerable Star Trek tradition. Number 3 was a fairly weak criticism, given that we are talking about a Star Trek movie. The only one with a great villain was Khan, and the only others that had halfway decent villains were Undiscovered Country (the bald Klingon by Christopher Plummer) and First Contact. That is 3 out of 10 with villains that were good, or at least decent. Not a good ratio for making that a criteria on which to judge a Trek movie.
Number 2 is actually one I have to agree with, I was just able to forgive it because the obnoxiously non-sensical product placement took up a grand total of about 15 seconds of the movie. And number 1 is just silly. A movie is Star Wars-y because it had a bar fight and a planet was destroyed? Weeeeak argument. Kirk grew up in Iowa in both incarnations, so the farm boy thing doesn't even count.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
This old Trek fan could have liked it if the story hadn't been so flat. I'm really hoping that they'll actually put something fairly good together for the second one. As long as they don't look towards Empire Strikes Back for their inspiration.
The problem with these over the top action movies is that the sequel has to be even more over the top in order to draw an audience. Despite the obvious influence of Star Wars on this film, it failed completely to create the epic storyline that was Wars' main reason for success. Therefore, all they really have left is the action. And with that increased over-the-top requirement to continue to draw viewers, you get a corresponding increase in ridiculousness. And when the ridiculousness factor tops out, you'll lose your audience.
Despite claims to the contrary, it was the fans that kept Trek alive through the dark times of the early 70s. Phase II would not have gotten the go-ahead to become the flagship program of the new Paramount network if it had not been for all that fan support. Preproduction finished, sets were built, the first half-dozen or so scripts were written, and a lot of money was spent. Clearly, Paramount believed they had an audience, and it was the conventions that told them so. This was all well before Star Wars made its appearance. Star Wars (and Close Encounters) were merely the impetus to change it over to a movie. And this wasn't even the first time they had thought about changing Phase II into a movie.
The first convention I attended, in 1974, at the stadium the Denver Nuggets played in, was half full when Gene Roddenberry stepped up to the microphone and told us how even at that point, Paramount had decided that Star Trek would be coming back and he was already involved with preliminary work on it. He went over a number of the concepts, to include a saucer section that would detach and land on planets. That's a mere six years after the end of TOS.
Fans kept this franchise alive for 40 years. And when this new version has reached Ridiculous level and the Pakleds it was designed to entice have wandered off to the next shiny movie with explosions, it will be the fans that will continue to keep it alive.
Oh, and I algree with all those points except number 6. The movie showed the Orion girl was more than just some trampy sex slave (a trampy cadet?), and she really was quite cute. She was just unfortunate enough to be paired up with Uhura. I imagine she died on one of the other ships though. Unfortunate, this. Here's hoping for Janice Rand in the next one!
Eh, Phase II was cancelled *before* they decided they wanted a movie, not because they decided it. The desire for a sci-fi movie resurrected the concept. I'll grant you that the hardcore fans were enough to keep Paramount thinking about Star Trek whenever the topic of sci-fi came up, but they just didn't have the numbers to support shows/movies on their own. Small but dedicated is certainly useful, and just as clearly not sufficient.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?
No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL
Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?
No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL
Bren
I I remember correctly, Spock got married in TOS, where his wife to be picked Kirk and made them fight to the death. However, the movie occurs long before these events. CBS used to play TOS every weekday after school when i was a kid and it was way better then Oprah.
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone www.spankybus.com -3d Artist & Compositor -Writer -Professional Amature
Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?
No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL
Bren
Damn...well...with Vulcan (and most vulcans) destroyed..I Imagine there's going to be a lot of off-planet green-bloods with blue balls running amok.
This old Trek fan could have liked it if the story hadn't been so flat. I'm really hoping that they'll actually put something fairly good together for the second one. As long as they don't look towards Empire Strikes Back for their inspiration. The problem with these over the top action movies is that the sequel has to be even more over the top in order to draw an audience. Despite the obvious influence of Star Wars on this film, it failed completely to create the epic storyline that was Wars' main reason for success. Therefore, all they really have left is the action. And with that increased over-the-top requirement to continue to draw viewers, you get a corresponding increase in ridiculousness. And when the ridiculousness factor tops out, you'll lose your audience. Despite claims to the contrary, it was the fans that kept Trek alive through the dark times of the early 70s. Phase II would not have gotten the go-ahead to become the flagship program of the new Paramount network if it had not been for all that fan support. Preproduction finished, sets were built, the first half-dozen or so scripts were written, and a lot of money was spent. Clearly, Paramount believed they had an audience, and it was the conventions that told them so. This was all well before Star Wars made its appearance. Star Wars (and Close Encounters) were merely the impetus to change it over to a movie. And this wasn't even the first time they had thought about changing Phase II into a movie. The first convention I attended, in 1974, at the stadium the Denver Nuggets played in, was half full when Gene Roddenberry stepped up to the microphone and told us how even at that point, Paramount had decided that Star Trek would be coming back and he was already involved with preliminary work on it. He went over a number of the concepts, to include a saucer section that would detach and land on planets. That's a mere six years after the end of TOS. Fans kept this franchise alive for 40 years. And when this new version has reached Ridiculous level and the Pakleds it was designed to entice have wandered off to the next shiny movie with explosions, it will be the fans that will continue to keep it alive. Oh, and I algree with all those points except number 6. The movie showed the Orion girl was more than just some trampy sex slave (a trampy cadet?), and she really was quite cute. She was just unfortunate enough to be paired up with Uhura. I imagine she died on one of the other ships though. Unfortunate, this. Here's hoping for Janice Rand in the next one!
All very, very well said. Particuarly the highlighted part, that is what I was getting at with this being a fun summer movie bad a very bad start in terms of a reboot. When you rely on flash and shine you simply cannot go very far, there is allways something flasjier and shinier. Without the subtext and foundation of the strong cannon there isn't the foundation to carry forward beyond the limited attention and interest flash and shine attracts.
I'm actually glad for this movie, even my most die hard Star Trek fan who refused to watch this movie ended up loving it (we made him go lol)
We shall see if this can revitalize ST because honestly it has been dead awhile now, most the movies that came out before have been mediocre at best.
While i have pretty much watched everything star trek even the fail enterprise series, i think this needed this reboot, some might not like it but you can't make everyone happy. -shrugs-
You know they could just shelve ST forever and say screw it if people are gonna bitch piss and moan about every little thing.
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand." - Lewis Thomas
It's good to see some people on this thread defend what Star Trek once was. For a while there I began to think I'd entered some wierd alternate timeline myself - one where everyone completely lost their minds and universally hailed this pile of maneuer as god's gift to moviegoers. Then again, with all the bright, blinding flashes and lens flares throughout the movie, I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams threw a few subliminal brain-liquifying messages in there to make certain of his financial success.
I have to wonder, are the majority of Trek fans really this gullible? Or are they just this desperate? At BEST this movie was just a flashy soulless seizure-inducing action flick. For at least the first half of the movie, it wasnt even capable of focusing on a single scene for more than 2 seconds. The Enterprise felt small and insignificant and it had no crew, It looked like it was being run by 6 people. When the shuttlebay opened it exposed the entire inside of the drive section... it didnt even have any decks! Just a bunch of post-industrial pipes going all over the place like a gigantic scaffold... But I digress. I know what the lovers are saying- that Star Trek was dead and that this somehow brought it back from the grave. If so, we've just experienced some really shitty necromancy. Like Exhuming your great grandfather's corpse, putting him in a rhinestone studded Liberacci suit and parading him around tied to a dolly.
Oh I can understand why a non-Trek fan would like this garbage, in the same way I understand why they enjoyed Transformers, or X-Men 3, The Last Stand :P. What I don't understand is how self-proclaimed trekkies can call this Star Trek with a straight face. WHAT exactly was "Star Trek" about it? I'll tell you what, really really really superficial crap - the kind of stuff everyone has at some point in time seen on a commercial, or when flipping through channels and caught 2 seconds of TOS closing theme (you know, with the shot of the scantily-clad green ho for example). Apparently Abrams felt the world was far to dumb for a little Star Trek canon, so he put in his movie only the things that a complete idiot might recognize - Vulcans and humans, comprising pretty much the entire federation in this movie, Spock (because he's gotz da pointy earz and he does that funny thing with his hand), a ship sorta resembling the enterprise... and... what... what else? Red Matter?
WTF IS RED MATTER?
Oh, you know, its like the spice in Dune... magical and stuff... and the Vulcans have it for some reason... Oh don't worry about where it came from or what the hell it is or anything else plot-wise for that matter... here, look at some green boobies! What? Uh oh, the audience is starting to think this might be Star Trek and a little too dorky for them, lets flash some blinding lights and jump from scene to scene so fast they wont have a chance to think!
If it seems like I feel passionately about this, its because I do, but not necessarily because this is Star Trek being butchered here, but because it seems like the wool has so completely and thoroughly been pulled over everybody's eyes. Ladies and gentlemen, this isnt even very good as a stand-alone action flick. It barely has a plot, and what plot it does have is filled with holes. Yes, I expect better than this for Star Trek. Star Trek was satire, it was mystery, it was discovery, it was an intellectual pursuit - yes, that means it's only likely to attract people with at least half a brain, and no, that's not a bad thing. Smart people need entertainment too, after all.
I'm fed up. I'm fed up is all. I needed to get this out there somewhere. I can't let the entire world go on praising this resuscitated corpse wearing a label on it written in Sharpee that says "Star Trek". Yes, Star Trek may very well have been dead, and as a trekkie I am prepared to say let it remain dead. Better that, and the memory of why it was so special to so many people, than.... than whatever this movie is.
Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave. (Or rather, spinning with agitation in his little tube in orbit)
Comments
I think it is far too early to say if it was good business or not. The movie did do well for the first weekend but not so well that it can be already declared a hit or the needed rekindling of the franchise, not by a longshot.
Wolverine, a roundly criticized and poorly reviewed movie, earned $10 mil more the weekend before (something like $85 mil) and then tanked. Star Trek, with rave reviews and excellent buzz, brought in only $72 mil. Not terrible but nowhere near enough to break even and without a solid second weekend and some legs it will not be considered a big hit and not be what the franchise needs to reboot.
My guess is the movie was good enough to get another movie and like many 2-3 film series these days it will likely dwindle with each release and then where will the franchise be? It will have alienated a good chunk of the 'old' fans, the new fans will have their ADD focused on whatever new flashy action summer popcorn flick is in vogue and what was a 40+ year franchise will be truly in trouble.
--------------------------------
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
Holy crap, I never thought anything or anyone would have dragged me into posting on this site. Like many, I really only use MMOrpg for game info and forum entertainment. I am also forever grateful for having been introduced to EVE in '05 while lurking around here.
However the more I read through this thread, the more I realised that all the bitching here sounded an awful lot like some serious nerd rage over having the masses actually like the Franchise again. No, Star Trek is not just for you!
Myself I am long time fan as well. I have seen every series (including Enterprise), and every film. I loved this movie. I really needed a new Trek film like this, I've been starved for one. All the negatives that are being repeated in this thread over and over again just don't hold any water with me, or any of the many friends I have that like Star Trek that have seen the movie.
If your a fan see the movie and please take this thread with a grain of salt.
And AgtSmith you've made your points quite clear and several times. You have warned people. But if you truly feel the need to constantly and repeatedly save people from something new, whether it be a movie or game. Don't worry, this site conveniently already has a forum for you. I don't think I need to name it, and you might even be able to add a little extra textual hilarity to my day.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think it is far too early to say if it was good business or not. The movie did do well for the first weekend but not so well that it can be already declared a hit or the needed rekindling of the franchise, not by a longshot.
Wolverine, a roundly criticized and poorly reviewed movie, earned $10 mil more the weekend before (something like $85 mil) and then tanked. Star Trek, with rave reviews and excellent buzz, brought in only $72 mil. Not terrible but nowhere near enough to break even and without a solid second weekend and some legs it will not be considered a big hit and not be what the franchise needs to reboot.
My guess is the movie was good enough to get another movie and like many 2-3 film series these days it will likely dwindle with each release and then where will the franchise be? It will have alienated a good chunk of the 'old' fans, the new fans will have their ADD focused on whatever new flashy action summer popcorn flick is in vogue and what was a 40+ year franchise will be truly in trouble.
"Combined with the proceeds of its No. 1 domestic debut, "Trek's" early global boxoffice total stands at $112.4 million"
Need to take into account the rest of the world Mr Smith
I believe the main cast has also signed up to do 3 movies total so far already too.
"Trek's" weekend take alone represents 11.5% of the combined total ($312.9 million) grossed offshore by all 10 of its theatrical predecessors, according to distributor Paramount." "Openings to come for "Trek" include debuts in Egypt (Wednesday), Japan (May 29), Hong Kong (June 4), Indonesia (June 10) and India (June 12)."
By the end of the weekend, Star Trek had opened with $79,204,289, as well as $35.5 million from other countries. Adjusted and unadjusted for inflation, it beat Star Trek: First Contact for the largest US opening for a Star Trek film. The film made $8.5 million from its IMAX screenings, breaking The Dark Knight's $6.3 million IMAX opening record.
Business wise it looks successful with Paramount choosing to delay the film till May from Xmas.
I enjoyed the movie, I think it gives a good premise for the next installment.
Personally I found it far better than ST: The motion picture.
We shall see, I seriously doubt this movie will reignite the interest and passion that spawned a 40 year following and multiple series and movies.
--------------------------------
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
Even after the first season of the original series it was nearly cancelled, releasing to poor viewing results.
Same again at the end of the second season.
And then cancelled at the end of the Third season into its 5 year mission.
It wasn't until some 10 years later the original show became popular via syndication.
It takes time for a following to happen, Star Trek 2009 is just a branch off from the original.
How many Bond films are there now
Best to give it some time. Something the studio did for this movie. And who knows what the future will bring. There is a good core cast in the movie, the scripts / story just have to be up to par.
Will it drive a really small number of people into such rabid fandom that they memorize every last available detail offered by the new material? Probably not, but so what? A franchise doesn't need to inspire fanaticism to survive, it just needs to make a healthy profit. The new direction is far more likely to keep the franchise alive in the 21st century than something designed only to appease hardline Roddenberry worshippers. Warts and all, this movie was easily more true to the cinematic "Star Trek" tradition than DS9 or Voyager could have been, and arguably better than the TNG movies. And I am generous to say arguably, because to myself and most who aren't in a frothing rage over the perceived defilement of the Holy Canon, it is clearly superior to any of the TNG movies, as well as at least half of the first six movies.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I find it amazing that the frothing fans don't seem to realize how lucky they are that the franchise still exists at all. The original series only became popular in syndication, the first movie only got made because Paramount wanted something to compete with Star Wars, and then came the Wrath of Khan. Wrath was a great movie even if you were someone who had never had any experience with Star Trek, and its outside the trekkie-box appeal is one of the primary reasons for its success.
Without the success of Khan, there would have been no Search for Spock, no Voyage Home, no Final Frontier, no Undiscovered Country, no Next Generation tv series or movies, no Deep Space Nine, no Voyager, no Enterprise. The bulk of the history and canon that fans love so much exists *only* because of a movie designed to appeal to a mass audience. The franchise managed to live for two decades primarily on the residual goodwill from Wrath of Khan.
The first seasons of the Next Generation weren't even up to the quality level of the (cancelled) original series, and were a far, far cry from the quality of the movies. It got better as time went on, but it still owed its original audience to two primary factors: the Wrath of Khan, and a lack of other science fiction shows on television. It was pretty much the only game in town. Then came Deep Space Nine, and it was distinctly subpar compared to the contemporaneous seasons of the Next Generation, and arguably not even as good as TNGs early seasons. The TNG audience tried out DS9, and many stuck around, but a fair number did not, and the new show failed to draw viewers from outside the TNG audience. TNG reruns even typically had higher viewership than new episodes of DS9
Then came Voyager, and again the TNG/DS9 audience gave it a try, and again the new show failed to keep even the whole audience of its predecessors, and failed to bring new viewers into the fold. Noticing the trend yet? Every subsequent Trek outing was less than the one before. Weaker characters, recycled plots, smaller audiences, an increasingly more devoted audience whose devotion was matched only by their tunnel vision and ultimate irrelevance.
By the time Enterprise came around, the residual goodwill from the Wrath of Khan had pretty much run out for almost everyone who wasn't a hardcore trekkie. They had been burned by bad fan fiction quality shows too many times, and most of them never even gave the new show a chance. The perception that had been created (fairly so) by the previous shows was that Trek shows were only for Trekkies, and combine that with the fact that many trekkies (as they are doing now) began to froth at the mouth over the new show not being in the 24th century, and you had a recipe for a show that barely lasted longer than the original series. Which is sad, because frankly, Enterprise was closer to the quality and spirit of the characters of the original crew than any of the series in between were. But it was almost stillborn because of the stigma of low-quality that had attached to Trek in the public's eyes, and died an early death when even the Trekkies who largely created that stigma rejected it.
So, as of the end of Enterprise, the coat-tails of the original crew had lost any ability to motivate the general public into giving a chance to weak imitations, and the "hardcore" trekkies had indicated that they couldn't be relied on to support any future endeavor that didn't meet their exacting and unrealistic standard of canonical orthodoxy. So what, exactly, was Paramount supposed to do?
They could have set something in the post-TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline. But why would they want to set themselves up for failure that way? Since the end of TNG there had been a steady decline in ratings and support for the Trek offshoots, to the point where Voyager was almost cancelled several times before completing its run, and Enterprise did end three years early. If they had designed a show to follow the "40 years of canon" that is being so venerated by so few, then almost the only people who would have even tuned in to give it a chance are the hardcore trekkies, who it has already been established are not numerous enough to support a show on their own. And if the new show had been made in a way that satisfied the hardcore, it likely would have retained the trekkie stigmata, and driven away whatever small number of non-trekkie viewers would have tuned in out of curiousity.
Paramount did the only thing they rationally could do. They went back to the only crew that had ever enjoyed real cinematic success. They couldn't go with the old actors, because between the idiotic death of Kirk in Generations, the deaths of the actors who played Scotty and Bones, and the extremely advanced age of Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig, and George Takei, it just wasn't feasible. So they knew what crew they *had* to use if they were going to do a new movie, and they knew they would have to do new actors. They could have done a straight reboot, but they showed *more* respect for the franchise's history than that, using the long and honorable Trek tradition of the time-travel story to provide an opportunity for new stories with the old crew, while still giving a respectful nod to the past history.
It seems to me that those who are mad about the new movie's direction must primarily fall into two categories. The people who didn't bother to think things through and realize that a movie like this was the only way to keep the franchise alive, and the people who *do* realize it, and would rather see the franchise die than evolve into something that renders their painstakingly memorized trivia irrelevant.
The last time Trek made a movie with mass appeal, it spawned 8 more movies, and 4 television series, a legacy that lasted more than 20 years. Thank you Paramount, for realizing the reasons for your past success, and giving us a chance at another 20 years.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
But that movie wasn't mostly all fluff and flash and silliness such as this great SciFi character going from drunken brawler to Starship captain with no experience and questionable justification. That movie also didn't wipe out everything that came before it alienating many of the previous fans in favor of the new ones it hoped would come on board. This new Trek has no real substance to it that can possibly be the basis for the kind of franchise that was wiped to make room for it. The ADD stricken audience this movie tried to attract, and possibly got, are easily distracted by the next shiny thing to come along leaving Star Trek where when that newness wears off?
--------------------------------
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
But that movie wasn't mostly all fluff and flash and silliness such as this great SciFi character going from drunken brawler to Starship captain with no experience and questionable justification. That movie also didn't wipe out everything that came before it alienating many of the previous fans in favor of the new ones it hoped would come on board. This new Trek has no real substance to it that can possibly be the basis for the kind of franchise that was wiped to make room for it. The ADD stricken audience this movie tried to attract, and possibly got, are easily distracted by the next shiny thing to come along leaving Star Trek where when that newness wears off?
I will have to disagree with your assertions.
I am old enough to have seen the original series on television. When i went to see the film at the IMAX theatre its probably safe to say that many folks were long time fans of the IP and there were as many people near my age as younger ones.
When the movie ended, we all applauded (a stupid practice when you think of it, sort of like cheering at your team on TV) and everyone seemed to really enjoy it.
I'm a fan of Star Trek, but I did feel the IP had run its course, if not run completely into the ground.
This new movie/time line gives the franchise to evolve in a new direction and perhaps go another 10 or 20 years.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Another 10 - 20 years based off what? Explosions and effects and ass shots of Uhuru and a universe where 3 year college cadets get instantly promoted to captain of the fleets flagship?
So you are saying that to build a uniquely broad franchise spanning 5 series, movies, comics, conventions, and myriad other incarnations you need to toss out what worked the first time to build that unique franchise and make the new reboot for the franchise a carbon copy of most everything else coming out of Hollywood? In other words, the depth or the cannon and lore that attracted all the fans that carried Star Trek over 4 decades is not the way to build what Star Trek had built? I think that is the most insanely stupid thing ever said.
Star Trek is unique among movies and series as being extremely long lasting and building a strong fanbase. How can one argue that tossing out all that built that unique franchise is the way to build it again? Where is the new Mission Impossible (another JJ reboot) TV series and movies and conventions and comics and Sat cartoons? Where is all those things in James Bond (another reboot)? Hrm, nothing? Gee, maybe the way to build something unique like Star trek was, and not just a franchise that pops out a summer flash in the pan here and there, is to do what trek did the first time and hold true to the universe built over 40 years.
I agree that from TNG movies on Star Trek had really fallen flat, I recall not even knowing Nemisis came out until it was on cable not long after (admitingly I am not an Ent Tonight type though). Yes, Star Trek needed freshening up and need to appeal to non Trekies to get some new legs. Although I would argue that the problem with Star Trek was that it increasingly got less Strek Treky over time and more than anything that the TNG cast just sucked for the big screen (in part because ensemble casts are not right for big screen in part because they are just not big screen starts). But come on, what is the point of appealing to people outside your genre if you have to become something other than what you are to do it? Not to mention erase all that was built before over 40 years. The issue is not the actors they picked, the ADD style of the movie, or the attempt or need to try to be more mass market - the issue is if in doing this reboot whether Star Trek lost all of what made it Star Trek in the first place and ultimately is still as done and gone is if they made another bloody TNG movie with Riker using a joystick to steer the stupid ship.
--------------------------------
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
So you are saying that to build a uniquely broad franchise spanning 5 series, movies, comics, conventions, and myriad other incarnations you need to toss out what worked the first time to build that unique franchise and make the new reboot for the franchise a carbon copy of most everything else coming out of Hollywood? In other words, the depth or the cannon and lore that attracted all the fans that carried Star Trek over 4 decades is not the way to build what Star Trek had built? I think that is the most insanely stupid thing ever said.
Star Trek is unique among movies and series as being extremely long lasting and building a strong fanbase. How can one argue that tossing out all that built that unique franchise is the way to build it again? Where is the new Mission Impossible (another JJ reboot) TV series and movies and conventions and comics and Sat cartoons? Where is all those things in James Bond (another reboot)? Hrm, nothing? Gee, maybe the way to build something unique like Star trek was, and not just a franchise that pops out a summer flash in the pan here and there, is to do what trek did the first time and hold true to the universe built over 40 years.
I agree that from TNG movies on Star Trek had really fallen flat, I recall not even knowing Nemisis came out until it was on cable not long after (admitingly I am not an Ent Tonight type though). Yes, Star Trek needed freshening up and need to appeal to non Trekies to get some new legs. Although I would argue that the problem with Star Trek was that it increasingly got less Strek Treky over time and more than anything that the TNG cast just sucked for the big screen (in part because ensemble casts are not right for big screen in part because they are just not big screen starts). But come on, what is the point of appealing to people outside your genre if you have to become something other than what you are to do it? Not to mention erase all that was built before over 40 years. The issue is not the actors they picked, the ADD style of the movie, or the attempt or need to try to be more mass market - the issue is if in doing this reboot whether Star Trek lost all of what made it Star Trek in the first place and ultimately is still as done and gone is if they made another bloody TNG movie with Riker using a joystick to steer the stupid ship.
First of all, and I've been wanting to say this for a while now, it is canon. Not cannon, those are the weapons that used to stick out the sides of wet-navy ships in the age of sail.
Second, screw the conventions. The conventions didn't help keep the franchise alive, they just gave those with an unhealthy degree of obsession a way to pretend they had a social life.
Third, you don't seem to understand the evolution of the franchise very well. It took a *long* time for the original series to become popular, the first movie only got made because of Star Wars, not because of trekkies, and without the second movie, the entire franchise wouldn't have been forty years, it would have been 15 years, consisting of one cancelled three season tv series and one crappy movie. It didn't last another 25 years because the stuff that came after Khan was so great, it lasted another 25 years because *Khan* was great, and what followed was just barely good enough to take a long time to erode away all that good will.
Is the new movie as good as Khan? As far as I am concerned, no, not that good. But it is the best the franchise has managed to do since Khan, and even if it doesn't spawn 20 more years, it could spawn 15, or 10, or 5, in which time the new crew could grow into their roles enough that we get another Khan, or an even better movie, which will rejuvenate the franchise even further.
Another thing you don't seem to realize, the definitive elements of Trek for most people aren't the forty years of accumulated and often contradictory trivia, it was the quality of the characters, the relationships between them, and the way those characters dealt with extraordinary situations. The new movie didn't lose "what makes Trek, Trek," that has been getting lost for years. You can argue about when it started to get lost, whether it was in TNG, DS9, Voyager, or the TNG movies, but by the time they even started considering this movie, what made Trek relevant and exciting to most people had already died. It was gone. This movie was an attempt to bring it back, and for the vast majority of those seeing it, that attempt has been a success.
What is the point of designing a movie that only appeals to people who memorized 40 years of trivia? You really wanted them to put the final nail in the Star Trek coffin that badly?
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I think those conventions are weird myself, and I wouldn't go near one - but to deny that the series and early movies had substance enough to generate that kind of loyalty and that in large part that enthusiasm was not part of the franchise spanning over 40 years and so many incarnations is just idiotic.
I understand things fully, I was one of the original Trek fans brought in by the syndication of TOS and the movies in the late 70s and early 80s and the animated series in the mid 70s that I watched as a kid. I watched TNG not sure of the new Captain but liking where it ultimately went and same with the other various incarnations. And FYI - the first Star trek movie came out barely 1 1/2 year after Star Wars, it would have been underway well before Star Wars was shown to be a big hit so try again. That isn't to say Star Wars success didn't help Star Trek out but it didn't get it made.
I am not even really talking about the quality of the movie, it isn't so much about that. I said the style and acting was good enough as was the effects - what I said was not good, terrible even, was in trying to reboot the franchise of several premises that fly in the face of what the franchise was built on (rookie captain and crew, poor character stories some incidents of characters engaged in things they wouldn't, and various liberties all to common with Hollywood movies in terms of the basic plot). But all that aside, you cannot rejuvenate that which you first obliterate.
The trivia is not the foundation of Star Trek, I agree, but the depth of the stories, characters, and universe that gave birth to all that canon (or trivia as you call it) is the foundation of the franchise and there was no need to erase that in order to put a new and fresh face(s) on the IP. I also agree that since TNG went to the big screen and Berman took over the franchise has declined but I would argue it has declined by forgetting its roots and trying to appeal to the broad audience and ending up appealing to neither.
Look, we agree that Star trek got stale, maybe it needed some time off to get some good ideas. But in dropping all that made Star trek what it was to so many people across many generations (something few IPs have done beyond Star trek) it didn't need to become Star Trek in name only and, simultaneously, erase all that was built and loved from before.
You cannot broaden your appeal by ditching who and what you where because in most often those new folks you bring in to the fold are easily attracted elsehwere by the next flashy and shiny thing. Star Trek needed to show some of that good 'ole Hollywood creative talent, in short supply of late I know, and respect the past in more than name only while appealing to old and new alike. This new movie clearly, and seemingly intentionally, trashed the past to reach out to new folks and in the end I think it will end up losing both.
--------------------------------
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
On most of these points we are going to just have to agree to disagree. We clearly have different conceptions of what constitutes the core of Star Trek. I think the new movie is true to the aspects which are important to me, you think it failed to uphold the ones important to you, neither of us is likely to change that opinion.
One thing though, the first movie was green-lit because of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. They were able to get it done fairly quickly because they adapted the pilot script from the Star Trek Phase II series that got cancelled before going into production. That wasn't just something I made up, lol. Also helps explain why that movie stank so much, it was originally intended for 45 minutes of a television show, not a 2 hour + cinematic experience.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I think it is specious to suggest that one day Star Wars comes and and is a big success so they go digging up Star Trek to get it out as if it wasn't already in the worked to one degree or another. Obviously, Hollywood is very much a monkey see and monkey do place and that plays in to everything happening there but there is more to Star trek coming back from a 3 year series in the 60s than Star Wars being a hit as what I am saying.
Anyways, you are correct that we have to agree to disagree on some of the preferential things about the movie - such is life. However, can we not agree that this movie failed to reach out to new fans without shunning a good bit of the old fans. Clearly this movie made choices beyond casting and style and even plot issues that seems to go out of its way to shun more traditional Star Trek fans and that just seems pointless. There are plenty of ways this new crew could have brough a new style and dynamic to Star trek without erasing the Star Trek many of us made in to what it is with out patronage over the years.
*EDIT*
I read this and though it was funny and on point:
1. Director J.J. Abrams Tries & Fails to Avoid Stealing Stuff from Star Wars
Abrams has said he was a Star Wars, not a Star Trek, fan growing up. It shows. In this Star Trek movie, Kirk is basically Luke Skywalker with the charm of Han Solo. He’s a troubled young farm boy who leaves home at the urging of a wise older man who claims he knew the farm boy’s father. Sound familiar?
How about the early cantina scene featuring a wacky-looking alien and a bar fight? Or the scene near the end when one character announces the humorously low odds of a plan’s success? Or the scene where the bad guys blow a planet up? C’mon now.
2. Product Placement is Slightly More Obnoxious than Usual
I don’t really have much against product placement — if it helps offset the budget, thus allowing the movie to be made in the first place, who cares?
Turns out, in a futuristic space movie, it’s kind of annoying to hear a familiar ring tone and then see Kirk playing around with some kind of phone/GPS hybrid with a big “NOKIA” symbol on it.
By the way, did you know Budweiser is still around in 2265?
3. The Villain: Not That Cool
When Star Trek was casting its roles, the rumor was that the producers were trying really hard to lure Russell Crowe into playing Nero, the bad guy. It was a smart idea: typically, the better the villain, the better the movie, and Crowe would’ve made a great villain. He eventually turned it down, and they offered the role to Eric Bana, another Australian, who accepted.
Bana does a fine job, but now I know why they were trying to hide the role behind a famous actor: because it’s crap.
His motivation is reasonable enough, and he has a cool toy — he drills a really long chain into the center of planets and then creates a black hole that implodes them — but he’s pathetically weak. His plan is easily thwarted — if you break the chain he’s using, which isn’t hard to do, he’s out of luck — and he’s easily dispatched. The Enterprise basically trips and falls into victory. Hell, he and Kirk don’t even have a big satisfying climactic fight. Kirk briefly fights one of his underlings and that’s it. Lame.
4. You Can Drive a Truck through the Logic Holes and Coincidences
At one point, Kirk gets temporarily exiled from the Enterprise and stuck on an ice planet, seven or so miles away from a Federation outpost. He wanders around for a little while, a big space monster starts chasing him, he finds a cave, runs in it, and meets…Leonard Nimoy, playing Spock from the Future.
The plot does a pretty good job explaining why Spock would be in roughly the same solar system as Kirk. But Kirk happens to land on the same planet, happens to land within a one-mile radius of where Spock is hanging out, and happens to run into him?
Let’s go a little further. Turns out Spock has been stranded on the planet by Nero. Nero was kind enough to drop him off, as I said before, roughly seven miles from a Federation outpost. Another coincidence. But the bigger question: why has Spock been hanging out in a cave instead of heading over there? As it turns out, for absolutely no reason.
5. What’s with All the Exposition?
Laughing in the face of screenwriting teachers everywhere, writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci decide to reveal the back stories of both Nero and Future Spock not organically through action or dialogue, but through two really long monologues.
Way to grind the momentum to a halt.
6. And Finally…the Green Alien was a Bad Idea.
Seriously, she looks absolutely ridiculous.
I definitely agree with him on #1 as well as #3, #4, and sort of on #5.
--------------------------------
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
We can certainly agree that this new take alienates some old Trek fans. However, the impression I have gotten from both this forum, personal conversations, and general impressions I have seen on the internet, is that far more old Trek fans loved it than hated it, while a large number of people who don't consider themselves Trek fans loved it as well. Like I said before, it wasn't Wrath of Khan, but as a *practical* matter the franchise is in a better position than it has occupied in many years, questions of taste aside.
As to the points from the post/article or whatever it was that you quoted, I am going to take them in reverse order. 6 is just incredibly stupid, and shows that the guy who wrote it must not be anything resembling a real Star Trek fan, the Orion slave girls have a very venerable history. 5 is also stupid, it isn't a rollercoaster, it is a movie, it is ok if people take a breath and concentrate on the story once in a while. I would have prefered if they had added about an hour to the movie for *more* character development and exposition. They had exactly the right amount of action to tell the story they were trying to tell, but as much as I loved the movie, I still would have liked more quiet stretches developing the relationships between characters.
On number 4, if you are going to criticize one Star Trek movie on wanting us to suspend our disbelief a little too much, you are going to have to criticize almost all of them. The unbelievably convenient coincidence is a venerable Star Trek tradition. Number 3 was a fairly weak criticism, given that we are talking about a Star Trek movie. The only one with a great villain was Khan, and the only others that had halfway decent villains were Undiscovered Country (the bald Klingon by Christopher Plummer) and First Contact. That is 3 out of 10 with villains that were good, or at least decent. Not a good ratio for making that a criteria on which to judge a Trek movie.
Number 2 is actually one I have to agree with, I was just able to forgive it because the obnoxiously non-sensical product placement took up a grand total of about 15 seconds of the movie. And number 1 is just silly. A movie is Star Wars-y because it had a bar fight and a planet was destroyed? Weeeeak argument. Kirk grew up in Iowa in both incarnations, so the farm boy thing doesn't even count.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
This old Trek fan could have liked it if the story hadn't been so flat. I'm really hoping that they'll actually put something fairly good together for the second one. As long as they don't look towards Empire Strikes Back for their inspiration.
The problem with these over the top action movies is that the sequel has to be even more over the top in order to draw an audience. Despite the obvious influence of Star Wars on this film, it failed completely to create the epic storyline that was Wars' main reason for success. Therefore, all they really have left is the action. And with that increased over-the-top requirement to continue to draw viewers, you get a corresponding increase in ridiculousness. And when the ridiculousness factor tops out, you'll lose your audience.
Despite claims to the contrary, it was the fans that kept Trek alive through the dark times of the early 70s. Phase II would not have gotten the go-ahead to become the flagship program of the new Paramount network if it had not been for all that fan support. Preproduction finished, sets were built, the first half-dozen or so scripts were written, and a lot of money was spent. Clearly, Paramount believed they had an audience, and it was the conventions that told them so. This was all well before Star Wars made its appearance. Star Wars (and Close Encounters) were merely the impetus to change it over to a movie. And this wasn't even the first time they had thought about changing Phase II into a movie.
The first convention I attended, in 1974, at the stadium the Denver Nuggets played in, was half full when Gene Roddenberry stepped up to the microphone and told us how even at that point, Paramount had decided that Star Trek would be coming back and he was already involved with preliminary work on it. He went over a number of the concepts, to include a saucer section that would detach and land on planets. That's a mere six years after the end of TOS.
Fans kept this franchise alive for 40 years. And when this new version has reached Ridiculous level and the Pakleds it was designed to entice have wandered off to the next shiny movie with explosions, it will be the fans that will continue to keep it alive.
Oh, and I algree with all those points except number 6. The movie showed the Orion girl was more than just some trampy sex slave (a trampy cadet?), and she really was quite cute. She was just unfortunate enough to be paired up with Uhura. I imagine she died on one of the other ships though. Unfortunate, this. Here's hoping for Janice Rand in the next one!
Eh, Phase II was cancelled *before* they decided they wanted a movie, not because they decided it. The desire for a sci-fi movie resurrected the concept. I'll grant you that the hardcore fans were enough to keep Paramount thinking about Star Trek whenever the topic of sci-fi came up, but they just didn't have the numbers to support shows/movies on their own. Small but dedicated is certainly useful, and just as clearly not sufficient.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?
No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL
Bren
I I remember correctly, Spock got married in TOS, where his wife to be picked Kirk and made them fight to the death. However, the movie occurs long before these events. CBS used to play TOS every weekday after school when i was a kid and it was way better then Oprah.
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
www.spankybus.com
-3d Artist & Compositor
-Writer
-Professional Amature
No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL
Bren
Damn...well...with Vulcan (and most vulcans) destroyed..I Imagine there's going to be a lot of off-planet green-bloods with blue balls running amok.
All very, very well said. Particuarly the highlighted part, that is what I was getting at with this being a fun summer movie bad a very bad start in terms of a reboot. When you rely on flash and shine you simply cannot go very far, there is allways something flasjier and shinier. Without the subtext and foundation of the strong cannon there isn't the foundation to carry forward beyond the limited attention and interest flash and shine attracts.
--------------------------------
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
I'm actually glad for this movie, even my most die hard Star Trek fan who refused to watch this movie ended up loving it (we made him go lol)
We shall see if this can revitalize ST because honestly it has been dead awhile now, most the movies that came out before have been mediocre at best.
While i have pretty much watched everything star trek even the fail enterprise series, i think this needed this reboot, some might not like it but you can't make everyone happy. -shrugs-
You know they could just shelve ST forever and say screw it if people are gonna bitch piss and moan about every little thing.
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand."
- Lewis Thomas
If the Star Trek MMO is approached the same way this new movie was, then I'd pre-order it immediately.
The movie has definitely brought new life to a dieing franchise. Being able to appeal to Trekkies as well as 'normal folk' is an amazing feat.
It's good to see some people on this thread defend what Star Trek once was. For a while there I began to think I'd entered some wierd alternate timeline myself - one where everyone completely lost their minds and universally hailed this pile of maneuer as god's gift to moviegoers. Then again, with all the bright, blinding flashes and lens flares throughout the movie, I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams threw a few subliminal brain-liquifying messages in there to make certain of his financial success.
I have to wonder, are the majority of Trek fans really this gullible? Or are they just this desperate? At BEST this movie was just a flashy soulless seizure-inducing action flick. For at least the first half of the movie, it wasnt even capable of focusing on a single scene for more than 2 seconds. The Enterprise felt small and insignificant and it had no crew, It looked like it was being run by 6 people. When the shuttlebay opened it exposed the entire inside of the drive section... it didnt even have any decks! Just a bunch of post-industrial pipes going all over the place like a gigantic scaffold... But I digress. I know what the lovers are saying- that Star Trek was dead and that this somehow brought it back from the grave. If so, we've just experienced some really shitty necromancy. Like Exhuming your great grandfather's corpse, putting him in a rhinestone studded Liberacci suit and parading him around tied to a dolly.
Oh I can understand why a non-Trek fan would like this garbage, in the same way I understand why they enjoyed Transformers, or X-Men 3, The Last Stand :P. What I don't understand is how self-proclaimed trekkies can call this Star Trek with a straight face. WHAT exactly was "Star Trek" about it? I'll tell you what, really really really superficial crap - the kind of stuff everyone has at some point in time seen on a commercial, or when flipping through channels and caught 2 seconds of TOS closing theme (you know, with the shot of the scantily-clad green ho for example). Apparently Abrams felt the world was far to dumb for a little Star Trek canon, so he put in his movie only the things that a complete idiot might recognize - Vulcans and humans, comprising pretty much the entire federation in this movie, Spock (because he's gotz da pointy earz and he does that funny thing with his hand), a ship sorta resembling the enterprise... and... what... what else? Red Matter?
WTF IS RED MATTER?
Oh, you know, its like the spice in Dune... magical and stuff... and the Vulcans have it for some reason... Oh don't worry about where it came from or what the hell it is or anything else plot-wise for that matter... here, look at some green boobies! What? Uh oh, the audience is starting to think this might be Star Trek and a little too dorky for them, lets flash some blinding lights and jump from scene to scene so fast they wont have a chance to think!
If it seems like I feel passionately about this, its because I do, but not necessarily because this is Star Trek being butchered here, but because it seems like the wool has so completely and thoroughly been pulled over everybody's eyes. Ladies and gentlemen, this isnt even very good as a stand-alone action flick. It barely has a plot, and what plot it does have is filled with holes. Yes, I expect better than this for Star Trek. Star Trek was satire, it was mystery, it was discovery, it was an intellectual pursuit - yes, that means it's only likely to attract people with at least half a brain, and no, that's not a bad thing. Smart people need entertainment too, after all.
I'm fed up. I'm fed up is all. I needed to get this out there somewhere. I can't let the entire world go on praising this resuscitated corpse wearing a label on it written in Sharpee that says "Star Trek". Yes, Star Trek may very well have been dead, and as a trekkie I am prepared to say let it remain dead. Better that, and the memory of why it was so special to so many people, than.... than whatever this movie is.
Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave. (Or rather, spinning with agitation in his little tube in orbit)