View Single Post
Old May 15 2013, 06:26 AM   #1943
rahullak
Fleet Captain
 
rahullak's Avatar
 
Location: India
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
Phily B wrote: View Post
dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.
Yeah, they made a bunch of movies that - bar one - are widely panned by critics and fans alike. I mean Trek fans are pretty hardcore, but I'm pretty sure most of us gave up with Nemesis, the only TNG film I didn't see.
It's true, the TNG films weren't the franchise's best run, but FC is really good, and Generations is underrated, remember, Kirk's death was mandated by the studio, it wasn't really a creative decision. However, I'm not going to discount TNG, DS9, and the occasionally good Voyager or Enterprise episode.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Ron Moore was involved with both scripts, he always seemed to balance out any bad elements brought forth by Braga.

Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.

However, as long as the franchise is on this path, we'll never see another "Measure of a Man" or "Inner Light" or "Far Beyond the Stars" again. For that matter, even something like "Time's Arrow" is probably beyond J.J.'s capabilities...

And when it comes to getting "mainstream" popularity - make good stories and that will come - you need to look no further than 1994, when TNG was one of the most popular shows on television, had already spun-off DS9, and was about to spin-off Voyager, and would be in the theaters in the fall with Generations.

TNG didn't need lens flares and explosions, and to me, their successes went far beyond J.J.'s movies.

J.J.'s movies will be lucky to get 4 made, probably 3. TNG's movie franchise, for being a "failure" made 4, and that was after spending 7 years as a critically acclaimed series that spawned an additional 18 years of episodes after it's conclusion.

I'm reminded of what Picard said about the Stargazer in "Relics": "The first vessel that I served on as captain was called Stargazer. It was an overworked, underpowered vessel, always on the verge of flying apart at the seams. In every measurable sense, my Enterprise is far superior. But there are times when I would give almost anything... to command the Stargazer again."

Sure sounds like he's describing "Prime" Star Trek there, doesn't it? The only difference is that J.J. Trek is only better in one measurable sense: box office results.
I agree with some of what you've said. Abrams Trek is better, but not only when it comes to box office results. Of course, any other sense of gauging its success would be subjective.

Have you considered that Abrams Trek movies could probably be the best Trek movies ever made? The four TNG films, which I consider as being good, aren't nearly in the same league. And comparing a TV show to a movie doesn't work even if it is the same franchise. They're different mediums catering to different audiences. Who knows, if Abrams Trek spins off into a TV show, we could see another Measure of a Man type episode, but perhaps with some more pizzazz.

I think Abrams Trek has struck a balance among wanting to have high box office results, having core Trek material for the long time fan, new ideas and visuals, half-decent plot, and character moments. And all in just 2 hours (or 4 if you take both movies), as opposed to hundreds of hours available in a TV show.

YMMV.
__________________
It is a fact in your opinion.
rahullak is offline   Reply With Quote