Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

I have seen the first film, and I have seen the trailers for this film. Though there has been repetition in Star Trek, I feel it doesn't help the franchise when there two entries into the canon which follow so closely to each other have similar elements. When people do see this film, after the gushing of praise, there will be comparisons between the two films, and then people will begin to be critical of what Abrams has been doing. I am just ahead of the curve.

A world is threatened by a planet wide calamity - a starship has to attempt to save the planet - Vulcan in the first film, Nibiru in the second

Nero attacks Earth
London is the site of a terrorist strike on Earth; HQ in San Francisco is attacked by a gunship

Nero imperils San Francisco with a drilling beam
A ship plows through the city

Nero commands a five mile leviathan
A dreadnought class ship is nearly a mile in length

Enterprise suffers damage from Nero's ship in the first engagement, and is forced to eject critical engineering components to free itself from a black hole
Enterprise suffers catastrophic damage from a new ship

Nero seeks revenge for the destruction of his homeworld
Harrison is seeking redress for alleged grievances

And, this is from watching trailers and reading information. What will be the third film then? If this trend holds, this film will be a repeat of what came before. I am asking for a break from the mold.

 

"Cerebral" is not enough. The best stories engage the head, heart, gut, and gonads.

"Cerebral" is fine if you're a Vulcan, but, at the risk of channeling my inner McCoy, we're red-blooded humans, damnit, not just thinking machines! We need emotion and excitement as well.

 

Cerebral can work to a point in an action-adventure, if done competently. Look at Bioshock Infinite. This is a game with cerebral elements that has engaged players emotionally.

I would like some of the elements I have mentioned either changed for the next film, or fall by the wayside.

 

This.

If a movie doesn't engage my gonads it is a definite failure.

 

For me, these films are gravy.

There are seven hundred plus hours of Trek out there. Did anyone back in the 70's or 80's think the franchise would be this long-lived?

 

Quote of the month

 

You guys forget that if Harrison isn't Khan (I think he is!) then Khan will be in movie no.3

 

Perhaps the shots of the cyro beds we see will be at the end of the movie.

Think about it. The camera pans over to one of the pods and on top it says KHAN, NOONIEN SINGH, or something like that.

 

Gravy and gonads. Two of the best words in the English language starting with "G."

The best thing is that it's not only long-lived, but has been reborn with a new energy that hasn't been duplicated, before. It didn't die of old age all wrinkly, wimpering, and worn out as many feared it might of after ENT was cancelled. Metaphorically, Abrams' Trek is the Phoenix. Maybe there will never be an obituary for Trek.

 

For myself, in my estimation, a smart action-adventure film is "Django Unchained". It was one of those films where it had my attention, and I didn't relegate it to background noise. And, it was one of those rare films where my "Huhs?" could be counted on one hand.

 

If they decide to make a movie with Khan? That movie would actually be a remake of the Wrath of Khan.
I can see Khan and his people being kept at some base on or near some planet, being study on.

He somehow free himself and his his people, then take over the base itself and of any starships that is dock or in orbit.

If the historic files from the Narada are on file at the base and Khan reads it? He will know what happen to him and who had cause it and may go after that person.

On the other hand. If that base that Khan had took over by force, is a starfleet base? Then Khan would not have to go after that person, cause that person be coming after him.

Can you imagine Kirk wondering how Khan knows him?

 

Huh?

 

I like to think that the reboot gave Trek a much-needed dose of cordrazine! McCoy would surely approve.

"It's not dead, Jim!"

 

CinemaCon: Directors Debate Whether They Should Try To Make Crowd-Pleasing Films

Excerpt:

Oliver Stone stole the show at CinemaCon‘s Filmmakers Forum today, making the most challenging comments on a panel with fellow directors Sam Raimi and Guillermo del Toro. Too many movies are made to please audiences, copy each other, and lack a compelling story, Stone said at a session moderated by film critic Elvis Mitchell. “I don’t see the difference between one action movie and another…It becomes a form of torture for the eyes.

A timely article that comes close to touching upon my fears for Star Trek's future wherein TPTB get so focused on capturing the general audiences that everything that made this franchise unique and special will be squeegeed out and all we'll get is two hours of bombastic CGI.

It is surprising and frustrating that some here want a Trek feature that is no different than G.I. Joe II or Fast and Furious VI. Star Trek, to me, is more than just naming a spaceship Enterprise and slapping pointy-ears of someone and calling them Spock.

In the end, "fans" of "Star Trek" will get what they deserve rather than what they want. How high can the bar of quality really be raised if the bar of expectation is set at the relatively low level of one CGI'ed action sequence after another.

The best of Treks managed to strive for balance and variety. It is a waste of its genius to limit it to the telling of just one type of story. Too many seem all too willing to equivocate away any standard of excellence beyond that of the special effects. That is sad and ultimately suicidal for the franchise many professed to love.

I greatly enjoyed J.J.'s 2009 "Star Trek," but over these past 3-4 years I had dared to hope that someone of Abram's calibre would strive to treat this property as an opportunity to grow professionally and not just settle for the tried and true of giving us what we essentially already got.

I believe everything in film and TV should justify itself. That justification comes from pushing boundries one way or another. That they must always be dedicated to being more then they are, and never settling for more of the same. That is what doomed Trek the last time. It truly wasn't too much too soon rather that it was always a case of too similar too often.

Now, of course, we have not seen Star Trek Into Darkness yet, therefore, this is more paranoia at this point, however, it is a paranoia based on previous general experiences as well as the interpretation that JJ Abrams has a set formula that he appears to adhere to rather slavishly whereby it all becomes rather homogenized.

I feel better now - thanks for listening.

 

Being as Oliver Stone hasn't directed a great movie since JFK (which came out in 1992), I tend to take whatever he says about "the problems with modern movies" with a grain of salt.

 

Plus, contrary to what Stone implies, all action movies are not interchangeable.Yes, there are loud, exhausting, noisy spectacles that are nothing but nonstop action and SFX. (I'm looking at you, Van Helsing.) But there are also thrilling adventure stories that still have plenty of character, humor, and heart . . . like the Trek reboot. Or, for that matter, The Wrath of Khan.

 

I say the jury's still out on sustainability, especially as we haven't even seen the second movie.

Having said that, I can think of 700-odd reasons why it could potentially springboard a future TV series... and I'm more interested in that than the movies (even though I'm slavering for the new movie).

 

Yep. The best word to describe his recent career is "pretentious."

Of course, when a director's pretensions flatter his intended audience, they can congratulate themselves on being smart without much effort.

If Abrams delivers a movie as good or better than his 2009 effort, the Franchise is in good hands.