RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,955
Posts: 5,480,049
Members: 25,057
Currently online: 631
Newest member: Ghost_of_Bubba

TrekToday headlines

USS Enterprise Press-Out And Build Manual
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

New QMx USS Reliant Model
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Star Trek Thirty-Five Years On 35MM: A Retrospective
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
A+ 144 19.20%
A 161 21.47%
A- 101 13.47%
B+ 83 11.07%
B 59 7.87%
B- 27 3.60%
C+ 40 5.33%
C 38 5.07%
C- 25 3.33%
D+ 11 1.47%
D 13 1.73%
D- 10 1.33%
F 38 5.07%
Voters: 750. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 15 2013, 06:49 PM   #2011
Jeyl
Commodore
 
Jeyl's Avatar
 
Location: Asheville, NC
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Phily B wrote: View Post
A lot of reviews come down to the same complaints about it "not being Star Trek" which is absurd, none of the movies have truly been Star Trek if we compare to television.
I don't think they're upset that this movie is hardly Star Trek as much as they are upset that this is the only Star Trek we'll ever be getting. Star Trek was really at it's best when it was on television. We got, what? 22-26 stories a year, instead of one story every three to four years? I think a Star Trek series would leave plenty of room for variety instead of non-stop action rehashes of previous Star Trek stories.
Jeyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 06:49 PM   #2012
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

ConRefit79 wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
And these are particularly important negative reviews because -- ?

There's a saying The Washington Post uses here to sell newspapers (their critic loved STID, by the way): If you don't get it, you don't get it. These reviews don't get it. STID is no different than the intelligently done but still sometimes campy TOS. The story is as deep as almost any TOS episode and prior movies. Marc Cushman is quoted as saying, "It's lost a lot of its reality." Reality? Huh? Explanation, please.

The NY Post review says that "surplus action and lack of creative commentary" is the biggest sticking point to purists. Not this purist. There are valid negative reviews out there, but any like NY Post's that hold Abrams's movies to a standard that is mythical to being with, well they just don't get it. Besides, who the hell walks out of a summer movie saying, "I wish there would've been less action and more sitting around conference tables discussing issues"?
Someone referenced some reviews but did not include links. I searched for the reviews and posted some links.
Understood. But I thought it was best to quote you with your links since they should've been in the original post. I'm not attacking either messenger, either. There are valid criticisms of this movie. I just don't think comparing Abrams's take on Trek to a version looked at through rose-colored glasses is a valid way to criticize it.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 06:52 PM   #2013
Chu'lak
Lieutenant
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.

For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:

The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore


I rest my case.
Chu'lak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 06:52 PM   #2014
Phily B
Fleet Captain
 
Phily B's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
View Phily B's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Jeyl wrote: View Post
Phily B wrote: View Post
A lot of reviews come down to the same complaints about it "not being Star Trek" which is absurd, none of the movies have truly been Star Trek if we compare to television.
I don't think they're upset that this movie is hardly Star Trek as much as they are upset that this is the only Star Trek we'll ever be getting. Star Trek was really at it's best when it was on television. We got, what? 22-26 stories a year, instead of one story every three to four years? I think a Star Trek series would leave plenty of room for variety instead of non-stop action rehashes of previous Star Trek stories.
I don't really disagree that I'd prefer a television show to movies, but that's a separate issue - CBS are sitting on the rights to the TV show and blocking; not JJ Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman etc

It doesn't make these movies bad in anyway because it's not the television show, I'd much rather watch BOBW than FC but FC is still my favourite movie.
Phily B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 06:58 PM   #2015
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Chu'lak wrote: View Post
I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.

For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:

The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore


I rest my case.
I like all of those to varying degrees. I also like Star Trek 2009. So what's your point?
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:05 PM   #2016
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Chu'lak wrote: View Post
I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.

For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:

The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore


I rest my case.
Most of those episodes are very good.
ConRefit79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:08 PM   #2017
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Phily B wrote: View Post
Jeyl wrote: View Post
Phily B wrote: View Post
A lot of reviews come down to the same complaints about it "not being Star Trek" which is absurd, none of the movies have truly been Star Trek if we compare to television.
I don't think they're upset that this movie is hardly Star Trek as much as they are upset that this is the only Star Trek we'll ever be getting. Star Trek was really at it's best when it was on television. We got, what? 22-26 stories a year, instead of one story every three to four years? I think a Star Trek series would leave plenty of room for variety instead of non-stop action rehashes of previous Star Trek stories.
I don't really disagree that I'd prefer a television show to movies, but that's a separate issue - CBS are sitting on the rights to the TV show and blocking; not JJ Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman etc

It doesn't make these movies bad in anyway because it's not the television show, I'd much rather watch BOBW than FC but FC is still my favourite movie.
I thought CBS and Paramount had some form of gentlemans agreement that whilst Trek movies were being made there would be no TV show.

It makes sense for CBS to stay 'friendly' with Paramount because in the future maybe a TV show will use the sets and props built for the movies?
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:08 PM   #2018
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Jeyl wrote: View Post
Phily B wrote: View Post
A lot of reviews come down to the same complaints about it "not being Star Trek" which is absurd, none of the movies have truly been Star Trek if we compare to television.
I don't think they're upset that this movie is hardly Star Trek as much as they are upset that this is the only Star Trek we'll ever be getting. Star Trek was really at it's best when it was on television. We got, what? 22-26 stories a year, instead of one story every three to four years? I think a Star Trek series would leave plenty of room for variety instead of non-stop action rehashes of previous Star Trek stories.
"Star Trek" and TV is an idea that sounds as natural as peanut butter and jelly. The problem is the success of the movies isn't necessarily a guarantee of the success of a TV show. And what form would the show take? Would yet another Kirk and Spock occupy the small screen? Or does the success of Abrams's Trek movies mean the world is ready for another version of TNG on TV? Unlikely. There are 28 seasons of Trek TV out there. There may be a few new stories to tell, but are there seven more seasons of them left to tell?

Also, I don't know a lot about investment and profit in the entertainment industry (nothing, really), but Paramount is probably very happy with its profit margin for ST09 and looking forward to even greater profits from STID. I'd think it would take a lot longer (if ever) to get that kind of return on investment from TV. Besides, network TV is dying as a medium. It's a slow death, but it's dying. Maybe a new Trek series could be the first to go straight to Podcast.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:09 PM   #2019
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Flake wrote: View Post
I thought CBS and Paramount had some form of gentlemans agreement that whilst Trek movies were being made there would be no TV show.

It makes sense for CBS to stay on side with Paramount with this because perhaps in the future a TV show will use the sets and props built for the movies?
Would it really matter if they didn't? There is no way to get a budget on a TV show to move nuTrek to TV.
ConRefit79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:14 PM   #2020
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

ConRefit79 wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
I thought CBS and Paramount had some form of gentlemans agreement that whilst Trek movies were being made there would be no TV show.

It makes sense for CBS to stay on side with Paramount with this because perhaps in the future a TV show will use the sets and props built for the movies?
Would it really matter if they didn't? There is no way to get a budget on a TV show to move nuTrek to TV.
Sets and props cost lots of $$ and would make a TV pilot or mini-series hugely expensive. CBS would have all the sets etc ready made and so the huge expense has already been taken care of. It would make it much cheaper and therefore feasible on a TV budget.

EDIT: So Paramount will have spent the bulk of the money that would've been spent on a TV Show on the movie and all that comes available for use in a TV show.

EDIT2: Paramount are considering starting up a TV division so maybe they can make a future show and sell it to CBS?
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:16 PM   #2021
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: The corner of San Antonio and a bottle of Fireball
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Chu'lak wrote: View Post
I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.

For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:

The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore


I rest my case.
The court accepts the evidence but asks for clarification, are all of these examples of poor storytelling or examples of action in Star Trek stories?
__________________
I'm not saying it's cold, but I just keyed two cars with my nipples.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:23 PM   #2022
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Chu'lak wrote: View Post
I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.

For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:

The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore


I rest my case.
I don't see an episode there that I do not enjoy.
__________________
My Science Fiction-Fantasy movie review Blog: http://foleyfunfilmfacts.wordpress.com/
Gojira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:34 PM   #2023
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
Chu'lak wrote: View Post
I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.

For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:

The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore


I rest my case.
I like all of those to varying degrees. I also like Star Trek 2009. So what's your point?
That's also giving GR primary credit for every episode in which he shares a credit, and in the majority of cases I believe that's misleading. If you look at the history of just ST:TMP, for example, you'll see what I mean - WGA doesn't settle those matters by drawing straws.

For example, D.C. Fontana wrote the script for "Charlie X" - she has sole teleplay credit, there. Roddenberry has a story credit, which may have been an outline of several pages or may have been no more than the sentence devoted to "The Day Charlie Became God" in his original series proposal (and that sentence is little more than a riff on "It's A Good Life" by Jerome Bixby).

Of the episodes listed there that I think can fairly be blamed mostly on Roddenberry, "The Cage" is the only exceptionally interesting one IMAO. The others are mediocre at best.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:38 PM   #2024
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Chu'lak wrote: View Post
I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.

For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:

The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore


I rest my case.
Most of those are good episodes. Only a few real clinkers on the list. I think the point you may be trying to make is there is variance among them in quality and the type of story being told. Of course, no one ever said the series wasn't a versatile platform for storytelling, or that the writing of one person can be uneven. (Except maybe folks who get hung up on "the vision thing" and the overal purity of the product.)
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:52 PM   #2025
Jolaris
Commander
 
Location: Umea, Vasterbotten, Sweden
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

There was one single thing I dreaded more then anything for the last year....
That this movie would be a remake of TWOK and that it would be just as 'meh' as ´09, good as a flick but no Star Trek-soul.
´09 was to me a one night stand, it was fun while it lasted but I felt so very emotionally drained and empty afterwards.

Then a few days ago a friend told me to watch TWOK in preparation for the movie and suddenly all my hopes were dashed of seeing a good movie.
As the credits rolled my first conscious thought back in the real world was: "Well played J.J Abrams, well played!"
Or to put it in more emotional terms: BOOOOYAAAA! STAR TREK... IS... BACK!!!
For me it was the best Star Trek movie since 1996.

And after having a night to sleep over it, yup not a one night stand, still very much in love with it.
Still have goosebumps actually.
Even though I saw the Tribble resurrection coming a mile away Kirk's death actually made me cry, only to make me laugh out loud at Spock's heroic BSOD. I don't think I ever cried at a Star Trek movie before.
__________________
What does God need with a starship?

To get to the other side of course!
Jolaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
benedict cumberbatch, grading & discussion, jj abrams

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.