First of all let me just say that I am saying this as a big big fan of the JJverse. This is in no way a bashing message or JJ raped my star trek rant. Star Trek has had a phenomenal highly successful run that has lasted close to 50 years. It has had numerous rebirths after people had declared Star Trek to be dead. Star Trek (or any property for that matter) can ever truly die as long as it has a fanbase supporting it, reliving it and passing it on to others. That being said, it is quite possible that a story can come to an end and the book is fully closed. To me every story should have a definite end at some point. At the end of the latest film the crew of the enterprise is getting ready to embark on the legendary 5 year mission that started it all. At long last, trek has come full circle and ends where the original began *yes yes i know its a NEW timeline and not designed to perfectly sync up with the other*. I walked out of the theater feeling content and...in a way feeling completely fulfilled. It has quenched my thirst so to speak. I am not saying that I never want to see another Trek movie because I felt this was a bad film, far from it...I just am not left with wanting more, which is a bit odd. I had a similar feeling the first time I saw Star Wars Episode 3 in the theater, I was pleased with what I saw and a part of me was content that there wouldn't be any more movies because the story was nicely tied up. As much of a fan as I am, I really dont want new stories to go on forever and ever. I cant think of a more fitting end to end the star trek saga...at least in the films. I still wouldnt mind seeing a new tv series at some point but as far as Captain Kirk and crew, this seemed like a fitting goodbyes. Sometimes its best to quit while you are ahead. What does anybody else think?
See, I don't think the story of Star Trek is "nicely tied up". No more so than the ending of the 2009 movie was. Quite the opposite, I'd be very disappointed to end on such an open note, with all the inherent possibilities of this alternate universe/reboot left completely unexplored. Why stop when we're just starting to get to the really good stuff?
Yes, a third Abramsverse film set a longer period of time ahead, into the 5 year mission, featuring some storyline new to the franchise getting to see how the crew have grown and developed indepedently of any interference now from the old timeline.
Personally, so far I see no justification for the reboot. This film ends with everyone back in the saddle to start the 5 year mission. In hindsight, NOTHING was at stake. Nobody of the main characters died, Vulcan's destruction is glossed over, and so forth. They could have achieved the same by sticking to canon, telling interesting, character shaping stories for each of the main characters, like Kirk witnessing the massacre on Tarsus IV, or Kirk's time on the Farragut, and even invented some adventures that lead up to the 5-year mission. The whole argument that you can't make exciting prequels unless you reboot is nonsense. The Star Wars prequels prove that. Heck, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Hobbit prove that because two thirds of the audience already know everything that is going to happen because they read the goddamn books. And with the new Trek, two thirds of the targeted audience DON'T know what is going to happen, so the suspense is there.
Haven't we been through this before ? To make it more accessible to people who aren't Trek academics, and bring the damn thing into the 21st century. Enterprise and Voyager felt like we were still trying to tell 60s stories.
Maybe its me and I am already burnt out on this "reboot". I was super pumped after my initial viewing of star trek '09' and was thrilled at the possibilities that was in store of us. After Into Darkness I just felt like "ok...that was good but I don't think I need more of this". Of course it all comes down to the writing and story. Its gonna take a little more effort on the writers part to get me excited for the 3rd go around.
I'd argue that the Star Wars prequels are evidence for a case against that very point. Or rather, while The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones both effectively set things up nicely with brand new and interesting situations (allegedly), I'd say that a lot of Revenge of the Sith is rendered pointless by the foreknowledge of what is to come. There is no dramatic weight to a movie when the outcomes are a fore gone conclusion. It just becomes a process of connecting the dots. The first two prequels can kind of dodge that question because they take place much earlier in the timeline... I've got a theory about where and how George Lucas tied himself in knots when he was plotting those movies out, but it's probably a discussion for a different thread.
I actually felt the opposite about Revenge of the Sith. Watching that movie for the first time was definitely an emotional experience, even thought I had known the outcome of it from day 1. Seeing the Rise of the empire and the execution of order 66 was very moving stuff. A viewer watching them in episodic order would be downright shocked and staring in disbelief that the so called hero of the story would fall so hard. Prequels can work. Everybody knows that eventually they themselves will die. Does that make the journey pointless?
I think the problem with the Star Wars prequels was that Anakin was such a douche I didn't care about him becoming Vader.
What major problems are you talking about? There no more or less than in any film let alone a Trek film and the JJ movies are both critically acclaimed and raked in more money than any of the others. Not sure what the real problem is here.
The only problem that I could really see is that it feels like they played things a little too safe when you compare it to the previous film. Trek '09' felt bold and was willing to take risks.
It doesn't matter whether anyone wants another Trek movie or not. We're getting one anyway, because the cast are contractually obligated for three movies. So this post is pointless. Now with that said, if you asked me whether I want more Trek movies after Star Trek XIII set in the Abramsverse (or another possibility, another reboot entirely), then my answer would be yes. As BillJ mentioned, I'm totally fine with movies every three or four years. As I stated above, none of the main characters dies because they have to be in all three films. And seriously Jarod, even if this Trek were as completely different as you seem to want it, do you really think that the main characters would die anyway? Oh, and Vulcan's destruction wasn't glossed over, since it was deemed such an important event for the security of the Federation that Starfleet... (spoiler) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ...built an uber-dreadnought.
For you, maybe. The box office doesn't seem to agree with you. Plus, what's "major" about a movie's story is often up to interpretation. e.g. Klingon warbirds.
Sure we could use another movie just not in the jjverse. Go back to the Prime universe or start with another one divergent enough to tell unique stories not reimaginings..
No justification for the reboot? There's plenty of justification. Why bother making something original, when you can repackage the old item in a slightly different way and sell it again for full price. History has proven that people will buy it up.
Or we could stay in the Abramsverse since the stories are entertaining and the film series is profitable again...