20 most Cringeworthy Scenes in the New Trek films???

I think you're referring to "Young Adult" craze that started with Harry Potter. This is a pretty new phenomenon. The difference between these and the old days is they tend to have supernatural/dystopian aspects and focus on Hero's Journey type quests rather than simply being teen angst and dating drama at school.

 

I didn't see that much difference between STID and the TOS I enjoyed as a teen and still enjoy now.

Movie makers have always tried to get the old teens-young twenties crowd to part with their money. "Date movies" and all that. The genres change, but the "cha-ching" of box offices taking in the money of young adults on Friday and Saturday nights is nothing new. If anything, there may be more choices across several types of genre.

 

Watch The Undiscovered Country, then immediately watch Star Trek 09 or STID. Drama is portrayed in 2 polar opposite ways.

 

I've watched the TOS films and the Abrams films mixed together. Most notably I watched The Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness back-to-back. I've went from The Final Frontier to Into Darkness and then back to The Search for Spock on another occasion.

I walked away thoroughly entertained.

 

Yes. Slow-paced drama and face-paced drama. (A JOKE! A JOKE! Mostly.)

Not too many movies full of characters in their 50s and 60s would work with themes filled with teen angst, anyway. It was hardly the gateway movie to bring in new, younger fans. It was a sentimental swan song.

 

lol I don't recall saying that you should not be entertained. But you're more than welcome to quote me where I did. The person said he doesn't see a difference between nuTrek and TOS. I asked him to do an experiment and made a suggestion as to what to watch in said experiment. Nowhere did he, nor I, mention anything about entertainment. You are the master of presumption and passive aggressiveness.

 

I threw up in my mouth a little bit when I passed the section at my local bookstore labeled "Supernatural Teenage Drama"

 

That needed a bit more decoration

 

There is no Trek but NuTrek, and Abrams is its Profit.

To suggest that anything OldTrek contains a trait -- let alone a virtue -- that NuTrek does not possess is heresy, and lo, for the unbelievers, Bob Orci has prepared a painful doom.

 

You are not of the NuTrek? You will be absorbed. The good is NuTrek. Abrams is all. Abrams is gentle. Abrams will make you feel like a teenager, again.

 

FESSS-TIVALLLL!

 

More Zoe Saldana and maybe.

 

All of the above I left in did indeed make me cringe.

Although the "Hi, Christopher, I'm Nero" line didn't have the cringe impact on rewatches for me.

 

One thing I've noticed a lot of lately is a "kids react to ___". I saw one where kids react to Jaws, and another where they marvel at an Apple II. The idea behind this is to try to quantify the change in culture between then and now.

I saw Khan when I was 12 and enjoyed it. I had already been a fan earlier, enjoying TOS reruns in the 70s, despite the obvious outdated 60s cultural context of it. Would a 12 year-old today enjoy the old stuff as much or are they so desensitized and low-attention-span that only something that moves the breakneck-pace of Into Darkness will satisfy? There's a lot of assertions from JJ fans that say as much.

What I haven't seen are actual anecdotes where young people watch the older stuff and render their opinions. I bet the info is out there, though, and if anyone has any links, please pass it along.

 

I'm not sure of the 1960s context of TOS other than its production values. When it had themes, they were pretty universal and applicable to any time. The 79 episodes all had various levels of action and pacing.

As far as kids enjoying the "old stuff" goes, Shakespeare seems to survive quite well from generation to generation, but that may not be entirely what you meant.

As far as generalizations of kids today with zero attention spans and only attracted to things that move at a break-neck pace goes, that's patently wrong. For example, Harry Potter became famous first as books. Plenty of tweens and teens have taken the time to sit down and read them cover to cover. The same with Catching Fire, Divergent, and The Hunger Games, and The Fault in Our Stars. One particular genre may be dominate an age group in a certain time, but that's really no different than my parents growing up with swing, me growing up with rock n' roll, and my daughters growing up with whatever crap it is they're listening to.

For what it's worth, I've posted on here before that my then 14 year-old daughter loved STID. When we got the DVD-BluRay, she's probably watched it more times than I have. When I finally sat down to watch TWOK with her, it was I who walked away a little disappointed and disillusioned with TWOK compared to STID. Maybe my attention span is shrinking as I age. Maybe even though I saw TWOK in a theater at age 22, today it's me who sees the age showing through in the movie.

 

There's lots of slow paced programming and films out there geared for kids. The only anecdotal evidence I have ever heard from kids is mostly complaining about production values. old = bad. star wars prequels > than original trilogy because they look old. I find in general a lot of people are unwilling to give a movie a chance if it's from an era prior to what they grew up in.

There's obviously a lot of exceptions. But that's been my observation if I was to make a blanket statement. For instance, I made my nieces watch movies like Gremlins and Monster squad, and I made my nephew watch the original Transformers series, and and they loved it. They have also complained about other stuff being old if the story doesn't grab them right away.

My belief is this:

I don't think the audience is to blame. I think it's the studio's, and the quality of the people in charge. Look at the music industry. People didn't stop liking good music. But the music industry figured a way to make it formulaic, and manufacture pop stars. Then milk them for a few years until their target audience has grown up and forgotten about them. They know it doesn't have to be good, but if you do certain things, it's going to make money.

I think it's the same with movies, albeit a little different when it comes to market receptiveness. The studio's are forcing this down our throats. It's much easier and less risky for them(when they've got 100's of mill on the line) to think up action sequences and recycle plots than it is to think up witty dialogue, with an intricate plot and a unique approach. The film story telling structure/formula has evolved to include film cliche's, required number of action beats, and specific spots to infuse comic relief, it's all so predictable now. There's also a formula for character dynamics, it's quite silly. With the exception of guys like Nolan, Ridley Scott, Tarentino, and some others, this is all I see now when I watch movies.

The studio's are churning out movies the same way the music industry is churning out pop songs. But I think the general audience will still dig it even when it's not good or creative as long as they use the formula. Sometimes I can shut my brain off and enjoy it as well.

 

Two movies that are made twenty-years apart, by different people, are dramatically different? That is very deep, indeed.

I think that would pretty much be a given.

 

You're cute. So because movies are made in different era's, by different people, it means if one is intelligently written, the other must be the polar opposite? Am I getting this right?

One movie creates drama through genuine human conflict.

One movie creates drama through yelling and foot stomping.

Are you implying that today's movie going audience can't handle intelligent writing? So it's a given that they'd have to be different? I don't follow you...

 

Oh, Sweet Jesus...

All the films have created drama through 'genuine human (or Vulcan) conflict'. The style is what is different. Just like the style of movies are different in the 60's and the 80's.

If you don't like the change, that's great. No one is trying to tell you that you ever need to buy a ticket to an Abrams film again. But quit trying to talk down to people because they enjoy a movie.

Speaking of yelling...

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54[/yt]

 

It's weird. I use to love all things Trek, but with each passing day I'm drifting further and further away from the various Berman shows/movies. It isn't that I think they are necessarily bad, they just come across as dramatically flat a huge portion of the time.

The Abrams films aren't perfect but I think they bring back a huge part that was missing in the spinoffs: larger than life characters.

When Spock beat the piss out of Kirk in Star Trek (2009), I knew I was home.