Conversation(s) Heard After the Movie [spoilers, maybe]

Heck, Roddenberry pretty much recycled much of the set-up of Phase II with TNG.

 

Zoe Saldana was awesome as Uhura (and, obviously hot). After watching it a second time, I thought the pacing was pretty good, but - like the first film putting Kirk in the Captain's chair prematurely and not explaining why - the film introduced Khan without explaining the character. Is his name 'Khan' a title he gave himself in this new universe? Was he an East Indian who changed himself into a white guy? (Like the Asian characters in the James Bond film 'Die Another Day' - bringing up some question of Asian characters in films who desire to be white or desire whiteness).

Aside from the plot issues, the look of the Abrams film(s), music, acting and energy are top notch, I think. I don't think it's a financial disaster - it's already made too much money and it's still in theaters.

In regards to who should claim 'copyright' on the Khan character or sequences, I guess there are various sides....but - like Harlan Ellison - if Meyer, the estate of Jack Sowards, or the writers - or their estates - of Space Seed wanted to make a case, I personally think they could.

With the Terminator films, I could see similarities with Ellison's Soldier and Demon with the Glass Hand, after reading material on the dispute. I don't recall whether or not Cameron stated that Ellison was inspired by Ellison's writings before the lawsuit occurred; if I hadn't read Ellison's argument, I wouldn't have seen the direct connection. With TMP and the TOS episode The Changeling, I don't really see the direct connection, only the idea; many stories share the same idea. With Space Seed, Star Trek II, and STID, there probably could have been acknowledgement from the writers with each Khan 'sequel'...but I guess it's up to the writers (or their estates) of each installment if they wanted to make a legal case of the situation.

 

Was he an East Indian who changed himself into a Mexican guy? Is a question you can easily ask of Space Seed.

 

That is true...!

 

Because 450-500mil is likely Trek's ceiling sandwiched the way it was.

There is no doubt that JJ's 2009 film brought in a lot of new fans to the franchise and I am sure there is plenty of crossover between the new Trek audience and the audiences for Iron Man and F&F. But to the majority of those new fans Trek isn't as established as those other two franchises (even though it technically is, but previously catered to a smaller audience).

You take into account the really long time in between movies (long for a sequel to a summer tent pole) + the cost of going to the movies these days + three huge blockbusters with a crossover audience and I'd say they should be happy with the results they got.

I'm a movie nerd and I saw all three of them, but the majority of people I know are not, and they maybe see one or two movies during the summer due to cost.

 

This.

I think there are multiple elements are at play here. Into Darkness was competing with what was essentially a follow-up to The Avengers, which was a film that did two-billion dollars. Plus Star Trek may simply never be the monster box-office draw we think/want it to be. It may not have the impact on general audiences that it has on us. Then, thirty years after "Get a Life", I think Trek may still have a certain stigma attached to it.

Star Trek Into Darkness is neither a critical nor financial failure. I've yet to find anyone outside of the internet who saw it and didn't like it.

 

Khanon.

 

I heard someone whom I know prefers Wars over Trek say; That was good, I like it!

 

Wasn't it closer to 1.5?

 

Right you are!

 

For the same reason that other fans have to attack and/or dismiss any criticism of it. (I don't mean you, though, Bill. You're one of the even-handed posters around here.)

 

I used to be just as critical of everything Abrams did (it would literally send my blood pressure through the roof). Then I realized something, I was no longer having fun watching Star Trek. I had to re-evaluate why I was watching and if I wanted to keep watching going forward.

So I went back and started rewatching the various shows and realized that Abrams and Company weren't as far afield as I was convinced they were and damn the first movie was a fun ride (though flawed). I am able to enjoy each iteration for what it tried to be and what it is.

I'm a "Born-again Trekkie"!

 

Well, mine came along almost immediately after I saw the first J.J. Abrams film. I think its a fun movie but am lukewarm towards it because it does have many "plot difficulties".

But then I found that when I started rewatching the various shows, that most Star Trek has "plot difficulties".

Plus, I'm convinced that whether I like a particular Trek product or not that people watching it/buying tickets for it is good for the overall health of the franchise.

 

This is just so cool of you to say.

When I first went online I was thrilled at the prospect of sharing the FUN of our favorite franchise with others around the world - then the reality of how MB's aren't about fun struck like lighting with my first log in to one of them.

Happy you finally saw you light, Trekkie!

Someone here once suggested a logical possibility imo, (paraphrased) Abrams Trek dissenters are hardcore NG era fans unhappy over the direction Trek has been taken.

Perhaps they hope griping will sway enough people to sign their inevitable petition to 'return to the prime universe'

 

I have sympathy for their position. I really do - if I was a 24th century only fan I probably would not like STID.

I had to wait 25 Seasons for the return of the Star Trek I like most. LOL

But lets not pretend its "Spock's not in character" or "The Enterprise is too big" thats the problem. Its the fact that its not 24th century Star Trek that is the problem.

My own guess (as much as its worth) would be that 90% of those people who rated the movie < C or those that rated it F before seeing it would not be TOS fans (worried that the movie was not faithful to TOS).