RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,170
Posts: 5,435,213
Members: 24,939
Currently online: 478
Newest member: katlynwomack

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 26 2012, 04:34 AM   #91
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

No, you're right. Deep Space Nine was obviously never gonna be a gigantic mainstream success.... but why does Star Trek have to be that? The more people you aim to please, the more boxes you try and tick, the more demographics you try and cater to... the less interesting your final product will be.

I think Star Trek on TV had the right idea in terms of audience really. Make a comparatively successful sci-fi show that gets solid enough ratings. It isn't Doctor Who or Star Wars, franchises that can easily adapt to being gargantually populist while still retaining their core ethos. Star Trek just... isn't for everybody. And that's fine. It should be alternative programming, something that is there for as a counterpoint to the mainstream sci-fi action shlock of the day. Not the most vanilla, accessible and inoffensive thing going.

Just my two pence.

Edge of Forever wrote: View Post
To drop JJ Abrams Star Trek down to the level of Transformers is hyperbolic to say the least.
For perspective I view Star Trek 2009 and Transformers 2007 as about equal in quality. Both are empty, pointless, mindless shlock with the most cookie cutter of story beats possible. In fact, Kirk's character and Shia LaBauef's character in Transformers have the exact same story arc. Complete with famous family history. Megatron and Nero have about equal character development too.

To say they're not comparable is hyperbolic.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 04:45 AM   #92
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

Star Trek was created with the idea that it would appeal to wide audience. Most network shows are. Studios, networks and advertisers don't write big checks for niche audiences. Diminishing returns on investment is why Trek isn't on TV right now.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 04:51 AM   #93
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

We're all here because of a 60s show that got unceremoniously cancelled during it'd 3rd season because of low ratings. To this day, I'll never understand why Trek fans maintain an interest in Trek aspiring to be mainstream.

It can't be mainstream without cutting off a huge part of it's soul. It's why the movies (TMP excluded because it's incredible and not a dumb action movie!) are so inferior to the show. We'd never get The Inner Light as a movie because for some dumb, greedy reason these movies have to aim for the widest audience possible. So Trek becomes a mediocre action movie franchise to appease the masses, which was just about tolerable when the films were an alternative to the show in the 90s but now this is all the Trek we have and it's a sorry state of affairs.

I don't like being the negative voice but this is how I feel and it's nice having a place to vent it.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 04:51 AM   #94
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

DalekJim wrote: View Post
No, you're right. Deep Space Nine was obviously never gonna be a gigantic mainstream success.... but why does Star Trek have to be that? The more people you aim to please, the more boxes you try and tick, the more demographics you try and cater to... the less interesting your final product will be.

I think Star Trek on TV had the right idea in terms of audience really. Make a comparatively successful sci-fi show that gets solid enough ratings. It isn't Doctor Who or Star Wars, franchises that can easily adapt to being gargantually populist while still retaining their core ethos. Star Trek just... isn't for everybody. And that's fine. It should be alternative programming, something that is there for as a counterpoint to the mainstream sci-fi action shlock of the day. Not the most vanilla, accessible and inoffensive thing going.

Just my two pence.
Yep. And for making Trek for movie fans......nowadays it's either mindless action flicks, bad romantic comedies with Jennifer Aniston, the comic book hero film of the month and obligatory remakes. And given the fact a lot of the same folks tend to watch stuff like Kardasians and Honey Boo Boo, making films catering to that sorta crowd is not exactly comforting a thought. Just because something is a 'mega success' does not mean it's quality, I mean all these reality TV shows gets ratings, but I don't watch them because I still value my brain cells and don't want to spend several weeks trying to regain the IQ lost from viewing them.



He's entirely right, the movie isn't aimed at Star Trek fans. It's aimed at the type of person that would watch Star Trek and get bored shitless because it was slow and talky. It's aimed at the type of person that would leave the cinema, forget about the movie instantly and then go watch Transformers 2.

We now have a Star Trek franchise aimed at people who wouldn't like Star Trek. That is the root of our problems and why we're so screwed.
EXACTLY. This is what irks me. I myself am just fine with slow and talky, I like slow and talky. It's getting to a point where everything needs to be homogenized so every joe sixpack out there watches it. It's like things have to be converted to keep joe sixpack watching because his attention span's shorter than that of a goldfish on Alzheimers.

Joe Sixpack: Boring, too much talk.......OOOOOWWWWWW, FIRE/BOOBS!




He knows the Star Trek fans will watch it no matter what, so he doesn't need to encourage them to go and see it and we, as fans, should not be so precious as to not realise this.

The people he does need to attract are the non-fans, so he tells them what he has to, to get them to watch it.

When you look at all the nods to the old series in the last film, and the faithful way in which they have recreated so much of it, and the time the writers take to converse with the fans, you'd have to be absolutely bonkers to think this isn't a film for fans of Star Trek.

Remember as well, that they could have totally pissed over every fan going by just rebooting everything in the last film, but they chose not to, by coming up with a convoluted time-travel story featuring multiple universes. Who did they do that for? Not the casual movie-goer.
Well, I did not pay money to see the first, I only saw it when someone working on the DVD sent me a pre production disk (has the title menu but extras take you no where), glad I did not pay money to see that. And seeing as how things are going, I'm not watching this one, not even for free. I don't go for something because it's called this or that. I love Transformers, but had no interest in the Bay-films. Same for Doctor Who, the Moffet era stuff does nothing for me.

Did not see too many nods in the first film that impressed me. Plus IF they did the alternate universe thing, I still see no original universe Trek, apart from novels and the online game. I'll believe it when I see it. So far, it felt more like a bait and switch since this sure feels like a remake to me, and if they keep doing all future Trek in this universe, and no more of the original, than it's a reboot.

I'll stick to Phase 2 myself.
__________________
The meaning of the apocalypse is the opposite of what most people think. It does not mean the end of the world; it means the revealing of hidden secrets and the beginning of a heaven on earth. The apocalypse is starting now.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:03 AM   #95
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

DalekJim wrote: View Post
We're all here because of a 60s show that got unceremoniously cancelled during it'd 3rd season because of low ratings. To this day, I'll never understand why Trek fans maintain an interest in Trek aspiring to be mainstream.

It can't be mainstream without cutting off a huge part of it's soul. It's why the movies (TMP excluded because it's incredible and not a dumb action movie!) are so inferior to the show. We'd never get The Inner Light as a movie because for some dumb, greedy reason these movies have to aim for the widest audience possible. So Trek becomes a mediocre action movie franchise to appease the masses, which was just about tolerable when the films were an alternative to the show in the 90s but now this is all the Trek we have and it's a sorry state of affairs.

I don't like being the negative voice but this is how I feel and it's nice having a place to vent it.
You and me both.

I say make something good, than I'll be speaking praise. But that cesspit of laziness that is Hollywood has yet to make anything. Only films I liked was Lord of the Rings, and that was made by a guy who was obviously a fan of Tolken and wanting to make a film that fans would love, and still have Joe Sixpack watch it....it can be done, it just takes this little thing called hard work, something Hollywood gave up on long ago.


Star Trek was created with the idea that it would appeal to wide audience. Most network shows are. Studios, networks and advertisers don't write big checks for niche audiences. Diminishing returns on investment is why Trek isn't on TV right now.
Well, considering that stuff like X-Factor, Judge Judy, The Kardasians, Jersey Shore, Honey Boo Boo, amongst a sea of other similar junk, anything remotely like Trek would just cause mainstream TV goers' heads to implode.
__________________
The meaning of the apocalypse is the opposite of what most people think. It does not mean the end of the world; it means the revealing of hidden secrets and the beginning of a heaven on earth. The apocalypse is starting now.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:05 AM   #96
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

DalekJim wrote: View Post
We're all here because of a 60s show that got unceremoniously cancelled during it'd 3rd season because of low ratings. To this day, I'll never understand why Trek fans maintain an interest in Trek aspiring to be mainstream.

It can't be mainstream without cutting off a huge part of it's soul. It's why the movies (TMP excluded because it's incredible and not a dumb action movie!) are so inferior to the show. We'd never get The Inner Light as a movie because for some dumb, greedy reason these movies have to aim for the widest audience possible. So Trek becomes a mediocre action movie franchise to appease the masses, which was just about tolerable when the films were an alternative to the show in the 90s but now this is all the Trek we have and it's a sorry state of affairs.

I don't like being the negative voice but this is how I feel and it's nice having a place to vent it.
TNG was the top rated syndicated show for most of its seven years on the air. It was pretty mainstream. The shows that followed didn't perform as well. The ratings took a serious nose dive and kept falling.

Mainstream success means more Trek. That's why fans like the idea.

TMP, by most accounts, is dumb in-action movie.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:09 AM   #97
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

I'm aware that 99% of people on this planet would consider me insane for thinking The Motion Picture is the best Trek film bar none and a classic of science-fiction cinema, while the Abrams reboot film is idiotic slush.

Just because I'm crazy doesn't mean I'm not right though .
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:10 AM   #98
Edge of Forever
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Melbourne
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Edge of Forever wrote: View Post
To drop JJ Abrams Star Trek down to the level of Transformers is hyperbolic to say the least.
For perspective I view Star Trek 2009 and Transformers 2007 as about equal in quality. Both are empty, pointless, mindless shlock with the most cookie cutter of story beats possible. In fact, Kirk's character and Shia LaBauef's character in Transformers have the exact same story arc. Complete with famous family history. Megatron and Nero have about equal character development too.

To say they're not comparable is hyperbolic.
I actually never said they weren't comparable. I just said that Star Trek is not as stupid as Transformers.

You may not like it but when you take a step back and view it as a film, not a Star Trek film but just as a film (without your bias about Star Trek getting in the way) the quality of Star Trek 2009 is substantially higher than that of Transformer.

The writing is of a higher degree, the characters come across as characters rather than the caricatures, the actors in Star Trek actually act, there a genuinely emotional moments (Papa Kirks death, almost every exchange between Sarak and Spock, Old Spock and Kirk, etc) and there is genuine humor to it. In comparison Transformers (from what I watched) had no real dialogue, had no acting, no plot (pretty much just a premises), no character development, no character moments and had no real humor. To say both were of a similar quality what you look at Star Trek as just a film is not an opinion I can agree with in any way.

I will agree however that Star Trek 2009 lost (in relation to the TV show) a meaningful look at the human condition. However only 3 of the first 10 Star Trek films managed to do that in a successful way (I'm thinking Wrath of Khan, TUC and First Contact) and even with all of those the plot, the characters and most of all the fun of story came before discussing the message. Every other Star Trek film has either been fun (Voyage Home- and yes, it had message about whales but it didn't explore the concept or stop the film being pretty stupid when wanted to be funny or move the plot along), mediocre or pretty/really/very bad.
Edge of Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:22 AM   #99
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

DalekJim wrote: View Post
I'm aware that 99% of people on this planet would consider me insane for thinking The Motion Picture is the best Trek film bar none and a classic of science-fiction cinema, while the Abrams reboot film is idiotic slush.

Just because I'm crazy doesn't mean I'm not right though .
It's not that high. Most people on the planet don't know that Star Trek the Motion Picture exists.

I watched TMP in the theater numerous times ( mostly in row) when it first came out, so perhaps that has clouded my judgement. But I can't see what makes such a derivative work a classic.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:24 AM   #100
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

Edge of Forever wrote: View Post
You may not like it but when you take a step back and view it as a film, not a Star Trek film but just as a film (without your bias about Star Trek getting in the way) the quality of Star Trek 2009 is substantially higher than that of Transformer.
Disagree. If one is better than the other then it isn't by much.

The writing is of a higher degree
Disagree. Both films emphasize terrible humour, pointless vengeance filled caricature villains and random titillation (Megan Fox on the car, Uhura stripping off) in the exact same way.

the characters come across as characters rather than the caricatures
Disagree. Both Spock and McCoy are repeatedly given their most famous catchphrases and both actors playing them are doing impressions of the original actors.

the actors in Star Trek actually act
The actors actually act in Transformers too.

there a genuinely emotional moments (Papa Kirks death, almost every exchange between Sarak and Spock, Old Spock and Kirk, etc)
Trite, dumbed down soap opera nonsense to appeal to a wider audience that has zero interest in sci-fi or fantasy. Spock hugging Uhuru isn't emotional, it's stupid and out of character to please the female audience and tick more boxes.

there is genuine humor to it.
Wow, Kirk's hands grow really, really big. Comedy gold.

I will agree however that Star Trek 2009 lost (in relation to the TV show) a meaningful look at the human condition. However only 3 of the first 10 Star Trek films managed to do that in a successful way (I'm thinking Wrath of Khan, TUC and First Contact)
The only Trek film that examined what it meant to be human in any real way was... The Motion Picture. Hence why it's the best .
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:25 AM   #101
Edge of Forever
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Melbourne
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

TMP had some great scenes- the first reveal of the Enterprise for example. But it suffered from one major problem in that it felt like an episode rather than a film. It was about the idea and had no real execution to it.

In my opinion, if it had been an episode or a two part episode then it would have been iconic and spectacular but as a film it falls flat due to a lack of pacing and quite a bit of padding.

EDIT: DalekJim, we'll have to agree to disagree then. All I know is that I fell asleep during the first Transformers and couldn't sit through the second while I've seen the 2009 Star Trek about 10 times.
Edge of Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:28 AM   #102
Dick Whitman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Behind the mask of Donald Draper
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

DalekJim, So you are happy that Star Trek has continued all these years. But its only lasted because of a studio that has occasionally changed it in order to continue to make more money for them. Which justifies its long life. But you want them to pay for a product that appeals only to a small niche audience. How about this read, the novels or watch the fan films?

Star Trek has not survived due to its core fan base alone. Some Trekkies are the most selfish fans in history. Most other fans would give anything for their favorite shows to have the number of films, spin-off shows, books, etc, etc that Star Trek has gotten. But what do some Trekkies say "its not tailored to my personal tastes"
Dick Whitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:36 AM   #103
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

I'm not the most selfish fan in history for wanting the only Star Trek available to be... enjoyable. That's just absurd and you're being too precious.

For what it's worth I do think STID will be an improvement on the anti-intellectual depravity of the 2009 film. It looks to be influenced more by The Dark Knight than the slush that inspired the previous film. TDK was an intelligent action film with ideas behind it. Cumberbatch looks like he'll be an intense, charismatic villain unlike Nero who is just about the worst character in the history of Star Trek.

I'd just like to explore some strange some new worlds damnit.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:39 AM   #104
Dick Whitman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Behind the mask of Donald Draper
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

THe point is no one owes us anything. Don't like it, move on to something else. I done it for things that changed away from what I use to like. In all of those cases there are still people who like it without me. That is life.
Dick Whitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2012, 05:54 AM   #105
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: New JJ Abrams interview

DalekJim wrote: View Post
I'm not the most selfish fan in history for wanting the only Star Trek available to be... enjoyable. That's just absurd and you're being too precious.

For what it's worth I do think STID will be an improvement on the anti-intellectual depravity of the 2009 film. It looks to be influenced more by The Dark Knight than the slush that inspired the previous film. TDK was an intelligent action film with ideas behind it. Cumberbatch looks like he'll be an intense, charismatic villain unlike Nero who is just about the worst character in the history of Star Trek.

I'd just like to explore some strange some new worlds damnit.
Anti-intellectual? Seriously? Hyperbolic much?
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 06:41 AM.

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