Do we even want another Star Trek movie?

Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by looneyguy1985, Jun 3, 2013.

  1. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    I definitely want more movies. If nothing else, it gives us some time to get our heads on straight about what Star Trek is all about. Star Trek had run itself into the ground by the time of Nemesis and there wasn't a damn original idea left. Abram's reboots keep them in the public eye while also being just plain entertaining.

    It helps foster good will for the inevitable new series.
     
  2. Mooch

    Mooch Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2001
    Location:
    Canada
    What exactly is a "60s story"?
     
  3. Lance

    Lance Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    The Enterprise's Restroom
    While I do empathize with your broader point that to some degree ST2009 didn't necessarily need to be a reboot -- there was definitely mileage in it perhaps bridging the eras of ENT and TOS in the canon, and certainly if there is a starship crew in Star Trek whose pasts are still very much an open book then its the TOS crew, who never actually had a proper introduction story -- the reality is that the word "prequel" holds certain connotations with the general audience that Paramount hoped to target. They wanted to make a Star Trek that would appeal to as broad a cross-section of the audience as possible, and a prequel story still gives off the impression that it's being made for the fanbase first and foremost. Like it or not, that isn't the market that ST2009 and STID were targetting.

    That little word, "reboot", makes all the difference in marketing this Star Trek as being a fresh take on the concept. Where a "prequel" to Star Trek might have been offputting to an audience who don't feel they're up to speed on the canon, a "reboot" opens up the possibility that this movie is an 'entry level experience' that anyone and their dog can enjoy, irrespective of whether they've ever seen Star Trek before or not. As silly as it sounds, whether the 2009 movie was being marketed as a "prequel" or a "reboot" really could have made a big difference between someone choosing to buy a ticket to see it or not.

    See, the trouble with using the Star Wars prequels as a litmus test for the ability of a prequel to reach a wide audience is that Star Wars has got (and always HAS had) a much broader market appeal than Star Trek. Star Wars doesn't (or didn't in 1999 at any rate) have the perception of being as tied up inside its own canon as Star Trek is. In constrast, Star Trek still had the perception of being 'that show which is made for Trekkies', which is why this being a "reboot" was so important. They needed to assure the general audience that this was a Star Trek for everyone.

    From a marketing perspective, let alone from the perspective of rebuilding a Star Trek brand that was in complete tatters following a string of percieved flops, this being a brash new reboot of the franchise was absolutely crucial to making the 2009 movie a success.
     
  4. ralfy

    ralfy Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Search for "Star Trek Into Darkness: The Spoiler FAQ." (Warning: spoilers.)

    There are more major problems with the story that aren't mentioned in the FAQ.
     
  5. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Most of the Trek films have plot holes you can fly the U.S.S. Vengeance through.
     
  6. Lord Garth

    Lord Garth Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    What I didn't like about Into Darkness was specific to that film alone.

    I liked Star Trek (2009), and STID is water under the bridge, so I'm going to go into ST XIII fresh. It's another day, another film. Best two out of three. That's how I look at it.

    Kind of similar to the Bond films starring Daniel Craig. I liked Casino Royale, didn't like Quantum of Solace at all, then thought Skyfall was great.

    With the Star Trek films in general, you have to look at them one at a time.
     
  7. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Episodic, statu quo reset at the end of each episode, no conflict among the crew, that kind of thing.
     
  8. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I enjoyed the film, even with its flaws. I don't need to read what some idiot internet reviewer thinks about it.
     
  9. ralfy

    ralfy Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    For me, it's the other way round: it's those major flaws that did not make the film enjoyable. And the fact that you acknowledge that such flaws exist makes your claim that "some...internet reviewer" is an idiot.

    Put simply, no amount of special effects, etc., can make up for such problems.
     
  10. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    FTFY :p

    So: "boring"?
     
  11. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    I think there's dozens of ways they could have done Star Trek right. I think reboot was the best scenario, though, for getting rid of old assumptions.
     
  12. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    I wouldn't say "Boring", but definitely older television.

    I mean, The Twilight Zone is as episodic as it gets, and it's one of the greatest series ever made.
     
  13. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    Yes. But the episodes weren't reset (usually just the opposite), and there was conflict abound.
     
  14. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Ditto the episodes. Why did Edith Keeler have to die? Kirk could have taken her to the future and have lived happily ever after. And that's supposed to be Trek's finest moment.
     
  15. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Nah, not really a plot hole. For all we know, if Edith had just disappeared with no body, one of the bums at the mission might have been blamed for murdering her, and have been prevented from doing whatever Great Thing they were meant to do, that was both inspired by her and essential to the timeline. ;) The premise of the episode, the tricorder readings of the obituary, demanded that there actually be a body.
     
  16. Irishman

    Irishman Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    So, you might very well feel content and "full" of Star Trek, but the rest of us? Nah. We'll take more.
     
  17. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    First, I'm sorry that you can't get past the movie's flaws and enjoy it for what it is. Second, you have yet to state what you think those flaws actually are. Third, what I consider to be flaws and what some idiot internet reviewer considers to be flaws are two entirely different things. It's called subjectivity.
     
  18. ralfy

    ralfy Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    The only way to get past the major flaws in this movie is to treat it as a video game and be awed by the special effects and handsome actors.

    Second, the flaws are found in the IO9 spoiler FAQ and other sources, as mentioned earlier. I can't give more details because I don't think this thread is meant for spoilers.

    Third, what you should do is see the spoiler FAQ and tell us why you think what were not mentioned aren't flaws in the spoiler thread for this movie found in this forum:

    http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=213013

    Finally, even subjectivity contains a measure of objectivity.
     
  19. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    So anybody who likes this movie doesn't care about plot, right ?

    But then, is it much better to only see flaws in movies and being unable to move on and enjoy the show ? Almost ALL movies have flaws. Do you even watch movies anymore ?
     
  20. ralfy

    ralfy Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    That's right.

    There's a difference between flaws that you can ignore and those that are are significant and numerous. More details can be found in the spoiler FAQ and various negative reviews of the movie.

    Even I noted several while watching the movie.

    Finally, I used to enjoy movies just because of the special effects, etc. But as I grew older and watched more movies, I began to notice problems that I didn't see when I was younger.