Could the Star Trek Universe Get the Same Treatment as Marvel?

[Shaka Zulu]

For whatever it's worth, Ex-Astris-Scientia has chipped in two cents on Facebook Re: the io9 piece. It's not lengthy, it's listed "Public," and it's commenting on an openly-published article, so I'll reproduce the text here:

There's one point where I agree with Mark Altman. Star Trek needs to come back to the television. But with a fresh start that truly returns to the roots of Star Trek (continuity-, philosophy- and style-wise) and doesn't only cite them, as opposed to the Marvel-ish Abrams movies that only work as popcorn cinema.

https://www.facebook.com/easpage/posts/955992837760853​

So they are saying that Star Trek should go back to the very loose continuity that it had in the 1960's?

Yep, that's pretty much it.

The fact is anyone who knew anything about Star Trek knew at the time that the eroding ratings and declining box-office of films like Insurrection and Nemesis had nothing to do with a lack of interest in Star Trek, they had to do with the fact people weren't interested in seeing bad Star Trek.

This is always such fannish bullshit, and the fans who believe it repeat it to one another until they've heard it echoed so often that they think the whole world is saying it.

Star Trek's ratings had been on a steady, long-term decline since the mid 1990s, chartable through every post-TNG series along a simple timeline. The fact is that interest in Trek peaked and then declined without respect to series or fan-perceived "quality." Paramount managed to produce a Star Trek series that had a years-long mass audience appeal - TNG - and then were never able to replicate that.

It really is that simple. Look at the numbers over time.

You said it, Dennis, and I agree.

 

[BillJ]

For whatever it's worth, Ex-Astris-Scientia has chipped in two cents on Facebook Re: the io9 piece. It's not lengthy, it's listed "Public," and it's commenting on an openly-published article, so I'll reproduce the text here:

https://www.facebook.com/easpage/posts/955992837760853​

So they are saying that Star Trek should go back to the very loose continuity that it had in the 1960's?

Yep, that's pretty much it.

I doubt that is what they meant nor do I think they meant Trek should be in the same action-adventure style of TOS.

But I'm all for going back to a loose continuity, action-adventure Star Trek!

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^And that's what we've got now. But people don't like it, forgetting about and confusing TOS with TNG, and being angry that it isn't TNG, DS9, or Voyager.

 

[M'Sharak]

For whatever it's worth, Ex-Astris-Scientia has chipped in two cents on Facebook Re: the io9 piece. It's not lengthy, it's listed "Public," and it's commenting on an openly-published article, so I'll reproduce the text here:

[...]

https://www.facebook.com/easpage/posts/955992837760853​

Why should I care about what this guy and his fellow fans (who are all stuck in the past of this franchise and can't deal with the present of it) think about the new movies?

You, specifically? No idea.

If it's not for you, then hit the "Page Down" button and you're on your way. You don't even have to pause long enough to take that peevish and petty swipe at fans with whom you disagree (a habit from which I've been trying to get you to refrain, btw.)

 

[Mudd]

I don’t think optimism needs to be old school, but it needs to be earned. In the end, it’s harder to write characters that aspire and situations that inspire without being hokey and, dare I say, old-fashioned, which is why it’s so important that the creative team be chosen wisely and rise to the challenge before them.

This translates to English as "throw strikes and don't give 'em anything good to hit."

 

[suarezguy]

^And that's what we've got now. But people don't like it

A lot of people did like it, some didn't, some were nuanced. I myself liked ST09 overall (despite disliking nuKirk and the ending) but disliked ID.
I would also argue that the original series was much less focused on action than the reboot is.

forgetting about and confusing TOS with TNG, and being angry that it isn't TNG, DS9, or Voyager.

True, some prefer the style of the latter series and thus like the reboot films less; that isn't an invalid reason nor is it the only reason they could have to be disappointed.

 

[Kruezerman]

This translates to English as "throw strikes and don't give 'em anything good to hit."

That was from the article, not me! I was reading the quote and went, "Wait, I didn't write that!"

Twas very confusing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

if intelligent commentary can be done in the context of a movie (and it was done-they weren't paying attention due to all the hatred of Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman and what they've supposedly 'done' to the franchise)

No, not really. STID pays lip service to some things which are topical to today's society, like terrorism, but they really are just plot devices meant to advance the story. There is nothing profound, significant, or meaningful said on the matter. If anything, they handled it in the same clichéd way any other action movie would.

They condemned the use of drones and executing people without trial. That's more than lip service, it's making a direct judgement about America's overseas tactics.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^And yet, none of the detractors seems to recognize that fact, trapped as they are in their hate for Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman.

 

[The Wormhole]

if intelligent commentary can be done in the context of a movie (and it was done-they weren't paying attention due to all the hatred of Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman and what they've supposedly 'done' to the franchise)

No, not really. STID pays lip service to some things which are topical to today's society, like terrorism, but they really are just plot devices meant to advance the story. There is nothing profound, significant, or meaningful said on the matter. If anything, they handled it in the same clichéd way any other action movie would.

They condemned the use of drones and executing people without trial. That's more than lip service, it's making a direct judgement about America's overseas tactics.

But even then, drones and executing people without trial are the actions of a criminal mastermind with an evil hidden agenda. Again, common action movie tropes which I believe to be the basis behind the storyline moreso than commentary on current day affairs. But then, people always have overstated the analogy aspect of Star Trek, going all the way back to TOS.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Surely, that it's portrayed as a villainous act reinforces the statement rather than detracts from it?

 

[Mudd]

Into Darkness was at least more observant and accurate about our "war on terror" than, say, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" was about race conflict in America. Now, that may well be damning with faint praise, but there's sure no reason to put much of TOS on a pedestal in terms of depth and thematic content relative to Abrams and Orci's last outing.

 

[BillJ]

Into Darkness was at least more observant and accurate about our "war on terror" than, say, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" was about race conflict in America. Now, that may well be damning with faint praise, but there's sure no reason to put much of TOS on a pedestal in terms of depth and thematic content relative to Abrams and Orci's last outing.

I'd pretty much count all of Star Trek in the above statement. None of it was as deep as some folks want to believe.

 

[The Wormhole]

Surely, that it's portrayed as a villainous act reinforces the statement rather than detracts from it?

But that doesn't automatically make it a deep and profound commentary on the matter. If anything, it means Abrams, Orci and the gang are so creatively bankrupt they're now ripping off the news.

Sorry, but a hater's got to hate.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

Into Darkness was at least more observant and accurate about our "war on terror" than, say, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" was about race conflict in America. Now, that may well be damning with faint praise, but there's sure no reason to put much of TOS on a pedestal in terms of depth and thematic content relative to Abrams and Orci's last outing.

I'd pretty much count all of Star Trek in the above statement. None of it was as deep as some folks want to believe.

This!!!!!!!! I love Star Trek....LOVE IT! I love that it contains such messages. But Never, not even in my youth did I have any kind of revelation brought on by an episode. They aren't that deep.

Trek has informed some of my world view but that has come with decades of watching whilst growing up. In fact I haven't seen very many stories that actually made me "think".

 

[Set Harth]

But even then, drones and executing people without trial are the actions of a criminal mastermind with an evil hidden agenda.

Well, duh. That's the point. What would you expect - that these had been the actions of the putative good guys? What would that say?

 

[suarezguy]

^Well Orci claimed their intention was to show how real and perceived dangers can lead good people to bad actions; that message seems undermined by Marcus being a black-and-white villain with apparently no motivation other than wanting to increase his own power, increase suffering and possibly genuinely being paranoid.

 

[BillJ]

^Well Orci claimed their intention was to show how real and perceived dangers can lead good people to bad actions; that message seems undermined by Marcus being a black-and-white villain with apparently no motivation other than wanting to increase his own power, increase suffering and possibly genuinely being paranoid.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

He probably believed the actions he was taking was the best for the Federation.

 

[Belz...]

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has gotten a lot of exposure lately - more, it would seem, than the Trek universe has ever gotten - but I see no reason why subsequent Trek films couldn't receive the same attention that the Marvel films have.

A lot of franchises could go that way; if they can do it as well as Marvel has, it could herald a new whole era of cinema, full stop.

 

[The Wormhole]

^Well Orci claimed their intention was to show how real and perceived dangers can lead good people to bad actions; that message seems undermined by Marcus being a black-and-white villain with apparently no motivation other than wanting to increase his own power, increase suffering and possibly genuinely being paranoid.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

He probably believed the actions he was taking was the best for the Federation.

It might be easier to believe that if he wasn't such an obvious moustache-twirler with a Scary Evil Spaceship.