A lot of Star Trek was dumb prior to the 2009 film. They just didn't have the money to hide it.
Why isn't Star Trek a big movie franchise?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
A lot of Star Trek was dumb prior to the 2009 film. They just didn't have the money to hide it.
You really do seem to be viewing everything MCU through your own bias. Marvel movies may vary in quality, but the best are very good - I'd put Guardians, Winter Soldier and one or two more at the top end of the 'blockbuster' genre. None of the Trek movies do - '09 came closest.
Marvel have some superb actors amongst their casts. Who would you rate in Trek ? Urban is fantastic and Quinto very good, but Pine and Saldana are adequate, Cho and Yelchin forgettable, and Pegg dire. Visually Marvel are in no way 'behind' Trek, and ask yourself - fight choreography ? Are you really saying you were happy with the ridiculous 'superhero' fight at the end of Beyond ? In a Trek movie ? I'll take those in, er.....superhero movies !
Really ? They're films based on comics - they're influenced (!) by the source material. They're not specifically kiddie movies (there's some quite grown up themes in some of them anyway) but could you honestly say Beyond wasn't just as kiddie friendly ?
Films for the masses ? How dare they - there's more credibility in appealing to an ever smaller/more disillusioned bunch of fanboys isn't there ?
I know what it's like to have a general dislike for something - I don't like the majority of movies by some major directors (Spielberg, Nolan, Ridley Scott) but there's SOME I do like. There's enough variety in the MCU for there to be something you like : Ant Man is humorous, Guardians fun SciFi, Winter Soldier conspiracy espionage etc. If you're hating ALL the Marvel movies, chances are it's because of the title card saying MARVEL.
I didn't wholeheartedly take to Trek '09, but it could have grown with further films. To my great disappointment, the opposite seemed the case. I truly thought Beyond sucked, but the next one ? There's always hope...
A movie based on a product that was originally marketed to kids and young adults happens to be very attractive to kids and young adults? Whoda thunk?
On that very subject: it seems to me Star Trek was originally aimed at the same target audience in its first run. The reason people seem to forget this is because those kids and young adults eventually brought the show back when they retained their fandom into adulthood and demanded more. I don't think, however, that Star Trek was ever at its best when it was trying to hook an older, more sophisticated audience.
That was exactly what Roddenberry was trying to do, hook adults, with TOS.
I got the impression he was keeping it simple and accessible for a wider audience and not aiming for people who already were (or thought they were) more intelligent than most people. This would include young adults and kids who might find space monsters and laser blasters entertaining.
I'm alluding to later incarnations that implied or at least liked to pretend you needed an advanced degree in physics to understand half the dialog.
I think you can be adult, and accessible and fun at the same time. "The Man Trap" while about a BEM (bug eyed monster) also touches on themes of survival in a very adult manner. Also, the sexual tension between the Crater-creature and Darnell was adult (for its time).
There was a certain "fun factor" that was lost for most of the spinoffs.
There's a reason Harrison Ford got top billing for The Force Awakens. What's happening to the Star Wars franchise right now is similar (albeit on a more accelerated and commercially successful level) to what's been happening to the Star Trek franchise since 2009. After a long stretch of less popular spin-off material, the franchise is visibly changing course by returning to the most recognizable characters from its beginning. We can debate about which franchise is doing more believable "world building" in the creative trenches, and there's probably no debate about who's winning on the merchandising front, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think nostalgia appeal is the broad creative and marketing force driving both franchises right now.
As for Marvel, I really dislike most of it, including some of the "best" stuff by majority consensus (I found Guardians insufferable), but maybe Relayer1 has a point about it being so huge and diverse that there's something for everyone. I loved the Agent Carter series and by extension got interested in the Captain America movies.
As for Marvel, I really dislike most of it, including some of the "best" stuff by majority consensus (I found Guardians insufferable), but maybe Relayer1 has a point about it being so huge and diverse that there's something for everyone. I loved the Agent Carter series and by extension got interested in the Captain America movies.
star trek 2009, STID alone are superior to the MCU in terms of story telling and vfx. those movies are not dumbed down in any way, shape or form.
Guardians of the Galaxy is an awful movie, remove all the jokes and fancy cgi , what we have a very mediocre plot. STID is overall a better political movie than winter solider and STID did not have a derivate plot like the winter solider.
I don't buy the idea they are based on comic book movies. the dark knight and days of future past are based on comic book movies, yet those comic book movies have more maturity, heavy themes and more depth than the entire mcu movies.
if you wants a real political comic book movie watch X-Men 2 or X-Men: First Class. Both movies are not as derivate as the winter Solider.
star trek beyond was not kid friendly, the overall tone of the movie was serious and the first act of the film with the destruction of the enterprise was very heavy and dark and there are no constant jokes in beyond to keep the tone of the film light like we see in MCU movies.
like I stated before, star trek at its weakest will still be better than the generic mcu movies.
I'm sorry but marvel films are awful to me. I wonder what will be of the franchise if not for the cinematic universe element and the good PR that disney has.
I found the plotting /gaping plot holes unforgivably distracting in '09 and deliberately tried to ignore them in STID and Beyond. I did find the writing poor though.
Beyond was every bit as kid friendly as any of the MCU movies. Dark ? Half of the crew got killed or kidnapped. Of course, the remainder of the crew were so traumatised the rest of the film focussed on their treatment for PTSD didn't it ? No, it was a bubblegum movie, not bloody Platoon !
PR ? It might give you a decent opening, but it won't make a hit out of a film audiences don't like.
I'm probably not getting any traction though, any old Trek is best though, isn't it ? We'll just have to agree to disagree...
PS - X Men movies. I really like some of them. I think we can agree about them !
Last edited:
How many times has Star Trek actually dealt with PTSD in a realistic manner? Kelvin universe at least offered Spock going through trauma and possible consequences. I think First Contact and Family are the closest with PIcard and the Borg, and then Nog dealing with the loss of his leg in DS9.
Pop culture psychology and everything being wrapped up by the end is not exclusive to Kelvin universe or Star Trek in general.
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out that rather than go off into a dark introspective direction, Beyond acted like the summer action adventure movie it is and sailed on relatively untroubled. Being exactly the same kind of movie the MCU films are...
In terms of big budget franchises, Trek is way up there , at least in volume of content (not box office, perhaps).
Bond has 24 official movies. And 2 unofficial ones. Trek has 13. In recent years, only Marvel may have the same, or more. Then you have endless low budget horror sequels. And countless Godzilla, Dracula, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, etc films
Bond has 24 official movies. And 2 unofficial ones. Trek has 13. In recent years, only Marvel may have the same, or more. Then you have endless low budget horror sequels. And countless Godzilla, Dracula, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, etc films
Isn't there an episode were someone was almost raped in TOS and it ends with a laugh track and a joke?
What about Voyager were the Doctor watches his holographic daughter die and it's never mentioned again?
It's not just the MCU or summer blockbuster films. It's as much a part of Star Trek as space ships and ray guns. I'm more impressed by Into Darkness and Beyond in that they even acknowledge Kirk's foibles and emotions, and Spock's own trauma from the loss of Vulcan. MCU at least had some consequences building from past films too, from the Tesseract, to the destruction of the Rainbow Bridge, to the Sovokia Accords being a response to Ultron, etc.
Sorry, it feels like Kelvin universe is on the hook for things that Prime Trek did and got away with and this latest point is just added to the list.
Laugh tracks in Trek?
It was one episode, 50 years ago. Different society, attitudes, etc. Everybody survived, no real damage done. The focus of the story was the duality of Kirk.
That's episodic TV. It's the way things were done in the dark ages, before audiences required a continuing storyline in prime time TV to fill the holes in their otherwise empty lives.
Well there's also that one time time Chekov tried to rape Kang's wife...Laugh tracks in Trek?
It was one episode, 50 years ago. Different society, attitudes, etc. Everybody survived, no real damage done. The focus of the story was the duality of Kirk.
It doesn't bother me, save for when Kelvin Trek it feels like Kelvin Trek is being torn down for something that had been done in prior Treks. It's just a frustration of mine.Laugh tracks in Trek?
It was one episode, 50 years ago. Different society, attitudes, etc. Everybody survived, no real damage done. The focus of the story was the duality of Kirk.
That's episodic TV. It's the way things were done in the dark ages, before audiences required a continuing storyline in prime time TV to fill the holes in their otherwise empty lives.
Also, the laugh track was hyperbole. Should have looked up the scene.
I think another problem with the NuTrek not being as popular as the bigger franchises is that Abrams was a Star Wars fan and tried to make NuTrek in that vein. Now that SW is back it makes NuTrek pale in comparison. Basically NuTrek is a poor mans SW. Thats just my humble opinion of course.
I really, in the depths of my soul, don't think there is a correlation there at all.
I remember, back when Star Trek (2009) was first released, there were all kinds of arguments that Abrams had Star-Wars-ized the movie, many based on the flimsiest of evidence. Someone actually said that Abrams had Spock quote odds because of C3PO. I guess that true Star Trek fan defending the franchise from the dreaded Jar Jar Abrams hadn't watched "Errand of Mercy" recently.
Similar threads
