All of them would. Come on, these JJ movies are devoid of story, it's just one effects shot after the other, intermixed with bad jokes.
Do you want the Kelvin Universe to continue?
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
All of them would. Come on, these JJ movies are devoid of story, it's just one effects shot after the other, intermixed with bad jokes.
Not really, no.
And you reached this conclusion... before watching the JJ movies, or in tandem with the certainty that it wouldn't be necessary for you to watch them at all? The broad-brush dismissals make it difficult to tell which of those two it was, but the dull ring of "final draft of review written in advance of viewing" is pretty unmistakable.
And the previous movies were not full of effects and bad jokes? Have you even seen them?
Well, I must have watched different films. For me, especially the first two, these films have beautiful story and wonderful character work that still moves me to this day.
Jim finding direction and purpose in life, Spock dealing with bigotry and coming to accept himself as an emotional half-human... did you miss these? Or Into Darkness condemning drone warfare, and Spock learning the value of friendship?
I wonder how much of classic Trek would hold up for you, if you were coming to it today.
I went into the first one with an open mind, as I enjoyed J.J's previous work. I had barely an issue with the alternate timeline, only except that it was not Trek tradition to diverge from continuity. I thought the acting was okay, and it was a fun movie. I lamented that in timeline hopping they couldn't find a way to have Shatner in there with Nimoy, huge missed opportunity as far as I'm concerned. In any event, again, Pine, Quinto, Saldana, very good. The rest of the cast leaves some to be desired. Urban's Bones was terrible though I love him in The Boys. Pegg's Scotty is too divergent but whatever, he's an actor I enjoy. Into Darkness was really bad. Cumberbach's Khan was an insult to Montelban. Beyond was definitely a welcomed "return to normalcy," however, especially after Kurtzman returned Trek to the "small screen," I just don't see a point of continuing this movie franchise. The OP question was do you want to see it continue, and my strong inclination is no......
HOWEVER, as a lifelong devotee of Quentin Tarantino, that would be the lone exception! His take would be such a vast departure it would be worth it, although I don't think he'll ever have the chance to do it.
TOS Movies were pretty light on effects other than TMP which many people hated, and the jokes in it were GOOD jokes.
I probably did miss them because I have only seen each of them once in theaters, with no interest in rewatching. Plus I've seen all you mention already, in the 1966 TV show. Rehashing characters a 2nd time around just doesn't appeal to me. Not to mention that J.J.'s film-making has gotten progressively unbearable to me. His Star Wars movies, while exciting the first time through, are just littered with problems that make rewatches very tough.
They were as 'effects filled' as any of the sci fi films of the day, with the exception of the OT Star Wars. The jokes were mostly solid - for the time - until, say TVH but if you take the rose tinted spectacles off a lot of it is fairly cheesy and cringeworthy, especially for someone coming to it fresh these days.
In my opinion of course - I say this as a massive fan of the TOS movies.
Pretty big themes to miss.
Indeed, yes. This often is missed. ST 09 was made in the 2000s and had effects similar to other films of the era. TOS and TMP were both products of their times and had effects to match. ST 09 didn't do anything groundbreaking. It made a Star Trek movie in the 2000s.
Of course they were cheesy! That's why Star Trek was for Trekkies! We didn't care what the gen pop thought about the franchise, it was OUR THING. The new films obviously had to be grafted to wider audiences, in order to make more money/justify the budgets which were insane.
Mehh, blame the director then. The only vibe I got was Mission: Impossible in space.
Star Trek shouldn't be just for Star Trek fans. That's unnecessarily isolationist.
Amen. Star Trek was never meant to be some cult, cliquey thing intended only for True Believers, preaching only to the converted. It started out as a prime-time series on NBC for Pete's sake, intended for general audiences.
Star Trek is not just for us Trekkies and never has been. Nor should it be.
Exactly. It became a cult when - as this happens - the show left the network and the general audience (whoever was left) moved on and the "Star Trek Nuts" kept the series alive. "Trekkies' came out of Star Trek, not the other way around.
The only problem is, the general audience doesn't care consistently. It didn't care in1966 and doesn't care much now. The success of Star Trek movies had more to do with fan hunger in the 80's and the popularity of SF/Fantasy films at the time. Man, the 80's were filled with great (and not so great) SF/Fantasy flicks. Star Trek II just happened to have a solid story, Ricardo Montalban and a resurgence in Star Trek's popularity. This was also the age of the 1960's TV show reunion movies and specials. The timing for Star Trek's return was just right. It was a wave that crested with TVH and then crashed with TFF.
So, sure, make a Star Trek film that appeals to everyone, if possible. Maybe people will come see it. But if Paramount wants it to be profitable, they need to scale that shit down and not make it a summer tentpole. The audience isn't there. I also feel like whatever curiosity was there to see how a younger cast could fill familiar roles was satisfied with the first film. After that, it was on to Transformers and Marvel. Would a Star Trek film with a completely original setting and set of characters make any money in the theaters? Even Star Wars offshoot films like Rogue One and Solo didn't do as well as they expected.
I'd be happy with another Kelvin Trek film because I really think the cast got it just right with Beyond. But if it's over, then I'll just wait patiently for the Pike series to give me my new 23rd century Enterprise adventures.
The only problem is, the general audience doesn't care consistently. It didn't care in1966 and doesn't care much now. The success of Star Trek movies had more to do with fan hunger in the 80's and the popularity of SF/Fantasy films at the time. Man, the 80's were filled with great (and not so great) SF/Fantasy flicks. Star Trek II just happened to have a solid story, Ricardo Montalban and a resurgence in Star Trek's popularity. This was also the age of the 1960's TV show reunion movies and specials. The timing for Star Trek's return was just right. It was a wave that crested with TVH and then crashed with TFF.
So, sure, make a Star Trek film that appeals to everyone, if possible. Maybe people will come see it. But if Paramount wants it to be profitable, they need to scale that shit down and not make it a summer tentpole. The audience isn't there. I also feel like whatever curiosity was there to see how a younger cast could fill familiar roles was satisfied with the first film. After that, it was on to Transformers and Marvel. Would a Star Trek film with a completely original setting and set of characters make any money in the theaters? Even Star Wars offshoot films like Rogue One and Solo didn't do as well as they expected.
I'd be happy with another Kelvin Trek film because I really think the cast got it just right with Beyond. But if it's over, then I'll just wait patiently for the Pike series to give me my new 23rd century Enterprise adventures.
Last edited:
I agree. 2009 got my brother and sister-in-law to take a step into my world. I rather liked that. I want them to see Trek and enjoy it.
As @BenWyatt said: "They're making a sequel... I'm assuming with the same alternate timeline. But if J.J. Abrams and company expect us to believe that it's Spock with the romantic tension with Uhura and not Kirk... Well, let's just say, the message boards are goin' nuts."
Sure, I'd love more Kelvin movies. Preferably with as many of the existing actors as they can get.
It's not our Spock. This was clear even back in 2009. I find Peck's work in Disco and Strange New Worlds to be filling in the story of "our" Spock and Quinto's basically playing a different character (who diverged from our Spock when he was 3 years old)
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Poll
