Is Star Trek 2009 overhyped by desesperate Trek fans?

[Blue_Trek]

Nope, it's overhated by desperate bashers.

I declare war on the bashers, take your ball and go home to other threads that deal with the old Trek. Your time has come and gone with the advent of total success. Bye Bye now.

I think you need a servant by your side on your parade.

"All glory is fleeting"



Seriously, though, that's not particularly pluralistic and even downright autocratic for you to say. They deserve the ability to post here just as much as you do, outnumbered or not. ...

Quite so. All opinions are welcome, though I'd much rather an open-minded discussion than a declared war with opinions hurled like missiles. Say what you think, with the understanding that others are not required to agree with you.

They deserve as much voice as anyone else, but they shouldn't let their post volume create an echo chamber to the point where it gives them the idea that they're some kind of groundswell of resistance to a brainwashed majority.

There will always be the true believers. They get to say things, too, and no one is compelled to agree, or even to answer.

They're even tinier of a minority than people who still think Bush II was a good president.

I'll ask, however, that the politics be checked at the door. We're talking about the movie here, and it's been demonstrated many times over tat the other stuff just gets in the way, particularly for those who are not Americans.

I don't mind people expressing their opinions, we all need to do that either way, it just seems that some fans are angry with the fact that the film is so successful, when most fans are cheering for a great new Trek, and these guys are all bitter about it. It's so stupid and super annoying.

 

[theFirebottle]

I don't mind people expressing their opinions, we all need to do that either way, it just seems that some fans are angry with the fact that the film is so successful, when most fans are cheering for a great new Trek, and these guys are all bitter about it. It's so stupid and super annoying.

Agreed. Why are they allowed to call us "desperate" and heap derision on us and our taste in movies while we get warned for calling them on their crap?

 

[Zeppster]

In Star Trek's history the movies get panned by major critics and some of that is deserved. Some of the Star Trek movies are not really all that watchable. But this movie is getting love from most of all the critics that watch thousands and thousands of movies a year. They know what movies are good and bad. It's their job. And when a majority of them like it it's not hype it's the truth. These are the same type of critics that panned Nemesis that panned Insurrection. Sci Fi Movies don't really get much love from critics. But this one is. That just shows what a good product it is. There's not Trekkie hype about this. This movie is good because it had the right people working for it and is a good quality flick. It could even win some of the special effects type Oscars.

 

[Feofilakt]

We don't mind if Star Trek have become only a brainless action blockbuster movie anymore. Average Trek is better than no Trek. Sure the movie have many faults, but we dont care. Star Trek is alive and its a commercial success!

That's how we feel? I must have missed the meeting.

Okay, I must admit, I am very excited to see a Star Trek film achieving true major box office success. That hasn't happened in a very long time and it's nice to know that the Star Trek brand hasn't been so beaten into the ground by the sub-par crap we've gotten in the last few outings, both on the big and small screens, that it can't recover.

Having said that, though, does not mean that I will be satisfied with anything Paramount or CBS put out as long as it has the name 'Star Trek' on it.

I wouldn't go so far as to categorize the current film as 'brainless,' but I think we can all agree that it is definitely designed as a blockbuster action 'popcorn flick.' Fair enough. And I think that there's room for that in the Trek universe. Trek has certainly done its share of high octane action over the years, and it has most definitely had its fair share of stories that were brainless.

However, I will be very disappointed if this becomes the template on which all future Trek is built and we can never deviate from that formula. Trek has always been a mixture of story types and I hope to see that continue. In short, I'm willing to accept that a 'Star Trek' can be a viable part of the franchise, but I'd like it to also be accepted that a 'The Motion Picture' can too.

Well said, my negativity stems not so much that the movie was terrible (mediocre, yeah, terrible... I've seen worse) but that it will likely serve as the template for further movies or series. One installment of action packed Trek that is light on the substance by design (as it -is- a popcorn blockbuster movie) I can take, but if that becomes the whole of future Trek we will have lost quite a bit in transition.

I'm also bothered by a segment of the population that seems obsessed with the popularity of the fandom, as if that is a stable indicator of greatness or even stable to begin with. If the future installments we are given are popular but have a repetitive lack of substance and are merely the same formula as this movie I'm not quite sure how that is a positive development. Candy is well and good, but too much makes you sick. Having dessert as the first course is an interesting spin, for example, but if every single course is dessert the meal will quickly become tiresome.

There is also the matter regarding how much of the population will stick to Trek and make it a viable fandom in the future. Many of the indicators that I have seen suggest that while a small portion of the newcomers are attracted and will stick in some capacity, most will not and this is merely a passing thing. To provide an example: Out of eight of my friends who have seen it:

-One is an old school Trekkie from the beginning and likes it because, well, he never really stated why. He just thinks it is "good".

-One is a Star Wars guy and thought he would like Trek after watching the movie, but upon renting a whole bunch of Trek series (Some volumes of TOS and TNG, AFAIK) his opinion on Trek quickly deteriorated. He remains optimistic that the future of Trek will be more of the same, but I regularly inform him that if Trek were to become Star Wars, I'd just switch to Star Wars.

-One saw the movie, thought it was OK, and asked me to direct him to a series. I suggested TNG (My favorite) and his opinion of original Trek improved while his opinion of the movie deteriorated.

-And the rest? Two thought the movie was mediocre, and the other three liked it immensely. All five have no attachment to Star Trek at the moment.

Extremely small sample, I know, and not particularly statistically relevant, but I think the hopes that this movie will bring in droves of dedicated fans is misguided at best, and if the results were to bring in droves, I doubt the Star Trek they will appreciate will be resemble what we appreciate in any but the most superficial level.

 

[theFirebottle]

Well said, my negativity stems not so much that the movie was terrible (mediocre, yeah, terrible... I've seen worse) but that it will likely serve as the template for further movies or series. One installment of action packed Trek that is light on the substance by design (as it -is- a popcorn blockbuster movie) I can take, but if that becomes the whole of future Trek we will have lost quite a bit in transition.

The problem here is that so many of us disagree with you that the movie is mediocre or insubstantial or popcorny. I've given so many examples of substance in this film, either character-related or plot-related, that the word "substance" stops seeming like a real word because I see it so many damn times in a paragraph. The only response I seem to get is "That's not substance!" but when I ask what the hell they mean by substance, the response is "We're allowed to air our grievances too! Free speech! Stop oppressing us!"

 

[Feofilakt]

Well said, my negativity stems not so much that the movie was terrible (mediocre, yeah, terrible... I've seen worse) but that it will likely serve as the template for further movies or series. One installment of action packed Trek that is light on the substance by design (as it -is- a popcorn blockbuster movie) I can take, but if that becomes the whole of future Trek we will have lost quite a bit in transition.

The problem here is that so many of us disagree with you that the movie is mediocre or insubstantial or popcorny. I've given so many examples of substance in this film, either character-related or plot-related, that the word "substance" stops seeming like a real word because I see it so many damn times in a paragraph. The only response I seem to get is "That's not substance!" but when I ask what the hell they mean by substance, the response is "We're allowed to air our grievances too! Free speech! Stop oppressing us!"

Hence, we enter the realm of opinion. Your point?

IIRC, your appeal that the movie had lots of substance didn't exactly resonate, and you appeared to be reaching. The issue is that the case that the movie is light on substance is easier to make than the movie had gads of it. Why? Because the former is based on observation, the latter is more a function of inference.

Is there anything wrong with a lack of substance? Not intrinsically, though I do prefer something with tighter dialogue and plot as well as some sort of ethical or philosophical sophistication in as much a form as the medium allows. My statement is that while this movie is fine at the moment, I honestly want something that is a bit more weighty for the next installment, otherwise we do run into the rut of "more of the same".

 

[indranee]

My statement is that while this movie is fine at the moment, I honestly want something that is a bit more weighty for the next installment, otherwise we do run into the rut of "more of the same".

QFT.

 

[theFirebottle]

Hence, we enter the realm of opinion. Your point?

IIRC, your appeal that the movie had lots of substance didn't exactly resonate, and you appeared to be reaching. The issue is that the case that the movie is light on substance is easier to make than the movie had gads of it. Why? Because the former is based on observation, the latter is more a function of inference.

Is there anything wrong with a lack of substance? Not intrinsically, though I do prefer something with tighter dialogue and plot as well as some sort of ethical or philosophical sophistication in as much a form as the medium allows. My statement is that while this movie is fine at the moment, I honestly want something that is a bit more weighty for the next installment, otherwise we do run into the rut of "more of the same".

Of course it's easier to say it had no substance. That doesn't require any thinking about what happened on the screen! The people who disliked the film often complain that it didn't make them think, and I say it's because they were making such an effort not to think that nothing any movie could have done would make them think.

You know what made me think? The offhand comment about Chris Pike writing a dissertation. I thought, "Holy crap, maybe this Starfleet really takes science seriously! Maybe instead of one-episode negative space wedgie phenomena making themselves known and then disappearing without anyone doing much besides pointing a scanner at them, we'll actually get Real Scientists doing Real Science." Or Uhura being a xenolinguist who actually studies languages, can translate stuff, and is more than a switchboard operator. She speaks at least three languages. That is so cool! At first, I was annoyed that Romulans apparently have one language with three dialects, when what we know about linguistic diversity tells us they should have thousands of languages and uncountable dialects. Then I talked it over with someone in another thread, and started thinking, "Hey, maybe it's because Starfleet only knows about one language and have only been able to secure data on three of its dialects! Maybe the Romulans have a standardized language of commerce/education/military! That's actually plausible!"

I care about science fiction and space opera because I write space opera. If I had written this Trek film, I'd be pretty proud of myself.

 

[smosquito]

I will agree the movie had points where there was substance. Points where Kirk and Spock have real character interaction; there is substance there.

This was overwhelmed in my mind by the feeling that the writers wanted to make an action film appealing to the mass audience. I for one hate being pandered to as a mass audience. I hate to 'suck it' and continue on as if I had been fed something I thought was acceptable.

I'm glad for all of you who enjoyed the movie. But it's not Star Trek with capital S and T. If you think so fine. But to me it is not. It's a Transformers, or X-men script, with characters who play off of being Kirk and Spock and McCoy... but with a simpler plot. Action at all costs. Blow up Vulcan - no problem. 40 Years of Canon can suck it. Maroon Kirk... 40 years of ethical behaviour from Spock can suck it. Engineering in the film looks less sophisticated than it did 40 years ago on an episodic television series... suck it. Scotty is the imbecile Simon Pegg with an Ewok rather than Robert Carlisle or some other scottish actor with some capability to project gravitas... suck it. If you think Star Trek should be allowed to continue without being turned into popular culture rubbish then you can suck it. Change the ENTERPRISE which was absolutely BEAUTIFUL... suck it.

And Alternate Universe my ass. This becomes the true universe as far as new star trek is concerned from the release date of the film. We can't go back to a universe where Vulcan exists, where Spock didn't maroon Kirk. Where Engineering isn't a brewery (but is a plywood model with tinfoil and cardboard and lights inside yet which at least looks like the future rather than a waste processing plant). Where the enterprise looks like it did and should.

Big shoes. Big expectations. We should hold the new Star Trek to the very highest standard if they want to be Star Trek. People like me will not give the movie a pass.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Well I certainly think its better than every other Trek film other than Khan.

Yep..thats how I call it too (and if we went by NORMAL NON FANS? They are calling it number one which is far more important than us I dare say)

Rob

 

[RobertScorpio]

The first time I saw it, I was blown away, to the point where I wanted to walk straight back in and see it again.

The second time, having seen it already I could sit back and take in every little detail, and had a fucking great time, probably even more than the first when it was sensory-overload.

The third time, I enjoyed myself so much, that for the last 5 minutes, from the moment the Enterprise zooms to safety, I was grinning and smiling like a little kid until a few moments into the end credits when I got up to leave.

Phenomenal film, and to answer your question, no it's not overhyped. It's a remarkable achievement.

Yep..and I agree totaly with 'each time' you saw it...I've seen it five times now..so add your FOURTH and FIFTH times so I can see if we are still in tune..

Those who are hating this movie, for all the reasons they mention, are just pissing in the wind. Either they wanted a boring exploration story or another TNG movie. Thank the lords of Kobol that none of these people have any say in the matter; or TREK would REALLY be dead.

Rob

 

[stonester1]

Big shoes. Big expectations. We should hold the new Star Trek to the very highest standard if they want to be Star Trek. People like me will not give the movie a pass.

And all four of you will miss out.

 

[theFirebottle]

Trek has never been about high concept navel-gazing anyways. There were a few episodes of TOS that raised interesting questions about ethics, society, and other "philosophical" items of interest, but they're equalled or outdone in number by the episodes where Kirk gets his shirt torn off in a manly and/or stupid fistfight or McCoy gets to wander around with scantily clad, vapid alien babes hanging on each arm.

Holding Trek to the highest standard is an okay idea, so long as we scale the standard to what Trek actually is -- space opera -- and not ludicrous nostalgia-filter notions about how Trek is/was as deep as the oceans.

 

[smosquito]

Trek has never been about high concept navel-gazing anyways. There were a few episodes of TOS that raised interesting questions about ethics, society, and other "philosophical" items of interest, but they're equalled or outdone in number by the episodes where Kirk gets his shirt torn off in a manly and/or stupid fistfight or McCoy gets to wander around with scantily clad, vapid alien babes hanging on each arm.

No. Trek was never about navel gazing. It is ALWAYS always subject to the requirements of action and adventure... But there were bounds. The bounds were where the primary characters betrayed each other or the values of the Federation. Spock would never maroon Kirk. Spock wouldn't maroon Nero! Spock is totally completely ethical.

Kirk having sex with alien babes O.K. Kirk being promoted to Captain in a couple of days - stupid.

There is a difference between a long essay on philosophy and Star Trek. We all agree on that. There is a difference between Star Trek and Shakespeare. We all agree on that. But there was a difference between Star Trek and crap- such as Transformers. Or whatever other Comic book inspired films are making the rounds...

The difference is that:

1. Long term fans mostly think that Star Trek should be held accountable to a 40 year old canon. It's generated billions of dollars in direct revenue for Paramount studios. It's inspired cell phones, computers, board games, ridiculous conventions where people dress up in bumpy head costumes and other innovations. Why not be consistent with all of that?

2. Other films have been made that did not directly contravene the Star Trek canon. They were successful. (Mostly because IMO they did not involve TNG or the bankrupt TNG writers - which is the most worthless Star Trek incarnation.)

 

[smosquito]

And all four of you will miss out.

Whether there's four of us, a hundred million of us or 10^-6 of us I am right. And you are not.

 

[Tentacle]

Uhura's ambition paid off in that her knowledge contributed to saving the Enterprise. If she'd gone to the Farragut like a good little cadet, preserving Spock's image of avoiding favoritism, she'd be dead and the Enterprise would have been destroyed with the fleet and Nero would have continued his rampage.

uhura saved the day?
OK lets see uhura told the captain the romulans are attacking. And what did pike do? he still warped into the system and got his ass kicked. Only when nero saw that it was the enterprise that he stopped attacking.

Now if uhura never came abort. Pike warps into the system, gets his ass kicked. Nero stops because its the enterprise.

How is that any different? uhura made no contribution at all, they only gave her that nonesense about lighting storms just so that it doesnt seem blantenly obivous, she's there just for sex appeal.

The payoff of every character's loss is written all over the screen. The entire plot revolves around the consequences of Nero's loss.

If you mean by nero's loss he turned into a 1 dimensional lunatic. Sure.
Great piece of writing on that part.

 

[Aragorn]

Whether there's four of us, a hundred million of us or 10^-6 of us I am right. And you are not.

So is this what some of you have hitched your trailer to in your crusade against the movie?

 

[Tentacle]

Of course it's easier to say it had no substance. That doesn't require any thinking about what happened on the screen! The people who disliked the film often complain that it didn't make them think, and I say it's because they were making such an effort not to think that nothing any movie could have done would make them think.

You know what made me think? The offhand comment about Chris Pike writing a dissertation. I thought, "Holy crap, maybe this Starfleet really takes science seriously! Maybe instead of one-episode negative space wedgie phenomena making themselves known and then disappearing without anyone doing much besides pointing a scanner at them, we'll actually get Real Scientists doing Real Science."

You must be very easily impressed. pike writing a dissertation, that's so genius and ground breaking. Who would of thought a starfleet officer had to write.
Cue your average teen, "cool even pike had to do home work just like me."

Or Uhura being a xenolinguist who actually studies languages, can translate stuff, and is more than a switchboard operator. She speaks at least three languages. That is so cool!

Another groundbreaking concept a communication officer who can actually communicate. Oh wait its been done before SATO.

At first, I was annoyed that Romulans apparently have one language with three dialects, when what we know about linguistic diversity tells us they should have thousands of languages and uncountable dialects. Then I talked it over with someone in another thread, and started thinking, "Hey, maybe it's because Starfleet only knows about one language and have only been able to secure data on three of its dialects! Maybe the Romulans have a standardized language of commerce/education/military! That's actually plausible!" I care about science fiction and space opera because I write space opera. If I had written this Trek film, I'd be pretty proud of myself.

Now if you are going to add to the script perhaps you should be paid. I wouldnt mind see your name up there in the credits, maybe then the movie would be less brainless.

 

[smosquito]

So is this what some of you have hitched your trailer to in your crusade against the movie?[ /QUOTE]

Right and wrong are absolute. Like the Federation. Like Root Beer. Like me. And like you. How many of us on one side or the other is irrelevant. I will speak my mind whether I am alone or not.

I hate the new film. It's not Star Trek. It is rubbish. I am right. You are wrong.

 

[indranee]

^nice. keep on trekkin'... with your dvd sets of yore.