• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

i wish abrams had made a post ds9/voy movie isntead!

Which is what makes it jumping on the bandwagon. Whenever someone does something remotely successful, there are soon a lot of shows which try to replicate that success. Remember all the prequels after Star Wars started making them? This time it was BSG and "Batman Begins" that caused everyone to think a reboot was a really cool idea. There have been remakes for a while, but recently there have been a lot of them.

No, I dont recall all that many prequels. Hollywood is always about "duplicating success". We got the Trek movies partialy because of Star Wars. And no doubt it factored into TNG getting the green light too. Hell, TNG was a reboot (Star Trek done "right" in GR's mind) So lets not poo poo Hollywoods habits so quickly, ;)

No, there is nothing about the franchise or its established continuity that good writing wouldn't have made better. That's like everyone claiming not that long ago that "franchise fatigue" was the big problem. No, it was bad writing and bad decisions made by the producers, and probably executive meddling from UPN. For some reason they got it in their heads that Star Trek fans are morons, and their product reflected that. From what I've seen, the new movie seems to reflect that same attitude.
Star Trek fans were probably the furthest thing from the executives' minds. They are usualy after a wider audience. On the other hand the people making the movie were fans to varying degrees.

The same in that it is yet another dime a dozen remake.
What does that really mean? it was a success. It hit the right notes with the general audience. The same cannot be said for other remakes out this year and the past few years.
 
Which is odd as I haven't met a single 'Star Trek fan in general' who liked the movie.

I'm a Star Trek fan in general, and I liked it.
Have I met you?
Broccoli said:
Shazam! said:
Why should we care about mirror universe variants of characters?

Why shouldn't we?
Yeah, it's not like we were all completely indifferent upon hearing that mirror Sisko had kicked the bucket.

Broccoli said:
I don't deny that the movie set out to make fat businessmen as much money as possible, nor am I shocked by it. It is kind of a shame though.

I have truth bomb for you: every bit of Star Trek ever produced from TOS to ENT, from toys to novel tie-ins were set out to "make fat businessmen as much money as possible." The new movie is no different.
*Taz sigh*

Nevermind.
 
No, I dont recall all that many prequels.
They even made one for "Tremors." :wtf:

Hollywood is always about "duplicating success". We got the Trek movies partialy because of Star Wars. And no doubt it factored into TNG getting the green light too. Hell, TNG was a reboot (Star Trek done "right" in GR's mind) So lets not poo poo Hollywoods habits so quickly, ;)
Correction, we got Trek movies instead of a new series because of Star Wars. We got Star Wars partially because of Star Trek. Of course none of this is relevant to how lame it is that they rebooted Star Trek because of BSG.

Star Trek fans were probably the furthest thing from the executives' minds. They are usualy after a wider audience. On the other hand the people making the movie were fans to varying degrees.
Which is probably why so much of modern Trek has tended to suck. And the person behind making this movie admitted he liked Star Wars much better, which is probably why he made this movie so much like it.

What does that really mean? it was a success. It hit the right notes with the general audience. The same cannot be said for other remakes out this year and the past few years.
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" probably hit the right notes for some people, too. Of course being popular still doesn't change the fact that Star Trek is now just another remake from decades past.
 
Well, it's official: This topic has now degenerated into nothing more than a stupid little pissing match between a few members. Let's see if we can conclude it. OK?

The OP (who has actually not even responded once to his own post, making me think that he probably didn't even care a whole lot about what he was asking), stated that he wished Abrams made a post-TNG movie instead of a TOS movie, and several people chimed in stating that this would have probably been a bad idea.

End of discussion.

(P.S. No, I don't really believe this will be the end of the discussion. I totally feel more pissing coming on).
 
Well, it's official: This topic has now degenerated into nothing more than a stupid little pissing match between a few members. Let's see if we can conclude it. OK?

The OP (who has actually not even responded once to his own post, making me think that he probably didn't even care a whole lot about what he was asking), stated that he wished Abrams made a post-TNG movie instead of a TOS movie, and several people chimed in stating that this would have probably been a bad idea.

End of discussion.

(P.S. No, I don't really believe this will be the end of the discussion. I totally feel more pissing coming on).
My, that is a terribly tall horse you appear to be riding in on.
 
Well, it's official: This topic has now degenerated into nothing more than a stupid little pissing match between a few members. Let's see if we can conclude it. OK?

The OP (who has actually not even responded once to his own post, making me think that he probably didn't even care a whole lot about what he was asking), stated that he wished Abrams made a post-TNG movie instead of a TOS movie, and several people chimed in stating that this would have probably been a bad idea.

End of discussion.

(P.S. No, I don't really believe this will be the end of the discussion. I totally feel more pissing coming on).
My, that is a terribly tall horse you appear to be riding in on.

See, I told you...:rolleyes:
 
Dunno, I wish ENT and VOY had been in alternate universes too.
Can't speak for VOY ( bailed halfway) but ENT fits better with the "Prime Universe" than TOS does. Heck it fits in with TOS better than TOS does most of the time. ;)

That's why ENT was mentioned in the movie (re: Archer's dog disappearing in a transporter accident) and most of the tech looks like it was developed from what was on ENT (re: the phasers).

Oh, BTW, about everybody loving the new movie, I have some surprises for most of you:

Nestled within J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek movie is a standard Hollywood torture scene. Nero, the Romulan antagonist, straps Capt. Pike of the Enterprise to a futuristic hospital gurney and demands secret defense codes. Naturally, Pike refuses. So—in a nod to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan—Nero forces a mind-control insect down the captain's throat as he stoically recites his name, rank, and serial number. Torture, here, is routine—not an ethical atrocity but an item on the blockbuster checklist—and predictable: The captain has the information his interrogator needs, but, as long as he's in his right mind, he's able to resist divulging it.
It's too bad Abrams didn't look deeper into the Star Trek canon for inspiration. There is a remarkable depiction of torture in Star Trek: The Next Generation, one that is both more sophisticated than the Capt. Pike scenario and more pertinent to current affairs than the ticking-time-bomb set pieces of 24. In an episode from the series' sixth season, Capt. Picard embarks on a mission to destroy a biological weapon and is taken prisoner by a hostile alien race, the Cardassians. Believing that Picard is privy to strategic military secrets, the Cardassians inject him with a truth serum. When this technique fails to produce information, the Cardassians string up their captive in a stress position, strip him naked, and subject him to extreme physical torment—zapping him with a pain-administering device. For good measure, the lead Cardassian interrogator also devises a test meant to inflict mental anguish: He points four bright lights at Picard and asks him, repeatedly, to say that there are five. (A clear homage to the four-vs.-five-fingers sequence in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.)

There Are Four Lights!
(Revisiting Star Trek: The Next Generation's eerily prescient torture episode.)


Or it’s television—like Gene Roddenberry’s now-legendary 1966-1969 television series Star Trek,which uncannily simulated pop culture conformity. Rigid sets, contrived futurism and made-up aliens offered a cast that was “multi-culti” avant la lettre,while domesticating the sci-fi genre.The U.S.S.Enterprise’s deck was essentially a living room commanded by a father figure sitting in an easy chair who, with his crew, watched a big-screen TV—also avant la lettre.This non-cinematic concept now comes full circle with the new Star Trek movie directed by J.J. Abrams, a contemporary Roddenberry-type network mogul (“creator” in TV parlance), who fulfills his trite TV sensibility. Star Trek isn’t a movie so much as a confirmation of TV’s cultural dominance. It’s watchable, yet still terrible cinema.
Abrams recreates the genesis of the Star Trek franchise (after the ’60s series ran dry, there were 10 theatrical sequels and five spinoff TV series). Abrams reconfigures Capt. James Tiberius Kirk, half-human Vulcan Mr. Spock and the other Star Trek crewmembers as nubile cadets in the Starfleet Academy. Their battle with Capt. Nero (Eric Bana), a vengeful, time-travelling Romulan intent on turning Earth into a black hole, displays the Enterprise crew’s personalities and skills. Abrams doesn’t revive a crucial Western myth; just relentless marketing. Girlish Spock (Zachery Quinto) and pin-up Kirk (Chris Pine) embody new-style masculine-prettiness. They resemble the Little Archie comics, or the Tiny Toons serial depicting Warner Bros. cartoon characters as kids. Not only geared to fan boys (or Trekkies), this is designed to thrill people who cannot tell the difference between movies and TV.
This Star Trek sells cuteness, sentimentality and explosive F/X as if Starship Troopers, Minority Report, Mission to Mars or even Blade Runner or The Matrix (all visionary standard-setters) never happened. Abrams directs action where you can’t see anything— just blur, like in Cloverfield.The overture cuts from a woman giving birth to a space battle (mawkishness and sensationalism) with no aesthetic tension or rhythm. Instead of satirizing sci-fi clichés, Abrams yearns for TV simplicity. Still selling soap, his flimsy imagery zaps substance from the drama of Kirk and Spock fighting to control their emotions while combating mankind’s enemies.

Where Young Boys Have Gone Before

While not a review (negative or positive), this is a commentary about something somebody else on this board also hated about the movie:

With the recent release of the new movie Star Trek, many trekkies and non-trekkies hurried to theaters to see the new and improved adaptation of the old classic television and film series. Directed by J.J. Abrams, the film was done especially well -- and is actually made to be cool, funny, technologically up-to-date, and downright entertaining and accessible to virtually everyone. Built on the foundation of the older blueprint outlining space, time, and social and intergalactic interactions, the new image is even more progressive than the first.
Appropriate to the modern interpretation of humanity and the world and universe at large, we also see that women are represented in equal numbers in the star fleet -- ostensibly present in the form of many background characters indicating various officers as well as a few prominently featured females. Nevertheless, the new film does a curious thing in keeping in line with some of the original Star Trek images: the women's costumes are very gender-specific and largely impractical.
Though I did not condemn the garments as particularly offensive (especially in light of the film's other valiant attempts at egalitarianism), I still found the notion particularly hilarious: that several hundred years into the future, where humans and extraterrestrials are portrayed as united in their intergalactic relationships, women workers are still wearing short skirts while men are wearing pants.
Remember: though we are not as technologically advanced as the Star Trek icons we watch in theaters, modern women workers on say, airplanes, are no longer required to wear such arbitrary clothing even now! As much as we would not expect these universal warriors and inter-planetary technicians to be conducting diplomacy or battle on foot or performing any other strenuous physical exertions, it seems inappropriate and unconventional that women adorn something skimpier than the original iconic stewardess uniform.

The women of Star Trek: Why are they wearing those uniforms?

And once again, this review..

The last few years have seen a number of once-popular film or television franchises “rebooted” for the big screen. Batman, The Incredible Hulk, the James Bond films, Friday The 13th, and other successful series of days gone by have been reconceived and relaunched. These and other formerly lucrative properties are being recycled for the benefit of a new generation by the studios in the hopes of tapping into their profit-making potential. Along with everything else, the continual return to “used” (and re-used!) material demonstrates Hollywood’s remarkable paucity of imagination and inventiveness. The 11th film in the “Star Trek” series, simply entitled Star Trek, joins the fold by returning to the origins of Star Trek’s pop-culture mythology and showing viewers how the original “Starship Enterprise” crew of Capt. James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock, “Bones” McCoy and all the others from the television show (1966-69) first met.
The story concerns the early lives of the fledgling crew. A young Spock is put through rigorous tests of mental ability on planet Vulcan, while his fellow pupils treat him as an outsider because he is half human. On Earth, a young James Kirk steals a car and goes joyriding, nearly killing himself in the process.
The two eventually meet and clash at Starfleet Academy where Spock (Zachary Quinto) is an instructor and Kirk (Chris Pine) a brilliant but irresponsible student. Kirk’s daring and Spock’s careful calculating are, predictably, contrasted, and the personality clash between the pair becomes the central theme of the film. Just as predictably, Kirk and Spock will soon discover they need each other and are both “incomplete” without the other.
When a time-traveling Romulan vessel from the future arrives in Federation space intent on destroying Spock’s home planet of Vulcan along with Earth, Spock, Kirk and the untested crew of the starship Enterprise must pull together to stop them.
As with so many blockbusters of this kind, the majority of the creative powers at work have been focused on the special effects. Spaceships twist and turn, avoiding debris and the “phaser” blasts of their enemies. One recalls an alarming number of objects exploding. The screen is constantly filled with action, often too much of it to take in. At times this is suspenseful or exciting, too often it is simply incomprehensible.
Star Trek: Boldly going where no man has gone before, again[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
My, that is a terribly tall horse you appear to be riding in on.

See, I told you...:rolleyes:
Yeah, you're totally proving that games of 1up manship are beneath you.

See, what you're so blatantly trying to do here is to make me start an argument with you to make yourself look better. Or maybe you just get off on starting arguments. Well pal, that's not going to happen. Bye, Shazam.
 
See, I told you...:rolleyes:
Yeah, you're totally proving that games of 1up manship are beneath you.

See, what you're so blatantly trying to do here is to make me start an argument with you to make yourself look better. Or maybe you just get off on starting arguments. Well pal, that's not going to happen. Bye, Shazam.
kidsthesedays.jpg
 
Dusty Ayres, I am all for doing something different, but I don't know if a "Four Lights" type torture scene would have worked. The "four lights" was a long-term operation to make Picard to mad and to reveal what he knew. Nero seemed crunched for time (or really wanted to get moving on destroying Earth), so he wanted the info fast. The slugs seemed to work for that.
 
Is that something to deny, be shocked by, or be ashamed of?
I don't deny that the movie set out to make fat businessmen as much money as possible, nor am I shocked by it. It is kind of a shame though.

Sure, but at least it was made by people who set out to make something that looked to the future but embraced the past at the same time. I'm not a big Abrams fan, but I can't say that he didn't give a shit about making something that was both a good film and a good Star Trek adventure at the same time.
 
I'm saying fans of this movie like mindless action movies. I like a few of those myself, but they aren't supposed to be Star Trek movies and this was.

You're wrong. I see very few action movies; they generally don't interest me.

This was a great Star Trek movie, better than all but one or two of the previous ones.
 
No, I dont recall all that many prequels.
They even made one for "Tremors." :wtf:
So?

Hollywood is always about "duplicating success". We got the Trek movies partialy because of Star Wars. And no doubt it factored into TNG getting the green light too. Hell, TNG was a reboot (Star Trek done "right" in GR's mind) So lets not poo poo Hollywoods habits so quickly, ;)
Correction, we got Trek movies instead of a new series because of Star Wars. We got Star Wars partially because of Star Trek. Of course none of this is relevant to how lame it is that they rebooted Star Trek because of BSG.
Hence the term "partial". Anyway both Phase II and TMP were "reboots" and remakes to some degree. Star Trek begetting Star Wars and then Star War begatting TMP illustrates perfectly how these thing work in hollywood.

Has BSG been sited as why they did it? I enjoyed most of NuBSG, though it kind of lost its way towards the end.

Star Trek fans were probably the furthest thing from the executives' minds. They are usualy after a wider audience. On the other hand the people making the movie were fans to varying degrees.
Which is probably why so much of modern Trek has tended to suck. And the person behind making this movie admitted he liked Star Wars much better, which is probably why he made this movie so much like it.
Modern Trek sucks yet you want to follow the path blazed by Modern Trek? (right it can be "saved" by "good" writing. ;) )

So he like Star Wars better at least he liked Star Trek . There have been directors who had no clue about Trek until they got the job. And they put their own stamp on it (Nick Meyers for one).

What does that really mean? it was a success. It hit the right notes with the general audience. The same cannot be said for other remakes out this year and the past few years.
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" probably hit the right notes for some people, too. Of course being popular still doesn't change the fact that Star Trek is now just another remake from decades past.
TDTESS din't hit the right notes with enough people. Popularity is all that matters, because it translates into $$$$$$. Like it or not moviemaking is a busniness and Star Trek is a product.

Star Trek in all its post TOS incarnations has been a "remake from decades past" since TAS.
 
Modern Trek sucks yet you want to follow the path blazed by Modern Trek? (right it can be "saved" by "good" writing. ;) )

Yes, it could be saved by better writing. Nemesis wasn't a bad movie because it was a "modern Trek" movie. It simply was a bad movie because its scripted and direction sucked big time.

And ENT was a prequel, remember? One could hypothesize that it would have been a success had it been a sequel to TNG/DS9/VOY. Or you could say it would have sucked both ways because the writing simply was terrible. Who knows for sure?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top