Disillusioned
Commander
No, it was just a bad movie which was also a bad Star Trek.I don't really know why so many fans hate this movie has JJ ruined your childhood or something
I already did, but it was still just a bad movie.
Didn't like the movie? How would YOU have made it?
- Thread starter OneBuckFilms
- Start date
Lets be really honest here about what a General Audience expects.
They don't know the canon, the details etc., but it's safe to assume that they have heard of, or seen in passing, the Starship Enterprise, Kirk and Spock, and maybe the idea of Klingons.
So when they hear about a Star Trek movie, they expect something involving the Enterprise, Kirk and Spock, and maybe the Klingons.
So if they go in looking for a space-based adventure film, they generally want something with good effects and action, with a good story holding it all together.
They are also expecting to have some fun during the proceedings.
Many viewers ALSO expect an Original Series Star Trek movie to have the Enterprise, and that applies to both familiar and unfamiliar audiences.
When I look at what you consider a good Star Trek movie, I see a focus on the crew of the Enterprise, without the Enterprise to crew.
There is no wrap-up on the Bridge of the Enterprise, as they go off on another mission/voyage/adventure.
The movie would leave audiences with several different ships, some kind of space battles on occasion, and more talking than showing.
There is a LOT I love about your story, and some ideas may have improved JJ Abrams' movie had they been incorporated.
But as a movie, it would leave me asking "I thought this was about how they got together? They are not on the Enterprise."
The FAN side of me would also want to know what happened to Kirk being Captain, and the Enterprise.
The film might also feel a little "talky" to average moviegoers, something often noted by non-fans.
They don't know the canon, the details etc., but it's safe to assume that they have heard of, or seen in passing, the Starship Enterprise, Kirk and Spock, and maybe the idea of Klingons.
So when they hear about a Star Trek movie, they expect something involving the Enterprise, Kirk and Spock, and maybe the Klingons.
So if they go in looking for a space-based adventure film, they generally want something with good effects and action, with a good story holding it all together.
They are also expecting to have some fun during the proceedings.
Many viewers ALSO expect an Original Series Star Trek movie to have the Enterprise, and that applies to both familiar and unfamiliar audiences.
When I look at what you consider a good Star Trek movie, I see a focus on the crew of the Enterprise, without the Enterprise to crew.
There is no wrap-up on the Bridge of the Enterprise, as they go off on another mission/voyage/adventure.
The movie would leave audiences with several different ships, some kind of space battles on occasion, and more talking than showing.
There is a LOT I love about your story, and some ideas may have improved JJ Abrams' movie had they been incorporated.
But as a movie, it would leave me asking "I thought this was about how they got together? They are not on the Enterprise."
The FAN side of me would also want to know what happened to Kirk being Captain, and the Enterprise.
The film might also feel a little "talky" to average moviegoers, something often noted by non-fans.
Interesting how Star Wars prequels managed to string along their fanbase, making them wait for 6 long years and through 3 films, purely for that last connecting hour and a bit. Recognizable characters? Well, only two younger versions were centre stage. One fairly recognizable and the other an unknown, since we only knew what he was destined to become. Two robots at an earlier stage and Yoda. Strange to think that managed to take shit loads of money without featuring any of the best loved characters at all. Mixed critical responses but still among the highest grossing films of all time (at least until Harry Potter).
Personally, I find how all discussions right now basically boil down to Box Office equals popularity so therefore must have resulted in a better film to be pretty offensive, and it's sad fans are reduced to thinking like that. A more faithful story might've been crafted and took less, but then lasted over time and gained in appreciation. Hell, that concept existed as far back as 1990 after The Final Frontier tanked, when Harve Bennett proposed beginning such a series of movies... only to be vetoed by the same TOS cast members benefiting now... Well, one with the other only a matter of time, if his campaigning to JJA is anything to go by.
Now I actually don't think honest to goodness Star Trek prequels needed to be that disconnected from what audiences were expecting. How could they be? It would have to involve the U.S.S. Enterprise in there someplace. Spock onboard too. But it's simply the contrived and slap dash way they redesigned Kirk's backstory and made every character arrive at their most famous positions all at once. What was wrong with delaying audience gratification until other films? Or drifting into bio-pic terrority? So long the first part was standalone and put enough emphasis in the audience's mind where Kirk, Spock & McCoy were eventually going to end up. The parts of JJ Abrams movie closest to events hinted in the Original Series (and their films) were by far the best bits and actually felt right to me. Everytime Nero re-emerged into the film, that's where it fell apart for me. This film didn't need a villain from the future in it all. A character native to the 23rd Century would've worked. Somebody with a personal connection with Kirk and Spock, or their parents... definitely. Certainly not a Romulan. It strikes me the creation of new universe all stemmed from somebody's idea to use that race... and if so, it wasn't even worth it. Nero could've been absolutely any alien whose homeworld Spock had been responsible for destroying... such is how poorly depicted he was as a Romulan.
If doing an origin story right... and in a way that fits with the original universe, if that could only be achieved with a mini-series or any production with time enough to tell something that epic and decade spanning... (like the SW prequels) with no lousy 2 hour time limit on the table... that's what I would've preferred instead.
Personally, I find how all discussions right now basically boil down to Box Office equals popularity so therefore must have resulted in a better film to be pretty offensive, and it's sad fans are reduced to thinking like that. A more faithful story might've been crafted and took less, but then lasted over time and gained in appreciation. Hell, that concept existed as far back as 1990 after The Final Frontier tanked, when Harve Bennett proposed beginning such a series of movies... only to be vetoed by the same TOS cast members benefiting now... Well, one with the other only a matter of time, if his campaigning to JJA is anything to go by.
Now I actually don't think honest to goodness Star Trek prequels needed to be that disconnected from what audiences were expecting. How could they be? It would have to involve the U.S.S. Enterprise in there someplace. Spock onboard too. But it's simply the contrived and slap dash way they redesigned Kirk's backstory and made every character arrive at their most famous positions all at once. What was wrong with delaying audience gratification until other films? Or drifting into bio-pic terrority? So long the first part was standalone and put enough emphasis in the audience's mind where Kirk, Spock & McCoy were eventually going to end up. The parts of JJ Abrams movie closest to events hinted in the Original Series (and their films) were by far the best bits and actually felt right to me. Everytime Nero re-emerged into the film, that's where it fell apart for me. This film didn't need a villain from the future in it all. A character native to the 23rd Century would've worked. Somebody with a personal connection with Kirk and Spock, or their parents... definitely. Certainly not a Romulan. It strikes me the creation of new universe all stemmed from somebody's idea to use that race... and if so, it wasn't even worth it. Nero could've been absolutely any alien whose homeworld Spock had been responsible for destroying... such is how poorly depicted he was as a Romulan.
If doing an origin story right... and in a way that fits with the original universe, if that could only be achieved with a mini-series or any production with time enough to tell something that epic and decade spanning... (like the SW prequels) with no lousy 2 hour time limit on the table... that's what I would've preferred instead.
Last edited:
I am going to put my hefty disdain for the JJ film aside, and actually try to offer a serious answer to the OP's question...
As much as I did not like the way things were done in the film, and the direction JJ went with it, I have to admit, I did enjoy it, as brainless fun. But there were a few things I would have done, to make it work a little better...
Number one, get rid of the ice monster scene. It didn't really contribute anything to the movie, and the monster was kinda lame anyway.
Two, show more of the background with Nero... include the stuff that was cut, dealing with Rura Penthe, or show his attack on the Klingon armada. I left the movie wishing we had spent more time with Nero.
Kirk should have had a damn yellow uniform throughout the film. I am SO sick and tired of the whole "oh, he's the bad-boy rogue type, who rebels by thinking for himself, so because of that, he should never wear a standard uniform" mentality. Enough with it already... he was in Starfleet, give him an appropriate uniform, and not that all-black piece of shit he was wearing for half the film.
Redo the Enterprise's Engineering section. Just redo it.
Finally, this is something that a lot of people might not agree with, but I still think would have been AWESOME...
The more I look at the film, and it's flashy new look, and use of lens flares, the more and more I am absolutely convinced, that this film would have looked 110 times better, if it were filmed in black and white. Bear with me now... I TRULY think that if you were to watch the film with the color removed, it would look not only totally awesome, but would be a cool nod to the TOS pilot, as well as be a refreshingly artistic move, on the part of the director... a brand-new, flashy, modern sci-fi film, done in black and white... I REALLY think this could have worked well, and I challenge anyone to actually watch it in black and white, and tell me I'm wrong... it would have looked refreshingly artistic, and very TOS-like, yet new.
As much as I did not like the way things were done in the film, and the direction JJ went with it, I have to admit, I did enjoy it, as brainless fun. But there were a few things I would have done, to make it work a little better...
Number one, get rid of the ice monster scene. It didn't really contribute anything to the movie, and the monster was kinda lame anyway.
Two, show more of the background with Nero... include the stuff that was cut, dealing with Rura Penthe, or show his attack on the Klingon armada. I left the movie wishing we had spent more time with Nero.
Kirk should have had a damn yellow uniform throughout the film. I am SO sick and tired of the whole "oh, he's the bad-boy rogue type, who rebels by thinking for himself, so because of that, he should never wear a standard uniform" mentality. Enough with it already... he was in Starfleet, give him an appropriate uniform, and not that all-black piece of shit he was wearing for half the film.
Redo the Enterprise's Engineering section. Just redo it.
Finally, this is something that a lot of people might not agree with, but I still think would have been AWESOME...
The more I look at the film, and it's flashy new look, and use of lens flares, the more and more I am absolutely convinced, that this film would have looked 110 times better, if it were filmed in black and white. Bear with me now... I TRULY think that if you were to watch the film with the color removed, it would look not only totally awesome, but would be a cool nod to the TOS pilot, as well as be a refreshingly artistic move, on the part of the director... a brand-new, flashy, modern sci-fi film, done in black and white... I REALLY think this could have worked well, and I challenge anyone to actually watch it in black and white, and tell me I'm wrong... it would have looked refreshingly artistic, and very TOS-like, yet new.
No, it was just a bad movie which was also a bad Star Trek.I don't really know why so many fans hate this movie has JJ ruined your childhood or something
I already did, but it was still just a bad movie.
In your personal opinion. Not as a fact.
Agreed.
So did I, but considering how the Klingons having the Narada for 25 years and not destroying the Federation makes no sense, you can see why they left it out. If they had a better explanation for the missing time, then I would have no issues with including it in the film.
Then you would have to rewrite the Kobayashi Maru scene so that Kirk's hack wasn't as blatant, have the head staff of the academy not charge him with cheating (and preferably getting an award as per canon), and have him assigned to the Enterprise. If done well, the conflict with Spock would still remain and you can avoid the ice planet monsters if you say the Enterprise picks up a distress call from Delta Vega, which turns out to be Old Spock using some gizmo Nero left to call for help.
Eh, I was cool with the industrial look for engineering. It was a nice contrast with how most scifi engine rooms tend to look.
Maybe if it was just the opening scene, but ST09 is such a visually oriented film that I feel it loses part of itself if the color was removed.
If you had said Giacchino's score, I would've been behind you 100%.
^
Fair enough... but like I said... give the film a try in black and white first, and then tell me I'm dead wrong.
Fair enough... but like I said... give the film a try in black and white first, and then tell me I'm dead wrong.
I don't really know why so many fans hate this movie has JJ ruined your childhood or something
Many don't hate it. Actually more Trek fans like this film than have liked a lot of other Trek in many recent years. Just some fans are threatened that someone came in and made their franchise relevant and likeable again.
I submit this for evidence:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM[/yt]
While in parody, speaks loads of truths!
Or just have hearing end in Kirk's favor, give him that commendation, and THEN have Starfleet recieve the distress call from Vulcan.
Of course the Onion has the most reliable news anywhere...
Sure, that would work too.
Maybe I will once I get my hands on the DVDs... in December.Fair enough... but like I said... give the film a try in black and white first, and then tell me I'm dead wrong.
startrekrcks, I've asked you on several occasions to stop the repeated "why do you hate the movie" posts. If you had said only that, this post would still have earned you a warning for spamming. Adding the "ruined your childhood" kicker shows intent to bait or anger another poster or posters. The name for that is trolling, and there's a rule against it.I don't really know why so many fans hate this movie has JJ ruined your childhood or something
Comments to PM.
Cary, the thing to do here would have been to use the 'Notify Moderator' button and say nothing in response, and I'm sure you knew it quite well when you posted. Making an accusation of trolling in-thread is at best poor form, it is not your place to do so and it may in some cases be considered flaming, as I'm sure you also know. In this instance, it was also completely pointless, as you can see above; it would have happened without your "input". The emphasized sentence, however, is where you decided to turn this into an opportunity to engage in trolling, yourself. You now have your own warning for same.I believe that line qualifies as a "troll." However, since it's on the "pro-movie" side of the debate, I'm sure it will pass without comment.I don't really know why so many fans hate this movie has JJ ruined your childhood or something
"Ruined your childhood" is such an overused comment in this light that it has, itself, become effectively a parody of those who use it. It serves only one purpose... to mock and diminish those who don't like the movie, attempting to couch all of their arguments as though they are just childishness... effectively, its use is a cheap attempt to portray the people towards whom it's directed in the same light as the adult who still plays with his teddy bear.
Comments to PM.
Last edited:
Disillusioned
Commander
Where does this assumption come from? If people are just looking for a sci-fi action piece, why would it really matter to them if it has Enterprise in it?
Because they hear the words Star Trek, and expect the Enterprise.
How many people do you know that have not heard of the Enterprise?
An a lot of Trek fans ALSO would want to see the Enterprise.
Dispite the disparate implications otherwise, she is a big part of the layman's view of the Enterprise.
Besides, if the movie is an introduction to Star Trek, an entry point for non fans, they should theoretically be able to watch the movie, then be able to understand the concept should they choose to look at TOS.
Common sense and reality.
If people are looking for a Star Trek movie, they associate it with the Enterprise. Not Voyager. Not the Defiant. Not the U.S.S. Shoeshiner. The Enterprise.
Disillusioned
Commander
And yet I doubt anyone would refuse to watch the movie if it had Kirk and Spock but not Enterprise. Or really, if they were just looking for a aci-fi action movie and it had been hyped enough for them to want to go to a Star Trek movie, as long as it wasn't too slow or boring I kinda doubt it would even need any of the names.
Disillusioned
Commander
The term "common sense" means different things to different people. As for "reality", there has only been one movie that didn't take place on an Enterprise and it did pretty well because it cashed in on the "save the whales" thing that was pretty popular when it came out. Other than that, there has never been a movie that you could claim to base the "reality" portion of your claim on.
USS Big McLargehuge.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Well, it wouldn't matter one bit whether there is Enterprise in the movie or not so long as the Enterprise is in it.
It had Kirk and Spock. There's part of your equation. It was also nearly entirely earth bound. Suppose we don't need to be in space either for Star Trek going by your logic?
Right, other than the fact that anything to do with the original crew or the ship have had the biggest success or spawned the most pop culture influence. You honestly don't think that most average every people associate Star Trek with "Voyager" and feel that they are as iconic and recognizable (if not more) as Kirk and Spock do you?
Similar threads
