You should sue. Was anyone seriously injured?
Star Trek one year on
- Thread starter startrekrcks
- Start date
You should sue. Was anyone seriously injured?
What shall it profit a franchise to gain transitory popularity from the know-nothing general audience but lose its soul?
If you can combine great critical reaction, with high fan scores AND also the grosses, then theres not much to argue against.
A large number of dedicated Trekkers saw the movie multiple times...I saw it more in the theater than other ST movie. We'll see how transitory it is after the next one...after that, its a trend!
RAMA
One year on and much of the shine has worn off for me but I will never forget the ride! Woo-Whoooooo!
One year on and much of the shine has worn off for me but I will never forget the ride! Woo-Whoooooo!
Cross posted musings:
My personal encounter with the nascent New Star Trek film and comic book universe has proven to be an entertaining, yet curiously fragmented viewing/reading experience, interesting and quite engaging on the one hand, yet jolting and even irritating on the other. As I see it, the movie´s narrative reflects Abrams et al.s´ approach to combine a number of somewhat disparate objectives and story-telling strategies, which, for me as a viewer, leads to an overall impression of narrational breadth rather than depth.
In that sense, personally, I would characterize the new film's narrative as follows:
Objectives:
A) to construct the foundation for a reinvigorating, new narrative space where the Star Trek Universe can exist in an even larger, yet still (semi-)coherent form, which also offers potentially effective gateways into other, preexisting parts of the larger Star Trek story-world and explicitly encourages a compare-and-contrast mode of audience engagement (not only on an extra-textual level, but also on a textual/inter-textual one)
B) to transform various preexisting genre expectations regarding Star Trek films in such a manner as to enable future productions to fit, audio/visually and narrationally, more closely within the parameters of contemporary event movies, (which in the case of STO9 results in the completion of an ongoing sub-genre shift from Sci-Fi adventure to Sci-Fi Action, and in the removal of nearly all of the TV/movie franchise´s theatrical elements of presentation and their partial replacement by operatic* ones ones
*primarily noticeable in the course of the Kelvin- and the Narada-destruction sequences
Story-Telling Strategies:
A) to devise a narrational strategy (based on one of the basic concepts of Transmedia Storytelling Theory) that transports substantial, often closely related, but not directly inter-dependent portions of the story over a variety of different media formats (in this particular case in the form of various comic books [Countdown, Nero, Spock], that carry supplemental story-lines for the movie´s main narrative, and through a very interesting, multiple purpose short-form comic book vignette [When Worlds Collide].)
B) to build the film´s narrative around the central, plot-carrying story motive of the formation of a (workplace-) family, supported by an additional narrational building block that chronicles the developing relationship between the two main protagonists (implemented here through the widely used combination of two tropes known as "hostile to each other" followed by "fire forged friends" )
C) to create somewhat parallel (but possibly time-shifted?) character arcs for both of the main protagonists based on the narrational strategies of the Bildungsroman (more so than on those of the Origin Story frequently used in comic book narratives) depicted through a series of short vignettes
D) to emphasize (pop-cultural) discourses on domestic topics over those on social/political/philosophical themes, in contrast to what was practiced in a number (but not all) of the previously created Star Trek narratives
E) to rely on a variety of well established and frequently used narrational tropes, which are, a few notable exceptions notwithstanding* in most cases directly invoked (and often in their purest, most undiluted form) rather than to be tweaked, in-/subverted or redefined
*i. ex. the introduction and handling of MULTIPLE mentor figures
My personal encounter with the nascent New Star Trek film and comic book universe has proven to be an entertaining, yet curiously fragmented viewing/reading experience, interesting and quite engaging on the one hand, yet jolting and even irritating on the other. As I see it, the movie´s narrative reflects Abrams et al.s´ approach to combine a number of somewhat disparate objectives and story-telling strategies, which, for me as a viewer, leads to an overall impression of narrational breadth rather than depth.
In that sense, personally, I would characterize the new film's narrative as follows:
Objectives:
A) to construct the foundation for a reinvigorating, new narrative space where the Star Trek Universe can exist in an even larger, yet still (semi-)coherent form, which also offers potentially effective gateways into other, preexisting parts of the larger Star Trek story-world and explicitly encourages a compare-and-contrast mode of audience engagement (not only on an extra-textual level, but also on a textual/inter-textual one)
B) to transform various preexisting genre expectations regarding Star Trek films in such a manner as to enable future productions to fit, audio/visually and narrationally, more closely within the parameters of contemporary event movies, (which in the case of STO9 results in the completion of an ongoing sub-genre shift from Sci-Fi adventure to Sci-Fi Action, and in the removal of nearly all of the TV/movie franchise´s theatrical elements of presentation and their partial replacement by operatic* ones ones
*primarily noticeable in the course of the Kelvin- and the Narada-destruction sequences
Story-Telling Strategies:
A) to devise a narrational strategy (based on one of the basic concepts of Transmedia Storytelling Theory) that transports substantial, often closely related, but not directly inter-dependent portions of the story over a variety of different media formats (in this particular case in the form of various comic books [Countdown, Nero, Spock], that carry supplemental story-lines for the movie´s main narrative, and through a very interesting, multiple purpose short-form comic book vignette [When Worlds Collide].)
B) to build the film´s narrative around the central, plot-carrying story motive of the formation of a (workplace-) family, supported by an additional narrational building block that chronicles the developing relationship between the two main protagonists (implemented here through the widely used combination of two tropes known as "hostile to each other" followed by "fire forged friends" )
C) to create somewhat parallel (but possibly time-shifted?) character arcs for both of the main protagonists based on the narrational strategies of the Bildungsroman (more so than on those of the Origin Story frequently used in comic book narratives) depicted through a series of short vignettes
D) to emphasize (pop-cultural) discourses on domestic topics over those on social/political/philosophical themes, in contrast to what was practiced in a number (but not all) of the previously created Star Trek narratives
E) to rely on a variety of well established and frequently used narrational tropes, which are, a few notable exceptions notwithstanding* in most cases directly invoked (and often in their purest, most undiluted form) rather than to be tweaked, in-/subverted or redefined
*i. ex. the introduction and handling of MULTIPLE mentor figures
Fun movie that has more in common with TWoK the more I think about it. Not the Trek I grew up with, but that's the point, isn't it?
I have to say, I was really hoping to read the four follow-up novels (which were due to be released around now-ish) to tide me over until the next movie. It's my biggest disappointment with the new Trek franchise that they were senselessly aborted by some twat who thinks "only JJ can tell new Star Trek stories now" 
Well, I was disappointed by the story, but otherwise, glad I went to see the movie. It was when Old Spock explained himself and Nero's backstory that I realized the movie was going to pale in comparison to "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Star Trek: First Contact", but I still had a good time overall and left the theatre satisfied.
It was only my second time watching a Star Trek movie in theatres (after "Nemesis") and definitely sent me home happier than that one did (although I didn't totally hate "Nemesis" since I was just so enthralled by the novelty of seeing my beloved TNG crew onscreen).
I left the movie hoping that the sequel will have a better story and/or villain, but I was very pleased with its casting and delighted by the way the characters were portrayed. Especially McCoy. And good gawd was that prologue incredible. That's my fondest memory of the film. This was the first and so far only time a film almost brought me to tears before the opening credits ever started. Despite all my problems with the movie, I've got to give it major praise for that.
It was only my second time watching a Star Trek movie in theatres (after "Nemesis") and definitely sent me home happier than that one did (although I didn't totally hate "Nemesis" since I was just so enthralled by the novelty of seeing my beloved TNG crew onscreen).
I left the movie hoping that the sequel will have a better story and/or villain, but I was very pleased with its casting and delighted by the way the characters were portrayed. Especially McCoy. And good gawd was that prologue incredible. That's my fondest memory of the film. This was the first and so far only time a film almost brought me to tears before the opening credits ever started. Despite all my problems with the movie, I've got to give it major praise for that.
I think I yawned a couple of times...
Exactly.
You know, I dined at an Olive Garden once and didn't like the ravioli dish that I had. So I think I'm going to find an Olive Garden message forum or mailing list and post tirelessly for a year or two about my unsatisfactory experience with this dish, because that's obviously the smart and constructive thing to do.
In some ways the single biggest problem people have in convincing me that Trek '09 was a bad film (and I don't think it was great) is how strident and, frankly, bitter they sound. I don't demand that anyone like the new film, but when those who didn't like it make it sound like you'd have to be crazy in order to like it, all they do IMO is come across as judgmental and undermine their own credibility.
Perhaps a little less "You liked that piece of crap?" and a little more "It didn't really work for me, but if you liked it, that's cool."
I'd have a lot more respect for a number of them if they'd at least acknowledge that while this film may not have been to their tastes, it's entirely possible that the sequel could be, as opposed to dismissing any possibility of improvement out of hand.
Of course, we all know that every other incarnation of Trek was perfect from the very beginning, which just highlights what a complete and utter failure this film is...
Perhaps a little less "You liked that piece of crap?" and a little more "It didn't really work for me, but if you liked it, that's cool."
I'd have a lot more respect for a number of them if they'd at least acknowledge that while this film may not have been to their tastes, it's entirely possible that the sequel could be, as opposed to dismissing any possibility of improvement out of hand.
Of course, we all know that every other incarnation of Trek was perfect from the very beginning, which just highlights what a complete and utter failure this film is...
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Well, as I expected, my opinion has cooled off since a year ago. Last year I wasn't sure if this or TWOK was my favorite. I'm still not sure, but -- like I predicted last year before seeing the movie -- I like it better than all the TNG movies half the TOS movies. I've given up on ranking the movies, the precise order keeps changing with whatever mood I'm in. There are some that I generally consider my favorites, some I consider my least favorites, and everything else in between. I group ST XI in with the favorites.
What I'm really looking forward to is ST XII (or ST 2, whatever you want to call it). In XI it rebooted Star Trek, got the crew together, and set-up the status quo. Okay. But I'm more interested in the "Now what?" I want to see the story develop now that status quo is established instead of just watching it become established.
What I'm really looking forward to is ST XII (or ST 2, whatever you want to call it). In XI it rebooted Star Trek, got the crew together, and set-up the status quo. Okay. But I'm more interested in the "Now what?" I want to see the story develop now that status quo is established instead of just watching it become established.
I don't actually like the movies. I know I'm not alone in this. The one when they went back to the 20th century to save the whales was hilarious and I think fondly of it. The First Contact one had the best story although it had its problems. I have to say the 2009 film was in a different category from the others. It was the only one I can see having universal appeal and bringing people back for more. ST:TMP has to have a special place because it kick-started the whole franchise again but what would the young people of today make of it?
I'm not going to pass judgement on whether Trek has lost its "soul" until the sequel. That will give us more of a perspective. I would give it a 7 out of 10, had good parts, and bad parts. It will be more than two years until we find out if we get a "Dark Knight," a "Quantum of Solace," or a "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."
You should also use the following guidelines in making your case:
1) Misrepresent the contents of the dish, to the point where you're essentially critiquing a completely different dish.
2) Insist that the meal was absolutely devoid of any similarity with previously offered examples of the dish. ( Make sure you use the word absolutely. )
3) Insist that the meal was, in fact, the worst meal ever consumed by you or anyone else in the entire history of human existence.
4) Point out that it's all a matter of opinion.
Are you sure!?? I know it made gazilions at the box office but do you know anyone who actually liked it? Star Trek on the other hand was well received by the mainstream audience and the majority of the fan base.
It's hard to explain why Transformers 2 did so well. It was eviscerated by critics and yet managed over 800 million, which was more than the first one.
OTOH, Star trek XI did a lot better than Nemesis at the box office. Nem got 67 million TOTAL, while XI got 385...and unlike T2 it got much better reviews.
OTOH, Star trek XI did a lot better than Nemesis at the box office. Nem got 67 million TOTAL, while XI got 385...and unlike T2 it got much better reviews.
