Has Anyone Changed Their Mind About The Movie?
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
How many trailers did contain that line, by the way? I know that some have made it out to be that the majority of the advertising and promotion campaign was coming from a standpoint of "This is not your father's Star Trek," thus (so it was maintained) pointedly and repeatedly dissing the longtime faithful Trek fan base, but was there really more than the one TV spot (aired about three weeks before the movie's release) and a couple of similarly-timed theater lobby one-sheets which actually said "This is not your father's Star Trek"?
Do provide links to all of these many trailers, please.
In modding this forum since early 2008 I thought I'd seen them all, but it seems now that I may have missed a few.
...
Anyway, not trying to squirm out of the responsibility here, but I only joined after STXI. I figured if anyone would appreciate what "real Trek" is supposed to be about, it would be "Trekkies" right? Turns out most seem no different to "ordinary people" as far as I can tell. I have never been so disappointed in my life!
I've been here for years and, I agree with you! Some posters actually name episodes (TOS, TNG and the rest) wrong as well as certain plots and mixing them up and actually posted that way!....
Er, well, that's not exactly what I meant. I was referring to the close correlation between the approval of the STXI between Trekkies and "ordinary movie goers" and that their agreement seemed to be for similar reasons. This, combined with the fact that less emphasis was placed on the things that concerned me, left me "perplexed", shall we say. You know, after a while you can start to feel at home in those padded cells!
I tried to keep an open mind when it first came out. Nimoy participating and giving it the thumbs up was promising. The style was jarring the first time I saw it...but I had the same reaction to ST IV on the first viewing, too.
I never saw kirk as this daredevil rebel hero that this movie sees him as. He always seemed like a introspective Hornblower-type in the beginning of TOS (see "Where No Man" scene with Spock or "Balance of Terror" scene with McCoy). Having Spock and McCoy balance his decisions made him overconfident in his own abilities by time he accepts the promotion in STTMP...which mirror his attitude in ST XI. I really have to suspend my disbelief about NuKirk's rapid rise from cadet to captain.
Spock always seemed to have this inner conflict between logic and emotion. He could never be caught out of character by acting human. This NuSpock grieved over his mother's death to the point of being angered by Kirk. If anything Spock grew even more Vulcan like in "Journey to Babel" when Sarek's life was at stake. The Spock-Uhura romance just didn't click for me either.
Chekov came across as another way-too-young for the service Wesley Crusher-type "know-it-all" running through the corridors. I had my fill of this type of character already from TNG.
I just regard Abrams' movie franchise like I do with those boring DS9 "mirror universe" episodes. An entertaining diversion but I'm ready to get back to the Prime universe in any form that I can find it.
I never saw kirk as this daredevil rebel hero that this movie sees him as. He always seemed like a introspective Hornblower-type in the beginning of TOS (see "Where No Man" scene with Spock or "Balance of Terror" scene with McCoy). Having Spock and McCoy balance his decisions made him overconfident in his own abilities by time he accepts the promotion in STTMP...which mirror his attitude in ST XI. I really have to suspend my disbelief about NuKirk's rapid rise from cadet to captain.
Spock always seemed to have this inner conflict between logic and emotion. He could never be caught out of character by acting human. This NuSpock grieved over his mother's death to the point of being angered by Kirk. If anything Spock grew even more Vulcan like in "Journey to Babel" when Sarek's life was at stake. The Spock-Uhura romance just didn't click for me either.
Chekov came across as another way-too-young for the service Wesley Crusher-type "know-it-all" running through the corridors. I had my fill of this type of character already from TNG.
I just regard Abrams' movie franchise like I do with those boring DS9 "mirror universe" episodes. An entertaining diversion but I'm ready to get back to the Prime universe in any form that I can find it.
I agree that they're both origin stories, but I don't think they're on the same level.
Star Trek was an origin story on only the most superficial of levels, and that's just because they tried to cram so much into it. There were too many characters to give ample time to. Plus, the origin seems a little contrary to what TOS and other Trek led us to believe. Not in terms of canon or anything, but just that this isn't some mythological crew. They aren't superheroes destined for greatness. But this movie places a much greater emphasis on destiny than Trek ever did before.
Batman Begins had incredible depth because they primarily only focused on one character. They didn't try to tell the story of Alfred or Ra's Al Ghul or anyone else. They were all there to serve the origin story of Bruce Wayne. They all helped him to learn something about himself. They weren't gimmicks or shoehorned in for the sake of being iconic. And because of this it all felt much more organic. A true origin story.
I'd say STXI very much treated the crew as mythological figures destined for greatness.
The term "Origin story" doesn't have anything to do with depth of character, it simply means "How X came to be". Star Trek, Batman Begins, the Star Wars prequels and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are all origin stories.
IMO Batman Begins fell apart the minute Bruce put on the suit, started talking in that stupid voice and especially when he started relying on silly techno-gimmicks like the sonic device in his boot that summoned all the bats. The lead-up to that was great, though.
Star Trek isn't and has never been about one man. It's origin story reflected that.
The term "Origin story" doesn't have anything to do with depth of character, it simply means "How X came to be". Star Trek, Batman Begins, the Star Wars prequels and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are all origin stories.
IMO Batman Begins fell apart the minute Bruce put on the suit, started talking in that stupid voice and especially when he started relying on silly techno-gimmicks like the sonic device in his boot that summoned all the bats. The lead-up to that was great, though.
Star Trek isn't and has never been about one man. It's origin story reflected that.
Erm, dude, it's Batman. That's like saying Star Trek fell apart the minute the wore those uniforms and used tricorders.
My feeling in the Batman/Star Trek comparison subject, is that JJ Abrams' film is more like Burton's take on Batman in 1989. A complicated character history is remoulded to suit the film's purpose. The Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents and beyond that there's no need to go into any origin story. One line from Nicholson "Where does he get those wonderful toys" erradicates the need to explain the development of body armour, any martial arts training and what Batman actually does for a living. Kirk jumps from being a Cadet straight into the role he's most famous for, missing out everything inbetween that shows he earned Captaincy of the flagship. All these are examples of meeting audience expection in an immediate way.
All this from somebody who was in his teens and liked the first three Batman movies, particularly the couple Burton had a hand in. I knew little about the character's history (the Adam West TV show was about it) and remember being pretty shocked that the Joker wasn't particularly instrumental in Bruce Wayne becoming The Dark Knight as far as the comics went. Despite that, the 1989 movie remains more entertaining than Batman Begins for me. But as a fan of Star Trek, the slow complex path Nolan took to establish its central character, be pretty faithful to more established origins. I'd have liked that approach in showing how Kirk's career path took him to the Enterprise. More in keeping with the novels (canon or not) with little incidents involving encounters with Spock and McCoy along the way. Rather than crafting a story that urgently gave the audience 100% TOS crew familarity before the film was even halfway through. As a fan since forever, I still find that massively unsatisifying. I wish I could see and appreciate JJ Abrams' movie from an outsiders perspective. As somebody with only a basic idea of what Star Trek is. As just a fun popcorn munching summer blockbuster. Maybe then I'd love it unconditionally. But like Guinan in "Yesterday's Enterprise" all I'll ever see from now on are alterations that need correcting.
All this from somebody who was in his teens and liked the first three Batman movies, particularly the couple Burton had a hand in. I knew little about the character's history (the Adam West TV show was about it) and remember being pretty shocked that the Joker wasn't particularly instrumental in Bruce Wayne becoming The Dark Knight as far as the comics went. Despite that, the 1989 movie remains more entertaining than Batman Begins for me. But as a fan of Star Trek, the slow complex path Nolan took to establish its central character, be pretty faithful to more established origins. I'd have liked that approach in showing how Kirk's career path took him to the Enterprise. More in keeping with the novels (canon or not) with little incidents involving encounters with Spock and McCoy along the way. Rather than crafting a story that urgently gave the audience 100% TOS crew familarity before the film was even halfway through. As a fan since forever, I still find that massively unsatisifying. I wish I could see and appreciate JJ Abrams' movie from an outsiders perspective. As somebody with only a basic idea of what Star Trek is. As just a fun popcorn munching summer blockbuster. Maybe then I'd love it unconditionally. But like Guinan in "Yesterday's Enterprise" all I'll ever see from now on are alterations that need correcting.
Last edited:
Right, that's what I said. Whereas Star Trek of the past has never implied such destiny. It's what firmly entrenches this version of Star Trek as fantasy instead of science fiction (well that and how closely it resembles Star Wars), instead of it just being lite sci-fi.
Which is why I said they're still both origin stories. One is a deep character-building origin story, and the other is done for no sake other than to just play in the Star Trek sandbox. One is a film's strength, the other is just there as dressing and nothing more.
Partially, this is why an origin story for a sizable group of people doesn't really work. All your examples of origin stories were mostly about one person. Groups seldom come together all at once, and it's very difficult to get them to do so effectively within a two hour time span.
Also, Star Trek as a whole was never really about a group of people either. It was just how any particular group of people interacted with the plot. The history of the characters, particularly of TOS, was only important so long as it helped to tell the story of the week. Otherwise their past was irrelevant and never really warranted any kind of origin story. That just seems like one of Abrams' pet methods.
As I pointed out in my last post*, STXI doesn't lead to anything and it certainly doesn't describe "how TOS came to be".** So by your own defintion, STXI is definitely not an "origin story". Since Ryan8bit agrees with you, it would seem he is also forced to agree that it isn't an OS as well.
*Obviously I will have to stop using that damned invisible font!
** Its a different universe if nothing else!! Even if not, it still wouldn't tell us anything about the original TOS timeline (Nero, hello).
Let's see: ST: No; BB : Probably not; SW prequels : yes; X-Men O:W : (once again) only if part of the same conceptual universe.
Have to agree, from memory there was the bat-mobile, bat cave, and utility belt etc.
As I pointed out in my last post*, STXI doesn't lead to anything and it certainly doesn't describe "how TOS came to be".** So by your own defintion, STXI is definitely not an "origin story". Since Ryan8bit agrees with you, it would seem he is also forced to agree that it isn't an OS as well.
To me, an origin story is merely what illustrates how a character or multiple characters come to be their expected norm, regardless of canon. Just as I'm sure there are many contradictory novels, they can still easily be seen as origin stories.
I will admit that Star Trek is pretty different given its alternate universe angle. But ultimately the characters, with maybe the exception of Spock, are going to end up the same as what we recognize. The alternate angle doesn't really mean what we nerds think it should. And an origin doesn't require a set canon or future just to be an origin.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
err... No.
Okay, let's see: Uhura, McCoy...
Yeah... so?
Where else rather than on a mission would he meet them?
Okay... there's Cupcake...
As I pointed out in my last post*, STXI doesn't lead to anything and it certainly doesn't describe "how TOS came to be".** So by your own defintion, STXI is definitely not an "origin story". Since Ryan8bit agrees with you, it would seem he is also forced to agree that it isn't an OS as well.
To me, an origin story is merely what illustrates how a character or multiple characters come to be their expected norm, regardless of canon. Just as I'm sure there are many contradictory novels, they can still easily be seen as origin stories.
I can see that novels might be allowed a bit of leeway so long as they are describing events that lead to the actual known characters. But if the canon is too different, not merely a few discrepancies, the "origin story", which in this case was never intended to be the origin of the original incarnation anyway, is meaningless surely? Its just a "new being" not an "origin story", if you see the distinction.
Even if they do, that seems like trying to have the best of both, er, universes without STXI actually explaining anything about a later situation.
Hmmm, we will have to disagree about that. It seems to me that STXI isn't a back-story for the original canon and can't be a back-story for the new canon.
How can't it be a backstory for the new canon?
A
Amaris
Guest
Yeah, that one doesn't make any sense. When something has been erased and reconstructed, you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want with it.
Sure, but that would be a story, not a back-story. Something in the new universe would have to already exist for STXI to be the "back-story" to it. I hope I am not being too pedantic.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Sure, but that would be a story, not a back-story. Something in the new universe would have to already exist for STXI to be the "back-story" to it. I hope I am not being too pedantic.
You are.
And you're not making sense.
Even if they do, that seems like trying to have the best of both, er, universes without STXI actually explaining anything about a later situation.
I think that's exactly what they're trying to do, with the exception of Vulcan. They're not going to tediously form any rhyme or reason to this universe. It's basically just going to be the same characters from what we know in a different situation. They're going to just do what they want, as is evidenced by this movie.
Like I said, the canon is irrelevant. Because more or less they are going to end up in the same situations that we expect regardless of what the characters would logically do. Kirk will be captain regardless of the nature of his unbelievable promotion. Spock will be first officer despite once being acting captain, and despite that normally Spock might leave Starfleet in his people's time of need.
Now that everyone's been shoehorned into their places, they will continue on as if most of the first movie never happened and as if it's just the alternate voyages of the crew. We know that this is the result, so we know that this is the particular origin or back story they have in mind.
Similar threads
