new style movies are crap

[SeerSGB]

i'd rather watch a flashy shiny brainless action film than something like insurrection.

I must be in the minority, in that I like Insurrection-- other than the fact that it felt more like a TV movie size story over a big screen one.

I'll add in that I found it aggravatingly average. Not good, not bad... just kinda there.

I'm pretty much like this.

Except for my dislike of the nuEnterprise and beer-brewery sets. Aside from that, it really wasn't much worse than "Nemesis" and felt cookie-cutter. Nothing to really hate, cause there's not really much there to begin with.

Oh, I'll give the movie it's due: Spock was actually a pretty interesting character in the movie, catching the tone of the inner conflict that was touched upon in TOS and some really nice Father/Son moments between him and Sarek.

I agree with you on both Insurrection and Trek 09. I'd also add that I thought it was pretty gutsy to destroy Vulcan, I enjoyed Anton Yelchin's Chekov, and Karl Urban gave an amazing performance as McCoy. And on the negative, I thought it was stupid to hand the keys of the Enterprise to such a young and inexperienced officer at the end of the movie. A quick flash-forward would have smoothed that out nicely.

Yeah, Kirk getting the Enterprise so young ws a bit of "WTF?" unless there was something off screen that we didn't know about that had wasted the bulk of the fleet (and I don't mean the run in with Narada at Vulcan, cause we know that wasn't the bulk of the fleet), there should have been a few officers ready to promote up or transfer over to take over the new flagship.

It's one of those things that could be fixed with a simple addition of a line of two explaining that they lost a lot of ships and command-line officers and Kirk and his generation were having to step up to fill the voice or a title card / subtitle saying "4 years later"

 

[Kemaiku]

Or it could be a setup for part of the sequel plot, where we find out just what really went on in the Laurentian system.

 

[SeerSGB]

Or it could be a setup for part of the sequel plot, where we find out just what really went on in the Laurentian system.

It'd be nice if they had thought far ahead. But this is from the same writers that gave us the 3 live-action Transformers movies...I don't have much faith in them following up that plot point.

 

[Valin]

^^^They do follow up on plot points in "Hawaii 5-0."

 

[Kemaiku]

It was only thrown in for the plot of the first movie I know, I was just pondering, anyway even in oldTrek Kirk was the youngest Captain, Kirk in this universe just beat him to it by a few years (2258, or 59 if the Enterprise needed serious repairs, compared to 2263).

 

[Greg Cox]

It's one of those things that could be fixed with a simple addition of a line of two explaining that they lost a lot of ships and command-line officers and Kirk and his generation were having to step up to fill the voice or a title card / subtitle saying "4 years later"

The problem with doing the "Four Years Later" thing is that it essentially freezes the relationships at the point where the Narada blew up--or, worse yet, skips over four years of Kirk and Spock getting to know each other better, four years of developments in Spock and Uhura's relationship, four years of coping with the aftermath of Vulcan's destruction, etc. It pretty much deprives the filmmakers of the option of picking up where the first movie left off.

Now, it's entirely possible that the next movie will pick up four years later anyway, but, structurally, there are definitely pros and cons to skipping over those four years . . . .

 

[SeerSGB]

It's one of those things that could be fixed with a simple addition of a line of two explaining that they lost a lot of ships and command-line officers and Kirk and his generation were having to step up to fill the voice or a title card / subtitle saying "4 years later"

The problem with doing the "Four Years Later" thing is that it essentially freezes the relationships at the point where the Narada blew up--or, worse yet, skips over four years of Kirk and Spock getting to know each other better, four years of developments in Spock and Uhura's relationship, four years of coping with the aftermath of Vulcan's destruction, etc. It pretty much deprives the filmmakers of the option of picking up where the first movie left off.

Now, it's entirely possible that the next movie will pick up four years later anyway, but, structurally, there are definitely pros and cons to skipping over those four years . . . .

Obviously, but it's one way of addressing the whole "To young" concerns.

Here's the problem: if you apply Prime-Trek thinking to the movie, there's issues; not so much square peg, round hole, as wrong size peg for the hole: it might fit, but you're going to need to do some filing and trimming.

We don't really know exactly how this universe works. Kirk could be younger than average, but not enough for Starfleet to say "fuck no, you kidding".

See I wonder if the attack on the Kelvin was the original point of divergence or if the TCW had caused a / the split before and the incident with the Narada just finished the tear.

 

[Set Harth]

Here's the problem: if you apply Prime-Trek thinking to the movie, there's issues; not so much square peg round hole, as wrong size peg for the hole: it might fit, but you're going to need to do some filing and trimming.

Shouldn't that be "square Pegg, round hole"?

See I wonder if the attack on the Kelvin was the original point of divergence or if the TCW had caused a / the split before and the incident with the Narada just finished the tear.

Wonder no longer.

The attack on the Kelvin was the original point of divergence. That's the whole idea behind the film. Spock and Nero come from the Prime and thus Nero creates the new timeline by going into the past of the Prime.

 

[Franklin]

It's one of those things that could be fixed with a simple addition of a line of two explaining that they lost a lot of ships and command-line officers and Kirk and his generation were having to step up to fill the voice or a title card / subtitle saying "4 years later"

The problem with doing the "Four Years Later" thing is that it essentially freezes the relationships at the point where the Narada blew up--or, worse yet, skips over four years of Kirk and Spock getting to know each other better, four years of developments in Spock and Uhura's relationship, four years of coping with the aftermath of Vulcan's destruction, etc. It pretty much deprives the filmmakers of the option of picking up where the first movie left off.

Now, it's entirely possible that the next movie will pick up four years later anyway, but, structurally, there are definitely pros and cons to skipping over those four years . . . .

Yes. Also because it would imply that after Nero, we've just skipped over four years of adventures where Kirk must've distinguished himself even further. Now, would the next movies be flashbacks to those adventures or do we just leave that period blank? Better to just have the contrivance. The story required that by the end of that movie, Kirk had to be captain of the Enteprise. Period. I can live with it.
Besides, if one wants to reationalize the move, there was plenty of evidence within the movie that Kirk was an exceptional person. He was a genius who also turns out to be a born leader. Pike even said Starfleet could use less staid people. He probably was a major advocate for giving Kirk the position. Kirk fit the mold for a new Starfleet captain. Why make him wait?

 

[Dukhat]

Well the new start trek movies are a load of crap, how could the startrek people allow this ?
Why could they just use the original style and frame work of the charactors with out reworking them, after all it works for films such as james Bond where different actors play the role, (even if the style is slightly different), the main concept stays the same, in the same frame work.
So what now in the startrek universe, if the Kirk age as changed, will there be no picard age, or vovager age, etc, or do all these now need to be rewritten to suit this new time line ?
If the director and writers didn't like the old Kirk version of "Star Trek", they could have created another captin and crew to write about.
Maybe they can correct there messing in the next film by putting the charators back close to how they where originally in the series.

Let me see if I have all my facts straight:

1. Newbie joins the TrekBBS for the sole reason of making one single post to bash the "new" Trek film (which has now been out for two and a half years), or "films" as he says, even though there's only one.

2. Newbie can't even be bothered to get his spelling, punctuation, or grammar correct in his post, much less his facts.

3. We're all responding to this obvious troll's post, and yet he himself can't be bothered to add any more to the discussion past his OP?

 

[Kemaiku]

Well, look at it the other way, a thread with many competant and intelligent posters discussing the new movies, with one annoying troll who has only made one post.

 

[Dukhat]

Well, look at it the other way, a thread with many competant and intelligent posters discussing the new movies, with one annoying troll who has only made one post.

Touche.

 

[Kemaiku]

But yeah, this sort of thing is only to get more common now that the sequel enters production in the next week or so, every little troll and idiot is going to turn up and start something like this.

 

[Set Harth]

Just wait until the film actually comes out.

If history is any indication, the amount of craziness unleashed at that point will be off the charts.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Kemaiku]

Aww, but think of all the poor little haters crying themselves to sleep in a corner until then, we're soo mean to them.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Now, it's entirely possible that the next movie will pick up four years later anyway, but, structurally, there are definitely pros and cons to skipping over those four years . . . .

I'm guessing they'll only hint at time elapsing, or very briefly mention it. It will be something like a few years, but the relationships won't have changed much. Some will probably cry foul about it too, but most regular people won't care at all.

 

[BillJ]

It was only thrown in for the plot of the first movie I know, I was just pondering, anyway even in oldTrek Kirk was the youngest Captain, Kirk in this universe just beat him to it by a few years (2258, or 59 if the Enterprise needed serious repairs, compared to 2263).

Well, it's about seven years if you place Kirk's first year in command at 2265. Plus you have to factor in that Abrams-verse Kirk has four years less experience than his prime universe counterpart joining the Academy four years later.

So that's a net loss of eleven years experience prior to commanding the Enterprise, seven of those years actually serving on various starships.

It's not him getting command at a young age that bothers me, it's the fact that he has far, far less experience.

 

[thumbtack]

That's my biggest concern.

Yes it is.




.

 

[Lord Garth FOI]

Love Nu Trek just want a bit less manic Bay style running and shouting

And some more belly to the Engineering hull

 

[CaptainMatt]

Funny how we are all posting on a thread started by a guy who only made one -rather argumentive-post instead of ignoring it. But hey, I am just as guilty of it as all of you are. Therefore, might I just add that I think the last few movies in the Trek canon were great! Whether we are talking about Nemesis or Star Trek (2009) I liked them both very much.