Um, I thought that was the whole idea . . . .
Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?
- Thread starter Danger Ace
- Start date
Um, I thought that was the whole idea . . . .
Financially it is sustainable. Creatively it is already a zombie as both movies are basically copies of TWOK.
Hogwash. One can find parallels between any story now a days. Whoop-de-doo. Let's be honest here, we are NOT story writers or the creative genuises behind Trek or any motion picture franchise, so who are we to judge the creativity of Abrams and Co?
Why do some people think as such?
Why do some people think as such?
How can you say that when you haven't even seen the second movie yet?
The villain is obviously Khan (and even if he isn't the story plays along the same revenge lines as TWOK 2.0 aka NEM and TWOK 3.0 aka NEM 2.0 aka ST09), there is Carol Marcus, there is at least a visual reference to Spock's death scene and so on.
This isn't particularly surprising. They were able to get away with copying when they did ST09 and they were hugely successful so why shouldn't they be conservative (meaning risk-averse) and stick to what has worked?
This isn't particularly surprising. They were able to get away with copying when they did ST09 and they were hugely successful so why shouldn't they be conservative (meaning risk-averse) and stick to what has worked?
JJ likes to trick people so I wouldn't put too much stock in the evidence from the trailer. All I know is that it isn't a movie I have seen before. Sure it may have similar elements but any franchise film is going to have that and it doesn't bother me one bit.
Last edited:
Almost any story can be broken down to such generalities that it becomes comparable to scads of other stories in its genre or within a single series. Every episode of "Columbo" was basically the same type of story, so was "House". Almost all murder mystery and medical shows follow the same basic plot formula (baddie of the week; disease of the week). It's the nature of mass entertainment going back to Shakespeare.
It's interest in the characters and the quality of the production that often sustain rather simple stories and themes. The tried and true themes (vengeance, redemption, forgiveness, justice, whatever) are visited over and over again because they create interesting situations and challenge characters.
It's interest in the characters and the quality of the production that often sustain rather simple stories and themes. The tried and true themes (vengeance, redemption, forgiveness, justice, whatever) are visited over and over again because they create interesting situations and challenge characters.
Yeah, I am sure the guy can perform a Jedi mind trick and eliminate all the footage from the trailer in our minds.
Seriously, of course I could be totally wrong and as most fans didn't seem to mind that the last movie used some elements from TWOK (some were also a copy of a copy, NEM; e.g. the bald guy with the giant-ship and a strange motivation to go after a main character or the way the Romulans have been messed up, once as victims from the dark side of the moon and once as Tattoomulans) they will probably not mind it when they get the whole thing again. If you like the taste twice in a row (thrice to be precise) isn't bad.
Are you going to see the movie?
Thanks, I also hope that you take the maximum enjoyment out of ST12. I might have a very low opinion about the writers but gee, everything else about STXI, acting, pacing, the visual side and so on, was absolutely perfect and most definitely will also be thus in this movie.
I have, but not as unfairly (or to the extremes) as the "fans" have this time through.
It's very doom and gloom where it should be hope and celebration.
How can people criticize the writing of the Abrams movies in comparison to the old trek movies? I mean, seriously?
Don't be so dramatic. Your opinions are fine, you are entitled to them for it is your God-given right. I'm only commenting on the idea that Trek now-a-days is something less than it was in the past.
I am reacting quite allergically to your antidemocratic (disrespect is the essence of democracy) "who are we to criticize these giants?" stuff as well as to the old real fan (I am a fan, you are "fan") nonsense. I don't have problems with real Trek comments though. Especially today some dogmatism or, to use a softer word, adherence to basic principles would do the franchise some good.
You are more than welcome to criticize them, forgive me if I insinuated otherwise, but when you or others like you say that this incarnation of Trek is not "creative" or "artistic" or "intelligent" or whatever buzzword that I've heard for the past four years; I will get angry because by saying such things YOU are saying that those who have enjoyed this are none of these things. So forgive me if I seem snippy or abrupt, but dogmatism never works, it just kills in the most embarrassing fashion whatever it sets out to "save," and this is coming from a Catholic.
I am an ex-Catholic and also dislike many stupid Catholic dogmas but I also think that the line from Matthew in your signature is something that should be a dogma or a basic principle for all Christians. It is not dogmatic in the sense of rigid and inflexible but simply describes the very basics of what being a Christian should be all about. In the execution of the principle you are fairly free or in a Sartrean sense even condemned to be free; it is not always easy or straightforward to even know how to love (of course not in the romantic sense but in the Christian sense), let alone do it.
Same in the case of Trek. I think that there are a few very rough guidelines that describe what Trek should be about (bright future, humankind trying to become better and peacefully coexist with the nice guys out there and so on) and they are in my opinion (very important, what you could call the spirit of Trek is something very subjective) ignored in this incarnation of Trek which is why I don't like it. As a close friend of mine said about the movie, "it is a nice sci-fi action movie but not a good Trek movie". Just doesn't feel like one to some of us.
Same in the case of Trek. I think that there are a few very rough guidelines that describe what Trek should be about (bright future, humankind trying to become better and peacefully coexist with the nice guys out there and so on) and they are in my opinion (very important, what you could call the spirit of Trek is something very subjective) ignored in this incarnation of Trek which is why I don't like it. As a close friend of mine said about the movie, "it is a nice sci-fi action movie but not a good Trek movie". Just doesn't feel like one to some of us.
Similar threads
