Conversation(s) Heard After the Movie [spoilers, maybe]

I hope that day will never come.

Just to make one thing clear: I don't dissent nuTrek per se, it's just that STID could have been sooo much better. Especially after the whole pre-release marketing promised us a completely different film. I don't hate or dislike STID, I'm just deeply disappointed that after four years of anticipation, all we got was ... this!

 

Why can't they come up with something new? I'm really sick of all those remakes. If this trend continues, then we will never get anything original ever again ... just the same old characters and stories recycled over and over again.

After four years of waiting I expected a little more than "fun" ... maybe I expected too much, thanks to that completely misleading marketing for the movie.

 

What qualifies as "new?"

Seriously, does anybody here have that answer? Every story EVER borrows something from something else. Can something really be new?

 

After that truly atrocious official synopsis that Paramount released for STD I didn't except much. Seriously, "an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for" wtf? How exactly does one detonate a "fleet and everything it stands for". "Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction" good god. "Our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death" Not just a chess game a "chess game of life and death!" An "epic" "chess game of life and death!!" And then, "love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart" . What a mess, was that written by a 10 year old? One cliché after another. So yeah, after I read that I had pretty low expectations, but I was still disappointed when I saw Star Trek Into Darkness.

 

New characters would be a good start. Or what about a completely new franchise? Do we really need a new Superman/Spiderman/Batman every few years? Do we have to go through TOS/TNG/DS9/VGR all over again? What about a new crew on a new ship or station or whatever?

 

My ONLY disappointment with that movie was that the starship fight seemed too short. I would have loved to see Enterprise get in a few licks against the Vengeance before Marcus disabled their weapons and shields. They totally could have done it; it only would have extended the movie by two or three minutes, but it would have been TOTALLY worth it.

An early script pitched to Paramount would have involved a Starfleet officer -- one of Kirk's ancestors -- fighting in the Earth-Romulan War. I'm thinking some day we'll have to revisit that story line because it has quite a bit of potential.

 

star trek 2009 was new.

 

^I thought it was a scene-for-scene rip off of Star Wars/Starship Troopers/Wrath of Khan/Nemesis (depending on the time of month) and the most evil thing in the history of the universe (up until Into Darkness, of course) and spawned from the diseased loins of Jar Jar "Antichrist" Abrams?

Thats what people on Youtube tell me.

 

That was Star Trek: The Beginning, the project Paramount had Rick Berman chasing his tail with while they waited for his contract to expire. Written by Eric Jenderssen.

It'll be a cold day in Hell when that gets made.

 

^Bizarrely, I think they referenced the ST: B story in the 2009 movie when we learn that George Kirk's father was named Tiberius. Tiberius Chase was the name of the ST: B hero, an anscestor of James Kirk, in love with an admiral's daughter who lives in Iowa.

 

Well, global climate change has been accelerating for a while now...

 

Case in point:

See, this is what I'm talking about. A convenient way to casually dismiss critics without actually addressing any of the criticisms. It can't possibly be that there's anything wrong with the movies.

I don't get why any fan would wish failure on the Abrams Trek movies. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Pretty easy. It's equally absurd the length many fans go to to psychologically reassure themselves that there's nothing at all wrong with the movies, therefore there must be something wrong with the critics.

Even before the Abrams film, I realized Trek wasn't anywhere near as good as I remembered it. When I was a kid, I thought TOS and TNG were the epitome of science fiction. When I grew up and finally read some actual good science fiction, I discovered just how piss-poor most of Star Trek was. That isn't to say it can't be good. I'd like to see someone take Star Trek and turn it into something good one day.

And thank God for that.

 

Star Trek will be continually rebooted, yes, but not the spinoffs. I mean, Sherlock Holmes will continue to be remade, but the spinoff animated series, Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century is unlikely to be rebooted anytime soon. TNG, and all of Berman-Trek for that matter, had its day, but that day is over.

 

Pretty much, yep.

"Tiberius" has been Kirk's middle name for decades now. It's the "Tiberius Chase" character referencing Trek continuity, not the other way around.

 

Yeah it is really only three those others are just derivatives.

man against God = If God is a physical being then it is Man v. Man (which should just be called person v. person) If God is not a physical being then it is Man v. Nature.

man against society = Soecity meaning people, so Man v. Man

man caught in the middle = The middle of what? Person, place or thing. Those could all fall in to v. Man, v. Self, or v. Nature

man and woman = Man v. Man ie Person v. Person

I think we get the phrases Man vs. insert thing here is a result of the time it was coined, probably not a lot of Womanly stories at the time.

 

Not necessarily. The War of Roses is the kind of story that couldn't really be told any other way. "Man vs. Woman" is a unique type of fight, sort of like "Alien vs. Predator" only slightly more disturbing.