In what universe is STD an original story? It is at least a partial remake because it remakes one of TWOK's most memorable scenes, except for the characters roles reversed.
Three minutes in a two-plus hour film doesn't in any way, shape or form constitute a remake.
I said a partial remake. And it's a lot more than just three minutes. There is of course the Kirk/Spock death thing. Khan out for Revenge, again. Khan stealing a Starfleet ship, again. Doomsday torpedoes are featured in both films. There might be more, but I only saw
Into Darkness once in theatres, and parts of it again when I got it as an unwanted Christmas present, so my memory of it is (thankfully) fading. I think part of the problem with STD is how unoriginal it is. It's not just TWOK it steals from. Except for the few minutes in it's opening scene, I don't think there is anything in it that wasn't already done (better) in previous Star Trek stories. Like I already mentioned TWOK, TUC,
Home Front and
Paradise Lost already did what was done in STD. Even the big action scene of the Enterprise falling and rolling in Earths gravity field (despite how scientifically ridiculous it was) was already done in
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.
Saying
Star TrekInto Darkness isn't
at least partially a remake of
The Wrath of Khan is like saying the Bond movie
Never Say Never Again, isn't a remake of
Thunderball.
So space combat is only good if the bad guy has a smaller ship? Huh?
Obviously not, but it does make it more interesting. Especially since every goddamn Star Trek movie since the 90's has had the bad guy in a Big Black Evil Ship. Unoriginal Star Trek movies that do the same thing again and again are getting quite tiresome.
Bad Robot didn't want novelists stepping on their toes.
They must also not want tie in toys stepping on their toes either. But they have no problem with Video game makers toe stepping.
Easy way to know that when one has no real argument, is when they roll out the insults.
Not really. There are just fewer and few people (especially young people) into reading books now a days. And the kind of audience that Into Darkness is aimed at aren't likely to buy Star Trek books.
A personal anecdote, if I may: Last summer, after STD came out I was on exercise. And while I was on my bunk reading a
Star Trek: Typhon Pact novel a friend (who saw, and kind of liked,
Into Darkness) asked why I would bother reading a Star Trek book when there is a new movie I could watch. And I said: because,
Into Darkness, unlike the post
Destiny Trek novels, is about a bunch of imitation characters that I don't care about. In an alternate reality I don't care about. Doing things that I don't care about.
It is sort of like asking why bother reading Tom Clancy's
Threat Vector, when you could just watch
Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit.
You just answered your own statement here in regards to Ron Moore. He was working for Michael Piller. By all accounts, Roddenberry had very little to do with the show starting in season three.
Pillar was head writer. Head writer doesn't always mean "Show Runner". Pillar was in charge of the writers room. Roddenberry was still in charge of the overall show until early season 5. He certainly began delegating more of his duties as time when on. But up until just before his death, he still had final say on almost everything.
Star Trek's ratings began declining with Deep Space Nine.
Deep Space Nine was a first run syndication show, during the dawn of digital cable. Since it was lost in a ever expanding sea of network and cable shows, it never had a chance to grow an audience. And since DS9 was shown on so many different channels, different times of day, on different days of the week, from one TV market to another it is hard to know what DS9's ratings really were. Where I lived DS9 was on channel 12,
Voyager, of course was on UPN, however both shows were in the same timeslot. So in some Markets, the little, forgotten, first run syndication show, DS9; and the network flagship show,
Voyager, were competing against each other for ratings.
In the end though, who cares? Over thirty years later Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is widely regarded as the best Star Trek movie ever. It is still referenced in pop culture, and even people who have never seen a Star Trek movie (not even the JJ ones) know of at least parts of TWOK.
It is remembered by Trek fans and comedians that make fun of Shatner.
You post proof or retract.
Compare that with Into Darkness which is only one year old and has already been largely forgotten. Except for a few of us Star Trek nerds still debating it's merits on a Star Trek discussion board.
Post proof or retract.
Of course
Into Darkness is mostly forgotten about. Movies like it are designed to be that way. JJ Abrams Trek movies, The
GI Joe movies, that
Battleship movie, and the Michael Bay
Transformer movies, are all made to sell popcorn, toys and video games, and then be forgotten about by the general public, so the sequels can be the same basic movie over again.
Or: Do you really think non-Trek fans stand around the water cooler talking about a thirty-plus year old sci-fi movie? Of course not.
Absolutely yes.
Jaws, Star Wars, Alien, Indiana Jones, The Wrath of Khan, Aliens, Ghostbusters, Robo Cop, Back to the Future,
Jurassic Park, most of the
James Bond movies, and many others are still talked about, around water coolers, and other places to this day.
Star TrekInto Darkness, the
GI Joe movies, the
Robo Cop remake, the
Carrie remake,
Grown Ups 2... not so much.
