new style movies are crap

Therin of Andor · Jan 9, 2012

donners22 said:
And comparing the box office take of movies in 2009 shows that people who take Star Trek over Angels & Demons, Twilight or Transformers are in the minority.

I thought "Angels and Demons" was branded a flop? Sure, it was a prequel to a film that was extremely popular, and highly anticipated, but didn't it lose tickets numbers really fast after its premiere? The 2009 ST film was still filling the IMAX cinemas for weeks longer than projected.

Wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest either way. I still have every episode and movie on DVD. The rest of the "franchise" is far less prominant than it was when I was growing up

Well some of us, here Down Under, went through the 70s when ST had no public prominence until December 1979. Unlike the USA, where ST had been a staple part of nightly prime time viewing, in infinite repeat, the local network that owned the ST rights here sat on them, except for a handful of TOS to celebrate the arrival of colour TV in 1975. So we've seen that ST is cyclic, like most fashions, movies, furniture designs and media trends.

ST will probably never have another 18-years-straight-of-new-episodes-on-TV - that was still an amazing run - but ST will be back, in some form or other. Some might measure up to your personal standards. Some may not, but seeing one you don't like, or knowing that it's out there, shouldn't tarnish your memories of the ones you do like.

Temis the Vorta · Jan 9, 2012

And comparing the box office take of movies in 2009 shows that people who take Star Trek over Angels & Demons, Twilight or Transformers are in the minority. I trust many fans here would embrace that minority as much as I do mine.

All those movies make enough money to keep them going as franchises. Your taste simply won't support a franchise, at least not in the movies, so it's never going to be served.

Well some of us, here Down Under, went through the 70s when ST had no public prominence until December 1979. Unlike the USA, where ST had been a staple part of nightly prime time viewing, in infinite repeat, the local network that owned the ST rights here sat on them, except for a handful of TOS to celebrate the arrival of colour TV in 1975. So we've seen that ST is cyclic, like most fashions, movies, furniture designs and media trends.

That shows that demand for a franchise can wax and wane depending on how it's handled. Demand is generated by corporations putting millions into marketing campaigns, to create demand for products that doesn't exist until you shove it under people's noses. People do know what they want, sort of, but usually don't know it until you show it to them.

Therin of Andor · Jan 9, 2012

Temis the Vorta said:
That shows that demand for a franchise can wax and wane depending on how it's handled.

No amount of handling of flared jeans is going to keep them the height of fashion forever. Eventually something else attracts the buyers' attention.

Demand is generated by corporations putting millions into marketing campaigns, to create demand for products that doesn't exist until you shove it under people's noses. People do know what they want, sort of, but usually don't know it until you show it to them.

Sure, but eventually there'll be a return to the natural wax and wane. Or, some other corporation dangles a cooler, fresher carrot.

Brainsucker · Jan 13, 2012

showwild said:
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.

Well, I'm glad that the New Trek is not the same as TOS, because I imaged that it would become a kind of Retro like Austin Power and it's actually not. So, I love the new Trek.

Therin of Andor · Jan 14, 2012

Brainsucker said:
Well, I'm glad that the New Trek is not the same as TOS, because I imaged that it would become a kind of Retro like Austin Power and it's actually not. So, I love the new Trek.

True. "The Brady Bunch" remake movies were fun, but played totally for laughs.

Temis the Vorta · Jan 14, 2012

Therin of Andor said:
Temis the Vorta said:

That shows that demand for a franchise can wax and wane depending on how it's handled.

Click to expand...

No amount of handling of flared jeans is going to keep them the height of fashion forever. Eventually something else attracts the buyers' attention.

Demand is generated by corporations putting millions into marketing campaigns, to create demand for products that doesn't exist until you shove it under people's noses. People do know what they want, sort of, but usually don't know it until you show it to them.

Click to expand...

Sure, but eventually there'll be a return to the natural wax and wane. Or, some other corporation dangles a cooler, fresher carrot.

What Abrams did with the movie franchise isn't analogous to flared jeans but rather to jeans, period. Something that has stood the test of time, and with this or that iteration, will continue indefinitely.

INS and NEM are more like a green-and-red plaid pantsuit: What were we thinking/please don't do that anymore.

horatio83 · Jan 14, 2012

Brainsucker said:
Well, I'm glad that the New Trek is not the same as TOS, because I imaged that it would become a kind of Retro like Austin Power and it's actually not. So, I love the new Trek.

I think that the movie catches the goofiness of TOS quite well. Together with TFF it is the movie which resembles TOS the most.
Whether this is an asset or a liability is in the eyes of the beholder.

CaptainMatt · Jan 14, 2012

I do grow weary of fans who badmouth STV. At least your post favorably compares it to the 2009 feature film.

UFO · Jan 15, 2012

Temis the Vorta said:
Therin of Andor said:

No amount of handling of flared jeans is going to keep them the height of fashion forever. Eventually something else attracts the buyers' attention.

Click to expand...

What Abrams did with the movie franchise isn't analogous to flared jeans but rather to jeans, period. Something that has stood the test of time, and with this or that iteration, will continue indefinitely.

I can't agree. That would imply Abrams created "Star Trek" (I.e. Jeans) rather than just a variation on it. Actually the analogy of "flared jeans" to his minimalist version of Star Trek seems rather apt: flamboyant and pointless. Yet strangely enjoyable to most, at least for a time.

horatio83 · Jan 15, 2012

Temis the Vorta said:
Plenty of brainless movies make shitloads of money, so why should Star Trek operate under different rules from the rest of the movie industry?

Because it is Star Trek and not some retarded action blockbuster franchise? You can make money via selling hamburgers or via selling real meals.

Temis the Vorta said:
Demand is generated by corporations putting millions into marketing campaigns

You confuse supply and demand and overestimate the power of marketing. My demand is based on my preferences and not influenced by how many millions a stupid company spends on advertising.

Butters · Jan 15, 2012

horatio83 said:
Because it is Star Trek and not some retarded action blockbuster franchise? You can make money via selling hamburgers or via selling real meals.

Star Trek, the height of intellectualism. Init. :eek:

I like star trek, its entertaining, inspirational sometimes, but you don't need to look to deep to see the retarded bits.

Therin of Andor · Jan 15, 2012

UFO said:
Actually the analogy of "flared jeans" to his minimalist version of Star Trek seems rather apt: flamboyant and pointless. Yet strangely enjoyable to most, at least for a time.

Now known affectionately as "lens flare jeans".

Set Harth · Jan 16, 2012

UFO said:
Yet strangely enjoyable to most, at least for a time.

Nothing strange about it.

GammaRayKirk · Jan 16, 2012

I think you got it mixed up dude. This is an alternate timeline so you just done understand the old one still exists on another timeline and this is separate and not a re-telling.

Captain Mike · Jan 16, 2012

GammaRayKirk said:
I think you got it mixed up dude. This is an alternate timeline so you just done understand the old one still exists on another timeline and this is separate and not a re-telling.

You know,...I am fed up with the people who liked this movies defense of "The old one still exists on another timeline and this is separate and not a re-telling" argument.
That is NOT the point that most of us, who didn't like the film, are trying to say. Of course we know that. After all it has been stated over, and over , and over......"DUDE"

It is about we don't agree with the direction of it and not containing the "essence" of what Star Trek is and not seeing something else.
Now, I know there are fans on here that disagree with me and some even older than I, so be it.

BillJ · Jan 16, 2012

Captain Mike said:
It is about we don't agree with the direction of it and not containing the "essence" of what Star Trek is and not seeing something else.

What is the "essence" of Trek? I always thought it was Gene Roddenberry making as much cash as possible from others hard work...

M'Sharak · Jan 16, 2012

Captain Mike said:
GammaRayKirk said:

I think you got it mixed up dude. This is an alternate timeline so you just done understand the old one still exists on another timeline and this is separate and not a re-telling.

Click to expand...

You know,...I am fed up with the people who liked this movies defense of "The old one still exists on another timeline and this is separate and not a re-telling" argument.
That is NOT the point that most of us, who didn't like the film, are trying to say. Of course we know that. After all it has been stated over, and over , and over......"DUDE"
It is about we don't agree with the direction of it and not containing the "essence" of what Star Trek is and not seeing something else.
Now, I know there are fans on here that disagree with me and some even older than I, so be it.

In a nutshell, the movie they made is not the one you (general "you," to match your general "we") wanted them to make - not the movie you thought they should make. We've also seen that stated over and over and over, as it was stated once again by this thread's originator (to whom GammaRayKirk's response was most likely directed.)

There are two paths available to you at this juncture (or two possible timelines, if you will):

You can continue to nurse the sting of the terrible injustice which has been perpetrated upon you (with malice aforethought) by the friendly folks at Bad Robot and Paramount Pictures, and you can allow that hurt to gnaw away at your soul for the remainder of your Earthly existence, or—as most reasonable people do with movies they do not enjoy—you can simply opt never to watch Star Trek (2009) again and choose of your own volition to occupy your time by consuming other entertainment.

Up to you, really, but I think the second option is likely to prove more healthy in the long run.

Captain Mike · Jan 16, 2012

M'Sharak said:
In a nutshell, the movie they made is not the one you (general "you," to match your general "we") wanted them to make - not the movie you thought they should make. We've also seen that stated over and over and over, as it was stated once again by this thread's originator (to whom GammaRayKirk's response was most likely directed.)

There are two paths available to you at this juncture (or two possible timelines, if you will):

You can continue to nurse the sting of the terrible injustice which has been perpetrated upon you (with malice aforethought) by the friendly folks at Bad Robot and Paramount Pictures, and you can allow that hurt to gnaw away at your soul for the remainder of your Earthly existence, or—as most reasonable people do with movies they do not enjoy—you can simply opt never to watch Star Trek (2009) again and choose of your own volition to occupy your time by consuming other entertainment.

Up to you, really, but I think the second option is likely to prove more healthy in the long run.

I've already have done that seeing this is the first movie with Star Trek in its title I have no desire to watch again...

Captain Mike · Jan 16, 2012

BillJ said:
Captain Mike said:

It is about we don't agree with the direction of it and not containing the "essence" of what Star Trek is and not seeing something else.

Click to expand...

What is the "essence" of Trek? I always thought it was Gene Roddenberry making as much cash as possible from others hard work...

You ever seek professional help about your "Roddenberry obsession"? No matter how much you disliked the man, or what you have read about him, his basic idea about how the future should be is the factor.

horatio83 · Jan 17, 2012

Precisely, it's about his vision and not him.
You often encounter this fallacy the other way around, when somebody justifies an argument by referring to the authority of experience of the man who uttered it. Well, what if a total crook says it, does the argument then become less valid? Obviously not.

It is obviously also not a coincidence that people like you and me who cherish Roddenberry's vision miss its absence in ST09. People who don't care about it naturally don't miss its absence, why should they.

new style movies are crap

Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Admiral

Captain

Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Commodore

Fleet Captain

Captain

Commodore

Rear Admiral

Admiral

Admiral

Ensign

Commodore

The King of Kings.

Definitely Herbert. Maybe.

Commodore

Commodore

Commodore

Similar threads

We value your privacy