Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by M'Sharak, Sep 14, 2011.
I expect Star Trek XIII to coincide with Trek's 50th anniversary.
There was 4 years between Back to the Future and parts II & III.
Seemed to work out okay.
Quite possibly so.
There was also a 4 year gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale.
There were 3 year gaps between all the Spiderman movies, as well as Batman Begins and Dark Knight. I don't think an extra year will hurt things much. I'm sure word of mouth is going to be huge before hand.
I, for one, am thrilled to hear the news. Was Abrams Trek perfect? Nope. Did it exactly coincide with my personal "vision" of what Trek is or should be? Not even close. Did I enjoy the film despite the differences between the released product and my own view of where I would like Trek to go? Yes.
That's a bit extreme...
And we just got new sneakers out of it, too!
I don't mean to sound cynical, but Star Trek always involved money. Why was TOS canceled? Money issues. Why was TMP made instead of a TV show? To cash in on Star Wars. Why was it followed by five movies? Because TMP made a ton of money. Why did we get coinciding spinoffs (TNG/DS9, DS9/VOY)? So that Paramount could cover the market. For that matter, why did we get four consecutive TV shows? Again, for money. Why did Paramount stop making movies after Nemesis, and why was Enterprise canceled? Because they either lost or didn't make enough money.
The primary reason why a show or film is made isn't to spread a message or vision, but to make money. The message or vision are important sure, and they're needed to draw and keep the audience, as well as to form the story. But above all else, Hollywood's an industry. Whether you like the product or not, that's up to you and that's perfectly fine if you don't. But Paramount ended Trek pre-Abrams because it simply wasn't attracting the audience it used to, and they decided it was best to spend their money elsewhere. It wasn't some personal attack on you or other Trekkies, it was a business decision.
To be honest with you, despite the "negative" aspect of XI's mainstream appeal (and the only negative I see is this type of projected, imaginary exclusionism), I believe overall it had much more to do with classic Trek than Nemesis. I believe it also had more in common than DS9 or VOY did most of the time as well (but in this case, it helped those shows).
It's somewhat ironic that Roddenberry made Trek to be accessible for nearly everyone, but the ones that most often invoke his name do so because they don't want it to be for everyone ("Where's MY Trek? Why should it appeal to the masses? Why does money have to matter?"). The proof is in the numbers: XI was successful. But changes are always necessary, and the previous spinoffs showed that, while not all major changes were necessarily successful, they still happened because of perceived necessity and the need to adapt to a changing audience.
No, you're not the only one. There are plenty of others who have expressed varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the last movie. Some of them still post in this forum, and even manage to be friendly to those with whom they disagree.
Sorry, not seeing that in this thread, but I am seeing someone working a little too hard at playing the victim. Drop that (and the melodramatic display of outrage, while we're at it) and we might just be able to get down to some reasonable and productive discussion about Trek.
I'm also not seeing any attacks upon you, though your labeling of Jeff as a "childish person" is getting a lot closer to a personal attack than I really like to see in here; do try to be more careful about that. It's true that Jeff's initial response to your little diatribe could perhaps have been more carefully considered, but I think he explained himself well enough and quite civilly in his subsequent post, a civility which you neglected to return in kind. Again, do try to be more careful about that.
Kind of silly, I guess, and perhaps not a complete waste of time, but I'm really not sure I saw the point of it.
Tidus, you're welcome to participate here, as is everyone, but I think you'd find it a great deal more enjoyable and more productive if you'd get rid of that big chip on your shoulder. We're really not such bad folks, after all. Some of us don't even like the movie all that much.
that's because they were making parts two and three together and releasing them back to back.
They could've done it in 1986. There wasn't any need to wait 4 years. In the BttF timeline it all takes place the same week.
This expresses my feelings pretty well, too.
That's the point I meant to make, but it slipped my mind. Abrams' film caught lightning in a bottle. It caught a lot of people by surprise, and I'm afraid they've missed their opportunity. The next movie may very well be just as good (or better), but I'm just not confident that the crowds will turn out for it like they did the first one.
Yet...somehow the CSI zombie shambles on. Go fig.
I love the new film. And TrekLit rules. And I've been a fan since the mid 70s.
Change is the order of things, people.
I get what you are saying to a certain extent; if there was a disconnect with the new movie for you then there's nothing that can be done. To a certain extent, Star Trek already had died a small death, and you don't have to like or accept the new movie. Perhaps eventually ST will re-emerge in a form closer to what you would like to see.
I think you drew reactions because of what some people describe as "entitlement." Your comment that you had invested time and emotional energy, that connects you to it, by the time and effort you chose to invest in it. I can only speak from personal experience, but when I get too defensive about something, eventually I am no longer defensive about it but in fact actively in attack mode, sometimes without even realizing it.
Yes, we all know we're entitled to free speech, short of verbal, personally targeted attacks. Nothing new under the sun. And I don't think anyone is trying to marginalize your opinion. Seriously, I come onto the forum and sometimes despair about how much "nitpicking" I perceive the new movie is receiving. I can personally pinpoint a couple of oddities with the movie, but there were other activities that the movie inspired me too that I felt were going to be more productive and interesting.
Before any hints came out about the sequel to it, I made sure that I took extensive notation on all the possible story-related ramification that occurred to me, stemming from the narrative of the new movie. I did this to mine the story potential out of what was presented, and explore the narrative avenues that opened up and of interest to me. I then jotted down some ideas about a third potential continuity that I could create from scratch, inspired by the movie, but for the purpose of using it as a setting for roleplaying gaming. Even though there have been plenty of other hints at alternative ST continuity in the past (Prime Directive RPG, The Final Reflection, your pick of certain comic book stories), the new movie makes those alternatives more concrete in a way. The new movie was a gift to story telling, or a new way to play with the toys in the toy store, depending on your perspective; both concepts are starting to blur for me after reading G.I. Joe comics. There are 5 or 6 different versions of G.I. Joe, and I still felt like it would be fun to come up with my own version as well.
The disconnect you feel with Star Trek (2009) sounds similar to the disconnect I experienced with the Star Wars prequel movies; so I turned away from them for a while, but privately. I read old SW books and comics. I wrote out 60+ pages worth of story outlines and character notes as a project to recapture my own ideas on what I thought the adventures of Anakin Skywalker, The Clone Wars Wars, The Fall of the Old Republic and the Rise of the Empire was going to be like, as a counter-tale to the narrative of the prequel movies. After a time, I eventually ended up throwing in one or two characters from the prequels into my own project, because they fit in, in a "reimagined" capacity.
From a cynical perspective, sure, all these successful fictional universes are for making money for corporations. But humans have always been telling stories, and we all have different ideas about what we would do with the story if we got our hands on it.
This is great news.
Yeah read the story today it's great news JJ is on board to direct he's the man to make it work....... Hopefully the story is just as good as the director !!!! Because JJ can't be beaten !!! So phasers on stun warp factor one and he's dead jim !!!!
I think Star Trek 2 will be even better than Star Trek 1.
Now that we've gotten those pesky origin stories out of the way we can focus on the way better looking Enterprise and her crew's adventures, which really is what the vast majority of true fans want.
Hopefully JJ brings his up tempo, distinct style back in full force and we're treated to the adventure of a lifetime that will further make us forget how bland and boring the old Trek was in comparison.
Separate names with a comma.