Discoprise won't have TOS "cardboard sets"

[MakeshiftPython]

Simplifying critics of nuTrek as just being a bunch of TNG fans upset over the films going for more of an action/adventure vibe is kind of dishonest. As someone that is not a fan of the first two films, I have no problem with the action/adventure vibe. I think Abrams brought a much needed jovial energy back to the franchise that's been missing for awhile. My issue has always been the quality of the writing and characterization.

 

[eschaton]

I've long felt like Into Darkness is a dumb action movie with a nonsensical plot. I hadn't seen Star Trek Beyond up until this year, and I was really hopeful, given so many people said it felt "more Trek" that I would enjoy the movie.

But I just didn't. At least, not any more than the other Kelvinverse movies. There were little elements I liked, like the remembrance that Spock/McCoy banter was central to TOS, and the cute little Enterprise tie in. I also liked the "back to basics" story, exploration focus, and stakes being lowered a bit. But the movie felt very lightweight and by the numbers. The antagonists weren't compelling, nor was Jaylah. I basically forgot about the movie as soon as it was finished.

 

[Jadeb]

I've long felt like Into Darkness is a dumb action movie with a nonsensical plot. I hadn't seen Star Trek Beyond up until this year, and I was really hopeful, given so many people said it felt "more Trek" that I would enjoy the movie.

But I just didn't. At least, not any more than the other Kelvinverse movies. There were little elements I liked, like the remembrance that Spock/McCoy banter was central to TOS, and the cute little Enterprise tie in. I also liked the "back to basics" story, exploration focus, and stakes being lowered a bit. But the movie felt very lightweight and by the numbers. The antagonists weren't compelling, nor was Jaylah. I basically forgot about the movie as soon as it was finished.

It’s a Bond movie wearing a Starfleet uniform. It follows the modern Bond formula almost exactly, with a strong female protagonist (who still needs rescuing) and a big bad out for revenge. There’s even a motorbike scene!

That said, it’s probably my favorite of the three.

 

[Vger23]

Simplifying critics of nuTrek as just being a bunch of TNG fans upset over the films going for more of an action/adventure vibe is kind of dishonest. As someone that is not a fan of the first two films, I have no problem with the action/adventure vibe. I think Abrams brought a much needed jovial energy back to the franchise that's been missing for awhile. My issue has always been the quality of the writing and characterization.

That's fair...although I really do think that a good percentage of the backlash comes from TNG-era fans who are looking for more of that style and setting. But, to your point, there are other reasons the films don't resonate with people.

I enjoy them very much...but more as action roller coaster rides than as "good" Star Trek. In many ways, I think they are entertaining, but not something I'd be invested in. I like them to varying degrees, but I could care less if they make another one or not.

 

[Rahul]

It’s a Bond movie wearing a Starfleet uniform. It follows the modern Bond formula almost exactly, with a strong female protagonist (who still needs rescuing) and a big bad out for revenge. There’s even a motorbike scene!

It's the modern blockbuster formula. Every. Single. MARVEL movie closely follows this three-act formula. Every DC movie. Every Pirates of the Caribbean movie. And even most regular action movies, from Die Hard to Fast&Furious to everything else. It's the same story-beats, the same doo-hickey that threatens the world/universe/city, the same boring superficial love story.

Except for the new Bond films.
Those are different since Craig (though hit and miss). Also, it's really not the "modern" Bond formula, they did that back in the 60s.

I think the last time a movie franchise actually has a single badguy over multiple movies was STAR WARS. Since then, only in the case of adaptions (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings), which tend to tell longer stories anyway.

But "One badguy = one movie" is just a very convinient way to write a movie and have a clear plot that builds up and is resolved at the end. I just wish they would get away from that a little. For example I wised for the MARVEL movies for HYDRA to become a regular, recurring enemy, and for movies like "Ant-Man & the Wasp" - which could have been a genuine exploration adventure - that they sometimes don't need a villain at all.

They just repeated this formula so, so, so many times, most screenwriters simply don't know how to structure a screenplay without it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

That description also fits the "formula" of The Wizard of Oz.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I think the point being made is that Trek has used that formula way too often that there needs to be a shakeup, especially since that's been proven in a movie like THE VOYAGE HOME that they could do a different kind of story and keep audiences engaged.

I still maintain Khan should have never turned into an antagonist in STID. The idea of having him and Kirk work together to stop a corrupt admiral was one of the few novel ideas going on. I think a more interesting resolution would have been Khan getting his people back then just going off his way, leaving behind the Enterprise still crippled from Marcus' attack and telling Kirk not to follow him as he intends to live with his family peacefully away from humanity and make a world of their own. It's more resembling of "Space Seed" but it's Khan that exiles himself again instead of having Kirk do that to him on Ceti Alpha V.

That said, STID at least doesn't kill Khan. I suspect this was intentional in case they wanted to bring back Khan for a future installment, but yeah.

 

[thribs]

I imagine it will have plastic sets.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I still maintain Khan should have never turned into an antagonist in STID. The idea of having him and Kirk work together to stop a corrupt admiral was one of the few novel ideas going on.

But that doesn't fit-in with the underpinning principle theme of the Kelvin films.

 

[Stewey]

I cringed when Stewey even called the TOS sets cardboard back in the ENT Days. Way to stick up for the series you're holding sacred! So, after all this time, I've developed a thick skin to that criticism.

I was probably responding to some absurd apologetic about the aesthetics of Enterprise in comparison to TOS at that time.

Anyhow my position is that by modern standards the TOS sets are quite primitive, with modern lighting and small tweaking, the TOS era aesthetic would still be perfectly viable in the present day and necessary to be consistent with the time period that DIS supposedly occurs in.

 

[eschaton]

It's the modern blockbuster formula. Every. Single. MARVEL movie closely follows this three-act formula. Every DC movie. Every Pirates of the Caribbean movie. And even most regular action movies, from Die Hard to Fast&Furious to everything else. It's the same story-beats, the same doo-hickey that threatens the world/universe/city, the same boring superficial love story.

Except for the new Bond films.
Those are different since Craig (though hit and miss). Also, it's really not the "modern" Bond formula, they did that back in the 60s.

I think the last time a movie franchise actually has a single badguy over multiple movies was STAR WARS. Since then, only in the case of adaptions (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings), which tend to tell longer stories anyway.

But "One badguy = one movie" is just a very convinient way to write a movie and have a clear plot that builds up and is resolved at the end. I just wish they would get away from that a little. For example I wised for the MARVEL movies for HYDRA to become a regular, recurring enemy, and for movies like "Ant-Man & the Wasp" - which could have been a genuine exploration adventure - that they sometimes don't need a villain at all.

They just repeated this formula so, so, so many times, most screenwriters simply don't know how to structure a screenplay without it.

While I think movie Trek needs to break out of the tired action-adventure route, there is one way to do action-adventure without a villain, Man vs. nature. Think of The Martian, or the many disaster movies done over the years.

Now, Trek has dabbled with this in the past. TMP and TVH had plots which were based upon the potential destruction of the earth, not by a bad guy, but by mysterious (and misunderstood) alien entities. And ST09 stuck in some "disaster porn" with the destruction of Vulcan. But an entire Trek movie focused on a "natural" disaster - whether it's just the crew fighting for survival or attempting to save a planet - would be something to behold.

 

[UssGlenn]

I still maintain Khan should have never turned into an antagonist in STID. The idea of having him and Kirk work together to stop a corrupt admiral was one of the few novel ideas going on. I think a more interesting resolution would have been Khan getting his people back then just going off his way, leaving behind the Enterprise still crippled from Marcus' attack and telling Kirk not to follow him as he intends to live with his family peacefully away from humanity and make a world of their own. It's more resembling of "Space Seed" but it's Khan that exiles himself again instead of having Kirk do that to him on Ceti Alpha V.

yes, this completely. All it takes to switch Khan is to convince him that only the weak resort to violence. The truly superior man makes people want to follow him.

 

[XCV330]

I still maintain Khan should have never turned into an antagonist in STID. The idea of having him and Kirk work together to stop a corrupt admiral was one of the few novel ideas going on. I think a more interesting resolution would have been Khan getting his people back then just going off his way, leaving behind the Enterprise still crippled from Marcus' attack and telling Kirk not to follow him as he intends to live with his family peacefully away from humanity and make a world of their own. It's more resembling of "Space Seed" but it's Khan that exiles himself again instead of having Kirk do that to him on Ceti Alpha V.

I like the idea of Khan and Kirk working together, but I suspect it couldn't happen as there was no way the Federation would have let Khan and his people go. Augments are simply too dangerous. One of the overriding themes since the very first Trek episode aired seems to be that humanism and post-humanism is violently incompatible. So far it's been the humans winning every encounter, but generally at significant cost. DS9 goes further to show that when faced with post-humanism, the ethics for the Federation go right in the trash.

 

[Mudd]

It’s a Bond movie wearing a Starfleet uniform. It follows the modern Bond formula almost exactly...

All modern commercial action movies follow a single template.

 

[eschaton]

yes, this completely. All it takes to switch Khan is to convince him that only the weak resort to violence. The truly superior man makes people want to follow him.

One of my issues with the augments as presented in Trek in general is they just don't come across as all that smart. ENT was by far the worst regarding this, but even in TWOK (which I think is a good move, albeit not my favorite) I think Khan makes a bunch of dumb decisions you wouldn't expect someone with a 180+ IQ (and presumably, no genes which negatively affect mental health) to do.

Basically, the augments are shitty genetic supermen. Though a lot of this comes down to it being very, very hard to write a character significantly smarter than you are.

 

[Kor]

I've long felt like Into Darkness is a dumb action movie with a nonsensical plot. I hadn't seen Star Trek Beyond up until this year, and I was really hopeful, given so many people said it felt "more Trek" that I would enjoy the movie.

But I just didn't. At least, not any more than the other Kelvinverse movies. There were little elements I liked, like the remembrance that Spock/McCoy banter was central to TOS, and the cute little Enterprise tie in. I also liked the "back to basics" story, exploration focus, and stakes being lowered a bit. But the movie felt very lightweight and by the numbers. The antagonists weren't compelling, nor was Jaylah. I basically forgot about the movie as soon as it was finished.

I found ST: Beyond to be dull as dishwater. The whole thing just fell flat.

For all of the flaws "Into Darkness," which is without question an unholy mess of a movie, it's an enormously enjoyable, rip-roaring romp that I love watching multiple times a year.

Kor

 

[roneill]

I think the last time a movie franchise actually has a single badguy over multiple movies was STAR WARS.

Off the top of my head: Transformers, Back to the Future, X-Men, Spider-Man, Mission: Impossible, Fantastic Beasts.

 

[jaime]

Off the top of my head: Transformers, Back to the Future, X-Men, Spider-Man, Mission: Impossible, Fantastic Beasts.

Fantastic beasts is only just on its second film, but yes, like Harry Potter it has the recurring villain(S) but adaptations are a different beast in some respects, but that’s a perspective thing in this case. Hunger games of course also falls into this. X-men is also te hnically an adaptation, but actually doesnt have recurring villains...magneto is villain in the first, not in the second or third, is a good guy in the fourth and fifth...and things get confusing. Is mystique a villain in X Men? What about by the time of Days of Future Past? Even Vader is a confusing example, because his turn in Jedi is an important part of the denouement. Recurring and returning villains who are absolute are not that common. You could go to James Bond for things like Spectre or Smersh and Blofeld...but generally the narrative changes as we go. Back to the Future is also a differnt beast...because the exact same bad guy is really only acting as such in maybe one film. Biff is not the villain in 1, he’s just the bully. The situation is the villain, which is arguably also true in three, leaving just 2 as the place where a Biff is responsible for the antagonism. It all gets pretty nebulous pretty fast.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I found ST: Beyond to be dull as dishwater. The whole thing just fell flat.

For all of the flaws "Into Darkness," which is without question an unholy mess of a movie, it's an enormously enjoyable, rip-roaring romp that I love watching multiple times a year.

Kor

likewise. was giving ID abit of a rewatch past few nights (due to seeing ads for its impending Film4 showing and was like oh cool will watch it as haven't seen it in a while.. then thought actually i'll watch it tonight on blu!). yeh its a dumb as hell space action movie, TOS/TWOK by way of Idiocracy lol but damnit man its entertaining! and was literally on the edge of my seat glued to the screen at the cinema for the duration with all the twists and turns, something that only happened in Beyond when Spock pulled out the Trek V photo.. ID is one of those gone nuts sequels that totally ups the action spectacle ante of the previous great movie and is less a sequel more an equal just as good if not better (Superman II, Empire, Aliens, T2, X2 etc). Beyond seemed a regression. another big space action movie but a lesser disappointing 3rd instalment (like those movies had too) and no real hooks for the fans to be all that interested other than hey nerds heres another Trek movie. Sorry we couldnt get JJ this time but heres the F&F guy instead. And the Ent is destroyed again cuz u like that right, enjoy

 

[Rahul]

Off the top of my head: Transformers, Back to the Future, X-Men, Spider-Man, Mission: Impossible, Fantastic Beasts.

I'll unequivocally give you Transformers! Megatron truly is the main villain in all those movies.

In the other cases, the "recurring villain" is just a recurring cast member, not the actual big antagonist of the following movies. Like Loki, who was the main villain in Thor 1 (and Avengers!), but in all subsequent appereances he was usually another character that took part in the story of taking the new big bad villain down.

(THough I haven't seen "Fantastic Beasts" yet. Does it count? It's not really an adaption, which follow other rules. But... kinda'? I don't know)

Also, as you can see: This is not a 100% tight rule. This is just a general observation, that action movies have a big new villain every movie that needs to be taken down. And that having an overall long narrative with a single, recurring villain or evil organization is clearly the exception.

Which I think is a pity. I loved that all Captain America movies have Hydra as a recurring villain organization, or how Sean Connery continuesly fought against SPECTRE. That doesn't work for all types of action movies - I think Spider-Man is better off facing against a unique, colorfull villain every movie. I just think a bit more variety overall would be nice.