Do we even want another Star Trek movie?

[Amaris]

Makes one wonder why you're posting in this section, no ?

I never liked the thought process that implies because one doesn't share the common consensus opinion, that somehow invalidates or questions their right to post in any given place.

Well I think ST Voyager and ST Enterprise are cringingly awful, and ST DS9 is vastly overated and appeals to the intellect of an angry 14 year old, but I don't post negative comments in the thread subjects related to those series spin offs.

Some members have spent an unhealthy amount of time and post count on forums/thread topics that are about the very movies that they dislike, so why waste time posting on them when they can sit in a DS9/VOY forum and talk positively about how cool it was back in 1997 and how sexy they think Janeway is?

True. I'm not fan of VOY, though I like a handful of episodes. Still, I don't go into the VOY forum and rail on people for liking the series. They have their reasons why they like the show. Once in a while, I do go in to talk about a specific episode, character, or moment I liked or disliked, but to complain endlessly? Nah. That's a waste of time on everyone's part.

 

[ralfy]

And did you post your own opinions there, or just more links to other people's opinions?

It just so happens that my own opinion is shared by others, which is why I've decided to share what they said about the matter.

 

[ralfy]

Why are those flaws ? Because you can't find a reason ?

The flaws are explained in many reviews, from "cold fusion" devices to the awkward "Khan" scream. I don't want to repeat them here because forum members can easily find them by reading views of the film.

You have no idea if that's the case here. All you know is that I disagree with you, and enjoyed the movie. For the record I think there's plenty of characterisation for the leads.

Keep in mind that for movies one element, such as characterization, can make up for deficiencies in others, such as plot. You have to look at the quality of various elements and see how they work together.

Also, having "plenty" of something also doesn't help. It's as if one makes a movie and crams in as many characters, story lines, special effects, etc., as possible, hoping that something notable will appear.

Don't try to play with definitions. "Subjective" means it's personal, individual, unique to each human, distinct. It means no two people will agree.

As I said, subjectivity is based on experience, and experiences are not necessarily unique. That means at least two people will have a shared experience.

And don't mention "common sense" to me. Common sense is not all that common, and rarely actually makes sense except to the person using it.

Highly unlikely. Otherwise, we'd have mass chaos worldwide.

 

[ralfy]

So you really think your favourite Trek episode or movie would stand up to that kind of OCD scrutiny? Because if you do you're kidding yourself. I imagine you must hate Wrath of Khan for similar reasons you do Into Darkness?

Only if we assume that success means something containing no flaws. Otherwise, I'd consider WoK much better than STID.

There is one more aspect not discussed, and that's the proliferation of spectacular action scenes. One can see major comparisons between WoK and older films, such as my favorite example, Aliens, where much of the action takes place a lot later in the movie, and several movies today, from STID to Transformers, where almost every scene involves action.

The reason for this should involve the phenomenon of tent-pole movies coupled with large amounts of money at stake. Spielberg and Lucas discussed this issue in a talk several months ago, and they believe that there will come a point when the movie industry will collapse because of such. I believe that the problem is seen this way:

Movie studios have large amounts of money plus a marketing budget that is part of their overhead cost. That plus competition means that they have to release movies frequently that have very large budgets, and that must make more than enough to cover the marketing budget. They can make other movies that are cheaper but these "tent-pole movies" are the ones that will keep them afloat.

In order to make lots of money on them, studios have to show the movies an international audience, and given differences in culture the stories have to be simpler and must contain elements that are easy to translate across various regions. That means lots of action scenes. In order to make the movie look expensive (especially given the cost of ticket prices) lots of CGI has to be used.

That is why STID in many ways resembles the Transformers franchise and several of the latest superhero and action movies.

 

[ralfy]

Complaining about the use of cold fusion in fucking science fiction is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read against STiD. And that says a lot.

FWIW, even science fiction is governed by particular rules related to current scientific knowledge. There are some devices used where writers can be given lots of leverage, such as time machines, as these don't exist today. But I don't understand why a cold fusion device would be used in the way portrayed in the movie. Perhaps they should have invented some other device, and probably one that can be activated remotely.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So you really think your favourite Trek episode or movie would stand up to that kind of OCD scrutiny? Because if you do you're kidding yourself. I imagine you must hate Wrath of Khan for similar reasons you do Into Darkness?

Only if we assume that success means something containing no flaws. Otherwise, I'd consider WoK much better than STID.

There is one more aspect not discussed, and that's the proliferation of spectacular action scenes. One can see major comparisons between WoK and older films, such as my favorite example, Aliens, where much of the action takes place a lot later in the movie, and several movies today, from STID to Transformers, where almost every scene involves action.

Standards have raised between 1982 and 2013, but Wrath of Khan was an action movie too, full of spectacular space battle set pieces. In '83 there even fans calling it a shallow Star Wars-style shoot-em-up!

 

[Drone]

No. At least not from this regime. I don't feel much, if any, connection to the tone, presentation, or "philosophy" of the product.

 

[I am not Spock]

Of course I want another Star Trek movie.

And once they've done ST13 , why not a fourth one in the reboot series? Who says they have to stop at three? A fourth movie would bring the Abrams/Bad Robot era to the same tally as the TNG movie series.

After that, they could either reboot again, go back to the Prime (that's not likely to happen, another reboot is the more likely outcome), or just rest the franchise for a while

 

[borgboy]

I definitely want another Trek movie!
I want it to good, of course. I'm really invested in Quinto's Spock and Urban's McCoy. To a slightly lesser degree, Kirk and then the rest of the crew, but I definitely want all the Trek I can get. It never occurred to me that they would stop at three movies, I hope they don't, but when the time comes that the cast and tptb are ready to move on, I hope we get more Trek of some kind, whether it be a new reboot or preferrably a reboot-universe TNG.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I want many more Trek movies with this cast.

 

[SPCTRE]

I want many more Trek movies with this cast.

How about six movies in total, and then a seventh as a crossover one with the cast of the new TV show?

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I want many more Trek movies with this cast.

Me too!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I want many more Trek movies with this cast.

How about six movies in total, and then a seventh as a crossover one with the cast of the new TV show?

That sounds oddly familiar. But good. I'll take it!

 

[AirCommodore]

What does anybody else think?

I think there is plenty more life in trek, both in films and in other media. But I am ready for a new team at the helm in place of JJ and his writers.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I want many more Trek movies with this cast.

How about six movies in total, and then a seventh as a crossover one with the cast of the new TV show?

That sound like it could go bad, with the old cast being reduced to cameoing just to pass the torch and the new guys basically looking like they need the old guys' coat tails just to make a movie. Plus they would probably make the new guys look dumb just so they can have an excuse to replace the ship.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

No, no I can't say that I do.

 

[wulfio]

I don't. I find a tv show to be much more satisfying in the story telling department. and that's what I like about trek. The old movies were just a nice bonus because it was a continuation of those stories, albeit on a much larger production budget.

 

[publiusr]

I think the future of Star Trek is in all of you here--with fan fic.

The future may be in documentaries.

PLANET OF THE TITANS would probably have been pretty dismal. But a documentary would be outstanding, with some of the folks here who can digitally manipulate some select images, fans to do a ship, and movie makers talking up the background--would make the unseen/un-made movie cooler than it ever could have been.

Sort of like certain ship designs that look great in your head, but less so on paper.

 

[T'Girl]

I don't. I find a tv show to be much more satisfying in the story telling department.

This is sage wisdom.

While all the series have had a certain percentage of bad episodes, the incident of poor "episodes" with the movies seem to be much higher. While which movies are bad varies from fan to fan, there seem to be a consensus that a third to a half of the movies are bad.

Also, with four years of a TV/cable series we get over eighty hours of Trek, while with the current movies we're getting only about two hours of Trek in the same period of time.

TV/cable offers much more opportunities for character development, introduction of new characters, and complex story lines.

 

[martok2112]

A new movie would be great. A new series would be even greater.

Yes, I think many of us can agree that there is a bit more time for more varied storytelling in an episodic television show of Star Trek. When one goes to the movies, one wants bang for their buck, and the Star Trek movies deliver in that area (most of the time). But, for more interpersonal stories, and more stories about exploration and heady ideals, a television series (especially an arc-based episodic series) would be best. (Personal opinions only)