"I like the new movie better..."

[darkshadow0001]

Okay, has any other Trekkers here shown any of their friends older Star Trek movies and they ended up saying something in the lines of "I liked the new movie better?" (Of course, if they saw the movie )

I was at a friend's house last night and we watched TWOK through Netflix, and it was his first time watching it. He said it was a good movie, although he didn't know who Ricardo Montalbon was! Anyway, he did like it but he said he liked the new one more. I think it had to do with the movie having to have more action and battles in it then the previous films.

Even though big space battles isn't really what Trek is about do you think it will make Trek movies more popular? I have always liked all Trek movies (well, Insurrection is a more like "meh"), but what do your friends say about Star Trek films?

(I put this here instead of the XI+ forum because it's a more generalized discussion of Star Trek films rather then just Star Trek XI.)

 

[RoJoHen]

The one time I showed my friends TWOK they laughed out loud at Shatner and Montalban's overacting. I can't really blame them.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Heck, I'm a die-hard life-long Trekkie, and I like the new movie better .

(and I enjoy all the others, even TMP, STV and Nemesis )

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

A person who has a hard time getting into a movie with clearly outdated effects -- not just special effects, but costume effects, hairstyling effects -- is going to be hard-pressed to look past some of the glaring differences between the movie-making approaches of 1982 and 2009, respectively.

I, myself, having been born in 1987, find it a bit difficult at times to suspend disbelief when I see some of the appearances of individuals aboard even the latter years of the Enterprise-D's televised voyages, to speak nothing of its earlier years. I scrape by and manage to thrust myself into the story nonetheless because I'm constantly reminding myself that there's a strong enough chance come 2360's people will no doubt be laughing at the way we looked in 2010, too. So at that point, what does it matter?

The crisp, 2009-ish looks of a $150 million movie do make Star Trek an easier pill to swallow for a lot of people, especially when they're even younger than I am. (And thankfully for the franchise's continued longevity's sake, there were plenty of people younger than myself who had a great time coughing up their money, or their parents' money, to see last year's film.) The very fact that so much was spent on that movie and will be spent on its sequels means flash, flash, flash. For those who find there to be sufficient substance as well, this is really a win-win kind of scenario. For those who do not, well... that is unfortunate.

I do enjoy the far quieter, more philosophically-charged outings of Jean-Luc Picard quite a bit, I should say. I also enjoy the trailblazing, Earth-saving, Nero-kicking antics of NuKirk as well though.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

I have been a Trek fan since the early '80s and watched TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT in first-run. I loved them and still do. I also love the movies. However, after watching and immensely enjoying Star Trek 09, earlier Trek efforts (with the exception of late VGR and ENT) look very dated. When I watch older episodes now I am sometimes taken out of the episode by the older effects. I am a huge fan of TOS Remastered and hope that a similar process can be worked out to update TNG.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

KingstonTrekker,

The good news is that CBS has expressed some level of interest in doing so for TNG. The bad news is, because of the style of film used in TNG, it will actually be significantly more difficult to bring it up to that level of performance. You see, they've messed around with it before and the special effects shots wind up looking absolutely horrible, just horrible, when brought to a higher definition.

So it's a 'wait and see' sort of thing.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

Thanks -- I read this as well in one of the reports from the recent Las Vegas Con. Let's keep our fingers crossed that they can find a way to make this happen!

 

[Cyke101]

A person who has a hard time getting into a movie with clearly outdated effects -- not just special effects, but costume effects, hairstyling effects -- is going to be hard-pressed to look past some of the glaring differences between the movie-making approaches of 1982 and 2009, respectively.

I myself think that TWOK is rather timeless with an almost ageless look to it. A story that stands the test of time.

TSFS, on the other hand, aged pretty badly, imo. For me, the civilian clothes and on-screen graphics (yes, I know they existed in TWOK, too), and the HAIR just screams 1980s to me.

Now, how could there be such a discrepancy between two back-to-back movies? I've no idea, but even the Excelsior bridge looks like a B-movie set.

 

[JTK1]

Funny talking about 80's hair when kids now have Spock's hair style only longer.
I call them helmet heads or rejects from the Brady Bunch or whatever 70's tv show you want.

 

[Gojira]

Heck, I'm a die-hard life-long Trekkie, and I like the new movie better .

(and I enjoy all the others, even TMP, STV and Nemesis )

Me too! I am a life long Trekkie and I like every movie (even the so called stinkers) but I like the new movie the best too!

 

[Ghrakh]

The one time I showed my friends TWOK they laughed out loud at Shatner and Montalban's overacting. I can't really blame them.

I don't know, ST09 has worse overacting. It comes across as a parody.

 

[sonak]

This is pretty depressing. So any movie with less than top of the line special effects(which of course is EVERY MOVIE after a certain period of time has passed) is dismissed?

TWOK still holds up very well IMHO. It was made relatively on the cheap, especially compared to TMP, but handles its story and themes with intelligence.

No wonder we get pretty-looking blockbusters with mediocre story and no heart like Trek09.

 

[Warped9]

...ST09 has worse overacting. It comes across as a parody.

Bang on.

 

[scnj]

I prefer ST09 by virtue of it being a better movie. The previous movies all felt, in one way or another, like expanded episodes, whereas ST09 actually felt like a movie. I'll grant that it's not necessarily the best Star Trek movie. That's easily TMP, which embodied the feel and values of the show most.

 

[Avon]

i think TWOK has better effects than 09. cgi be too shiny.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

Not to mention an almost overwhelming amount of lens flare...

 

[Warped9]

ST09 is the current "sensation" that will fade soon enough. And over the years subsequent viewings will show it to be the juvenile piece of fluff that it is as it won't age well. Abrams concocted a film that is perfectly in keeping with the industry's push to appeal to an uncritical youth audience. It's popular now, but it will fade rather quickly when the next sensations come along.

 

[Cepstrum]

I actually prefer Trek FAR more in TV format. The movies were heavy on action and made it difficult to have thought-provoking, challenging material, the futuristic optimism, and yes, even some of sillier/comedic shows.

I think STXI is just as guilty, except because of it's overly youthful, beautiful crew, amazing FX, and even heavier action, makes me even less interested in. But I'm *very pleased* it brought in cash and cachet for Trek and am glad people liked it.

Strangely, the *only* movie I like is TMP, and I am not even familiar with TOS or interested in it!

 

[scnj]

That's fair. It's hard to convey the idea of a continuing mission in a film where a single plotline has to take centre stage.

 

[Gojira]

ST09 is the current "sensation" that will fade soon enough. And over the years subsequent viewings will show it to be the juvenile piece of fluff that it is as it won't age well. Abrams concocted a film that is perfectly in keeping with the industry's push to appeal to an uncritical youth audience. It's popular now, but it will fade rather quickly when the next sensations come along.

I completely disagree. At 46 I wouldn't classify myself as an "uncritical youth" nor do I view the film as a juvenile piece of fluff that won't age well. I don't expect you to agree with me but it does put a dent in your theory that the film was aimed at, or only popular with, an uncritical youth.