The "action franchise era" really started with First Contact.
I'd bet the original TOS films likely would have been more action oriented if the principal actors hadn't been in their 50s/60s.
Well, if you just mean any films with action in them, it started with Star Trek 2, which is an action film. But 2 and First Contact (IMO anyway) blend action with Trek style sci fi elements successfully, while the new Abrams films are just low rent Star Wars rip offs, and are just pure boring popcorn action.The "action franchise era" really started with First Contact.
Even the most bland and mediocre and actiony parts of Trek before Abrams felt like "Star Trek", these films don't.
And they're just poorly done action films in and out of themselves.
Well, not really, TOS is a corny and dull show that you have to be very forgiving to even watch, especially because of the super hammy fight scenes. It hasn't aged well at all, esp. the action scenes. Just try watching these "action sciences" in HD :P But it's a 60s television show, so what do you expect? It's a series I almost never sit down and watch unless I'm in a really forgiving mood.Outside of TOS, the action parts of Trek were incredibly dull.
It doesn't matter if people like them or not. This is my opinion, which I don't shape due to consensus. The first film is one of the most overrated films in a long time. Even then, the second Abrams one was widely panned and considered a really stupid film even by its most generous critics.Which isn't true as millions of people rate the films quite highly. JJ Abrams showed why Paramount handed him the reins to Trek. Because he was able to update it in a way that actually made people care about it again.
FC is just TWOK with roles reversed. Both are ripping off Moby Dick. Both are great though, at least IMO.Yet neither FC or TWOK 'feel' anything like each other
Yeah, Star Trek 1 is a totally different film from everything else in Trek. It was Roddenberry trying to rip off 2001. Didn't work out as well, and almost killed interest in the franchise I believe.nor do either have anything in common with TMP except the characters. I'm starting to think the supposed unified 'feel' of preAbrams Star Trek was simply 'familiarity.'
Critics lambasted "Into Darkness" with even the most positive reviews calling it stupid, but yeah the first one is overrated, so what? It's not like my opinion is unheard of or uncommon anyway, not that it would matter.As for what you think of Abrams merits as an action director, you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree obviously, and would point out that the professional critics (who are very predisposed to automatically hate anything hinting at a Star Wars knock off, tend to be highly cynical of action films, and see more of both in a year than most of us do in our lifetime) obviously didint to agree.
Well, not really, TOS is a corny and dull show that you have to be very forgiving to even watch...
Just try watching these "action sciences" in HD...
Critics lambasted "Into Darkness" with even the most positive reviews calling it stupid, but yeah the first one is overrated, so what? It's not like my opinion is unheard of or uncommon anyway, not that it would matter.
Well, people are talking about the legacy of the franchise to this day mainly because people are still producing popular pieces of fiction surrounding it and the cultural legacy the franchise as left. However, most think of TOS as a very corny and unwatchable show for the most part in my experience. Other than Leonard Nimoy and Deforest Kelly, the acting is pretty lackluster from the main cast, the look and costumes utterly ridiculous (even for the time) and the plots even more so (space nazis, feminazis stealing peoples brains, Mudd, salt monsters who turn into girls in lame miniskirts, etc). A few episodes can be forgiven based on writing (Balance of Terror, Space Speed, stuff like that), but even then they're not so great given how primitive the show is. It's just not a show that aged well. In many ways it's my least favorite Trek, but then again Voyager always makes me fall asleep so I guess not.That's why many people are still talking about it fifty years later. That's why they went back to it when Modern Trek ultimately failed.
Not really reading the reviews I guess...Funny.
An average of critics scores' (248) at Rotten Tomatoes gave Star Trek Into Darkness a 7.6 out of 10. Not exactly what I call being 'lambasted'.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...into_darkness/
But the Trekkie drumbeat goes on.
http://www.agonybooth.com/agonizer/Please_No_Star_Trek_Cinematic_Universe.aspxWe’re now two films into this new, J.J. Abrams-rebooted Star Trek, and have yet to get even one good story out of it. Altman insists the two movies are “critically acclaimed”, but a quick perusal of the heavily qualified positive reviews for Star Trek Into Darkness on Rotten Tomatoes (“It's generally a lot of fun, but it’s exhausting” ... “a terminally perfunctory follow-up that just barely gets the job done” ... “a good deal of fun if you like things crashing violently into each other”) reveals “accolades” that won’t find their way onto a DVD back cover any time soon.
I own the original Star Trek on Blu-ray disc and own a 50" 4K TV. No issues watching the action scenes here.![]()
Into Darkness is regarded as a dumb film. Some find it fun, others don't, myself included. I especially didn't like the magic blood. Wtf was with that?
Not jarring to see it switch to obvious stunt doubles and see the strings and other really bad effects?
I don't like Star Trek and TOS, and here why
and when that was called out, it was adjusted toThe movies were 'lambasted' by critics
critics regarded it as dumb
Audiences haven't been exposed to TOS
Okay, here's where I'm having issues with your posts:
"I don't like Star Trek, and here why" - Fine
"The movies were 'lambasted' by critics" and when that was called out, it was adjusted to "critics regarded it as dumb" - Both of which are presented as facts and are demonstrably untrue. One review by Agony Booth does not the consensus make. Metacritic showed that a majority of critics weren't just scoring the film positively, they were giving it high ratings - again, something critics have a history of NOT just throwing around for genre action films. And yes, I have read the reviews. There's a thread on here where we were keeping track of them as they came in (both positive and negative), had a poll of members ratings, and discussed and reviewed it ourselves. Guess which way opinions skewed even amongst some of the nitpickiest fans on the Internet?
Maybe we need to find those TWOK reviews. They exist, so therefore TWOK must have been (1) widely panned, (2) simply a militaristic 'pew pew' film, (3) had no moral/message/ theme, and (4) single handily killed the franchise.
Since 2013, TWOK's IMDB score has actually gone up. For some strange reason, a lot of new people started marking it as watched and giving it a pretty decent rating. Back when I voted on it around 2010, it was a 7.5. Now it's a 7.7.
Can't imagine why that happened.
Uh..yes it is. Beyond the fact that even the most positive reviews on your Rotten Tomatoes link say its dumb and exhausting, here's some other reviews:It really isn't regarded as a dumb film. The article you linked really wasn't a review, more of a rant.
Yeah because it's sound science to have genetically engineered blood that can bring you back from the dead. I mean, they found the cure to death (which makes no sense), and just abandoned it for centuries!Magic blood? Really? How little do you know about medical science? Seriously? We use blood to cure certain diseases, we can bring people back from being clinically dead in some cases.
And so, Kirk is brought back from the dead. Which means his big “sacrifice” ends up being more of a minor inconvenience. This also means that, sadly for the writers, they won’t be able to make the next movie The Search for Kirk. And as many others have noted, this also means Dr. McCoy has just invented the cure for death.
And then we get a generally upbeat finale, even though we just witnessed Khan causing the equivalent of about a dozen 9/11s by ramming the USS Vengeance into San Francisco. But hey, since they already cured death, bringing all those victims back should be a snap!
It would? It's just matter transportation, which is also unscientific, at least according to our current understanding. But magic blood? I don't understand how humans found the cure to death and then abandoned it and just...oh my god, this movie makes my brain hurt.The transporter should've ended medical science a long time ago. I doubt you were pissing and moaning about that.
Well you have a far higher rate of tolerance of the cheese factor than I do.The stunt doubles were pretty noticeable in the 1970's on my family's 25" color floor model TV. So they're nothing new. As far as the effects go, they were great for the time in which they were made and fueled my imagination.
I'd say calling it dumb (literally one major review calls it "Into Dumbness") and the most positive reviews still emphasize how brainless it is, that's lambasting it. I don't think being called "dumb" is a compliment, but that's me.and when that was called out, it was adjusted to
No, just the quotes from Rotten Tomatoes and the other reviews, etc.One review by Agony Booth does not the consensus make.
Well,when I read the actual quotes from these reviewers, they weren't very praising, it was "well, this is stupid, but it's fun. Turn your brain off and enjoy it for the weekend". The same kind of response I see a lot are giving "Jurassic World". A far cry from "this film is an excellent tale of life and death and great science fiction" or whatever. Then again, that's what the makers of these films want, popcorn action films that will sell fast and make easy money, they're not looking to tell deep, intelligent stories or anything like that, so I guess the joke is on me for even criticizing them for this.Metacritic showed that a majority of critics weren't just scoring the film positively, they were giving it high ratings - again, something critics have a history of NOT just throwing around for genre action films. And yes, I have read the reviews. There's a thread on here where we were keeping track of them as they came in (both positive and negative), had a poll of members ratings, and discussed and reviewed it ourselves. Guess which way opinions skewed even amongst some of the nitpickiest fans on the Internet?
The vast majority of teenagers and young adults have never seen the show, and have little knowledge of it. If you think the original series is this hugely popular show with this generation, then you're just wrong. Most people who are exposed to Star Trek from the Abrams films would find TOS boring and beyond out of date. It'd be like going from a PS4 to an Atari 2600. Even I, who grew up on TNG and DS9 and love those shows, find TOS boring and corny.Also presented as a fact, also provably untrue as some posters on this board can show. Some were/are, some weren't/still aren't.
Since 2013, TWOK's IMDB score has actually gone up. For some strange reason, a lot of new people started marking it as watched and giving it a pretty decent rating. Back when I voted on it around 2010, it was a 7.5. Now it's a 7.7.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.