Yer such a stick-in-the-mud...
This place would be absolutely, down-right 'boring' with out you.
Into Darkness ties to Star Trek XIII?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Yer such a stick-in-the-mud...
This place would be absolutely, down-right 'boring' with out you.
I must agree that I do not care. Cliffhanger or not, I will be there with almost 100% of TrekBBS members when each new movie opens. Most of us will be quite happy to open our wallets for more new Trek.
I have always been a fan of episodic, rather than soap opera, television and movies. IMO, Abrams and company have the right idea: enjoy each movie as a stand alone or along with the other movies.
I have always been a fan of episodic, rather than soap opera, television and movies. IMO, Abrams and company have the right idea: enjoy each movie as a stand alone or along with the other movies.
I'm glad that didn't happen, because it would have been fanwankingly stupid. None of the casual moviegoing audience would have known that it was Khan's ship (and if they did, they probably wouldn't have cared), and by doing that they'd pretty much have to have the second film be about Khan, when the whole point of creating the alternate universe was so that they could do something new.
The last time we got a cliffhanger in Trek, it was alien space Nazis that came out of nowhere. I never want to have that experience again.
I don't see the problem there. None of the casual moviegoing audience knew who that guy in the final scene of The Avengers was, so what? By that logic you would have to drop all Star Trek references whatsoever and make it a standalone movie with no backstory at all. But that wouldn't be Star Trek, would it?
That's only because there hadn't been much backstory in those days. Now we have a 50 year old franchise backing up the new movies. If people want to see a scifi movie with no backstory at all, then they should go watch another movie. What's the point in using the name "Star Trek" and the names of the original characters if you ignore everything that came before? I know ... milking the cow, but Star Trek has such a rich backstory that it would be plain stupid not to make use of it.
Same reason people keep publishing new versions of "Snow White", "Goldilocks", "Cinderella"...
But if the audience's perception is that they need to know that "rich backstory" to enjoy the movie, you get people avoiding it altogether.
Even the very first ST product, "The Cage", had a backstory. Pike's reminiscences of Mojave, his horse, Spock's limp, a dead male yeoman, a battle with a Kalar warrior...
I know, using a brand name to make lots of $€£
Then the writers have to find a way to incorporate the backstory without making it too dominant. Some backstory can be explained in a line or two, just like they did in TWOK.
Exactly. Every movie HAS to have some kind of backstory. But people here seem to think that using the already existing backstory would confuse the audience. On the contrary, I say. Some things can be explained on screen in a matter of seconds while providing cohesion within the Trekverse. And it would probably motivate the audience to dive deeper into the franchise. Meaning even more $€£ for the studio.
I think that Marvel did a great job in cross-connecting their latest movies. I know lots of people who went to see one movie just because it was hinted at in another movie and because it's all set in the same universe.
Do you really want it to just die and there be no more "Star Trek"? It looked pretty ragged after "Nemesis" and "These Are the Voyages".
I once read an interview with Gene Roddenberry where he speculated that "Star Trek" would undoubtedly continue beyond his lifespan and that it had become "modern mythology", and that he had to come to be proud of the fact that it would inevitably be recast, rejigged and revamped for new audiences and new technologies.
And they do! But if your audience is convinced that they need to know 50 years of back history, no amount of clever writing will get their bums on seats.
Have you visited this board's TrekLit section? Every fifth question to the board is "do I have to see/read that in order to enjoy this?"
And they did. CBS reported that sales of all ST boxed sets of ST DVDs went measurably up for several months following the release of JJ's movie in 2009. Even though it was set in a new timeline, sales for the old stuff improved as new fans went off to find out about what they'd missed out on seeing before.
Of course not, and I think that Bad Robot did a decent job with the last movie. And from what I saw in the trailes for the next one, it's gonna be spectacular.
I just don't agree with the common opinion on this board that nuTrek has to have as little connection to Star Trek as possible because they think that the general audience is too stupid to understand some references. And even if Joe Average doesn't get every reference, so what? I'm sure there are lots of references in other franchises that I don't get, but that doesn't spoil my enjoyment in any way.
Gaining a new audience is important and it helps the franchise to survive, but if we are going to reduce Star Trek to the lowest common denominator then it will become meaningless.
As always it will be a delicate balance.
And avid ST fans make up less than 10% of the audience of a Star Trek movie. Less than 2% buy the tie-in books and comics.
It's "the common opinion on this board" that nuTrek must have "as little connection to Star Trek as possible"? Really? Literally?
Just who was the Easter egg of tribbles on Delta Vega aimed at, anyway?
Now THAT was completely pointless, as well as naming that planet Delta Vega in the first place.
Trek should have as little back story as possible, in order to avoid boring people's asses to tears.
I loved all the references to Trek lore in STXI. It was brilliantly done - there for the fans to pick up on, but not done in a way that befuddled newbies.
To whom? Certainly not the new arrival to Trek. And let's face it, the vast bulk of the long-time fans will watch the new stuff anyway.
The tribble, Delta Vega, the reference to Adm. Archer's beagle, along with a number of other nods and winks to prior Trek, were fine. They didn't confuse the story in any way to someone for whom the 09 movie was the first Trek they'd ever watched and they were familiar to any "old-timer". But they were completely superfluous and I would not have missed any one of them if they'd been edited from the final cut of the film.
Starship Enterprise? Check.
Kirk, Spock and co. are there? Check.
Starfleet? Check.
That's all the "backstory" anyone needs for it to be Star Trek. Anything else should be in service of the story being told and NOT in service of "connecting to the rest of the franchise". If it happens to do so, fine. If not, no big deal.
It's entertainment. So let it be entertaining. If it is anything more, that's a bonus. It's not a requirement.
It has nothing to do with it being a Star Trek reference. It has to do with the audience seeing some old ship shaped like a submarine with some prongs at the end, and are supposed to make some kind of connection to it. Now if the scene shifted to the inside of the ship and to one of the cryobeds, where a CGI Khan could be seen, that might be different. But again, all that would mean is that it's a lead up to the next movie, and having it simply be TWOK Mk. 2 isn't necessary.
TOS wasn't a serial. Each episode stood alone. Spock had the most developed backstory, Kirk kind of had one, but the other characters had no backstories at all. We knew hardly anything about McCoy, Scotty, or the rest. Yet everything was fine.
The TOS movies had a sort of trilogy in TWOK, TSFS, and TVH but it wasn't a forced trilogy (as in one movie foreshadowed the next, or seeing all of them is required to make sense of things).
Given what precious little we're going to see of these characters right now (one more movie and that may be it), I'd really like to see the third movie be a totally independent story with fully bloomed characters comfortable in their duties and already earning a reputation as a special crew doing special things.
That said, by title alone, "Into Darkness" portends an ending that may require the loose ends to be tied up in the next movie.
In any case, I'll take what comes and hope to enjoy it.
The TOS movies had a sort of trilogy in TWOK, TSFS, and TVH but it wasn't a forced trilogy (as in one movie foreshadowed the next, or seeing all of them is required to make sense of things).
Given what precious little we're going to see of these characters right now (one more movie and that may be it), I'd really like to see the third movie be a totally independent story with fully bloomed characters comfortable in their duties and already earning a reputation as a special crew doing special things.
That said, by title alone, "Into Darkness" portends an ending that may require the loose ends to be tied up in the next movie.
In any case, I'll take what comes and hope to enjoy it.
We always sit though the credits anyway so if they wanna tack some tidbit of a clue to the next one onto the end of STID I ain't going to complain. Usually we're the only ones left in the theater by credits end unless the general public knows there is something to see.
Exactly. The post-credits "bonus scene" is almost always intended for those who know it's there going into the movie (i.e. the diehard fans). So, once the credits are done, having a obscure shot of the Botany Bay being discovered would be akin to what was seen in Avengers.
Claiming it's the same as the scene at the end of the Dark Knight, however, is wrong. First, that was pre-credits, so everyone saw it. Secondly, EVERYONE knows the Joker is the arch-enemy of Batman, and EVERYONE was expecting it (probably most had no clue who/what the League of Shadows was, actually). You can't make the same comparison with Khan and Kirk.
Similar threads
