Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

[Third Nacelle]

Surely you're not serious. Even the good films weren't that.

Star Trek was an action-adventure TV show. That's why they had stuff blow up, fights in most episodes and a whole lot of shaking going on. The new film followed that well established pattern, while mixing in some nice character moments.[/QUOTE]

Are we watching the same show? Sure all the ST series and films had their share of explosions and shaking, but they never sacrificed substance for style.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Here we go again.

Delusion is not just a river in Egypt, you know.

 

[aeriolewinters]

Are we watching the same show? Sure all the ST series and films had their share of explosions and shaking, but they never sacrificed substance for style.

Depth is a subjective matter. Into Darkness projects something actually deep for all the in-your-face explosions and SFX.

We are being presented the idea of a darker side of the Federation, and this is critical, at this point in time, early in the timeline. People speculated about repercussions of the destruction of Vulcan, and here it is. They ramp up weapons R&D and build up because of fear.

This plays well into the positivism aspect of ST. Is starfleet ready to embrace the darkness? Or are they going to see light at the end of the tunnel. That I think is the central conflict of the film. Saying that it isn't deep,doesn't mean it isn't. People just need to focus and not see just the aesthetic.

 

[urbandk]

there were some great ST sci fi TV episodes. STTMP was also more sci-fi oriented, but other than that, Wagon Train to the Stars

 

[Third Nacelle]

Are we watching the same show? Sure all the ST series and films had their share of explosions and shaking, but they never sacrificed substance for style.

Depth is a subjective matter. Into Darkness projects something actually deep for all the in-your-face explosions and SFX.

We are being presented the idea of a darker side of the Federation, and this is critical, at this point in time, early in the timeline. People speculated about repercussions of the destruction of Vulcan, and here it is. They ramp up weapons R&D and build up because of fear.

This plays well into the positivism aspect of ST. Is starfleet ready to embrace the darkness? Or are they going to see light at the end of the tunnel. That I think is the central conflict of the film. Saying that it isn't deep,doesn't mean it isn't. People just need to focus and not see just the aesthetic.

I'm not going to pass judgment on it until I see it. As much as I tried to hate ST09, I was actually quite entertained by it. And from what I've seen of the previews it looks like it will be pretty good.

But I hold to my answer to the original question... is it sustainable? They were successful with the last film at attracting a big-summer-blockbuster kind of audience at a time when less and less people are going to the movies. I just don't believe that audience is going to stick around for more than a couple films.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Here we go again.

Delusion is not just a river in Egypt, you know.

Neither is denial.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Here we go again.

Delusion is not just a river in Egypt, you know.

Neither is denial.

Or humor.

Not many rivers in Egypt, actually. It's mostly desert, right?

 

[indranee]

Are we watching the same show? Sure all the ST series and films had their share of explosions and shaking, but they never sacrificed substance for style.

Depth is a subjective matter. Into Darkness projects something actually deep for all the in-your-face explosions and SFX.

We are being presented the idea of a darker side of the Federation, and this is critical, at this point in time, early in the timeline. People speculated about repercussions of the destruction of Vulcan, and here it is. They ramp up weapons R&D and build up because of fear.

This plays well into the positivism aspect of ST. Is starfleet ready to embrace the darkness? Or are they going to see light at the end of the tunnel. That I think is the central conflict of the film. Saying that it isn't deep,doesn't mean it isn't. People just need to focus and not see just the aesthetic.

I'm not going to pass judgment on it until I see it. As much as I tried to hate ST09, I was actually quite entertained by it. And from what I've seen of the previews it looks like it will be pretty good.

But I hold to my answer to the original question... is it sustainable? They were successful with the last film at attracting a big-summer-blockbuster kind of audience at a time when less and less people are going to the movies. I just don't believe that audience is going to stick around for more than a couple films.

well, if they don't, I'd be happy to hear the thwack of the door hitting them on their asses and sit MINE down for a nice teevee series

you see, Trek will always be sustainable. In one form or another.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Well with JJ walking away from Trek for Star Wars the next movie's future is kind og up in the air at the moment. Sure Paramount will hire a new director and executive producer but they will be stewarding over JJ's franchise. Keeping the pace up after what I expect STID to be melt facingly awesome will be tough. TPTB may ask the next team to take the franchise in a different direction. Shudder disappointing threequel nightmares

 

[SalvorHardin]

Well with JJ walking away from Trek for Star Wars the next movie's future is kind og up in the air at the moment. Sure Paramount will hire a new director and executive producer

Even if Abrams can't direct, Bad Robot & him as a producer are not going away for the 3rd movie.

 

[Relayer1]

Three's it - after that the contracted cast wanders off elsewhere and it's spin off movie and/or back to TV time...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The problem is the Abrams-era movies are watered down (all looks, no substance) Trek designed to appeal to mass audiences who aren't traditional Trek fans. Those fans might stick around for two or three films, but eventually their short attentions spans will move on to something shiny and new.

Then what? Reboot again? Cast preteens in the main roles? Have 90 minutes of planets imploding? The reboot was a nice way to make a summer blockbuster, but eventually cheap tricks like that reach a point of diminishing returns. I seriously doubt 30 years from now anybody will look back and remember ST09/STID the way we remember the first six films or even the TNG films.

What's a traditional Trek fan?

Aging, for the most part.

There is no indication that more than an itty-bitty fraction of fans have abandoned these movies. Abrams has succeeded in enlarging the audience. Some of those folks may not stick around? Oh noes! The audience will still be bigger than it was before, so...win.

The notion that Trek's been "watered down" somehow is laughable.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well with JJ walking away from Trek for Star Wars

Link?

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Well with JJ walking away from Trek for Star Wars the next movie's future is kind og up in the air at the moment. Sure Paramount will hire a new director and executive producer

Even if Abrams can't direct, Bad Robot & him as a producer are not going away for the 3rd movie.

With those situations he'll most likely be relegated to a consulting producer. The executive and directing team can approach him with ideas about how they should or might steer the movie but he won't be making big calls on it.

Well with JJ walking away from Trek for Star Wars

Link?

Uh isn't it common knowledge JJ is doing Star Wars for a 2015-2016 release? He's not going to juggle both its not his style. See how he handled Super 8 and Into Darkness back in 2011. He didn't commit to trek until Super 8 was weeks before hitting theatres. Never mind the film had finishing production he spent time promoting the film as well. Paramount may give the reigns of Trek to someone else to have a movie out by 2016 for Star Trek's 50th. Or we could wait on JJ to make the next trek film in 2018, assuming hs doesn't sign on for more Wars movies.

 

[HaventGotALife]

It seems to me that Batman had to answer this after "The Dark Knight" because it was a great movie, not just a good comic book movie. And where do they go from there? I think there's room to tell another story, but to sustain this for 10 more movies? Probably not a good idea. They would be treading on James Bond territory, as far as a formula.

I have my doubts about going forward, but that just means Star Trek may be headed back to the small screen, and I would love that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Are we watching the same show? Sure all the ST series and films had their share of explosions and shaking, but they never sacrificed substance for style.

I'd hate to think I've spent over 40 years watching something else.

Oh, there was a fair amount of "substance" in ST09. More than many of the films and episodes. Heck, the first 15 minutes contained more than the previous 10 films put together. Folks too easily distracted might have missed it though,

 

[indranee]

I don't remember worrying about where Trek was going to be in 2007 when I was watching TWOK in the theater with my school friends. It's all cyclical anyway. The future will take care of itself.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't remember worrying about where Trek was going to be in 2007 when I was watching TWOK in the theater with my school friends.

Bingo!

"Save something for the sequel" is just a long way of saying "fail."

 

[F. King Daniel]

The last movie completely erased that and turned it into an action movie. A very entertaining and beautiful action movie, but it wasn't really Trek.

Trek's had action episodes and action movies throughout it's 45+ years, so I say it's definitely "real Trek". What you mean to say is "it's not what I think Trek should be."

 

[Borgminister]

Is it sustainable?

It's green!