I've heard some garbage in my time.
JJ Abrams career is not a reason to rewrite the narrative of Star Trek 2009.
- Thread starter gabby1701
- Start date
I've heard some garbage in my time.
Star Trek fan motto?
Seems like it's no bigger or worse than the bandwagon from 2009-2015 (or 2009-2013) that Abrams had saved, restored, revitalized ST, made it general viewers smash hit, proved that no audiences weren't fatigued with Star Trek, they were just fatigued with bad (Berman) (non-original series, non-Kirk & Spock) Star Trek. and going much more in direction of Star Wars was what Trek obviously long should have done.
I think with both franchises, as well as also with Marvel movies and a lot of other reboots/remakes, most people have concluded that they usually can, will make money but especially when there are high expectations but very different expectations among the fandoms most of the movies, especially after the first or first two, aside (somewhat) from the biggest and most already popular parts/characters, will get pretty love-it-or-hate-it reactions and even general audiences will tend to think just it was OK and move on rather than really love it, consider it great, now become bigger, dedicated fans (a few will but pretty few).
Well there is a subtle-ish yet big difference between idolized fantastically good (author-insertion) character and badly done idolized fantastically good (author-insertion) character. And I think the original films were able to get you to love and cheer for Luke but just like Anakin, I think many who watched the prequels as children do like them but think young Anakin, or Anakin overall, was just OK.
A $385.7 million return on a $150 million investment isn't a "smash hit". Star Trek 2009 was barely profitable.
"Into Darkness" and "Beyond" lost money.
No.
Star Trek needs its own identity and not chase trends or other IPs.
You completely misunderstand. How much money the Abrams films made is irrelevant. All that matters is that they made enough money that CBS decided that the IP was still viable and the interest was still there despite the failures of ENT and Nemesis almost completely killing Star Trek forever.
Well of COURSE, whatdidya say?
Anakin as a kid was ok. As a teen he was petulant and whiny. And since I watched them as a whiny teen I found him annoying.
The Sequels were less than I wanted but the characters were not the problem.
I can say with absolute confidence and without hesitation that JJ Abrams directed my two least favorite movies in my two favorite franchises and that I would take everything from Discovery onward over the three Kelvin movies.
Last edited:
Whereas I can state with absolute confidence that Abrams directed my two most favourite movies in Trek and rank them higher than anything else in Trek with the exception of most of TOS and much of SNW. The rest is well below.
Not at all trying to change anyone’s mind—just illustrating the challenges facing the next production team.
That's fair. I barely even recognize them as Star Trek.
I support most of this. To me, the Kelvin films reflect the action/adventure heart of TOS while showing human potential. Kirk goes through huge growth, reckless and ill tempered at times, pulled between the aspirational image of his dad, and the impulsive nature. As Spock notes a stallion must first be broken to reach its full potential.
So, Kirk goes. Instead of Kodos, Kirk has to face down Marcus, and face death, and not cheat it. The spectre of his father's sacrifice casts a long shadow until Kirk grows in to his own man.
Star Trek is a crew on a ship, which may or may not be named Enterprise, having an adventure. And one of the guys has pointed ears. That’s pretty much what Star Trek is to 99% of the people who have ever heard the words ‘Star Trek’ but are not uber-fans like us.
So it certainly looked like ‘Star Trek’ to me.
Last edited:
Similar threads
