nuTrek, moving forward....

[Withers]

1. Stop shaking the camera.

Did you watch this in your car or something?

2. Stop trying to make Trek be a Dawson's Creek-esque smutfest in space.

But older smutfest, like Dax and Worf, T'Pol's bare ass, and Troi getting raped is alright?

3. Make sure the plot is plausible and doesn't have holes big enough to drive the whole Fed starship fleet through.

Plausible like Star Trek V? Or do you mean plausible like Threshold? Would it be acceptable if the holes were only big enough to get a Bajoran fleet through... like in Nemesis?

4. Have intelligent dialogue.

You mean like "If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

6. Make sure the characters, including the villains, aren't one-dimensional caricatures.

You mean like the whale probe, TNG Ferengi, the Breen, the Kazon, the Son'a, and The Sphere Builders?

7. Stop rehashing plots (whether intentionally or not) from old episodes of Trek (I.e. "Valiant").

You mean like every single episode of Star Trek ever made?

8. Respect the dignity of the characters (I.e: Uhura, Spock, related to point 2 as well).

You mean the way Enterprise and Nemesis did?

9. Make sure the film has a meaning or at least some semblance of a point.

Like all ten of the movies that preceded it?

You see where I'm going with this? If you hated absolutely everything that came after the end of TOS then I can understand why you wouldn't like this movie- you wouldn't like it unless they resurrected a few corpses and rewound the clock so as to make TOS acceptable, just as it was, on the big screen in the 21st century. And that'd be cool. Otherwise, everything you just described, exists and is excused in varying degrees on every other incarnation of Trek. Eliminating those things would have made the better. I won't argue that. But that they were there in the first place didn't necessarily make them bad- and that is the charge "nuTrek" has against it.


-Withers-​

 

[Corwwyn]

Okay, so some of us don't like Abrams' reboot. And that discussion is going on well enough elsewhere in other threads.

That said is there anything that could be done (and for now set aside starting from scratch) that you'd like to see next? Most particularly, for the critics, what would need to be done to get your interest?

Bring back an Enterprise that actually looks (externally) like she did in TOS or the early movies, and get rid of the overcompensating sock-stuffed-in-a-jockstrap "look at my nacelles" monstrosity from Star Trek XI.

Oh, and get Zoic (or the like) to do the space battle and glory shot SFX sequences.

Otherwise, keep going as is. The casting, acting, and storystuff so far felt pretty good for the most part for my money.

 

[Vonstadt]

I say I want an original story...not a TWoK remake.

Bring back the original story feel to the series, this is a chance to really take a chance at finding the hook that made the old show great. Let's see ...wow Warped9 already used my second favorite trek film "Master and Commander"...i say do something like that and add a dash of the old classic "Forbidden Planet' (the best trek movie ever made )

Give us Strange new worlds....give us new civilizations...and such.

After giving us a new start..well dont stop there. Give us a new story that has nothing to do with alternate dimensions, or most of Time Travel.

Give us Arena, or Obsession, the themes that is or the feel of those episodes...ala Doomsday Machine or Eelyan of Troyius.

I want to see where they can go now that they are not tied to mission history.

Just my two thoughts.

Vons

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They should just fire Abrams and his writers and have some better people reboot Abrams' reboot.

They won't fire Abrams because his resurrected Star Trek is more successful than previous versions. Only stupid studio executives would replace him at this point.

 

[Vonstadt]

They should just fire Abrams and his writers and have some better people reboot Abrams' reboot.

They won't fire Abrams because his resurrected Star Trek is more successful than previous versions. Only stupid studio executives would replace him at this point.

Yeah cause that never happens in Hollywood

To be honest, I would like to see what can be done by Abrams now that he has a fresh new road ahead of him. Though I would like to see a little less 'Galaxy Quest' now that he has the origin story complete and more of an old school sci fi original story with the swashbuckling style of the Hornblower esque stories.

I still cant ger Master and Commander out of my head now (Thanks Warped :P ) a sequel made with that feel and atmosphere would be really cool!

Vons

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They should just fire Abrams and his writers and have some better people reboot Abrams' reboot.

They won't fire Abrams because his resurrected Star Trek is more successful than previous versions. Only stupid studio executives would replace him at this point.

Yeah cause that never happens in Hollywood

It also happens in small businesses all over the United States every day. What's your point?

Paramount is in better shape right now than it has been in many years, because the folks who are running it are doing a better job.

ZOIC would be a good choice for effects if they were to do another TV series. Trek should stick with the people that they're working with now for the movies.

 

[GeorgeKirk]

We have to realize that we can't have it both ways. Today's big-budget blockbusters are flashy, loud affairs featuring impossibly good-looking people and plots that don't make much sense. Judging by the box-office returns from those kinds of movies, that's what John Q. Moviegoer wants to see. That's where the money is. So, if you want to see a big-budget Star Trek movie, then that's what it's going to look like. If you want "art house" Trek that's not as flashy but truer to the Original Series, then check out the good work James Cawley and the Phase II folks are doing.

The "transformation" of Star Trek into loud action-movie fare isn't some supervillian-hatched eee-vil plot, it's a business decision. And judging by ST2009's returns, it was a good one.

 

[Withers]

The "transformation" of Star Trek into loud action-movie fare

With a handful of exceptions like Star Trek Insurrection (I'm still not clear on what major market they thought that was going to appeal to) isn't that what they've been trying to do all along? Weren't probably six out of the previous ten their shot at trying to make a loud, general appeal action film? The problem is that they failed (especially in the case of movies like Nemesis.)

It's hardly fair to call the proper execution of what was being attempted all along a detriment to the movie, right? (That's not directed at you personally. That's just a general remark.)


-Withers-​

 

[Wingsley]

The only "transformation" I can see is trying to make STAR TREK into some it isn't, and can't be: a movie franchise. It's a TV show, plain a simple. Sure, you can make movies out of it, but they're always going to be an artsy exercise. TREK on the big screen is like opera in English or baseball in Italian. You have to ask yourself "why?"

This whole STAR TREK movie phenomenon has been a comedy-of-errors from TMP forward. All of the movies are the result of delusional Hollywood greed, insisting on forcing the TV franchise to pretend to be a movie franchise.

The best thing that could happen would be for a new weekly hourlong TREK TV show to be launched. But that would mean Hollywood would have to recruit producers and writers to come up with fresh material, and Hollywood tends to shy away from that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No one has to ask "why" about Star Trek on the big screen now; it's an unqualified success from the point of view of the studio and the many, many people who went to see it just because it was a good movie. Paramount would like the next one to make more money overseas than this one, and that's about it.

Probably the ideal thing for Trek from now on is for the studio to produce a new movie every three years or so.

 

[GeorgeKirk]

The "transformation" of Star Trek into loud action-movie fare

With a handful of exceptions like Star Trek Insurrection (I'm still not clear on what major market they thought that was going to appeal to) isn't that what they've been trying to do all along? Weren't probably six out of the previous ten their shot at trying to make a loud, general appeal action film? The problem is that they failed (especially in the case of movies like Nemesis.)

It's hardly fair to call the proper execution of what was being attempted all along a detriment to the movie, right? (That's not directed at you personally. That's just a general remark.)
​

I'd argue that the previous films (TMP excepted) were low-to-medium budget affairs designed to cater primarily to existing Star Trek fans. With this latest film, Paramount seems to have turned their back on that philosophy and turned Star Trek into a tentpole that can compete with huge earners like the Transformers and Spider-Man films.

 

[Kagan]

Most particularly, for the critics, what would need to be done to get your interest?
(snip)
Do something original.

Exactly, to boldly go where no one has gone before...

 

[Withers]

I'd argue that the previous films (TMP excepted) were low-to-medium budget affairs designed to cater primarily to existing Star Trek fans. With this latest film, Paramount seems to have turned their back on that philosophy

The "fandom" couldn't keep Enterprise on the air and it couldn't make Nemesis or Insurrection profitable. In a perfect world art would be made for sake of making art. As it is, however, they make art (and I use the term loosely in this case) in order to make money. If it can't make any money then they won't make it. I'd be delighted to see a DS9 movie that picked up where the series left off. I live in the real world though and I know that just ain't neva' gonna happen. It wouldn't make any money.

They can't pander to the comparatively small Trek fandom anymore than they did with the latest film and make money. They've had five relatively recent chances to do so and they didn't accomplish the task the way "nuTrek" did. That's really the bottom line.

It's a TV show, plain a simple

I agree with you. That's maybe why the first ten films paled in comparison in terms of commercial success.


-Withers-​

 

[A beaker full of death]

to boldly go where no one has gone before...

Sounds boring to me. wander around uninhabited space...

Now, to go where no man has gone before, that sounds like fun.

 

[Warped9]

I say I want an original story...not a TWoK remake.

Bring back the original story feel to the series, this is a chance to really take a chance at finding the hook that made the old show great. Let's see ...wow Warped9 already used my second favorite trek film "Master and Commander"...i say do something like that and add a dash of the old classic "Forbidden Planet' (the best trek movie ever made )

Give us Strange new worlds....give us new civilizations...and such.

After giving us a new start..well dont stop there. Give us a new story that has nothing to do with alternate dimensions, or most of Time Travel.

Give us Arena, or Obsession, the themes that is or the feel of those episodes...ala Doomsday Machine or Eelyan of Troyius.

I want to see where they can go now that they are not tied to mission history.

Just my two thoughts.

Vons

Ditto.

 

[Wingsley]

No one has to ask "why" about Star Trek on the big screen now; it's an unqualified success from the point of view of the studio and the many, many people who went to see it just because it was a good movie. Paramount would like the next one to make more money overseas than this one, and that's about it.

Probably the ideal thing for Trek from now on is for the studio to produce a new movie every three years or so.

Of course, you are correct that the 2009 movie was a big financial success.

I did not dismiss the merits of the movie. There are legitimate points of view both praising and criticizing the 2009 movie.

That's not what I was talking about.

I was saying that you can do an opera in English, and it can become a big success. Does that mean all operas should be done in English? You can start a baseball league in Italy, but if is makes a profit, does that mean it automatically eclipses American baseball? Of course not.

STAR TREK is a TV franchise. Sure, you can make a movie out of it. So far, 11 movies have been made, and profitably so. In the end, either STAR TREK is still a TV franchise pretending to be a movie franchise, or the TV franchise is being set aside and the STAR TREK name is being affixed to something that has little or no conceptual ties to that TV franchise. It has to be one or the other.

In the case of the 2009 film, it looks like "Star Trek" is just a vague brand name, like a trademark, that's been taken and applied to something isn't sci fi and isn't drama and isn't a Roddenberryan "vision of the future" or whatever other reference you can use to describe, in broad terms, what pre-JJ "prime Universe" TREK has been for over 40 years. Of course, JJ and company lifted a few necessary items from the "prime Universe" in order to shore up the brand name (space ships, character names and likenesses) but in the end, JJ's biggest accomplishment was not "re-imagining" the franchise or doing it profitably. The biggest accomplishment was taking the "Star Trek" trademark and un-defining what the trademark meant.

What I think JJ and Paramount failed to see was that the end product, the re-defining of the trademark, is still resting on top of what is essentially an over-glorified TV show.

Sure, you can call it a great movie. You can point to its profitability. That's well and good.

But in the end, it is still an overblown TV show, masquerading as a movie franchise. It's STAR TREK, not STAR WARS.

From TMP forward, Paramount and TREK have been coping with serious case of "Star Destroyer envy" and it shows in every movie they've made. Naturally, Paramount's most recent TREK movies and series went on to imitate big competitors other than STAR WARS. But in the end, every one of these TREK movies winds up being an over-glorified TV show.

That's one loose end that JJ Abrams failed to address.

All the praise and profit in the world cannot change that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's one loose end that JJ Abrams failed to address.

All the praise and profit in the world cannot change that.

If the movies work, it's a difference which makes no difference. You're not talking about an objectively measurable, quantifiable property of "TV-ness" that either the creators or viewers have to take into account or worry about changing. If people by-and-large don't perceive the shortcoming, there is none.

 

[Vonstadt]

They won't fire Abrams because his resurrected Star Trek is more successful than previous versions. Only stupid studio executives would replace him at this point.

Yeah cause that never happens in Hollywood

It also happens in small businesses all over the United States every day. What's your point?

Paramount is in better shape right now than it has been in many years, because the folks who are running it are doing a better job.

ZOIC would be a good choice for effects if they were to do another TV series. Trek should stick with the people that they're working with now for the movies.

I wasn't riffing on you, I was merely making a joke on the irony of that can and does happen in Hollywood with good movie series.

Of course it happens in small buissness. I wasn't trying to derail your point just found it ironic that someday such a thing might happen.

I wasn't being entirely serious hence the laughing face :P

Vons

 

[startrekrcks]

well I praised the new movie because what they put into it to make it brilliant. I'm glad they made Star Trek XI and I am looking forward to future installments you may not be so happy about NuTrek but I am.

 

[Ronald Held]

definitely a financial success, but not a successful TOS movie