They'd have to try pretty damn hard to put her in something less dignified than what she wore the first five years of TNG.
Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
They'd have to try pretty damn hard to put her in something less dignified than what she wore the first five years of TNG.
Isn't that what they tried with Seven of Nine and T'Pol?
By itself, that's not a great attempt at criticism. 'It's only being talked about because it's so new!' falls apart when there's movies from one year ago that are long forgotten.
Also: presuming to speak for other people. A bit not good.
Again, not a great argument. The hypothetical opinions of hypothetical future people are notoriously unreliable.
The flippant arseholes.
Talk about damning by faint praise.
Anyway, what's 'the best' got to do with people finding it 'good?'
TWOK was on io9's list. Other than that? Google says 'No'. Lots of whining about its lack of inclusion in various lists though.
When a large chunk of our 'greatest directors' either can't watch their works out of shame, or outright try to edit out what they see as 'flaws,' JJ comes off as a big damn cheerleader.
And no, I'm not just referring to Lucas.
Last edited:
So just because its not a terrible movie, means that after three years its stood the test of time?
My point was that saying a movie is still being talked about three years later, does not hold the same weight as a movie that is still being talked about thirty years later. I'm not trying to speak for other people but I will ask this: If Star Trek Into Darkness did not have the Star Trek brand, would it still be talked about?
I'll let you do the leg work on this one but I'm pretty sure most rankings of Star Trek movies list TWOK at #1. As far as it being "good", most critics gave it a favorable review. Objective criticism at least holds that it is a "good" movie.
I might have googled something different than you. When I googled "best sci-fi movies of all time" the following results were on the first page. TWOKs ranking stated after each link.
http://www.timeout.com/london/film/the-100-best-sci-fi-movies#tab_panel_6 44
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/g2419/100-best-sci-fi-movies/?slide=93 8
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=sci_fi&num_votes=1000,&sort=user_rating,desc&start=51&title_type=feature 91
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=sci_fi&num_votes=1000,&sort=user_rating,desc&start=51&title_type=feature 14
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5619137/25-classic-science-fiction-movies-that-everybody-must-watch 16
This may be a fair point but it's still not proof that Into Darkness will be considered a classic in thirty years time. As you suggested, there is no way to tell what people will be saying about Into Darkness in thirty years. I guess we will have to pick this discussion up again then.
If you go by both those IMDb lists, both of Abrams films rate higher than TWOK if you sort by the ratings score (TWOK isn't even in the top 100 of one of them). The number it's listed next to (for eg. 1, 2 etc) is a movies current popularity (by number of clicks) ranking, not its critical rank.
io9 I mentioned, Timeout also had Abrams on the list, and I didn't count the Esquire list because it predated STID (I don't know if it would have made the list anyway, but fairs fair.) So technically TWOK is on some top 100 lists, but those lists didn't really help the point you were trying to make.
The Timeout and Esquire lists are pretty interesting though. Lots of personal favourites that don't typically get a lot of critical love. Stalker, the Fifth Elements, The Shape of Things to Come, World on the Wire, Escape from the Planet of the Apes, The Damned...
io9 I mentioned, Timeout also had Abrams on the list, and I didn't count the Esquire list because it predated STID (I don't know if it would have made the list anyway, but fairs fair.) So technically TWOK is on some top 100 lists, but those lists didn't really help the point you were trying to make.
The Timeout and Esquire lists are pretty interesting though. Lots of personal favourites that don't typically get a lot of critical love. Stalker, the Fifth Elements, The Shape of Things to Come, World on the Wire, Escape from the Planet of the Apes, The Damned...
Last edited:
It does support my argument actually. My argument being "TWOK is more influential than STID". I have stated various reasons to support this. Among them being: It has stood the test of time, It was well reviewed at the time it came out, It revitalized the franchise, and It has been imitated by other movies in the franchise since (including STID).
I use that it is on "best sic fi movies" lists as evidence it has stood the test of time. Inevitably many of these lists tend to be biased towards newer movies (especially IMDB lists) and the fact that TWOK is still on them and in some cases towards the top show that a thirty year old movie is still relevant. Admittedly there is no way to give this same metric to STID because its only been three years. That does not in itself take away the fact that TWOK has remained popular despite its age.
Metacritic rates these movies about the same but both have good reviews. So they are about even when objectively comparing how "good" they are.
It did revitalize the franchise. After the first attempted reboot with TMP wasn't as successful as anticipated TWOK had a significantly reduced budget, removed Gene Roddenberry involvement, and had an overall change in tone. TWOK was the movie that spawned the sequels. Most of the cast and crew were expecting it to be the last Star Trek movie ever. It's success insured it wasn't. If it wasn't for TWOK there would be no STID.
Oh and much of STID directly ripped characters, themes, scenes, and even dialogue directly from TWOK. One could also make an argument that Star Trek 09, Nemesis, First Contact, and TUC were attempts to recapture what was achieved in TWOK.
That is my reasoning why TWOK is the most influential movie in the Star Trek franchise. Instead of trying to undercut my reasoning maybe you could provide some reasons of your own why STID is so influential. Maybe the fact it was rated the worst Star Trek movie by Star Trek fans at a convention, or the numerous plot holes that become more apparent on repeat viewings, or its attempts to imitate the aforementioned TWOK without maintaining a central theme throughout (one of the things JJ admitted was wrong), or maybe it was the movies total disregard for basic Newtonian physics that one would learn in high school. Please tell me why this movie is so great besides "it made money, had explosions, and had Alice Eve in her underwear".
Why would I need to prove that STID is influential? I never made that claim. All I did was argue that TWOK doesn't fit that descriptor, and point out that the 'proof' you provided for your arguments wasnt that strong (for eg. Directors being critical of their own work is completely normal.)
Saying TWOK was the most influential movie in a franchise I nfamous for sucking 50% of the time, is a big step down from 'top 100 sci fi movies of all time.' As for the lists proving it stood the test of time, you could only provide three lists (the IMDb ones are basically the same list with different parameters) and one of them includes every scifi film ever made (with over a thousand votes.) So no, the point still stands.
As for the rest (the copying STID accusations etc), I'm absolutely certain that has all already been replied to on this thread. I personally have zero interest in hashing all that out again. By now, it's about as interesting and predictable as 'Should Picard have moved the Baku in INS?', 'How big is the new Enterprise?' and 'Was Janeway committing murder by separating Tuvix?'
Saying TWOK was the most influential movie in a franchise I nfamous for sucking 50% of the time, is a big step down from 'top 100 sci fi movies of all time.' As for the lists proving it stood the test of time, you could only provide three lists (the IMDb ones are basically the same list with different parameters) and one of them includes every scifi film ever made (with over a thousand votes.) So no, the point still stands.
As for the rest (the copying STID accusations etc), I'm absolutely certain that has all already been replied to on this thread. I personally have zero interest in hashing all that out again. By now, it's about as interesting and predictable as 'Should Picard have moved the Baku in INS?', 'How big is the new Enterprise?' and 'Was Janeway committing murder by separating Tuvix?'
Bloated fart.
Into Darkness was a terrible film. It's already forgotten. Trek 09 meanwhile, continues to colour the conversations on this site and elsewhere. Its influence hangs over the new show. It was an awesome shot in the arm.
Into Darkness hangs over nothing... other than toilet bowls in the form of a bloated fart.
Next tme you use a public toilet and leave the cubicle... You'll suddenly think of Into Darkness but won't know why.
Into Darkness was a terrible film. It's already forgotten. Trek 09 meanwhile, continues to colour the conversations on this site and elsewhere. Its influence hangs over the new show. It was an awesome shot in the arm.
Into Darkness hangs over nothing... other than toilet bowls in the form of a bloated fart.
Next tme you use a public toilet and leave the cubicle... You'll suddenly think of Into Darkness but won't know why.
The aside in my original post was about why TWOK was more influential than STID. So if you just want to continue to contradict my statement you should provide some evidence as to why the opposite is true instead of trying to disprove my evidence. If you like STID better that's fine. I'm simply attempting to back my claims with evidence. The one aspect of my claim you seem to be stuck on is only one part of my argument. I apologize if I missed it but I did not see the rest addressed on this thread.
As far as the top sci fi movies of all time. My original statement was that it was on multiple best of all time lists. You responded that it was on only one. I provided several links that I found on the first page of my google search. I stopped before I got to the bottom because I thought it proved my point. Now you say that three is not enough. Well I pasted one of the links wrong (sorry) here is the link to the IGN list that has it at #14. I don't really have the time or energy to find other best of all time lists to prove that it is on multiple (four counts as multiple)
http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/09/14/top-25-sci-fi-movies-of-all-time?page=3
I'm done with this. You can contradict this now if you want. I wasn't trying to start an argument I was just trying to defend my claim, to which all you have done is try and poke holes in it. I conceded that a director criticizing his own work is not evidence the movie will not stand the test of time but I don't think the rest of my points are invalid. This is not a worthwhile discussion. this is just you trying to make me look dumb. I feel I have stated my argument and clearly provided reasons for my argument. If you don't want to acknowledge that, I don't feel the need to drag this out anymore.
^They're not defending Into Darkness (why would they, it's a terrible film) they're defending NuTrek (which is great). In time, they'll eventually understand that they're not the same thing and wake up and smell the bloated fart.
Take comfort in this.
My non-Trek friends were excited by Trek 09 (the freshness, the newness, the inclusiveness) but Into Darkness was just... "oh look, references I don't get or give a shit about in a film that drags on. Bye."
Take comfort in this.
My non-Trek friends were excited by Trek 09 (the freshness, the newness, the inclusiveness) but Into Darkness was just... "oh look, references I don't get or give a shit about in a film that drags on. Bye."
I think that's called a complisult. I'll take it.
Personally, it isn't so much that I think Into Darkness is a great film, so much as I think it is an under-appreciated film. Regardless of the weaknesses of the film, I personally enjoy it and the character development and commentary. For me, though, that is a definite "to each his own" thing.
I will more strongly defend Abrams Trek, and would want to explore that world and the potential consequences of that world. I think that a TV show offers some different opportunities to take a deeper look at many possibilities within that world. Technology, characters, ect, there is a lot that I, personally, would want to unpack inside there. I don't want to sit there and treat it like a non-possibility when discussing a new series, like Abrams Trek has less to explore than other timelines or eras.
I will more strongly defend Abrams Trek, and would want to explore that world and the potential consequences of that world. I think that a TV show offers some different opportunities to take a deeper look at many possibilities within that world. Technology, characters, ect, there is a lot that I, personally, would want to unpack inside there. I don't want to sit there and treat it like a non-possibility when discussing a new series, like Abrams Trek has less to explore than other timelines or eras.
Unfortunately, Fuller The Fracking Dufus will set it in the previous universe, just to please fans butthurt over the current continuity of the movies, or so I've heard.
It would be funny if he did just that (go to the extra effort of establishing its in the 'Prime' timeline), and then said 'screw it' and proceeded to trample all over continuity so he could tell whatever story he wanted.
Like say: setting it in the TOS era and having s31 (headed by Admiral Marcus, of course) blow up Vulcan.
Like say: setting it in the TOS era and having s31 (headed by Admiral Marcus, of course) blow up Vulcan.
Similar threads
