STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
And it's been praised by several other reviewers for being smart. If you want, I can cherry pick those reviews for you as well, in the same manner as you've done.
So what? Movies are a subjective experience. I have enjoyed many movies the critics have panned.
And these are particularly important negative reviews because -- ?
There's a saying The Washington Post uses here to sell newspapers (their critic loved STID, by the way): If you don't get it, you don't get it. These reviews don't get it. STID is no different than the intelligently done but still sometimes campy TOS. The story is as deep as almost any TOS episode and prior movies. Marc Cushman is quoted as saying, "It's lost a lot of its reality." Reality? Huh? Explanation, please.
The NY Post review says that "surplus action and lack of creative commentary" is the biggest sticking point to purists. Not this purist. There are valid negative reviews out there, but any like NY Post's that hold Abrams's movies to a standard that is mythical to being with, well they just don't get it. Besides, who the hell walks out of a summer movie saying, "I wish there would've been less action and more sitting around conference tables discussing issues"?
Someone referenced some reviews but did not include links. I searched for the reviews and posted some links.
I don't think they're upset that this movie is hardly Star Trek as much as they are upset that this is the only Star Trek we'll ever be getting. Star Trek was really at it's best when it was on television. We got, what? 22-26 stories a year, instead of one story every three to four years? I think a Star Trek series would leave plenty of room for variety instead of non-stop action rehashes of previous Star Trek stories.
Understood. But I thought it was best to quote you with your links since they should've been in the original post. I'm not attacking either messenger, either. There are valid criticisms of this movie. I just don't think comparing Abrams's take on Trek to a version looked at through rose-colored glasses is a valid way to criticize it.
Chu'lak
Lieutenant
I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.
For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:
The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore
I rest my case.
For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:
The Cage
Mudd's Women
Charlie X
The Menagerie, Part I
The Menagerie, Part II
The Return of the Archons
Bread and Circuses
A Private Little War
The Omega Glory
Assignment: Earth
The Savage Curtain
Turnabout Intruder
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
TNG:
Encounter at Farpoint
Hide and Q
Datalore
I rest my case.
I don't really disagree that I'd prefer a television show to movies, but that's a separate issue - CBS are sitting on the rights to the TV show and blocking; not JJ Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman etc
It doesn't make these movies bad in anyway because it's not the television show, I'd much rather watch BOBW than FC but FC is still my favourite movie.
I like all of those to varying degrees. I also like Star Trek 2009. So what's your point?
Most of those episodes are very good.
I thought CBS and Paramount had some form of gentlemans agreement that whilst Trek movies were being made there would be no TV show.
It makes sense for CBS to stay 'friendly' with Paramount because in the future maybe a TV show will use the sets and props built for the movies?
"Star Trek" and TV is an idea that sounds as natural as peanut butter and jelly. The problem is the success of the movies isn't necessarily a guarantee of the success of a TV show. And what form would the show take? Would yet another Kirk and Spock occupy the small screen? Or does the success of Abrams's Trek movies mean the world is ready for another version of TNG on TV? Unlikely. There are 28 seasons of Trek TV out there. There may be a few new stories to tell, but are there seven more seasons of them left to tell?
Also, I don't know a lot about investment and profit in the entertainment industry (nothing, really), but Paramount is probably very happy with its profit margin for ST09 and looking forward to even greater profits from STID. I'd think it would take a lot longer (if ever) to get that kind of return on investment from TV. Besides, network TV is dying as a medium. It's a slow death, but it's dying. Maybe a new Trek series could be the first to go straight to Podcast.
Would it really matter if they didn't? There is no way to get a budget on a TV show to move nuTrek to TV.
Sets and props cost lots of $$ and would make a TV pilot or mini-series hugely expensive. CBS would have all the sets etc ready made and so the huge expense has already been taken care of. It would make it much cheaper and therefore feasible on a TV budget.
EDIT: So Paramount will have spent the bulk of the money that would've been spent on a TV Show on the movie and all that comes available for use in a TV show.
EDIT2: Paramount are considering starting up a TV division so maybe they can make a future show and sell it to CBS?
The court accepts the evidence but asks for clarification, are all of these examples of poor storytelling or examples of action in Star Trek stories?
I don't see an episode there that I do not enjoy.
That's also giving GR primary credit for every episode in which he shares a credit, and in the majority of cases I believe that's misleading. If you look at the history of just ST:TMP, for example, you'll see what I mean - WGA doesn't settle those matters by drawing straws.
For example, D.C. Fontana wrote the script for "Charlie X" - she has sole teleplay credit, there. Roddenberry has a story credit, which may have been an outline of several pages or may have been no more than the sentence devoted to "The Day Charlie Became God" in his original series proposal (and that sentence is little more than a riff on "It's A Good Life" by Jerome Bixby).
Of the episodes listed there that I think can fairly be blamed mostly on Roddenberry, "The Cage" is the only exceptionally interesting one IMAO. The others are mediocre at best.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
