State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

[Shazam!]

If he's a hack, and complaints about Into Darkness are copy-paste jobs of 1982 Wrath of Khan complaints from Interstat, does that make Harve Bennett a hack as well?

A. Why would it? and B. What if it did?

A. Because the complaints against both movies are so similar, it stands to reason the writers have similar ability levels.

But Harve Bennett didn't write Star Trek II : /

 

[F. King Daniel]

As executive producer he had a great deal of input. I guess I should have said, are Jack B. Sowards and Nick Meyer hacks? Is J.J. Abrams? Etc.

 

[Yanks]

Ah, hem. The "butthurt" chiming in here.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we're not pissed just disappointed.

Was there really a reason to pull those characters from TWOK?

Abrams didn't seem like he wanted to continue to grow the franchise, but merely take advantage of its successful moments and capitalize on it for his own benefit.

Disappointing.

Glad he went over to Star Wars.

Don't think it's a "JJ" thing at all.

The writers provide the tree, JJ just decorates it.

 

[Yanks]

If STID borrowed heavily from TWOK, then TWOK borrowed heavily from Moby Dick.

The two characters TWOK and STID have in common: Carol Marcus and Khan.

The major villain in STID and not in TWOK: Admiral Marcus.

The MacGuffin in TWOK: Genesis. The MacGuffin in STID: 72 photon torpedoes with Khan's people hidden in them.

It boggles my mind after all these months that some still call STID a TWOK rehash. How is it? Really. Let's see someone post an itemized list of the similarities. Scene by scene. Plot point by plot point. Theme by theme. It should be easy. Right?

It's not. Not a rehash of Space Seed either.

My opinion is, if they'd ended it differently (no TWoK death scene rip-off) this movie would be just as universally praised as ST09.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The creators started that divide with all their bashing against old Trek. "Not you father's Trek", those "Nacelles Monthly subscriber" remarks, the constant justifications for the fast paced style with "old Trek was lame and boring", and all that shit.

Sometimes I think some people here live in an alternate reality? Or maybe it's just that I do.

When Bad Robot said "This is not your father's 'Star Trek'", they weren't dissing the old one. They were telling the new demographic that the new films would have something for them, as well as their Dads.

Yes, Orci & Kurtzman are self-proclaimed TNG fans, but they spent months reading TOS novels - and even made a list of the ones they loved ("Spock's World", "Final Frontier", "Best Destiny", "Ex Machina", etc), several of which became influential in their writing of the 2009 film.

And I don't recall any of the Bad Robot gang describing "old Trek" as "lame and boring". JJ Abrams explained that he found ST:TMP disappointingly boring, because he was an enthusiastic little kid at the Smithsonian premiere and he was expecting a SF film just like the "Star Wars" film he'd seen two years earlier.

I was a ST newbie in 1980 and had just started substitute teaching in the years between TMP and ST II - and all the kids I tried to chat Star Trek with thought that TMP was boring. Most adult fans I met agreed with them.

So what other "bashing" did I miss, or misunderstand?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Ah, hem. The "butthurt" chiming in here.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we're not pissed just disappointed.

Was there really a reason to pull those characters from TWOK?

Abrams didn't seem like he wanted to continue to grow the franchise, but merely take advantage of its successful moments and capitalize on it for his own benefit.

Disappointing.

Glad he went over to Star Wars.

Don't think it's a "JJ" thing at all.

The writers provide the tree, JJ just decorates it.

Another word is usually used when screenwriters and directors become involved in each other's work: producer.

 

[Kruezerman]

Who cares?

 

[Yanks]

Who cares?

About what?

 

[M'Sharak]

The creators started that divide with all their bashing against old Trek. "Not you father's Trek", those "Nacelles Monthly subscriber" remarks, the constant justifications for the fast paced style with "old Trek was lame and boring", and all that shit.

...

When Bad Robot said "This is not your father's 'Star Trek'", they weren't dissing the old one. They were telling the new demographic that the new films would have something for them, as well as their Dads.

The "not your father's... " tagline was also confined to a single TV spot which appeared very late in the promo campaign, less than a month before the movie's general release. I think it first aired during a sporting event of some kind, playing to an audience not typically courted for Star Trek or SF genre entertainment.

So what other "bashing" did I miss, or misunderstand?

The "Nacelles Monthly" quip wasn't bashing, either - just more of Abrams explaining that he was making a movie targeted for a wider audience, so that he wouldn't necessarily be focusing on this or that <tech> detail to the degree that a "hardcore Trek fan" might want to see.

GB: You know that no matter what you do, you’ll get an earful from hardcore fans.

JJA: The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of “Star Trek” who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren’t what what they want. But I can’t make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do. And yet, the movie at its core is not only inspired by what has come before, it’s deeply true to what’s come before. The bottom line is we have different actors playing these parts and from that point on it’s literally not what they’ve seen before. It will be evident when people see this movie that it is true to what Roddenberry created and what those amazing actors did in the 1960s. At the same time, I think, it’s going to blow people’s minds because its a completely different experience than what they expect.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/uncategorized/star-trek-direc/#/0​

Trying to make anything mentioned in Jarod's post out to be bashing is to be reaching too far.

 

[Jax]

The upset fans are a loud minority, the majority seem to enjoy the movie.

The best thing Paramount can do is ignore us because some of us will never be happy. They could rebuilt the original sets, clone the actors and write the greatest hours of television ever seen by human eyes and a small group of fans could find something to complain about. They don't want to happy, they're miserable about something and want to drag everyone down to their level. It's sad, pathetic and annoying. Thankfully the majority of them are confined to the internet, much like that giant head that claimed to be God.

This

IMO the reason Star Trek will never make a successful return to TV in the near future is because of the rabid fanbase, it can make your project a success but its too dam hard to please.

 

[Yanks]

The creators started that divide with all their bashing against old Trek. "Not you father's Trek", those "Nacelles Monthly subscriber" remarks, the constant justifications for the fast paced style with "old Trek was lame and boring", and all that shit.

...

When Bad Robot said "This is not your father's 'Star Trek'", they weren't dissing the old one. They were telling the new demographic that the new films would have something for them, as well as their Dads.

The "not your father's... " tagline was also confined to a single TV spot which appeared very late in the promo campaign, less than a month before the movie's general release. I think it first aired during a sporting event of some kind, playing to an audience not typically courted for Star Trek or SF genre entertainment.

So what other "bashing" did I miss, or misunderstand?

The "Nacelles Monthly" quip wasn't bashing, either - just more of Abrams explaining that he was making a movie targeted for a wider audience, so that he wouldn't necessarily be focusing on this or that <tech> detail to the degree that a "hardcore Trek fan" might want to see.

GB: You know that no matter what you do, you’ll get an earful from hardcore fans.

JJA: The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of “Star Trek” who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren’t what what they want. But I can’t make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do. And yet, the movie at its core is not only inspired by what has come before, it’s deeply true to what’s come before. The bottom line is we have different actors playing these parts and from that point on it’s literally not what they’ve seen before. It will be evident when people see this movie that it is true to what Roddenberry created and what those amazing actors did in the 1960s. At the same time, I think, it’s going to blow people’s minds because its a completely different experience than what they expect.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/uncategorized/star-trek-direc/#/0
​

Trying to make anything mentioned in Jarod's post out to be bashing is to be reaching too far.

Agree completely!!

 

[Yanks]

Ah, hem. The "butthurt" chiming in here.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we're not pissed just disappointed.

Was there really a reason to pull those characters from TWOK?

Abrams didn't seem like he wanted to continue to grow the franchise, but merely take advantage of its successful moments and capitalize on it for his own benefit.

Disappointing.

Glad he went over to Star Wars.

Don't think it's a "JJ" thing at all.

The writers provide the tree, JJ just decorates it.

Another word is usually used when screenwriters and directors become involved in each other's work: producer.

Well, if you listen to Orci's latest podcast. (See Trekmovie) he indicates to the contrary.

That's where I got the Christmas Tree saying.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I do think there's a bit of truth to both sides of the argument--Star Trek XII isn't above some criticism, but it's also been the subject of some bandwagon bashing too. But it's kinda the course for all Trek productions with both fans and vocal detractors.

 

[Yanks]

I do think there's a bit of truth to both sides of the argument--Star Trek XII isn't above some criticism, but it's also been the subject of some bandwagon bashing too. But it's kinda the course for all Trek productions with both fans and vocal detractors.

So true.

I had a big problem with the "Khan superblood" thing, but thinking it over I've tamed my "beast"

Still not there concerning the death scene though...

 

[Khan444]

The thing is, there would be NO Star Trek right now if it weren't for JJ. Enterprise was the first TV series since TOS to be cancelled, and Nemesis bombed critically and financially. The franchise was DEAD, no one wanted to greenlight Star Trek projects for a decade. JJ not only resurrected the franchise, but made millions of NEW people into Star Trek fans. That is an accomplishment worthy of note.

 

[Harvey]

But Harve Bennett didn't write Star Trek II : /

Last time I checked, the writing credits of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan were:

Story by Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards
Screenplay by Jack B. Sowards

 

[Opus]

IMO the reason Star Trek will never make a successful return to TV in the near future is because of the rabid fanbase, it can make your project a success but its too dam hard to please.

I've got to agree with you there.

A movie blockbuster can happen even if the hardcore minority of Trek's fans are pissed. STiD is proof of that.

But a TV show can only survive if it has a fanbase that is loyal. Trek fans are so splintered, they couldn't even agree on...

... Hell! They couldn't agree on a damn thing...

So - New movie in 2016, but no chance of a new series within the next decade I'd say.

 

[Khan444]

I seem to remember a report that JJ wanted to do a new TV series that would run alongside the movies, but that the studio said no. I'm not sure if that's true, but it sounds like something that JJ would do.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I seem to remember a report that JJ wanted to do a new TV series that would run alongside the movies, but that the studio said no. I'm not sure if that's true, but it sounds like something that JJ would do.

It was a video game.

 

[Sindatur]

I seem to remember a report that JJ wanted to do a new TV series that would run alongside the movies, but that the studio said no. I'm not sure if that's true, but it sounds like something that JJ would do.

Kurtzman and/or Orci have mentioned wanting to do a Series, but, no rejection or approval (Or for that matter a Solid pitch) has been confirmed by anyone

Many of us have theorized that the most likely scenario, would be after STiD proved to be a success (Which it now has), that a Series (Probably animated, not Live Action) would be greenlighted, so that it would be able to premiere shortly after the next movie premieres. No indication that this is going forward at this point, though. (Which would also be a 50th Anniversary Celebration, as well, hopefully)