Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

[Sindatur]

Rip off or not, I really enjoyed the "Into Darkness" take on the scene. Actually, I think the "Into Darkness" was the more emotionally resonant one.

Whether they ripped it off or not, they played it pitch perfect.

It's phoney emotionalism. The only reason it works is because people play back the scene from Khan in their heads. It doesn't stand on its own, nor does it suit a story of two glorified cadets who have barely really gotten to bond.

Really? So the people I've talked to who've never seen WOK (yes, there are quite a number of such people--many of whom have seen the latest Trek film) who found the scene compelling--they're what, lying? The scene may not work for you, but you are hardly the arbiter of what works for everyone else.

As for "barely really gotten to bond", how the hell would you know? I "bonded" with my two best friends within weeks of meeting them--to the point where I would have sacrificed just about anything for either of them then (more so today). Kirk and Spock have been "out there" well more than a few weeks and have experienced any number of "bonding moments" to which you are not privy. Who are you to decide how well they've "bonded"? You can decide you don't find it is compellingly portrayed, of course, but your attempt at arbitrarily fixing the amount of time necessary to bond is rather flimsy.

Yea, STID is set 1 year after ST'09.

I think most great bonds are formed well before 1 year in the trenches together. Matter of fact, most great bonds are formed pretty early in a relationship.

I can't imagine a Captain and First Officer who haven't formed a great bond within a year serving together will ever form a great bond.

 

[Belz...]

Trek had lost some of that "adventure" element over time ... it became about politics, and diplomatic negotiations that get interrupted, or studying quasars, or preventing a war through impassioned speeches ... all of which were important elements of TOS, but they weren't the core focus, in my opinion - the focus was on exploring, and bizarre or unusual sci-fi adventures!

Unfortunately that gets old and dry real fast. They were already running out of ideas in TOS, and after TNG that was 10 years of episodic stuff. It didn't leave much for VOY and ENT to work with.

The argument in favor of a reboot is dealt a serious blow I think when the writers have to resurrect scenes from a older movie to complete their new movie.

No, it's not. Just because you think your franchise needs a reboot doesn't mean you don't get to play with its past a bit.

Personally, I found the STID version had no emotional resonance since the entire time I'm thinking of "Wow, they're doing this? Seriously?"

Maybe thinking that was the cause of you finding no emotional resonance in it. Just a thought.

It's phoney emotionalism. The only reason it works is because people play back the scene from Khan in their heads. It doesn't stand on its own, nor does it suit a story of two glorified cadets who have barely really gotten to bond.

I'm sorry but that's just not true.

 

[Belz...]

If a movie requires you to watch it several times before you like it, then it's a crap movie.

That's so silly I had to take a few seconds to reboot my mind before answering. Seriously ? Many movies you'll like LESS after watching more than once. Does that make it a great movie ? I'd rather a movie that grows on me, like many Trek movies, than movies that I appreciate less and less, like The Dark Knight.

Your comparisons are meaningless since you compared unlike things--a movie is neither a drink nor a song.

Yeah, but by that logic NO comparison can ever work, because you necessarily compare things that aren't each other. Otherwise it's not a comparison.

I'll add my own example: music. Music is the kind of thing that grows on you over years. You can find a piece of music quite mediocre on the first listen, but ten years down the road you love it. Movies can also be like that.

Bullshit. You do not rewrite/reboot Mozart-Bach-Beatles-Elvis, just to please new fans.

That's not what he said. He said you can rearrange a franchise to make the product more marketable, while retaining enough of its original "spirit" to appeal to the old guard.

You not became a trekkie because the show was cool.

I did.

The only reason why I watch movies and television is because I want to be entertained. Thinking, I can do on my own, and I don't need anyone to try to imprint morality onto my brain. Trek should stick to entertainment.

 

[BillJ]

Thinking, I can do on my own, and I don't need anyone to try to imprint morality onto my brain. Trek should stick to entertainment.

I don't know about you, but people in bright pajamas are usually the last folks I take morality lessons from.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Thinking, I can do on my own, and I don't need anyone to try to imprint morality onto my brain. Trek should stick to entertainment.

I don't know about you, but people in bright pajamas are usually the last folks I take morality lessons from.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Yea, STID is set 1 year after ST'09.

I think most great bonds are formed well before 1 year in the trenches together. Matter of fact, most great bonds are formed pretty early in a relationship.

I can't imagine a Captain and First Officer who haven't formed a great bond within a year serving together will ever form a great bond.

I think NKirk and NSpock's relationship is "barbed" as opposed to being shallow. NKirk and NSpock have bonded in the fact that NKirk avenged the destruction of Vulcan, which NSpock is grateful for. The two of them have a prickly relationship, however, because NSpock is trying to do things by the book and NKirk is fully willing to engage in criminal activity as long as it's for the greater good. Falsifying documents goes above and beyond what should be expected from bending the book and OKirk would have beaten the crap out of his younger self for that (or phasered him on stun).

They're friends but Kirk is the guy who wants to cheat on a test (and, in fact, is literally that guy).

 

[throwback]

Belz,

I am flattered that you thought to include some of what I had written back on page 2. However, I have a question. Did you read my complete post, or did you latch onto the first sentence and ignore the rest?

I do not find fault with people rebooting a franchise. I have come to accept that this is the normal in today's Hollywood. My issue is with how it was done for Star Trek: Into Darkness. This issue is shared by others, so I am not alone in my opinion.

In my post, I mention two films - Batman and The Dark Knight. (I erred when I wrote The Dark Knight Rises; this was the film I meant.) Both films involved Batman's arch nemesis, the Joker. These films, however, went different directions with the history and depiction of the Joker. They were successful films for their day. More importantly for our discussion, the director and writers of The Dark Knight didn't feel the need to lift whole scenes from the first film, so that they could alter them to meet the demands of the new film.
I believe this is the sin that the director and writers of Star Trek: Into Darkness committed.

I won't be wading into the discussion about whether or not Kirk and Spock were friends. I don't have enough personal experience in that arena to make a qualitative judgement on their friendship.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The Dark Knight didn't feel the need to lift whole scenes from the first film, so that they could alter them to meet the demands of the new film.
I believe this is the sin that the director and writers of Star Trek: Into Darkness committed.

I wonder about that:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3391864/batman-vs-the-dark-knight-trailer

I concede the obvious that this meant to be humorous, and trailers =/= film. However, that doesn't diminish its significance. Nolan borrowed plenty of visual cues from Batman to create visual parallelism. I could write up a whole long analysis with screencaps and the whole works, but it'd just be a waste of time. I think the video is enough to make the point. He didn't use dialog, but it was unnecessary and would have just been superfluous.

I will also add that TDKR was bloated with both visual and verbal cues from his previous two films.

In Abrams case, the dialog was important because it added clarity and weight to the scene and its thematic significance. Without the familiar lines, the two-way mirror is just a pane of glass. Non the less, the visual juxtaposition is still the primary component here because, in motion pictures, the picture is ALWAYS the central artistic element.

It's pretty nearly impossible to find a film--any film--made within the last 60 years that didn't lift a scene, visual, or line of dialog from someplace else. TWOK, I might add, had plenty of all three. This is the reality of the art form.

I think people are so upset over the radiation scene because they believe it infringes upon something they hold beloved and sacred. I'm sure there was a literary scholar or two who, after leaving the theatre in 1982, introduced palm to face.

 

[Belz...]

Belz,

I am flattered that you thought to include some of what I had written back on page 2.

That was a few days ago. Page number doesn't matter. It's not like it's a three year-old post. Anyway, you're welcome.

However, I have a question. Did you read my complete post, or did you latch onto the first sentence and ignore the rest?

No, I read it. Why ?

I do not find fault with people rebooting a franchise. I have come to accept that this is the normal in today's Hollywood.

I have come to accept it, also. I understand why it's sometimes necessary, though often I think they are overdoing it. There's no arguing with the financial success of the strategy, however.

My issue is with how it was done for Star Trek: Into Darkness. This issue is shared by others, so I am not alone in my opinion.

My issue was not with your opinion that this bothers you, but that it somehow tears down the reboot argument. Trek wasn't rebooted because they ran out of ideas and had to reboot, because then they'd still be out of ideas (and I'm sure many could make the argument that they actually are.) Star Trek was rebooted to make it more accessible to new viewers. Re-using old villains, mirroring scenes or plots from old movies or shows, etc. does not work against this idea.

These films, however, went different directions with the history and depiction of the Joker. They were successful films for their day.

I believe we can say that Into Darkness did something very different with the few elements it re-used. It's my opinion that people are taking what is an admittedly important but short moment of the film and blowing it out of proportion.

More importantly for our discussion, the director and writers of The Dark Knight didn't feel the need to lift whole scenes from the first film, so that they could alter them to meet the demands of the new film.

They could have, though. That they didn't was a choice, not an indication that doing so was a bad idea.

 

[slappy]

I like the reboot, but I honestly think that a smartly written film/tv show could accomplish everything Trek 09 did without a reboot. If you think about it TNG did just that.

 

[BillJ]

I like the reboot, but I honestly think that a smartly written film/tv show could accomplish everything Trek 09 did without a reboot. If you think about it TNG did just that.

Problem is you completely eliminate any thrills from seeing Kirk and Spock in danger because you know they go on to work on the Enterprise for another thirty years.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Problem is you completely eliminate any thrills from seeing Kirk and Spock in danger because you know they go on to work on the Enterprise for another thirty years.

A coworker of mine who wasn't really into Trek said he was amazed by how his wife would get so pulled into a Trek episode because of its teaser, knowing full well that the main crew would never die (save Tasha, of course). Sometimes people go into things knowing the outcome and they just don't care except for how it's told, hence adaptations of books or other various prequels. I'm not sure if anyone really expects Kirk and Spock to die for good, reboot or not. It'd be interesting if they did, but I just don't see it unless that's the end.

 

[Gojira]

Star Trek was in critical condition and on life-support. JJ Abrams saved Star Trek and there is no doubt about it. His movies have been a breath of fresh air and they rekindled what it felt like to watch Star Trek for the first time once again.

 

[throwback]

I think that JJ Abrams has stabilized the patient; however, the future is still murky and it is still too early to say if he saved the franchise. This film made significant in-roads on the foreign market front, yet it struggled with the 18 to 24 demographic. For the franchise to succeed, it needs to make itself appealable to this demographic.

 

[Belz...]

I do believe that's a realistic way of putting it.

 

[TenLubak]

I think a reboot was necessary. Old Trek was good, but I think it drug out because there was not enough battles in it. I realize that is not what Trek is all about, but sometimes I think you just have to get in with the times. I personally don't think Roddenberry would argue with these newest films to the franchise. I always thought the alternate universes were cool... they could create so many different stories with this concept.

Not enough battles? Star Trek is about peace and humans being able to avoid resorting to violence when possible, I always loved how Star Trek I was film about a unknown attacking earth, and Kirk WILL NOT attack it. Instead they attempt to learn about it, to communicate. That will more times than not, if sucessful, preclude the need for battle. So to me, Star Trek's mission has always been one of peace.

That one reason why I love it so much more than say, a franchise called Star WARS. That title alone is a turn off.

 

[Hugh Mann]

That's so silly I had to take a few seconds to reboot my mind before answering. Seriously ? Many movies you'll like LESS after watching more than once. Does that make it a great movie ? I'd rather a movie that grows on me, like many Trek movies, than movies that I appreciate less and less, like The Dark Knight.

You're going to have to explain how the idea that a movie should be able to impress on the first go-around in order to be considered a good movie is silly, because it doesn't make sense. I don't even see how this is something you can seriously argue. I can get behind the notion that a good movie (as opposed to J.J. Abrams' movies) can reveal additional layers of goodness with each watching, but the idea that your opinion of a movie can go from bad to good just by virtue of repetitive viewing seems utterly stupid.

For the franchise to succeed, it needs to make itself appealable to this demographic.

What a silly thing to say. That's like saying we need to get kids to eat healthy by taking healthy snacks and making them more "appealable" by deep-frying them and lathering them in chocolate.

 

[Belz...]

You're going to have to explain how the idea that a movie should be able to impress on the first go-around in order to be considered a good movie is silly, because it doesn't make sense.

Because it can become a good movie on the second viewing. See how easy that was ?

but the idea that your opinion of a movie can go from bad to good just by virtue of repetitive viewing seems utterly stupid.

Well that's the problem of your limited experience, then, because it actually happens in real life.

 

[Ovation]

That's so silly I had to take a few seconds to reboot my mind before answering. Seriously ? Many movies you'll like LESS after watching more than once. Does that make it a great movie ? I'd rather a movie that grows on me, like many Trek movies, than movies that I appreciate less and less, like The Dark Knight.

You're going to have to explain how the idea that a movie should be able to impress on the first go-around in order to be considered a good movie is silly, because it doesn't make sense. I don't even see how this is something you can seriously argue. I can get behind the notion that a good movie (as opposed to J.J. Abrams' movies) can reveal additional layers of goodness with each watching, but the idea that your opinion of a movie can go from bad to good just by virtue of repetitive viewing seems utterly stupid.

Oh look. This has already been addressed and debunked. You could at least try to come up with a new complaint.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Not enough battles? Star Trek is about peace and humans being able to avoid resorting to violence when possible, I always loved how Star Trek I was film about a unknown attacking earth, and Kirk WILL NOT attack it. Instead they attempt to learn about it, to communicate. That will more times than not, if sucessful, preclude the need for battle. So to me, Star Trek's mission has always been one of peace.

That one reason why I love it so much more than say, a franchise called Star WARS. That title alone is a turn off.

Star Trek is many things. It's why Wrath of Khan was better received than TMP.