The JJ-Trek was a Star Trek movie that was a real mainstream success, one that got people interested what had previously been a dying franchise. (Which it really was - the novels got better post-Nemesis, but not significantly more read) For the first time in years and years, people actually cared about Star Trek.
For a particular sort of people who derived their identity from being a Star Trek fan, this was the worst thing, because now they had to share that identity with others. These are people who have the same relationship with Star Trek as they otherwise would with a religion, and someone practicing your religion wrong is the worst thing!
The JJ-Trek was a Star Trek movie that was a real mainstream success, one that got people interested what had previously been a dying franchise. (Which it really was - the novels got better post-Nemesis, but not significantly more read) For the first time in years and years, people actually cared about Star Trek.
For a particular sort of people who derived their identity from being a Star Trek fan, this was the worst thing, because now they had to share that identity with others. These are people who have the same relationship with Star Trek as they otherwise would with a religion, and someone practicing your religion wrong is the worst thing!
That does make a lot of sense :P And it does explain some of the hate in this thread: they can't conceive that JJ's Trek is not the Trek they were expected, and have issues with that.
I don't think anyone ever stopped caring about Star Trek. There were still fans and always will be IMO.
I never minded a "franchise reboot" and TBH I thought the concept of using an alternate universe was a simply elegant solution to offering a nod to what came before while starting over. IMO the cast was well chosen too. It's the writing/script/direction was just dreadful. I hope that post JJ (once he's moved along to Star Wars), a decent screenplay writer will come along that can craft a script worthy of Trek and the talented cast they have.
You know, just because you think the writing/script/direction were awful doesn't mean that they were awful.
I think they did well, in regards to aiming ST2009 at an audience that didn't care/hated the older ST. The movie itself did well to the new generation, bringing in a lot of new fans.
And with Into Darkness coming up, they'll probably keep that level for the newer audience, but also add in a little more of the older ST elements, since they're no longer purely introducing ST to a new generation.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
JJ Trek is separate from Prime Trek, and their only connection is the name Star Trek. And other than that, JJ's Trek is not bound by ANY of the same rules...
That's the flaw in your logic. How can that be? We old timers know what happened in the "prime" timeline. Based on the reboot this was all changed in this new alternate timeline because Kirk's father was killed which made him turn into a punk/loser/troublemaker. OK fine, I can accept that change of events having that outcome and his life turning out differently.
But because Kirk's father died Spock has no problem openly showing affection to Uhura? Because Kirk's father died Sulu is suddenly an incompetent helsman? Because Kirk's father died Scotty is a clown? Because Kirk's father died main Engineering looks like a 20th factory? Because Kirk's father died hand phasers fire bolts that have to be reloaded? And these are just the nitpicks.
Then there are the plot elements themselves. We all know Kirk and Spock are supposed to become close friends. The first movie showed Kirk tricking Spock into getting emotional by being a jerk about his mother dying, so Spock would be removed from command, and yet now they're supposed to be friends? Now Spock wants to be by his side as his first officer? Huh?
The BS-o-meter is off the charts on this "reboot" that we are supposed to swallow. And it has nothing to do with who the Director is.
JJ Trek is separate from Prime Trek, and their only connection is the name Star Trek.
This is part of what is so damned disappointing. JJ went to a lot of trouble to set up, in the first movie, the basic characters from TOS on the ship with no continuity baggage to deal with. He could do anything he wanted to do. Take the ship and crew anywhere in the galaxy. He could use the Klingons, the Romulans, any of the other Star Trek races, or make up whole new ones. He could do literally anything...
...and what we get is a retread of one of the old movies. I know you haven't seen it yet, but this is some of the other stuff I didn't want to spoil in the other thread.
And it is retread, not 'another take'. The whole movie hinges on you having seen TWOK. The climactic scene recreates the climactic scene of TWOK exactly, just with Kirk dying instead of Spock. Spock gives his 'needs of the many...' speech again, just in a different setting. 'KHAAAAAAAAAAANN!!!' gets yelled, just by a different character. And then instead of a whole other movie to creatively resolve Kirk's death, we get a contrived deus ex machina, which is just poor writing.
If somebody wanted to write fanfic of 'Here's how the encounter with Khan went down in JJ Trek universe...' or if they published a novel or a comic with that theme, I might be interested to read it (though I'd still be disappointed with the ending above). With the budget and the freedom that JJ had, however, he could have made a much much better, more original, and more creative movie.
This isn't my 'knee-jerk reaction to Abrams name', this is my opinion having seen the film. Its Nemesis II. Its a derivative retread. Its a disappointment. I hope now that JJ is moving on to Star Wars (which is what he wanted to do from the beginning anyway), somebody with an original, creative vision will take over the Trek franchise. They've got a good cast and enough money that they could be making gold, not trying to gold-plate old ideas that were fine to begin with.
and to the ones think I just plan out right hate any thing JJ take this loved ((Lost)) till the last EP loved ((Alcatraz)) hate it got canned by fox loved ((Alias)) love ((Person of Interest)) so stop trying to make ppl out to just be down right JJ haters because we don't like and get this HIS view on star trek
and I could name a hek of a lot more..................
You know, just because you think the writing/script/direction were awful doesn't mean that they were awful.
I think they did well, in regards to aiming ST2009 at an audience that didn't care/hated the older ST. The movie itself did well to the new generation, bringing in a lot of new fans.
The fact that something does well in theaters doesn't make it well-written either. Everything you just said about JJ Trek could be said about the Stars Wars Prequels, too, but neither of them is going to win any screenwriting awards any time soon.
Heck, the Twilight films have tons of fans, and they're horribly written. 50 Shades of Gray was all over the bestsellers list and its not even good writing for fanfic (which it originally was).
Whether or not you like a movie is subjective. Whether a movie is well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc. is not subjective, you just may not have studied writing, acting, or directing enough to know the difference. There are a lot of well-written, well-acted, and well-directed movies that I personally don't like. And vice versa. I loved the Expendables, for example. But I realize that from a critical perspective, it was garbage. It just happened to be garbage I liked. I also like Big Macs. Doesn't make them nutritious.
That's the flaw in your logic. How can that be? We old timers know what happened in the "prime" timeline. Based on the reboot this was all changed in this new alternate timeline because Kirk's father was killed which made him turn into a punk/loser/troublemaker. OK fine, I can accept that change of events having that outcome and his life turning out differently.
But because Kirk's father died Spock has no problem openly showing affection to Uhura? Because Kirk's father died Sulu is suddenly an incompetent helsman? Because Kirk's father died Scotty is a clown? Because Kirk's father died main Engineering looks like a 20th factory? Because Kirk's father died hand phasers fire bolts that have to be reloaded? And these are just the nitpicks.
Then there are the plot elements themselves. We all know Kirk and Spock are supposed to become close friends. The first movie showed Kirk tricking Spock into getting emotional by being a jerk about his mother dying, so Spock would be removed from command, and yet now they're supposed to be friends? Now Spock wants to be by his side as his first officer? Huh?
The BS-o-meter is off the charts on this "reboot" that we are supposed to swallow. And it has nothing to do with who the Director is.
It's an alternate reality; things are supposed to be similar, yet wildly different at the same time.
I'll say this though: about Kirk and Spock being friends yet getting into an emotional fight... they're mature adults. You don't let one bad experience taint your professional relationship (especially for a Vulcan, as doing so would be illogical). Engineering looking like a factory makes some some sense when you consider that all areas that people frequently see, like the bridge and medical bay, they're supposed to look good. The actual inner workings like engineering are built for function, not form.
And regarding 'fire bolts' from their phasers, the Kelvin did it's best to shoot down the many, many missiles from the Narada. I imagine that should that ship ever return, and it did, the slow-firing-yet-powerful beams simply wouldn't cut it against multiple missiles. And that design choice followed the hand units, I imagine.
And you don't 'have' to swallow things from this film: there are plenty of films where people employ the 'don't think about it and you'll be fine' mantra. Just try using that if it's bothering you so much
I honestly don't see WHY it should be a disappointment: you're supposed to enjoy the series, no matter what's different about it. Holding anything new to a series of restrictions about what makes it good, or what makes it 'Trek' in this case, only detracts from that for me personally.
And that includes being a possible retread. Being a retread of older elements does not automatically make it bad imo
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Jack Nicholson was a great Joker. Why did they have to ruin it by remaking it with Heath Ledger?
If you had gone to see Dark Knight, and in it, Heath Ledger had spent his time quoting lines from Jack Nicholson's Joker, the plot had almost identical to Tim Burton's Batman, they had recreated several scenes from Burton's movie with just small changes, etc...
...well then I imagine you would have been as disappointed with Dark Knight as I was with Into Darkness.
Even given using Khan as the villain, they could have at least come up with a new story involving the same heroes and villain, they didn't have to just continuously retread and subreference the original story.
I honestly don't see WHY it should be a disappointment: you're supposed to enjoy the series, no matter what's different about it. Holding anything new to a series of restrictions about what makes it good, or what makes it 'Trek' in this case, only detracts from that for me personally.
And that includes being a possible retread. Being a retread of older elements does not automatically make it bad imo
I find it hard to believe that you're being honest. I find it hard to believe that you can't understand how I, walking into a theater to see a new, original Star Trek movie, would be disappointed when instead I get a retread of a movie I've already seen, with a poorly written ending to boot. You really can't fathom how that would be a disappointment? Really?
So, if the plot of the next movie is that Spock Prime warns them that a whale probe is coming, so the Enterprise and crew go back in time to get two humpback whales from modern day San Francisco, you won't be disappointed? And you still won't understand why I would be?
Given that I went to see a new movie, and instead got a remake of one I had already seen that wasn't as good as the original, I think calling it 'disappointing' is being even-handed and charitable.
Also it is worth noting that a good screenwriter does not a good Star Trek make. People have different ideas as to what makes a good Star Trek movie, personally I think Abrams has done a perfectly competent job of it, although it is by no means Trek as we know it I can enjoy it on its own merits. It has a strong cast, and some really interesting takes on characters. Benedict Cumberbatch is a fantastic actor and from everything I've seen he owns Harrison Khan through the movie. I don't like the name or design of the U.S.S. Vengeance, but I do like the Enterprise.
I'm disappointed by some of the story elements I've heard, like the magic blood, which is nonsense, ultimately the same level of nonsense as most technobabble. The Genesis Device is at least more thematically appropriate as an implausible Deus Ex Machina, but make no mistake, they are both implausible deus ex machinae. I was hoping the villain would have something to do with Section 31 as I think its an underutilized invention with a lot of promise, and the explanation for Khan's early reappearance is acceptable. After all, we already know that the aftermath of Hobus made this universe's Starfleet more militarized, the possibility of a group as shady as Section 31 going out and conscripting Khan is a very real one. As for the casting issue of a white guy playing a character named Khan Noonien Singh, I couldn't really care less. Quality of the actor is more important, and besides, he's an augment, you wanna talk about a means of handwaving any ethnic problems away, the augment process made Klingons look like humans, why couldn't it make a human look like a slightly different human?
Does this mean I'm not a true Trek fan? No, it means I like Star Trek and I also like these movies. They're not bad, there's stuff you can mock about them, the lens flares, sure, the iBridge, sure, these are easy snipes. Still, would Star Trek have any chance of coming back in a form you appreciate without Abrams' rescue of the franchise? No. Because he successfully hybridized Star Trek and Star Wars, public interest has been reignited in the entire franchise, including the more intellectual and contemplative Trek of TV.
Here's the big secret, at the end of the day. You can't make a good Star Trek movie. You can only make movies with Star Trek characters in them. If you stick to the formula of the TV series you get the bloated and boring Star Trek: TMP. If you mix it up and add more action you can get better results, because honestly, Star Trek's formula just doesn't work on the big screen. You end up with movies that rely on winking at the continuity through cameos and references, alienating everyone but those who watched the shows, and while the shows were on TV that wasn't a problem. Not a recipe for box office success, but not a problem either. The Abrams movies do well commercially, which means you have a better chance of getting a TRUE Star Trek in the only environment in which it can really succeed: Television.
And for those wishing for a better writer, just remember the name John Logan. He's been nominated for three academy awards, has written some absolutely fantastic movies, including Gladiator, Hugo, Skyfall, and The Aviator. He also wrote Star Trek Nemesis.
I find it hard to believe that you're being honest. I find it hard to believe that you can't understand how I, walking into a theater to see a new, original Star Trek movie, would be disappointed when instead I get a retread of a movie I've already seen, with a poorly written ending to boot. You really can't fathom how that would be a disappointment? Really?
So, if the plot of the next movie is that Spock Prime warns them that a whale probe is coming, so the Enterprise and crew go back in time to get two humpback whales from modern day San Francisco, you won't be disappointed? And you still won't understand why I would be?
Given that I went to see a new movie, and instead got a remake of one I had already seen that wasn't as good as the original, I think calling it 'disappointing' is being even-handed and charitable.
Well, believe it, because that's how I feel I said in another thread that my view of things is unusual, and it is lol. I wouldn't be disappointed if I saw The Voyage Home again, and all that was new was the more-advanced CGI and set pieces (in addition to the new actors obviously)
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
It's an alternate reality; things are supposed to be similar, yet wildly different at the same time.
I am a Sci-Fi fan. Not just Star Trek but other franchises and many books. The "alternate reality" plot device, in this case, is telling us that the point of divergence was Nero's ship attacking the Kelvin and killing George Kirk. I said I can accept this. What I cannot accept is the illogic of all the other, non-related differences.
That's the bottom line, things are different in the reboot just because JJ wants them to be different; there is no reason. And myself and many others like Star Trek because it offers reasoned, intelligent science fiction.
Yeah the only "hate" I'm seeing in this thread is from the folks dissing anyone with an opinion other than "JJ-Trek is Awesome".
You must be reading another thread, its a negative thread, with very few posts about giving the movie a chance. This thread is mostly about whiney fans.
Making a movie is very involved process, why don't you guys direct your hate towards the studio who approved the movie from concept to release.
And for those wishing for a better writer, just remember the name John Logan. He's been nominated for three academy awards, has written some absolutely fantastic movies, including Gladiator, Hugo, Skyfall, and The Aviator. He also wrote Star Trek Nemesis.
Nemesis was a much better written movie than Into Darkness. In fact, my only real criticism of Nemesis as a film was that it was trying so very hard to be Wrath of Khan. Obviously, that criticism applies to Into Darkness X10.
I'm enough of a realist that I agree with you, this is probably the best Trek we were going to get, at least at the movie theater, but as I said, given the talent of the cast they've assembled and the size of the budget they're working with, I'm hoping whoever comes in for the third one will have a new, original vision and take the franchise in a new direction.
And its for the sake of that potential third film that I hope this one isn't the flop it deserves to be.
... why don't you guys direct your hate towards the studio who approved the movie from concept to release.
Again being accused of being hateful? I think I have offered valid explanations of my opinion, to explain my viewpoint. Others have different viewpoints and so we discuss.
As for studios approving movies - the studios will approve anything they think will make them money. Hence we get stuff like Piranha 3DD.
If you are trying to compare commercial success with quality then you and I are on very different wavelengths. According to commercial success, The Voice is the best show on TV. In my opinion, most of what Hollywood produces is TRIBBLE. And they makes lots of money doing so.
You must be reading another thread, its a negative thread, with very few posts about giving the movie a chance. This thread is mostly about whiney fans.
Making a movie is very involved process, why don't you guys direct your hate towards the studio who approved the movie from concept to release.
I will give it a shot but this recent news in some writing aspects is a bit troubling.. Given did they mention Khan? What is his backstory in this timeline? What is his beef with the Federation?
Even using Khan again is not very good... I was hoping for something original in concept. A new villain with a motivation that is his own and not something we have seen before. Perhaps a singular but bigger film involving the Federation and its darker points and bringing them to light.
But I am generous and hope the film will answer some of my questions but even using an old material and giving it small revisions and a re-imagining is not original. Creative but not original. It is best to use the term Revival.
The ending is looking like a rehash of WoK but in slight reverse and avoiding Search For Spock... which is a bit contrived. But I do see why they switched roles which that change is genius..
In short I was excited for this film as it was looking like a fantastic film and something I would have liked and original if they had left the villain as someone else instead of Khan.. Perhaps wait to use him for another film.. But using him for this film is an idea I don't like very much.
Hopefully the rest of the film eases this down some...
I'm disappointed by some of the story elements I've heard, like the magic blood, which is nonsense, ultimately the same level of nonsense as most technobabble. The Genesis Device is at least more thematically appropriate as an implausible Deus Ex Machina, but make no mistake, they are both implausible deus ex machinae.
There's a big difference. In the case of Wrath of Khan, Nimoy had every intention of not returning for any future films. He only agreed to do III because they let him direct. So having Genesis resurrect him was a convenience to set up the third film. In this film, Kirk dies in a scene coreographed to evoke the end of TWOK, then at the last second, Bones comes up with something totally hare-brained that magically brings him back to life. The end of Into Darkness does have this in common with some of the (worst) episodes of TOS, like Spock's inner eyelid, etc. But it was bad writing then and its bad writing now.
The problem with 'taking this film on its own merits' is that it doesn't have its own merits. Its a derivative work. It recreates whole sequences from TWOK. It quotes massive amounts of dialogue from TWOK. To then turn around and say that its not fair to compare it to TWOK is kind of silly. By being derivative nearly to the point of remake, it invites comparison. It just happens to compare very badly.
Nemesis was a much better written movie than Into Darkness. In fact, my only real criticism of Nemesis as a film was that it was trying so very hard to be Wrath of Khan. Obviously, that criticism applies to Into Darkness X10.
I'm enough of a realist that I agree with you, this is probably the best Trek we were going to get, at least at the movie theater, but as I said, given the talent of the cast they've assembled and the size of the budget they're working with, I'm hoping whoever comes in for the third one will have a new, original vision and take the franchise in a new direction.
And its for the sake of that potential third film that I hope this one isn't the flop it deserves to be.
Nemesis suffered from a director, who was more used to editing, and due to that, a lot of the ideas that Logan and Spiner (who co-wrote the film) wanted to put in, were not used in which it would have explained much more. (explanations about Wesley and Worf, about B-5, a Picard and Data moment that made the one in Stellar Cartography much better)
At the time, fan outcry against NEM was much worse than it was against Trek 09. Space Vampires were the biggest one I remember. Some of the same-type of arguments against Abrams was used against Logan. I liked NEM it was the first Trek film to focus on the Romulans rather than have them as being referenced or talked about.
Black holes? Don't forget going fast around a star time travel or creating wormholes or disabling an entire ship with a couple of pieces of computer parts that can fit in your hand. Yes, this thread is a very negative thread despite poster's explanations on why they are being negative.
For my 2c, here's a short list of Movie Remakes that Are Better Than the Original:
remake title (original title) (remake year / original year)
The Maltese Falcon (1941/1931)
The Ten Commandments (1956/1923)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956/1934)
A Fistful of Dollars (Yojimbo) (1964/1961)
Airplane! (Zero Hour!) (1980/1957)
The Thing (From Another World) (1982/1956)
Scarface (1983/1932)
The Fly (1986/1958)
Scent of a Woman (Profumo di Donna) (1992/1974)
True Lies (La Totale!) (1994/1991)
Heat (L.A. Takedown) (1995/1989)
Ransom(!) (1996/1956)
Ocean's Eleven (2001/1960)
Man on Fire (2004/1987)
The Departed (Internal Affairs) (2006/2002)
3:10 to Yuma (2007/1957)
Death Race (2000) (2008/1975)
True Grit (2010/1969)
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Given that Khan was first introduced to us in the television series I am curious to know how this character will be presented in theaters. Its such a complex character and even more so when you add Khan's relationship and hatred for Kirk, whether it ever was justifiable or not.
Personally I'd be surprised if this rumor is true. If it is, well, its better than no star trek at all... though, that being said, I really wish they would make a new television series!
"The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward." - Rocky Balboa (2006)
Personally I'd be surprised if this rumor is true. If it is, well, its better than no star trek at all... though, that being said, I really wish they would make a new television series!
This isn't a rumor. This is people who have seen the movie telling you what happens in it.
Comments
Here's my take on it.
The JJ-Trek was a Star Trek movie that was a real mainstream success, one that got people interested what had previously been a dying franchise. (Which it really was - the novels got better post-Nemesis, but not significantly more read) For the first time in years and years, people actually cared about Star Trek.
For a particular sort of people who derived their identity from being a Star Trek fan, this was the worst thing, because now they had to share that identity with others. These are people who have the same relationship with Star Trek as they otherwise would with a religion, and someone practicing your religion wrong is the worst thing!
You know, just because you think the writing/script/direction were awful doesn't mean that they were awful.
I think they did well, in regards to aiming ST2009 at an audience that didn't care/hated the older ST. The movie itself did well to the new generation, bringing in a lot of new fans.
And with Into Darkness coming up, they'll probably keep that level for the newer audience, but also add in a little more of the older ST elements, since they're no longer purely introducing ST to a new generation.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
But because Kirk's father died Spock has no problem openly showing affection to Uhura? Because Kirk's father died Sulu is suddenly an incompetent helsman? Because Kirk's father died Scotty is a clown? Because Kirk's father died main Engineering looks like a 20th factory? Because Kirk's father died hand phasers fire bolts that have to be reloaded? And these are just the nitpicks.
Then there are the plot elements themselves. We all know Kirk and Spock are supposed to become close friends. The first movie showed Kirk tricking Spock into getting emotional by being a jerk about his mother dying, so Spock would be removed from command, and yet now they're supposed to be friends? Now Spock wants to be by his side as his first officer? Huh?
The BS-o-meter is off the charts on this "reboot" that we are supposed to swallow. And it has nothing to do with who the Director is.
This is part of what is so damned disappointing. JJ went to a lot of trouble to set up, in the first movie, the basic characters from TOS on the ship with no continuity baggage to deal with. He could do anything he wanted to do. Take the ship and crew anywhere in the galaxy. He could use the Klingons, the Romulans, any of the other Star Trek races, or make up whole new ones. He could do literally anything...
...and what we get is a retread of one of the old movies. I know you haven't seen it yet, but this is some of the other stuff I didn't want to spoil in the other thread.
And it is retread, not 'another take'. The whole movie hinges on you having seen TWOK. The climactic scene recreates the climactic scene of TWOK exactly, just with Kirk dying instead of Spock. Spock gives his 'needs of the many...' speech again, just in a different setting. 'KHAAAAAAAAAAANN!!!' gets yelled, just by a different character. And then instead of a whole other movie to creatively resolve Kirk's death, we get a contrived deus ex machina, which is just poor writing.
If somebody wanted to write fanfic of 'Here's how the encounter with Khan went down in JJ Trek universe...' or if they published a novel or a comic with that theme, I might be interested to read it (though I'd still be disappointed with the ending above). With the budget and the freedom that JJ had, however, he could have made a much much better, more original, and more creative movie.
This isn't my 'knee-jerk reaction to Abrams name', this is my opinion having seen the film. Its Nemesis II. Its a derivative retread. Its a disappointment. I hope now that JJ is moving on to Star Wars (which is what he wanted to do from the beginning anyway), somebody with an original, creative vision will take over the Trek franchise. They've got a good cast and enough money that they could be making gold, not trying to gold-plate old ideas that were fine to begin with.
and I could name a hek of a lot more..................
system Lord Baal is dead
Yeah the only "hate" I'm seeing in this thread is from the folks dissing anyone with an opinion other than "JJ-Trek is Awesome".
The fact that something does well in theaters doesn't make it well-written either. Everything you just said about JJ Trek could be said about the Stars Wars Prequels, too, but neither of them is going to win any screenwriting awards any time soon.
Heck, the Twilight films have tons of fans, and they're horribly written. 50 Shades of Gray was all over the bestsellers list and its not even good writing for fanfic (which it originally was).
Whether or not you like a movie is subjective. Whether a movie is well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc. is not subjective, you just may not have studied writing, acting, or directing enough to know the difference. There are a lot of well-written, well-acted, and well-directed movies that I personally don't like. And vice versa. I loved the Expendables, for example. But I realize that from a critical perspective, it was garbage. It just happened to be garbage I liked. I also like Big Macs. Doesn't make them nutritious.
I'll say this though: about Kirk and Spock being friends yet getting into an emotional fight... they're mature adults. You don't let one bad experience taint your professional relationship (especially for a Vulcan, as doing so would be illogical). Engineering looking like a factory makes some some sense when you consider that all areas that people frequently see, like the bridge and medical bay, they're supposed to look good. The actual inner workings like engineering are built for function, not form.
And regarding 'fire bolts' from their phasers, the Kelvin did it's best to shoot down the many, many missiles from the Narada. I imagine that should that ship ever return, and it did, the slow-firing-yet-powerful beams simply wouldn't cut it against multiple missiles. And that design choice followed the hand units, I imagine.
And you don't 'have' to swallow things from this film: there are plenty of films where people employ the 'don't think about it and you'll be fine' mantra. Just try using that if it's bothering you so much I honestly don't see WHY it should be a disappointment: you're supposed to enjoy the series, no matter what's different about it. Holding anything new to a series of restrictions about what makes it good, or what makes it 'Trek' in this case, only detracts from that for me personally.
And that includes being a possible retread. Being a retread of older elements does not automatically make it bad imo
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
If you had gone to see Dark Knight, and in it, Heath Ledger had spent his time quoting lines from Jack Nicholson's Joker, the plot had almost identical to Tim Burton's Batman, they had recreated several scenes from Burton's movie with just small changes, etc...
...well then I imagine you would have been as disappointed with Dark Knight as I was with Into Darkness.
Even given using Khan as the villain, they could have at least come up with a new story involving the same heroes and villain, they didn't have to just continuously retread and subreference the original story.
I find it hard to believe that you're being honest. I find it hard to believe that you can't understand how I, walking into a theater to see a new, original Star Trek movie, would be disappointed when instead I get a retread of a movie I've already seen, with a poorly written ending to boot. You really can't fathom how that would be a disappointment? Really?
So, if the plot of the next movie is that Spock Prime warns them that a whale probe is coming, so the Enterprise and crew go back in time to get two humpback whales from modern day San Francisco, you won't be disappointed? And you still won't understand why I would be?
Given that I went to see a new movie, and instead got a remake of one I had already seen that wasn't as good as the original, I think calling it 'disappointing' is being even-handed and charitable.
I'm disappointed by some of the story elements I've heard, like the magic blood, which is nonsense, ultimately the same level of nonsense as most technobabble. The Genesis Device is at least more thematically appropriate as an implausible Deus Ex Machina, but make no mistake, they are both implausible deus ex machinae. I was hoping the villain would have something to do with Section 31 as I think its an underutilized invention with a lot of promise, and the explanation for Khan's early reappearance is acceptable. After all, we already know that the aftermath of Hobus made this universe's Starfleet more militarized, the possibility of a group as shady as Section 31 going out and conscripting Khan is a very real one. As for the casting issue of a white guy playing a character named Khan Noonien Singh, I couldn't really care less. Quality of the actor is more important, and besides, he's an augment, you wanna talk about a means of handwaving any ethnic problems away, the augment process made Klingons look like humans, why couldn't it make a human look like a slightly different human?
Does this mean I'm not a true Trek fan? No, it means I like Star Trek and I also like these movies. They're not bad, there's stuff you can mock about them, the lens flares, sure, the iBridge, sure, these are easy snipes. Still, would Star Trek have any chance of coming back in a form you appreciate without Abrams' rescue of the franchise? No. Because he successfully hybridized Star Trek and Star Wars, public interest has been reignited in the entire franchise, including the more intellectual and contemplative Trek of TV.
Here's the big secret, at the end of the day. You can't make a good Star Trek movie. You can only make movies with Star Trek characters in them. If you stick to the formula of the TV series you get the bloated and boring Star Trek: TMP. If you mix it up and add more action you can get better results, because honestly, Star Trek's formula just doesn't work on the big screen. You end up with movies that rely on winking at the continuity through cameos and references, alienating everyone but those who watched the shows, and while the shows were on TV that wasn't a problem. Not a recipe for box office success, but not a problem either. The Abrams movies do well commercially, which means you have a better chance of getting a TRUE Star Trek in the only environment in which it can really succeed: Television.
And for those wishing for a better writer, just remember the name John Logan. He's been nominated for three academy awards, has written some absolutely fantastic movies, including Gladiator, Hugo, Skyfall, and The Aviator. He also wrote Star Trek Nemesis.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
That's the bottom line, things are different in the reboot just because JJ wants them to be different; there is no reason. And myself and many others like Star Trek because it offers reasoned, intelligent science fiction.
You must be reading another thread, its a negative thread, with very few posts about giving the movie a chance. This thread is mostly about whiney fans.
Making a movie is very involved process, why don't you guys direct your hate towards the studio who approved the movie from concept to release.
Nemesis was a much better written movie than Into Darkness. In fact, my only real criticism of Nemesis as a film was that it was trying so very hard to be Wrath of Khan. Obviously, that criticism applies to Into Darkness X10.
I'm enough of a realist that I agree with you, this is probably the best Trek we were going to get, at least at the movie theater, but as I said, given the talent of the cast they've assembled and the size of the budget they're working with, I'm hoping whoever comes in for the third one will have a new, original vision and take the franchise in a new direction.
And its for the sake of that potential third film that I hope this one isn't the flop it deserves to be.
As for studios approving movies - the studios will approve anything they think will make them money. Hence we get stuff like Piranha 3DD.
If you are trying to compare commercial success with quality then you and I are on very different wavelengths. According to commercial success, The Voice is the best show on TV. In my opinion, most of what Hollywood produces is TRIBBLE. And they makes lots of money doing so.
I will give it a shot but this recent news in some writing aspects is a bit troubling.. Given did they mention Khan? What is his backstory in this timeline? What is his beef with the Federation?
Even using Khan again is not very good... I was hoping for something original in concept. A new villain with a motivation that is his own and not something we have seen before. Perhaps a singular but bigger film involving the Federation and its darker points and bringing them to light.
But I am generous and hope the film will answer some of my questions but even using an old material and giving it small revisions and a re-imagining is not original. Creative but not original. It is best to use the term Revival.
The ending is looking like a rehash of WoK but in slight reverse and avoiding Search For Spock... which is a bit contrived. But I do see why they switched roles which that change is genius..
In short I was excited for this film as it was looking like a fantastic film and something I would have liked and original if they had left the villain as someone else instead of Khan.. Perhaps wait to use him for another film.. But using him for this film is an idea I don't like very much.
Hopefully the rest of the film eases this down some...
There's a big difference. In the case of Wrath of Khan, Nimoy had every intention of not returning for any future films. He only agreed to do III because they let him direct. So having Genesis resurrect him was a convenience to set up the third film. In this film, Kirk dies in a scene coreographed to evoke the end of TWOK, then at the last second, Bones comes up with something totally hare-brained that magically brings him back to life. The end of Into Darkness does have this in common with some of the (worst) episodes of TOS, like Spock's inner eyelid, etc. But it was bad writing then and its bad writing now.
The problem with 'taking this film on its own merits' is that it doesn't have its own merits. Its a derivative work. It recreates whole sequences from TWOK. It quotes massive amounts of dialogue from TWOK. To then turn around and say that its not fair to compare it to TWOK is kind of silly. By being derivative nearly to the point of remake, it invites comparison. It just happens to compare very badly.
don't forget black holes that spit you out in alternate universe............
system Lord Baal is dead
Nemesis suffered from a director, who was more used to editing, and due to that, a lot of the ideas that Logan and Spiner (who co-wrote the film) wanted to put in, were not used in which it would have explained much more. (explanations about Wesley and Worf, about B-5, a Picard and Data moment that made the one in Stellar Cartography much better)
At the time, fan outcry against NEM was much worse than it was against Trek 09. Space Vampires were the biggest one I remember. Some of the same-type of arguments against Abrams was used against Logan. I liked NEM it was the first Trek film to focus on the Romulans rather than have them as being referenced or talked about.
Black holes? Don't forget going fast around a star time travel or creating wormholes or disabling an entire ship with a couple of pieces of computer parts that can fit in your hand. Yes, this thread is a very negative thread despite poster's explanations on why they are being negative.
remake title (original title) (remake year / original year)
The Maltese Falcon (1941/1931)
The Ten Commandments (1956/1923)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956/1934)
A Fistful of Dollars (Yojimbo) (1964/1961)
Airplane! (Zero Hour!) (1980/1957)
The Thing (From Another World) (1982/1956)
Scarface (1983/1932)
The Fly (1986/1958)
Scent of a Woman (Profumo di Donna) (1992/1974)
True Lies (La Totale!) (1994/1991)
Heat (L.A. Takedown) (1995/1989)
Ransom(!) (1996/1956)
Ocean's Eleven (2001/1960)
Man on Fire (2004/1987)
The Departed (Internal Affairs) (2006/2002)
3:10 to Yuma (2007/1957)
Death Race (2000) (2008/1975)
True Grit (2010/1969)
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Personally I'd be surprised if this rumor is true. If it is, well, its better than no star trek at all... though, that being said, I really wish they would make a new television series!
pasty haired white boy playing Khan............
system Lord Baal is dead
This isn't a rumor. This is people who have seen the movie telling you what happens in it.