No, no it doesn't. Trek aside it wasn't even a good action movie.
My prediction which follows established model:
Contrived story possible rip off of (homage to) previous movies/stories, token female character in state of undress. Mindless violence, very little explanation or logic as to plot lines. Little to no continuity across the film or series as a whole. Gratuitous deus ex machina and lens flare so bright you go blind watching it in 3D.
Aside from the lens flare, sounds like a fair description of ST V...
As I said, the established model. The difference being, is that ST V clearly falls into the Odd Number/Even Number Rule. This is why I let JJST1 off very lightly, but I expected better from Wrath of Kahn 2.
First Contact is, and always has been the best Star Trek film of the modern era. These new films should have mirrored the success of that film but proved a bitter disappointment in comparison.
Well there wasn't any 'real' Star Trek after Rodenberry died, this is just another take on the established universe. Also writers, producers, directors make films/TV shows and sometimes aren't aware of a previous line there contradicting that undermines there film/tv show or the previous one.
Also 20/20 hindsight is a great thing isn't it. everyone says, Next Gen didn't get any good until series 3, but at the time series 1 and 2 was all there was and you didn't watch it thinking I'll watch a few but really I'll wait for series 3 (which in TV Production land may never have happened due to cancellation at end of season 2). It was Star Trek and you watched it because it had that title and it was in that universe.
What I don't understand is 'arguing' the logic and contradictions of 2 films against an individuals personal and subjective opinion. If we accept the lame Klingon's looking different even when the same character (Kor, Koloth and Kang) then I don't see why the JJ films get a rough deal, compared to that kinda Fubar that happened previously.
In fact to make it simples, your to be stranded on a desert island with a portable DVD player, which film do you take. ST:V or Abrams Trek?
JJ's films are better than all the other Trek films ( apart from Wrath of Khan :P ). TNG fans need to lose some weight , shave of that goatee , take of your Picard jim jams and go out and meet some girls
The new Trek movies revived Trek brought it back from the dead and UTTERLY DELETED all that TNG nonsense and brought Trek back to Kirk.
Trek is at its best when Kirk is chating up alien women and blowing stuff up.
I mean a Frenchman with a English accent is more unbelievable than magic Khan blood :P
*edit* They should sell Magic Khan Blood as a healing device in C-store
It will be a good, solid, entertaining movie that certain fans proclaiming themselves the sacred guardians of 'real Trek' or just plain 'JJ haters' will rip it to shreds while the bigger, more accepting Trek audience will enjoy it.
Sound familiar?
Rico can I have NEXT weeks lottery numbers please
Hold up no need...some fat guy just gave me these ones ....4,8,15,16,23 and 42.... O_O"
I predict JJ will have little to nothing to do with the next film (since as he himself has said in interviews, he really wanted to do Star Wars anyway, and he'll be busy with that franchise). They'll bring someone else in to direct it and write it, and whether its another retread like this one or goes in a new direction will depend entirely on who the selected person(s) is/are. So until that announcement is made, there's no real point in speculating.
I predict JJ will have little to nothing to do with the next film (since as he himself has said in interviews, he really wanted to do Star Wars anyway, and he'll be busy with that franchise). They'll bring someone else in to direct it and write it, and whether its another retread like this one or goes in a new direction will depend entirely on who the selected person(s) is/are. So until that announcement is made, there's no real point in speculating.
Trek 3 needs Chris Nolan. I would watch the {BEEP} outta a Nolan trek film .
Trek 3 needs Chris Nolan. I would watch the {BEEP} outta a Nolan trek film .
That would be awesome, but I doubt will happen. But, for example, if Joss Whedon took a crack at it, I would have high hopes because he's good at writing ensemble casts and action pieces. If, on the other hand, say...Brett Ratner were chosen to direct it...
First Contact is, and always has been the best Star Trek film of the modern era. These new films should have mirrored the success of that film but proved a bitter disappointment in comparison.
I'm just gonna come out now and give a very unpopular opinion...
While I liked First Contact, I had some major issues with it. First and foremost, for me, the Borg queen completely ruined the Borg. To give them a leader with a personality and emotions removed everything that made the Borg scary to me. Suddenly the Borg could be reasoned with, even bargained with.
In my very humble opinion, the introduction of the Borg queen turned the Borg into worker bees instead of the terrifying creatures they once were. Before First Contact, the concept of the Borg was a scary glimpse at what we could become. They were what happens when we become so indistinguishable from machines that we lose everything that makes us human. After the introduction of the queen, they just became henchmen to a boring and cliche power-hungry super villain.
I do think First Contact was the best TNG movie, but that's because every other TNG movie was pretty awful. I think every single TOS film (with the possible exception of 5) was better than First Contact.
And the JJ Trek was a retelling of TOS, not TNG, and IMO it did a fine job. It wasn't any worse than TMP, 3, 4, or 5. I think coming in third out of 7 movies is pretty good.
Funny: reply in short order from one of those bitter types I discussed.
I bet Whedon would make a fantastic Trek flik! Maybe he won't be busy when it comes time to start filming and we could get that wish.
The only Trek movies I did not like were Voyage Home and Nemesis. I liked or loved all the others. And after all this time I still must give the top spot to KHAAAAAN!
JJ's films are better than all the other Trek films ( apart from Wrath of Khan :P ). TNG fans need to lose some weight , shave of that goatee , take of your Picard jim jams and go out and meet some girls
I'm pushing 50, so the weight doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Neither is the goatee, thank you very much. And the woman I'm married to and the girl we're raising are all the girls I really need to meet.
(And if you must know, I don't wear pajamas.)
Then again, I like all the series (except the cartoon). I have my issues with VOY and ENT, but I still watched the silly things... And I liked the '09 movie, and given the spoilers I've gotten about the new one, I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how they managed to pull that one off. (My money's on Section 31.)
What I don't understand is 'arguing' the logic and contradictions of 2 films against an individuals personal and subjective opinion. If we accept the lame Klingon's looking different even when the same character (Kor, Koloth and Kang) then I don't see why the JJ films get a rough deal, compared to that kinda Fubar that happened previously.
That is kind of understandable in a way, you are talking about not being able to get hold of actors and prosthetics and special effects improving over time.
My main complaint about Star Trek 1 and 2 is that while TOS goes some way to show that it's not all about special effects and that you can have a gripping and engaging storyline without them, these films go the opposite way and that's what lets it down. Shoddy acting and effects can be excused on a low budget tv show, but on a high budget "reboot" I expect better.
JJ's films are better than all the other Trek films ( apart from Wrath of Khan :P ). TNG fans need to lose some weight , shave of that goatee , take of your Picard jim jams and go out and meet some girls
Wow, stereotypes and insults. Grow up and come back with a real argument.
I'm just gonna come out now and give a very unpopular opinion...
While I liked First Contact, I had some major issues with it. First and foremost, for me, the Borg queen completely ruined the Borg. To give them a leader with a personality and emotions removed everything that made the Borg scary to me. Suddenly the Borg could be reasoned with, even bargained with.
In my very humble opinion, the introduction of the Borg queen turned the Borg into worker bees instead of the terrifying creatures they once were. Before First Contact, the concept of the Borg was a scary glimpse at what we could become. They were what happens when we become so indistinguishable from machines that we lose everything that makes us human. After the introduction of the queen, they just became henchmen to a boring and cliche power-hungry super villain.
But you already had that in the the Best of Both Worlds with "Locutus" granted he didn't have any emotions/sexuality but you still gave them a leader.
I agree though, the collective consciousness idea worked much better without the idea of the queen who was able to transcend and move about places and never be destroyed. Too much cartoon villain that is true.
I do think First Contact was the best TNG movie, but that's because every other TNG movie was pretty awful.
I cannot disagree with this statement. That being said, I don't think that Trek is supposed to be a "film" it's supposed to be a TV show with long arcing storylines and aesops. Something you can't really do with films. The films have fallen into the trap of trying to be good standalone and or better than the last one which in turned made them not so good.
And the JJ Trek was a retelling of TOS, not TNG, and IMO it did a fine job. It wasn't any worse than TMP, 3, 4, or 5. I think coming in third out of 7 movies is pretty good.
The thing about it is, is that it's a sloppy retelling. They don't explain to you at any point who Kahn is or why he is dangerous. So much so they have to phone Spock prime and ask him to tell them. The Wrath of Kahn had continuity and made sense because it not only explained itself for the most part but also had the backstory in the series.
A retelling could have merged elements of space seed and the wrath of Kahn to make a really good movie and a menacing enemy. In the end all you ended up with was "super hero vs super villain" including extended fight sequence which made little sense and just wasn't compelling.
It's disappointing that Star Trek isn't returning to being a series, and instead is being reduced to a series of films.
The thing about it is, is that it's a sloppy retelling. They don't explain to you at any point who Kahn is or why he is dangerous. So much so they have to phone Spock prime and ask him to tell them. The Wrath of Kahn had continuity and made sense because it not only explained itself for the most part but also had the backstory in the series.
A retelling could have merged elements of space seed and the wrath of Kahn to make a really good movie and a menacing enemy. In the end all you ended up with was "super hero vs super villain" including extended fight sequence which made little sense and just wasn't compelling.
It's disappointing that Star Trek isn't returning to being a series, and instead is being reduced to a series of films.
You make some good points (including points I didn't quote here, for space). Since I haven't watched Into Darkness, I'm not going to presume to argue. From what I've heard, that's a pretty good analysis.
I'm pretty sure I'm still gonna' enjoy the movie, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge faults. I'm a huge fan of Star Wars, but catch me on the right day and I can launch into a 30 minute comedy routine about how horrible Luke is at planning rescues.
If you could choose a villain and story aspect for ST3 ... what would it be?
Far as villains, I'm fine with the OPs theory. I'd love to see some Klingon villains. We really haven't seen them as villains since ST 3 (ST 6 had individual Klingon villains, but as a whole, it was about coming to peace with them).
Far as story, I'd love to see this Kirk, Spock, and McCoy on shore leave together. Trek 5 was definitely the worst TOS movie, but I kind of enjoyed their interactions while camping.
One thing I do not want to see is them time-traveling. Not forward, not backward.
NOT! every Alien was like this if you watched every trek series you'd know this
And if you understood what I wrote, you'd know that the word "most" has a different definition than the word "every". But go head and highlight and underline the section where I said "every alien". FYI - the only Star Trek shows I haven't watched were half of season 2 and all of season 3 of Enterprise. I've seen the rest, plus the movies, PLUS the animated.
Now what?
:rolleyes:
AND! If you watched the TNG Ep Chase they gave a reason as to y so many were which is scientifically plausible so...
LMFAO - because fake aliens in a show about a made up future are totally real! Like the other poster said, Star Trek is not a documentary. But if you're confusing the made up science for a plot in a TV show vs real life science, then this explains much about you...
One thing about Trek that people should think about is a LOT from it has been made in to todays Tech so... again the science is there to back up most things u seen on film...
Trek shows use KNOWN science, and when it doesn't work for the plot, they have no problems using technobable to explain it away. But real scientists and real scientific discoveries are what the show bases it's stories on. Star Trek is not the equivalent of NOVA or Top Gear, kid. Seriously, it's not.
JJ trek is not one of them
That's because it's based on TOS which - if you ever watched it - was mostly an ACTION ORIENTED SERIES. Hello? It's not a secret.
OH and since when did the Enterprise have 72 Torp Tubes coz in new film it does...
Oh no!!! That totally ruins it for me! And you know who else you ruined it for? Captain Janeway:
u do know a "supernova" can only travel the speed of light yer... which means even if it was to blow they would have about 20 yrs if not more to get ready and remove all from the planets so sorry but JJ trek if a load of rubbish and not based in fact!!
What we need keep in mind is that JJ Trek is not science fiction, but rather outright fantasy. In Trek they at leas tried to cover all the fantastical things science has no way to reproduce with technobabble. In JJ Trek they all but crowned Kirk a "chosen one" and the universe itself worked to get him on that captain's chair through no actual merit of his own beyond being a jerk.
I had decided to wait watching the latest JJ Trek just as I waited for cable to watch the last one. Now that I read the movie synopsis I just have to facepalm. Khan? Really? This is the great re imagining? Are they going to kill off Spock in the next one? Too much like the original? Are they killing off Kirk or Uhura then? I can't wait to see JJ Trek 4 with extreme Kung Fu master killer whales wielding machine guns that are fully self aware and actually from another planet!
JJ's films are better than all the other Trek films ( apart from Wrath of Khan :P ). TNG fans need to lose some weight , shave of that goatee , take of your Picard jim jams and go out and meet some girls
I resent that comment! It clearly leaves out the best Trek movie! Everyone KNOWS Galaxy Quest is the best Trek movie of them all. An argument could be made that Wrath of Khan may be tied with it or slightly behind it but its reproachable to not even mention it like that Nepht!
If you could choose a villain and story aspect for ST3 ... what would it be?
Seeing Picard being born is/was a good idea ...
I would really like to see the
How the Borg started out or the Tholians ... with an on-par-with-nemesis-space-battle section of the film
(ST:ID battle was good ... but one can wish for more ... )
PS: Star Trek is really supposed to be a T.V. Series, and not really a film. That said I don't mind a film
Now, what I would like to see would be something original. I don't mind what it is, but it needs to be fresh and new. I thought that was the whole point about creating the alternate timeline. I don't want to see subtle nods to established canon no matter how "meta" the director thinks it is.
I want proper explanation of who the enemies are, why I should fear them and should root for the heroes to save the day. Doesn't matter if they are Borg, Tholian or whatever.
Since we have effectively removed the need for continuity, we could have any race of enemy we choose. I want to see this aspect touched on more. Not just sloppy "homages" (rip offs) of the existing films.
For this reason, I rate Star Trek 2009 higher than this one, because while the story was completely contrived, it was at least original. More than can be said about a large number of current Hollywood films.
u do know a "supernova" can only travel the speed of light yer... which means even if it was to blow they would have about 20 yrs if not more to get ready and remove all from the planets so sorry but JJ trek if a load of rubbish and not based in fact!!
You have played this game, right? It's explained that the Supernova travelled through Subspace, meaning it covered hundreds of light years in a matter of days, by Star Trek (as a whole, not just JJ's film) logic.
Star Trek XIII will hopefully have a similar storyline to the STO-ryline. Klinguns allied with Gorn, Meowsicaans and Orions and the Hirogen allying with the Romulans and the Remans (hopefully year 2409, no more Kirk and Spock please) with the Enterprise-F and an Andorian male captain (Jeffrey giving a Combs-back?) and a new crew and a New Romulus as well like in STO, hehe.
"Everything about the Jham'Hadar is lethal!" - Eris
Original Join Date: January 30th, 2010
Star Trek XIII will hopefully have a similar storyline to the STO-ryline. Klinguns allied with Gorn, Meowsicaans and Orions and the Hirogen allying with the Romulans and the Remans (hopefully year 2409, no more Kirk and Spock please) with the Enterprise-F and an Andorian male captain (Jeffrey giving a Combs-back?) and a new crew and a New Romulus as well like in STO, hehe.
YES! We'll call it "Star Trek Online: The Movie"! :rolleyes:
But you already had that in the the Best of Both Worlds with "Locutus" granted he didn't have any emotions/sexuality but you still gave them a leader.
Locutus was not a "leader" - he was a spokesman, a single voice for the Collective in order to make the assimilation of humanity easier. Remember that like most good villains, the Borg were not the "bad guys" in their own eyes - they wanted to make life easier for everyone, to eliminate waste and conflict by eliminating one of its causes, individuality.
(Then they came up with that "Borg Queen" TRIBBLE, and threw that entire concept out the airlock - suddenly this was just another Evil Empire, complete with Evil Megalomaniacal Ruler, straight out of Fantasy/SciFi Central Casting.)
Locutus, in fact, brought into sharp highlight one of the most frightening things about the Borg - they could even erase the individuality of so strong a personality as Jean-Luc Picard, the guy who started his assignment aboard the Enterprise by sassing Q. Picard became, under their tender ministrations, nothing more than another Borg, a disposable, interchangeable unit whose loss was more annoyance than disaster (at least, until Data TRIBBLE the backdoor protocols).
Wow, stereotypes and insults. Grow up and come back with a real argument.
Coming from the guy with the Defenders of the Earth AV :P
Trek is Sci Fi and a product made for television and movies it is not real and for it to continue it has to change to still be relevant in todays markets.
Thats all it is. Thats all it will ever be. Something the TV companies can put adverts inbetween and make some cash. Something they can sometimes put on the big screen then sell on Blue Ray. Its a product like Coke or Pokemon, not something to live your life by XD
It just happens to be better than most other Sci Fi ( with the exception of Doctor Who :P ). But hey by all means keep you Picard jim jams on and grow that Mirror Spock goatee if you want
It will be a good, solid, entertaining movie that certain fans proclaiming themselves the sacred guardians of 'real Trek' or just plain 'JJ haters' will rip it to shreds while the bigger, more accepting Trek audience will enjoy it.
Sound familiar?
I really seriously never get were this 'all re-imagined/re-booted/re-franchised' Trek is wrong.
Point of fact Roddenberry Died more than 20 yrs ago, anything Star Trek without his personal seal of approval is not Star Trek but someones imaginative and creative attempt to portray an entertaining story in the background he established and nothing more. Like any work of fiction there will be those who like it and those who don't, 2 films do not suddenly negate the enjoyment of some or all of the 10 other films, or 700+ episodes that have gone before.
It does not destroy Star Trek if someone tries something new.
Personally I hated Sulu's lightsaber *cough* extending sword, I also hate the Klingons backstory for why different from Enterprise, to TOS and then back to the movies onwards...
I think we'd all have a much better time with Star Trek if we just stopped trying to come up with in-continuity explanations for real-world things like advances in movie special effects due to bigger budgets and better FX technology.
The Klingons in TOS weren't really aliens. They were just guys in costumes. Is it so hard for us to just pretend the Klingons from TMP are the same as the Klingons from TOS? I mean, it's all pretend anyway.
The same is true of mistakes in continuity. Trek is a franchise that has spanned decades and has literally had hundreds of different writers. Is it such a big deal if a current writer missed a minute detail that was established by a random writer 23 years ago?
All the in-continuity explanations to dance around these things actually destroys my suspension of disbelief more than the idea that special effects have improved and mistakes will happen.
I think we'd all have a much better time with Star Trek if we just stopped trying to come up with in-continuity explanations for real-world things like advances in movie special effects due to bigger budgets and better FX technology.
The Klingons in TOS weren't really aliens. They were just guys in costumes. Is it so hard for us to just pretend the Klingons from TMP are the same as the Klingons from TOS? I mean, it's all pretend anyway.
The same is true of mistakes in continuity. Trek is a franchise that has spanned decades and has literally had hundreds of different writers. Is it such a big deal if a current writer missed a minute detail that was established by a random writer 23 years ago?
All the in-continuity explanations to dance around these things actually destroys my suspension of disbelief more than the idea that special effects have improved and mistakes will happen.
My favorite in-continuity explanation for the Klingons is still the one provided by Worf in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations": "We do not discuss it with outsiders." Should've just left it at that, IMO.
My favorite in-continuity explanation for the Klingons is still the one provided by Worf in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations": "We do not discuss it with outsiders." Should've just left it at that, IMO.
Comments
Who says JJ isn't making Trek films?
First Contact is, and always has been the best Star Trek film of the modern era. These new films should have mirrored the success of that film but proved a bitter disappointment in comparison.
Well there wasn't any 'real' Star Trek after Rodenberry died, this is just another take on the established universe. Also writers, producers, directors make films/TV shows and sometimes aren't aware of a previous line there contradicting that undermines there film/tv show or the previous one.
Also 20/20 hindsight is a great thing isn't it. everyone says, Next Gen didn't get any good until series 3, but at the time series 1 and 2 was all there was and you didn't watch it thinking I'll watch a few but really I'll wait for series 3 (which in TV Production land may never have happened due to cancellation at end of season 2). It was Star Trek and you watched it because it had that title and it was in that universe.
What I don't understand is 'arguing' the logic and contradictions of 2 films against an individuals personal and subjective opinion. If we accept the lame Klingon's looking different even when the same character (Kor, Koloth and Kang) then I don't see why the JJ films get a rough deal, compared to that kinda Fubar that happened previously.
In fact to make it simples, your to be stranded on a desert island with a portable DVD player, which film do you take. ST:V or Abrams Trek?
The new Trek movies revived Trek brought it back from the dead and UTTERLY DELETED all that TNG nonsense and brought Trek back to Kirk.
Trek is at its best when Kirk is chating up alien women and blowing stuff up.
I mean a Frenchman with a English accent is more unbelievable than magic Khan blood :P
*edit* They should sell Magic Khan Blood as a healing device in C-store
Rico can I have NEXT weeks lottery numbers please
Hold up no need...some fat guy just gave me these ones ....4,8,15,16,23 and 42.... O_O"
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
Trek 3 needs Chris Nolan. I would watch the {BEEP} outta a Nolan trek film .
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
That would be awesome, but I doubt will happen. But, for example, if Joss Whedon took a crack at it, I would have high hopes because he's good at writing ensemble casts and action pieces. If, on the other hand, say...Brett Ratner were chosen to direct it...
...yeah...
I'm just gonna come out now and give a very unpopular opinion...
While I liked First Contact, I had some major issues with it. First and foremost, for me, the Borg queen completely ruined the Borg. To give them a leader with a personality and emotions removed everything that made the Borg scary to me. Suddenly the Borg could be reasoned with, even bargained with.
In my very humble opinion, the introduction of the Borg queen turned the Borg into worker bees instead of the terrifying creatures they once were. Before First Contact, the concept of the Borg was a scary glimpse at what we could become. They were what happens when we become so indistinguishable from machines that we lose everything that makes us human. After the introduction of the queen, they just became henchmen to a boring and cliche power-hungry super villain.
I do think First Contact was the best TNG movie, but that's because every other TNG movie was pretty awful. I think every single TOS film (with the possible exception of 5) was better than First Contact.
And the JJ Trek was a retelling of TOS, not TNG, and IMO it did a fine job. It wasn't any worse than TMP, 3, 4, or 5. I think coming in third out of 7 movies is pretty good.
I bet Whedon would make a fantastic Trek flik! Maybe he won't be busy when it comes time to start filming and we could get that wish.
The only Trek movies I did not like were Voyage Home and Nemesis. I liked or loved all the others. And after all this time I still must give the top spot to KHAAAAAN!
(And if you must know, I don't wear pajamas.)
Then again, I like all the series (except the cartoon). I have my issues with VOY and ENT, but I still watched the silly things...
That is kind of understandable in a way, you are talking about not being able to get hold of actors and prosthetics and special effects improving over time.
My main complaint about Star Trek 1 and 2 is that while TOS goes some way to show that it's not all about special effects and that you can have a gripping and engaging storyline without them, these films go the opposite way and that's what lets it down. Shoddy acting and effects can be excused on a low budget tv show, but on a high budget "reboot" I expect better.
I take Abrams, purely because with the amount of lens flares he uses I might be able to signal the passing ship/plane and get rescued.
Wow, stereotypes and insults. Grow up and come back with a real argument.
TNG was the first revival of the star trek series and it was so much nonsense that it lasted for 7 years and spawned DS9 and Voyager, strange that.
But you already had that in the the Best of Both Worlds with "Locutus" granted he didn't have any emotions/sexuality but you still gave them a leader.
I agree though, the collective consciousness idea worked much better without the idea of the queen who was able to transcend and move about places and never be destroyed. Too much cartoon villain that is true.
I cannot disagree with this statement. That being said, I don't think that Trek is supposed to be a "film" it's supposed to be a TV show with long arcing storylines and aesops. Something you can't really do with films. The films have fallen into the trap of trying to be good standalone and or better than the last one which in turned made them not so good.
The thing about it is, is that it's a sloppy retelling. They don't explain to you at any point who Kahn is or why he is dangerous. So much so they have to phone Spock prime and ask him to tell them. The Wrath of Kahn had continuity and made sense because it not only explained itself for the most part but also had the backstory in the series.
A retelling could have merged elements of space seed and the wrath of Kahn to make a really good movie and a menacing enemy. In the end all you ended up with was "super hero vs super villain" including extended fight sequence which made little sense and just wasn't compelling.
It's disappointing that Star Trek isn't returning to being a series, and instead is being reduced to a series of films.
You make some good points (including points I didn't quote here, for space). Since I haven't watched Into Darkness, I'm not going to presume to argue. From what I've heard, that's a pretty good analysis.
I'm pretty sure I'm still gonna' enjoy the movie, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge faults. I'm a huge fan of Star Wars, but catch me on the right day and I can launch into a 30 minute comedy routine about how horrible Luke is at planning rescues.
Seeing Picard being born is/was a good idea ...
I would really like to see the
How the Borg started out or the Tholians ... with an on-par-with-nemesis-space-battle section of the film
(ST:ID battle was good ... but one can wish for more ...
PS: Star Trek is really supposed to be a T.V. Series, and not really a film. That said I don't mind a film
I hope STO get's better ...
Far as villains, I'm fine with the OPs theory. I'd love to see some Klingon villains. We really haven't seen them as villains since ST 3 (ST 6 had individual Klingon villains, but as a whole, it was about coming to peace with them).
Far as story, I'd love to see this Kirk, Spock, and McCoy on shore leave together. Trek 5 was definitely the worst TOS movie, but I kind of enjoyed their interactions while camping.
One thing I do not want to see is them time-traveling. Not forward, not backward.
Now what?
:rolleyes:
LMFAO - because fake aliens in a show about a made up future are totally real! Like the other poster said, Star Trek is not a documentary. But if you're confusing the made up science for a plot in a TV show vs real life science, then this explains much about you...
Trek shows use KNOWN science, and when it doesn't work for the plot, they have no problems using technobable to explain it away. But real scientists and real scientific discoveries are what the show bases it's stories on. Star Trek is not the equivalent of NOVA or Top Gear, kid. Seriously, it's not.
That's because it's based on TOS which - if you ever watched it - was mostly an ACTION ORIENTED SERIES. Hello? It's not a secret.
Oh no!!! That totally ruins it for me! And you know who else you ruined it for? Captain Janeway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIGxMENwq1k
:rolleyes:
:cool:
What we need keep in mind is that JJ Trek is not science fiction, but rather outright fantasy. In Trek they at leas tried to cover all the fantastical things science has no way to reproduce with technobabble. In JJ Trek they all but crowned Kirk a "chosen one" and the universe itself worked to get him on that captain's chair through no actual merit of his own beyond being a jerk.
I had decided to wait watching the latest JJ Trek just as I waited for cable to watch the last one. Now that I read the movie synopsis I just have to facepalm. Khan? Really? This is the great re imagining? Are they going to kill off Spock in the next one? Too much like the original? Are they killing off Kirk or Uhura then? I can't wait to see JJ Trek 4 with extreme Kung Fu master killer whales wielding machine guns that are fully self aware and actually from another planet!
I resent that comment! It clearly leaves out the best Trek movie! Everyone KNOWS Galaxy Quest is the best Trek movie of them all. An argument could be made that Wrath of Khan may be tied with it or slightly behind it but its reproachable to not even mention it like that Nepht!
Now, what I would like to see would be something original. I don't mind what it is, but it needs to be fresh and new. I thought that was the whole point about creating the alternate timeline. I don't want to see subtle nods to established canon no matter how "meta" the director thinks it is.
I want proper explanation of who the enemies are, why I should fear them and should root for the heroes to save the day. Doesn't matter if they are Borg, Tholian or whatever.
Since we have effectively removed the need for continuity, we could have any race of enemy we choose. I want to see this aspect touched on more. Not just sloppy "homages" (rip offs) of the existing films.
For this reason, I rate Star Trek 2009 higher than this one, because while the story was completely contrived, it was at least original. More than can be said about a large number of current Hollywood films.
You have played this game, right? It's explained that the Supernova travelled through Subspace, meaning it covered hundreds of light years in a matter of days, by Star Trek (as a whole, not just JJ's film) logic.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Original Join Date: January 30th, 2010
YES! We'll call it "Star Trek Online: The Movie"! :rolleyes:
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
(Then they came up with that "Borg Queen" TRIBBLE, and threw that entire concept out the airlock - suddenly this was just another Evil Empire, complete with Evil Megalomaniacal Ruler, straight out of Fantasy/SciFi Central Casting.)
Locutus, in fact, brought into sharp highlight one of the most frightening things about the Borg - they could even erase the individuality of so strong a personality as Jean-Luc Picard, the guy who started his assignment aboard the Enterprise by sassing Q. Picard became, under their tender ministrations, nothing more than another Borg, a disposable, interchangeable unit whose loss was more annoyance than disaster (at least, until Data TRIBBLE the backdoor protocols).
Coming from the guy with the Defenders of the Earth AV :P
Trek is Sci Fi and a product made for television and movies it is not real and for it to continue it has to change to still be relevant in todays markets.
Thats all it is. Thats all it will ever be. Something the TV companies can put adverts inbetween and make some cash. Something they can sometimes put on the big screen then sell on Blue Ray. Its a product like Coke or Pokemon, not something to live your life by XD
It just happens to be better than most other Sci Fi ( with the exception of Doctor Who :P ). But hey by all means keep you Picard jim jams on and grow that Mirror Spock goatee if you want
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
I really seriously never get were this 'all re-imagined/re-booted/re-franchised' Trek is wrong.
Point of fact Roddenberry Died more than 20 yrs ago, anything Star Trek without his personal seal of approval is not Star Trek but someones imaginative and creative attempt to portray an entertaining story in the background he established and nothing more. Like any work of fiction there will be those who like it and those who don't, 2 films do not suddenly negate the enjoyment of some or all of the 10 other films, or 700+ episodes that have gone before.
It does not destroy Star Trek if someone tries something new.
Personally I hated Sulu's lightsaber *cough* extending sword, I also hate the Klingons backstory for why different from Enterprise, to TOS and then back to the movies onwards...
The Klingons in TOS weren't really aliens. They were just guys in costumes. Is it so hard for us to just pretend the Klingons from TMP are the same as the Klingons from TOS? I mean, it's all pretend anyway.
The same is true of mistakes in continuity. Trek is a franchise that has spanned decades and has literally had hundreds of different writers. Is it such a big deal if a current writer missed a minute detail that was established by a random writer 23 years ago?
All the in-continuity explanations to dance around these things actually destroys my suspension of disbelief more than the idea that special effects have improved and mistakes will happen.
I agree with you there.
Maybe some Romulans, as well.