Or the numerous cancelled shows he puts out. Oh yeah, STID didn't meet studio expectations at the boxoffice this weekend. What a surprise.
#1 in box-office receipts for the weekend, making it the biggest moneymaker in the US, was "below studio expectations"? I'd put that more on the studio than the movie.
Really, your straw-grasping as you seek a reason to support your illogical hatred of Abrams is becoming quite pathetic.
#1 in box-office receipts for the weekend, making it the biggest moneymaker in the US, was "below studio expectations"? I'd put that more on the studio than the movie.
Really, your straw-grasping as you seek a reason to support your illogical hatred of Abrams is becoming quite pathetic.
I'm sorry didn't mean to upset you. Take a box of tissues and go watch Felicity.
#1 in box-office receipts for the weekend, making it the biggest moneymaker in the US, was "below studio expectations"? I'd put that more on the studio than the movie.
Really, your straw-grasping as you seek a reason to support your illogical hatred of Abrams is becoming quite pathetic.
Star Trek 09' grossed 75 mill first weekend. This one is tracking at 70 million. That's a dip by Hollywood standards.
The Word of Lucas himself has changed that. Lucas never intended the next three films to use the Thrawn Trilogy material. Fans who ignore that have been ignoring Lucas for far too long. Which is crazy since Lucas was always the final word on that. Now that Disney's inolved and Abrams, it's still going forward with a brand new story idea.
Thrawn was never slated to be the future of the Star Wars storyline.
EDIT: And another thing ... INTO DARKNESS DROPPED THE LENS FLARES! Seriously, the lens flares wouldn't have worked well in any of the major actions scenes. It was too dark with the Klingons. It was too dark with the Vengeance fight. Lens flares are 2009. You all need to find some other thing to latch onto with Into Darkness. Like Magic Blood? Or Klingon Piercings? Or Peoplepedoes! Or anything other than lens flares!
This is true with most under serviced but fanatical fandoms.
Same with Klingons or Romulans, for example. Imagine that all Klingon words and cultural practices that come from books or fan sources get dropped.
That would be very reasonable for CBS/Paramount to do. But it would drive people nuts, especially if CBS decided to actively contradict every idea about Klingons that doesn't come from a filmed episode.
This is true with most under serviced but fanatical fandoms.
Same with Klingons or Romulans, for example. Imagine that all Klingon words and cultural practices that come from books or fan sources get dropped.
That would be very reasonable for CBS/Paramount to do. But it would drive people nuts, especially if CBS decided to actively contradict every idea about Klingons that doesn't come from a filmed episode.
You just described the first two seasons of TNG where the Klingons were portrayed as this honor-driven culture in which fandom, the Romulans were the honor-driven ones as portrayed in the Rihannsu novels.
Fans were in an uproar over that one along with having a Klingon on the bridge, no Kirk, no Spock, no McCoy, no Uhura, no Chekov, No Sulu, and so on.
This is true with most under serviced but fanatical fandoms.
Same with Klingons or Romulans, for example. Imagine that all Klingon words and cultural practices that come from books or fan sources get dropped.
That would be very reasonable for CBS/Paramount to do. But it would drive people nuts, especially if CBS decided to actively contradict every idea about Klingons that doesn't come from a filmed episode.
You mean like the wholesale abandonment of the (brilliant, IMO) work on Klingon society in John Ford's The Final Reflection? Sadly, all that remains of it in any other "canon" source is a passing reference to klin zha in one mission...
(An example: In Ford's version of the language, Klingonaase, the derivations were as follows: klin was the warrior principle, and the -gon suffix indicated an embodiment of an abstraction; thus, a Klingon was the embodiment of the warrior principle. The suffix -aase indicated a tool used to manipulate something, making Klingonaase translate literally as "the tool used to manipulate Klingons" - thus their distrust of those who speak too much. Also, the word "Komerex", as in Komerex Klingon, usually translated as "Empire", but which in fact means "the structure that grows". It has an opposite, too - "Khesterex", or "the structure that dies". In the Klingon worldview, you were part of one or the other.)
TOS was about a Disciplined crew on a 5 year mission. They were military and didn't know if they would see their homes or loved ones again. It was about these people brave enough to serve so the rest could have good lives making the best of their situation.
The enemies were hostile. You don't make friends with them, you do your duty.
The above multi quote post displays a lack of this discipline. Find some, it will serve you well.
I'm going to guess you're either in the military, or are one of the "flag-waving patriots" that always crawls out of the woodwork whenever the subject comes up, because you have to be projecting like a freaking IMAX to decide that Trek, any of the Treks, were some kind of "thank you for your service" glorification of the military.
Kirk shagged anything that moved, disobeyed orders whenever he felt like it, he was about as disciplined as a college fratboy, he would have lasted thirty seconds in any sort of genuine military.
American Mighty-Righties can argue whatever nonsense they feel is necessary to maintain their cognitive dissonance to their heart's content, but regardless of the trappings of a particular series; Western in Space, University in Space, Buddhist Church in Space, Incoherent Writing in Space, or whatever Enterprise was - the core of the franchise has always been themes of ethics, tolerance, and unconventional thinking.
In the 60's, still a misogynist and racist time despite the social upheaval going on among the younger generation, TOS had a black female officer on the bridge, was planned to have a female first officer(until the Network decided that was too risque), and dealt with themes of racism, sexism, religion, and nationalism among others, in most cases from a counterculture perspective. In the 80's, a decade firmly in the grip of Reaganism/Thatcherism with the attendant focus on acquisitive capitalism and shallow materialism, TNG presented viewers with a future in which humanity had abandoned personal greed and the trappings of wealth in favour of individual and collective self-improvement and cooperation. They were progressive in different ways, based as they are in the cultural context of their eras, but they were both progressive.
And to bring this back round to the question in the OP; that's why JJ ruined Star Trek, because his "reimagining" of the franchise is deliberately and proudly NOT about ethics, tolerance, and unconventional thinking, it's about pewpew-lensflare summer blockbuster fans. More than that though, the reason why he gets a lot of vitriol rather than just dismissal from fans, is his own attitude towards people who liked Trek prior to his tenure; he genuinely doesn't understand why, and indeed seems to resent the fact that some fans don't like it. Watch his interviews, he seems to genuinely believe that what Trek fans want out of Trek is to see certain names on the screen, wearing certain colours of uniform, and flying in a ship of a certain shape, and so in his view he is "appealing to older fans" by using the trappings of the franchise to dress up his mass-market SFX-fest.
We are PWE. Your forums and game accounts will be added to our own. Your community will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
First of all, as a Vet please don't put me in the same sentence as the previous poster. Secondly, you obviously missed out the underlying message in STID due to your obvious prejudices.
Kirk's speech at the memorial said it the best, "There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that?s not who we are? When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the Captain?s Oath. Words I didn?t appreciate at the time. But now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were and who we must be again. And those words?" (Courtesy of Memory Alpha)
Also, you completely missed out on Enterprise's message about the War on Terrorism in its Third Season, granted Alien Space TRIBBLE took the thunder away, but it is a parallel to what the American society was going through.
JJ didn't ruin Trek no more than Meyers did for TWOK, than Wise did for TMP, than Shatner did with TFF.
And to bring this back round to the question in the OP; that's why JJ ruined Star Trek, because his "reimagining" of the franchise is deliberately and proudly NOT about ethics, tolerance, and unconventional thinking
My god man, with that kind of logic every movie after TMP ruined ST just because they had action and didn't verbally deliver their ethic statements.
I mean seriously, that's just flat-out insane, imo. These new movies are a new twist on a familiar franschise, connected yet separate. And therefore, nothing they do can ruin the old ST because it still f***ing exists.
And I might add, these new movies draw in new audiences to the old Trek. That's a win no matter how you twist it
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I'm going to guess you're either in the military, or are one of the "flag-waving patriots" that always crawls out of the woodwork whenever the subject comes up, because you have to be projecting like a freaking -
I'm going to guess you're either a pseudo intellectual who likes to talk down to others who's opinions personally offend you because your college professors told you they should, or one of those "I hate my country, but I don't say it even though I do" kind of people who crawl out from the woodwork and tries to interject politics into every discussion just so you can verbally demonize your political opposition any chance you get.
And to bring this back round to the question in the OP; that's why JJ ruined Star Trek, because his "reimagining" of the franchise is deliberately and proudly NOT about ethics, tolerance, and unconventional thinking, it's about pewpew-lensflare summer blockbuster fans. More than that though, the reason why he gets a lot of vitriol rather than just dismissal from fans, is his own attitude towards people who liked Trek prior to his tenure; he genuinely doesn't understand why, and indeed seems to resent the fact that some fans don't like it. Watch his interviews, he seems to genuinely believe that what Trek fans want out of Trek is to see certain names on the screen, wearing certain colours of uniform, and flying in a ship of a certain shape, and so in his view he is "appealing to older fans" by using the trappings of the franchise to dress up his mass-market SFX-fest.
Into Darkness reverses a lot of this. Maybe in a daft Hollywood blockbuster kind of way (expect to cringe at the "cold fusion" reference). But it's more true to TOS than the 2009 film was.
The 2009 film made a lot of noise about service and Starfleet as a "humanitarian and peacekeeping armada."
Into Darkness explores to opposite route. It portrays Scotty as (at least politically) a pacifist, emphasizes the Prime Directive, and has Kirk and Spock expound on the importance of rule of law and how terrorists are entitled to trials. They also all rebel against the use of drones... and attempt to negotiate with the Klingons. (Apparently, Nero destroyed Praxis off screen in the last film when he escaped from Klingon custody; it's mentioned in the comics and we see the Qo'noS system looking like it does in STO in the film. Anyway, the Klingons weren't in a mood to negotiate.)
I think Orci and Kurtzman may have their weak areas but they are true Trek fans and movies they get judged for (like the Transformers films) were heavily rewritten by the directors they worked with. You're probably right about Abrams' attitudes as I gather he both deleted and cut scenes that would have shaped the 2009 film in more of a classic direction. But I felt Orci and Kurtzman's points were more on target this time. The new film has a lot of points to make but if they don't seem apparent, it's mainly because I think Abrams isn't big on having plot points resolved or explained via people talking. The meat is there this time but you might not get it until you try to summarize the story because the political points are in the plot but rarely in the dialogue.
(Keep in mind, Orci is a far left 9/11 truther.)
The early reviews I read said that people who hated the first movie would hate this one and that people who loved the first movie would love this one. I'm not sure I agree. I think you could be a harsh critic of the first movie and mostly love this one. Your big complaint will probably be that they waste dialogue on nods to Harry Mudd and Nurse Chapel while perhaps not driving the film's political points home far enough or really connecting all the dots there.
(For example, they have a mostly meaningless line about Chapel. Meanwhile, one of the film's villains looks dramatically different in this film and there's a built in explanation for why he looks different but they never bother to say it.)
Also, much love to this film for including the NX-01 and the Phoenix. They do embrace the idea that this is the same universe up until Nero showed up. There's a point I suspect the screenwriters made about that that I think Abrams cut.
I am eager to see the next film because it seems likely that Bad Robot and Orci/Kurtzman may return but with a new director. I really feel like their scripts make more sense than the final product in both 2009 and STID and that Abrams tended to ram through and rip out some of the parts that made sense of things.
(I think old Trek did go crazy with exposition and technobabble but that where it crossed the line was in using more exposition and technobabble than the plot called for. The new films err in the opposite direction but I don't blame the scripts for that. I just feel like Abrams rams through scripts with a black sharpie, cutting out as much exposition and technobabble as possible and cutting out TOO MUCH. You need enough to make sense of things. The scripts have that extra technobabble and exposition to make sense of things, as do the tie-ins. But J.J. cuts it out.)
Whether 70mil or 75mil, both movies had strong opening weekends. And that means they're a success, whether you like it or not.
But as discussed in countless threads: Getting the dollar from the box office, does not mean that the (or indeed any) film is good.
This evening, I watched Total Recall 2012 for the first time. Now I am no fan of re-makes by any stretch of the imagination, as I consider it nothing more than a lack of creativity. I'm not even sure how popular the film was, as I've never read into it, but on a personal level, I loved it. It was like someone had taken all the best bits from Blade Runner, Minority Report, Total Recall (All originally written by Philip K.D!ck, so some similarities would be reasonable) thrown in a pinch of I, Robot, and come up with what I thought was an excellent film. It wasn't referring to any of those other films (other than Total Recall) as a way of getting cheap plot points or visual cues, but I thought, seemed part of a cohesive universe, ie something which sprang from the mind of Philip K. D!ck, not some D-Bag who, when afforded the creative options of an entire universe, had no better ability than to snatch ideas from what is considered to be the best Trek movie. Reference for the sake of reference is not homage, it is just self-indulgence, and shows a lack of creativity to be able to do anything else, and that is always disappointing to see
If anyone else liked or likes the film, is totally down to them. I don't know if the film was a success, or if it was even popular. From what many have said, Into Darkness is simply a shabby remake of WoK, without the stones to actually admit to being a remake...
And to bring this back round to the question in the OP; that's why JJ ruined Star Trek, because his "reimagining" of the franchise is deliberately and proudly NOT about ethics, tolerance, and unconventional thinking, it's about pewpew-lensflare summer blockbuster fans.
I'm not going to address your other points. I don't necessarily agree with all of them all, but they're definitely food for thought and I think your summation of Trek is pretty darn good.
That said, I think the quoted part isn't really true of this new movie.
*SPOILER FROM INTO DARKNESS*
Into Darkness has a terrorist attack and kill several people, among them someone Kirk loves. Kirk then accepts orders to go on an assassination mission to kill this terrorist. Spock opposes this emphatically and feels it is not what evolved creatures do. Kirk ignores him and goes on the mission anyway.
Later, Kirk has a change of heart, disobeys orders and captures the terrorist so he can come back to Earth and get a fair trial. This is a man Kirk hates passionately and wants dead but he faces those demons and chooses to give this man he hates a trial.
*END SPOILER*
I'm not sure how you think that's proudly not exploring ethics and tolerance.
I could also name a few other similar themes that are explored in the new movie that deal with ethics.
I concede that very little time was spent exploring these notions, but honestly... how much time was spent exploring these notions in Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, or The Final Frontier? Honestly, the action/moral ratio in Into Darkness is about equal to those movies.
As for your other points, like I said, food for thought. I appreciate the well-thought-out arguments. But for the "proudly NOT" exploring ethics bit, I respectfully disagree. That is arguably true of the 09 movie, but it's not true at all in this new one.
Whether 70mil or 75mil, both movies had strong opening weekends. And that means they're a success, whether you like it or not.
My god man, with that kind of logic every movie after TMP ruined ST just because they had action and didn't verbally deliver their ethic statements.
I mean seriously, that's just flat-out insane, imo. These new movies are a new twist on a familiar franschise, connected yet separate. And therefore, nothing they do can ruin the old ST because it still f***ing exists.
And I might add, these new movies draw in new audiences to the old Trek. That's a win no matter how you twist it
The expectation of the studio is that if you have a hit movie the sequel should make even more in it's debut weekend. Not less. Considering the cost put into the film and next weekend will see a precipitous drop off in revenue. Suits at Paramount will say it's a success, but it will be a different story behind the scene. If you look at movies like Iron Man you see the sequels out grossing the original. That is the definition of success in Hollywood.
Granted we all have opinions. Some will love the 2 movies some will hate them. You will have that with any movie or show.
To me from what little I saw on the 2009. It looks good for something fresh. And all new, and attempt to bring in new audience. As I gave it a try to watch years later.
However I don't like it for several reasons. The crew/cast is horrible. How they meshed and worked around each other. It was just horrible. Too many stupid parts in the movie. I cut the 2009 movie off when the ship didn't go into warp. And they asked if the parking brake was on. Seriously ?? How stupid can a movie get. Good thing I saw it on regular TV. So changing the channel for something better was easy.
Granted it could be entertainment for many. And that is what they go for. However for me even that wasn't cutting it.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
The expectation of the studio is that if you have a hit movie the sequel should make even more in it's debut weekend. Not less. Considering the cost put into the film and next weekend will see a precipitous drop off in revenue. Suits at Paramount will say it's a success, but it will be a different story behind the scene. If you look at movies like Iron Man you see the sequels out grossing the original. That is the definition of success in Hollywood.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/star-trek-into-darkness-is-no-1-at-the-box-office/
The Enterprise encountered some choppy air in North America over the weekend - namely strong holdover ticket sales for "Iron Man 3" and "The Great Gatsby" - but hit warp speed in foreign markets, resulting in stout overall results for "Star Trek Into Darkness." James T. Kirk and crew were No. 1 at movie theaters in the United States and Canada, taking in about $70.6 million over the weekend, for a total since opening on Imax screens on Wednesday of $84.1 million.
That total was on the low end of expectations; box-office analysts had predicted $80 million to $100 million for the movie's opening stretch. But "Star Trek Into Darkness," which cost Paramount and Skydance about $190 million to make, is on track to double the overseas total of "Star Trek," the film's 2009 franchise predecessor, which was a bit of an international dud. Audiences in North America gave the well-reviewed "Star Trek Into Darkness" an A score in exit polls, boding well for word of mouth - although the multiplex competition ahead is steep.
The expectation of the studio is that if you have a hit movie the sequel should make even more in it's debut weekend. Not less. Considering the cost put into the film and next weekend will see a precipitous drop off in revenue. Suits at Paramount will say it's a success, but it will be a different story behind the scene. If you look at movies like Iron Man you see the sequels out grossing the original. That is the definition of success in Hollywood.
Whether Into Darkness's opening box-office is a success by your standards or not, it's not the end-all argument for 'success'
How To Train Your Dragon opened fairly low, and people were quick to mark it off as a failure. However, due to extremely good word-of-mouth, the film retained #1 in the box office for several consecutive weeks as a sleeper hit, which is entirely rare nowadays.
The point is, it's not logical to evalulate it's overall success based solely on the opening weekend
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Whether 70mil or 75mil, both movies had strong opening weekends. And that means they're a success, whether you like it or not.
My god man, with that kind of logic every movie after TMP ruined ST just because they had action and didn't verbally deliver their ethic statements.
I mean seriously, that's just flat-out insane, imo. These new movies are a new twist on a familiar franschise, connected yet separate. And therefore, nothing they do can ruin the old ST because it still f***ing exists.
And I might add, these new movies draw in new audiences to the old Trek. That's a win no matter how you twist it
What in the bejeebus are you on about? This isn't my logic, it's the openly stated goal of JJ Abrams, in the promotional interviews he's given before both films released - he wanted to make Trek for people who weren't interested in high-minded cerebral stuff, just as he wasn't as a younger guy when he saw Trek and couldn't get into it.
Having action doesn't mean you can't have anything else; people have already pointed out that TOS was much more actiony than TNG, and that's not in dispute, neither is it inherently negative. The issue is that the action in the new Trek films is not being used to complement or disguise the underlying message or themes, it IS the theme. The movies after TMP used a more mass-market framework to tell their stories, but the focus was still the stories and the themes within; revenge, self-doubt, environmentalism, fear of the future and the unknown, setting aside old prejudices, whether might makes right, etc etc etc.
The previous Trek movies, and some episodes of the TV shows, used action in service of plot. The Abrams Trek movies use plot as a framework to place action scenes within.
We are PWE. Your forums and game accounts will be added to our own. Your community will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
During Star Trek Into Darkness Robocop orders Captain Kirk to fire SEVENTY TWO PEOPLEPEDOES AT THE KLINGON HOMEWORLD!
Seriously folks. That's about as amazing and awesome as you can get. The rest of the film only needs to live up to one sixteenth of THAT awesome to be a kick butt film.
I think he helped revitalize the franchise which had been meekly winding down.
- DS9 ended in very late 90s.
- VOY ended in 2000 or 2001 (not exactly a favored ST series for me).
- The TNG crew's last movie, Nemesis (2002), was a letdown. A bad swan song for Picard and crew.
- The controversial show to the ST fanbase, ENT, went from 2001-2005, and ended on a very bad note.
In short, the 2000's had not been very good for the franchise. When the TV shows faded away, ENT getting killed off, and the last ST movie had been from 2002, it seemed like Star Trek was going to go away for a while like it did with the end of TOS. That mine had been exhausted.
Enter JJ Abrams Star Trek from 2009. Good movie with serious nods to the originals. Having Leonard Nimoy aboard, who was retired at the time and did not want anything to do with ST movies for many, many years, brought some franchise legitimacy.
ST 2009 was done in its own new way. Again good movie and I was happy to see it.
I didn't even mind it going back to a TOS "timeframe" (alternate though), and giving it that modern touch with today's technology.
What I did mind was rehashing the original characters. It didn't really need to do that. JJ could have had his own originally made characters and we wouldn't be hear flaming about depictions of well known and popular TOS characters. I also didn't like the whole Romulus going kaput, which even we in STO felt with the game's release. For some reason, Romulus and Vulcan going poof pissed me off.
I mean... do we REALLY need to see the original characters redone? Not me.
For me, the new movies are good movies and good entertainment. But they take enough liberties for me to categorize it as separate altogether. They DID reinvigorate the franchise though.
And some last minute swipes!
- Constitution Refit is STILL better looking than the JJ Enterprise :cool:
- Wrath of Khan is STILL the best Star Trek movie
I watched it, enjoyed it, feel that its not going to get the credit it deserves because to many self called fanboys scream otherwise
(to those that think they know the original series and say this isnt anything like the original, rewatch the original ...or actually watch it for the first time)
Cast was good, plot was good, twists were good, effects were good, JJ saying there was less lense flare and actually lived up to that was good (there is way more in the 2009 compared to this one) Action was good, those certain moments of almost on the edge of seat scenes were good
the one and only issue and its not really an issue, it was just misplacement...spock yelling kahn would have been better served as he was chasing him down in the streets of san fran, not in the engineering room, and it would have actually sealed the scene fully if done that way.
But overall....im just angry that I have to wait another more than likely 3 plus years for another trek, by that point the cast will have aged properly to the original cast members movie time frame....
I've not seen this new one, but theres a few of things they origional one got me on was:
The odd age discrepancey between the main characters.
At the begining on TOS Sulu was already a department head, as he was shown to go to department head meetings with Scotty and Mcoy, infact in one of the earlier episodes he was a also a Mathmetician. He should have been a junior officer at least on the Enterprise, not a complete noob.
Why is the bridge of the Enterprise more advanced than the ones in the series and yet the engine room is almost steam power.
Also on Simon Pegg's Scottish accent, James Doohans wasn't brilliant.
Giving somebody with no command experience (Kirk) the command of an important ship for whatever reason is pretty stupid, a promotiom yes, command of a starship no.
I am a TOS Fan, and I can believe that Kirk was very much like he was in the film as a young man, I don't think he would have been really suitable for Captains rank at that age.
I've not seen this new one, but theres a few of things they origional one got me on was:
The odd age discrepancey between the main characters.
At the begining on TOS Sulu was already a department head, as he was shown to go to department head meetings with Scotty and Mcoy, infact in one of the earlier episodes he was a also a Mathmetician. He should have been a junior officer at least on the Enterprise, not a complete noob.
Why is the bridge of the Enterprise more advanced than the ones in the series and yet the engine room is almost steam power.
Also on Simon Pegg's Scottish accent, James Doohans wasn't brilliant.
Giving somebody with no command experience (Kirk) the command of an important ship for whatever reason is pretty stupid, a promotiom yes, command of a starship no.
I am a TOS Fan, and I can believe that Kirk was very much like he was in the film as a young man, I don't think he would have been really suitable for Captains rank at that age.
In regards to Sulu I think you are refering to "Where No Man Has Gone Before." In that episode Sulu was the staff physicist or something like that but as the series got picked up they moved the part to Helmsman.....he was a LT during the series and got promoted to LCDR before TMP and CDR by WOK.
I like that the engine room looks drasticly different than the other parts of the ship. I served in the US Navy for 11 years and can tell you thats true...though they dont look like budweiser plants.
The guy just saved the planet...you think all he deserved was a promotion. However they address this in STID
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Here is the problem:
I, by far, value the original dimension far greater than I do this new one. I think the Ideas Abrams put into the new movies are interesting but still, this time travel ordeal of Spock's has completely altered the branch off universe out of some of the major parts that made Star Trek TOS what it was. Besides the enormous differences, now that this new story line is created, do you think they'll ever create another generation in the original Universe?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"Star Trek: Rubicon" Season 1, Season 2 A new era, a new time, a new crew, a new ship, a new mission...
"I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment because it will never come again."- Jean-Luc Picard
Comments
Or the numerous cancelled shows he puts out. Oh yeah, STID didn't meet studio expectations at the boxoffice this weekend. What a surprise.
Really, your straw-grasping as you seek a reason to support your illogical hatred of Abrams is becoming quite pathetic.
I'm sorry didn't mean to upset you. Take a box of tissues and go watch Felicity.
Star Trek 09' grossed 75 mill first weekend. This one is tracking at 70 million. That's a dip by Hollywood standards.
This is true with most under serviced but fanatical fandoms.
Same with Klingons or Romulans, for example. Imagine that all Klingon words and cultural practices that come from books or fan sources get dropped.
That would be very reasonable for CBS/Paramount to do. But it would drive people nuts, especially if CBS decided to actively contradict every idea about Klingons that doesn't come from a filmed episode.
You just described the first two seasons of TNG where the Klingons were portrayed as this honor-driven culture in which fandom, the Romulans were the honor-driven ones as portrayed in the Rihannsu novels.
Fans were in an uproar over that one along with having a Klingon on the bridge, no Kirk, no Spock, no McCoy, no Uhura, no Chekov, No Sulu, and so on.
(An example: In Ford's version of the language, Klingonaase, the derivations were as follows: klin was the warrior principle, and the -gon suffix indicated an embodiment of an abstraction; thus, a Klingon was the embodiment of the warrior principle. The suffix -aase indicated a tool used to manipulate something, making Klingonaase translate literally as "the tool used to manipulate Klingons" - thus their distrust of those who speak too much. Also, the word "Komerex", as in Komerex Klingon, usually translated as "Empire", but which in fact means "the structure that grows". It has an opposite, too - "Khesterex", or "the structure that dies". In the Klingon worldview, you were part of one or the other.)
I'm going to guess you're either in the military, or are one of the "flag-waving patriots" that always crawls out of the woodwork whenever the subject comes up, because you have to be projecting like a freaking IMAX to decide that Trek, any of the Treks, were some kind of "thank you for your service" glorification of the military.
Kirk shagged anything that moved, disobeyed orders whenever he felt like it, he was about as disciplined as a college fratboy, he would have lasted thirty seconds in any sort of genuine military.
American Mighty-Righties can argue whatever nonsense they feel is necessary to maintain their cognitive dissonance to their heart's content, but regardless of the trappings of a particular series; Western in Space, University in Space, Buddhist Church in Space, Incoherent Writing in Space, or whatever Enterprise was - the core of the franchise has always been themes of ethics, tolerance, and unconventional thinking.
In the 60's, still a misogynist and racist time despite the social upheaval going on among the younger generation, TOS had a black female officer on the bridge, was planned to have a female first officer(until the Network decided that was too risque), and dealt with themes of racism, sexism, religion, and nationalism among others, in most cases from a counterculture perspective. In the 80's, a decade firmly in the grip of Reaganism/Thatcherism with the attendant focus on acquisitive capitalism and shallow materialism, TNG presented viewers with a future in which humanity had abandoned personal greed and the trappings of wealth in favour of individual and collective self-improvement and cooperation. They were progressive in different ways, based as they are in the cultural context of their eras, but they were both progressive.
And to bring this back round to the question in the OP; that's why JJ ruined Star Trek, because his "reimagining" of the franchise is deliberately and proudly NOT about ethics, tolerance, and unconventional thinking, it's about pewpew-lensflare summer blockbuster fans. More than that though, the reason why he gets a lot of vitriol rather than just dismissal from fans, is his own attitude towards people who liked Trek prior to his tenure; he genuinely doesn't understand why, and indeed seems to resent the fact that some fans don't like it. Watch his interviews, he seems to genuinely believe that what Trek fans want out of Trek is to see certain names on the screen, wearing certain colours of uniform, and flying in a ship of a certain shape, and so in his view he is "appealing to older fans" by using the trappings of the franchise to dress up his mass-market SFX-fest.
We are PWE. Your forums and game accounts will be added to our own. Your community will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Kirk's speech at the memorial said it the best, "There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that?s not who we are? When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the Captain?s Oath. Words I didn?t appreciate at the time. But now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were and who we must be again. And those words?" (Courtesy of Memory Alpha)
Also, you completely missed out on Enterprise's message about the War on Terrorism in its Third Season, granted Alien Space TRIBBLE took the thunder away, but it is a parallel to what the American society was going through.
JJ didn't ruin Trek no more than Meyers did for TWOK, than Wise did for TMP, than Shatner did with TFF.
Whether 70mil or 75mil, both movies had strong opening weekends. And that means they're a success, whether you like it or not. My god man, with that kind of logic every movie after TMP ruined ST just because they had action and didn't verbally deliver their ethic statements.
I mean seriously, that's just flat-out insane, imo. These new movies are a new twist on a familiar franschise, connected yet separate. And therefore, nothing they do can ruin the old ST because it still f***ing exists.
And I might add, these new movies draw in new audiences to the old Trek. That's a win no matter how you twist it
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Into Darkness reverses a lot of this. Maybe in a daft Hollywood blockbuster kind of way (expect to cringe at the "cold fusion" reference). But it's more true to TOS than the 2009 film was.
The 2009 film made a lot of noise about service and Starfleet as a "humanitarian and peacekeeping armada."
Into Darkness explores to opposite route. It portrays Scotty as (at least politically) a pacifist, emphasizes the Prime Directive, and has Kirk and Spock expound on the importance of rule of law and how terrorists are entitled to trials. They also all rebel against the use of drones... and attempt to negotiate with the Klingons. (Apparently, Nero destroyed Praxis off screen in the last film when he escaped from Klingon custody; it's mentioned in the comics and we see the Qo'noS system looking like it does in STO in the film. Anyway, the Klingons weren't in a mood to negotiate.)
I think Orci and Kurtzman may have their weak areas but they are true Trek fans and movies they get judged for (like the Transformers films) were heavily rewritten by the directors they worked with. You're probably right about Abrams' attitudes as I gather he both deleted and cut scenes that would have shaped the 2009 film in more of a classic direction. But I felt Orci and Kurtzman's points were more on target this time. The new film has a lot of points to make but if they don't seem apparent, it's mainly because I think Abrams isn't big on having plot points resolved or explained via people talking. The meat is there this time but you might not get it until you try to summarize the story because the political points are in the plot but rarely in the dialogue.
(Keep in mind, Orci is a far left 9/11 truther.)
The early reviews I read said that people who hated the first movie would hate this one and that people who loved the first movie would love this one. I'm not sure I agree. I think you could be a harsh critic of the first movie and mostly love this one. Your big complaint will probably be that they waste dialogue on nods to Harry Mudd and Nurse Chapel while perhaps not driving the film's political points home far enough or really connecting all the dots there.
(For example, they have a mostly meaningless line about Chapel. Meanwhile, one of the film's villains looks dramatically different in this film and there's a built in explanation for why he looks different but they never bother to say it.)
Also, much love to this film for including the NX-01 and the Phoenix. They do embrace the idea that this is the same universe up until Nero showed up. There's a point I suspect the screenwriters made about that that I think Abrams cut.
I am eager to see the next film because it seems likely that Bad Robot and Orci/Kurtzman may return but with a new director. I really feel like their scripts make more sense than the final product in both 2009 and STID and that Abrams tended to ram through and rip out some of the parts that made sense of things.
(I think old Trek did go crazy with exposition and technobabble but that where it crossed the line was in using more exposition and technobabble than the plot called for. The new films err in the opposite direction but I don't blame the scripts for that. I just feel like Abrams rams through scripts with a black sharpie, cutting out as much exposition and technobabble as possible and cutting out TOO MUCH. You need enough to make sense of things. The scripts have that extra technobabble and exposition to make sense of things, as do the tie-ins. But J.J. cuts it out.)
But as discussed in countless threads: Getting the dollar from the box office, does not mean that the (or indeed any) film is good.
This evening, I watched Total Recall 2012 for the first time. Now I am no fan of re-makes by any stretch of the imagination, as I consider it nothing more than a lack of creativity. I'm not even sure how popular the film was, as I've never read into it, but on a personal level, I loved it. It was like someone had taken all the best bits from Blade Runner, Minority Report, Total Recall (All originally written by Philip K.D!ck, so some similarities would be reasonable) thrown in a pinch of I, Robot, and come up with what I thought was an excellent film. It wasn't referring to any of those other films (other than Total Recall) as a way of getting cheap plot points or visual cues, but I thought, seemed part of a cohesive universe, ie something which sprang from the mind of Philip K. D!ck, not some D-Bag who, when afforded the creative options of an entire universe, had no better ability than to snatch ideas from what is considered to be the best Trek movie. Reference for the sake of reference is not homage, it is just self-indulgence, and shows a lack of creativity to be able to do anything else, and that is always disappointing to see
If anyone else liked or likes the film, is totally down to them. I don't know if the film was a success, or if it was even popular. From what many have said, Into Darkness is simply a shabby remake of WoK, without the stones to actually admit to being a remake...
system Lord Baal is dead
I'm not going to address your other points. I don't necessarily agree with all of them all, but they're definitely food for thought and I think your summation of Trek is pretty darn good.
That said, I think the quoted part isn't really true of this new movie.
*SPOILER FROM INTO DARKNESS*
Into Darkness has a terrorist attack and kill several people, among them someone Kirk loves. Kirk then accepts orders to go on an assassination mission to kill this terrorist. Spock opposes this emphatically and feels it is not what evolved creatures do. Kirk ignores him and goes on the mission anyway.
Later, Kirk has a change of heart, disobeys orders and captures the terrorist so he can come back to Earth and get a fair trial. This is a man Kirk hates passionately and wants dead but he faces those demons and chooses to give this man he hates a trial.
*END SPOILER*
I'm not sure how you think that's proudly not exploring ethics and tolerance.
I could also name a few other similar themes that are explored in the new movie that deal with ethics.
I concede that very little time was spent exploring these notions, but honestly... how much time was spent exploring these notions in Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, or The Final Frontier? Honestly, the action/moral ratio in Into Darkness is about equal to those movies.
As for your other points, like I said, food for thought. I appreciate the well-thought-out arguments. But for the "proudly NOT" exploring ethics bit, I respectfully disagree. That is arguably true of the 09 movie, but it's not true at all in this new one.
The expectation of the studio is that if you have a hit movie the sequel should make even more in it's debut weekend. Not less. Considering the cost put into the film and next weekend will see a precipitous drop off in revenue. Suits at Paramount will say it's a success, but it will be a different story behind the scene. If you look at movies like Iron Man you see the sequels out grossing the original. That is the definition of success in Hollywood.
To me from what little I saw on the 2009. It looks good for something fresh. And all new, and attempt to bring in new audience. As I gave it a try to watch years later.
However I don't like it for several reasons. The crew/cast is horrible. How they meshed and worked around each other. It was just horrible. Too many stupid parts in the movie. I cut the 2009 movie off when the ship didn't go into warp. And they asked if the parking brake was on. Seriously ?? How stupid can a movie get. Good thing I saw it on regular TV. So changing the channel for something better was easy.
Granted it could be entertainment for many. And that is what they go for. However for me even that wasn't cutting it.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
The Enterprise encountered some choppy air in North America over the weekend - namely strong holdover ticket sales for "Iron Man 3" and "The Great Gatsby" - but hit warp speed in foreign markets, resulting in stout overall results for "Star Trek Into Darkness." James T. Kirk and crew were No. 1 at movie theaters in the United States and Canada, taking in about $70.6 million over the weekend, for a total since opening on Imax screens on Wednesday of $84.1 million.
That total was on the low end of expectations; box-office analysts had predicted $80 million to $100 million for the movie's opening stretch. But "Star Trek Into Darkness," which cost Paramount and Skydance about $190 million to make, is on track to double the overseas total of "Star Trek," the film's 2009 franchise predecessor, which was a bit of an international dud. Audiences in North America gave the well-reviewed "Star Trek Into Darkness" an A score in exit polls, boding well for word of mouth - although the multiplex competition ahead is steep.
How To Train Your Dragon opened fairly low, and people were quick to mark it off as a failure. However, due to extremely good word-of-mouth, the film retained #1 in the box office for several consecutive weeks as a sleeper hit, which is entirely rare nowadays.
The point is, it's not logical to evalulate it's overall success based solely on the opening weekend
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
What in the bejeebus are you on about? This isn't my logic, it's the openly stated goal of JJ Abrams, in the promotional interviews he's given before both films released - he wanted to make Trek for people who weren't interested in high-minded cerebral stuff, just as he wasn't as a younger guy when he saw Trek and couldn't get into it.
Having action doesn't mean you can't have anything else; people have already pointed out that TOS was much more actiony than TNG, and that's not in dispute, neither is it inherently negative. The issue is that the action in the new Trek films is not being used to complement or disguise the underlying message or themes, it IS the theme. The movies after TMP used a more mass-market framework to tell their stories, but the focus was still the stories and the themes within; revenge, self-doubt, environmentalism, fear of the future and the unknown, setting aside old prejudices, whether might makes right, etc etc etc.
The previous Trek movies, and some episodes of the TV shows, used action in service of plot. The Abrams Trek movies use plot as a framework to place action scenes within.
We are PWE. Your forums and game accounts will be added to our own. Your community will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
During Star Trek Into Darkness Robocop orders Captain Kirk to fire SEVENTY TWO PEOPLEPEDOES AT THE KLINGON HOMEWORLD!
Seriously folks. That's about as amazing and awesome as you can get. The rest of the film only needs to live up to one sixteenth of THAT awesome to be a kick butt film.
Peoplepedoes. /done
I think he helped revitalize the franchise which had been meekly winding down.
- DS9 ended in very late 90s.
- VOY ended in 2000 or 2001 (not exactly a favored ST series for me).
- The TNG crew's last movie, Nemesis (2002), was a letdown. A bad swan song for Picard and crew.
- The controversial show to the ST fanbase, ENT, went from 2001-2005, and ended on a very bad note.
In short, the 2000's had not been very good for the franchise. When the TV shows faded away, ENT getting killed off, and the last ST movie had been from 2002, it seemed like Star Trek was going to go away for a while like it did with the end of TOS. That mine had been exhausted.
Enter JJ Abrams Star Trek from 2009. Good movie with serious nods to the originals. Having Leonard Nimoy aboard, who was retired at the time and did not want anything to do with ST movies for many, many years, brought some franchise legitimacy.
ST 2009 was done in its own new way. Again good movie and I was happy to see it.
I didn't even mind it going back to a TOS "timeframe" (alternate though), and giving it that modern touch with today's technology.
What I did mind was rehashing the original characters. It didn't really need to do that. JJ could have had his own originally made characters and we wouldn't be hear flaming about depictions of well known and popular TOS characters. I also didn't like the whole Romulus going kaput, which even we in STO felt with the game's release. For some reason, Romulus and Vulcan going poof pissed me off.
I mean... do we REALLY need to see the original characters redone? Not me.
For me, the new movies are good movies and good entertainment. But they take enough liberties for me to categorize it as separate altogether. They DID reinvigorate the franchise though.
And some last minute swipes!
- Constitution Refit is STILL better looking than the JJ Enterprise :cool:
- Wrath of Khan is STILL the best Star Trek movie
(to those that think they know the original series and say this isnt anything like the original, rewatch the original ...or actually watch it for the first time)
Cast was good, plot was good, twists were good, effects were good, JJ saying there was less lense flare and actually lived up to that was good (there is way more in the 2009 compared to this one) Action was good, those certain moments of almost on the edge of seat scenes were good
the one and only issue and its not really an issue, it was just misplacement...spock yelling kahn would have been better served as he was chasing him down in the streets of san fran, not in the engineering room, and it would have actually sealed the scene fully if done that way.
But overall....im just angry that I have to wait another more than likely 3 plus years for another trek, by that point the cast will have aged properly to the original cast members movie time frame....
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=686651
Peoplepedoes FTW!
The odd age discrepancey between the main characters.
At the begining on TOS Sulu was already a department head, as he was shown to go to department head meetings with Scotty and Mcoy, infact in one of the earlier episodes he was a also a Mathmetician. He should have been a junior officer at least on the Enterprise, not a complete noob.
Why is the bridge of the Enterprise more advanced than the ones in the series and yet the engine room is almost steam power.
Also on Simon Pegg's Scottish accent, James Doohans wasn't brilliant.
Giving somebody with no command experience (Kirk) the command of an important ship for whatever reason is pretty stupid, a promotiom yes, command of a starship no.
I am a TOS Fan, and I can believe that Kirk was very much like he was in the film as a young man, I don't think he would have been really suitable for Captains rank at that age.
In regards to Sulu I think you are refering to "Where No Man Has Gone Before." In that episode Sulu was the staff physicist or something like that but as the series got picked up they moved the part to Helmsman.....he was a LT during the series and got promoted to LCDR before TMP and CDR by WOK.
I like that the engine room looks drasticly different than the other parts of the ship. I served in the US Navy for 11 years and can tell you thats true...though they dont look like budweiser plants.
The guy just saved the planet...you think all he deserved was a promotion. However they address this in STID
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I, by far, value the original dimension far greater than I do this new one. I think the Ideas Abrams put into the new movies are interesting but still, this time travel ordeal of Spock's has completely altered the branch off universe out of some of the major parts that made Star Trek TOS what it was. Besides the enormous differences, now that this new story line is created, do you think they'll ever create another generation in the original Universe?
"Star Trek: Rubicon" Season 1, Season 2 A new era, a new time, a new crew, a new ship, a new mission...
"I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment because it will never come again."- Jean-Luc Picard