And what if the following movie states that Section 31 is destroyed, never to be seen again? Or what if it is simply never mentioned again, as the intention was to have it destroyed here? What then?
If the next movie for some reason states that Section 31 was destroyed, then it was destroyed, but until then there is no reason to think it was. Unless, again, you think Section 31 consists entirely of 10 guys in a facility on Earth and the handful of crew on the Vengeance.
Starfleet's primary focus is exploration. If we happened to find hostile aliens in space, where do you think weapons would be mounted first? On a NASA spacecraft, even though NASA is not a "military organization"
And in TNG they fixed this, Picard himself stating "Starfleet is not a military organization" - (Peak Performance (TNG)), even though they've used phasers and photon torpedoes. Just because you use military rank structure, doesn't mean your sole purpose is combat.
What I see is the intention and meaning behind the story, not the little details everyone insists on picking apart.
I think you're projecting your hatred of the military far too much onto Gene's general idealism. Where is the Federation Navy then, that is actually responsible for the military defense of the Federation? Oh, right, it doesn't exist.
And Starfleet ships aren't exactly lightly armed for defensive purposes. Even in TOS and TNG, which were directly influenced by Gene, the peaceful explorers of Starfleet were still fitted with enough firepower and weapons to go toe to toe with the dedicated warships of other powers.
I didn't say Starfleets sole purpose was combat, it is however one of their major functions when the Federation is under threat, so trying to pretend that they're just a bunch of interstellar cruiseliner with weapons bolted on for decoration is silly.
And dialog... there was the death scene, which again was a nod, not a ripoff (and again, how can a series ripoff itself?) ... quote me a single "lifted line" that wasn't in that single scene, cuz I literally can't think of any.
lol, what? The entire death scene was ripped straight from TWOK, just with the roles reversed. That's not a 'nod', that's "we have no ideas so we'll just copy stuff that was all ready done, and done much better to boot."
Star Trek is the most popular it's been in decades. It's gaining fans of the originals on Netflix, it has two successful movies, a successful MMO, and two very popular campaigns going on to get two different shows picked up by Netflix. There are far more Star Trek fans today than there were 10 years ago.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "dying".
all of that is a matter of debate you say better then it has ever been where is a new show that is not a mini series based on a book ?
other then this mmos what was going on for star trek in between the first and second JJ movies?
where is a new line of merchandise that is not tied only to the new movie that will end up in the local Dollar Tree few months after movie is old and done and don't come from online shopping only
you say a successful MMO that is up for debate
you say 2 successful new movies I say one hit wonders
all of that is a matter of debate you say better then it has ever been where is a new show that is not a mini series based on a book ?
other then this mmos what was going on for star trek in between the first and second JJ movies?
where is a new line of merchandise that is not tied only to the new movie that will end up in the local Dollar Tree few months after movie is old and done and don't come from online shopping only
you say a successful MMO that is up for debate
you say 2 successful new movies I say one hit wonders
A franchise with two successful movies can't - by definition - be considered a one hit wonder. Especially since a third movie has already been approved for production.
And I didn't say better. That's an opinion. I just said I don't understand how you define "dying" when the franchise is far more popular in all respects than it was 10 years ago. It might not be where it was, say, 20 years ago, but it's definitely more popular than it was 10 years ago. That's not opinion. It's academic.
So if the franchise - including the prime timeline stuff - is more popular than it was 10 years ago, I just don't understand what you mean by "dying."
If the next movie for some reason states that Section 31 was destroyed, then it was destroyed, but until then there is no reason to think it was. Unless, again, you think Section 31 consists entirely of 10 guys in a facility on Earth and the handful of crew on the Vengeance.
Its not about what I think the mechanics of an organization is. You seem to forget this is film, a medium of storytelling. All that matters is what is being conveyed, and the dialog said "it was a secret organization called Section 31" not "it was one of many facilities" which says to me, from the standpoint of storytelling, that it was destroyed. And by that fact a lone, there is no reason to see it again, especially when you consider, maybe not everyone who watches this movie knows the ins and outs of this Trek-breaking organization, and as far as they know "oh, its gone"
I think you're projecting your hatred of the military far too much onto Gene's general idealism. Where is the Federation Navy then, that is actually responsible for the military defense of the Federation? Oh, right, it doesn't exist.
Who said hatred of military? I was quoting a direct quote from a Star Trek episode. Though I notice you didn't comment on that. Now, this does lead to a contradiction, as Starfleet is referred to as "the military" on Wrath of Khan. Regardless, whether it is military or defensive, or pure exploration, there is such a thing as being TOO militaristic.
And Starfleet ships aren't exactly lightly armed for defensive purposes. Even in TOS and TNG, which were directly influenced by Gene, the peaceful explorers of Starfleet were still fitted with enough firepower and weapons to go toe to toe with the dedicated warships of other powers.
I didn't say Starfleets sole purpose was combat, it is however one of their major functions when the Federation is under threat, so trying to pretend that they're just a bunch of interstellar cruiseliner with weapons bolted on for decoration is silly.
You assume an awful lot with things I never said. I didn't say they shouldn't have ANY military aspects, I said they were TOO militaristic, as in they had been changed to the point that their sole purpose was military defense, and exploration had been all but lost.
lol, what? The entire death scene was ripped straight from TWOK, just with the roles reversed. That's not a 'nod', that's "we have no ideas so we'll just copy stuff that was all ready done, and done much better to boot."
If you say so. I found it a nice reversal, and if there wasn't the switched dialog, there would have been no point to it at all. And, for the last time, you can't "STEAL" from your own franchise. If Star Wars used the Wrath of Khan death scene, then yes, it would have been stealing. But, this is not the case.
And, as I thought, you are referring to a single scene, and basing an entire 2-hour movie on that one part.
*sigh* and nowhere in any of these have I heard the haters mentioning the story at all. Its all been nitpicks on lines of dialog, setpieces, scenes, situations. I feel as if every one of them went to this movie with a notepad specifically to find things to nitpick, rather than actually WATCHING it.
Prove me wrong.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
A franchise with two successful movies can't - by definition - be considered a one hit wonder. Especially since a third movie has already been approved for production.
And I didn't say better. That's an opinion. I just said I don't understand how you define "dying" when the franchise is far more popular in all respects than it was 10 years ago. It might not be where it was, say, 20 years ago, but it's definitely more popular than it was 10 years ago. That's not opinion. It's academic.
So if the franchise - including the prime timeline stuff - is more popular than it was 10 years ago, I just don't understand what you mean by "dying."
got news for ya the last 2 movies was approved after the first one came out but will it be JJ that dose the last one now that he has the ip he loves :eek:
and also his movies was always mint to be a trilogy
got news for ya the last 2 movies was approved after the first one came out but will it be JJ that dose the last one now that he has the one that he loves :eek:
I don't see this as any reason to say the new films have ruined Star Trek, especially when you consider Star Trek was seemingly being phased out by Paramount before the 2009 movie happened. So, JJ breathed life into a franchise that desperately needed some, and gave us two movies that were a lot of fun (something the franchise has been lacking for the last decade).
So, kinda hard to kill something that was already dying, and its starting to reach a whole new audience.
And before you say "I never said that" I'm referring to the subject of this thread, along with things you said.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
lol, what? The entire death scene was ripped straight from TWOK, just with the roles reversed. That's not a 'nod', that's "we have no ideas so we'll just copy stuff that was all ready done, and done much better to boot."
Whether or not that one scene was a rip off or a nod is really a matter of opinion, and you certainly have a right to your opinion on that. While I liked the scene (based largely on the explanation in the 09 novelization about the timeline trying to repair itself), I can totally appreciate why you wouldn't like it.
But to say Into Darkness is a remake of Wrath of Khan is really not accurate. The story shares no similarities. The plot shares no similarities. There is one major shared scene and some shared characters. That's it. The stories are not even remotely the same.
And while we're on the subject of remakes, it should again be noted that Wrath of Khan was essentially a remake of The Motion Picture. While filming Wrath of Khan, the people working on it considered it a reboot. There are far more plot and theme similarities between Wrath of Khan and The Motion Picture than there are between Into Darkness and Wrath of Khan.
Wrath of Khan is the same basic story as TMP, but with more explosions and a revenge driven villain... which, ironically, is exactly what most people are complaining about with Into Darkness.
I don't see this as any reason to say the new films have ruined Star Trek, especially when you consider Star Trek was seemingly being phased out by Paramount before the 2009 movie happened. So, JJ breathed life into a franchise that desperately needed some, and gave us two movies that were a lot of fun (something the franchise has been lacking for the last decade).
So, kinda hard to kill something that was already dying, and its starting to reach a whole new audience.
And before you say "I never said that" I'm referring to the subject of this thread, along with things you said.
again new life I don't see it I see movies that are a hit for few weeks then nothing for 4 years
again new life I don't see it I see movies that are a hit for few weeks then nothing for 4 years
Are you saying you don't consider Star Trek "alive" unless there's a new TV series?
I'm not arguing that one way or the other, by the way. I'm just honestly trying to define what you mean by "dying." I genuinely don't understand. By "dying" do you mean you just don't like it?
and both died the same way saving the ship from death
In Wrath of Khan, Kirk was an admiral who wanted the Enterprise back so he used a threat to the Federation to take the command of the ship. In the process of doing this, the former Captain was demoted to First Officer and at the end, the First Officer sacrificed his own life to save the ship.
In The Motion Picture, Kirk was an admiral who wanted the Enterprise back so he used a threat to the Federation to take the command of the ship. In the process of doing this, the former Captain was demoted to First Officer and at the end, the First Officer sacrificed his own life to save the ship.
I don't understand why the Abrams movie is a rip-off because of one scene but Wrath of Khan isn't a rip-off, even though it used far more than one scene... it used the entire plot of the movie before it.
Are you saying you don't consider Star Trek "alive" unless there's a new TV series?
I'm not arguing that one way or the other, by the way. I'm just honestly trying to define what you mean by "dying." I genuinely don't understand. By "dying" do you mean you just don't like it?
yes I am but not only that their is really no new merchandise being put out that don't come from JJ movies for the time the movies are in the box office then it end up at the Dollar Tree aka the bargain bin
In Wrath of Khan, Kirk was an admiral who wanted the Enterprise back so he used a threat to the Federation to take the command of the ship. In the process of doing this, the former Captain was demoted to First Officer and at the end, the First Officer sacrificed his own life to save the ship.
In The Motion Picture, Kirk was an admiral who wanted the Enterprise back so he used a threat to the Federation to take the command of the ship. In the process of doing this, the former Captain was demoted to First Officer and at the end, the First Officer sacrificed his own life to save the ship.
what dose any of this got to do with what I asked?
Its not about what I think the mechanics of an organization is. You seem to forget this is film, a medium of storytelling. All that matters is what is being conveyed, and the dialog said "it was a secret organization called Section 31" not "it was one of many facilities" which says to me, from the standpoint of storytelling, that it was destroyed. And by that fact a lone, there is no reason to see it again, especially when you consider, maybe not everyone who watches this movie knows the ins and outs of this Trek-breaking organization, and as far as they know "oh, its gone"
1. He said it was a Section 31 facility, and even if we assume it was the HQ or something, still doesn't suggest the bombing wiped it out. It's like saying the US Military disappeared after the attack on the Pentagon.
2. People who are watching the movie and not familiar with Trek probably don't share you're view that Starships shouldn't be armed with anything but recordings of "Kumbaya My Lord" in multiple languages.
Who said hatred of military? I was quoting a direct quote from a Star Trek episode. Though I notice you didn't comment on that. Now, this does lead to a contradiction, as Starfleet is referred to as "the military" on Wrath of Khan. Regardless, whether it is military or defensive, or pure exploration, there is such a thing as being TOO militaristic.
You're contention has been that Admiral Marcus was the villain simply because he was "military", not because he was, you know, a murderous war-mongering traitor. Unless you think they mean the same thing.
You assume an awful lot with things I never said. I didn't say they shouldn't have ANY military aspects, I said they were TOO militaristic, as in they had been changed to the point that their sole purpose was military defense, and exploration had been all but lost.
You should hate the entire setting then, since from first principles it is far more militaristic than TOS ever was, with everything being bigger and having lots more guns due to the Kelvin incident.
And, you're ignoring the fact that they are under threat, first the Narada and now Marcus makes reference to several Klingon attacks on their ships and the Federation being on the brink of war. So is Starfleet responsible for defending the Federation or not? If so, it makes perfect sense that exploration is currently taking a back seat in the face of immediate threats. There isn't a problem with Starfleet being too militaristic, it's doing it's job.
I suppose you enjoyed the bit in Insurrection where Picard complains about having to delay an archaeological expedition while the Federation is engaged in a desperate war for it's very survival?
*sigh* and nowhere in any of these have I heard the haters mentioning the story at all. Its all been nitpicks on lines of dialog, setpieces, scenes, situations. I feel as if every one of them went to this movie with a notepad specifically to find things to nitpick, rather than actually WATCHING it.
Prove me wrong.
Okay, you want a critique of the story?
Kirk still doesn't bother to think, and it's still treated as a virtue. I actually had hope at the beginning when Pike was chewing him out that it would lead to some development on his part, but nope, 10 minutes later Pike is dead and it's , "Help us Kirk! Only your TRIBBLE the rules and charge blindly ahead trusting in the universe to accommodate you" ways can save us!
Kirk's decision to track down Khan instead of firing the torpedoes doesn't actually represent a real choice. I mean seriously, what Kirk was essentially told to do was carpet bomb(72 torpedoes and no fixed location does not a surgical strike make) the capital world of a neighboring power with whom the Federation all ready had tense relations. And we're supposed to believe that deciding to go get Khan instead was some profound moment of maturity?
It's a problem with a lot of the movie, Abrams trying to shove his 'War on Terror' allegory (in this case 'drones') into it without actually paying much attention to how it fits into the plot. They treat it like it's a 'kill the terrorist outright or bring him in for trial' issue, when it's really a 'kill a terrorist and lots of innocent people(there are clearly buildings and stuff around, obviously that district is not actually devoid of all other life) and start a war, or bring him in for trial' choice.
The big battle being over Earth is a good example for this. It was completely unneccessary, and creates a ton of plotholes (nobody notices two Starfleet ships battling it out over the moon, the Vengeance 'jams' the Enterprise...except for the one phone line to New Vulcan, the Enterprise 'falls' from the moon to Earth in about 2 secods), and it was all basically so that JJ could cram his pseudo-9/11 scene into the plot by showing the Vengeance plowing through the skyline of San Francisco, just in case we had forgotten that he was trying to do a War on Terror allegory.
The incessant callbacks to TOS were overdone. It's a reboot, in an alternate timeline, stick with that instead of trying to milk fond memories of TOS.
They didn't need to keep going out of their way to keep reminding us of the Wrath of Khan, we get it, Khan is the villain, do your own thing with him. But nope, he's defeated in pretty much the exact same way he was in Wrath of Khan (we even get to see New Spock talk to Old Spock to find out how), and then they nearly carbon copy the death scene from Wrath of Khan, just with the roles reversed.
Which kind of goes back to the thing about Kirk not developing. Wrath of Khan was all about Kirk getting kicked in the teeth and getting a rather painful lesson that being brash and charging ahead doesn't always get you a free pass. This movie is just the opposite, Kirk learns that that's exactly the way to do things because rules, regulations, discipline, all that kind of stuff is only for bureaucrats and insane rogue Admirals. The death scene just makes this so much worse. They pull it straight from TWOK, where Kirk learns that he can't always cheat death by losing his best friend...and in this one Spock learns that he needs to stop being a pantywaist "thinker" and just start smashing things.
1. He said it was a Section 31 facility, and even if we assume it was the HQ or something, still doesn't suggest the bombing wiped it out. It's like saying the US Military disappeared after the attack on the Pentagon.
2. People who are watching the movie and not familiar with Trek probably don't share you're view that Starships shouldn't be armed with anything but recordings of "Kumbaya My Lord" in multiple languages.
Again, someone either doesn't read what I say, or picks out one thing and totally misinterprets it. I NEVER said they weren't, or shouldn't, be armed. So wherever you're getting this "Kumbaya My Lord" thing,... I have no idea. It sounds more and more like you guys are trying desperately to keep Section 31 around, when it never should have existed in the first place.
You're contention has been that Admiral Marcus was the villain simply because he was "military", not because he was, you know, a murderous war-mongering traitor. Unless you think they mean the same thing.
Star Trek has always been about symbolism and relevant social commentary. Admiral Marcus is an illustration of the Admiral who take things too far, trying to provoke a war because of his delusional need for it.
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. I NEVER said the military was bad. I simply said, he made starfleet more militarily-focused than it should be. There needs to be a balance between peaceful exploration and defense, and he tipped that scale way over. .... now, how are you going to twist my words this time?
You should hate the entire setting then, since from first principles it is far more militaristic than TOS ever was, with everything being bigger and having lots more guns due to the Kelvin incident.
And this is exactly what the movie tries to correct. The setting is merely the setting, and the story (meaning how it leads to its conclusion) is the illustration of "we need to fix these problems we caused". Further emphasized by the fact that the Enterprise never fires a single shot in the entire movie.
And, you're ignoring the fact that they are under threat, first the Narada and now Marcus makes reference to several Klingon attacks on their ships and the Federation being on the brink of war. So is Starfleet responsible for defending the Federation or not? If so, it makes perfect sense that exploration is currently taking a back seat in the face of immediate threats. There isn't a problem with Starfleet being too militaristic, it's doing it's job.
There is a difference between defending your citizens, and provoking a war just because you think its inevitable. Even so, the impending war was on TOS too. The POINT was the message the episode was trying to convey, that war is not the only option. And now that Admiral Marcus is out of the way, I think the stage is set for the third film to be exactly that, a kind of movie-length version of "Errand of Mercy"
I suppose you enjoyed the bit in Insurrection where Picard complains about having to delay an archaeological expedition while the Federation is engaged in a desperate war for it's very survival?
....he was complaining about the delay because it would put them in the middle of the monsoon season, and it wasn't because of the war, it was because they were ordered to mediate some minor territorial dispute. Bickering politicians... you know, those things that make life unbearable for the rest of us? Would you rather do that, or study an ancient civilization?
Okay, you want a critique of the story?
Kirk still doesn't bother to think, and it's still treated as a virtue. I actually had hope at the beginning when Pike was chewing him out that it would lead to some development on his part, but nope, 10 minutes later Pike is dead and it's , "Help us Kirk! Only your TRIBBLE the rules and charge blindly ahead trusting in the universe to accommodate you" ways can save us!
Actually, I felt his reckless nature was treated as a bad thing, as he was cocky in that he had never faced a crew/life threatening crisis. As such, he grows into a more responsible man, after learning the true cost of sitting in the big chair. Yes, this is a concept from Wrath of Khan, but was not fully touched on, and was told from the standpoint of an old man trying to re-capture his past, rather than a young undisciplined man learning what it means to be a responsible leader.
Kirk's decision to track down Khan instead of firing the torpedoes doesn't actually represent a real choice. I mean seriously, what Kirk was essentially told to do was carpet bomb(72 torpedoes and no fixed location does not a surgical strike make) the capital world of a neighboring power with whom the Federation all ready had tense relations. And we're supposed to believe that deciding to go get Khan instead was some profound moment of maturity?
No, but it was a step in the right direction. He didn't learn yet, he was more going off advice he was given and saying "hmm, maybe you're right, we'll try it your way and see what happens". A piece in the puzzle that begins to influence his final conclusion, but he still had a lot to overcome first.
This is the middle of the movie. Nowhere NEAR the conclusion yet. You do know of the three act narrative, right?
It's a problem with a lot of the movie, Abrams trying to shove his 'War on Terror' allegory (in this case 'drones') into it without actually paying much attention to how it fits into the plot. They treat it like it's a 'kill the terrorist outright or bring him in for trial' issue, when it's really a 'kill a terrorist and lots of innocent people(there are clearly buildings and stuff around, obviously that district is not actually devoid of all other life) and start a war, or bring him in for trial' choice.
If by "war on terror" you are referring to Khan, you do realize they take the time to see his side of the story, and see who the real enemy is, right? That is not to say Khan doesn't show his true colors later, but he's at least given a chance. It is, by no means, an "America is good, Aarabs are bad" analogy, because we see quite clearly that our own leadership was every bit as guilty as those we were ordered to stop.
As for "shoving his (insert social commentary here) into it" thing, Star Trek has done that blatantly since it first started. The whole point was to tell a relevant message that everyone would understand, while hiding it behind alien makeup or names that couldn't be identified specifically as "americans", "russians", "whites", "blacks", "Christians", "Muslims" take your pick.
The big battle being over Earth is a good example for this. It was completely unneccessary, and creates a ton of plotholes (nobody notices two Starfleet ships battling it out over the moon, the Vengeance 'jams' the Enterprise...except for the one phone line to New Vulcan, the Enterprise 'falls' from the moon to Earth in about 2 secods), and it was all basically so that JJ could cram his pseudo-9/11 scene into the plot by showing the Vengeance plowing through the skyline of San Francisco, just in case we had forgotten that he was trying to do a War on Terror allegory.
"Big Battle" ... you call that a big battle? That was a battle along the lines of the two shots fired on "Search for Spock". Yes, the fall was an odd technical fallacy, but created an exciting action scene that didn't involve people shooting each other. Sure, thats what caused it, but the "lets kill this guy" was not the focus, so it was a positive in my book.
pseudo 9/11 scene.... oh boy, that seems more like TRYING to find something that might not necessarily be the case. I didn't pick up 9/11 out of that at all, and I was glued to the TV in tears on the day it happened. But then, I guess the concept of "craft crashing into structure" is now a copyrightable symbol. I suppose plowing over Alcatraz and into the water first makes no difference at all.
Add to that there being no organized coordinated attack plan, no hostages, no religious "kill the infadel", and the fact that his target was specifically the military headquarters, not the civilians, like 9/11 was intended to be.
Its a situation where "hmm, could possibly find some similarity" turns into "OH MY GOD, ITS BLATANT RIPOFF". But hey, if you want to find symbolism, go right ahead. Its STAR TREK. The ENTIRE FRANCHISE has been about symbolism and social commentary... why should this movie be any different?
The incessant callbacks to TOS were overdone. It's a reboot, in an alternate timeline, stick with that instead of trying to milk fond memories of TOS.
People have been begging for TOS memories for the last 40 years, and now that we get some... its suddenly a bad thing. You CAN'T have a reboot, without callbacks to the original. Yet every single nod or mention, you people get insulted...
They didn't need to keep going out of their way to keep reminding us of the Wrath of Khan, we get it, Khan is the villain, do your own thing with him. But nope, he's defeated in pretty much the exact same way he was in Wrath of Khan (we even get to see New Spock talk to Old Spock to find out how), and then they nearly carbon copy the death scene from Wrath of Khan, just with the roles reversed.
Wait a second... how is that defeated in the same way? In "Space Seed", it was someone switching sides, and weaker kirk getting over Khan's strength by knowing his ship a little better (Khan didn't see the metal pipe coming).
In Wrath of Khan, he was bluffed into thinking Enterprise was more crippled than it really was. So they limped into a nebula to even up the odds, but nearly failing at that. Only thing that saved their lives was utilizing the three-dimensional battlefield of space that Khan wasn't as experienced with, thinking more along the lines of 20th Century 2-dimensional sea-warfare.
In Into Darkness, he was bluffed into thinking his crew was on board the torpedoes. The ONLY similarity is using a bluff. Oh, that is SO copyrightable, right? So Wrath of Khan ripped off "Corbomite Maneuver" then? What about "Deadly Years", using the same Corbomite bluff. Picard and Sisko, and even Janeway... in fact ALL Star Trek captains used the bluff tactic on numerous occasions. Yet why, in this one instance, is it suddenly a rip-off?
Which kind of goes back to the thing about Kirk not developing. Wrath of Khan was all about Kirk getting kicked in the teeth and getting a rather painful lesson that being brash and charging ahead doesn't always get you a free pass. This movie is just the opposite, Kirk learns that that's exactly the way to do things because rules, regulations, discipline, all that kind of stuff is only for bureaucrats and insane rogue Admirals. The death scene just makes this so much worse. They pull it straight from TWOK, where Kirk learns that he can't always cheat death by losing his best friend...and in this one Spock learns that he needs to stop being a pantywaist "thinker" and just start smashing things.
Every bit of Kirk's rash actions bites him in the TRIBBLE and almost gets his entire crew killed. The only choice he makes that leads to anything positive is the choice of self-sacrifice.
This "start smashing things" was not the solution. While he did bring down Khan, turning into an emotional wreck was not the answer. But in the end, what Spock needed to learn is that sometimes he needs to rely on his Human instincts, rather than focusing squarely on Vulcan logic.
Spock is a conflicted character of two worlds. Yet this is NEVER touched on in TOS. Oh its mentioned briefly from time to time, but was not spelled out except in "Enemy Within" which could have blossomed into something extraordinary, if they had taken the opportunity. Instead, we get probably the most stoic Vulcan of the franchise, until we meet Tuvok. And even then, Tuvok lets his emotions out once in a while, and he is FULLY Vulcan (and I am not even getting into T'Pol)
Spock had endless story potential that just never happened. Now we get to see the conflict within him.
... oh wait, but once again, thats a bad thing, right? Exploring new territory in a character? I thought you were against just sticking with TOS stuff.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
Are you saying you don't consider Star Trek "alive" unless there's a new TV series?
I'm not arguing that one way or the other, by the way. I'm just honestly trying to define what you mean by "dying." I genuinely don't understand. By "dying" do you mean you just don't like it?
I would have to say yes. The new movies are obviously good sci fi movies (I say sci-fi and not Star Trek since it has nothing to do with Star Trek) but they are short lived. And since the content was non-existent then Star Trek is actually on life-support. If it weren't for STO it would be technically dead.
I would have to say yes. The new movies are obviously good sci fi movies (I say sci-fi and not Star Trek since it has nothing to do with Star Trek) but they are short lived. And since the content was non-existent then Star Trek is actually on life-support. If it weren't for STO it would be technically dead.
STO wouldn't even BE here if it weren't for the 2009 Star Trek film. Not just talking in the storyline aspect, though the events of Hobus and Romulus' destruction play a huge part in the overall STO narrative.
Before 2009, Star Trek was all but officially dead. Enterprise was cancelled in 2005, leaving nothing but fan production for four years. Paramount even admitted they had no interest in Star Trek during that time.
For those who feel JJ killed Star Trek.... what was in JJ's films that wasn't already in previous films? We had action and explosions (Wrath, Spock, Country, Contact, Nemesis), we had complete visual redesigns of the ship (Motion Picture, Frontier, First Contact), we had comedic moments carrying the movie (Voyage Home primarily, Final Frontier trying too hard).... so... what was it?
I submit that JJ Star Trek was probably the best movie reboot of an established franchise yet. Now, one could argue Batman Begins a bit superior, and I would follow that to a certain degree too. The only better sci-fi reboot was Battlestar Galactica... and even that one got hate for reasons I can only describe as nitpicking.
I would have to say yes. The new movies are obviously good sci fi movies (I say sci-fi and not Star Trek since it has nothing to do with Star Trek) but they are short lived. And since the content was non-existent then Star Trek is actually on life-support. If it weren't for STO it would be technically dead.
Everything that matters is the same. The characters are still there (even that was unnecessary. TNG was every bit as Star Trek as TOS was). The setting (federation, klingons, romulans, starships) is all there. The opportunity for relevant social commentary is still there. The only thing that has changed is a series of events, and some visuals. When too much emphasis is placed on the design of the bridge, the layout of the ship, and the speed at which a ship travels... you officially miss every single important thing about the franchise.
Up to that point Star Trek was dead, and Paramount was shedding no tears. We have new life in the franchise, and the ability to appeal to a new generation of fans, without dusting off old VHS tapes and DVD's. And due to the nature of this reboot, ALL of the previous half-century of content is still relevant. Nothing has been erased, shamed, shunned, insulted, abandoned, and this is the ONLY franchise that has done so.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
I would have to say yes. The new movies are obviously good sci fi movies (I say sci-fi and not Star Trek since it has nothing to do with Star Trek) but they are short lived. And since the content was non-existent then Star Trek is actually on life-support. If it weren't for STO it would be technically dead.
If it weren't for the 09 film, STO would be dead. I personally know several people who had long since stopped playing STO but decided to give it another shot after the latest movie, just because they were once again in a Trek mood. I even have 2 friends who didn't like the movie but it was enough to get them to boot up STO again. I seriously doubt that's an anomaly.
I disagree with the ideat that these movies are short lived. They've already been popular for longer than Enterprise lasted, and we know we're getting at least one more movie out of it. Maybe more. That's at least a decade of popularity. I'm not sure what you consider short-lived, but they've already been popular enough to negate claims that they're short-lived.
But even if I accept your proposition that they're short-lived... even if we never get another Star Trek movie with this cast... it has already revitalized the franchise more than Enterprise did. It has already revitalized it more than Nemesis did. It has already revitalized it more than Insurrection did.
If you think Trek is dying, that's fine. But if that's true (and I don't think it is), these movies have undeniably slowed that death... they most certainly have not caused it.
If it weren't for the 09 film, STO would be dead. I personally know several people who had long since stopped playing STO but decided to give it another shot after the latest movie. I seriously doubt that's an anomaly.
f2p keep sto going not a JJ movie
ppl who buy life time keep sto going not a jj movie
ppl that still sub keep sto going not a jj movie
lockbox ship that ppl spend 500$ trying to get one but dont keep sto going not a jj movie
So even though the new movies were popular, you honestly are suggesting people didn't boot up STO again because of these movies?
That's exactly what I did. I hadn't played for a very long time, but I started back a few months ago, purely because Into Darkness caused me to want to step back into that world again.
So even though the new movies were popular, you honestly are suggesting people didn't boot up STO again because of these movies?
That's exactly what I did. I hadn't played for a very long time, but I started back a few months ago, purely because Into Darkness caused me to want to step back into that world again.
well one could say LoR what really made some log in that had not in a while more then a jj movie not saying it didnt have a small impact
STO wouldn't even BE here if it weren't for the 2009 Star Trek film. Not just talking in the storyline aspect, though the events of Hobus and Romulus' destruction play a huge part in the overall STO narrative.
sto was in in development long before JJ movies was a gleam in his eye
their was going to even be a romulus and dev had big plans for it to then JJ happend
sto was in in development long before JJ movies was a gleam in his eye
their was going to even be a romulus and dev had big plans for it to then JJ happend
And the project had been sabotaged and delayed up the wazzoo. It wasn't until the film was being made that Paramount finally decided "y'know what? Okay, we'll let this happen"
The whole point is, what was it about 2009 and Into Darkness that killed Star Trek, that hasn't already been done in previous trek films?
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
sto was in in development long before JJ movies was a gleam in his eye
their was going to even be a romulus and dev had big plans for it to then JJ happend
I get that you didn't like the new movies. Quite a few fans didn't like it, which is fine. We all have our own opinions about it and I'm not saying you're somehow wrong for not liking it. Your opinion is every bit as valid as anybody's.
But many, many Star Trek fans did like this movie. The movie did cause a resurgence in the love of Star Trek. The movie did put Star Trek back in the public's view.
Debating the quality of the movie is fine, but suggesting the movie didn't help the franchise - at least on some levels - is simply inaccurate, factually.
I get that you didn't like the new movies. Quite a few fans didn't like it, which is fine. We all have our own opinions about it and I'm not saying you're somehow wrong for not liking it. Your opinion is every bit as valid as anybody's.
But many, many Star Trek fans did like this movie. The movie did cause a resurgence in the love of Star Trek. The movie did put Star Trek back in the public's view.
Debating the quality of the movie is fine, but suggesting the movie didn't help the franchise - at least on some levels - is simply inaccurate, factually.
really to me they are not star trek but they are good star wars movies with star trek skin i give it that but this new life every one talks about i dont see it i see a hyper point that then dies down after a whlie imo and even gene soon thinks it works better as a tv show then a 2 hour blockbuster and not going to lie i want a tv show more then jj movies
really to me they are not star trek but they are good star wars movies with star trek skin i give it that but this new life every one talks about i dont see it i see a hyper point that then dies down after a whlie imo and even gene soon thinks it works better as a tv show then a 2 hour blockbuster and not going to lie i want a tv show more then jj movies
There's nothing wrong with that opinion. I'd love to see a new series too. I'm just saying I don't agree with the assertion that these movies are killing Star Trek. They've kept Star Trek in the public view for more years than Enterprise did, and that was a series. They've kept Star Trek in the public view for longer than Nemesis and Insurrection did.
Why aren't you saying Enterprise and Insurrection and Nemesis killed Star Trek? The reboot is the first Star Trek in a decade to actually cause a rise in Star Trek fans and yet it's the one people are claiming is "killing" Star Trek. That just makes no sense to me at all.
Again, I'm not debating whether or not it's good. I liked it. You didn't. Both of us are right. That's what's cool about opinions. We can both be right. But the "JJTrek is killing Star Trek" thing is simply not true. We haven't seen this much excitement for Star Trek in a very long time. And not just for these movies. Around the time the last movie's hype began, Netflix added every series. Do you think that was a coincidence? They were cashing in on the hype (which is great, IMO). Me and several of my friends started playing STO again because of these movies. How is that a bad things for Trek?
Comments
If the next movie for some reason states that Section 31 was destroyed, then it was destroyed, but until then there is no reason to think it was. Unless, again, you think Section 31 consists entirely of 10 guys in a facility on Earth and the handful of crew on the Vengeance.
I think you're projecting your hatred of the military far too much onto Gene's general idealism. Where is the Federation Navy then, that is actually responsible for the military defense of the Federation? Oh, right, it doesn't exist.
And Starfleet ships aren't exactly lightly armed for defensive purposes. Even in TOS and TNG, which were directly influenced by Gene, the peaceful explorers of Starfleet were still fitted with enough firepower and weapons to go toe to toe with the dedicated warships of other powers.
I didn't say Starfleets sole purpose was combat, it is however one of their major functions when the Federation is under threat, so trying to pretend that they're just a bunch of interstellar cruiseliner with weapons bolted on for decoration is silly.
lol, what? The entire death scene was ripped straight from TWOK, just with the roles reversed. That's not a 'nod', that's "we have no ideas so we'll just copy stuff that was all ready done, and done much better to boot."
all of that is a matter of debate you say better then it has ever been where is a new show that is not a mini series based on a book ?
other then this mmos what was going on for star trek in between the first and second JJ movies?
where is a new line of merchandise that is not tied only to the new movie that will end up in the local Dollar Tree few months after movie is old and done and don't come from online shopping only
you say a successful MMO that is up for debate
you say 2 successful new movies I say one hit wonders
system Lord Baal is dead
A franchise with two successful movies can't - by definition - be considered a one hit wonder. Especially since a third movie has already been approved for production.
And I didn't say better. That's an opinion. I just said I don't understand how you define "dying" when the franchise is far more popular in all respects than it was 10 years ago. It might not be where it was, say, 20 years ago, but it's definitely more popular than it was 10 years ago. That's not opinion. It's academic.
So if the franchise - including the prime timeline stuff - is more popular than it was 10 years ago, I just don't understand what you mean by "dying."
*sigh* and nowhere in any of these have I heard the haters mentioning the story at all. Its all been nitpicks on lines of dialog, setpieces, scenes, situations. I feel as if every one of them went to this movie with a notepad specifically to find things to nitpick, rather than actually WATCHING it.
Prove me wrong.
got news for ya the last 2 movies was approved after the first one came out but will it be JJ that dose the last one now that he has the ip he loves :eek:
and also his movies was always mint to be a trilogy
system Lord Baal is dead
I don't see this as any reason to say the new films have ruined Star Trek, especially when you consider Star Trek was seemingly being phased out by Paramount before the 2009 movie happened. So, JJ breathed life into a franchise that desperately needed some, and gave us two movies that were a lot of fun (something the franchise has been lacking for the last decade).
So, kinda hard to kill something that was already dying, and its starting to reach a whole new audience.
And before you say "I never said that" I'm referring to the subject of this thread, along with things you said.
Whether or not that one scene was a rip off or a nod is really a matter of opinion, and you certainly have a right to your opinion on that. While I liked the scene (based largely on the explanation in the 09 novelization about the timeline trying to repair itself), I can totally appreciate why you wouldn't like it.
But to say Into Darkness is a remake of Wrath of Khan is really not accurate. The story shares no similarities. The plot shares no similarities. There is one major shared scene and some shared characters. That's it. The stories are not even remotely the same.
And while we're on the subject of remakes, it should again be noted that Wrath of Khan was essentially a remake of The Motion Picture. While filming Wrath of Khan, the people working on it considered it a reboot. There are far more plot and theme similarities between Wrath of Khan and The Motion Picture than there are between Into Darkness and Wrath of Khan.
Wrath of Khan is the same basic story as TMP, but with more explosions and a revenge driven villain... which, ironically, is exactly what most people are complaining about with Into Darkness.
again new life I don't see it I see movies that are a hit for few weeks then nothing for 4 years
system Lord Baal is dead
Are you saying you don't consider Star Trek "alive" unless there's a new TV series?
I'm not arguing that one way or the other, by the way. I'm just honestly trying to define what you mean by "dying." I genuinely don't understand. By "dying" do you mean you just don't like it?
how did spock die in Wrath of Khan and from what?
in JJ movie how did kirk die and from what?
and both died the same way saving the ship from death
system Lord Baal is dead
In Wrath of Khan, Kirk was an admiral who wanted the Enterprise back so he used a threat to the Federation to take the command of the ship. In the process of doing this, the former Captain was demoted to First Officer and at the end, the First Officer sacrificed his own life to save the ship.
In The Motion Picture, Kirk was an admiral who wanted the Enterprise back so he used a threat to the Federation to take the command of the ship. In the process of doing this, the former Captain was demoted to First Officer and at the end, the First Officer sacrificed his own life to save the ship.
I don't understand why the Abrams movie is a rip-off because of one scene but Wrath of Khan isn't a rip-off, even though it used far more than one scene... it used the entire plot of the movie before it.
yes I am but not only that their is really no new merchandise being put out that don't come from JJ movies for the time the movies are in the box office then it end up at the Dollar Tree aka the bargain bin
system Lord Baal is dead
what dose any of this got to do with what I asked?
system Lord Baal is dead
You were suggesting Into Darkness was a rip-off because of that one scene.
I was showing you that Wrath of Khan didn't just have one scene in common with the move before it... it used the entire plot.
I don't understand why you consider one a rip-off but not the other.
well you got spock yelling khan like kirk did for no reason where in wok there was
system Lord Baal is dead
1. He said it was a Section 31 facility, and even if we assume it was the HQ or something, still doesn't suggest the bombing wiped it out. It's like saying the US Military disappeared after the attack on the Pentagon.
2. People who are watching the movie and not familiar with Trek probably don't share you're view that Starships shouldn't be armed with anything but recordings of "Kumbaya My Lord" in multiple languages.
You're contention has been that Admiral Marcus was the villain simply because he was "military", not because he was, you know, a murderous war-mongering traitor. Unless you think they mean the same thing.
You should hate the entire setting then, since from first principles it is far more militaristic than TOS ever was, with everything being bigger and having lots more guns due to the Kelvin incident.
And, you're ignoring the fact that they are under threat, first the Narada and now Marcus makes reference to several Klingon attacks on their ships and the Federation being on the brink of war. So is Starfleet responsible for defending the Federation or not? If so, it makes perfect sense that exploration is currently taking a back seat in the face of immediate threats. There isn't a problem with Starfleet being too militaristic, it's doing it's job.
I suppose you enjoyed the bit in Insurrection where Picard complains about having to delay an archaeological expedition while the Federation is engaged in a desperate war for it's very survival?
Okay, you want a critique of the story?
Kirk still doesn't bother to think, and it's still treated as a virtue. I actually had hope at the beginning when Pike was chewing him out that it would lead to some development on his part, but nope, 10 minutes later Pike is dead and it's , "Help us Kirk! Only your TRIBBLE the rules and charge blindly ahead trusting in the universe to accommodate you" ways can save us!
Kirk's decision to track down Khan instead of firing the torpedoes doesn't actually represent a real choice. I mean seriously, what Kirk was essentially told to do was carpet bomb(72 torpedoes and no fixed location does not a surgical strike make) the capital world of a neighboring power with whom the Federation all ready had tense relations. And we're supposed to believe that deciding to go get Khan instead was some profound moment of maturity?
It's a problem with a lot of the movie, Abrams trying to shove his 'War on Terror' allegory (in this case 'drones') into it without actually paying much attention to how it fits into the plot. They treat it like it's a 'kill the terrorist outright or bring him in for trial' issue, when it's really a 'kill a terrorist and lots of innocent people(there are clearly buildings and stuff around, obviously that district is not actually devoid of all other life) and start a war, or bring him in for trial' choice.
The big battle being over Earth is a good example for this. It was completely unneccessary, and creates a ton of plotholes (nobody notices two Starfleet ships battling it out over the moon, the Vengeance 'jams' the Enterprise...except for the one phone line to New Vulcan, the Enterprise 'falls' from the moon to Earth in about 2 secods), and it was all basically so that JJ could cram his pseudo-9/11 scene into the plot by showing the Vengeance plowing through the skyline of San Francisco, just in case we had forgotten that he was trying to do a War on Terror allegory.
The incessant callbacks to TOS were overdone. It's a reboot, in an alternate timeline, stick with that instead of trying to milk fond memories of TOS.
They didn't need to keep going out of their way to keep reminding us of the Wrath of Khan, we get it, Khan is the villain, do your own thing with him. But nope, he's defeated in pretty much the exact same way he was in Wrath of Khan (we even get to see New Spock talk to Old Spock to find out how), and then they nearly carbon copy the death scene from Wrath of Khan, just with the roles reversed.
Which kind of goes back to the thing about Kirk not developing. Wrath of Khan was all about Kirk getting kicked in the teeth and getting a rather painful lesson that being brash and charging ahead doesn't always get you a free pass. This movie is just the opposite, Kirk learns that that's exactly the way to do things because rules, regulations, discipline, all that kind of stuff is only for bureaucrats and insane rogue Admirals. The death scene just makes this so much worse. They pull it straight from TWOK, where Kirk learns that he can't always cheat death by losing his best friend...and in this one Spock learns that he needs to stop being a pantywaist "thinker" and just start smashing things.
Every bit of Kirk's rash actions bites him in the TRIBBLE and almost gets his entire crew killed. The only choice he makes that leads to anything positive is the choice of self-sacrifice.
This "start smashing things" was not the solution. While he did bring down Khan, turning into an emotional wreck was not the answer. But in the end, what Spock needed to learn is that sometimes he needs to rely on his Human instincts, rather than focusing squarely on Vulcan logic.
Spock is a conflicted character of two worlds. Yet this is NEVER touched on in TOS. Oh its mentioned briefly from time to time, but was not spelled out except in "Enemy Within" which could have blossomed into something extraordinary, if they had taken the opportunity. Instead, we get probably the most stoic Vulcan of the franchise, until we meet Tuvok. And even then, Tuvok lets his emotions out once in a while, and he is FULLY Vulcan (and I am not even getting into T'Pol)
Spock had endless story potential that just never happened. Now we get to see the conflict within him.
... oh wait, but once again, thats a bad thing, right? Exploring new territory in a character? I thought you were against just sticking with TOS stuff.
system Lord Baal is dead
I would have to say yes. The new movies are obviously good sci fi movies (I say sci-fi and not Star Trek since it has nothing to do with Star Trek) but they are short lived. And since the content was non-existent then Star Trek is actually on life-support. If it weren't for STO it would be technically dead.
all i will say....... is this^^^^^^^^^^
system Lord Baal is dead
Before 2009, Star Trek was all but officially dead. Enterprise was cancelled in 2005, leaving nothing but fan production for four years. Paramount even admitted they had no interest in Star Trek during that time.
For those who feel JJ killed Star Trek.... what was in JJ's films that wasn't already in previous films? We had action and explosions (Wrath, Spock, Country, Contact, Nemesis), we had complete visual redesigns of the ship (Motion Picture, Frontier, First Contact), we had comedic moments carrying the movie (Voyage Home primarily, Final Frontier trying too hard).... so... what was it?
I submit that JJ Star Trek was probably the best movie reboot of an established franchise yet. Now, one could argue Batman Begins a bit superior, and I would follow that to a certain degree too. The only better sci-fi reboot was Battlestar Galactica... and even that one got hate for reasons I can only describe as nitpicking.
Everything that matters is the same. The characters are still there (even that was unnecessary. TNG was every bit as Star Trek as TOS was). The setting (federation, klingons, romulans, starships) is all there. The opportunity for relevant social commentary is still there. The only thing that has changed is a series of events, and some visuals. When too much emphasis is placed on the design of the bridge, the layout of the ship, and the speed at which a ship travels... you officially miss every single important thing about the franchise.
Up to that point Star Trek was dead, and Paramount was shedding no tears. We have new life in the franchise, and the ability to appeal to a new generation of fans, without dusting off old VHS tapes and DVD's. And due to the nature of this reboot, ALL of the previous half-century of content is still relevant. Nothing has been erased, shamed, shunned, insulted, abandoned, and this is the ONLY franchise that has done so.
If it weren't for the 09 film, STO would be dead. I personally know several people who had long since stopped playing STO but decided to give it another shot after the latest movie, just because they were once again in a Trek mood. I even have 2 friends who didn't like the movie but it was enough to get them to boot up STO again. I seriously doubt that's an anomaly.
I disagree with the ideat that these movies are short lived. They've already been popular for longer than Enterprise lasted, and we know we're getting at least one more movie out of it. Maybe more. That's at least a decade of popularity. I'm not sure what you consider short-lived, but they've already been popular enough to negate claims that they're short-lived.
But even if I accept your proposition that they're short-lived... even if we never get another Star Trek movie with this cast... it has already revitalized the franchise more than Enterprise did. It has already revitalized it more than Nemesis did. It has already revitalized it more than Insurrection did.
If you think Trek is dying, that's fine. But if that's true (and I don't think it is), these movies have undeniably slowed that death... they most certainly have not caused it.
f2p keep sto going not a JJ movie
ppl who buy life time keep sto going not a jj movie
ppl that still sub keep sto going not a jj movie
lockbox ship that ppl spend 500$ trying to get one but dont keep sto going not a jj movie
system Lord Baal is dead
So even though the new movies were popular, you honestly are suggesting people didn't boot up STO again because of these movies?
That's exactly what I did. I hadn't played for a very long time, but I started back a few months ago, purely because Into Darkness caused me to want to step back into that world again.
well one could say LoR what really made some log in that had not in a while more then a jj movie not saying it didnt have a small impact
system Lord Baal is dead
sto was in in development long before JJ movies was a gleam in his eye
their was going to even be a romulus and dev had big plans for it to then JJ happend
system Lord Baal is dead
And the project had been sabotaged and delayed up the wazzoo. It wasn't until the film was being made that Paramount finally decided "y'know what? Okay, we'll let this happen"
The whole point is, what was it about 2009 and Into Darkness that killed Star Trek, that hasn't already been done in previous trek films?
I get that you didn't like the new movies. Quite a few fans didn't like it, which is fine. We all have our own opinions about it and I'm not saying you're somehow wrong for not liking it. Your opinion is every bit as valid as anybody's.
But many, many Star Trek fans did like this movie. The movie did cause a resurgence in the love of Star Trek. The movie did put Star Trek back in the public's view.
Debating the quality of the movie is fine, but suggesting the movie didn't help the franchise - at least on some levels - is simply inaccurate, factually.
really to me they are not star trek but they are good star wars movies with star trek skin i give it that but this new life every one talks about i dont see it i see a hyper point that then dies down after a whlie imo and even gene soon thinks it works better as a tv show then a 2 hour blockbuster and not going to lie i want a tv show more then jj movies
system Lord Baal is dead
There's nothing wrong with that opinion. I'd love to see a new series too. I'm just saying I don't agree with the assertion that these movies are killing Star Trek. They've kept Star Trek in the public view for more years than Enterprise did, and that was a series. They've kept Star Trek in the public view for longer than Nemesis and Insurrection did.
Why aren't you saying Enterprise and Insurrection and Nemesis killed Star Trek? The reboot is the first Star Trek in a decade to actually cause a rise in Star Trek fans and yet it's the one people are claiming is "killing" Star Trek. That just makes no sense to me at all.
Again, I'm not debating whether or not it's good. I liked it. You didn't. Both of us are right. That's what's cool about opinions. We can both be right. But the "JJTrek is killing Star Trek" thing is simply not true. We haven't seen this much excitement for Star Trek in a very long time. And not just for these movies. Around the time the last movie's hype began, Netflix added every series. Do you think that was a coincidence? They were cashing in on the hype (which is great, IMO). Me and several of my friends started playing STO again because of these movies. How is that a bad things for Trek?