JJ Abrams "Star Trek", Success or Failure?

[Damocles]

For the discussion of the new movie, now that we've had some time to see its effects on the Star Trek mythos.

[Taranis]

I have not seen it . nor am I pushed to do so .. hungry for some new idea though and not rehashes of old shows or franchise.

[martok2112]

I would say that financially, critically, and publicly the new Star Trek is indeed a success.

It sickens me to no end though, when those blow-hard purists out there accuse JJ Abrams of "dumbing down" the movie to attract the "average movie goer". I saw nothing "dumbed down" about the film. It was a good re-origin story that respected the original mythos, yet created one of its own....and it ticks the purists off to no end that THIS particular Trek has financially outstripped every other Trek film before it.

The characters were funny, noble, and strong. Many of the actors have endeared fans with their new takes on the characters.

Ugh....rant over. My apologies. :)

Back to the subject at hand: The new film's effect on the mythos.

It's had no effect on the original mythos. The original tales remain intact.

A new mythos has been created to allow the telling of fresh stories...ones that leave doubts in the minds of long time fans when it comes to potential fates for characters and the Enterprise. Will such and such character actually survive? Will the Enterprise prevail?

It's kinda hard to do if this Star Trek were slaved to the canon of the original series.

I think you may have brought up some of the above points, Damocles....so I won't pass them off as notions I just came up with. :)

Respectfully,
Martok2112 :salute:

[Dawg]

An unqualified success.

I can understand your view, Taranis, and I can even understand why people like Promus take the stand they do. But I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

Ever since the original Star Trek premiered, time travel and temporal interference has been a part of the mythos. From the first accidental trip into the past taken by the Enterprise under Kirk to the "Temporal Police" of Enterprise (which was awful, BTW, until the final season), Star Trek dealt repeatedly with the idea that one event can change a timeline significantly.

All JJ Abrams & Company did was take that very Star Trek element and applied it.

Now - spoilers follow, for anyone who hasn't seen the movie but intends to, so continue with care.

Chasing the future Spock through a singularity, a vengeful Nero emerged into Federation space. The USS Kelvin was diverted to investigate. This did not happen in the other timeline, the one we are most familiar with.

The Kelvin carried George Kirk and his very pregnant wife. It isn't clear in the movie, but perhaps the Kelvin was originally on its way to Earth where, in the other timeline, James Tiberius Kirk was to be born somewhere in Iowa. In this timeline, though, the Kelvin was diverted to investigate the anomoly, is attacked, Mrs. Kirk goes into labor, and we see the events of the early part of the movie.

Nothing here is the same as in the other timeline, the story we are familiar with. Jim Kirk grows up without the stabilizing influence of his father, as he did in the other timeline, so his attitudes and behavior are not the same. He's more openly rebellious, more often into trouble. If you recall, we do see streaks of rebellion in the original timeline's Kirk, a risk-taker. With different formative influences, the end result will be different. Thanks to Nero, Jim Kirk's beginnings were not as they were in the other timeline, so this Jim Kirk is different.

You can take that and apply it to everything else in the movie. As Star Trek taught us, any one event has a ripple effect (Guardian of Forever, where saving Edith in the 1930's meant there was no USS Enterprise 400 years later), so when Nero destroyed the Kelvin - killing how many people? - it changed things fundamentally across a much wider scope than the formative years of one boy.

Were there misses? Of course, there always are. But they managed to capture the essence of the characters, their broader personalities, as well as the basic look - I was amazed at the resemblance of Quinto to a young Nimoy, and Urban looked enough like Kelley it was easy to see him as McCoy.

We should also consider that we're being introduced to the characters several years earlier than we were before. They are less mature, less seasoned if you will, than when we were introduced to them back in 1966, on top of the timeline issues.

So this movie is, without a doubt, quintessential Star Trek.

If it helps, you might consider thinking of it in the same context as the Mirror Universe, which could well have been just another timeline of the same Star Trek universe..... ;)

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Damocles]

Warning: spoilers

This discussion is to parallel what I was trying to say in another thread: that we have here a result in the JJ Adams movie that is successful as story, as character study, and as a new treatment of Star Trek. It had some flaws to be sure. Nero has nothing of the character depth of Anorrax, but the situation with the Krennin villain is startling similar. You have to be an aficionado to realize this though. You have to know your Trek to fill in the gap-because frankly the movie is so fast paced that you will miss why Nero, a formerly hapless Romulan miner is the way he is. Romulus was destroyed and his wife died in that death as his motivation and away we go!

That was only a small part of the very fast paced and DENSE movie. We have character introductions and initial character interactions and then we have the story (Stop Nero) so we see Adams try to pack a LOT into two hours of time. JJ Adams had to do in two hours what ST/TND failed to do in two seasons-create a working story frame, and a working ensemble of actors who can carry off Star Trek successfully. He did it to my satisfaction. I like these guys.

The only thing I actually found wrong with the movie was the Enterprise (inside [Engineering] and out), but then the original Matt Jeffries Enterprise was a bit off to me as I preferred the ST/TMP aesthetic. Its a minor quibble that has some few Trekkers upset. I'm not one of them.

It is NEW, in that it is not Trek TOS, and I'm sorry if some are not happy with that, but it is recognizable TREK, not Berman Drek, its TREK in the Captain Kirk, to !@#$ with the Prime Directive, I'm pulling the plug on you villain way that I grew up to love.

======================================

Now as an aside, I can see where this Adams example can serve as an archetype of what we might expect for the other major project we've discussed recently. Here in this thread I want to discuss how JJ Adams took rubble left by the previous people who almost (in my personal opinion) wrecked The Franchise and fractured the audience, and managed to refresh it with hope and unify MOST of us back into a singular community again.

Since we are somewhat restricted as to how we can discuss the other project in its historic setting, I had to find something comparable, that we can use to examine as an analog to what I wanted to examine. Conveniently Adams provided this successful example and its a good one. We can use it to see how updated character and story presentation worked well for us in Trek, or missed the mark slightly, and we can examine it to see how other 21st Century second telling projects could look as a result when they cast new actors and tell the story again.

Remember what I said about Rococo and the Jupiter II?

D.

[Taranis]

some of my friends who a mix batch of fans and non fans have enjoyed it and I am delighted they did. I think my own approach to the series is now a jaded one.. Been there and bought the T-shirt ...or at the very least the DVD sets.
thats possibly stopping more than anything.

I hope it does well for the future. but I don't believe I will be following it as diligently as I once would have.

I perhaps should not have even commented as I have not seen it.

My good friend Martok has hit the nail on the head with purist. I am no purist at all and think new actors playing the character of Kirk and Spock is no bad thing (I really hate the new Enterprise design. just from the design stand point..I have seen far better designs on cgi sites)

of course I am not saying I never watch it .. Never is far to long . but at this time it just does not grab me at all.

[Gemini1999]

While I can agree that Abrams' Trek film is an unqualified success in financial terms, I don't believe that the story was the best that could be offered. I'm not of of those "blow hard purists" as Steve called it, but the story lacked what some of the earlier Trek films had. Call it gravitas, or whatever, but it didn't work for me on some levels. I just watched Galaxy Quest recently, and I felt that Trek XI had more in common with that film in some instances than any previous Trek effort to date.

Steve - be careful with that broad brush you're using in regards to some Trek fans. Just because they don't agree with your point of view doesn't mean that they're wrong. Everyone has their own right to differing opinions without being slammed for it. I know that you don't appreciate it very much when TOS fans say less than complmentary things about TNS fans (not discussing it, just using it to illustrate a point).

Bryan

[martok2112]

While I can agree that Abrams' Trek film is an unqualified success in financial terms, I don't believe that the story was the best that could be offered. I'm not of of those "blow hard purists" as Steve called it, but the story lacked what some of the earlier Trek films had. Call it gravitas, or whatever, but it didn't work for me on some levels. I just watched Galaxy Quest recently, and I felt that Trek XI had more in common with that film in some instances than any previous Trek effort to date.

Steve - be careful with that broad brush you're using in regards to some Trek fans. Just because they don't agree with your point of view doesn't mean that they're wrong. Everyone has their own right to differing opinions without being slammed for it. I know that you don't appreciate it very much when TOS fans say less than complmentary things about TNS fans (not discussing it, just using it to illustrate a point).

Bryan

Indeed, my friend. It's not so much that I begrudge their opinions differing from mine..Indeed, the film's not going to please everyone...but it's the way some of them carry themselves....as some kind of mental or moral superior to the average movie goer. I've never abided that kind of ill-suited arrogance for any fanbase.

Over at the Star Trek site I frequent, you have some folks there who didn't like the movie, and try to play themselves off as being "above" the average movie goer....thinking they have some kind of higher standard over the average movie goer..especially when it comes to Star Trek. Leave that to the art snobs.

And at startrek.com, you run into some real pieces of work there.

It's one thing to opine that you didn't like the movie for certain reasons. It's another to try and play yourself off as "more Trek than thou", or "more fan than thou", or just somehow "better" than the average movie goer. Once it crosses that line, their opinions mean diddly squat as far as I'm concerned.

(and for the record, I don't exactly like it when TNS fans make attacks on TOS fans either.....to balance out the point without meaning to go into discussion. :) )

[Kronus]

Dawg & Damocles hit it, the first 15 minutes of the movie changed everything according to the standard Star Trek Time Line paradigm. Once Nero appeared, everything we knew about was going to change.

Who knows what the impact was just from the lives that were lost on the Kelvin? Kirk's wasn't the only one affected, (that would be naive to think that). The outcome of every human or many of the other ST species would have been impacted by this event which obviously created an even bigger "ripple" effect in the timeline we have all come to know and love.

This is SO VERY ST Universe and it lines up with how ST has always played it in the series and movies. Of course the original characters are going to be different...everything was changed when Nero first showed up.

But I like how Damocles pointed out that Kirk still had a lot of his original character that we had known from TOS but a bit more rebellious. He still loved his women and he has remained daring and a huge risk taker. A bit rough around the edges but he’s still familiar.

What about the impact of the destruction of Vulcan? Now that is going to be a HUGE glitch in how things would play out.

[Damocles]

Dawg & Damocles hit it, the first 15 minutes of the movie changed everything according to the standard Star Trek Time Line paradigm. Once Nero appeared, everything we knew about was going to change.

Who knows what the impact was just from the lives that were lost on the Kelvin? Kirk's wasn't the only one affected, (that would be naive to think that). The outcome of every human or many of the other ST species would have been impacted by this event which obviously created an even bigger "ripple" effect in the timeline we have all come to know and love.

This is SO VERY ST Universe and it lines up with how ST has always played it in the series and movies. Of course the original characters are going to be different...everything was changed when Nero first showed up.

But I like how Damocles pointed out that Kirk still had a lot of his original character that we had known from TOS but a bit more rebellious. He still loved his women and he has remained daring and a huge risk taker. A bit rough around the edges but he’s still familiar.

What about the impact of the destruction of Vulcan? Now that is going to be a HUGE glitch in how things would play out.

You might want to encapsulate your spoilers. ;)

But to get to the heart of what you said: we should not be afraid of the different retelling; as long as it is good-in writing, acting, filming, story, production values, and core mythos.

It is when the crap is ladled out and you see rotten writing, poor acting, cheap sensationalist formula gimmickry, and cliches shoved at you, that I draw the line at so called "retellings"

K8SyqH3fjfA

Terribly flawed.

o6FFCrRcHuo

Better, much better conceptually as a movie.

Shrug, sometimes you get the wrong people to tell the story. They can actually be very talented, but just don't see the right story to tell for the story they attempt.

D.

[Kronus]

D, I just made the edit...thanks!

[Gemini1999]

About the "spoilers" for ST XI...

Encapsulating story material for this film isn't necessary at this point. If someone hasn't seen the film by this stage, then they've probably made that decision deliberately.

If they don't want to know the plot elements this far down the road, then they'll just have to avoid topics on the subject altogether.

They'll just have to take hard luck for waiting this long.

Sincerely,

Gemini1999
Colonial Fleets Moderator

[BST]

Damocles,

Is there a reason for the thread title and your references to be "JJ Adams" instead of "JJ Abrams"? I wasn't sure if it was intentional or just an "oops damn".

;)

[Damocles]

Its an oops. I'm senile I guess.

[BST]

Heh heh... a trap we all fall into, from time to time.

I'll update the title for you.

:)

[martok2112]

Indeed.

I remember once trying to write a Harry Potter fanfic, and submit it to a Yahoo group.....I accidentally typoed J.K. Rowling's name (typed R.K. Rowling instead), and one of the more self-righteous fangirls there immediately lambasted me for typing the wrong name....not to mention she was arrogantly critical of the work I tried to do, even with my caveat that I had only seen the first couple of movies, and never read the books at that time.

[Damocles]

Shrug. I make mistakes. Where I said Adams; read Abrams. I still confuse Eli Wallach and Lee van Cleef when I see The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. S.E.N.I.L.E.

Maybe this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Addams_Family.jpg

addled my brains.

[martok2112]

Where I said Adams; read Abrams. I still confuse Eli Wallach and Lee van Cleef when I see The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Easily enough done, and understandable.

S.E.N.I.L.E.


Superior
Education
Never
Impedes
Losing
Enlightenment

:D

[Kronus]

I think Patrict Stewart was the cause of his oops...you know if there is anything wrong with ST it is Patrict Stewart's fault...:P:

Now Damocles, just chant to yourself, "Star Trek Reboot, no more Jean-Luc Picard, no more Jen-Luc Picard." ;) (Although I think this is just wishful thinking on D's part)

[Damocles]

We drift off topic, but now that you bring up bad acting, K, or perhaps in this case, not good enough acting, did any of us think that Eric Bana was a little thin on how he played Nero?

It applies directly, in that if you don't have the correct actors cast in key parts, you could have the best writing and the best direction, best art work, production; etc, and you still miss the mark. Keanu Reeves for example in a recent abomination, made the The Day the Earth Stood Still remake far worse than it had to be. (opinion)

[Kronus]

We drift off topic, but now that you bring up bad acting, K, or perhaps in this case, not good enough acting, did any of us think that Eric Bana was a little thin on how he played Nero?
Well in all fairness to him, I thought they didn't give him much time in the movie to fully bring his character to light. All I saw was a pissed off biker Romulan who wanted to take his anger out on Spock and his people.

But to avoid looking a lot like Nemesis, Abrams focused on just highlighting "Nero" and moved on to the other characters.

Given the short amount of background and time of the Nero character on the screen, I thought Eric did the best he could under the circumstances.

Keanu Reeves for example in a recent abomination, made the The Day the Earth Stood Still remake far worse than it had to be. (opinion) I totally did not like him in this movie...this movie could have been much better if they would have picked a better actor for this role than just trying to "bank" on a name to sell tickets.

[Damocles]

Well in all fairness to him, I thought they didn't give him much time in the movie to fully bring his character to light. All I saw was a pissed off biker Romulan who wanted to take his anger out on Spock and his people.

That is a good point. The character as written was "flat". Still, how much do you find out about "enemy" motivation during the actual fight? Afterward, when you have time to reflect, you may see 'motive'. That was always a Star Trek motif in the ST/TOS, that while you whaled the tar out of somebody "enemy", you also investigated why he aggressed in the first place so you could fix that, too. Berman Drek just passed moral judgments and never solved problems. In the Abrams movie, Nero is "solved" in the classic Kirk fashion, commensurate with the damage he did. Moral judgment after investigation was a factor and the solution was classic. Maybe that was why Abrams skimped a little on the writing. "Biker" Romulan is a good shorthand for Nero. That also brings up a problem for and about suitable villains, I will address.

But to avoid looking a lot like Nemesis, Abrams focused on just highlighting "Nero" and moved on to the other characters.

Abrams did just as much with Nero as he needed. This is a weakness in the writing and the directing that left the movie "less than sterling" and more like "comic book" in feel to Gemini. I recognize it, but what can you do in two hours? Something has to give. As I said you had to pay attention to everything on a busy screen. Call it information overload. Here a scriptwriter, who knows how to shorthand visually plot elements, is a must. If you could in one shot establish how Nero planned to destroy everything Spock loved and then carry that forward to Earth, then you can save about five minutes of film and seven shots that you could have devoted to either a Nero villain soliloquy (a la Khan), or to Spock as he describes Nero. Fill the action in with a few more spacers, and give the audience time to catch up and invest in the villain.

Given the short amount of background and time of the Nero character on the screen, I thought Eric did the best he could under the circumstances.

I'd like to see what Abrams cut out to make film time.

I totally did not like him in this movie...this movie could have been much better if they would have picked a better actor for this role than just trying to "bank" on a name to sell tickets.

Referent to that abomination (The Day the Earth Stood Still, 2008), nothing could save that trash except burn the master print and start over.

Which brings us to villain casting:

Unless you match the "villain/opponent/opposition" closely to your story plot and your protagonist's viewpoint, you are in deep trouble in the "man against --------" department when you write that story.

So you look at the story.

What is it? In the classic "The Day the Earth Stood Still" the story and protagonist's viewpoint; was about how an alien looks at us and what he can tell us about us, from that viewpoint. The opposition was our own narrow viewpoint about ourselves as we saw ourselves. In that respect, Michael Rennie was able to play a sympathetic, yet detached observer and emissary, who was sent to warn us to become more objective in viewpoint. For a scriptwriter to achieve that inside an action-oriented BEM and robot monster movie is fantastic.

What did we get in the Keanu Reeves garbage remake? We had "Earth in the Balance" with a zombie as lead; with the added defect; that at least Al Gore in his dimwitted film, is funny as he lurches through his mockumentary. Keanu Reeves is just DULL. That film is a perfect example of wrong story, wrong protagonist, and just wrong everything as to entertainment. Its not even a good teaching example for what wrong things you don't do in a film.

[monolith21]

I really liked the Abrams' Star Trek. I didn't think I was going to, but I went in with an open mind. Unlike Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek has had more chances than most shows or films to tell many stories in various ways. It didn't feel like a tragic turn to have this story go back to its origins.

I think it made all the difference in the world that they didn't simply brush aside what came before. This movie was in universe and quite respectful of where it came from. The changes that occur within the Star Trek universe are catastrophic, but they ring that way in the film throught he eyes of Leonard Nimoy. The changes are emotionally jarring if you are a long time fan of the series. (Yes, I said emotionally jarring. I know its just a story...but without an emotional connection to a story there is no worth in seeing or reading it.)

Instead of just brushing aside the weight of those changes, the film embraces it and shows us that even though the world that was has been turned on its head...our heroes will still find a way to become the characters we know and love.

There is an underlying theme within the story about certain events being set, good and bad. Despite drastically different circumstances Kirk and Spock will learn to work together and eventually become friends, Pike will end up in a wheel chair.

Its like the time line is trying to put itself back on track. I know a lot of people are hoping that the next film doesn't deal with time travel. I hope that they don't do any actual time traveling this time around, but I think just dropping this concept would be a cop out. In my opinion they need to keep dealing with the after effects of what has happened. Its too big not to. I've read rumors of this being the case but nothing concrete.

Now, I loved the movie...but saying that it outsold all the others at the box office is a bit misleading. Sure, it made more money...but things have changed a bit. If the exact same amount of people went to see Star Trek TMP and Abrams' Trek in their respective times, Abrams film would sink TMP monetarily. $3.00 a ticket vs. $12.00 per person makes for an impressive difference in profit.



Star Trek TMP Widest Release: 1,002 theaters with mostly 1 dedicated screen.
Abrams' Star Trek Widest Release: 4,053 theaters totaling over 7,400 screens.

To say that Abrams reached a wider audience has a little to do with mass appeal and marketing, but mostly due to the fact that the film was more accessible physically than any of its predecessors.

I picked TMP just because the two films are the current book ends, but even Star Trek First Contact which held the title before Abrams' film only opened on 2,812 theaters widest release with mostly single screens.

Its a different ball game these days.

[Kronus]

Yeah, I remember talking with you after you saw it and I was VERY skeptical until you gave me a little "heads up" without giving anything away. That made it a bit easier for me to go and watch it...in IMAX!

My wife is by no means a ST or Sci-Fi fan and she liked it. Her preference has always been TOS and Damocles; she does not care for TNG. Although I don't think it has anything to do with Patrick Stewart but more of the stories were not interesting enough to keep her captive. She does like DS9 more than TNG (thank goodness since that one was my favorite) and I have almost got her to wear the TOS Red Dress I bought her a few years ago...:D

So for my wife to enjoy the new movie said a lot to me regardless how I felt. It showed me the impact it would have to the new and not so new fan while pacifying the diehards like me. :P:

[KJ]

Haven't really said anything cos i wasn't won over by JJ Abrams Star Trek, liked his Mission Impossible 3 flick (hated the first 2 outright) but he actually did a decent 3rd flick movie and as you all know i'm a huge 'Lost' fan so i've left him alone.

Passed by the London premiere even and got posters cos it was big last year and i happened to be passing by at the time in town, lol.

But this review by MovieBob online, kinda summed up my feelings on it a little, not 100% entirely mind you. His reviews are hard and you get the feeling he's VERY Anti-Hollywood. But i gotta say he does give a refreshing opinion cos i'm kinda tired of hearing how great the film was despite it being rather average to be honest.

A more cynical review, but an honest one. [Caution: Alot of swearing in MovieBob's reviews]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-presents/721-MovieBob-Reviews-Star-Trek

Enjoy!

Be sure to check out his Transformers 2 review as well, its quite priceless and quite ruthless too!!!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/797-Transformers-Revenge

:salute:

Laters

KJ

[Taranis]

Haven't really said anything cos i wasn't won over by JJ Abrams Star Trek, liked his Mission Impossible 3 flick (hated the first 2 outright) but he actually did a decent 3rd flick movie and as you all know i'm a huge 'Lost' fan so i've left him alone.

Passed by the London premiere even and got posters cos it was big last year and i happened to be passing by at the time in town, lol.

But this review by MovieBob online, kinda summed up my feelings on it a little, not 100% entirely mind you. His reviews are hard and you get the feeling he's VERY Anti-Hollywood. But i gotta say he does give a refreshing opinion cos i'm kinda tired of hearing how great the film was despite it being rather average to be honest.

A more cynical review, but an honest one. [Caution: Alot of swearing in MovieBob's reviews]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-presents/721-MovieBob-Reviews-Star-Trek

Enjoy!

Be sure to check out his Transformers 2 review as well, its quite priceless and quite ruthless too!!!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/797-Transformers-Revenge

:salute:

Laters

KJ
thanks for the first link .. I laughed a lot ..

and I agreed with some of what he said (not the swearing ha ha )

he like Simon Pegg as Scott .. where as I did not ..
He disliked the new Captain .. I thought he was a good choice ..
Uhura: i agreed with his assessment
Story I did not like. or the direction on the "new" franchise ..

I´ll stick with what has gone on before and leave this to the new generation.
give me back trek stories and a future that had positive possibilities.

In my opinion paramount has done the same to trek as universal did to BSG.

ripped the guts out and left a hollow shell ..

oh you´ll get some new films but then say good bye again another forgettable re-imaging.

The new cast choices where fine (apart from Pegg IMO) so 9 out of 10
the new direction -----I won´t even remark again on it.

[KJ]

At least Star Trek got to be revived in 1979 and had several decent spin offs that made it into a proper franchise over the last 30 plus years, Universal with Battlestar Galactica can't claim the exact same unfortunately?!

:cry::(

But i see your overall points though. Love MovieBob's unbias review though is something i think people should wake up to and not be blinded by the fact this movie was alot better than ST:Nemesis and Insurrection. That fair enough, but it wasn't no where near as great as: The Motion Picture, First Contact, Search For Spock, The Undiscovered Country or Wrath Of Khan in terms of how iconic and entertaining a Trek movie really should be!

Many films over the past 10 years have been marked as truly fantastic, must see or great flicks. But so few of them really have that re-watchability classic films of yesterdays have sustained over the last several decades themselves.

Pretty nice film with a clear HD picture and whatnot having no outright fanservice to ruin or spoil things etc. But if its an alternate reality Star Trek universe running along side the Classic/Next Gen one, then while JJ Abrams Trek serves today's audiences many of us older fans can enjoy the first 6 original Trek movies with Next Gen's 'First Contact' flick (their only decent movie?). But JJ's Trek has a some way to go before i'll latch on and say they're worthy equals to Roddenberry's TOS cast of Star Trek actors though and fulfil the Trek legacy with enough passion for that universe, as the original actors did. Great movie or not. One movie's going to find it very hard living up to 4 plus decades of stories and memories we've grown up with watching the Star Trek franchise encompass and generally evolve into.

And another thing, while the movie wasn't too bad and i like movie conceptual artist Ryan Church's design work in general (see the Transformers?) on many films he's done. I don't like his Enterprise redesign though. If i make my own fancut, i'm using The Motion Picture Enterprise redesign as a basis instead!

KJ

[Taranis]

At least Star Trek got to be revived in 1979 and had several decent spin offs that made it into a proper franchise over the last 30 plus years, Universal with Battlestar Galactica can't claim the exact same unfortunately?!

:cry::(

But i see your overall points though. Love MovieBob's unbias review though is something i think people should wake up to and not be blinded by the fact this movie was alot better than ST:Nemesis and Insurrection. That fair enough, but it wasn't no where near as great as: The Motion Picture, First Contact, Search For Spock, The Undiscovered Country or Wrath Of Khan in terms of how iconic and entertaining a Trek movie really should be!

Many films over the past 10 years have been marked as truly fantastic, must see or great flicks. But so few of them really have that re-watchability classic films of yesterdays have sustained over the last several decades themselves.

Pretty nice film with a clear HD picture and whatnot having no outright fanservice to ruin or spoil things etc. But if its an alternate reality Star Trek universe running along side the Classic/Next Gen one, then while JJ Abrams Trek serves today's audiences many of us older fans can enjoy the first 6 original Trek movies with Next Gen's 'First Contact' flick (their only decent movie?). But JJ's Trek has a some way to go before i'll latch on and say they're worthy equals to Roddenberry's TOS cast of Star Trek actors though and fulfil the Trek legacy with enough passion for that universe, as the original actors did. Great movie or not. One movie's going to find it very hard living up to 4 plus decades of stories and memories we've grown up with watching the Star Trek franchise encompass and generally evolve into.

And another thing, while the movie wasn't too bad and i like movie conceptual artist Ryan Church's design work in general (see the Transformers?) on many films he's done. I don't like his Enterprise redesign though. If i make my own fancut, i'm using The Motion Picture Enterprise redesign as a basis instead!

KJ
I agree with you in this

I don´t like the Enterprise design at all.. I have seen better fan redesigns that would have served better..

Casting I liked for the most part (I like Pegg but not as scotty)

what I mis is star trek optimistic future time..( where regardless of color, race
religion, lack of hair :) perhaps not as relevant today as it was in the 60 USA and the world beyond.)

each new film will be just an action flick .. (I like action but tempered with a story worth watching)

I still believe it was a weak offering ..

the next gen film were for me just ok ..

and again I will always believe the Place for star trek is on TV ..

[KJ]

I agree with you in this

I don´t like the Enterprise design at all.. I have seen better fan redesigns that would have served better..

Agreed!

Nothing will ever beat the original TMP redesign, it was just way too good!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/doubleofive/TMP/TOS5-TMPDE.jpg



KJ

[monolith21]

I didn't mind the new ship design all that much, but it was a calculated judgement. At first I hated it. The Motion Picture Enterprise and Enterprise A have always (and still are) my favorite. I can see that era in the new design and like it more than the Next Generation and beyond. Its still not my favorite though. I would have liked it a lot more if they had reigned those nacels in a bit!

[Ramses]

okay I wasnt all to thrilled with the new design. but no biggy. overall. I loved it. it had action, the characters ended up being enough like the originals to satisfy me. it had humor. and the CGI was top rate.

okay so I can hear the shouts of the Mob, and see the torchlight in the distance LOL. Gotta go.

oh.. just to let you know I grew up watching TOS Star Trek. from 1969 till it went off syndication and every spin off they made. so dont stab me to hard with the pitch forks.

[Taranis]

okay I wasnt all to thrilled with the new design. but no biggy. overall. I loved it. it had action, the characters ended up being enough like the originals to satisfy me. it had humor. and the CGI was top rate.

okay so I can hear the shouts of the Mob, and see the torchlight in the distance LOL. Gotta go.

oh.. just to let you know I grew up watching TOS Star Trek. from 1969 till it went off syndication and every spin off they made. so dont stab me to hard with the pitch forks.

if you enjoyed it , Great !! :) over all it was a success as they are making a new one.
but it not my Trek .. and I think it is not as Roddenberry would have like to see Trek go .. we know he disliked the direction of trek after TMP .. and he lost control of the franchise.

Trek was about where we are going (possibly)

The new film was Star Wars Trek .

I am not saying I don´t like action i do but tempered with a good story which Hollywood is failing with as each year passes.

but the unbelievability of the story was the worst .. and Kirk s Jump in rank from a Cadet to a Captain .. was laughable.

but that´s for me to gripe with.

But I still hate the design .... :)

as I said also I think the casting was over all great . (apart from Pegg´s Scotty.)

[David Kerin]

Hate the design of the enterprise and some of the interiors... especially the brewery engine room. However I loved the movie. It made Trek exciting again for me. Grew up on the original series, and while upped a bit for today's audiences, it brought back that adventure, friendship and spirit that I have found lacking in everything since TNG and on. I really liked TNG when it aired, but cannot rewatch it now... its a giant politically correct yawn fest.

I know Roddenberry was not happy with the direction the series was taken after TMP, but in all honesty if Harve Bennet didn't do what he did I doubt we would have had TNG, DS9, and the rest. TMP is an amazing looking film, but also a yawn fest that can be hard to sit through if you're not a big Trek fan.

Plus Abrams created this in a way where it can reboot, yet not erase everything before as that is safely protected in the other timeline. No matter what certain fans say, this does not erase everything that came before. And for me that is great. Unlike how other creative types have to ignore and destroy everything that came before to do it the way they want to.

Must agree that the bump to Capt. was silly, but they had to set it up and get the crew in their places for the next film, so I can live with that stretch of logic.

So I say Success!

[Taranis]

Hate the design of the enterprise and some of the interiors... especially the brewery engine room. However I loved the movie. It made Trek exciting again for me. Grew up on the original series, and while upped a bit for today's audiences, it brought back that adventure, friendship and spirit that I have found lacking in everything since TNG and on. I really liked TNG when it aired, but cannot rewatch it now... its a giant politically correct yawn fest.

I know Roddenberry was not happy with the direction the series was taken after TMP, but in all honesty if Harve Bennet didn't do what he did I doubt we would have had TNG, DS9, and the rest. TMP is an amazing looking film, but also a yawn fest that can be hard to sit through if you're not a big Trek fan.

Plus Abrams created this in a way where it can reboot, yet not erase everything before as that is safely protected in the other timeline. No matter what certain fans say, this does not erase everything that came before. And for me that is great. Unlike how other creative types have to ignore and destroy everything that came before to do it the way they want to.

Must agree that the bump to Capt. was silly, but they had to set it up and get the crew in their places for the next film, so I can live with that stretch of logic.

So I say Success!

I agree with all your observations Dave . from TNG onward they did dilute the feel of adventure of the original.

But when I first saw TNG ship . I did not like it much .. but it grew on me over time and I like it more now... the reboot version is just baaa :) it looks like 2 or 3 different styles kitbashed together :)

but I going on to much about the bloody ship.

perhaps the next one will bring be back around to it. who know :salute:

[dilbertman]

PLNEkXk9vcs

Jim;)

[David Kerin]

I agree with all your observations Dave . from TNG onward they did dilute the feel of adventure of the original.

But when I first saw TNG ship . I did not like it much .. but it grew on me over time and I like it more now... the reboot version is just baaa :) it looks like 2 or 3 different styles kitbashed together :)

but I going on to much about the bloody ship.

perhaps the next one will bring be back around to it. who know :salute:

When TNG came on the two things I waited to see was the revised Enterprise, the phasers and uniforms... wait, that's three (I have a bit of a design interest)! All three I could not believe what I saw. What utter dissappointment. Who picked those????? And I have to say the same for the new movie's Enterprise and the engine room design.

With TNG, the Enterprise D never grew on me. Hated it and was glad to see it go in Generations (I did like E). They at least changed the uniforms part way through (liked Picard's jacket) and the Phasers got an upgrade, but they were still a suck-ass design. How is it more ergonomic to twist your wrist like that for a weapon? A traditional gun/phaser actually fits the form better.

As for Roddenberry I have to respect the man. He did wonders with the series. But by the time of the movies and TNG I wonder if a new point of view entered Gene. He tried to say the Federation was non-military, and from TMP and TNG first couple seasons you can see that it was a new world of correctness that had taken over the galaxy. I'm all for the betterment of humanity, but it made it boring, and almost painful to watch at times. In the post TOS era it is ironic that the series (film and TV) really took off after Roddenbery stepped into a lesser control position. Bennett for the movies, and Berman for the series. Although Berman proves that even a good thing can stay too long and completely ruin a series. And helped prove that Manny Coto can have the stuff to save it... even though too late.

For me Star Trek has returned and it didn't crap on, obliterate or sexually molest what had come before. Unlike what a certain writer hack felt he had to do with another scifi series. Where we have one ex-TNG writer that feels he has to blow his creative feces over something to make it the way he wants it, I'm glad there are others who can pay respect to the original without treating it like garbage, and bring it up to date for a modern audience. So I can still enjoy new Trek and Doctor Who... while sadly another fond memory of mine was sacrificed to the pool of arrogance. I know there are D-Bags out there, but why did he have to get hold of that one?!


Ah well... hope that didn't go to ranty.

[David Kerin]

PLNEkXk9vcs

Jim;)


Thank God for "Quantum" torpedoes. What are they? Who knows... just like inverted tachyon beams and negative polarity phase inductors... it was the crap that easily solved the problems and made the new series a huge f*cking bore to watch.

Give me the end of the new movie where Kirk fires everything they got to just blow it the crap out of the sky. And I can at least understand that you blow up the ejected warp core and it may make a huge explosion and push you forward. At least they didn't fire a polarized inverted sensodined (for sensitive teeth) tachyotronically preparation H'd neutron particallized inverted sensor array beam into the black hole to break themselves free. Although I do have to admit that I used just that maneuver to help change a flat tire once.

Give me a Captain that doesn't need to hold a conference with the staff to make a decision!

[Taranis]

Ah well... hope that didn't go to ranty.

No . Just interesting observations

[Taranis]

Thank God for "Quantum" torpedoes. What are they? Who knows... just like inverted tachyon beams and negative polarity phase inductors... it was the crap that easily solved the problems and made the new series a huge f*cking bore to watch.



yes, that was my biggest dislike of TNG onward.

Push this button and cross the do hicky with the flow something..

it sucked the danger out of the shows.

perhaps a new thread is called for . :)

[WarMachine]

Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised -- I fully expected a GINO-scale disaster.

Like:

* Finally, finally, FINALLY we get a realistic Engineering section! Maybe not the best, but infinitely better than anything previously.

* Liked the characters, especially Kirk right at the very end: he had the 60's leg-cross/recline down pat...Yes, that's a nit, and an important one.

* Liked seeing more "lower decks" crew, both on-ship and at the Academy.


Dislike:

* The Bridge - Too Berman-Drek, too much glass, too bright.

* The lighting - Too bright, overall, at least on the 'E'.


The Story:

* Much better than I expected, internally consistent and closed-loop, not sanctimonious or overbearing, and not simpering or dumbed down, all of which I found surprising and refreshing, after 26 seasons of Berman & Co.

* Thought the whole "waiting 25 years for 'old-Spock'" thing should have been better explained.

* Nero needed a little bit more development - you can only sympathize with him a little, since he blames Spock not only for the death of his planet, but of his wife and family...He's not Khan, by any means, but there is a certain depth there that could have been gone into more.

* The 'E' needs a better targeting system - fast.

* Without the heavy influence of Vulcan, the Federation is going to be a VERY different place -- the internal dynamic is going to be completely whack, and very different overall, within 20 years, in-'verse.


Zachary Quinto:

* Should get an honorary Oscar for not bollocksing one of the most iconic roles on film.

[WarMachine]

Hmmmmmm.......

lt0Ildznww8

[Taranis]

Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised -- I fully expected a GINO-scale disaster.

Like:

* Finally, finally, FINALLY we get a realistic Engineering section! Maybe not the best, but infinitely better than anything previously. (that's the section I think is the worst of the design)

* Liked the characters, especially Kirk right at the very end: he had the 60's leg-cross/recline down pat...Yes, that's a nit, and an important one. (The Character where very good, I would not have liked them to parody the orignals, Hated the Spock and Uhura relationship)

* Liked seeing more "lower decks" crew, both on-ship and at the Academy. (That was good in the film)


Dislike:

* The Bridge - Too Berman-Drek, too much glass, too bright.
(agreed)

* The lighting - Too bright, overall, at least on the 'E'.
(agreed)
The Story:

* Much better than I expected, internally consistent and closed-loop, not sanctimonious or overbearing, and not simpering or dumbed down, all of which I found surprising and refreshing, after 26 seasons of Berman & Co.

I thought the story had some interesting ideas but poorly delivered by the script

* Thought the whole "waiting 25 years for 'old-Spock'" thing should have been better explained.

Never got that .. and choose to forget it

* Nero needed a little bit more development - you can only sympathize with him a little, since he blames Spock not only for the death of his planet, but of his wife and family...He's not Khan, by any means, but there is a certain depth there that could have been gone into more.

* The 'E' needs a better targeting system - fast.

* Without the heavy influence of Vulcan, the Federation is going to be a VERY different place -- the internal dynamic is going to be completely whack, and very different overall, within 20 years, in-'verse.

I like the Vulcan´s and always thought that should have been more fully explored .. to late now
Zachary Quinto:

* Should get an honorary Oscar for not bollocksing one of the most iconic roles on film.
Zachary Quinto did a stunning portrayal of Spock ,, :D:D