|
I liked the action in movie 1... But:
-The story was horrible.
-The science was too crazy even for Star Trek. (goo that makes black holes?!)
-It violated what we already know about the Star Trek universe.
-They blew up Vulcan...Far more bad than good.
Sadly it seems people who didn't like it are in the minority, so the new one should do just fine in the box office.
Red Matter...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Herbert! Herbert!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It has become a crusade of mine to demonstrate that TV need not be violent to be exciting." - Gene Roddenberry
The Cage/The Menangerie
Where No One Has Gone BeforeShore Leave
Arena
A Piece of the Action
Bread and Circuses
Day of the Dove
"I wanted to send a message to the television industry that excitement is not made of car chases."- Gene Roddenberry
Balance of Terror
The Doomsday Machine"We stress humanity, and this is done at considerable cost. We can't have a lot of dramatics that other shows get away with - promiscuity, greed, jealousy. None of those have a place in Star Trek." - Gene Roddenberry
Mudd's Women
Amok TimeWho Mourns for Adonais
Turnabout Intruder
And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.
Please pardon me while I drop the "b***s*** flag". I've been watching Star Trek since it had it's original, non-syndicated run (yes, I am old) and I can tell you, just about every episode had plenty of violence, 'car chases', promiscuity, greed, jealousy, etc.
You can wave your Federation flag of peace all you want, but to pretend that the series didn't use the exact same features because "Gene Roddenberry said so!" is delusional. As a matter of fact, the 2009 movie isn't even the only one to show Kirk getting dressed in the bedroom of a woman (although I must admit, he wasn't quite that far undressed in the original series).
I can't obviously speak for the pure Trekkers (I'm just a Trekkie - I only have plates, models, coins, precious-metal uniform badges, posters, books, toys, attend conferences, and one outstandingly awesome TCG collection) but I found the movie to be OUTSTANDING, and I am anxiously awaiting the new one.
EDIT: I think the alternate universe needed to be done. No matter who did a new Trek, we're all going to sit down and praise/nit pick it to death instead of enjoying what it is, so might as well unshackle it from the dream. Also, I was under considerable impression that the second movie was NOT Khan, but there's plenty of footage that says it most likely is (not just the hand-action piece at the end - the leaping about, the black uniform, the Final Fantasy-sized gun, the ship rising out of the water having the nacelles but no saucer, etc.) So right now I can't say if that is red herring, or that several sources were saying it wouldn't be Khan was the crimson fish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in any case, I am not a fan of the way JJ Abrams has taken the Star Trek franchise. :/
I liked the action in movie 1... But:
-The story was horrible.
-The science was too crazy even for Star Trek. (goo that makes black holes?!)
-It violated what we already know about the Star Trek universe.
-They blew up Vulcan...
You forgot three:
- It introduced the ability to beam onto a moving star ship under way at warp speed.- Promoted a failed cadet to Captain of one of the Federations most powerful weapons systems.
- Put the Romulans in the position of dominating the Alpha and Beta Quadrants.
Given these issues, we see that Abrams not only ignores the Canon of the Star Trek universe, he ignores trivialities like logic and internal consistency.
Please pardon me while I drop the "b***s*** flag". I've been watching Star Trek since it had it's original, non-syndicated run (yes, I am old) and I can tell you, just about every episode had plenty of violence, 'car chases', promiscuity, greed, jealousy, etc.You can wave your Federation flag of peace all you want, but to pretend that the series didn't use the exact same features because "Gene Roddenberry said so!" is delusional. As a matter of fact, the 2009 movie isn't even the only one to show Kirk getting dressed in the bedroom of a woman (although I must admit, he wasn't quite that far undressed in the original series).
Let's put things in perspective. Star Trek existed at a time that the Vietnam war was a regular television news offering and other shows like Wild, Wild West were being excoriated for their level of violence. Violence is what pretty much scrapped that popular series, as well as others like Outsider and Outcast. Star Trek was less violent than those. It's all a question of relativity.
- Promoted a failed cadet to Captain of one of the Federations most powerful weapons systems.
You'd be wrong there. Most military hierarchies gave rank according to social position. Meritocratic systems are relative newcomers. But even in a meritocratic army, you can end up with an officer shooting up from captain to artillery commander to brigadier general by the age of 24.
You'd be wrong there. Most military hierarchies gave rank according to social position. Meritocratic systems are relative newcomers. But even in a meritocratic army, you can end up with an officer shooting up from captain to artillery commander to brigadier general by the age of 24.
- Promoted a failed cadet to Captain of one of the Federations most powerful weapons systems.
Point taken.
So, in effect, Kirk was "Knighted" for destroying Nero's ship. This is possible, but the setting doesn't show that kind of social structure.
Actually, you bring up another thing. How was Kirk even in command of the Enterprise? Captain Pike - in any realistic organization - can't turn commond over to anyone he pleases. There is a whole "Chain of Command" that he would be required to follow.
Kirk was not only not part of that structure, he wasn't even a Federation Officer (remembr, failed cadet).
Oh don't worry I certainly am not going to spend even one penny on this movie. I will probably see it when it hits HBO. And like Caineach I also have many friends who think Abrams is destroying the Star Trek franchise. I am obviously not going to change the minds of the Abrams fans here but he did irritate a lot of Trekers with his first movie.
Oh and there are many who would disagree that Abrams did anyone a favor by messing up Star Trek.
What I find interesting is that EVERYONE destroys the Star Trek franchise.
I remember TNG was criticized because how can you have ST without Spock and Kirk????
I remember DS9 was terrible because they didn't even have a SHIP!!! How do you have star TREK if you don't GO anywhere??
I remember when Voyager was garbage because... well, people hated Janeway.
I remember people STILL hate Enterprise... for many reasons...
Personally... it seems like the last movie people LIKED was First Contact. Seriously? Did anyone like Insurrection? Nemesis? Even Generations was only 'ok'... I wanted to like it a LOT more than I find I actually DID... Every time I watch it I seem more of what it SHOULD have been then what it actually WAS...
Quite frankly I saw JJ taking over the franchise with the same enthusiasm I have with the Star Wars franchise... He CAN'T destroy the franchise... It's so screwed up as it was, there wasn't any more harm he could DO!!!
And frankly I LOVED the reboot... I would rather have had the original cast keep going... but kirk and spock are 82 and half the rest of them are dead now...
It's over.
As it is, 'Star trek: Academy years' was a concept i DREADED wehn I heard about it... but I was QUITE pleased with the end result. A few nitpicks the same as ANY movie... but not many!!! Heck! Zachary Quinto looked more like spock then Nimoy did O.o
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people take this stuff way too seriously. If you don't like Abrams reboot, that is cool. You can sit back and watch episode after episode of the original series, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and about a dozen movies. As a lifelong fan of Star Trek, I loved the reboot. It was great entertainment. I look forward to the sequel.
|
|
The main villian is supposed to be somebody from the original series. For one thing, it can't be Kahn. At this time, Kirk hasn't found Kahn to rescue him from cold sleep & piss him off yet. The general feeling is it is Gary Michaels from the second pilot episode, the guy that becomes God-like.
Was he on one of the missions to the edge of the Galaxy (and possibly Federation territory) when that happened?
The Stills show:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given these issues, we see that Abrams not only ignores the Canon of the Star Trek universe, he ignores trivialities like logic and internal consistency.
Okay I cant comment on the other points that you brought up but I have to ask did you actually watch the 2009 Star Trek movie? Because from the opening pre-credit sequence the canon was a non point because of Nero's appearance in THAT movie universes time-stream. The movie universe IS A DIVERGENT time stream. If I remember correctly even Spock or Uhura even says so out loud.
So the point about canon is addressed really after Spock (old Spock) relates his journey and Nero's origin to Kirk. I'm guessing that Abrams did this so he WOULDN'T have to adhere to canon and do his own thing with the characters and older stories while being able to put his own spin on them. Partially to nix the type of complaining that's going on in this thread (that worked out GRRRRRRRRREAT...). Because the film taks place in a divergent timeline and with the presence of the Original Spock he's (Abrahms) saying that all of the movies and the TV shows STILL happened, but in the "main" time line.
Bottom line? If I want to see the old series THEYRE STILL THERE. Hell they have most of the Star Trek series streaming on Netflix. THe movies are still there. No one has taken them away. And besides? for people like me who like the movies (and really only three of them, WRATH OF KHAN, UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY and FIRST CONTACT) but not necessarily the TV series (I really only cared for the original and Deep Space Nine) I thing that sort of change while not invalidating what came before is the perfect balance.
If you can't get over New Trek, stay at home, re-watch your favorite episodes, and be happy you got them. Why do you let New Trek concern you at all? Abrams did you a favor by starting anew. Just allow yourself to accept the disconnect between both universes.
NO, he didn't do us a favor. He gave rebirth to a dieing franchise, yes. But he did so in a way that changed the franchise feel and theme. He made it into something that it wasn't before, and for many of us made it worse. I will still watch this movie because I like action space battles. But most of the enthusiasm is gone for me, and the series is unlikely to win it back. They are re-booting a series in a genre I like a lot into a diffferent one that I like less.
Now I'm more interested in things like Space Command coming arround. Hopefully they can revive this dieing genre of intelligent science fiction.
*sigh*
why am i seeing odd parallels between the star trek love/hate and 4e d&d love/hate?
personally, i liked the reboot. ya, it had some pretty terrible plot holes, but there are very few star trek episodes/movies that don't. it was fun. it was shiny. the characters were pretty well done (ya, subjective opinion). the franchise was dying a rather well deserved death (subjective again, but do you really think the last couple of movies and shows were up to snuff? ds9 was the last good star trek imo, and even that turned into a bit of a soap opera), and the reboot pretty much breathed life back into it. as for it not really being sci fi, can you honestly say that any of the star treks had even a little hard sci fi in them? come on, it was all just fantasy wearing the trappings of a sci fi show.
my advice? get some popcorn, kick back, and enjoy it for what it is, cause if you think star trek is deep, you're just fooling yourself. its always just been just interesting characters, weird aliens and special effects. sometimes even a morale thrown in.
now the star wars prequels...don't get me f***ing started...you want to see nerd rage...(rant deleted)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
why am i seeing odd parallels between the star trek love/hate and 4e d&d love/hate?
personally, i liked the reboot. ya, it had some pretty terrible plot holes, but there are very few star trek episodes/movies that don't. it was fun. it was shiny. the characters were pretty well done (ya, subjective opinion). the franchise was dying a rather well deserved death (subjective again, but do you really think the last couple of movies and shows were up to snuff? ds9 was the last good star trek imo, and even that turned into a bit of a soap opera), and the reboot pretty much breathed life back into it. as for it not really being sci fi, can you honestly say that any of the star treks had even a little hard sci fi in them? come on, it was all just fantasy wearing the trappings of a sci fi show.
my advice? get some popcorn, kick back, and enjoy it for what it is, cause if you think star trek is deep, you're just fooling yourself. its always just been just interesting characters, weird aliens and special effects. sometimes even a morale thrown in.
now the star wars prequels...don't get me f***ing started...you want to see nerd rage...(rant deleted)
They haven't been hard science fiction. They have been intelligent science fiction. The last movie was just an action movie set in space.
They haven't been hard science fiction. They have been intelligent science fiction. The last movie was just an action movie set in space.*sigh*
why am i seeing odd parallels between the star trek love/hate and 4e d&d love/hate?
personally, i liked the reboot. ya, it had some pretty terrible plot holes, but there are very few star trek episodes/movies that don't. it was fun. it was shiny. the characters were pretty well done (ya, subjective opinion). the franchise was dying a rather well deserved death (subjective again, but do you really think the last couple of movies and shows were up to snuff? ds9 was the last good star trek imo, and even that turned into a bit of a soap opera), and the reboot pretty much breathed life back into it. as for it not really being sci fi, can you honestly say that any of the star treks had even a little hard sci fi in them? come on, it was all just fantasy wearing the trappings of a sci fi show.
my advice? get some popcorn, kick back, and enjoy it for what it is, cause if you think star trek is deep, you're just fooling yourself. its always just been just interesting characters, weird aliens and special effects. sometimes even a morale thrown in.
now the star wars prequels...don't get me f***ing started...you want to see nerd rage...(rant deleted)
Solaris was Intelligent sci-fi.
Children of Men was intelligent sci-fi
2001: A Space Odyssey was intelligent sci-fi.
There is nothing in ANY of the Star Trek films (maybe in a few episodes of the various series though) that have come close to anything in those films. The Star Trek movies have always been mainstream action thrillers, with the sole exception of the first film which bored the pants off of everyone and almost put the final nail in the coffin of the franchise.
Star Trek the Motion Picture had the crew following a mysterious signal into the depths of space.
Wrath of Khan was as I've stated before a military thriller reskinned as space adventure.
Search for Spock was along the same vein as the previous film.
The Voyage Home? MIGHT be considered intelligent Sci-fi but is slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time a viable mean of time travel? Also kidnapping whales from the past to avert a catastrophe in the future? And the entire tone of the movie played more a light comedy than sci-fi.
The Final Frontier? to be honest I cant even recall this movie because it was so bad. I only viewed it the once and never saw it again. I vaguely remember something about Spock's half brother and a "godlike" entity. But no real 'Intelligent" Sci-fi elements.
The Undiscovered Country? Again, another Military thriller. This time with the Klingons standing in for the soviets and and Kirk and McCoy framed for the assassination of a Klingon Ambassador. Spock and the rest of the crew left to uncover the details of the assassination plot before the political situation completely deteriorates. Again re-skinned military thriller and decidedly NOT intelligent sci-fi.
So I'm trying to see where in the original series movies as a whole was there "intelligent sci-fi"? I see comedy, I see military thriller, I see action thriller but the only things that might classify these as sci-fi movies are space ships and aliens. Otherwise? Not so much in the plots or the general themes of ANY of these movies save the 1st and maybe the 4th.
They haven't been hard science fiction. They have been intelligent science fiction. The last movie was just an action movie set in space.*sigh*
why am i seeing odd parallels between the star trek love/hate and 4e d&d love/hate?
personally, i liked the reboot. ya, it had some pretty terrible plot holes, but there are very few star trek episodes/movies that don't. it was fun. it was shiny. the characters were pretty well done (ya, subjective opinion). the franchise was dying a rather well deserved death (subjective again, but do you really think the last couple of movies and shows were up to snuff? ds9 was the last good star trek imo, and even that turned into a bit of a soap opera), and the reboot pretty much breathed life back into it. as for it not really being sci fi, can you honestly say that any of the star treks had even a little hard sci fi in them? come on, it was all just fantasy wearing the trappings of a sci fi show.
my advice? get some popcorn, kick back, and enjoy it for what it is, cause if you think star trek is deep, you're just fooling yourself. its always just been just interesting characters, weird aliens and special effects. sometimes even a morale thrown in.
now the star wars prequels...don't get me f***ing started...you want to see nerd rage...(rant deleted)Solaris was Intelligent sci-fi.
Children of Men was intelligent sci-fi
2001: A Space Odyssey was intelligent sci-fi.
There is nothing in ANY of the Star Trek films (maybe in a few episodes of the various series though) that have come close to anything in those films. The Star Trek movies have always been mainstream action thrillers, with the sole exception of the first film which bored the pants off of everyone and almost put the final nail in the coffin of the franchise.
Just because the series also has action does not mean its not intelligent. Both can mix and do well in most of the series.
The original series played with gender and racial roles in society. It discussed moral philosophy relevant to the Cold War era. Eugenics, facism, and communism, as well as others, made routine appearances. Kirk was portrayed as a futuristic American Hero winning by expousing free will, and the series doesn't age great because of it, but it was relevant at its time. Thats not to mention some of the Hippey vibe the series has. Trouble with Tribbles is an episode about the dangers of bringing animals to new environments, and Star Trek IV is all about saving the whales. Sure the series is lighthearted and fun, and filled with action, but you can be that and intelligent.
Sigh. I'll get into the editions debate later. Now I'd like to do a bit of speculation on the teaser(s) we've seen.
First, some notes:
Posted synopsis (synopsi?):
A: After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.
B: When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.
With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.
As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
***
OK, so why dos this sound like Khan? He wasn't unstopable, in fact (sorry, fans) he got beat regularly. And, unless it's retconned that Star Fleet or the Terran government set up the Eugenics program, he wasn't part of their organization.
OTH; check out this interesting set of shots near the middle of the page: Elizabeth Dehner. Even the facial expression on Alice Eve's face matches.
I also wonder if the so-called Khan shot is at the beginning, not the end. Kirk does seem to be speaking at a funeral in some of the shots.
***
Note: Mike Johnson, writer of the Star Trek comic book said the first (Where No Man Has gone Before), forth (The Galileo 7, part 2) and the twelfth (The Trouble With Tribbles) contained hints of events in the film. [quote: “They are more retroactive, in the sense that after you see the movie you can go back and see where things were set up. Soem are very direct; others are more thematic”]
It's also been confirmed that the film will acknowledge the “ripple effect” of Vulcan's destruction.
***
So, is Benedict Cumberbatch's character, whom he describes as complicated and neither good nor evil in the traditional sense, Vulcan, part Vulcan, or married to a Vulcan?
***
One more bit; the Voice-over:
First: “You think your world is safe. It is an illusion. A comforting lie told to protect you. Enjoy these final moments of peace for I have returned to have my vengeance.”
As Kirk enters -someplace- “So, shall we begin?”
Finally, in the bit from the Japanese cut: “Is there anything you would not do for your family?”
***
Khan did have a family -at least a wife- in the tos and WoK versions.
Gary Mitchell did not, in the tos.
***
Options:
Khan and Kirk's father ran into Botany Bay or was otherwise involved in stranding Khan.
Gary Mitchell is just taunting Kirk/Spock/someone.
Garth of Izar; no known family. but would fit 'war-torn planet'.
There is another possiblity, though it stretches the 'own organization' bit. Kodos the Executioner. Vengence was the theme of that episode, after all.
I enjoyed the 2009 film with the Rifftrax.
It would be impossible for Kirk's father to have found the Botany Bay, as he died only several minutes after the new timeline diverged from the old.
|
|
OTH; check out this interesting set of shots near the middle of the page: Elizabeth Dehner. Even the facial expression on Alice Eve's face matches.
My understanding was that this movie would also feature Gary Mitchell. I can't state where I'd seen it now, but early on the Khan-cept was furiously denied and this became the suspected and hinted villain.
I personally am looking VERY forward to this movie! I am sure it is going to be exciting, and a pleasure to discuss the ramifications of it afterwards.
It would be impossible for Kirk's father to have found the Botany Bay, as he died only several minutes after the new timeline diverged from the old.
Ouch. Good call.
Wrath of Khan was as I've stated before a military thriller reskinned as space adventure.
I disagree on this assessment. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is really about Kirk having to come to terms with the consequences of his past actions.
So, there is a bit more to that story then may be apparent.
I disagree on this assessment. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is really about Kirk having to come to terms with the consequences of his past actions.
He stranded Khan and the other surviving Eugenics survivors, apparently without properly informing Star Fleet (since no one followed up).
His lothario ways catching up to him in the terms of a child he was completely unaware of.
His “cheating” in the kobayashi maru scenario meant that he wasn’t actually prepared to face death – leading to his problem facing aging. (Kirk is finally forced to face death when he has to watch Spock die in front of him.) So, there is a bit more to that story then may be apparent.
And that's without even bringing up Moby Dick.
Frankly, I think not checking up on Khan wasn't a bad idea. You'd want to keep those "superior men" isolated.
Frankly, I think not checking up on Khan wasn't a bad idea. You'd want to keep those "superior men" isolated.
Actually, not checking on Khan's "superior men" was a bad idea, for exactly that reason - to make sure that they stay isolated. It wouldn't do to have someone outside of Star Fleet (an independent mineral prospector, for example) stumble upon them.
That would have also caused the Reliant's computer to raise a warning as soon as the ship approache the Ceti Alpha system, so that ship's captain would not have been as unaware as he ended up being.
Frankly, I think not checking up on Khan wasn't a bad idea. You'd want to keep those "superior men" isolated.Actually, not checking on Khan's "superior men" was a bad idea, for exactly that reason - to make sure that they stay isolated. It wouldn't do to have someone outside of Star Fleet (an independent mineral prospector, for example) stumble upon them.
That would have also caused the Reliant's computer to raise a warning as soon as the ship approache the Ceti Alpha system, so that ship's captain would not have been as unaware as he ended up being.
Well, interdiction would have been a good idea. But considering how conniving and convincing Khan's personality could be, contact should have been pretty much forbidden. I would think that even electronic monitoring could have been forseen as a problem.
Well, interdiction would have been a good idea. But considering how conniving and convincing Khan's personality could be, contact should have been pretty much forbidden. I would think that even electronic monitoring could have been forseen as a problem.Frankly, I think not checking up on Khan wasn't a bad idea. You'd want to keep those "superior men" isolated.Actually, not checking on Khan's "superior men" was a bad idea, for exactly that reason - to make sure that they stay isolated. It wouldn't do to have someone outside of Star Fleet (an independent mineral prospector, for example) stumble upon them.
That would have also caused the Reliant's computer to raise a warning as soon as the ship approache the Ceti Alpha system, so that ship's captain would not have been as unaware as he ended up being.
I don't agree. I believe doing nothing - as the film shows was done - was the greater risk. Contact of Khan (or his heirs) by some third party was still too big of a risk.
*sigh*
why am i seeing odd parallels between the star trek love/hate and 4e d&d love/hate?
Dude! Its the same with Prequel Star Wars vs Good Star Wars! ;)
*ahem*
I'm kind of confused why there seems to be this notion that if the movie is doing well at the box office it must somehow be inferior. Every movie, TV show, collector plate, figurine, glass, toy phaser and a bajillion other licensed products was designed to make money. Roddenberry wasn't doing this stuff out of the goodness of his heart.
I think the bad guy is supposed to be Gary Mitchell.
Wrath of Khan was as I've stated before a military thriller reskinned as space adventure.
I disagree on this assessment. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is really about Kirk having to come to terms with the consequences of his past actions.
He stranded Khan and the other surviving Eugenics survivors, apparently without properly informing Star Fleet (since no one followed up).
His lothario ways catching up to him in the terms of a child he was completely unaware of.
His “cheating” in the kobayashi maru scenario meant that he wasn’t actually prepared to face death – leading to his problem facing aging. (Kirk is finally forced to face death when he has to watch Spock die in front of him.) So, there is a bit more to that story then may be apparent.
Everything that you listed is story based, I was talking about the trappings of the genre that this movie is emulating. I know what the individual character arcs are.
My main disappointment was the amount of white and lucite on the ship without much of a nod to Trek's dark color palette. Bet the ship is all smudgy-dingey within 2 years of its 5 year mission...
See the article on self-cleaning materials and the futuristc desperado in the Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society at Steve Jackson Games.
Wrath of Khan was as I've stated before a military thriller reskinned as space adventure.
I disagree on this assessment. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is really about Kirk having to come to terms with the consequences of his past actions.
He stranded Khan and the other surviving Eugenics survivors, apparently without properly informing Star Fleet (since no one followed up).
His lothario ways catching up to him in the terms of a child he was completely unaware of.
His “cheating” in the kobayashi maru scenario meant that he wasn’t actually prepared to face death – leading to his problem facing aging. (Kirk is finally forced to face death when he has to watch Spock die in front of him.) So, there is a bit more to that story then may be apparent.
INTERESTING....
OTH; check out this interesting set of shots near the middle of the page: Elizabeth Dehner. Even the facial expression on Alice Eve's face matches.My understanding was that this movie would also feature Gary Mitchell. I can't state where I'd seen it now, but early on the Khan-cept was furiously denied and this became the suspected and hinted villain.
I personally am looking VERY forward to this movie! I am sure it is going to be exciting, and a pleasure to discuss the ramifications of it afterwards.
looks like Karl Urban let it slip, but he may have been jacking with us.
NO, he didn't do us a favor. He gave rebirth to a dieing franchise, yes. But he did so in a way that changed the franchise feel and theme.
If you can't get over New Trek, stay at home, re-watch your favorite episodes, and be happy you got them. Why do you let New Trek concern you at all? Abrams did you a favor by starting anew. Just allow yourself to accept the disconnect between both universes.
That wasn't my point at all. Again: if you don't like it, don't watch it. Ignore it. Mourn it if you must. It's not your Trek anymore, I get it. But you take yourself entirely too serious here when you whine about what Abrams' did to the new franchise (and it is a new franchise).
That's why the reboot is a good thing. It presents a clean cut for those who don't like the new stuff.
|
|
I hope they don't go with the original encounters experienced by the Original Star trek crew - they said we are now an an alternate history of Star trek...so Maybe we will See Kirk and crew go up against all manor of things like where the Tholians encounter the USS Defiant and send it into the Mirror-Universe Past. New Missions on a new path through space time.
|
|
My understanding was that this movie would also feature Gary Mitchell. I can't state where I'd seen it nowI know exactly where you've seen it. It's nothing more than a rumor that has been repeated to death. Addams himself has been very good at keeping his cards to his chest.
There's no foundation for Gary Mitchell here. In the orginal series Gary Mitchell was a long time StarFleet veteran who served with Kirk for his entire career. Kirk's timeline has been completely upended, we would have had to have had Mitchell in on the first movie for him to have a history. There's also the distinct lack of the trademark Glowing Eyes of Doom that Mitchell and Dehner had.
Wait...isn't Gary Mitchell the crewman from the SS Valiant which is a Pre-enterprise warp ship sent to explore the galactic barrier?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My spouse called Abram's first move. "The moment Star Trek finally grew up."
I'm glad you later qualified this statement, because TREK XI was a quite spectacularly juvenile movie. Not as juvenile as the very worst episodes of NEXT GEN or VOYAGER, sure, but it still had very silly moments, the nadir of which was the inexplicable 'Kirk's fat hand' sequence.
Certainly compared to the way DS9 dealt with the horrors of war and the consequences of choices, it was pretty lightweight entertainment at best.
NO, he didn't do us a favor. He gave rebirth to a dieing franchise, yes. But he did so in a way that changed the franchise feel and theme.
I have to agree with this. Abrams' take on STAR TREK was flawed because he launched it with a lightweight action movie that didn't make any sense. Now, TREK has certainly had lightweight action installments before that didn't make any sense ('Arsenal of Freedom', anybody?) and survived, so it may be that the next more is more serious and successful as a piece of entertainment, but it does not bode well going forwards.
However, that said, if Abrams' take on the franchise is one new film every four years it isn't really going to go very far (I can see one more film after this and then it'll be time to reboot or do something else as the cast won't want to carry on). Unless they go for a new TV series set in the new timeline or step up to a new movie every two years, it's possible to see Abrams's TREK as a 'what if?' side-story without long-lasting consequence.
I enjoyed it, the casting in particular was awesome (apart possibly from Simon Pegg as Scotty, which didn't quite work as well on screen as it sounded on paper, and Chris Pine who simply lacks Kirk's charisma) and appreciated the way they undertook the reboot to show respect to the original franchise whilst bringing in new elements. But it was simply way too disposable to really work for me. I think there is a lot of scope for improvement though, and maybe this second movie could really make it work (and I have to say that Quinto's alterno-take on Spock is compelling).
And bullocks on the last point. After all how many ensigns and red shirts did Kirk see die right in front of him? He did react to a few of them, especially the ensign crushed right in front of his eyes by the Kelvin Commander.
Those things happened when Kirk was a lot younger (he was only supposed to be 30 in the first year of TREK, IIRC) and felt invincible. Even when people died, the battle/conflict was usually won and the sacrifice was judged worth it. Also, since Kirk could be an insensitive ahole at times, most of those people were not his best friends or closest colleagues he'd known for decades. At the end of TREK II he loses his best friend and the person who is almost a part of him (Spock and McCoy are often characterised as two aspects of Kirk's personality, giving him different takes on situations).
In fact, it is highly questionable if Khan is even the main villain of STAR TREK II. He dies completely off-hand whilst barking threats at Kirk that Kirk never hears, and they never meet in the movie. The real enemy of TREK II is death, notably the death of Spock and the death of Kirk's youth.
Whilst they were sometimes insipid, many episodes and films of TREK did at least have some sort of thematic point to make. The new STAR TREK movie actually sidesteps the more interesting moments (like Nero's conflicted motivation) in favour of nonsensical action beats.
Love the Abrams reboot. The casting is top notch. I think it will be Gary Mitchell IMO. I'm hoping for a cameo as well for an early Khan, possibly foreshadowing the next movie. Tbh, I'd rather see a newer "Mirror Mirror" for the third movie.
Tbh, I'd rather see a newer "Mirror Mirror" for the third movie.
I have my doubts that would work well as a movie. One reason it worked so well as a TV episode is the frequency with which we normally watch the show and how well we get to know the characters as a result. Getting to watch the new characters do something new every 3 years doesn't build up the same familiarity nor effect once that familiarity is turned on its head via a parallel universe twist.
|
|
The main villian is supposed to be somebody from the original series. For one thing, it can't be Kahn. At this time, Kirk hasn't found Kahn to rescue him from cold sleep & piss him off yet. The general feeling is it is Gary Michaels from the second pilot episode, the guy that becomes God-like.
Except that Gary comes from the SS Valiant that went out there to the edge of the Galaxy and the Galactic Barrier. I suppose it could be - as this Star trek is an 'alternate history' The Enterprise didn't go to the Aid of the SS Valiant in this one so Gary comes home...
I know what the yellow dome is now - its likely the Dome at the Top of a Starbase. So he must be going to crash Starfleet HQ into earth.
No, Gary Mitchell was a Lieutenant Commander and the helmsman of the Enterprise in the tos. He was a student and cadet during Kirk's time as an instructor.
The Valiant also had personnel affected by the barrier, just not Mitchell.