Wow? you have already seen the movie and able to judge it! Where did you get an advanced screening?
Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
Sock Puppet one turns to Captain Caboodle and declares: My Name is Joss Wheadon. Say you like my movies and I will make Avengers 2. Sock Puppet two Says: My name is JJ Abrams...and if you like my movies I will make Startrek 3.George Lucas removes the two socks from the Horns on his head after you have surrendered your money to the box.
Now I can direct Star Wars 7-9...and make repeated changes to them.
It doesn't neccessarily follow from the trailer. The Big Bad could also be Col. Green, or Section 37 which has no shortage of baddies in black outfits.
And if they were redoing Khan, I couldn't blame them for revisiting the only decent Star Trek movie in the original crop that actually has merits as far as being a FILM.
Marc Radle wrote:
It's the inherent need to show ipeen and "leetness" by trashing something popular.
My spouse called Abram's first move. "The moment Star Trek finally grew up."
I have been following Star Trek for about 40 years now, and I loved every incarnation of it, some more, some less. But sometimes, when I see an old episode on TV, I think to myself, "how could I ever have liked that?"
And LazarX, I agree 100% with your spouse.
"It has become a crusade of mine to demonstrate that TV need not be violent to be exciting." - Gene Roddenberry
"I wanted to send a message to the television industry that excitement is not made of car chases."- Gene Roddenberry
"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
And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.
And yes I am going with the presumption it will be a bad but very action packed movie typical of his first Star Trek movie.
I'm just gonna leave this here.
Also, you mean typical of pretty much every Star Trek movie, right?
Arguing that the first Abrams Trek is a bad movie is a non-starter. The universal acclaim it's received makes that a pretty hard position to defend. Arguing that it's a bad Trek movie because it has a lot of action is also a non-starter, because that's been the case for nearly every Star Trek movie ever made. Arguing that it's not like an extra-long episode from one of the TV series? You could probably get away with that, but what would it prove? That you're watching a movie, and not a new Star Trek TV series?
And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.
Yep, no violence or explosions there.
Scott Betts wrote:
Except the team behind Wrath of Khan had a history of doing not just explosion-filled action movies and made something that wasn't one, but had those elements. I have no such hopes for this movie, especially after the terrible story and pacing of the last one.
Yes so unlike the explosions as battles and violence that populate pretty much ALL of the Star Trek movies from II on forward (well maybe not so much the Voyage Home, but still).
This is a crap criticism being that there is a fair amount of violence (tame by today's standard but still) in the orignal series and then in the movies.
Nothing ever stays the same and Star Trek REALLY needed a new coat of paint on it after the last few movies. I liked the 2009 Star Trek film. I'll probably like this one as well. It doesnt make me a JJ Abrams fanboy, it makes me someone who enjoyed an exciting adventure film set in space with new, yet familiar characters.
People want more of the same there's like almost 40 years of Star Trek predating the 2009 movie. Help yourselves. At least Paramount isn't keeping the original versions of Star Trek away from you and pushing a new CG and re-edited version of the movie/TV show at you.
Yeah Wrath of Khan? basically a Sub chase movie IN SPACE. I wasnt a Star Trek fan before Khan in '82 but afterwards I was. After the snooze fest that was The Motion Picture in 79 they needed to make the next one more interesting and action based. And I'm sure back in 81 and 82 when the first pictures started showing up in Starlog magazine people complained too.
Didnt stop Nicholas Meyer from turning out a GREAT Star Trek Movie.
Caineach, my friend (and Aranna as well, I suppose)... I respect your right to your opinion, but I could not disagree more. In fact, other than right here in this thread by a few posters, I don't think I've encountered a single person who didn't really like or LOVE the first movies (die-hard Trek fan and casual movie-goer alike)
If the villain is Khan, then it is a younger Khan, and not the Khan from Wrath of Khan. (That may be the most use of the word Khan in a sentence.)
That means Enterprise finds the Botany Bay and the other changes in the time stream likely effected that eventual outcome too. If it is Khan, I will be curious as to how they handle it with what we already know from the original TV series episode.
I am just looking forward to it. The first JJ Abrams Star Trek was a blast. Fun movie!
Honestly, Aranna, the new going speculation among fans (at least on Trekmovie.com) is that the villain is Gary Mitchell and that it'll be a sequel to the IDW JJverse redo of "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
My own feeling is that it's going to be a new villain, and that it's most likely going to draw heavily from "Heart of Darkness"/"Apocalypse Now" in its themes.
I liked the action in movie 1... But:
-The story was horrible.
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.
I love what they did! The charcters were spot on, Bones is fab. Love the fact they can now re-write history and lore if they wish and make it what they desire.
However low point for me..I'm British I love Simon Pegg to bits, he's a genius- spaced is fab! but his Scotty..oh dear...
My wife..big Stat Trek fan..not impressed...re-write history, you re-write Wrath of Khan and everything connected with it which means Kirks son David does not exist, meaning no reason to watch Khan any more..
Personaly I hope Abrahm loves Kahn as much as everyone else and does not mess with the timeline of the besytTrek movie ever! (and keep the wife happy too).
I will qualify that a bit. My spouse was pretty much referring to the movie series. He did consider DS9 to be the most mature story writing of the TNG trilogy of Trek shows, because it broke away from the Kirk-Picard-Janeway/Ship motif. In my opinion, Enterprise was fatally flawed by executive meddling and too much emphasis on forward antcipation of the later series. It wasn't even given the dignity to die it's own death, it's last episode being nothing more than a TNG Holodeck exercise.
Marc Radle wrote:
Funny, I don't know anyone who thought the first one was a good science fiction movie. I know plenty who thought it was a good action movie, but currently my social media is furious with people facepalming at this trailer, feeling it is more or less the death of Star Trek as we knew it. Gone was the intelligence from the series in the last movie, and no one thinks it will return in this one.
See, that right there is your problem. How does it "violate" anything about the ST universe? It basically is a retcon. It doesn't change or invalidate anything set in the old timeline.
Which is full of crap, by the way. The old Star Trek was destroyed by Berman and Braga (the 4th season of Enterprise notwithstanding). Completely. They screwed up that timeline so hard that it is not salvageable.
A retcon was the only way to save the franchise. Admittedly, the way they did it, storywise, was stupid, but that's what you get when you hire the guys who wrote Transformers. And it still doesn't beat the dumb stories of ST 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10.
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.
Charles Scholz wrote:
I have a strong suspicion that Abrams is going to shuck all of the baggage attached to the old Trek timeline and is going to introduce someone completely new as the Big Bad, just as he did in his opener.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
I have to agree FM!
There is so much Star Trek material out there that it is nothing short of ridiculous. It is hard for me to understand anyone complaining about anything being made with the Star Trek name on it, when there were only 12 episodes and one movie worth of Firefly. Don't get me wrong, I like Star Trek. I have been a huge fan since I was very small, likely longer than many here have been alive. But for me Firefly is better, and that series did not receive its do. Star Trek has received its do many times over.
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.
Peter Stewart wrote:
I think a Khan remake actually makes a lot of sense. Without Kirk to deal with him in the normal timeline he needs to be addressed.
Does that mean every other menace from the original series needs to be addressed too?
Of course, if no one ever comes across the Botany Bay, he can just keep drifting in suspended animation. There's no real need for him to be addressed.
Who knows? Maybe if the Enterprise did not find the ship, it runs into an asteroid, or more prosaically, it's ancient systems simply give out and the sleeper ship becomes one big coffin for the last remnant of the Eugenics Wars.
Besides. Ricardo Montalbaun is dead. No one could play Khan half as well as he did. Let Khan rest with him.
Marc Radle wrote:
Oh come on.. you mean you never ran into someone who ...
Called the first movie "Star Trek: The Motion Sickness?" or "Star Trek: Pajama Party?"
Gave themselves a ton of Brain Bleach after the naked scene with an ancient Nichelle Nichols in Star Trek "The Final Frustration"?
Went into a fit at the mention of the name "Sybok"?
Just wanted to look away at all the idiotic fanboy nonsense the TNG crew was doing in "First Contact?" No wonder Cochrane tried to run away.
Not every menace needs to be addressed. But, c'mon. Khan. Best Star Trek villain. It would be hard to imagine him as anybody other than Ricardo Montalban, but I'd be willing to give it a try.
I would love to see Abrams throw the curve and for the Cumberbatch to be playing Gary Mitchell, though. I had been hoping to see a Mitchell character in the first movie.
Overall, I liked the Abrams Trek. Characterizations were nicely over the top which I think is a hallmark of Classic Trek. 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...
What I hated about the first Abrams movie was that it totally voided my favorite tos episode 'Balance of Terror'.
What I loved was the long, loving fly-by of the Enterprise.
And, hey, it was also the least offensive time-travel tale I've ever seen.
So...Khan, Mitchell, or Garth?
I'm kinda pulling for Mitchell, but Khan would be good, too.
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.