Star Trek sequel scheduled for May 17, 2013 Release (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Why is that so incredibly hard for everyone to understand and accept?

Jason_V disagreed with you and I guess I vaguely disagreed with you as well (though I'd consider it to be a different take on the situation rather than refuting your point) so I don't know if I'd say that "everyone" is having trouble understanding and accepting your POV.

 

[Gary Seven]

The last statement I said was just playfully repeating what Jason said.

Jason, I have no problem with change that deals with modernizing elements for today... But when you change the characters, then it becomes something different. Kirk , Spock, Scotty, even Uhura are different characters.... McCoy is roughly the same for the most part I guess. Amanda was killed off, the person who keeps Spock close to his humanity...it is a different universe, different characters with familiar names. I guess that's what we get when we let a Star Wars guy direct a Star Trek film.

Actors do not make the characters... writers do. So I don't care who plays Kirk, write the character they way he is supposed to be. It is not Shatner's Kirk (and company) I want, it is Roddenberry's.

I was trying to relate an example that would help illustrate my point but if hell freezes over and they do make a movie about DS9, it will not be about the TV show you love. Oh well.

I explained why there is much dissatisfaction among us long time fans of Star Trek with Abrams take... not so much an arguement as I am not arguing with you, merely stating a fact. Call it sour grapes if you want... I don't care, it is what it is.

 

[Jason_V]

But my entire point has always been this: these characters have to change. Any character has to change to remain relevant to a new audience. Bond changes over time. Kirk changes over time. Mickey Mouse changes over time. Dr. Who has changed over time.

I now get what you were trying to say about DS9. But, with all respect, based on one movie made by JJ Abrams, how is that a predictor of what might happen in the future if there is a DS9 movie? It really isn't, unless you have inside info on what is going on and coming down the pike.

I absolutely agree: this is a different universe. It has to be a new universe. You can't keep gallivanting around the Prime Universe without bumping into someone/something/some place connected to a previous Trek. By the time you explain the connection, the story is stalled. If you expect the audience to know ahead of time, that keeps people "out" of the story. By setting this in a new place with connections to the old, the movie honored what came before without being a slave to it.

It might just be me, but I don't see the characters all that different from the Prime Universe. I respect the people who don't like Trek now because we're all passionate about it. But the fact-the sole fact here-is that no amount of anything is going to get us a new adventure in the Prime Universe on television and the movies. At least in my opinion.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

I'm fine with this iteration of movies. Even the original cast movies did little to no boldly going. Its the nature of the beast as movies have to play more broadly. To get the old school type of stories won't happen until the franchise returns to TV IMO.

Now for some eye candy.

View attachment 505

 

[Lou Sytsma]

View attachment 505

 

[Lou Sytsma]

 

[Brandon Conway]

This is the plain truth. The movies won't give you reflective, not when Paramount can make $500 million+ theatrically.

To get the old school type of stories won't happen until the franchise returns to TV IMO.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jason_V wrote (post #343):



this is a different universe. It has to be a new universe. You can't keep gallivanting around the Prime Universe without bumping into someone/something/some place connected to a previous Trek. By the time you explain the connection, the story is stalled. If you expect the audience to know ahead of time, that keeps people "out" of the story.

An absolutely ridiculous assertion. To quote the eponymous Wikipedia article: "The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy 100,000–120,000 light-years in diameter containing 200–400 billion stars. It may contain at least as many planets." [Emphasis all mine.] (Some estimates have run as low as 100,000,000,000 stars, but, no matter. Still plenty enough.)

There are/would be many new places to visit if the show were actually trying to "go boldly" to any place besides the retread trenches (Safe Trek). This cant for "familiarity" and "accessibility"---("The audience shouldn't have to think!")--- is pandered to by the greedy, cowardly, unimaginative hacks who run the Hollywood studios. Science fiction ("sci-fi"), to my mind---and I'm hardly alone in this---, is defined by the scientific exploration of that which you DON'T already know. That's the point, its raison d'être.



By setting this in a new place with connections to the old, the movie honored what came before without being a slave to it.

The movie "honors" nothing! It is derivative and epigonal. It eclectically steals names and personas, puts them up on screen, and does nothing of particular interest or of any innovation with them. And the "place" you mention is actually the same old same-old (SOS) now on view in almost all big-budget Hollywood action pictures, even with its thin veneer of "science fiction".


Delenda est ....

 

[Chris Will]

The movie "honors" nothing! It is derivative and epigonal. It eclectically steals names and personas, puts them up on screen, and does nothing of particular interest or of any innovation with them.

I definitely miss the old great Trek days when the characters were pushed forward and the stories were innovative, you know, like Insurrection and Nemesis.

Please, Trek had dived head first into the boring and mundane stories long before Abrams put his stamp on the franchise. If anything, Abrams breathed some much needed life into the franchise and for long time Trek fans to keep denying this is just ignorance. If things were going so great before why was the franchise falling apart; even Trek fans had stopped watching Trek? If every Trek fan was watching Enterprise, it wouldn't have been canceled; if every Trek fan had seen Nemesis, it would have been a hit. Look, I love Star Trek, everything Star Trek. I watch the movies and shows all the time, even the bad ones but, I'm not going to sit here and play this game that everything about Trek was great until Abrams ruined it all. That is ridiculous.

The 2009 movie was fun and entertaining, something the previous 2 movies failed to accomplish. Why does everything have to be deep, intellectual, and thought provoking? Not even all of Trek before 2009 could make that claim but some fans now act like it can (I think very little of Voyager and Enterprise is thought provoking).

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

this is a different universe. It has to be a new universe. You can't keep gallivanting around the Prime Universe without bumping into someone/something/some place connected to a previous Trek. By the time you explain the connection, the story is stalled. If you expect the audience to know ahead of time, that keeps people "out" of the story. By setting this in a new place with connections to the old, the movie honored what came before without being a slave to it.

Now that's a rather disingenuous argument. Many stories, whether they're books, games, movies, or even comics have at some point acknowledged previous stories that don't alienate any new comers who just jumped into the series. To say that we should ignore the long, detailed history that spans years is almost like arguing that we shouldn't write stories that matter in the long run. Star Trek was really good when it had stories that were not only great, but left you with a feeling that these characters have changed because of it. "The Best of Both Worlds" was a huge changing point for the entire franchise because not only would our characters be different, but also the galaxy itself. It wasn't something that writers were 'slaves' to, it was something that the writers built stories out of.

Also, to say that explaining a connection to something that occurred previously would only stall the story is just ludicrous because characters explain things in stories ALL THE TIME. Whether the characters are talking about something that happened in a previous story or not, it doesn't matter. It's called exposition and it can be done either very well or very poorly. Star Trek II, the one Star Trek movie that's regarded as the best in the film franchise manages to do both of these expositions. Khan comes from a previous story from the original series, but Carol Marcus and her son David do not. Both are given scenes that help explain who they are and what their connection is with Kirk. Do either break the film with their presence? Not in my opinion. The exposition scene with Khan works because it shows how intimidating his character is to new audiences and how much he's changed for Trek fans who knew about him from the original series.

You can have a long running franchise that still acknowledges all the stories that came before it while still taking the story into new territories. One of the longest running science fiction series of all time, Doctor Who, is still building the character of the Doctor that was introduced in 1963. No reboot or alternate reality crap. He's on his 11th regeneration and he's still going strong, dealing with enemies and allies both new and old.

 

[Jason_V]

I don't have a ton of time to respond in long form, but my argument is no more disingenuous than any of the others out there which are bashing the movie. The ones like "it's not my Kirk and Spock anymore therefore its no good" or "they're not boldly going anymore so its not Trek" or "an alternate Vulcan got destroyed so this Trek is dead to me" or "everything from 1966 to 2005 was great Trek and Abrams singlehandedly killed the franchise" or "the other movies and shows always had a great moral and social message and the movie doesn't so the movie is crap."

Trek 09 had a ton of references to the other shows and movies which fans would get but did not detract from the story if they were missed. That was the right way to go. IMHO. Which is why the movie was successful and not pandering like ST IV, which everyone seems to fall over one another to suck up to.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

How was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home pandering? It was about rescuing whales.

Trek 09 had a ton of references to the other shows and movies which fans would get but did not detract from the story if they were missed. That was the right way to go.

You could do that for a new Star Trek series in the Prime Universe. Have a show that wants to be it's own thing with new ship, a new crew and a new mission while still acknowledging the shows that came before it. Your only argument against a new Star Trek taking place in the Prime Universe is because that universe has stories in it.

IMHO. Which is why the movie was successful and not pandering like ST IV, which everyone seems to fall over one another to suck up to.

Wait, how is saving the whales pandering to only Star Trek fans?

 

[Richard V]

Right or wrong, Paramount had abandoned the Star Trek franchise as used up and tapped out. IMO the only reason they decided to continue the franchise at all was because they were willing to gamble on JJ Abrams, "rebranding" it. If they had not made this decision, I seriously doubt that the studio would have made much, if any, effort to continue the franchise. So everyone relax, enjoy it for what it is. We are not talking about re-writing the Declaration of Independence, The Bible, or the Magna Carta here. It's a make believe science fiction world conceived to entertain us. JMO, go ahead and flame me if you wish.

 

[SilverWook]

Star Trek becomes a religion in a few centuries, according to Futurama. So, enjoy speaking heresy while you can.

 

[Jason_V]

How was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home pandering? It was about rescuing whales.

And it was about the characters everyone loves so very much and holds on pedestals to be complete idiots. Scotty doesn't know how to work the computer, for instance. This was such a great idea in ST IV we got ST V. That is pandering to the lowest common denominator, setting almost the entire movie outside the 24th century so audiences wouldn't have to worry about anything that happens there. It's no different than what you're saying happened in Trek 09.

 

[RobertR]

And it was about the characters everyone loves so very much and holds on pedestals to be complete idiots. Scotty doesn't know how to work the computer, for instance.

Poor example. After wrongly assuming the Mac had voice recognition, Scotty starts typing away and effortlessly bangs out the formula for transparent aluminum. Hardly an "idiot".

 

[Tommy R]

Yeah, there's no telling in the context of Trek's universe when voice recognition became the norm. Perhaps it wasn't too far off from the point in time they were in that Scotty just didn't know the EXACT year a voice recognition computer would be around, and in '86 the filmmakers themselves may have figured that voice recognition with computers could've been a near enough thing.

 

[Jason_V]

Yeah, there's no telling in the context of Trek's universe when voice recognition became the norm. Perhaps it wasn't too far off from the point in time they were in that Scotty just didn't know the EXACT year a voice recognition computer would be around, and in '86 the filmmakers themselves may have figured that voice recognition with computers could've been a near enough thing.

Well, as of Enterprise, there was no voice recognition as far as I remember, so there is a clue there. BUT it's not fair to use something made 15 years later in this argument, I understand. So I won't.

What I will say is this: Scotty first tries talking to the computer. Then he's told to use the mouse...he talks to the mouse. Then he goes to the keyboard.

See, now what I hear is justification and rationalization for something that doesn't make a ton of sense. Let's try this one: going into surgery with Gillian on the gurney, it's a female patient. On the way out, with Chekov, Kirk mentions "he's going to make it" or something to that effect. Would Kirk actually forget something like that?

And here's one more thing: the vast majority of the movie takes place in a time period the audience is completely comfortable with, where not a lot has to be explained. There are bookends in the 24th century. There's no boldly going, no seeking out new life and all that stuff, which is exactly the knock some people have had against Trek 09.

 

[RobertR]

What I will say is this: Scotty first tries talking to the computer. Then he's told to use the mouse...he talks to the mouse. Then he goes to the keyboard.

See, now what I hear is justification and rationalization for something that doesn't make a ton of sense.

No, it makes perfect sense when viewed as it was intended (ie an amusing "stranger in a strange land" moment). The amusement comes from the character being unfamiliar, not an "idiot" as you claimed.

 

[Jason_V]

And you just unintentionally made a point I've been trying to make for a while. The perceived knock against the Trek 09 and STID has been they are both revenge stories. In other words, nothing new and they fly in the face of boldly going and all that other stuff. But what new civilization did ST IV encounter and explore? Where did that movie boldly go? Nowhere.

Getting back to the idiot comment, maybe that was a bit harsh of a word to use. Maybe I should have said the script had the characters do out of character things (ie. all the jokes) for no reason other than to lighten them up. Trek isn't about amusement and guffaws but ST IV is almost all about that. And this directly contributed to ST V...and Scotty saying he knows the ship like the back of his own hand and then hitting his head...Kirk saying gravity is foremost on his mind...Spock doing Superman...etc.