Nelson Au wrote (post #177)
Today's movie makers are influenced by Lucas and Star Trek and other re-runs. So these guys likely just don't have the same ability to create from a certain point of view. They are boomers and their life experiences are vastly different and education mght not have been as strong.
They are not "boomers"! (Go find the definition of that demographer's "imaginative" term in a dictionary or on-line somewhere.) Otherwise, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. These people have the "re-runs" like nobody's business.
Or as another poster who used to participate here would call them hacks.
"Used to"? Uh, I resemble that remark! But, yes, they've once again lived down to their well-deserved reputations!
Scott-S wrote (post #164):
I held off reading this thread until I saw the movie. I am glad I did. It seems filled with tons-o-hate. I think there are some people that will never be happy with any Trek film.
Yep. Trek creativity pretty much died when the "franchise" moved to the big screen, where rehashes and remakes (for which read "ossification") predominate. WoK was fun, as was half of First Contact (not the earthly half!), but the rest has pretty much been a big disappointment (unless you give up all expectation of any real professional effort or creativity, as I did after seeing The Lurch for Spock).
. . . having a "bad" sci-fi movie is better than having none at all. I am just afraid that since it is really hard to please most of us "nerds", there will be fewer attempts in the future.
. . . Unfortunately if they made a Trek film that would please the hard core fan, it might not make any money, They have to try and balance out pleasing the Trek fans and yet still a good movie for casual audiences that might not care about the cannon.
Uh, that's "geeks", in new-speak. ("'Nerds', totally different head, dude! Totally!") There will certainly be fewer and fewer of these things at the obscene costs of multiple 100s of millions of dollars a pop. It's called the law of diminishing returns.
And if you think they're making these movies to please "most of us [geeks]", you haven't been paying attention. Their publicly stated goal has been to "open up" ST to the all the casual---"Sheesh! Who cares about 'science'?"---moviegoers, has it not? These producers do not care at all about the ["geeks"].
The "battle" over "popularization" of the franchise began in earnest back in the day of Enterprise. Remember the uproar over the theme song? The deliberate dropping of "Star Trek" from the show's original title so that it wouldn't be associated with "boring Geezer Trek"? ("We wants young'ns!") That was the first real volley, and it has proceeded apace.
Lou Sytsma wrote (post #206)
New writers is what is really needed.
Along with new producers (who commission them) who have a different agenda from just "flash & BOOM!" and "branding".
schan 1269 wrote (post #213):
What do people not get about "reboot"?
That it's worth doing in the first damned place (esp. at $200m+ a pop)???
Doug zdanivsky wrote (post #218)
The one with the Tribbles would be a good one to watch after this movie as well.. :-)
Uh-oh! You've just gone and given the producers their "original new idea" for the next movie: Mutated tribbles in space! "Star Trek: The Travels with Tribbles". ("In a universe gone mad . . . .")
(Bloated Paramount exec: "It's got heat! It's got numbers!" Flack to Paramount exec: "It's got our braaaand! The best Trek ever!")
Edited by Rex Bachmann, June 23 2013 - 05:53 AM.