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

[Nelson Au]

Yes, this is not Boldly Going. This is not big ideas or anything remotely thought provoking from what I have seen. This is boldly going for box office numbers for the summer season.

I'm am really more and more looking forward to the Directors Cut of Star Trek The Motion Picture on blu ray.

It certainly looks like a fun romp. I hope the Enterprise is destroyed and they get a new one. But the ship crashing into Alcatraz then San Francisco looks like a different ship.

But then, these trailers are supposed to tease us and make us want to go see the movie. With JJ Abrams secrecy, there might be something more meaningful to this movie. However, I am not holding my breath. I thought 8mm had some heart, but it wasn't something that spoke to me. It had moments, it reminded me of my youth and I could identify with the characters. So there's some hope this new sci fi film called Star Trek that has names of people I loved from a TV series might be okay.

 

[TravisR]

It certainly looks like a fun romp.

I think that's all you can hope for. I understand how fans of the TV series want to see the more thoughtful Trek themes focused on but Paramount wants Star Trek to be a big budget action/sci-fi movie franchise that will appeal to as wide of an audience as possible so, right or wrong, that means alien invasions, explosions, crashes and killing.

 

[Jason_V]

Agreed. Very tired of seeing cities destroyed, the Enterprise crashing, etc. I'm even more tired of the personal angle that's applied to every film. Can't Kirk (or James Bond for that matter) function without some very intense personal motivation anymore?

I don't know. That goes all the way back, in Trek, to at least The Menagerie. Spock acted out of "intense personal motivation" to get Pike back to the Talosians.

More than that, though, in greater pop culture, why is it a bad thing for characters to have personal reasons to do what they do? Either for friends or family or country or any version thereof. Here's the thing: Batman and Superman do the things they do in the comics going back to their inception for personal reasons. The Trojan War was fought over the personal motivation of one person. I don't honestly understand why "personal motivation" is now being held against this movie when every movie for the last, oh, I don't know, 75-80 years has had personal motivation at the core of the story.

 

[dpippel]

I think that's all you can hope for. I understand how fans of the TV series want to see the more thoughtful Trek themes focused on but Paramount wants Star Trek to be a big budget action/sci-fi movie franchise that will appeal to as wide of an audience as possible so, right or wrong, that means alien invasions, explosions, crashes and killing.

Star Trek is as popular as it is BECAUSE of the thoughtful themes the TV show and most of the feature films focused on. Straying too far from those themes is dangerous ground IMO. I'll reserve final judgement until I've actually seen Into Darkness, but if the story is really revolving around an antagonist bent on personal revenge as the trailers strongly suggest, well, that's what Abrams gave us in the first film.

Yawn.

 

[Jason_V]

Forgot to mention earlier it's my understanding most of the footage from the trailers is from the first half hour of the movie. So we don't really know what the movie is actually going to be about at this point.

 

[TravisR]

Star Trek is as popular as it is BECAUSE of the thoughtful themes the TV show and most of the feature films focused on.

I have no doubt that that's a huge part of what existing fans enjoy about Trek but what do you think the vast majority of people that are going to pay $12 a ticket expect to see- Kirk and Spock peacfully meeting with an alien race and embarking on a more positive future together or meeting up with an angry, violent alien race and kicking their ass?

 

[dpippel]

This isn't really an either/or choice is it? Trek has always been a successful combination of philosophy, morality, and action. I see no reason why a well done Trek film in Abrams' new timeline couldn't be thoughtful AND action-packed. It's when things lean too far in one direction or the other that it falls apart.

 

[Ron-P]

I'm the opposite, the more trailers I see the more excited I get. This is an opening day viewing for me, and most likely my 1st trip out to a commercial theater this year.

 

[Chris Will]

I'm with Ron. I'm getting more excited with each passing day. I don't understand why a lot of Trek fans seem so offended by the Abrams movies. So what if it is not thought provoking, there are 100s of hours of thought provoking Trek if that is what you are looking to watch. I love watching old Trek episodes, DS9 is my favorite of all the shows mostly because of the themes and character development. So I get what you guys are saying but, I also think the is a place for movies like 2009's Star Trek in this universe as well. I have no problem with what Abrams and his team are doing, they've made Trek movies fun again because for a while there they were not a whole lot of fun. From V through Nemesis you had 2 fun movies, VI and FC; the rest are pretty boring IMO. That is almost 24 years of mostly mediocre Trek movies, it was time for someone to light a spark in this franchises "you know what".

 

[mattCR]

I have no doubt that that's a huge part of what existing fans enjoy about Trek but what do you think the vast majority of people that are going to pay $12 a ticket expect to see- Kirk and Spock peacfully meeting with an alien race and embarking on a more positive future together or meeting up with an angry, violent alien race and kicking their ass?

You forget, the two most financially successful Trek films before the newest one were Star Trek IV, which was largely comedy with an environmental theme, and Star Trek VI which was about reaching peace despite resistance. Both had decent action and storylines... six definitely had good action and suspense for me.
If this is a "bent on revenge" film then fine, but I think the sentiment is right, it loses some of what made trek great.

 

[Chris Will]

Well, 2009 Trek's success blew IV and VI out of the water so, I would say that Abrams found the right tone to hit for what today's audiences want out of a Trek movie.

Khan was a revenge film and it is considered by many to be the best of all Trek movies. There have also been many Trek villains through out the series that have been out for vengeance. Don't understand why it is a problem now.

 

[mattCR]

Well, 2009 Trek's success blew IV and VI out of the water so, I would say that Abrams found the right tone to hit for what today's audiences want out of a Trek movie.

Khan was a revenge film and it is considered by many to be the best of all Trek movies. There have also been many Trek villains through out the series that have been out for vengeance. Don't understand why it is a problem now.

If it's a great story I'm good. But we can't judge a film as "great" by the money it earns, if that was the case there would be a whole lot less movies I would give a darn about, and the only films we'd get would be horrible blow-em-ups. In the end, if this is done well, it could be fantastic. But there is just as much chance for an action vehicle to not work.

That said, the trailers look decent so I will give it a shot... in a side note everytime I see the Trek trailer I see the trailer for Lone Ranger and THAT film looks HORRIBLE

 

[dpippel]

Well, 2009 Trek's success blew IV and VI out of the water so, I would say that Abrams found the right tone to hit for what today's audiences want out of a Trek movie.

Khan was a revenge film and it is considered by many to be the best of all Trek movies. There have also been many Trek villains through out the series that have been out for vengeance. Don't understand why it is a problem now.

Again I'll mention that the success of Star Trek is due to the tone and themes it has historically espoused on television and in film. That's *exactly* what's made it the phenomenon that it is. Yes, WoK is a revenge film, but it works because the audience empathizes with the bad guy to some degree and he's an interesting character. In his reboot Mr. Abrams did a lot of things right, but he dished up a revenge film with an ambiguous villain that no one really gave two shakes about and the movie suffered for it. Now in his second outing it looks like we're getting yet ANOTHER "bad guy" bent on evening up the score with Star Fleet. If that's the case then again, IMO, yawn. I'm very bored with revenge as a plot device. It's been done to death. I'm not at all opposed to fresh ideas being injected into the Trek universe, in fact I embrace it, but people zooming around blowing stuff up and laughing maniacally ain't fresh.

Star Trek is so rich and dripping with possibility, it seems a damned shame and a wasted opportunity that something so mundane is being rehashed. IF that's the case. Abrams is well known for his misinformation when promoting a new project, so I'll reserve judgement on this one until I walk out of the theater. Maybe he won't let me down. As long as he loses the damned lens flare.

 

[Dave Miller]

But we can't judge a film as "great" by the money it earns, if that was the case there would be a whole lot less movies I would give a darn about, and the only films we'd get would be horrible blow-em-ups.

ID4 comes to mind.

 

[Chris Will]

If it's a great story I'm good. But we can't judge a film as "great" by the money it earns, if that was the case there would be a whole lot less movies I would give a darn about, and the only films we'd get would be horrible blow-em-ups. In the end, if this is done well, it could be fantastic. But there is just as much chance for an action vehicle to not work.

That said, the trailers look decent so I will give it a shot... in a side note everytime I see the Trek trailer I see the trailer for Lone Ranger and THAT film looks HORRIBLE

I agree and I thought 2009's film worked; others don't. I also agree that the Lone Ranger looks horrible, feels like Cpt. Jack Sparrow playing an Indian.

Abrams is well known for his misinformation when promoting a new project, so I'll reserve judgement on this one until I walk out of the theater. Maybe he won't let me down. As long as he loses the damned lens flare.

I have a feeling that the villain will be better fleshed out this time but, like you said we'll have to wait and see. I think there are many Trek fans who refuse to even give these new Trek films a chance just because they are not exactly like the rest of the Trek universe and I think that is unfortunate. As far as the lens flares go, they are all over the trailers so please don't hold your breath.

ID4 comes to mind.

Hey, I like ID4, especially when stuff blows up!

 

[Gary Seven]

I will be seeig this movie because being a long time Trekker, it's all I have to see if I want to see something new. But I am not excited about it. More curious. While Abrams Star Trek was "fun", it is hardly memorable and certainly nothing to talk about in terms of plot and themes. While "fun" appeals to the lowest common denominator, it is disappointing for others who wanted something more. Offended? Hardly. Disapppointed? Sure... but not surprising given Abrams and the small circle of writers writing for movies today that follow basic formula. Aside from the dumbing down of Star Trek, the other problem I have is this "alternate timeline" presented that enabled Paramount to use the Star Trek brand for recognition but nothing else. The characters have changed, the back drop has changed...it is a bastardization of the original and really, all for no reason other than pure laziness.

I agree with dpippel, enormous potential wasted.

I would be curious to see how DS9 fans would react to a DS9 movie. But of course we have to change it to appeal to "todays" audience so bye bye space station... too boring... let's blow it up. Oh and let's get sexually repressed Kira laid as well, in a delightful Bejor bikini and then we can get her planet blown up after as well. Gives a little pseudo emotion there. And Sisko will have to change as his character is too mundane for a movie... we can merge in his old Hawk character and have him carry around a chrome magnum, instead of his baseball. All wrapped up in a tale of revenge because Quark is just too tired of the stereo-types of Ferengis and wants to show that Ferengis can kick some ass. Let's change Odo as well... let's see...

 

[TravisR]

...the other problem I have is this "alternate timeline" presented that enabled Paramount to use the Star Trek brand for recognition but nothing else.

I'm coming at it as a non-fan but I would think that the alternate timeline is the best possible thing that could happen to fans who don't like the Abrams Trek. Yes, it allows Paramount to basically use the Trek name but at the same time, you still have all 'your' Trek and Abrams' is off in its own satellite. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and I'm hoping they do something like an alternate timeline for the Star Wars universe so the decades of stories that have been done aren't all erased when Episode VII comes.

 

[Jason_V]

I would be curious to see how DS9 fans would react to a DS9 movie. But of course we have to change it to appeal to "todays" audience so bye bye space station... too boring... let's blow it up. Oh and let's get sexually repressed Kira laid as well, in a delightful Bejor bikini and then we can get her planet blown up after as well. Gives a little pseudo emotion there. And Sisko will have to change as his character is too mundane for a movie... we can merge in his old Hawk character and have him carry around a chrome magnum, instead of his baseball. All wrapped up in a tale of revenge because Quark is just too tired of the stereo-types of Ferengis and wants to show that Ferengis can kick some ass. Let's change Odo as well... let's see...

So...hang on. I'm going to be a big Niner right now and tell you exactly how Prime Universe DS9 has done all of those things.

(1) DS9 blew up once in "Visionary." The show are destroyed the "original" ships of the shows (the runabouts) several times. And "the" ship of the show, the Defiant, was destroyed in "The Changing Face of Evil." However, your argument is non-sensical. Here's why: the titular ship of TOS (the Enterprise) is accounted for a present in the new movie. Therefore, I would expect changes to the station, the Defiant and the runabouts, but not for them to be removed permanently.

(2) Sexually repressed Kira getting laid: she had a relationship with both Bariel and Shakaar and I believe she was shown naked with Bariel at least once. Moreover, she shared what could be seen as a sexual relationship with Odo in "Chimera." So, again, your argument of saying a character would be changed doesn't work since this character was shown to be sexual through the series. Further, we have intendant Kira in black leather, Prime Universe Kira in an evening gown ("Crossover"), the Prime Universe Kira in a holosuite dress ("Way of the Warrior") and wearing a skin tight uniform for a majority of the series. Tell me, exactly, how this equates to any of the changes from TOS to Trek 09. Lastly, let's blow up Bajor in the alternate universe because, for the last time, Vulcan in the Prime Universe still exists. And Bajor in the Prime Universe will still exist. However, Romulus doesn't, but no one seems to give two craps about that.

(3) Sisko was shown to be a man of action through the series. Early on? Not all the time, granted, but then neither was Picard. However, with the shift in tone and story in the fourth season really opened this up. Even in S1, he punched Q, which Picard and Janeway did not do. In the second episode of S2, Sisko leads a team to rescue Kira...carrying a phaser and even firing it. He fights the Jem'Hadar at the end of S2, fights them again in the opener of S3, gets his hands real dirty in "Civil Defense" and then a new Sisko is born once the goatee is introduced.

(4) Quark vs. stereotyping...if you really knew anything about DS9 at all, you would know that is something Armin Shimerman and the writers were intent on doing with the show by having a lead Ferengi character. Look at Quark at the beginning of the series and then during the Dominion War arc and at the end. Tremendous growth in the species as a whole. He fought against the stereotype from TNG from day one and evolved. During that war arc, when his brother Rom was going to be executed, Quark became an ass kicking machine and broke Rom out of jail. When his mother was captured by the Dominion, Quark and a group of Ferengi overcame the Jem'Hadar and rescued her. All of these are Ferengi action episodes...and there are more.

(5) How do you want to change Odo who is, essentially, a god?

See, it sounds like to me you know very little about DS9, especially the details.

The massive, 9000 pound elephant in the room everyone forgets is that the beloved Shatner Kirk and intact Vulcan and 700+ hours of continuity is still alive and well in another universe. The only changes to that universe are: Nimoy Spock is gone, Romulus is destroyed and Nero's crew is gone. That...is...it. Everything else remains exactly, 100% the same. Why is that so incredibly hard for everyone to understand and accept?

 

[Gary Seven]

I guess you all missed the point I was making... particularly Jason. All that typing...

I know there are people passionate about DS9... I can take it or leave it. I use that as an example because of the "character development" they all like establishes these charcaters probably better than most (really this is due to serial type presentaion ala Dallas). What if they made a movie and changed the characters as you know it? Never going back to the characters you know. Would Niner's be ok with that? Unlikely. Who cares they had an episode or two in another universe... the show ended up going back to the characters you all know.

Getting back to the movie, so what if I can go back and see re-runs of the characters I know and love... I want NEW stories with the characters I know and love... not new stories with NEW characters and NEW backstory. IT IS NOT THE SAME. THE CHARACTERS ARE DIFFERENT. THE DYNAMICS ARE DIFFERENT. So to say that everything else is 100 percent the same is 100 percent wrong.

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

 

[Jason_V]

I was refuting your argument. That was it.

If you want more stories set in the same old universe with the same old characters, that's what the novels and comics are for. There are LOTS of those stories which don't have to worry about actors getting older and are tailored to the continuity new audiences aren't going to get.

After 700+ hours of content, it becomes prohibitive to do anything new in that universe which will bring in new fans. Let's face it: Trek can't survive with the same old people watching and buying the merch. New blood has to be introduced, both on the creative and consumer sides.

Who are you to say what Niners would like if that show was changing in the new timeline? Just because some people are stuck on Shatner Kirk until the end of time doesn't mean every fan is against change. I'm not, certainly.

Your entire argument feels like sour grapes. Just because what you hold dear was changed and doesn't stay the same over the course of 50 years, nothing new is good.