New Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer: Shall We Begin?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

J Tyran:

There is very little I would disagree with in your post, ToS did challenge a lot of things and thats what made it special. The problem is those themes have been done and redone, it also fell into a trap of regurgitating them over and over with a diarrhea of technobabble. How would the series manage to do them over a 20th time? How could it escape the spiral of decline? Box office figures for the films had crashed and the TV series had died, perhaps beyond all hope of recovery.

They simply didn't try, they just made a simple plot. One man trying to work out who he was Vs another man on a rampage of vengeance, Nothing wrong with going back to basics at all. Its not even all that differant from past TV or movies plots either. If you do not like the new films thats fine, I do have some sympathy too as you feel the series isn't something you like anymore. Thing is the new films have objectively saved the series, the incomes from the first film and the fact they have thrown even more into a sequel proves that its been saved.

I am happy to see it continue, a new generation of Trek fans will be born from the success of these films and who knows there might even be a new TV series one day. I do not want Star Trek to be a dead franchise where a few thousand Trekkies go from convention to convention listening to a steadily diminshing ex cast quoting the same anecdotes time and time again.

Well, I'd disagree with you on a number of points:

- Firstly, just because it would have been damn near impossible to match the original series' legacy, that didn't mean they had to give up entirely on trying to make a thought provoking film. To use another example, the Batman series has been around a damn sight longer than Star Trek and has had some phenomenally influential comics (notably The Dark Knight Returns), but that didn't stop Nolan from making arguably the most intelligent, thematically weighty superhero film with The Dark Knight. Same with the James Bond series and Skyfall. They could have at least tried to make a film that touched on ideas and themes in the same manner as the original series, but they didn't. They got the writers of Transformers to shit out a terrible bit of fanfiction.

Also, and slightly more off-the-rails, but who's to say that they couldn't have used the film to challenge contemporary moral values in a similar way as the original series? It's the 21st century, and we're still as guilty of bigotry and ignorance as we were in the 60s. When was the last time a Hollywood film had an openly gay main character? Or a Middle Eastern character? Or a transexual character? If they wanted to carry on the legacy of the original series, maybe they could have carried on showing a future that's moved on from bigotry by adding characters which challenge the cultural norms still existent in today's society. A gay Federation officer would probably wind the WBC up, but it would also fit perfectly in line with Rodenberry's vision of the future, and it would have given the film an opportunity to actually venture into territory where no mainstream sci-fi film has gone before.

- Secondly, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting franchises die gracefully. Star Trek doesn't need to be continued forever, especially if it's run out of ideas. I'd much rather see Star Trek retired than see it devolved into a series of brainless action flicks. Because then it's not really Star Trek anymore, is it? In my eyes, turning a franchise from an intelligent study of ethics and morality into a cocktail of explosions and crappy drug jokes isn't saving it. That's dumbing it down to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Star Trek wasn't supposed to be a show that appealed to the lowest denominators, it was a show that was supposed to inspire people to be better than that. It was a show that encouraged people to strive to be better than that. I'd rather see the franchise end than see it become th very antithesis of what it set out to be. The original Star Trek was created by a man with a brilliant vision for the future. The new Star Trek is created by corporate executives looking only to increase their pay-checks.

Iron Criterion:

Star Trek: The Next Generation - seeing as how Picard is the only good captain.

As long as you don't mind him and his fellow mary sues being utterly stunted mockeries of humanity, that is.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

J Tyran:
snip

snip

Thing is it was the first film, the first film from a series that had been sniffing its own farts and nearly choked. It was a risk so they played it safe, we have not seen the second film either so who is to say this one wont be a little deeper?

The first firm was like Wrath of Khan, Star Trek the motion picture was on shaky ground so they went simple. Khan was mad and he made Kirk mad, the deepest theme there was basically the specter of the military abusing scientific progress and it didn't dwell to much on that.

The basic premise of this new film seems to about Kirk and the challenges of leadership, how does somebody make decisions that affect countless people? Simple yet there is a lot to explore here if done right, certainly as much potential here as any other Star Trek movie and much more than a few of them.

I would like to see more complex issues explored too but not at the risk of it returning to the fart sniffing, if they can salvage the basic hero overcoming obstacles with teamwork underpinnings of the series its fine.

J Tyran:

Thing is it was the first film, the first film from a series that had been sniffing its own farts and nearly choked. It was a risk so they played it safe, we have not seen the second film either so who is to say this one wont be a little deeper?

The first firm was like Wrath of Khan, Star Trek the motion picture was on shaky ground so they went simple. Khan was mad and he made Kirk mad, the deepest theme there was basically the specter of the military abusing scientific progress and it didn't dwell to much on that.

The basic premise of this new film seems to about Kirk and the challenges of leadership, how does somebody make decisions that affect countless people? Simple yet there is a lot to explore here if done right, certainly as much potential here as any other Star Trek movie and much more than a few of them.

I would like to see more complex issues explored too but not at the risk of it returning to the fart sniffing, if they can salvage the basic hero overcoming obstacles with teamwork underpinnings of the series its fine.

Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof. These are the guys who between them wrote Transformers, Cowboys Vs Aliens, The Island(!) and Prometheus. And anything Lindelof's involved in is likely going to be sniffing more farts than the entirety of the collected Star Trek canon.

If they had writers with a decent track record, I'd be optimistic. As it is, I'm expecting a mediocre sci-fi action flick at best, and a downright atrocious piece of pretentious guff at worst. Prometheus really soured me in that regard. I thought the AVP films were the final indignity to the Aliens franchise, but oh no, Lindelof had to go and prove me wrong there...

Well, it certainly does look like a "future ship" no matter what it may be. Size proportions would be more consistent to a Galaxy Class than to an Excelsior class ship, but that may just be me.

The Enterprise in the new movies is a bigger more bulky ship than the Enterprise in the original, if you want to us an up scaled comparison of the older ships, taking in to account the newer bulkier design, then in proportions the enemy ship is closer in size to an Ambassador Class ship when compared to the Enterprise in size.

Only problem with that is the Ambassador has smaller, shorter Nacelles that sit beneath the Saucer section where as this ship has much longer Nacelles that sit above the Saucer section, similar to the Excelsior Class.

To be honest it looks like a much bigger battle harden version of the Enterprise, I would toss out a Dreadnought Class, we saw the Enterprise D version in Future's End and I know Enterprise A versions have been kicked around in a few books. It's basically a bigger battle hardened version of a regular Federation Cruiser, with more fire power and usually better defences, sensors and a few addons, the only thing that makes me question that is the Dreadnoughts had a third Warp Nacelle which this ship doesn't seem to have. Maybe it's a whole new ship, to be honest I dunno how much of the original canon is gonna get used in the new reboots.

All I can say is another Reboot movie in which the Federation's supposed Heavy Cruiser Enterprise goes up against an enemy with a much bigger badder ship... original.

J Tyran:

You claim Star Trek fans are in denial and its true, they are in denial but not for the reasons you give. The fans that are in denial are the ones that claim the new Star Trek films are nothing like the old ones when the opposite is true. They are exactly like the old ones, they just have modern SFX and modern action sensibilities.

It will really end up having to agree to disagree, because this is how I see the old and the new.

Old Star Trek: Story driven action.
New Star Trek: Action driven story.

Old: Ask villain questions and then shoot in self defense.
New: There's the villain! Shoot! Shoot! Shoot!

Old: Study and act, shown even in high action scenes.
New: Phasers a blazing! The characters will do things to help them at a moments notice without the movie showing that they at least thought about how to proceed.

You should get the point of what I'm saying by now. If modern action sensibilities you mean:

Cram as much action into ever minute because we got to keep this movie moving as fast as possible because ADD kiddies and adults will lose interest, then yes, that is what the new Star Trek is doing.

The old Star Trek is the sensible movie way, at least when it comes to actually making a movie that truly embodies what Star Trek is:

Exploration and discovery, making peace with who you can, and defend yourself if you finally can't make peace, and even if the villain shoots first and causes great carnage, you still try to at least reason with him.

Old Star Trek let the viewer take things in, to analyze what is going on. New Star Trek, even during times where the action should be slow, it switches scenes every few seconds, flash, flash, flash. There is barely a handful of scenes where the action is minimal and the movie treats it as such.

What I'm saying is that I can't stand that Abrams treats Star Trek like it should be a purely action oriented movie, when that is not what it is or should be.

But again, I have a feeling this will be an agree to disagree situation.

Sonic Doctor:
I have a feeling this will be an agree to disagree situation.

Not exactly, we do agree on a lot. Like "Old Star Trek: Story driven action. New Star Trek: Action driven story" for example. The only difference is that I feel the film is still a fairly decent despite its shortcomings, it doesn't recapture a lot of what makes good Star Trek good but it does avoid what makes the bad Star Trek bad.

OlasDAlmighty:

snip

I know the reason why people hated Nemesis.
A. The last TNG Era Movie.
B. Too Action Orientated
C. Data Dead (although they fixed that in a wonderful book series that should be a miniseries)

Now for me I was bummed after seeing that movie in theaters. Because everyone else felt the same way, we knew Insurrection was a bomb and this one was lackluster the in Post-Independence Day Mega- blockbusters meant the end of the movies. And with Gene Roddenberry gone, there was no spirit behind Star Trek.

Rick Burman put a blindfold over a bust of Gene because the stories and spirit of the newer shows after TNG wasn't Gene's Star Trek. And you can feel it with some of the shows. The theme of unity, upbeat, evolving society after curing allot of it's ills while at the same time facing them again as they explore outside of it's home. Seemed to be falling to the wayside for, action; the wild west in space. Which a isn't all bad but new Trek isn't exploring that side of humanity facing the past to build a better future. Without this people don't feel optimistic about the future. Just better technology and more fighting, Gene would be ashamed.

Now getting back to the Movies at hand. Name the a few that dealt with the past pit falls of humanity and the one's that were successful (fan wise). Like Khan dealt with past mistakes and the repercussions of revenge. Voyage home dealt the simular theme fixing the mistakes and protecting the future. Undiscovered Country; aging warriors trying to let go or embrace old hatred; both parties believing what they are doing is for the greater good. First Contact where we learn even the most well put together people have deep flaws that they have to overcome or sacrifice to become better people. In each of these movies the characters have to grow becuase of the events at hand. They learned from their mistakes and the mistakes of others to become better.

Then you get to the cursed ones like Insurrection where they trying to save pretty people from the bad ugly people, who are stealing their land. Generations where they are trying to stop a madman but his reasons for doing it could have been fixed 40 years before the movie with one good shuttle and some extra shielding. Final Frontier over all just bad plot same as the others. There has to be substance to the action you see on screen, something deeper behind all the phaser fire.

09' Trek, I don't hate because it's an origin story told in a different timeline. It's good, not perfect but it's not Gene's Trek either. Now I have hope that this new movie we see more of the personal development and it's more story driven, since we got over the origin story. And from the trailers it seems like Kirk is now learning that his cowboy antics get people killed and has to grow from this and it carries over to the next movie (if there is one).

Sorry for the long post just had to get that one out.

Oh and Galaxy Quest was the best Trek Parody ever, nuff said.

mrseriousguy:

Final Frontier over all just bad plot same as the others.

Say what you want about its dialogue, acting, and special affects, but at least the larger theme of FF, mankind's quest for greatness, was closer to Gene Roddenberry's vision than any of the other films (Besides TMP of course). And Wrath of Khan, though there are other themes as well, is essentially a revenge film, and very little about it could be called upbeat.

mrseriousguy:

Oh and Galaxy Quest was the best Trek Parody ever, nuff said.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture - Bad
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan - Good
Star Trek: The Search for Spock - Bad
Star Trek: The Voyage Home - Good
Star Trek: The Final Frontier - Bad
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country - Good
Star Trek: Generations - Bad
Star Trek: First Contact - Good
Star Trek: Insurrection - Bad
Galaxy Quest - Good
Star Trek: Nemesis - Bad
Star Trek 2009 - Good

And there you have it, problem solved.

Yes, we should all go through life doing whatever we can without those pesky "reasons" getting in the way. I'm sorry, but that might be one of the most insane things I've ever heard in my life.

And how exactly did Trekkies almost destroy the franchise? In what way did we do anything close to that? Johnathan Frakes, Rick Berman, and Paramount are really the groups that you can point the fingers to, but Trekkies? A number of people have pointed out specific facts as to why the new movies are not Trek, and you dismiss them because they are "Reasons", and those things need to be avoided like the plague.

If you say that Trek was made relevant for the new generation because people are all about the flash and sparkle with no substance, you should be actively fighting against it! You should never lie down to the "reason" of "well, people are a lot more simple-minded nowadays, and we've got to make things for those mouth-breathing troglodytes and perpetuate a world of ignorance and simplicity". You may have completely lost it. You should seek help, in all seriousness. I'm worried about you.

Laughing Man:

Well, it certainly does look like a "future ship" no matter what it may be. Size proportions would be more consistent to a Galaxy Class than to an Excelsior class ship, but that may just be me.

The Enterprise in the new movies is a bigger more bulky ship than the Enterprise in the original, if you want to us an up scaled comparison of the older ships, taking in to account the newer bulkier design, then in proportions the enemy ship is closer in size to an Ambassador Class ship when compared to the Enterprise in size.

Only problem with that is the Ambassador has smaller, shorter Nacelles that sit beneath the Saucer section where as this ship has much longer Nacelles that sit above the Saucer section, similar to the Excelsior Class.

To be honest it looks like a much bigger battle harden version of the Enterprise, I would toss out a Dreadnought Class, we saw the Enterprise D version in Future's End and I know Enterprise A versions have been kicked around in a few books. It's basically a bigger battle hardened version of a regular Federation Cruiser, with more fire power and usually better defences, sensors and a few addons, the only thing that makes me question that is the Dreadnoughts had a third Warp Nacelle which this ship doesn't seem to have. Maybe it's a whole new ship, to be honest I dunno how much of the original canon is gonna get used in the new reboots.

All I can say is another Reboot movie in which the Federation's supposed Heavy Cruiser Enterprise goes up against an enemy with a much bigger badder ship... original.

Yeah, it could definitely be some new type of ship. It is just really hard to tell based off of the angles they provided. Maybe it is someone from the future trying to get revenge on the changes in the past movie, someone like Picard or something. That would be interesting, but kind of a weird story.

Here are some images just to compare...

image

image

I can't really muster up that much enthusiasm for this film. Looks like it could be a fairly entertaining popcorn movie but that's about it. It doesn't feel like Trek at all. Sigh.

I assume you where trying to quote me, if not sorry nvm.

Rogue 09:
Yes, we should all go through life doing whatever we can without those pesky "reasons" getting in the way. I'm sorry, but that might be one of the most insane things I've ever heard in my life.

I put "reasons" because a lot of them are entirely made up, simple fictions about what some people believe Star Trek is and isn't.

Rogue 09:
And how exactly did Trekkies almost destroy the franchise? In what way did we do anything close to that? Johnathan Frakes, Rick Berman, and Paramount are really the groups that you can point the fingers to, but Trekkies?

The series bogged down sniffing its own farts, Berman and the others farted in the Trekkies mouths. The Trekkies took a deep breath and then let one out into the mouth of Frakes and his cronies who breathed deeply, they in turn let another out and the cycle continued. The result was an ever increasing amount of gibberish and technobabble and a cycle of repeating the same limited number of episode types over and over. The quality of the writing also rapidly deteriorated. The Trekkies where to busy buying action figures and sewing uniforms to actually notice what was happening, so yes I blame them because they came up with these ideas about what they thought Star Trek was and the people that created the shows and the films beleived both them and their own press. Thats where the cycle began. In fact everything you accuse Star Trek 09 of being is exactly what the series had already turned into, the only difference is the reboot made it exciting and made it an action film that actually worked. So the new Star Trek never actually turned the series into anything it already wasn't, it just made it good.

Rogue 09:
A number of people have pointed out specific facts as to why the new movies are not Trek, and you dismiss them because they are "Reasons", and those things need to be avoided like the plague.

A number of people have pointed out some specific opinions as to why the movie is Trek. Also there are no facts here, only lots of opinion. The only objective fact is that a dying franchise was turned back into something that was successful, popular and critically acclaimed.

Rogue 09:
If you say that Trek was made relevant for the new generation because people are all about the flash and sparkle with no substance, you should be actively fighting against it! You should never lie down to the "reason" of "well, people are a lot more simple-minded nowadays, and we've got to make things for those mouth-breathing troglodytes and perpetuate a world of ignorance and simplicity". You may have completely lost it. You should seek help, in all seriousness. I'm worried about you.

Fight against? No not at all, I will be supporting it. They will get a movie ticket from me at least and depending on whether I like the film I might get the Blu-Ray. Thank you for the concern but I am fine, I avoided breathing in the better part of 10 years worth of flatus.

fat tony:
I dunno about the mirror universe thing, no one had a beard....
And do these movies take place before during after or instead of the series?
And what's with the Deadspace zoomy-through debris sequence.
Colonial Marines, Thi4F (shudder) now this.
I'm cryogenically freezing my expectations for this year I'm so tired of hype and the associated dissappointment.

It's just Thief. And they take place in an alternate time line.

Glad that problem is now solved, OlasDAlmighty! It's good to see debate on Trek/not Trek, it shows there is still passion about the franchise(s) almost 50 years since it first series came about. I for one am still going to see the movie. If Gene thought us anything always come with an open mind and to have fun every once and awhile. :)

Yeah, it could definitely be some new type of ship. It is just really hard to tell based off of the angles they provided. Maybe it is someone from the future trying to get revenge on the changes in the past movie, someone like Picard or something. That would be interesting, but kind of a weird story.

It would be weird but I hope to god that is not a Galaxy Class ship, the Galaxy Class was a good looking ship and to be honest that thing is just any ugly brute. Only thing we have to remember is that The Enterprise only became the flag ship of the fleet and ergo the most advance ship of the fleet from The Next Gen onwards, before that it was just another ship of the Fleet and in some cases (Search For Spock) it was nowhere near the biggest and most advanced ship of the fleet.

As trek fan my position on the new Trek reboot? Well the problem is the word reboot. I have no really issue with the every minute has action, wobbly camera, explosions everywhere, lense flair, little character, action drives story rather than story drives action movie making style that the new movies are going for and had this been set in a post Voyager Trek Universe it would be fine, it's Star Trek and it's going in a new direction, fine, but taking the established canon and throwing in a new look and style, basically trying to rewrite the history but pushing it aside under the guise of alternate time line, well that doesn't wash I am afraid.

I recon the backlash from Trek fans would be much smaller if it had been set post Voyager rather than trying to rewrite the History, I make that assumption on what happened with Stargate Universe, that went in a different direction to SG1 and Atlantis, loved SG1 and Atlantis and fucking hated Universe but apart from them trying to rewrite the way the Stargate worked in the first episode I couldn't care less after that because they didn't really try to change what had come before.

I am gonna see this movie I hope that this alternate timeline story has some carry through and wasn't just used in the first movie as a way to split off from the established canon and do whatever the hell they want with it because you know 'alternate timeline'.

J Tyran:
I assume you where trying to quote me, if not sorry nvm.

I was trying to quote you. Clearly my mistake, and I apologize for the confusion.

J Tyran:
I put "reasons" because a lot of them are entirely made up, simple fictions about what some people believe Star Trek is and isn't.

I would appreciate specific examples of the fictions we have put into play, because I know I've backed up all my reasons with examples straight from the series.

J Tyran:
The series bogged down sniffing its own farts, Berman and the others farted in the Trekkies mouths. The Trekkies took a deep breath and then let one out into the mouth of Frakes and his cronies who breathed deeply, they in turn let another out and the cycle continued. The result was an ever increasing amount of gibberish and technobabble and a cycle of repeating the same limited number of episode types over and over. The quality of the writing also rapidly deteriorated. The Trekkies where to busy buying action figures and sewing uniforms to actually notice what was happening, so yes I blame them because they came up with these ideas about what they thought Star Trek was and the people that created the shows and the films beleived both them and their own press. Thats where the cycle began. In fact everything you accuse Star Trek 09 of being is exactly what the series had already turned into, the only difference is the reboot made it exciting and made it an action film that actually worked. So the new Star Trek never actually turned the series into anything it already wasn't, it just made it good.

Yes, I saw your "fart" metaphor above as well. The issue with the decline of the series was more technobabble, less science, and more "dumb action". These are all things completely shown in the new series. Black holes that consume whole galaxies, time travel by passing through a black hole, a series of ASTONISHING coincidences that got kirk to an ice planet to Spock to Scotty and back to the Enterprise, etc. The fans have not been clamoring for more of the same they were giving us at the end, which is why the series was circling the drain. You make is sound like we were gobbling it up, but the low sales numbers for the later moves and disappointing viewership in Voyager and Enterprise clearly illustrates how incorrect that is.

J Tyran:
A number of people have pointed out some specific opinions as to why the movie is Trek. Also there are no facts here, only lots of opinion. The only objective fact is that a dying franchise was turned back into something that was successful, popular and critically acclaimed.

There are a number of facts here, and opinions are based on facts. The argument is that this is not the franchise, they just copied some names over a new Sci-fi IP and said "Here you go". The franchise is dead. If your grandma were dying and I dressed myself up in her clothing and told you I was her... I'm still not your grandma.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here