Star Trek Into Darkness

I see what you mean, but I think the idea of the reboot was to open the franchise up to audiences who aren't science geeks. Or maybe go in a new direction with it.

edited 3rd Dec '12 4:58:24 PM by wuggles

...You've never seen either of the two I cited, have you? NEITHER of them deal with science issues or technobabble, they deal with meaningful philosophical questions. The former features an android on trial to determine whether or not he is sentient enough to be considered properly and the latter is pretty much a movie about mortality wrapped in space battles (which is recognized by fans and film critics alike as likely the best the series has to offer). Essentially, this is not territory a normal person is out of depth with, on Trek's best days. To dumb down Star Trek like this is, well... Stripping it of its individuality to put it in some blockbuster formula. And that's something no franchise deserves. I though Hollywood had learned that after America tried to make a better Godzilla.

edited 3rd Dec '12 5:03:17 PM by Ronnie

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I agree that they could be more philosophical with it, but I liked it. It was fun. Sometimes I (and a lot of people) like to go to the movies to escape. You can't act like every single part of the show was 100% deep philosophy all the time. Call me stupid if you want. If you don't like it, don't see it.

edited 3rd Dec '12 5:05:41 PM by wuggles

I don't agree with the premise that it even has to be intense action vs. purely character driven thematic drama. Some of the most critically and commercially successful Trek films (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country) worked for the general audience and for many Trek fans; featuring a good balance between a broadly entertaining set piece and a relatively deep story with good characterization.

As I said, the reboot made sense genre wise, because it needed the shot of adrenaline to get excitement in the franchise and for lack of a better way of putting it, make Trek mainstream again. However in terms of sequels I don't think it has to purely be Star Trek: The Motionless Talky picture or Star Trek: More Action and Lens Flare!

Trek can do more than that.

edited 3rd Dec '12 5:06:53 PM by BorneAgain

Yeah, but up until now, Trek at least tried at the former. I actually enjoyed ST 09 my first few watches, even though something seemed very wrong to me. I realized the third go round what it was. Every other Trek movie, now matter how godawful the result was (TMP, Final Frontier, Insurrection) had at the least tried to make you think, tried to present some universally identifiable moral or ethical dilemma on some level. Trek 09 had none of that. Trek 09 was a 'blow up the bad guy' movie. And while that can be enjoyable, that's not what Star Trek is. And the perception the franchise is better for it is beginning to largely grind my gears.

Sorry if I seem overly negative- I'm sure this will at least be enjoyable on the surface level- but I probably won't be able to stomach it more than four or five times, if it doesn't try to be more deep than the first.

edited 3rd Dec '12 5:18:01 PM by Ronnie

On some level I'm inclined to agree. 09 Trek kind of reminds me of the 89 Batman. Both are decent summer movies, made by fresh young directors pushing/reviving an old franchise with fun action scenes, and with the director's particular quirks. They're enjoyable, but not necessarily really emblematic of the deeper themes and characters of the franchise. I don't want to point at either one of them and say "That's not Star Trek/Batman!" because its not my place to define that, but I do think given the vast complexity of the respective universes more can be done with them (as Nolan arguably did years later).

Well if it makes you feel better, in about 2027 or so there probably will be another reboot. Also, I am curious, why would you be seeing the movie 4 or 5 times??

edited 3rd Dec '12 5:28:57 PM by wuggles

Presumably he means sequels.

Home video. I'm kind of an addict like that, franchise puts out a new addition? Must own in my collection to be complete. And that's another thing- no matter how horrible the older ones are, I've still felt like watching them multiple times, and haven't burned out- not even on TMP. All but 09. (Granted, some of the 09 shunning is probably due to people thinking that's a good direction for Trek.)

Also, re: 89 Batman. That... no, actually, 89!Batman pretty much is Batman, in a nutshell, at least moreso than Nolan!Bats, but that's for another discussion.

edited 3rd Dec '12 5:47:59 PM by Ronnie

I liked the new Star Trek film a lot (though I'll wait for the trailer to decide whether the sequel looks promising), and found the few clips of the original series that can be found on Youtube fairly narmy and heavy-handed. From the episode summaries, "morally heavy-handed" is a gentle term for what a lot of them were; more blatant Aesops than subtle philosophical examinations. Wrath of Khan was good, but Search for Spock was crummy and none of the other movies catch my interest. (Seriously, the new film is dumbing down a franchise that sent its characters back in time to save the whales? Seriously?)

The new one achieved its objective, which was to get new people interested in Star Trek.

I would like more exploring and less Space Army-ness from Starfleet, though.

edited 3rd Dec '12 6:50:02 PM by WarriorEowyn

Yes, seriously. Because at least that had an applicable ethical / moral message.

(Also, that one was damn hilarious, and made sense in context, which Trek does have room for- confer Tribbles, Harcourt Fenton Mudd, and half of the TNG episodes involving Q.)

edited 3rd Dec '12 7:07:02 PM by Ronnie

Hey, I liked those two movies.

From what little I've seen of Voyager and Enterprise I've decided that while the reboot doesn't fit in thematically with the original it's certainly not the worst of the Star Trek franchise.

edited 3rd Dec '12 7:24:05 PM by Kostya

I can agree there. It sits just above Threshold. But just below Enterprise, because it had the tenacity to go out of its way to not retcon it.

edited 3rd Dec '12 7:28:57 PM by Ronnie

The direction makes sense to me. It's a REBOOT, not a "Let's tread the same water as the first" movie. As for this one being action, definitely makes sense. Nero's ship took out the entire functioning fleet except for Enterprise, and really made a mess of the Federation's space-faring. After that, Starfleet's going to be a combat force first and foremost.

Besides, one of the major JBM things about Star Trek TNG, at least, was how underdefended the Enterprise was. The whole thing reeked of 80s hotel, not "We're on the edges of known space and could be headed into a battle at any time." Now, the Reboot ought to catch a happy medium and hit some philosophical issues in each movie, but that's up to Abrams and his crew.

I can get trying to be faster paced, but again... it's like a Twilight Zone that drops the anthology aspect. When you lose something as important as Trek's philosophical core, you lose the identity- you lose everything except the name-recognition that gets the asses in seats, to use a producer term. I hope that, if this lacks like Trek 09, that this bombs. I hope this bombs on Howard The Duck levels, or American Godzilla levels, or at least enough to give Paramount the message that stripping down a name isn't enough.

edited 3rd Dec '12 7:43:32 PM by Ronnie

If it bombs that hard, we're not likely to see another Star Trek for several years, assuming they just don't kill the franchise outright.

edited 3rd Dec '12 7:45:41 PM by BleiddWhitefalcon

It'd be an improvement from Abrams Trek. Think of it this way- would you rather watch a loved one die to a painful disease over a period of years, or in their sleep? And I believe the incredible numbers on the TNG remastered Blu-rays in comparison, not to mention the still-viable NOVELS, would probably be more telling that Abrams Trek is just the wrong way.

edited 3rd Dec '12 7:49:12 PM by Ronnie

Honestly I do want the Abrams Trek to succeed if just to build more confidence and interest in the brand as a whole so it can possibly branch out more, including into TV again. Citing the 89 Batman example that's what made that film particularly important, as it had the knock down effect of spawning an explosion in various comic book properties, including B:TAS which launched the DCAU as we know it.

Not going to lie, I'd gladly tolerate a Star Trek film filled to the brim with explosions if it meant we could get a more nuanced and character driven TV show back on the air.

Enterprise killed the Trek franchise as a tv programme proposition. For at least the next decade or so. They could, and I am only saying could, do a series using the reboot characters and actors but I doubt Trekkers or Trekkies or anyone else would fall for that.

I'll wait that decade and see if they come up with one better than TNG and DS 9 put together.

My thoughts exactly.

Hey. Y'know a TNG-era film stuffed with action, scares, and explosions that got critical acclaim and fan praise? First Contact.

Now I know that Abrams's Trek had more, but it was really not pushing it.

edited 3rd Dec '12 9:26:01 PM by Colonial1.1

True, though Picard's quest of vengeance (however in or out of character one feels it was) still felt deeper than anything going on with Kirk or Spock in Nu Trek.

First Contact has lost some luster for me (especially when comparing it to Best of Both Worlds), but still a fun little film.

edited 3rd Dec '12 9:32:36 PM by BorneAgain

You know, I liked the new Star Trek. I had only one real gripe with it, a simple one. It was a reboot...no simpler, it was all about Kirk, Spock and Bones...God knows some people cannot let go.

Till then, one of the unique traits of Star Trek was that it let people go, moved on! One of the things hyped up about the film was that it had "younger writers" with new ideas and they gave us interesting new worlds, menaces and happenings but they also relied too much on the old. I can forgive the superficial similarities to Star Wars, being superficial, but not the Kirk gripe. They had a chance to give use knew characters, who could develop in ways no one would know with no standards to conform to.

I kind of resent it for inspiring worse reboots as well, but I know I should not. I know something else is more guilty. Maybe this new series will go in new ways and they will get new successors. Hopefully they will not rehash the Deep space, Next Generation and Voyager. We know at least they will not do Enterprise...hopefully.

The main thing is that Star Trek has managed to merge intelligent and philosophical sci-fi/action fairly well in the past, both "The Best of Both Worlds" and Star Trek First Contact are considered among the pinnacles of the franchise and they juggle all sorts of great character interactions and exploration of the human condition with slam bam phaser fights and starship battles.

And even when the franchise made the focus primarily on action for an episode they still tried to slip in some deft social commentary. "Balance of Terror" back in TOS had a touch of racism with the response to seeing the Vulcan-looking Romulans, and even had a poignant moment between Kirk and the Romulan captain at the end, reflective of the animosity/respect between superpowers during the Cold War. "The Arsenal of Freedom" is one of the best episodes of TNG's first season and has some hysterical satire on arms dealers "Peace! Through superior firepower!"

If the reboot Trek is going to survive they need to have something much better than the novelty of, well, rebooting Star Trek. Everyone has gotten into their proper roles and said their Catchphrase, what else can they do?