Abrams is Destroying Star Trek like Lucas has Destroyed Star Wars — Page 28

So Vaderisnothayden i already know what you thought of this movie in comparison to the original series movies and show.  But what do you think of the movie when measured up against star trek nemesis and the previous trek show enterprise?

Some people prefer a fresh take or regurgitation of old trek mythology over a dead rotten corpse of a horse that was flogged until it was dust by Rick Berman and company.

The old series actors are too old and they would not spend the money on them or the next gen cast is also too old and expensive.

Adding Nimoy to the film was throwing the trekkies a bone.  JJ talking about possibly having Shatner in the sequel is retarded imho.  Because he would be playing the older Chris Pine Kirk.  The real primary universe kirk died on viridian III to help save the future and the next generation crew, plus billions of lives were at stake.

I always said stewart should have played both Shinzon and Picard.  But that would have required a bit of difficulty to pull off.  And they could fake them being in the same scene using computer editing and cgi.  Or do the splitscreen thing they did on back to the future II i think that was the movie.

The whole thing with b4 did not work.  And ripping off spocks death in star trek II and redoing it with data was just stupid. 

The sequel would have been the search for data instead of the search for spock,lol.

Actually i find the young picard angle interesting and i wonder if they ever considered doing a prequel to star trek the next generation with Picard as Captain of the USS Stargazer.  We know they decided like Harve Bennet to do the academy days of Kirk story.  Well in JJ's movie they just graduate at the end of the film to the crew of the enterprise.

The young picard who fights the nausicans in a bar fight and gets stabbed through the heart is a lot like the rebel that Chris Pine plays in this film.  That picard was a lot like kirk in his younger days.  The Captain Picard of the Enterprise D was a thinker and diplomat before a man of action.  Though they ignored this in the films like First Contact where he was made an action hero,lol,.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Darth Chaltab said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

"Blah blah, fanboy entitlement blah!"

-_-

 

Bullshit. Your response is an unintelligent low dig that shows zero perception and totally misses the fact that there are serious issues about art being addressed in my post. If you can't think of anything constructive to say, don't say anything.

Kind of ironic coming from the guy who ripped the film to shreds for stupid reasons.

You seem to be the only one who thinks that new actors can't take on established rolls. The actors in the new movie did a fine job for the most part. Yes, they're not the originals. They're not supposed to be. The new film franchise is going after a new audience, and that includes new takes on the characters. If you're too much of a purist to enjoy the new take, that's your own damn problem.

Part of what made this summer blockbuster such a critical hit is that it went in its own direction with the characters. After Star Wars, people are less interested in seeing actual prequels. We know the middle and ending, is there really any point in even covering the fine details of the beginning? Now thanks to this timeline, we have infinite storyline potential and character fates that we can hardly theorize on. In this sort of prequel, we are ignorant of the future. That is the seasoning appeal to this.

As far as new actors being unable fit in the shoes of these characters, I say nonsense to that. Of course this is subjective, but I believe it takes a lot of mental stretching to even come close to saying these actors didn't become their respective roles. Pine masterfully played the maverick, wet-behind-the-ears leader. Quinto was the intellectual working to suppress the human half of his identity, etc.

It worked for me. It's futile to argue in circles about it. It either functions for you personally, or it does not. As for me I definitely look forward to the next two installments.

This new movie was sucessfull and they have already greenlit the next one.  Still it has not made as much money as they thought it was going to or wanted it to do in my honest opinion.  It did'nt do half the business of Indiana Jones IV.  What did Trek 2009 worldwide something over 300 million dollars and it cost 150 million to make and that does not include distribution costs of prints and so forth.   The millions spent on advertising or the premieres.

I wonder if the bootleg or the bad economy hurt ticket sales.  Or maybe Trek is only half as mainstream as they had hoped. 

I mean Superman returns was considered a flop and it made more than trek 2009. 

Will they recoup their costs and then some and make some serious profits from the dvd and blu ray release in a couple of months when it comes out, or is the movie stuck where it is?

I like the term Bootquel. Though I think Superman Returns would also fit rather nicely into this category. There were four Superman movies starring Christopher Reeves. Rather than being a full out reboot, then fairly recent Superman movie akwardly picks up as a new third film, following the continuity of the first two films, but disregarding the third and the fourth. Best I can tell, this was only done out of sheer laziness in not wanting to retell Superman's origins and not as part of an effort to avoid alienating the faithful fans of the originals.

The newest Incredible Hulk film might also fit in there to some degree. The film Hulk from the early-mid-00's sucked so badly, that instead of making a sequel, they decided to reboot the thing all over again just a mere few years after the first reboot. Instead of retelling the origin, they let it work as a semi-sequel. Retelling the whole origin story in the opening credits, and starting the character off on the lamb and hiding out in South America. Interesting, South America is where we last saw him in the completely unwatchable Hulk. I am guessing they did this so if you happened to somehow like the first film, you could call this one a sequel, and if you didn't like the first one, you could consider this one the first one. Fortunately, the new film seems pretty awful itself, so none of this really matters.

But I am thinking the bootquel might be a broader category than you realize. I think you have coined a very useful term. It is about time we broadened our vocabulary of words explaining some of the crazy new trends Hollywood has discovered in milking old ideas to their fullest potential before, god forbid, actually having to think up something original.

Vaderisnothayden said:

ChainsawAsh said:

It still made a shit-ton more than any other Trek movie ever has, so sequels are certainly guaranteed.

More's the pity. I was praying it would flop. I guess they can't all work out like Serenity.

 

Yeah, it would've been sweet if this new Trek film would have been as good as Serenity.

Or if Serenity had made as much money as Star Trek.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Thank you for explaining where that Superman film fit in. I'd wondered. Though to me it's an entirely different canon, because that's a different Superman. Different actor hence different universe. I tried watching that new Superman film and I gave up. It was pathetic. I also thought Frank Langella was badly miscast, though not as horribly miscast as he was in Frost/Nixon.

Yeah, it should have been definitively entirely different canon from the first films. This is really what hurt the film so badly, you are marketing the thing to an entirely new generation, yet you make them take a trip to the rental store and watch two out dated movies, that would, unfortunately, very much be considered boring by today's audiences, in order for them to really get exactly what is going on in this new film. They really tried to make all the actors fit with cast from the older movies too, though very unevenly. They kind of picked and choose. The whole thing felt very half assed to me.

I loved the Reeves Superman films as a kid, but I was really looking forward to a Sups reboot for the Batman Begins generation. Too bad all we got was another turd on the vast pile Holliwood turd pile. In this era of comic book movie madness, Superman deserved a hell of a lot better than that.

How many chances did they have to match if not surpass superman by Richard Donner?

4 tries and still no good superman films.

Superman II if finished by donner could have been a good film instead we got the laughably jokey Lester movie.

And don't even get me started on III Richard Pryor and more dumb jokes that don't belong in superman.  By the time you get to IV you get the worst piece of crap, bad acting ever.  Plus the worst special effects in a superman film from the people who brought us such classics as cyborg.

At Least Returns tried to return to the magic of the first film but failed miserably, unfortuntely even though reprising the thrilling John Williams superman march.  I found Routh to be likable enough if no Christopher Reeve.  Kate Bosworth on the other hand really was not all that likable, but i guess she was going for general bitchiness in Lois Lane.  This was a modern woman who could make it on her own and af far as she acted she did'nt need superman.

Singer was obviously going for a highly stylized retro look with super saturated colors.  Almost Exactly like the production paintings.  I'm not sure but it might have been Ryan Church who did the star wars prequels and recently star trek.

The original epic script by Mario Puzo on the first film that was originally going to be one movie and then was split into 2, in my opinion deserved an academy award.  Not sure if he won awards for working on the first 2 godfather scripts.

That the script Like Star Wars was so wholly original should have gotten it an award in my opinion.

Just Like i think Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Empire strikes back by Kasden should have won awards, or STAR TREK II by Nicholas Meyer.

Even Return of the Jedi on paper in some parts is a damn fine script, if not award worthy. 

Even the script for episode 1 was pretty good on the first read through like a comic book other than Jar Jar's scenes.  II had weak moments and III when dealing with the human side to the story, but the action was always played up by Lucas very well if not laughably so far over the top there are no difference in subtlety and nuance there should different levels there to compare and contrast.  Its like a piece of music that is loud the whole time and plays a few discordant notes that are unsatisfying.

When the originals worked like a melodic symphonic space opera that engaged you as a person and involved you in the story.  In the new trilogy there was nothing there to relate to, imho.

PaulisDead2221 said:

lordjedi said:

auraloffalwaffle said:

lordjedi said:

That's the other thing I didn't like, the way he acted during the Kobayashi Maru.  Did he really need to sit there eating an apple acting like it was nothing?  They could've at least had him pretend like he didn't know what was going on.

 

Uh...

[THINKS]

... never mind...

What?  Were you thinking back to that scene and realizing how lame it was or were you thinking back to it and recalling something I missed?  In all honesty, when I was watching it, all I could think of was "Arrogant much?"  It was his third time taking the test, we're informed that nobody takes it even twice, and there he is acting like everything's hunkey dorey.  I guess I should've said that they could've at least make him look like he didn't know what was going to happen, when it's obvious he clearly did.  At least that way it wouldn't have been so obvious that he cheated too.

 

 

I believe the scene in its current form is meant to incorporate elements of this concept in order to illicit a formed reaction of this substance from the audience.

Indeed... you make a good point, PaulisDead2221...

I think the key thing is that Kirk doen't CARE if they catch him for changing the program... all he wants is to win and look like he did it without even breaking a sweat... I'm afraid Kirk IS arrogant, lordjedi... at least in this incarnation... and isn't Kirk eating an apple while McCoy's telling the story in 'Wrath Of Kahn'...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arzeCy6yrIg

Someone edited the 2 apple scenes together,lol.

^Thanks for the link. Hadn't thought of that. :)

When did they start calling Klingon ships "Warbirds"? That was the name for the Romulan ships.

Oops. I thought something sounded off about that scene when I saw it in the theatre.

Max_Rebo said:

FanFiltration said:

When did they start calling Klingon ships "Warbirds"? That was the name for the Romulan ships.

it seems a writer's error from Enterprise has slipped into the canon of this new reality!

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Klingon_warbird

 

I don't think Ihad ever seen a complete episode of that show.

The strange things that happen when people who don't even like Star Trek make a Star Trek movie.