Star Trek Into Darkness, in theaters May 17, 2013

[Mommar]

There was nothing platinum about the platter. Abrams was handed a patient who was about to be taken off of life support and given its last rites. Not only did he save its life, but he had it up, walking, and talking again. "Core Trek" doesn't sell to anyone but a niche group, and even that group had grown frustrated and disenchanted with what the past 15 years of Trek had brought.

Abrams made Star Trek relevant, and you're bitching because he didn't make what essentially amounts to a Voyager movie?

This is the same sort of bizarro logic I see coming out of some Star Wars fans fretting over the sale to Disney. As if someone could do worse than what Lucas has done to the franchise in the past 15 years. And did you not see what Disney has done with its Marvel properties?

No, the new Abrams movies won't inspire anyone to dress up like a Star Fleet officer to attend jury duty. And thank god for that, really.

Star Wars never inspired generations of scientists and engineers like Star Trek did. So in terms of relevance it's quite possible that while the new Star Trek is now "popular" that doesn't mean it will have any significance, thus relevance, beyond making some money. Star Wars never did this to begin with. So it's only relevancy is that people still like Boba Fett for no damned good reason.

Nobody complained he didn't make a Voyager movie because most fans don't want a Voyager movie, they want a good movie. And in that sense, they want something they can watch, be entertained and be inspired by several times over. Abrams Trek is, at best, entertaining one or two times, but it is not inspiring.

We need more people dressing up in Star Fleet officer uniforms, they are the one's looking to enrich our lives via science and diversity.

[TehPW]

So much haterade in the water today.

believe it or not, pretty much all those arguements, when you push them together forceable and tie them up in ROLLS of Duct tape, are accurate. The biggest problem is, of course, is the fanbase, which is very old, and increasingly relevent-less. Star Trek, because it is no longer a TV-based entertainment, isnt gonna be on folks minds much longer, thus harder to continue things like conventions themed by ST alone.

I see the same thing happening to another item that i enjoy (Battletech) on a lesser scale because the one thing that got some fans into it (the novels) are no longer produced with any effort (MWO currently enjoys much rav for being Counter Strike: For Mechs). When that starts happens to Star Trek, because of readership confusion (TOS? JJ-Trek? TNG? Post-Nemisis, etc), Star Trek goes right back to Paramount's Hospise Care... and do any of you think the current youth that runs in the middle of Paramount will give a sh*t about ST when they finally run it?

Probably not.

anyway, what were we argueing about? Happy Easter/Happy Bunny Rabbit Sacrifice, everyone.

Edited March 31, 2013 by TehPW

[taksraven]

No, the new Abrams movies won't inspire anyone to dress up like a Star Fleet officer to attend jury duty. And thank god for that, really.

LOL Thanks for that. A lot of people seem to be quite willing to forget the insanity that became part of Trek fandom in the 1990's.

AND a lot of people seem to forget that the fans abandoned the TV version of the franchise soon after.....

So the idea that the fans think that they can dictate what goes on in the franchise now is REALLY funny...... (They are Enterprise ratings, BTW.....)

Edited March 31, 2013 by taksraven

[Atharun]

I think a reason why many people turned away from Star trek was because of how it was portrayed to an extent. A lot of people look at TOS and just see it as old, others look at TNG and see it as self righteous or too preachy. For people close to my age (27) DS9 and VOY were welcome because they had a little more action and characters that were not as "after school special" in that they were not all super goody. Just my opinion though. The past several years though have led me to believe Star trek would do well on TV again. If you look at things now, BS:Galactica, Walking Dead, hell even people who were fans of Harry Potter and what not, established franchises are making a comeback on TV while people are seeking out good shows with strong story telling. Star trek is capable of telling a good story and can make a comeback on TV I think. yes some shows get cancelled but I can not begin to count how many people I know have discovered and love Galactica via Netflix. if it weren't on Sci-Fi/SyFy, I think it would have done better ratings-wise. Alot of people seem to like it just not many knew about it as much media would have people believe. (Media tends to blow up small but vocal things...truth is just because 1 million hipsters think skinny jeans are the rage does not mean every male will wear them case and point).

That being said I enjoy the JJ Abrams universe and hope the move is a success.

-on a side note this post is all over the place lol

[raptormesh]

Star Wars never inspired generations of scientists and engineers like Star Trek did. So in terms of relevance it's quite possible that while the new Star Trek is now "popular" that doesn't mean it will have any significance, thus relevance, beyond making some money. Star Wars never did this to begin with. So it's only relevancy is that people still like Boba Fett for no damned good reason.

Nobody complained he didn't make a Voyager movie because most fans don't want a Voyager movie, they want a good movie. And in that sense, they want something they can watch, be entertained and be inspired by several times over. Abrams Trek is, at best, entertaining one or two times, but it is not inspiring.

We need more people dressing up in Star Fleet officer uniforms, they are the one's looking to enrich our lives via science and diversity.

I cannot agree more. It's somehow not hip and boring for shows that aim to inspire? I personally know of half a dozen engineers and scientist who went into their field because of TNG. I too enjoyed the 2009 reboot but watching it is like watching macross without the songs.

[Duke Togo]

Star Wars never inspired generations of scientists and engineers like Star Trek did. So in terms of relevance it's quite possible that while the new Star Trek is now "popular" that doesn't mean it will have any significance, thus relevance, beyond making some money. Star Wars never did this to begin with. So it's only relevancy is that people still like Boba Fett for no damned good reason.

All too easy...

Atharun, BSG and Walking Dead are two completely different beasts than Trek. They deal with the human condition, and not some utopian idealization of it.

[Mommar]

All too easy...

Atharun, BSG and Walking Dead are two completely different beasts than Trek. They deal with the human condition, and not some utopian idealization of it.

Interesting how you didn't responded to what you quoted there. But I'll bite. Star Trek absolutely dealt with the human condition you're just choosing to ignore it because you have an obvious axe to grind.

[raptormesh]

All too easy...

Atharun, BSG and Walking Dead are two completely different beasts than Trek. They deal with the human condition, and not some utopian idealization of it.

I understand how one can get hooked on the utopian part of it, but nobody I know got into social sciences or (the horror) poli-sci because of Trek.

[Duke Togo]

Interesting how you didn't responded to what you quoted there. But I'll bite. Star Trek absolutely dealt with the human condition you're just choosing to ignore it because you have an obvious axe to grind.

I have no axe to grind. Your view of the franchise is unrealistic,

and you choose to attack Star Wars (not quite sure why, they don't even share genres) as a defense tactic.

There is more excitement over this upcoming Trek film than any Trek show or movie to come before it. You cannot deny it.

[Atharun]

My post wasn't relating Walking Dead to Utopia or sci fi, but using it as an example of how people are enjoying TV shows based on an Established franchise. Also Star trek did deal with the human condition in many ways. Enterpise dealt with it when Trip took it upon himself to teach the Cojenitor of a trigender race and as a result she committed suicide. Also Enterpise, Archer mentions several times that unlike Vulcans human's shorter lifespan meant hey try to accomplish more in their life and that time was almost an unseen enemy Data creating a daughter in TNG was a another example of him trying to be more human by creating and caring for another life. The directive to "Boldly go where no man has gone before" alone fills the human condition of curiosity. one of the better examples is in Star trek Generations, where Renee has died and Picard has to face the reality that his time has passed to produce a son to carry on the Picard name. the discussion he has with Troi is quite clear on the matter, he even states that he is aware he has far fewer years ahead of him then behind.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Atharun

[JetJockey]

I don't quite get the "Space Station Politics" complaint; after all, DS9's undertone for its entire run was the politics of having a starfleet command crew administering a Bajoran station of Cardassian construction in a hot zone of trade and migration (the wormhole) where the often conflicting political interests of the Federation, Bajorans, Cardassians, Klingons, etc., and the entire Gamma Quadrant clashed, occasioanally leading to armed conflict, with poor Benjamin Sisko caught between his role as emissary, commander, father, and starfleet officer, forced into "herding cats"... and sometimes failing at it or being forced into positions of moral/ethical ambiguity. DS9 had its share of problems, but the political intrigue and less than Utopian setting and situations confronting the characters, and having them make the best off of the bad was the entire point; i.e. "this is not Starfleet".

You said it better than I could. Deep Space Nine isn't Starfleet so why are they calling it Star Trek? Didn't one of the writers go on to create another space station type show? Deep Space Nine is an example of what happens when people want to go "explore" other parts of a creative property's universe and lose what the property means. I think Deep Space Nine realized it later in the show, that's why they made the Defiant.

Also, Abrams Star Trek was a by the numbers production which had almost no chance of failing. They got Abrams to direct and all his fans, restarted/rebooted/whatever you want to call it with the original crew, made it look slick and cool, had popular people visit the set (Spielberg and others), got Leonard Nimoy (who I believe didn't want to be in Generations), and the usual good teaser trailers. Also, that teaser trailer is one of the best. Making the film one of the biggest let downs. It is very similar to the Star Wars prequels trailers and the resulting films.

Abrams Star Wars will be even more successful than Star Trek. And sadly people will talk about how Abrams saved both of these properties. When the truth is, when something is creatively at zero. It doesn't take much to save it when you have a back to basics approach, marketing backing you up, and people believing (rightfully or not) that the past films were horrible.

My post wasn't relating Walking Dead to Utopia or sci fi, but using it as an example of how people are enjoying TV shows based on an Established franchise. Also Star trek did deal with the human condition in many ways. Enterpise dealt with it when Trip took it upon himself to teach the Cojenitor of a trigender race and as a result she committed suicide. Also Enterpise, Archer mentions several times that unlike Vulcans human's shorter lifespan meant hey try to accomplish more in their life and that time was almost an unseen enemy Data creating a daughter in TNG was a another example of him trying to be more human by creating and caring for another life. The directive to "Boldly go where no man has gone before" alone fills the human condition of curiosity. one of the better examples is in Star trek Generations, where Renee has died and Picard has to face the reality that his time has passed to produce a son to carry on the Picard name. the discussion he has with Troi is quite clear on the matter, he even states that he is aware he has far fewer years ahead of him then behind.

That Generations scene with Picard is sad and one of the best parts of the movie. I believe he was in tears. But it made the movie even more disappointing and Picard's character lame. Since Picard goes into the time/space ribbon and can choose to go where ever he wants.

Edited April 1, 2013 by JetJockey

[Mog]

I hate to admit this, but after hundreds upon hundreds of episodes spread across five series and 10 full-length movies over almost 40 years, it would have been hard for someone to make the long-lived Star Trek universe seem fresh.

I'm sure folks could come up with stories or ideas to continue the timeline.

But if they tried to do another episodic television series, I don't know how the powers-that-be would have been able to sustain it without falling into the same trappings that a lot of the later series fell into.

I swear I have almost a Pavlovian RAGE response to the phrase "Shields down to X percent" (or worse, "Hull plating down to 3 percent!!" ). As soon as a post-Enterprise series used that phrase or gave us episodes that felt like stories we've already seen in previous series, I would have walked away from the franchise completely.

Voyager annoyed me for constantly pissing away any potential it had and never taking any sort of risks storywise. And Enterprise eventually became a chore to watch, so I just stopped following it somewhere around the Xindi arc.

My point is that after Enterprise got cancelled, I wouldn't have minded if they let the franchise lay fallow for 10 years or so. Simply put, I got burned out with all the meh Star Trek being spewed out then and wasn't in any rush to see anything new out of the franchise.

However, Paramount saw things differently, allowed JJ to the reboot the franchise, and the reboot has become quite popular.

As I've been saying, the reboot ain't something I personally like. But I just don't understand why some fans feel so threatened by the reboot.

[Mommar]

I have no axe to grind. Your view of the franchise is unrealistic,

and you choose to attack Star Wars (not quite sure why, they don't even share genres) as a defense tactic.

There is more excitement over this upcoming Trek film than any Trek show or movie to come before it. You cannot deny it.

You brought up Star Wars several times so I went with, and I never attacked it (I like Star Wars), I just pointed out that in terms of inspiration people in Science and Engineering fields have never been influenced by Star Wars but they have continually stated within the offices I work and at conventions to the actors themselves that they have been by Star Trek which says something very strong, lasting and relevant about that franchise. Your reading comprehension is very low. You obviously in every which way dislike the original Trek as you've never said anything positive about it and LOVE Abrams as you can't seem to say anything bad about him or the new Trek at all. Consider that since your last post numerous people have mentioned about many shows/movies/etc... that directly contradict your comments on and support the notion Star Trek has dealt with the human condition. But you ignore that and hold your line that Star Trek was just bad in some sort of nebulous, obviously uninformed way. You're unable to have a real discussion.

[Kanedas Bike]

So...uh, did anyone catch the extended look that showed with last night's viewing of The Walking Dead?

-b.

[Mommar]

So...uh, did anyone catch the extended look that showed with last night's viewing of The Walking Dead?

-b.

DANG! Missed that too!?!?!

[Duke Togo]

You brought up Star Wars several times so I went with, and I never attacked it (I like Star Wars), I just pointed out that in terms of inspiration people in Science and Engineering fields have never been influenced by Star Wars but they have continually stated within the offices I work and at conventions to the actors themselves that they have been by Star Trek which says something very strong, lasting and relevant about that franchise. Your reading comprehension is very low. You obviously in every which way dislike the original Trek as you've never said anything positive about it and LOVE Abrams as you can't seem to say anything bad about him or the new Trek at all. Consider that since your last post numerous people have mentioned about many shows/movies/etc... that directly contradict your comments on and support the notion Star Trek has dealt with the human condition. But you ignore that and hold your line that Star Trek was just bad in some sort of nebulous, obviously uninformed way. You're unable to have a real discussion.

Woah, calm down there, Spock. Take a step off the Starship Assumption and come on back down to Earth.

My point has always been this: the success of any franchise comes down to economics. There are a multiple of factors that play into this, but generally speaking within the entertainment industry positive cash flow = more production. Whether you like what Abrams is doing or not, the interest he is bringing to the franchise can only benefit it--especially considering where its popularity was before the first reboot was released. You will see future Trek productions because of it. To rage against it is cutting off your own nose to spite your face. That's it, that's all.

As far as "the human condition" discussion goes, I will only say this: peace on Earth good will towards men, no war, no hate, no religion, no money--that's not the human condition, that's utopian fantasy.

I'll poke my head back into this thread once I've seen the movie. TTFN.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Duke Togo

[electric indigo]

On different news, here are pics of the final testshot of the Revell JJprise kit:

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/u-s-s-enterprise-ncc-1701-into-darkness/2013/

[Lobizon]

[Penguin]

On different news, here are pics of the final testshot of the Revell JJprise kit:

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/u-s-s-enterprise-ncc-1701-into-darkness/2013/

Was bugged when they cancelled the model after the first movie, so looking forward to this joining my stable. Saucer diameter of 27.5 cm... will be pretty small next to most of the fleet, but oh well.

[electric indigo]

Resulting in a final overall length of about 60 cm, it's actually too big for my model shelf.

[TehPW]

LOL Thanks for that. A lot of people seem to be quite willing to forget the insanity that became part of Trek fandom in the 1990's.

AND a lot of people seem to forget that the fans abandoned the TV version of the franchise soon after.....

So the idea that the fans think that they can dictate what goes on in the franchise now is REALLY funny...... (They are Enterprise ratings, BTW.....)

i thought the reason ratings dropped was because less people are able to watch it... that is, physically unavailable to watch it, cause you have to remember, a lot of folks where busy... fighting some war or wars someplace... can't remember the place... derp. just know that the numbers dropped when moare(!!) folks deployed? maybe?

cause you gotta admit, we had other things on our minds in the middle of last decade, to pay attention to Star Trek...

Edited April 3, 2013 by TehPW

[taksraven]

i thought the reason ratings dropped was because less people are able to watch it... cause you have to remember, a lot of folks where busy... fighting some war or wars someplace... can't remember the place... derp.

NEVER heard that one before. And I don't believe it either.

[sketchley]

We talking about the end of the show "Enterprise"? If memory serves, three bad things happened to it on the network side:

1) changing time slots

2) preempted by sports

3) the new (at the time) president of the network didn't like the show (or was it SF in general?).

Yes, we could talk about the effects of such things as RW events and the general improvements (or opposite) in the writing, but it was really the network that made the show end sooner than it probably should have.

[TehPW]

NEVER heard that one before. And I don't believe it either.

We talking about the end of the show "Enterprise"? If memory serves, three bad things happened to it on the network side:

1) changing time slots

2) preempted by sports

3) the new (at the time) president of the network didn't like the show (or was it SF in general?).

Yes, we could talk about the effects of such things as RW events and the general improvements (or opposite) in the writing, but it was really the network that made the show end sooner than it probably should have.

better analogy than mine LOL. it seems as time draws closer, the rumor mill is going nuts. you think its intentional some things are slipping, to make mouths drool for the upcoming movie? Khan? related to khan? April? Finagin?

meh. i just wanna know what ship is Cucumber driving in the big fight...

[Mommar]

Well here's a great comment from Ron Moore on why Star Trek the series was better than the movies (any of them) and what's wrong with the Abrams versions.

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/ron-moore-tv-star-trek-movie-star-trek.html

[azrael]

Well here's a great comment from Ron Moore on why Star Trek the series was better than the movies (any of them) and what's wrong with the Abrams versions.

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/ron-moore-tv-star-trek-movie-star-trek.html

RDM is basically preaching about the medium. You can't tell short stories about many different characters and views in a movie-environment. You have 2-3 hours (these days) to tell your story. It's not going to be wasted on your minor characters. In TV, where serial can survive, you can tell stories about everyone in your show. You have that time to tell the stories about everyone and everything. TV gives a writer the chance to explore a lot more that movies don't. RDM came up through the TV-environment so having that freedom of time is something I'm sure movie-makers would love but don't have because that's not how movies work.

[Dobber]

Well here's a great comment from Ron Moore on why Star Trek the series was better than the movies (any of them) and what's wrong with the Abrams versions.

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/ron-moore-tv-star-trek-movie-star-trek.html

Where do you see RDM say, anywhere in that article, what's wrong with JJ Abrams Star Trek??

Like Azrael said, he is just talking about the mediums and the limitations there in.

Chris

Edited April 5, 2013 by Dobber

[Mommar]

"But Star Trek, as originally conceived, and as you saw play out
in all the other series, was really a morality play every week, and it
was about an ensemble of players. They were exploring science fiction
ideas, sociological ideas and moral ideas. That’s really what the shows
are about, and the movies are just pitched in a different way and at a
different audience."

He's highlighting what the television series was about which is precisely was somebody else said they weren't, sociological ideas, moral ideas, etc... Arguing the new movies are better/more relevant makes no sense considering he says right there that the movies are aimed at a different audience.

[Dynaman]

"But Star Trek, as originally conceived, and as you saw play out

in all the other series, was really a morality play every week, and it

was about an ensemble of players. They were exploring science fiction

ideas, sociological ideas and moral ideas. That’s really what the shows

are about, and the movies are just pitched in a different way and at a

different audience."

He's highlighting what the television series was about which is precisely was somebody else said they weren't, sociological ideas, moral ideas, etc... Arguing the new movies are better/more relevant makes no sense considering he says right there that the movies are aimed at a different audience.

He forgot the "extra preachy" part about the later TV shows as well. BSG is a great case in point, he took what was good about ST and rolled that into the new BSG while dumping all the crud that ST had managed to accumulate along the way. JJ did the same with Trek, the old morality play is still there in JJ Trek - it is just not shoved in your face in as ham-fisted a manner as Voyager or some of the Next Generation shows were.

[Mommar]

He forgot the "extra preachy" part about the later TV shows as well. BSG is a great case in point, he took what was good about ST and rolled that into the new BSG while dumping all the crud that ST had managed to accumulate along the way. JJ did the same with Trek, the old morality play is still there in JJ Trek - it is just not shoved in your face in as ham-fisted a manner as Voyager or some of the Next Generation shows were.

Hardly every episode of TNG and on was THAT preachy. And as I already pointed out BSG also managed to ruin itself to half of it's viewership by it's third season to the point that sequels/prequels have no longer been worth putting on television. So far the "morality play" in JJ Trek is up for debate. That speech Kirk was handed about his father still rings in my mind, despite it being incredibly HEAVY handed and preachy in it's own right, we'll see if he can continue it on a more subtle tip (though based on the fact the exact same commander is still giving Kirk the third degree in the trailers so far I'm assuming that no there won't be any more subtly.) For the time being he made one Star Wars movie with Kirk and the Enterprise, that's hardly an argument for further relevancy or quality compared to forty plus years of inspiring Engineers and Scientists.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Mommar

[Dynaman]

Hardly every episode of TNG and on was THAT preachy. And as I already pointed out BSG also managed to ruin itself to half of it's viewership by it's third season to the point that sequels/prequels have no longer been worth putting on television. So far the "morality play" in JJ Trek is up for debate. That speech Kirk was handed about his father still rings in my mind, despite it being incredibly HEAVY handed and preachy in it's own right, we'll see if he can continue it on a more subtle tip (though based on the fact the exact same commander is still giving Kirk the third degree in the trailers so far I'm assuming that no there won't be any more subtly.) For the time being he made one Star Wars movie with Kirk and the Enterprise, that's hardly an argument for further relevancy or quality compared to forty plus years of inspiring Engineers and Scientists.

I forgot to say that BSG fell into it's own trap, being TOO angsty.

Yes the Daddy speech was preachy, but at least it was directed at Kirk and not at the viewer, which is how the later trek ended up.

You really ought to drop the "inspiring engineers and scientists", if not I'll have to point out all the weirdos it inspired as well. The original Trek was just on at the right time and was different enough from other SciFi to inspire. Later Trek had lost that.

[TehPW]

New international poster is out

http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/08/new-into-darkness-international-one-sheet-poster-more-details-on-ukireland-tues-tix-sales/

[Mommar]

I forgot to say that BSG fell into it's own trap, being TOO angsty.

Yes the Daddy speech was preachy, but at least it was directed at Kirk and not at the viewer, which is how the later trek ended up.

You really ought to drop the "inspiring engineers and scientists", if not I'll have to point out all the weirdos it inspired as well. The original Trek was just on at the right time and was different enough from other SciFi to inspire. Later Trek had lost that.

Well, it was too angsty. Though people just started hating the story as well.

I'm not old enough to have been exposed to the original Trek in anything other than crusty old reruns long after they originally aired but I can tell you I, and many others I attended college with, were inspired by Star Trek just the same. That was all based on TNG/DS9/Voyager era shows and some of the later original series films.

It may sound like I'm not a fan of the JJ Trek but that isn't the case. I'm really excited to see if this one can be more than just an action film but I do feel the need to defend the originals as I think a lot of people are unfairly criticizing them.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Mommar

[JetJockey]

Well here's a great comment from Ron Moore on why Star Trek the series was better than the movies (any of them) and what's wrong with the Abrams versions.

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/ron-moore-tv-star-trek-movie-star-trek.html

He's right too. It's a different audience. The Star Trek reboot got the "I want to see stuff blow up" audience. Which is fine but they are the people that are praising this as the best Star Trek. Which it isn't. I'm sure they'll say the same about the sequel too.

I think I said it or someone else here did. But Prometheus is a better Star Trek movie than reboot. It deals with exploration, discovery, and moral topics far better. It's a better, more enjoyable movie too. I'm sure I mentioned that the cinematography is better. But I do like the cinematography in Star Trek. I picked up the ASC on it, although it was only $1.

JJ did the same with Trek, the old morality play is still there in JJ Trek - it is just not shoved in your face in as ham-fisted a manner as Voyager or some of the Next Generation shows were.

Really? What is the moral in the reboot. Shoot at your enemies when they are defeated? The guy who is the voice of reason to say "not this time" when asked if he wants to send a rescue party. There is no real moral play in the reboot. If there is it's very thin and played for action. Similar to that turbolift scene with Spock and how fast he gets from the back of the Enterprise to the bridge.

[Dynaman]

Really? What is the moral in the reboot. Shoot at your enemies when they are defeated? The guy who is the voice of reason to say "not this time" when asked if he wants to send a rescue party. There is no real moral play in the reboot. If there is it's very thin and played for action. Similar to that turbolift scene with Spock and how fast he gets from the back of the Enterprise to the bridge.

Yes, Grow up and take responsability for your life. Shown from both Spock and Kirk's perspective. The rest of your complaints are of the sour grapes variety, old trek fans need to get over the fact that it is not coming back since they beat that formula to death.