Star Trek Into Darkness [** SPOILERS FROM POST 452 **]

libra02

It been announced that Benedict Cumberbatch has been cast as a villain in the Star Trek Squel. Have to say this has me even more excited to see the next film. Not a huge fan of Star Trek but I loved the JJ Abrmas reboot and cannot wait to see what he does next.

Be interesting to see what type of villian he will play but he will do an excellent job. Only hope that they can work a 3rd series of Sherlock into his schedule.

Link to article here:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/05/star-trek-benedict-cumberbatch/

Sad Professor

Chastain hasn't been cast. That was just badly worded by EW.

Cumberbatch is a great actor. I wonder who he's playing. Not Khan, I assume, so hopefully a new villain.

paddy kerins

Peter Weller is also in

libra02

Sad Professor wrote: »

Chastain hasn't been cast. That was just badly worded by EW.

Cumberbatch is a great actor. I wonder who he's playing. Not Khan, I assume, so hopefully a new villain.

Opps my bad. After re-reading it I see what you mean. Edited to correct this.

libra02

Sad Professor wrote: »

Chastain hasn't been cast. That was just badly worded by EW.

Cumberbatch is a great actor. I wonder who he's playing. Not Khan, I assume, so hopefully a new villain.

Opps my bad. After re-reading it I see what you mean. Edited to correct this.

Agree he a great actor and extremely veristile. Did not get to see Tinker Tailor Solider Spy in cinema but cannot wait to see it when it comes out on DVD.
Reading book currently and def was right choice to play Peter Guillam.

Pepe LeFrits

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Benedict_Cumberbatch_filming_Sherlock_cropped.jpg

Well he already looks like a Romulan.

Oafley Jones

Just checked and Orci and Kurtzman have writing credits on this as well. Seriously, how do these guys get work, they make Akiva Goldsman look talented. I'm also convinced that Abrams has zero ability when it comes to judging the quality of scripts. Do love Weller, he's fairly one note but still manages to be awesome in stuff like Odyssey 5.

Sad Professor

Orci and Kurtzman are hacks, but I would have a lot of faith in Abrams and Lindelof. As a director Abrams is very good at making things work. He was pretty much writing and re-writing MI3 as he shot the film. He thinks on his feet and can see when something isn't working and is able to adjust it. A lot of directors can't do this and will just stick to the script no matter how bad it is.

Oafley Jones

Sad Professor wrote: »

Orci and Kurtzman are hacks, but I would have a lot of faith in Abrams and Lindelof. As a director Abrams is very good at making things work. He was pretty much writing and re-writing MI3 as he shot the film. He thinks on his feet and can see when something isn't working and is able to adjust it. A lot of directors can't do this and will just stick to the script no matter how bad it is.

I like MI3 quite a lot, more than MI4 infact and its got problems but very little of that is to do with the script. I'll give him credit that he can elevate a bad script to an entertaining movie such as Star Trek, but why is he continually shooting with such sub standard material and why does he bring those two onto new projects. Again with ST, I could see that the time pressure of bringing back Paramounts franchise may have been a factor but I'm struggling to see an excuse for Super 8.

JP Liz V1

Noel Clarke and Alice Eve also join the cast

Dotrel

libra02 wrote: »

Not a huge fan of Star Trek but I loved the JJ Abrmas reboot

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

Sad Professor

Dotrel wrote: »

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

I disagree. I was a very big Star Trek fan and I loved Abrams's film. It's not perfect. I can see all the little errors and annoyances that the purists see, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Star Trek was as good as dead until the Abrams film. Star Trek needed a good reboot and that's what he gave it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah he rebooted it and it's massively popular now but it's not star trek anymore
it's just generic action sci fi blockbuster with the crew of the original series

more power to him if that's what people want to watch but it just gets a big fat meh from me.

johnny_ultimate

I have no interest in anything Star Trek but the latest film was without a shadow of a doubt the best blockbuster in an awfully long time, and has (off the top of my head) yet to be surpassed.

It's a powerful reminder of those days when blockbuster films were true spectacles: beautifully scored, cleverly directed, wittily written and charismatically acted. It also has the best opening five minutes of any big budget action movie ever made.

MrStuffins

Dotrel wrote: »

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

Yup, ya know a lot of people think Star Trek is a load of old balls! When making a new Star Trek movie it's obvious that you'd need to appeal to more than just the Star Trek fanboys by making a film seperate to the former works. It also made considerably more at the Box Office than any previous Star Trek movie (well over double it's nearest rival "Nemesis")

The reboot was super! I loved it and can't wait for the sequel!

krudler

Dotrel wrote: »

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

piffle, trek 2009 is one of the best blockbuster for years, it injected much needed life into the series.

best theme tune since Jerry Goldmsith as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu0QO1za64E

johnny_ultimate

There are times I wonder if I just liked Star Trek '09 for the epic score. But I'm fairly sure the film was pretty good too.

pixelburp

Maybe this belongs in the Unpopular Movie Opinions thread, but I honestly & truly can't understand the widespread appeal of the first movie, especially after seeing it again over Xmas.

Sure, the dialogue had some wit & pep, but every other facet was just dreadful: the plot made no sense & was full to bursting with holes; the pacing was rushed beyond endurance; the visuals were jarring & overblown (yes, that included the infamous lensflare). And speaking as someone who is apathetic about Star Trek anyway, even I ound it barely related to the Star Trek tone & ethos.

I wasn't expecting a cinematic masterpiece - before the "turn off your brain & forget the plot" brigade appear - but god it felt like watching a fan-film made by a 12 year-old with ADD. Yeah the franchise was a lame-duck, but I didn't think a breathless reboot was the answer.

That said, I'm happy for Cumberbatch though, great to see him getting exposure stateside & would love to see how the Americans deal with his (awesome) name

Theboinkmaster

I thought the 2009 star trek was an awful film and just another generic blockbuster.

Give me some decent episodes of DS9 over it any day.

norrie rugger

It does not bother me that the last Star Trek was an action based film.
It does bother me that it was a DUMB action based film

johnny_ultimate

norrie rugger wrote: »

It does bother me that it was a DUMB action based film

As opposed to what exactly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM

I have a pretty low tolerance for dumb fun, but I'm not really sure what anyone expected from Star Trek 2009. It was a big budget spectacle movie. On those terms, it succeeded magnificently.

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As opposed to what exactly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM

I have a pretty low tolerance for dumb fun, but I'm not really sure what anyone expected from Star Trek 2009. It was a big budget spectacle movie. On those terms, it succeeded magnificently.

Mega budget 2009 film
vs
1968 low budget episode
And even that fight had more of a meaning than most of the new film.

Compare the film to latter TNG or DS9 etc.

What I mean is that there are plot holes all over the place, insane new technology implimented (just for the hell of it), cadets being assigned to a fleet flag ship. No explination of what happened to Nero, to send him to Rura Penthe, how he actually escaped and why the Klingons had not taked his ship appart. No explination as to why a mining ship was so large and heavily armed.

I have watched it and even enjoyed it, for what it was, but it is completely dumbed down Trek. I understand why they did it, the franchise was dead and hard core fans were not enough to revive it. Look at Serenity to show that you need a wider audience than the core, to make a film successful.
That said, I do not have to like what they did and think that they went too far to the other end of the spectrum.

johnny_ultimate

I am not a Trekkie but frankly I really don't care about why a mining ship was heavily armed :pac: Id certainly acknowledge a few plotholes and cheap contrivances - quickest promotions ever. But are your issues with the film as a Trek fan or are they with the film itself? You can nitpick scifi to death, but IMO it is never a rewarding exercise.

DrumSteve

I would class myself as a fairly huge trek fan and i really liked the film. felt that it did what it needed to do and having sat through insurrection and nemesis in the cinema this was a return to form. I'd still rate it as the 4th best out of the series after Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home and First Contact (which was epic).

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But are your issues with the film as a Trek fan or are they with the film itself?

Bit of column A, bit of column B. If it were not called Star Trek I would have loved it as an over the top yet flawed Sci-Fi/Fantasy adventure but the simple fact is that it is taking part in an already established franchise and, therefore, is open to criticism for deviating from previous encarnations.

I do believe that the franchise needed a new direction but perhaps not that far. JJ himself has stated that he is no Trek fan and only took it as he could do a film set in space, with big set pieces.

It would be like suddenly making Wolverine an nice guy. It is just jarring if you know that is not the way the franchise works.

melekalikimaka

It alienated Star Trek fans, and drew in new fans... Its Star Trek Jim... but not as we know it

Myrddin

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yup, ya know a lot of people think Star Trek is a load of old balls! When making a new Star Trek movie it's obvious that you'd need to appeal to more than just the Star Trek fanboys by making a film seperate to the former works. It also made considerably more at the Box Office than any previous Star Trek movie (well over double it's nearest rival "Nemesis")

The reboot was super! I loved it and can't wait for the sequel!

Unless it inspired you to go back & see what StarTrek really is, & is all about, then hasn't it failed as a reboot? Isn't it just a fresh coat of paint on a 50 year old premise? It's pretty good film, but as has been mentioned, it would still have been pretty good if not called Star Trek.

Star Trek as it has been since the 60's is dead, & a reboot was/is needed. I think the film could have been a lot worse, & as a fan of the series, I'm pleased it got another shot on the big screen. I don't think there's a place on tv for Trek for the forseeable future.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As opposed to what exactly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM

I have a pretty low tolerance for dumb fun, but I'm not really sure what anyone expected from Star Trek 2009. It was a big budget spectacle movie. On those terms, it succeeded magnificently.

In fairness, that clip is fifty years old. I'd like to see how the majority of tv today stands up in 2060

melekalikimaka wrote: »

It alienated Star Trek fans, and drew in new fans... Its Star Trek Jim... but not as we know it

I'd be a pretty die hard fan of all things Trek, I wouldn't say it alienated me though. It was a good watch, there's plot holes & inconsistencies everywhere but the same can be said of even the very best Trek movies.

I think ultimately it was a damned good shot at rebuilding Star Trek. The big question is will it attract interest in what Star Trek really is, & give people incentive to back & watch the established films/shows?

Dermighty

Dotrel wrote: »

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

The last star trek movie was more enjoyable than any of the previous star trek movies I'd ever seen.

mikhail

norrie rugger wrote: »

Bit of column A, bit of column B. If it were not called Star Trek I would have loved it as an over the top yet flawed Sci-Fi/Fantasy adventure but the simple fact is that it is taking part in an already established franchise and, therefore, is open to criticism for deviating from previous encarnations.

I do believe that the franchise needed a new direction but perhaps not that far. JJ himself has stated that he is no Trek fan and only took it as he could do a film set in space, with big set pieces.

It would be like suddenly making Wolverine an nice guy. It is just jarring if you know that is not the way the franchise works.

I like a little science fiction in my space opera as much as the next man, but I enjoyed Abrams' film for successfully introducing a large new cast in a fast-paced action movie.

As for comparing it with previous incarnations, more happens to Uhura in Star Trek XI than to everyone in the entirety of The Motion Picture (and than to Uhura in Star Trek I to X). The only films broadly liked from the ten which preceded it are II, IV, VI and VIII. I've watched those films relatively recently - IV's a ham-fisted ecological metaphor with some comic relief, VI's a ham-fisted post-Cold War movie (Also, find a worse line in Star Trek XI than, Chang, "We need breathing room." Kirk, "Earth, Hitler, 1938."). Oh, and Plinkett rather skewered VIII in his rather lengthy review of it. That leaves The Wrath of Khan to hold up to the light. That (entertaining, personal favourite) movie contains plot holes like Khan recognising Chekov (who he'd never met), and genetically engineered geniuses failing to find anything fishy about the "hours could seem like days" dialogue.

Myrddin

mikhail wrote: »

Oh, and Plinkett rather skewered VIII in his rather lengthy review of it.

Oh, another American talking into a mic. Great, there's not enough of those people.

mikhail wrote:

That leaves The Wrath of Khan to hold up to the light. That (entertaining, personal favourite) movie contains plot holes like Khan recognising Chekov (who he'd never met), and genetically engineered geniuses failing to find anything fishy about the "hours could seem like days" dialogue.

There's no comparison between the two movies. The Wrath Of Khan trounces Star Trek. Yes there's plot holes in all films, whats your point?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the plinkett reviews are absolutely fantastic if you can put your strange xenophobia aside for a couple of hours

Myrddin

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the plinkett reviews are absolutely fantastic if you can put your strange xenophobia aside for a couple of hours

I'm sure they are. I just always thought films should be judged on their own merit, not their reviews therefore I don't tend to find film reviews actually entertaining per se. I either like films or not, reviews hold no part in the judgment of the film for me. That may seem xenophobic today though, in some hipster sense.

Again though, I liked Star Trek, & found it an enjoyable watch. Under the skin though, it's the same old Star Trek with added lens flare, & a fresh coat of paint. Some of the roles were acted very true to the original characters & I liked that.

I'm looking forward to the sequel, this will be the real test. I will bet though, they won't be stealing whales from the past to save the future

Sad Professor

Plinkett's Star Trek reviews are terrible. Stupid fanboyish nitpicking about continuity and the timeline.

johnny_ultimate

It's the obsessive lore and backstories that turns me off investing any time in the huge amount of Star Trek content - indeed, I'd say the same about pretty much any fantasy or sci-fi saga. It gets to a point when the fun is sucked out of it. I have absolutely nothing against people who really invest in it, but it's important to realise that it's the very same reason a lot of people are so cynical and apathetic towards the franchise.

As said, I understand where fans might have been annoyed at Abrams' effort. But in bringing Star Trek back to what it began as - a lighthearted, knowingly cheesy serial with a charismatic cast of characters - it did a great job. And that they had a fun narrative justification for rebooting it was a particularly nice idea. As a film, it's far truer to the original Star Trek series - the only one I've ever watched multiple episodes of - than any of the other ST films I've seen over the years.

Sad Professor

I completely agree with all of the above.

I think a lot of Trek fans lost touch with what Star Trek was over the years. There was always a conflict anyway between Roddenberry's grandiose ideas about a utopian future and what the show actually was, i.e. a cheesy tv show about a bunch of characters on a ship having adventures.

norrie rugger

Sad Professor wrote: »

I completely agree with all of the above.

I think a lot of Trek fans lost touch with what Star Trek was over the years. There was always a conflict anyway between Roddenberry's grandioseideas about a utopian future and what the show actually was, i.e. a cheesy tv show about a bunch of characters on a ship having adventures.

Not really, Trek was cheesy but always tried to have a deeper meaning.

Goldstein

Sad Professor wrote: »

Plinkett's Star Trek reviews are terrible. Stupid fanboyish nitpicking about continuity and the timeline.

Did you watch them? Plinkett is a big fan of ST2009, he is utterly dismissive of the timeline complaints in the first 5 minutes later adding "who cares?" and never mentions anything to do with continuity. I've never seen a more flattering review from him and it's almost an hour long so he had plenty of time. He could have eviscerated it for a hundred different reasons (most of them a lot bigger than nitpicking status) but he barely criticised anything and when he did point out anything of question, mostly it wasn't with a critical purpose in mind but to illustrate and underscore the fact that it's unashamedly a pure action film, not a science fiction one so any ultra-techy nitpicking is irrelevant.

Any flaws highlighted in the last quarter are either macroscopically oriented to do with the films own internal logic, it's story, character motivations, or explained away uncritically as symptoms of the dumbing down, simplification and spelling out that they felt was necessary for the desired mass appeal. It's also the one that contains the now well known Sci-Fi Vs Sci-Fantasy differentiation.

In fact, it's more than just a fantastic review, it's a well researched, observant and impressively sewn together all encompassing deconstruction of why ST2009 is the film it is. Much of it could be applied to any modern blockbuster.

ST2009 is, to give full credit to the studio heads, an incredibly focused, blatant and really quite brilliantly clinical mass appealing attempt to make money at all costs purely off the back of nostalgia coupled with endless freneticly paced action sequences and filling the screen with as much crap at one time as possible. It's a perfect blueprint for financial success - I'm just not sure I want that same Roland Emmerich philosophy to always win out over genuine talent and originality.

How Orci and Kurtzman still have jobs at this stage though is baffling. Forgiving them their lazy and inept writing due to movies "only being blockbusters" is such a cop out.

What would Lord of the Rings have been without the passion, dedication, respect, knowledge and skill of Jackson and everyone involved? If all movies with a big budget are held to such low "sur it's only a popcorn flick" standards, we only have ourselves to blame for the quality of them in the future.

I know the first one was rushed and Abrams is adamant that it won't happen with the sequel but I don't think Abrams was the reason the plot made no sense whatsoever and was contrived at every turn, it's the screenwriters.

Nimoy line: "A star will explode and threaten the galaxy"
*shakes head in dismay*

And the useless hacks are back this time so, Star Trek aside, I'm prepared for the same fundamental film mistakes to reoccur next time. To finish on a positive: It was very well cast (Pegg aside), the production values were top notch, the ship/uniforms looked gorgeous, the Kobayashi Maru scene was excellent and um, oh ya Hemsworth's opening was a performance truly worthy of the franchise name: Star Trek.

johnny_ultimate

norrie rugger wrote: »

Not really, Trek was cheesy but always tried to have a deeper meaning.

It may have had certain general themes burning in the background, but it was never sci-fi on the intellectual scale of something like a Phillip K. Dick novel. And I have to admit being quite thrilled at how the interactions between Kirk and Spock gave the reboot a strong emotional and narrative core outside of the stuff blowing up.

As for Goldstein's post above, I fully agree Star Trek is as focus-tested as any 200 million dollar film would be. But I think it also has every bit the passion that Lord of the Rings does - the screenwriters and Abram come across as having a real affection for the characters and crafting a thrilling story. I saw the Artist today and thought that was often crassly and almost cynically crowd-pleasing. That's not a feeling I had watching ST, and I think that it's too the film's credit that despite some serious contrivances - Spock's dumping of Kirk was another one that always bothers me when watching - I was willing to forgive the flaws and just enjoy the ride. There are a tiny amount of blockbusters I'd say that about (MI3 is another one, not coincidentally).

Sad Professor

Goldstein wrote: »

Did you watch them? Plinkett is a big fan of ST2009, he is utterly dismissive of the timeline complaints in the first 5 minutes later adding "who cares?" and never mentions anything to do with continuity. I've never seen a more flattering review from him and it's almost an hour long so he had plenty of time. He could have eviscerated it for a hundred different reasons (most of them a lot bigger than nitpicking status) but he barely criticised anything and when he did point out anything of question, mostly it wasn't with a critical purpose in mind but to illustrate and underscore the fact that it's unashamedly a pure action film, not a science fiction one so any ultra-techy nitpicking is irrelevant.

Interesting. I haven't actually watched his review of the 2009 film. My earlier comment was based on some of his TNG reviews, which I thought were very nitpicky and failed to really point out what was wrong with the films, even in the case Nemesis.

As for Orci and Kurtzman, they've been working with Abrams since Alias, long before they wrote Transformers, so I guess he just has a rapport with them. I would put a lot of the mistakes (like Pike not knowing the difference between Starfleet and the Federation) down to the writers strike preventing them from doing a final polish. Afaik this also limited Abrams's ability to re-write the script while shooting like he did on M:I:3.

krudler

two of my favourite openings to summer blockbusters of the last decade right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di4YUNoQqqc

Abrams sure as hell knows how to make a compelling opening sequence. I remember MI3 starting and by the time Hoffman was halfway through his count the whole cinema was silent, and it was packed.

Goldstein

Sad Professor wrote: »

Interesting. I haven't actually watched his review of the 2009 film. My earlier comment was based on some of his TNG reviews, which I thought were very nitpicky and failed to really point out what was wrong with the films, even in the case Nemesis.

Yes, I concur. In fairness I'd be a big fan but he did seem to be going out of his way in the 4 TNG reviews to find hyper-penantry to complain about - it's sometimes warranted given the context of the movies but there is such a thing as going too far. I agree with the consensus that the TNG films were a pretty bad representation of what the Next Generation was actually about (I do really love First Contact although I appreciate its weaker points - out of character Picard for one) but he went a bit overboard.

The way I look at it, if there's something fundamentally problematic with a film you should be able to expose that on a higher level without having to resort to complaining about just the minor details which I'm sometimes guilty of myself. Plinkett did shift my position ever so slightly to ignore some of those things that would have irked me in the past and instead try to pinpoint the major issues I had with the plot etc and take the film more in context of what it's supposed to be rather than comparing it to something like TNG or DS9.

Some of what I'm hearing from Abrams is encouraging - he genuinely seems pissed that he was rushed to complete the first movie so that implies he might take a more pro-active and considered role in the screenplay/script for no. 2. I hope he does because they have a lot of other elements in place to deliver a Star Trek for all - I'm thinking of MI3 which was one of my favourite action movies of recent years. A decent screenplay with the help of a few ST consultants and they really could be onto something special with the cast and backing they have.

Syferus

I remember reading that Abrams wants to expand the series into more thoughtful material in the second film, and that belies the reasons the 2009 film still sits in a strange place for me; it's by any quantitative measure a very good blockbuster, but it also sacrifices offering much beyond 'honour and friendship are good, yo' in terms of themes.

I couldn't give a damn about continuity or OCD fanboyisms of that ilk, but were it not for the social and philosophical aspects of Star Trek, there wouldn't have ever been enough desire for the reboot to even exist. Star Trek was always more than a hokey little tv show, at its best it always offered a platfrom for radical ideas to be discussed under the fire blanket of science fiction. It felts like the 2009 film got the syntax, the broad outlines of character down fantastically well, but that there wasn't much depth to proceedings. Some of the interactions between the crew felt almost clinically designed to make me smile on only a superficial level, with the intention being someone who is very casually aware of Krik, Spock and McCoy getting the jokes - they were hardly insider jokes.

And yet they tried to tie in regular Star Trek continuity. I'd have much performed them to cut ties with the old world of Star Trek completely and not have Nimoy's Spock be from the established world of Star Trek. It was a muddled message; the film wanted to be it's own master on most levels yet they decided to capitalize on almost archetypal Star Trek characters, but without some of the fibre that made them who they were. What would a totally new Star Trek movie by Abrams have looked like? It'd have at least meant alot of the nit-picking would be straight out the window, but the creators chose to lay in that bed and accept the bad with the good.

I'm not someone out to lambast the film because being a big budget blockbuster as well as an origins story leaves very little time in a two-hour slot to offer treatises as well, and action will always take a front seat in the movie series. I'd just like to see Abrams and company find an effective way to raise the sorts of questions that made Star Trek, TNG, whatever, indelible in a modern way. Christopher Nolan has shown with The Dark Knight and Inception that it's possible to be more than Indiana Jones in space and still be a boat load of fun, and his characterizations, sans The Joker, are hardly more favourful than Star Trek's.

I hope Abrams has used the first film as an establishing shot for the sequel - I'll likely enjoy whatever is produced as long as it's good, but that is more of a challenge with Star Trek on the poster. That name still means something to me.

hightower1

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah he rebooted it and it's massively popular now but it's not star trek anymore
it's just generic action sci fi blockbuster with the crew of the original series

more power to him if that's what people want to watch but it just gets a big fat meh from me.

Totally agree, its not start trek anymore and its not a reboot.
You cant call something a reboot when you totally change the fundimentals of the original concept and slap the same name on.

Its just like all the big studios now buying rights to major brand names knowing that the end product will actually have very little to do with the brand itself ad are just buying the rights for name recognition. In the end , times are tough for punters and are less likely to spend money on seeing a flick that they have no assositaion with so studios buy up brand rights in order to have a familiar name so people will be more likely to part with cash to see it.

At its core the new trek really isnt trek at all , it shares a title and charecter names with the original concept but thats about it. They could have relased this under a totally new IP but it wouldnt have done as well at the box office.

Im not saying it was a bad movie, I quite enjoyed it but it was in no way a true star trek movie.

If fanta bought coca cola and changed the drink to a pinapple flavoured squash more people would try it based on the name alone....but it sure as sh1t wouldnt be the coca cola we all know right now.

G-Money

I like ST2009 but there was something missing from the story. It seemed to run along ok until Kirk gets onto the Enterprise and meets Spock on the Star Wars ice planet of Hoth Then it sort of repeats itself or something.

I'm sure they'll do better with the next one.

G-Money

I think First Contact had a great opening theme song and the end one wasn't too bad either for obvious reasons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhoa7oWPPhk

End Theme

hightower1

G-Money wrote: »

I like ST2009 but there was something missing from the story. It seemed to run along ok until Kirk gets onto the Enterprise and meets Spock on the Star Wars ice planet of Hoth Then it sort of repeats itself or something.

I'm sure they'll do better with the next one.

09 trek suffered from the same comparison of alien - aliens 4.

In the original alien movie less was more, less alien on screen time, less music and less gore. When these elements WERE on screen it really punctuated their impact.

With the last aliens movie we saw all three aspects way too much, it numbed their effect at citical points when they were over used.

The same applies with trek, there was a sense of naval dignity with star trek, it was a defining aspect and set against that we felt justified when we saw friendship and commeraradery between the officers - it was what we woudl expect from thenaval setting. Set against a backdrop and tone like that any humour felt subtle and apprechiated, drama felt like it had weight to it and action felt visceral.

When 09 trek came along it turned the dial to 11, downed a 6'er of red bull and wore a tap out tshirt. It tried to up the humour constantly so when a joke came along the tone was already so light twords the end it had no impact at all. It spinkled action at every step it could so action set pieces at the end felt dull and had no weight. The only thing that attempted to stand out was Kirks and Spocks friendship at the end and that was because it had contrast to how their relationship was for nearly 3/4s the way through. Contrast with these movies were key and 09 trek lacked it in spades.

Its what defined it as "star trek for dummies". I dont know what that says about me in the end because I enjoyed it but I did view it as I did a vin diesel movie (bar pitch black which was excellent) - a dumb turn off your brain whizz bang action movie.

I hope the creative team take heed of their mis steps this time around and learn to use contrast in this movie, not everything needs to be dialled up to 11.

Also....... less fcuking lense flare!!!!! Fcuk you Abrhams , nearly everything in the media for a year after decided it needed lense flare EVERYWHERE to be flashy.

thorbarry

As a big star trek fan I loved the reboot. Fair enough it changed alot, and was more action orientated but the series needed that.

There is no place of the star trek of old on the cinema screen, Insurrection was pretty bad, Nemesis flopped and was also crap. They couldnt have made another movie like them otherwise people wouldnt have gone to see it. It needed something different.

I for one am glad, and I love it

By far my favourite moment in the whole movie was when Sulu and Kirk were making their way down to the drill, with the third member wearing a red shirt. I almost burst out laughing, because it meant that the red shirted guy was sure to die when, lo and behold, he does.

PerrinV2

Deleted User wrote: »

By far my favourite moment in the whole movie was when Sulu and Kirk were making their way down to the drill, with the third member wearing a red shirt. I almost burst out laughing, because it meant that the red shirted guy was sure to die when, lo and behold, he does.

Ya its always the guy in red

(about 20 seconds in)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXM15X_Fo0Y

Lantus

G-Money wrote: »

I think First Contact had a great opening theme song and the end one wasn't too bad either for obvious reasons

FC was a great movie until you realise that the borg were stupid by not just going back in time in any old quiet corner of the universe and flying to earth rather than rocking up on it's doorstep when there were dozens of federation ships to shoot at it. plot hole...........................

I can still enjoy the star trek movies but they just didn't translate to the big screen that well. Too many of the TNG movies are reliant on time travel gone bad or storys that would of made a passable 45 minute tv show.

thorbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

By far my favourite moment in the whole movie was when Sulu and Kirk were making their way down to the drill, with the third member wearing a red shirt. I almost burst out laughing, because it meant that the red shirted guy was sure to die when, lo and behold, he does.

LOL i'm pretty sure that was intentional