Jump to content


Star Trek 4 (14)

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#61 Alteran195


    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,498 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 24 March 2017 - 11:20 AM

I'm a fan on the new movies, and its cast. I think casting wise they did a damn good job. 


I don't join fan clubs though. 

#62 Gothneo


    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 4,556 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 24 March 2017 - 01:29 PM


  I think most of the people buying tickets to these movies (after subtracting people who just go to movies because it's something to do and more or less forget about it a week later).


This is probably true of most action based movies. They are meant to be an "enjoy and forget" kind of thing. Of course, I'm sure they would like to tap into some zeitgeist and become a cultural phenomena, but seriously not many can make that accession. 

I doubt any Star Trek film to-date would make any list of best 100 movies of all time. Not that some aren't a truly good effort... and lots of fun... but there is just so much better... even if you limit it to just Sci-Fi... IMO... its tough to say Star Trek should break the top 25. So... yeah... I think I can name 25 Sci-Fi films better than any Star Trek movie... and I really like most of the trek movies!

#63 Whirlygig


    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,051 posts

Posted 24 March 2017 - 03:25 PM

Agree 100% Gothneo.  I wouldn't put any Trek movie on the top 10 sci-fi movies of all time from a purely artistic/historic importance perspective, but maybe by the time we got to 25 I could squeeze one on there.  Now, on my *personal* top 10, I would definitely probably be able to fit at least one of them.  :)

#64 Morgan


    Newforce is my home page.

  • Members
  • 180 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 09:35 PM

Totally fine if another movie with this cast doesn't get made. Tired of having to look past completely ridiculous premises and cartoonish sequences, as well as some pretty serious plot holes.


As somebody who grew up on TNG, DS9 and VOY it's just hard to watch and rationalize this stuff -- the first few times I saw the first JJ Abrams film it gave me ADD for not one but two days afterward. I keep having to remind myself that it's supposed to compete with these superhero flicks studios churn out on autopilot because they're (mostly) flop-proof.


It's like: 1 part Galaxy Quest, 1 part Marvel, 1 part Michael Bay filming an old TOS/X-Men comic book turned into storyboards.



#65 Gothneo


    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 4,556 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 08 April 2017 - 04:07 AM

I think I was actually a but confused  at my first viewing of ST 2009. I came away from it wondering why I didn't just love it and want to watch it again and again.... I really wanted that to be the case... but it just wasn't. 


I think the real truth is that truly incredible sci-fi movies that also become blockbusters are very very rare. For the most part the entire Star Wars Franchise has coasted on the power and success of the 1st two movies, and we keep going back hoping to re-ignite that kind of magic.


Then Hollywood takes  movies like BladeRunner and decides to make a sequel because you know that people will go to see it hoping it catches that lightning in a bottle that they loved about the original. I know I want to go back to that world... but some things are best left as is... and I suspect this is the case for Bladerunner. 


I'm also starting to think this is the case for Trek, Kirk / Spock / McCoy. We know their story... and what we don't know is best left to the imagination... To me this is why TNG or DS9 worked... we got to hear someone else story. 

#66 1701D


    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 08 April 2017 - 05:22 AM

These movies fail* because Star Trek is a TV Show.

the success of the classic movies was down to fans wanting to see Shatner and Nimoy on another adventure. The success of TNG's movies to a lesser extent for the very same reason.

Where Abrams has gone wrong, isn't so much down to his choice of characters or cast, it's that it's not a TV series and is set in an alternate universe where everything looks different; it asks fans to accept a radical departure from what they expect and it offers casual movie goers nothing they can't already get from the likes of Star Wars or Marvel movies.

The key to making a successful Star Trek movie lies with in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek: First Contact.

Those two movies take storylines from the original TV series and expand upon them via a character driven plot. They are low budget, highly character driven and they expand upon already popular Star Trek storylines.

Unfortunately there isn't the luxury of using classic actors to play these iconic roles. However, my pitch to Paramount/Bad Robot would be to change direction;

The next Star Trek movie made for $90 million, focused on Chris Hemsworth's George Kirk, begins where the 2009 movie begins. Except for there is no Narada, there is no death of Captain Robau or George T Kirk, the Kelvin makes it back to Earth and Kirk is born in Iowa. The look of the movie is iconic TOS, slightly modernised for the big screen and this movie is the beginning of a trilogy about the rise of James T. Kirk and based upon the novel written by David A. Goodman; The Autobiography of James T. Kirk.

You either use the current cast or recast the roles to fit the ages you need these characters to be, you are faithful to the established storyline For fans, while making something new fans can invest in, you build this iconic, heroic starfleet captain from the ground up by not having him save the world, but by showing his rise to command through friendships that will last the test of time, tragic loss that will haunt him forever and the grit and determination imbedded in him. You spend 3 movies telling that story with the climax being him getting the Enterprise -THE classic Enterprise, not a reimagined ship by the same name.

Let the movies be the guilty fan pleasures by faithfully recreating the TOS aesthetic and era and by telling the stories as they have been told in novels/off camera while being accessible to someone who doesn't know Star Trek. Essentially these are stories that are about interesting characters in the end. By focusing on one character (Kirk in this instance) you can instantly tie it to both timelines without having to explain it.

*for the record I like what they've done so far but they have failed in maintaining a decent box office haul. I think change has to happen to strengthen the brand, rather than having a piece meal approach and these stand alone movies that do nothing to further enhance the fan experience and fan enthusiasm for the franchise.

Paramount have instead gone after the Star Wars and Super Hero dollar and failed to capitalise on it by producing enjoyable Star Trek movies but not unforgettable Star Trek movies. Logan, Deadpool, The Wrath of Khan, First Contact, interstellar, The Martian, Gravity, Moon, Life and other movies that are driven by characters and not the spectacle of CGI are the key to the success of the Star Trek movie franchise.

In short; Star Trek: Anthologies.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users