VulcanFanatic

Your right, there is no need for an argument here, your not likely to change anyones mind, especially if you call their opinions "Rubbish".

 

 

now they actually have the budget's and the support from the studio to do Star Trek better than they had been able to do in the past

 

I think you are confusing the words better and bigger. Bigger Star Trek does not necessarily translate into Better Star Trek.

 

Well, I wouldn't say that making money and telling a decent story is a contradiction. There've been some really excellent movies that made a lot of money and were critically acclaimed.

That being said, I don't believe that having a big budget and making a blockbuster kind of movie with lots of explosions and huge action sequences makes a good movie. Quite the contrary. Just look at Wrath of Khan (the real one, I mean). How many action scenes do you get? The Kobayashi Maru test, the first battle, maybe the short fight scene between Kirk, David and that Regulus guy, and the second battle. That's not much, and the rest of the film was still interesting to look at, right?

Your right, plenty of movies with good stories make a lot of money, but the big budget blockbusters of summer try to outdo themselves every year and lots of people with short attention spans support them. Many people dont like movies where you have to think about whats happening, and extended scenes of dialogue are boring to them. Its got to be action, action, action!  I watched the entire six seasons of Lost and i still am not sure what the hell the ending meant. I had hoped they had a master plan of where the show was going, but i dont think they even had one. Just keep teasing people with this and that and never deliver anything. If another Star Trek movie ever gets made, please get someone else to write it and direct it, I think Paramount would have been better off giving William Shatner the money to redo Star Trek 5's special effects and get his rockmonsters than let JJ Abrams make this movie.

By now the regular readers of this topic know what i think about the new movie, so i wont bore you with that opinion again, but i would like to say one thing. How can we ever get back to exploration of space in a Star Trek movie with two movies that are virtually non stop action? It seems to me that every movie will try to top the other with action and thrills, how many times can you save earth from destruction from alien forces or crazy people before that gets old? A five year mission is not like that everyday. My point is that once you have people expecting non stop explosions and universal armageddon in every movie, how will you ever be able to sell a movie where people actually spend time sitting around a conference table talking about the morality of an issue or calm down enough to have a genuine personal conversation. 

I dont look at older films as being inferior because of lower budgets and lack of technology of the time. Part of the appeal to me was making a great movie with limited resources, but still putting out a quality picture. The lack of Special effects technology gave way to more emphasis on plot and character development in my opinion. I like todays films, and i can sit down and watch The Ten Commandments or Star Trek III and enjoy them just as much. The younger generation may not because they are growing up with lightning fast cuts, scenes that barely on the screen long enough to see them and then another cut and another scene. I think perhaps this is because todays young people have a short attention span. Thats why most young people seem to hate older movies.