Lit A/V The Force Awakens and the EU [TAGGED spoilers.]

The greatest sin Abrams Trek appears to have committed is to have made Trek popular! How dare he!

Then again over the last 3 years I've enjoyed all manner of movies that the Internet has decreed to be Satanic Spawn (tm). Star Trek, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Iron Man 3, Thor 2 - all a lot of fun but also deemed evil incarnate by the net. I'm sort of expecting Avengers 2 to be deemed CRAAAAPP by said net too.

 

I've said this before, but I actually, sincerely hope the ST leaves fans totally divided, because I'm kind of tired of the nerdsphere telling me whether I can or can't like a movie.

Though Iron Man 3 being deemed "bad" is news to me. I thought it was controversial, with some people hating it and some people loving it.

 

I think you missed my point. Abrams not only made highly grossing movies, he made very popular ones as well! You could say he resurrected the franchise since Trek now has a future.

Jedi Ben

I enjoyed all three hobbit movies and we know what the internet says about them.

 

I'm currently stock-piling the Hobbit movies, just need the 3rd EE Blu-Ray to complete the set!

 

So was KOTOR. It sold like hotcakes and people praise it to this day.

 

Did he really, though? The first movie was popular, true. The second one underperformed heavily and was critically, if not trashed, far lower than the first one and seems to mainly be popular among Benedict Cumberbatch fans. And the popularity of the first movie hasn't really translated to increased popularity of any other area of the franchise (the other movies, the shows/calls for a new show, book/comic sales, the video game was absolute garbage and Abrams himself sold it down the river, etc.)

 

Well, compare the state of the franchise now to where it was after Enterprise and Nemesis both left screens and there was no Star Trek. I honestly don't follow Trek that much, so I couldn't tell you how the two time periods compare/contrast, but considering how bad the last two iterations of the franchise were, the first JJ movie had a bit of Phantom Menace effect to it; so long as it didn't vomit all over the franchise's past, people would like it. ST:ID is Attack of the Clones, where the veneer has worn off and people are just looking for a good movie (which, even though I liked it, I will admit that ID was not good).

And unfortunately for Trekkies, all I've heard about Trek 3 sound like the studio is continuing to be terrible. They apparently want the movie to emulate Guardians of the Galaxy as much as possible, like giving Simon Pegg's little sidekick, who doesn't even talk in the first two films, a larger role to emulate Rocket Racoon. As much as some people despair at what Episode VII looks like thus far, at least it's not trying to fit that particular square peg into a round hole.

 

I'm not a Trekkie, but my understanding of how to gauge the health of the franchise is this:

Is there a television show currently airing? As long as the answer to that question is "no", Star Trek is in bad shape.

 

Yeah, a lot of people conflate their own misgivings as Trek fans with the idea that something is a critical failure. Trek '09 is absolutely not a bad movie in the realm of summer blockbusters. It's got a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes. Into Darkness has 87%---only 3% less than Wrath of Khan.

So people can complain all they want, but it gets ridiculous the moment people say, "WHY WOULD ANYONE HIRE JJ ABRAMS?!? HE JUST GOES IN AND RUIN MOVIES, EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!!!" because, no, no they don't. You might have a problem with him, but the unfortunate reality for you is that he's certainly not ruining franchises critically or financially. The issue is, people are no longer watching Star Trek as quaint enlightened sci-fi as a lens into the human experience, because they can't. Star Trek blew its shot at that by breaking their "no more than two bad movies in a row" cycle----and let's be honest, Nemesis didn't do a whole lot more on the "quaint existentialism" front than Trek '09 did. I'd love for Star Trek to be like the Bond franchise where it has a devoted family shepherding it through the valley of the shadow of death and all that, but that just didn't happen... so reboot Trek is just what it is now, and by and large, people like it.

 

For me as a Trek fan, the downward spiral started with Voyager, went to warp 8 with Enterprise, I loved Insurrection but despised Enterprise and Nemesis. Couldn't care less about Abrahms Treks, they don't interest me. I can empathise with those concerned due to Trek about Wars, though. JJ isn't the only factor why the new Treks are taking a different tone but he is one. Sometimes you shouldn't mess with a formula that works just to be 'edgy' Trek isn't about 'action'.

Trek isn't dead. The fans still care and I don't care about numbers. It may not be very active presence wise right now but I think some here are being dismissive but eh. Whatever. I am happy with the original films, TNG and DS9.

 

And in the eyes of the studio, that's why it was dead.

You're talking about ideals...I'm talking about why studios make decisions.

But you know who does care about numbers? The people responsible for making it. It doesn't take me or anybody else being dismissive... Just Paramount.

Personally, I enjoyed both new Trek films and would rather have seen them than not. I like the timeline hacks, I think it's an interesting study in franchise usage. Does somebody who loves it more than me get to say, "No, it's more important that I have my version of it"? Of course not.

So in the end, the folks disappointed in those films eventually have to realize: the sea-change of Star Trek says more about the world we live in and the nature of capitalism than it does JJ Abrams or Paramount.

 

YouTube comments or forum posts are no proof a movie flopped.

Into Darkness didn't underperform. It outgrossed 2009. Please check your facts before making such claims.

 

It underperformed in the sense that the studio was expecting it to do a little better than it did. But it wasn't a failure* by any means, I'll grant you that.

*(I mean, other than creatively. I didn't like it, or the first one.)

 

You'd be surprised. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen the claim online that it'll be:

1. A remake
2. Involve time travel
3. Have lens flare

Of those the last may actually happen, but the others? I don't think so. I think there will be some kind of creative trick used but it won't be the one used on Trek. Probably be obvious in hindsight but not before.

 

Do you have proof for that?

And even if the studio had higher hopes, it doesn't mean that Into Darkness heavily underperformed. It performed better compared to 2009.

 

As a Trekkie who loves ALL the original shows and movies (Yeah that's right I like Enterprise and Nemesis too) I thought the new Trek films were a wonderful breath of fresh air. Plus I'm a sucker for stories involving time travel, and it was used in a way to keep the Prime universe intact which made me very happy (now if CBS would make a new show already in the now Romulus-less universe). I do think the films were basically Star Trek done in a Star Wars style though and hope eventually that Trek returns to content or shows more like TNG/DS9, but I have alot of faith in Abrams.

 

At some point the books will have to deal with that plot point, that's likely to be your best bet.

 

I've been starting to pick those up! I've heard good things.

 

Want some recommendations TJ?

 

Why not? Have no clue when I'll get to them, but I'm the look out! Old and new. After spending so much time reading Star Wars, it was only a matter of time before Trek came up to bite me. Stargate, Doctor Who, and X-Files have been making me feel funny as well. Eventually I'll be reading more tie-in sci-fi and fantasy more than original stuff!

 

I'm certainly not saying that... I'm saying a lot of nerds are citing perfectly valid nerd reasons the Trek reboot failed as if they're criticisms made by the wider audience... which they aren't, because the wider audience didn't have a whole lot of criticisms.

Nobody has to like anything; a movie can be a good movie without fitting the franchise, and fans of the franchise can certainly be upset about that in spite of it being a good movie, but the that doesn't change the good performance and critical consensus. The latter things, plus his public fandom, are what got JJ the job... lest we forget that the prequels were a massive critical failure pretty much on-par with later pre-reboot Star Trek.

I definitely get that Star Trek---which previously had a "type," moreso than Star Wars for sure---has sort of been salvaged and handed over to a less intimate audience. On one hand, it sucks... but on the other hand, is it really worse than nothing at all? Eh. That seems dramatic.

 

Interesting spin off newa

http://makingstarwars.net/2014/12/first-star-wars-spin-off-han-solo-plus-production-codename/

 

The DSN Relaunch was great, but the wheels came off in a major way that hasn't yet been fixed.

The Lost Era novels are great, as is anything with Keith De Candido's name on it, but not sure how available they are in paperback, fairly certain they're available digitally.

Digital is your best bet for the epic that is Vanguard.

For the main era - post TNG/DSn/VOY - start with Destiny then Typhon Pact then The Fall. The last is very good but has some weaker books made up by stronger ones.

Top current authors for me are: David Mack, David R George III, Una McCormack.