Discussion in 'Community' started by Ulkesh2, Sep 8, 2010.
I'll never understand the hate for Star Trek (2009). I saw it and I loved it.
I love that Trek fans hate the movie that actually made Star Trek relevant again. Says something.
I'm with Zebra3 - I liked the 2009 film and I'm looking forward to XII.
Why do people keep saying "Making relevant again" about movies and tv shows that generally completely screw up the franchise?
Living Daylights is the movie that updated Bond to modern times without utterly destroying what Bond was about. Casino Royale (the recent) and Quantum of Solace 'made Bond relevant' buy creating an utterly unlikable movie that seems to have little if anything in common with the previous franchise, and throwing in a lot of shakey-cam to induce motion sickness (maybe to cover up the lack-of-plot?).
BattleStar Galactica took a cheezy network show and "Made it relevant" by creating a cast of utterly unlikable characters and almost completely ignoring the original show. (Including what made the original show even remotely good)
Trek XI took well known and loved characters and made them unlikable, stupid, or both, and had a plot and environment that was utter nonsense and had more holes in it than the worst episodes of the original series, but I guess that all the soap-opera angst somehow makes it "more relevant".
Koohi, the very things you are complaining about obvious have struck a chord with audiences because the examples you have chosen have done generally better than their earlier counterparts. BSG, for instance, ended up being vastly more popular than the original series ever was and was better made, frankly. The original series is damn near unwatchable now. I can't comment on Quantum of Solace because I haven't seen it, but Casino Royale updated Bond for today's audiences... not 1989's audiences... and it was extremely well recieved. And Star Trek 2009 has a higher critical rating than all the previous Star Trek movies and revived a franchise that had long since flagged to the point of being only relevant to a niche audience with lackluster shows. It's the only ST movie with a 95% rating by critics and a 91% from fans.
So, yeah, they obviously made a movie that gave audiences what they want in a sci-fi movie and did a reimagining of the characters for the 21st century. I almost can't take the stuff you say seriously because you literally have nothing positive to say about just about anything. "Oh, Nolan's Batman movies suck. The Avengers looks like it's going to suck and so do all the movies tied into that. Star Trek sucks and ruined the franchise. BSG sucks, ruined the franchise."
For the record, I loved Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace (Casino more than Quantum) simply because that Bond is so much more like the real Bond. The Bond from the books, that is.
I'll let you in on a secret: I hope to be proven utterly wrong in my predictions. Nothing would make me happier than for The Avengers to be the most awe inspiring and fantastic movie of the century. But, I have concerns. And as you know, I was so utterly wrong about that Karate Kid movie that came out a couple years ago--oh wait...
My point about Bond was that it was possible to update a character without degrading or insulting the previous fans, which is what I felt the other franchises did. Even BSG, where the original was purely a network trying to cash in on the space sci-fi rush that Star Wars started, but with no concept of how to do it; where the actors were first handed scripts for scenes that were filmed the day before; and which frequently made no sense (Humanity has been wiped out except for the stragglers in the fleet, but keeps running into more colonies and worlds inhabited by humans). In spite of that, the original show has campy dated feel to it, and I find it enjoyable, if dated.
Sorry if you don't like my opinions, but even if I'm just some old geezer who sneaked (not Snuck) into this new decade somehow with totally out-of-date views, I will continue to post them. 10,000,000,000 ants CAN all be wrong--just check the ant bait traps. I may be one of the demented psychos yelling at James Cameron for the lame excuse for a story in the Avatar movie that was just a thinly veiled excuse to string FX together. If you disagree with me, feel free to ignore my posts as demented ramblings.
As a fan of Star Trek both before AND after the 2009 movie, I can honestly say I didn't feel degraded at all. I felt like I had been treated to a fun adventure. An adventure that I wanted to see be continued. Yay!! I'm getting my wish
[link=http://trekmovie.com/2012/02/10/hasbro-to-make-star-trek-toy-line-starting-in-2013]Hasbro picks up Star Trek toy license for new movie[/link]
Lets hope some Ferengi will show up in the movie, not as villains of course.
Instead of having the Enterprise crew contend with another villain, JJ Abrams should have them deal with one of those unexplained phenomenom similar to Vger, the whale probe, and "God". It's more exciting to see Kirk and crew try to figure out how they'll get themselves out of those kind of messes.
If they ever do the Borg, and for some reason Alice Krige doesn't return, Tilda Swinton NEEDS to cast as the Borg Queen. That would be ****ing hot.
I agree, convincing someone/something of its errors would make a a bteer movie and a more mature theme.
I think they should visit Rubicun III.
Why not? The original brief for them was that their, um, members were supposed to be more pleasing for women. (Seriously, That's what Majel Barret said at TimeCon the summer before TNG came out). Maybe the new movie can show us why? Or in action. Yomen Rand is maybe having an extra-species fling?
Because they were a joke as villains and not scary at all.
I kid, of course.
Or do you?
Personally, i would not mind the Dominion as enemy for Trek 2.
The only reason the Federation had contact with the Dominion was because of the Bajoran wormhole. Without it (there's no space station there and Bajor is a backwater) there's no way Kirk could possibly have contact with the crazy Founders. The Federation was also smaller and had slower warp drives, although I guess they could bypass that with the alternate timeline thing.
Like I said, I don't think the producers will take villains from the TNG/DS9/Voyager era, if only because they'd be rather obscure for a mainstream audience.
Nero was pretty damm obscure, he did not even look like a romulan come to think of it.
So why not have obscure villains like the Hirogen,Q or the Breen?
Benedict Cumberbatch has the mannerism to be a great Q come to think of it.
Nero wasn't obscure. He was a new character from a well-established alien race-- one that was established in the original series.
I'm curious, what "bvvrf" mean?
I'm curious, what "bvvrf" mean?[/hl]
It means i am to lazy write down your name.
[hl=limegreen]Nero wasn't obscure. He was a new character from a well-established alien race-- one that was established in the original series. [/hl]
But he did not look like a romulan at all, so who cares if he was one, he was marketed as a new random villain.
Romulans looked different in the original series and films as well-- more human and looked exactly like Vulcans. The brows and such were introduced in TNG.