Trekked Into Darkness

[bigsky]

At 12:01. Geeky goodness. Lots of old school reference. The sci fi crowd will be hip to the jive.

[Doc]

The only movie I ever went to on opening night was the original Star Trek film. I'm not a huge trek fan but was in HS at the time just another reason to party. I recall it being a huge disappointment because the movie wasn't all that great. Some of the subsequent ST films have not been good but others entertaining. Odds are I'll get it on my netflix list.

[UKHistory]

Looking forward to seeing it in the next day or two. Really want to see the film. And it even got better this time around by adding Alice Eve to the cast.

[KSRBEvans]

The last Abrams movie was such a radical departure from the Trek mythology and so "unbelievable"* that I can't bring myself to watch this one, too.


*--Yep, they're giving a Cadet command of his own starship? Even for sci-fi, that strains credulity.

[UKHistory]

Departure? It literally destroyed 50 years of expanded stories, movies, and plot lines. Part of me found that hard to take. Part of me also saw this as a way for a film maker to unburden himself with a lengthy and strict avenue to follow.

Loved the shows. Saw all the movies. I liked the reboot and want to see this one but would hope that the movies going forward are about new events and not just skewed retellings of older stories.


The last Abrams movie was such a radical departure from the Trek mythology and so "unbelievable"* that I can't bring myself to watch this one, too.


*--Yep, they're giving a Cadet command of his own starship? Even for sci-fi, that strains credulity.

[CitizenBBN]

The last Abrams movie was such a radical departure from the Trek mythology and so "unbelievable"* that I can't bring myself to watch this one, too.


*--Yep, they're giving a Cadet command of his own starship? Even for sci-fi, that strains credulity.

Im in your camp. I saw the last movie as an admission Paramount Pictures was incapable of finding a single writer who could write a good Star Trek movie within the bounds of canon. I know this to be crap b/c even some of the fan based work is better than what they have been doing, so their solution was to dismiss all of canon and kind of reboot the whole thing.

That's fine I guess, I'm glad the Star Trek brand is being successful, but I still consider it a failure by Paramount they wouldn't go work with the bright minds out there to EXPAND the existing Star Trek universe and canon. Additions like the Borg and the TNG universe were amazing, and there's no reason they couldn't have done that here and extended the universe and story line.

Would be nice if they'd do a new series. ST is really a TV medium story b/c it requires a lot of depth you can't cover in a 90 minute movie every other year. it never was intended to be action adventure. It was real sci fi, which should be thought provoking as well as have lasers and light speed.

[dan_bgblue]

It was real sci fi, which should be thought provoking as well as have lasers and light speed.

And great looking chicks painted green or dressed in lots of filmy, gauze swaths of material.

[CitizenBBN]

And great looking chicks painted green or dressed in lots of filmy, gauze swaths of material.

No show yet has been hurt by a pretty girl, and TOS was a mixed bag of Gunsmoke episodes and social oriented sci fi, but given what they had to work with they did a great job, and the rest of the series had the budgets to so some really good work.

I just see this latest pair of films as more in the Star Wars approach to sci fi, which has little social commentary or scientific questions or even fanciful scientific theorizing and more "action movie with lasers and starships". It's fine, I have all the Clone Wars animated episodes and I like light saber fights as well as anyone, but it wasn't what Roddenberry wanted for Star Trek. There's a balance between action and thought provoking. Star Wars works as a film based universe b/c it does very little of the latter, and in 90 minutes you can't do much. I just miss the depth and development that has come with Star Trek, and IMO it's clear Paramount has little idea how to build on all that depth that has been built.

Star Wars is full of "droids", artificial life forms that seem to have no rights whatsoever, and in none of it are questions asked about when one may be evolved enough to have rights, to be "alive" and sentient. That's a big threat in sci fi, and Star Trek has addressed it with Data and then Voyager's Doctor. The two are just operating with different goals. I like them both, but I don't want to lose either.

[suncat05]

My daughter texted me this morning telling me how much she liked it, how good it is. She doesn't go to many movies, and she's usually very critical of them because she is very smart and likes movies that make her think beyond what she sees. So what she saw, I have no idea, but she liked it, hence, Mom & I will probably see it soon on her word that it is worth watching.
FYI, from another thread, this was pre-"froggy suicide", and I am NOT going to tell her about that! I'd NEVER hear the end of it.............she likes frogs, has a whole collection of little froggy things, to go along with her Harry Potter stuff...........j/s. :thinking2:

[CitizenBBN]

My daughter texted me this morning telling me how much she liked it, how good it is. She doesn't go to many movies, and she's usually very critical of them because she is very smart and likes movies that make her think beyond what she sees. So what she saw, I have no idea, but she liked it, hence, Mom & I will probably see it soon on her word that it is worth watching.
FYI, from another thread, this was pre-"froggy suicide", and I am NOT going to tell her about that! I'd NEVER hear the end of it.............she likes frogs, has a whole collection of little froggy things, to go along with her Harry Potter stuff...........j/s. :thinking2:

First, glad she liked it, hope everyone goes to see it and it's a big success. IMO the best chance for this hard core Trekkie to get his dream of a new series is for the films to do exceptionally well.

Second, I misplaced your daughter's email address. Could you PM it to me? There's a story I want to tell her....

[suncat05]

:tongue08:

[UKHistory]

I enjoyed this movie but it was not Star Trek enough for me. Wrath of Khan was actually a really good film. It had the benefit of a wonderful one hour episode that set the stage for the movie. Great story. New characters. Great ship to ship action. It was Star Trek on a grand scale.

The new movie skews it up. If you are rebooting the series to avoid canon, don't cheat and distort the existing mythos. Build new stories.

What I love about Star Trek, besides beautiful women in short skirts, is that Gene Roddenberry had a very positive view of humanity's future. We made it through nuclear proliferation, climate and pollution issues, racism and religion as a tool for violence as opposed to love and general prejudice.

Humanity rose above and we actually served as a model to other species on how to evolve. Maybe a little arrogant but postive and optimistic.

Today's movie has positives. There is more action. With a young cast you can do more action which is a good thing. Love Alice Eve in this series and a young Carol Marcus (sorry for spolers) makes sense regardless of Khan or not being in the film.

But it is was not big enough or grand enough for a movie in my view.

[CitizenBBN]

I enjoyed this movie but it was not Star Trek enough for me. Wrath of Khan was actually a really good film. It had the benefit of a wonderful one hour episode that set the stage for the movie. Great story. New characters. Great ship to ship action. It was Star Trek on a grand scale.

The new movie skews it up. If you are rebooting the series to avoid canon, don't cheat and distort the existing mythos. Build new stories.

What I love about Star Trek, besides beautiful women in short skirts, is that Gene Roddenberry had a very positive view of humanity's future. We made it through nuclear proliferation, climate and pollution issues, racism and religion as a tool for violence as opposed to love and general prejudice.

Humanity rose above and we actually served as a model to other species on how to evolve. Maybe a little arrogant but postive and optimistic.

Today's movie has positives. There is more action. With a young cast you can do more action which is a good thing. Love Alice Eve in this series and a young Carol Marcus (sorry for spolers) makes sense regardless of Khan or not being in the film.

But it is was not big enough or grand enough for a movie in my view.

This.

Star Trek is about more than just pure sci fi laser shows. In the Star Trek Universe humanity finally evolved some. We rose above some of our pettiness, and the ST Universe created chances to not just have space battles (which I like), but to explore everything from humanity to ethics to management styles. Science Fiction has from the outset been a way of challenging current ethics and beliefs and failings in a context of plausible deniability. This is a long tradition in literature. Gulliver's Travels, Flatland, all in that tradition.

Roddenberry went to the sci fi community and got writers in that vein. The show stands with one foot in the world of Bradbury and Vonnegut. Not always high brow, have to have action in any universe be it Star Trek or Lord of the Rings or Dune, but not just a 50 year simplistic action flick of phasers and leading men getting the green girl either.

Wrath of Khan was a great movie. It suited the big screen. First Contact came close, and TNG could have translated to the big screen, and the Borg certainly can, but the writing on all of the Trek movies has been less than it should have been.

[Darrell KSR]

Star Trek. I pretty much watched the same thing in a rerun of The Big Bang Theory yesterday. Sheldon was Raggedy C3PO in a Halloween Costume.

That's Star Trek, right?

..


..


..


..


Ducking. Those Trekkies can be mean when you poke at them.

[CitizenBBN]

Locking phasers...