Oh, this keeps looking better and better. I stand corrected. 
OK, a good aftereffect. Though the dates seem to have been pushed to 2016, we have been spared 3D versions of the prequels:
screenrant.com/star-wars-attack- … cancelled/
[quote]The report comes courtesy of Deadline, and is less than surprising, given the reaction and box office take for the 3D re-release of Episode I – The Phantom Menace. Despite failing to make the problems of the first prequel any easier to look past (read our review if in doubt), the 3D release only brought in $103 million. More than enough to cover the post-conversion with a healthy profit, but clearly the risk of saturating the market isn’t worth it for the series’ new trustees.
[/quote]
:roflmao:
J.J. “Lens-Flare” Abrams?
This is nerd blasphemy! Star Wars and Star Trek cannot intermingle in the slightest!
J.J. “Lens-Flare” Abrams?
This is nerd blasphemy! Star Wars and Star Trek cannot intermingle in the slightest![/quote]
According to the article, the guy is more Jedi fan than Trekkie, and actually impreinted SW flavor to ST, hence the Force rejoices.
I just hope this move does not mean he blew it with ST:Darkness Whatever. It was going so well… Nearly 50 years of franchise and still going…
honestly, I didn’t love his Star Trek movie… it was ok for a sci-fi action… but it had so little to offer other than action, special effects and good looking people.
Oh, don’t forget the “lens flare”. That was quite an original touch. Can’t wait to see what he has in store for SW. 
But action and attractive people seem to be all what Hollywood understands these days, translated as “profitable”.
[quote=“Icon”]
But action and attractive people seem to be all what Hollywood understands these days, translated as “profitable”.[/quote]
maybe so, but when I find myself less thought provoked by “Star Trek” than something like “Harry Potter VII Part I & Part II”, I am a bit bummed. Not intended to slam either franchises. I love them both. I just expect a bit more from Trek. But I guess TOS wasn’t bogged down with trying to be philosophical like TNG, DS9 and many VOY episodes… so maybe JJ did it right. It’s me who’s ruined by later series.
Maybe the series have more time to develop deeper meaning. As to the movies themselves, the first ST movie was an exercise in beauty and special effects and soundtrack… and nothing more. You had to read the book to understand the most important points -and there were some interesting things there. I saw the movie as a child but read the book as a late teenager, and I appreciated the movie a bit better. Otherwise it is zzzzz…
Yet, as the guys in that MAX sofa who like to sit around and make fun of the movies they show have said, you can get up, grab a pizza, a drink, mow the lawn, come back and still you will have the same scene on the screen. Madness. But try to pull that kind of 2001 Space Odysey inspired madness nowadays in today’s Hollywood… you won’t get laughter, dear, but outright baseball bats and golf clubs, if you’re lucky. That is why they still go to the same reliable formulas, and the same old reliable franchises, whether it is ST or SW, and mx them in ways we really do not want to know…
The other ST movies were a little bit more adventure oriented and it was the IV, if I recall correctly, that was widely criticized for being preachy -something no one has said of SW AFAIK. ST V and VI a disaster, coherent, well made, fan appreciated disaster. But they never met the fan horror that SW Episodes restart did, IMHO.
[quote=“Icon”]
The other ST movies were a little bit more adventure oriented and it was the IV, if I recall correctly, that was widely criticized for being preachy -something no one has said of SW AFAIK. [/quote]
but IV was fun and relatable. I remember watching IV for the first time, and I have never seen any TOS series or movies before and I fell in love with the characters, had a great time, and it was still though provoking. Yeah, that KHAAAAAAAAN one was great… but many of the other Trek movies were a bit hard to watch, including a lot of the TNG ones… I think Insurrection might have been the best of the TNG films.
maybe I just like my Trek preachy or something…
No, no, ST IV was the best of the series, preachy ahead of its times about the environmental pickle we are now. As usual, ST ahead of its time. Remember where was the first interracial kiss. So no wonder it managed to catch your attention. If I remember correctly, it has one of the highest gros incomes of al ST movies, reaching to a wider public. And most “genre” series or movies always falter in this regard. So call it preachy or movie with a message other than tke your ticket money but it worked.
Back to SW. Most of us hardcore Trekkies had to swallow TNG as a placebo, and supported it in vain hopes of a reboot, and when the reboot happened, most were welcoming. But I haven’t heard even the hardest of the SW followers refer in kind terms about the episodes 1 to 3!
Isn’t action, sfx and good looking people what such popcorn action flicks are essentially about? I think other than a few visual choices, they hit their mark pretty near center.
Obviously more could always be done, but for what it is, I think they made even a non-fan/average viewer like myself enjoy star trek. Which is a great feat considering most people have no background knowledge of the fictional universe.
Well, an interesting, engaging story is always appreciated. We give him kudos for doing a reboot from a story that is logical.
What really appalls me is that these movies put younger and younger kids on screen, representing beloved characters. I think that SW has it the toughest, any further back and they will have all characters in diapers!
[quote=“Rockefeller”]
Isn’t action, sfx and good looking people what such popcorn action flicks are essentially about? I think other than a few visual choices, they hit their mark pretty near center.[/quote]
Both Transformers and the Matrix have awesome SFX and good looking people. They are both popcorn action flicks, but after watching it, Transformers is forgettable. The Matrix leaves me wanting to think about the story and what it is telling me.
for me, if all Trek aims to do is be in the Transformers ball park, then it is no longer the Trek that I miss so much of…
You can switch the Matrix in the statement above with X-men first class, and the analogy still rings true for me. Unlike the Matrix (the first one of course), X-men first class isn’t trying to be too philosophical, but the Professor X, Magneto friendship and Magneto character development were well done, and really emotional. The first Trek was a fun ride, but wasn’t really emotional or had much to say.
I’m guessing fun was their main goal, as enjoyable escapism is what most viewers are looking for in a summer action flick. I think audiences know going in that Star Trek is no Citizen Kane. Sometimes, pure fun is enough.
If audiences really want serious emotions and a film with a message, they’d go for something like say The Hurt Locker, no?
[quote=“Rockefeller”]
I’m guessing fun was their main goal, as enjoyable escapism is what most viewers are looking for in a summer action flick. I think audiences know going in that Star Trek is no Citizen Kane. Sometimes, pure fun is enough.
If audiences really want serious emotions and a film with a message, they’d go for something like say The Hurt Locker, no?[/quote]
I am used to Trek using the future to reflect, even explore the society’s conditions of today, and addressing issues and topics ahead of its time. Many TNG, DS9 and VOY episodes are deeply emotional (DS9 Season 4 The Visitor), deeply philosophical (too many to name), explores human interactions (TNG Darmok), explores social justice (DS9 Rejoined). The entire DS9 addressed issues that our society faced post-911 so well, sometimes it’s as if they saw what’s down the road. Being set in the future has benefits to allow viewers to have a different perspective, as opposed to watching movie set in present time, such as hurt locker.
I would think putting Trek into a 2 hour movie means bring the best elements of Trek, which includes being thought provoking besides just being captivating on screen.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Rockefeller”]
I’m guessing fun was their main goal, as enjoyable escapism is what most viewers are looking for in a summer action flick. I think audiences know going in that Star Trek is no Citizen Kane. Sometimes, pure fun is enough.
If audiences really want serious emotions and a film with a message, they’d go for something like say The Hurt Locker, no?[/quote]
I am used to Trek using the future to reflect, even explore the society’s conditions of today, and addressing issues and topics ahead of its time. Many TNG, DS9 and VOY episodes are deeply emotional (DS9 Season 4 The Visitor), deeply philosophical (too many to name), explores human interactions (TNG Darmok), explores social justice (DS9 Rejoined). The entire DS9 addressed issues that our society faced post-911 so well, sometimes it’s as if they saw what’s down the road. Being set in the future has benefits to allow viewers to have a different perspective, as opposed to watching movie set in present time, such as hurt locker.
I would think putting Trek into a 2 hour movie means bring the best elements of Trek, which includes being thought provoking besides just being captivating on screen.[/quote]
What he said.
Both can be addressed, a bit of fun and a bit of thought. Anyways, ST has always been groundbreaking, so the bar is set high. Fans expect it from them.
It’s clear now the difference between you guys and the rest of us is that most people were not fans to boot and thus had no formed opinions going in. We went in with a blank slate and to us that film is our only and all understanding of Star Trek; so with no specific expectations set, we were able to watch and enjoy the film simply for what it is.
As for all those acronyms - I’m sorry to say I am unable to respond to them - I have zero idea of what any of it stands for.
[quote=“Icon”][quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Rockefeller”]
I’m guessing fun was their main goal, as enjoyable escapism is what most viewers are looking for in a summer action flick. I think audiences know going in that Star Trek is no Citizen Kane. Sometimes, pure fun is enough.
If audiences really want serious emotions and a film with a message, they’d go for something like say The Hurt Locker, no?[/quote]
I am used to Trek using the future to reflect, even explore the society’s conditions of today, and addressing issues and topics ahead of its time. Many TNG, DS9 and VOY episodes are deeply emotional (DS9 Season 4 The Visitor), deeply philosophical (too many to name), explores human interactions (TNG Darmok), explores social justice (DS9 Rejoined). The entire DS9 addressed issues that our society faced post-911 so well, sometimes it’s as if they saw what’s down the road. Being set in the future has benefits to allow viewers to have a different perspective, as opposed to watching movie set in present time, such as hurt locker.
I would think putting Trek into a 2 hour movie means bring the best elements of Trek, which includes being thought provoking besides just being captivating on screen.[/quote]
What he said.
Both can be addressed, a bit of fun and a bit of thought. Anyways, ST has always been groundbreaking, so the bar is set high. Fans expect it from them.[/quote]
The problem is not that Lucas directed it, it’s that he wrote it. Look at what is arguably the best Episode: Empire Strikes Back. Screenplay by Kasdan. Lucas may have come up with an amazing universe, but don’t let him write dialogue, especially romantic dialogue.
Look at what happened with Tron: Legacy, a Disney Project. beautiful, but no substance.
[quote=“Rockefeller”]It’s clear now the difference between you guys and the rest of us is that most people were not fans to boot and thus had no formed opinions going in. We went in with a blank slate and to us that film is our only and all understanding of Star Trek; so with no specific expectations set, we were able to watch and enjoy the film simply for what it is.
As for all those acronyms - I’m sorry to say I am unable to respond to them - I have zero idea of what any of it stands for.
[/quote]
There’s been more than one Star Trek TV series. TOS is the original series, the show that started it all. TNG is the next generation, which is the show that I grow up with. It’s been at least 20 some years, and Captain Picard still would look the same if they make another TNG movie… I am pretty sure Patrick Stewart hasn’t aged a day…
DS9 is deep space 9, which is a departure from other trek shows because it’s based on a space station. Being at the same place allowed over arching stories, which gives the show more depth, and a clear theme. DS9 addressed terrorism from both sides, because one of the protagonist used to be a terrorist. These “terrorists” were also deeply religious. The show ended on 1999.
VOY is Voyager, which many people didn’t like. But the show had a lot of interesting discussions using it’s futuristic settings. One of the memorable ones is Death Wish, where a member of the Q continuum, Quinn wishes to die. Since Q are immortal, such thing is considered by the continuum as blasphemous. Eventually Captain Janeway is called in to act as a judge. Quinn argues his disease is immortality and when an immortal’s life is futile and no longer endurable then it should be allowed to end. The argument about euthanasia may be very 90s, but when faced with the choice to give tracheotomy to my grandpa with no hope of him ever recover to the point where he can breath or talk on his own again, or let him live out a couple of weeks, it is still a relevant and very difficult choice. In the end my uncle chose to give him the tracheotomy, against my grandpa’s wishes. My entire family had a big fight about whether or not to give him the tracheotomy. The fight lasts still today, and some of my family doesn’t talk to each other because of this. My grandpa is now always on the sick bed, unable to talk, sometimes unable to breath. His physical life is extended, but he isn’t happy at all. So I avoid rewatching this episode, because sometimes it makes me cry.
For me, being very relatable, but distant enough so that viewers and re-examine things they thought they knew from an other angle is what trek does best. And while it’s good to have successful blockbusters, it’s an opportunity missed that new comers didn’t get to see that side of Trek.
Sorry to hijack the Star War’s thread. I find the original Star Wars has interesting things to say.
*Edit: I realized I have completely ignored ENT…
Which is somehow appropriate, given that everyone else ignored it. (Although I’ve actually heard it was fairly good.)
I like Whedon. I like Abrams. I liked the Star Trek movie, although this thread has helped me understand why I felt it was a little lacking. My main concern with Abrams directing Star Wars is that too much of the culture is being dominated by the same few figures - there’s nothing wrong with those particular figures, but there need to be more of them.