I'm 31, I grew up watching TOS on reruns then TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and then a whole bunch of different fan made Trek series online.
DS9: Okay so there's this show Babylon 5 and it's kicking ass in the ratings and hey they're on a space station not flying around everywhere and anywhere every week and people love it.....let's try it too and see if we get all the ratings and glory.
Voyager: Yeah so DS9 wasn't the golden goose we were hoping for. But hey you know there was this show back in the 80's where this ship was struggling to get home (or to a new home). And that show was really successful so yeah let's try that.
Enterprise: Yeah so that did work either. Okay so we can't really cram in much between TOS and TNG so hey lets do something before TOS, and hey there is this really popular actor from the 80's that would be great and he'll work for cheap and people loved him.
on a side note: Thank you Enterprise for having the worst Captain in ST history and proving yet again that you could not only make a fail series but even make a complete laughing stock of an American sci-fi culture icon.
JJ Abrahms attempts to breath new life into a sci-fi icon that has completely lost its way since it's original creator died. In an attempt to rekindle the golden age of Trek he decides to use established, well loved characters and to expand on those characters by showing more of their origins. An overwhelming threat to the federation, a new ship, and an untested crew have to pull together to defeat the bad guy and return peace to the Federation.
WTF is so bad about that?? I think yall were expecting WAY WAY too much from the 2009 movie because they were reusing characters that we all loved so much. The interactions between the characters was close to the originals, the only difference is the original actors had the benefit of a TV series and therefore a much longer time frame to really get to know each other and learn to play off each other better.
TOS had TONS of action sequences in it, just like the 2009 movie, again TOS was a series so the action was more spread out. I've seen SOOOOO many people complain about the whole time travel alternate universe that JJ created, to that all I can say is STFU, he preserved the memory of the TOS series and honored everyone involved with it by not just simply wiping it away with a dirty rag and redoing what they did.
You can't expect one 126 minute movie to magically be perfect when comparing it to a tv series that ran for 79 episodes and a total of 3,950 minutes. And things are drastically different in real life now than compared to the 60's or hell even compared to the 90's and early 2000's so of course the movie is going to be grittier in a 126 minute time span and is everyone so forgetting these days that it still takes a normal tv series 1-3 seasons to really get to the good stuff...it's all about lead up and backstory first, then main development.
In all honesty, if JJ keeps blowing serious things like major landmarks up, it could mean that the whole movie series will end in some epic battle to repair the timeline, once he runs out of things to blow up!
And then we have the old Connie make a cameo (albeit staffed by the new updated crew) as Kirk scans some temporal anomaly, watch it vanish and the Enterprise goes on her merry way like the old episodes.
(here's to hoping that JJ can retcon the damage he does to the timeline LOL)
As I said in my previous post, I have zero problems with it being an action movie, and I have no real problems with the characters. I also pointed out that the perception of it being un-Trek like may have more to do with subtle attitudes displayed than the physical level of action or violence.
But this crap about how a movie can be either intelligent OR good action, but not both, really has to stop. There's a large number of well known movies that have been both, so that's empirically BS.
Trek 2009 succeeded because it was a good action film, this is absolutely true. What's groundless is the argument that it was somehow necessary to sacrifice brains in order to do that.
You may be right Revo, but my guess if one of your brilliant foundry missions was being made into a film you would not have chosen a picture of a derelict wasteland and a flasher in a Mac standing on top of a pile of rubble to portray it. Where are the starships? Where are the uniforms and where is the hope in that picture.
Well thank you for the complement but thats not really true about how i would advertise. When I advertise my missions i try to pick an image that will give you an idea of the mission, or I pick an image that will grab your attention, or pique your curiosity. that has been dark images (one had the centre of ESD in flames), the other was a fleet of Borg ships.
i want to convey the threat and the danger that your crew will face. yes you always overcome it but i want the player to experience that in the mission, not have them know it will be all roses and shunshine before they even play it. if i wanted to advertise the worst of all worlds i would pick the darkest picture i could find because that is waht the reality is. its dark. why is that mission one of the highest rated in the foundry? its dark, its twisted and a reality that is the total opposite of star trek, but yet people comment on how great it is, and how star trek is is, because you see something outside the norm and you overcome that darkness.
This is storytelling. This image is to suggest things are going to get very bad indeed. Will the heros win. of course, they always do and we know they will win, but you dont nullify the threat in the opening shot.
what does a ship or a uniform tell us? we've all seen the enterprise a thousand times. what more can you do with it? other than the above mentioned breen attack on earth, and the alternate future in shockwave we never see Earth in this state.
House of Cards - Lvl 46 Fed mission
Last edited by captainrevo1; 12-04-2012 at 05:03 AM.
I think the whole, "We hates the Abrams! We hates it fo-evah!" has been overdone. I remember watching first run episodes of TOS on television as a small boy. ST:XI is true to the spirit of TOS. The other thing which has been overdone is the "Gene was a true visionary who has been defiled and disgraced by this." If Gene Roddenberry were one of the races in Star Trek, he'd most likely be Ferengi. He did all this for the money. He chose what he did as a subject matter because it was different from everything else but not enough to frighten off advertisers.
Gene wrote lyrics to the first TOS theme. Why? Because then he would get a royalty check every time it was played . The idea didn't work.
To save some time and avoid a tl;dr.
I liked ST:XI. I also like a lot of other things some people do not. Like spinach. I do not hear anyone railing ad infinitum, ad nauseum about how "I'm ruining salads everywhere because I put spinach leaves in mine!"
If you do not like what JJAbrams has done, then do not watch it or support it in any fashion. But stop explaining to the rest of us over and over again why yours is the one true vision and you are Gene's only Prophet. We heard you the first time. All you're doing now is driving people away by letting them know you are slightly barmy about some things. Further you're making the rest of us look like the fans of "Twilight". Distasteful to say the least. So please stop.
Hipsters will always be hipsters. Part of being a hipster is letting others know you are a hipster. They cannot help themselves. It is their nature.
It's not the London skyline, but it does feature the London Eye to the left, and the Mayor's Office to the right. Near the middle on the left, is one of the concept buildings for the Freedom Tower in New York. My eye picked up the Starfleet arrowhead within seconds, and while it's a (mildly) clever visual trick, the overall poster is nothing which anyone with a knowledge of photoshop couldn't put together in less than a day. As for the Blade-Wannabe, it doesn't make me wonder who it is, it just makes me feel insulted that whoever put it together, thought I would be interested by such blatantly generic, uninspired and referential work... As with Star Trek, I'll be waiting till a pirate DVD passes my way, I will not spend a penny of my money to see something which I suspect will be a huge disappointment.
There was also The Xindi sphere in Enterprise, which IIRC scragged a new canyon through urban/suburban Florida.
But I agree. As nakedly derivative as the design is, it does communicate at least SOMETHING about the story other than just "It's Star Trek", and maybe "It's got that guy in it, you know, that guy from those other things".
It's not just a poster problem. So many of these movies, when the first come out the studios start releasing promo pics that are all just pics of the actors just standing around in costume, and hey, if you're really lucky a few of 'em will look like they're actually talking or something exciting like that! Protip: if it's a genre movie, show us glimpses of the genre eye candy bits. That's what'll actually get us teased up and salivating,like promos are, y'know, supposed to. Pics of the just actors are the same as no pics at all.