[Quark]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

I don't care if you disagree with me, you're entitled to your opinion. What I saw in Star Trek 09 tells me Abrams is better suited to direct a Star Wars film than a Star Trek film. I wish him all the best on his new project. I don't think it will be possible to be worse than Episodes I,II, and III.

I agree with you as well. Star Wars is more for general audiences hense the grand storyline and the music. You can't make Star Trek what it isn't; even when it includes Leonard Nimoy. But nonetheless, where the Star Wars prequels failed, Star Trek XI succeeded. So, I will give Abrams credit for bringing in a whole new fan base for Star Trek. Many of my friends that hated Trek in the past, have a whole new respect for it, regardless of the era. But yeah, I will never be as big a fan of the Abramsverse.

[horatio]

You raise an interesting question, is Wars basically something for everybody whereas Trek is a niche product?
I think that in theory a classical story like the one of Wars should appeal to more people than a science-fiction franchise. But in practice I think that Trek has attracted more people than it should "in theory".

The beauty of sci-fi is after all that you do not have to be a sci-fi nerd to love the genre. I personally was never into it as a kid but then I watched a piece of VOY with a friend, I stumbled over classical authors like Wells and Asimov and at once you notice that you are into this type of fiction.
Yet I wouldn't call myself a science-fiction fan. I just "accidentally" like some sci-fi stories and I think that the mass appeal of Trek works similarly. Yes, it is sci-fi, but that is not its key defining feature and many people (admittedly a bit of a wild guess) who watch it most likely care about good TV and not about seeing a sci-fi show.

The point about attracting new audiences, well, some friends of mine have also never been into Trek but love the new movie. Nothing against them but it is quite obvious that STXI has sacrificed quality for mass appeal in order to attract these people. You do not have to love or hate the movie to be honest about what it is, a dumb enjoyable popcorn flick.

[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

I know what fans on the naysayer side want me to see (I've certainly read enough posts on the subject), I just don't see it.

That's fine, to each their own. My original comment was a joke. Obviously Abrams did not direct a Star Wars film but that is how I see those things and others as Star Wars influences on Star Trek 09. Some I thought were ok and others I didn't enjoy as much. The phaser fire doesn't really bother me. I do remember the first time I saw the ice planet scene in Star Trek 09 and thinking to myself that I just watched something out of Star Wars.

http://starwarsvisualizer.ff0000.com/scene/1

http://youtu.be/5ECsW0x8svw

I'm just glad Kirk didn't say "There is always a bigger ice monster."

Keenser bothered me because he served no purpose other than like horatio said to appeal to kids. There was nothing interesting about him. He was there to sell an extra action figure and to be the butt of some cheesy jokes in my opinion "Get off there! It's not a climbing frame!" I am glad he was far more subtle than Jar Jar Binks but even Jar Jar got more character development than Keenser. I also felt they adopted the grittier look of the Star Wars universe especially with the USS Kelvin. That didn't really bother me but it was just something I noticed and in my head went, "Star Wars!" Another one that comes to mind is the design of the Narada. To me it looks more suited to the Star Wars universe. It's more of a fantasy design, both exterior and interior. There is no logic to that design and something I admired about Star Trek was ships seemed to have logical/fictional designs. Unfortunately with Star Trek 09 I don't think a lot of things were thought out beyond "That will look cool!" and ultimately I think that works better in the Star Wars universe than in Star Trek. Abrams has said many times, he is more of a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek fan. That's ok, but to me it shows in Star Trek 09 and I think he is better suited to direct a Star Wars film than Star Trek.

Originally Posted by horatio

it is quite obvious that STXI has sacrificed quality for mass appeal in order to attract these people. You do not have to love or hate the movie to be honest about what it is, a dumb enjoyable popcorn flick.

I agree with you on this. As a popcorn flick Star Trek 09 is an enjoyable film but to me Star Trek was always about more than just that. I am happy that it has introduced many new fans to Star Trek and I've heard of many of them discovering old Trek for the first which is a good thing. However I'm worried the new film is going to be more of the same watered down popcorn fun and that the Star Trek I loved so much has been lost. I do hope to be proven wrong though. There were several plot points that bothered me as well but I also agree with you on your overall plot analysis of Star Trek 09:

Originally Posted by horatio

And here is where I have my problems with the movie. Not that it resembles Wars in this respect but that at the end of the journey there is no Luke Skywalker who becomes part of a symbolic order like the Rebellion but that Kirk and Spock end up in some kind of adolescent "fu*k the rules, we can do whatever the hell we want" state.
This is essentially a conservative (as opposed to some anti-hierarchy form of progressivism) critique. People do have to find their relatively fixed place in the world. This is what I cherish most about Trek, that it describes a positive, progressive future while emphasizing the importance of discipline and order. You could say that, featuring progressive content (economic and social equality) and a conservative form (a relatively strict social order), it is politically the best of both worlds.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I don't think the Narada has much in common with much of anything in either Trek or Wars. It's unique. The ships in Wars tended to look practical and functional as well. The one weird exception that could be argued would be the spherical Death Star, but that doesn't have much in common visually with the Narada either.

[kevin]

When it comes to ship design it's really your own poison what seems to work. I no more thought 'Star Wars' about it's design than I did the fact that the film featured an Ice Planet (perhaps a desert planet would have avoided such comparisons? Or a forest planet. There are only so many basic ingredients a planetscape can resemble and I think most have been seen before in a variety of franchises) or rapid phaser fire.

However, where key similarities may lie is in the undelying Campbell Monomyth foundations of the story which both films definitely share. That's not too bad in terms of origin stories as it provides a good template to base a script from and perhaps that's why so many SF/Fantasy stories tend to pick out the components that work. It gives a structure to the film. There may be some decoration on top but then I always liked the industrial look of parts of the likes of the Kelvin and the Enterprise. Sue me. Pristine gets dull after a fashion.

I think the question of what has been 'lost' (if anything has at this early juncture) probably settles on your opinion of the relative quality of Star Trek as a franchise pre Abrams. Suffice to say the film was a popcorn adventure. It was intended to broaden the appeal of things (lest anyone forget this was a key aspect of Paramount's plan for the sagging franchise...........they hired Abrams but making it more popular was a prime remit of anyone who got the job) after years of narrowing. It's quite true that such a 'niche' aspect of Trek may appeal to some and their view of Trek. Far be it from me to dispute that even if niche is something I've never believed the franchise sought to be. But in broadening the appeal of something you have to take steps to do so.

At the moment the success of one film doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of putting Trek back on track but at the moment they managed to make it more accessible to people than it had been for a while. Which is what Paramount wanted.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

And hopefully this next one is a hit as well

[horatio]

Why should anybody care whether it is a hit or not? I don't own any Viacom stocks and my preferences concerning art have nothing to do with those of other people.
Has to land of the free and home of the brave really degenerated to such a pathetic "I like it when other people like it" kind of group think?

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I want to see it succeed because I want the franchise to survive and flourish. Because the other side of that coin is no more money being put into Trek projects.

This is a franchise that before this reboot was on death's door. I would prefer for it not to go back.

[horatio]

Two words, The Cage. Quality anf financial success have nothing to do with each other. If they had TOS would be utter crap.
So excuse me for not caring about Viacom's balance sheet (There are dozens of products I consume and like. The beauty of free markets is that I do not have to care one iota about the well-being of the companies that produce them.) and not being a fan of sacrificing quality to gain mass appeal.

[kevin]

The plus side is if the film tanks then it could remove the need to be concerned about what Abrams does next.

That way someone capable of better quality might hired. Quality perhaps being relative when one looks back over the previous incarnations of Trek.