[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by HFM

Right on the mark

What's on the mark? You should use the quote feature.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

What about TV Trek would you say made it great? Even if those aspects were in a minority of episodes?

I think it's basic ideas appeal eternally - the optimism that there is a brighter future ahead if man can kick himself into touch and work together. But that's not what drives every episode or film.

But let's not kid ourselves - The episodes themselves generally are the same mix of genres and plots as many other shows and always were. Just a handful (in terms of the 700+ hours out there) reached beyond that and are held up as examples of Star Trek that everything else must be compared to and rated against.

The vast majority are just straightforward fun entertainment episodes. It doesn't make them bad because 'Obsession' is no 'City on the Edge of Forever', or because 'Starship Mine' is no 'The Inner Light' (which I highlight because they were written by the same person), or 'Take me out to the Holo-suite' is no 'Far Beyond the Stars'. Nor does it make them any less Star Trek IMO.

It just shows Star Trek has a broad range of episodes to choose from, depending on taste.

So, yeah, less-than-cerebral Trek works for me as well as cerebral does. Often more so, but that's just IMO.

I'm not quite as harsh when judging epoisodes. I actually think there are way more good episodes than bad ones. Maybe it's because I'm not a writer or educated enough that I am not as critical. What I don't understand is how you can be harsh with the episodes, yet NOT harsh with this movie. It's almost like your apllying two sets of standards.

Of course I am, because a 22 episode TV season of a 7 year show and a 2 hour movie are vastly different. They can't be evaluated the same way. They have different needs.

This movie delivered what I want from a film. A cinematic blast of fun. Within the context of setting up the characters and putting the basics in place I don't particularly need it to be cerebral or say something deep and meaningful. And I'm enjoying it's success.

None of the films have really done that for me either, probably the closest are TWOK/TSFS.

I think this is why there are two sets of standards, one for TV and one for the big screen. Don't you think that may be why the movies didn't do so well? The fans of the TV series didn't support them because they lacked the TV qualities they cherished so much, and the average movie goer said "Not that 'nerdy' Trek again!"

Quite possibly.

[HFM]

True dat

[AyanEva]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I was defending the guy that said Trek has sold out (I'm paraphrasing). This thread is about how much cash Star Trek has made. He agrees with me that this movie lacks aspects that made TV Trek such a long lasting television show(s). While I will wait to judge the NEXT movie before I declare Trek a sell out, this movie did a pretty good job of making that case a good one.

I've said in other threads that I think the whole debate depends on what Star Trek means to you as an individual and what you wanted/expected out of it. I got what I wanted because I feel the things that make Star Trek special to me were present in this movie in a way they haven't been in anything Trek related for a very long time.

Originally Posted by Samuel

Hmmm... perhaps the success means people have been wanting a non-cerebral Trek for a long time as a refreshing change of pace. T-bone steaks are wonderful but get old if its the only kind of meat you eat. Sometimes you gotta have a great ol juicy triple-decker bbq cheeseburger with all the trimmings.

Or perhaps because the economy is in the crapper and RL is stressful enough as it is, people just wanted a fun romp that offered some hope for the future? Something feel good. I sure as hell feel good whenever I see it!

[dpinzow]

After watching the movie for the second time, this movie does explore at least one element of the human condition, and it's played out in Spock primarily and his confrontations with Kirk.

In our lives we always seem to face decisions that involve going with our head (brain, logic) or going with our heart. Spock's side of the argument was entirely brain (logical), while Kirk's was mostly heart and instinct. The two had to come together (and they did on the Narada) or else their mission would have failed...

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

p.s. What did you like about Trek before this movie? Were those aspects present in this movie? Do you really want Trek to continue if it is a shallow version of it's former self?

There really was one thing, and it was a major thing, mind you: a cerebral, thought provoking plot.

The movie was very Trekish, but while it seemed like the filmmakers really, really loved Star Trek, the movie seemed more like an homage to Star Trek rather than just a Trek movie itself.

Now that I think of it, my disappointment for this film wasn't that it didn't have a traditional Star Trek cerebral plot, but it didn't have an Abrams plot. I've seen Abrams' other stuff. We got Lost and Fringe on right now and both deal with mind bending plots. This movie did not seem like the same people behind those two projects. What the heck happened?

Do I want Star Trek to continue in this shallow version? No. But it's almost impossible for it to.

The one thing we can look forward to is now they've got this movie out of their system, they have to do something better. Have to. They've seemed to successfully rope in a bigger crowd. Now with a sequel they can rope them into what makes Trek trek. And they really have to. Lost fans and Fringe fans are looking forward to something a little more thought provoking, knowing who is behind the movie. Hell, MI:III and Cloverfield (both Abrams) were better than this movie. Now that they've got a "pew! pew! pew!" action movie, even the mainstream audience is hoping for something more.

To be frank, they cannot hope to be successful if they make a sequel as simple as this movie was. They know what they did wrong. They've heard us, they've been to Q&A's dealing between the screenwriters and the moviegoers. Basically, even from a purely marketing, $$$$, standpoint they have to make a better movie next time.

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Ummm, didn't I already say that NONE of the movies have the same qualities as what made Trek great on television? You think the "nerd" stigma came from nothingness?

So I don't understand. Are you coming right out and saying that you're unforgiving of this movie even though it's guilty of the same thing as every Trek movie before it?

If you don't think the movies are as good as the tv shows, than stick to the tv shows.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by MigueldaRican

To be frank, they cannot hope to be successful if they make a sequel as simple as this movie was. They know what they did wrong. They've heard us, they've been to Q&A's dealing between the screenwriters and the moviegoers. Basically, even from a purely marketing, $$$$, standpoint they have to make a better movie next time.

Quite true. These days most of the time 2nd sequels that try to stick with the same formula dont do as well as the first. Or at the very least are knocked more than they would be otherwise. Several come to mind. Once in awhile a sequel outdoes the original, depending on the people making it. Lets hope this one is even better.

By the way, fan reaction has more effect on this franchise than on any other. And it eventually makes its way to the top guys... unlike some others. This is especially true of those that actually speak intelligently about what worked and what didnt. Everything else comes from either lemming fanboys or crybabies.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by MigueldaRican

The one thing we can look forward to is now they've got this movie out of their system, they have to do something better. Have to. They've seemed to successfully rope in a bigger crowd. Now with a sequel they can rope them into what makes Trek trek. And they really have to. Lost fans and Fringe fans are looking forward to something a little more thought provoking, knowing who is behind the movie. Hell, MI:III and Cloverfield (both Abrams) were better than this movie. Now that they've got a "pew! pew! pew!" action movie, even the mainstream audience is hoping for something more.

To be frank, they cannot hope to be successful if they make a sequel as simple as this movie was. They know what they did wrong. They've heard us, they've been to Q&A's dealing between the screenwriters and the moviegoers. Basically, even from a purely marketing, $$$$, standpoint they have to make a better movie next time.

I hope your right

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Imagine a steak house that draws national attention because of it's great T-Bone steaks (to use your example). Surely there are other restaurants around that serve different food, and it's great to visit them every now and then. Now imagine the steakhouse STOPS selling it's most cherished T-Bone because it wants to attract a different audience. Hey, aren't there places that are popular because of the giant steaks? Kind of the same thing.

Ah, now see you made an assumption. And a bad one. You said "they stopped". No, there are pleanty (in fact every one that I've been to) steakhouses that also sell hamburgers and french fry meals. Essentially what we got with this movie was something different on the menu. If we go with your assumption that "they stopped" selling the other quality stuff, then I have to ask you, where you heard this. Uh, to quote you: "you should use the quote feature."

Where is it stated that this steakhouse is going to stop selling steaks? Where is it stated that Star Trek is going to stop making Star Trek projects that truly emulate what Star Trek is about?

This is what I mean about how exaggerations don't really help matters. Before the movie came out we got exaggerations like "throwing canon out the window", now the movie is out and we have exaggerations like "they're going to stop making good Trek projects and just make purely thin action flick versions of it instead", which is not just an exaggeration, but an assumption that has about as much validity as some guy's book about how the world is going to end tomorrow at 8:02 A.M. EST.