It wasn't a rehash. It just wasn't that good. Too many issues with it.
Yes. The 2nd one just didn't work for me.
ST Enterprise lasted 5 years. Wrath of Khan and First Contact are way better than these two movies. Oh and those transformers movies made a shitload of cash too. That doesn't mean they were good.
- Star Trek Enterrpise lasted for 4 seasons, not 5. I should know, I worked on it. And it was cancelled because of low ratings.
- First Contact & Wrath of Khan are universally regarded as great films. However so is Star Trek '09. In fact more so than all other Trek films (95% on RT). Your personal bias against the film is of no interest. Facts are.
- Before Abrams came into the picture, Star Trek was a dead, irrelevant 20th Century cultural footnote. What he did was the closest thing to a film miracle.
- Transformers films did well but we're poorly reviewed. So your comparison is of no merit. Again, Star Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the series. It also scored the highest audience Cinemascore, and, on top of that, was a blockbuster. Old farts who rant against the new films are a fring group of antiquated super-nerds of no relevance to what's going on in reality.
I'm just not too excited about Star Wars right now. The best thing probably about the release is that Disney will look to milk the franchise and may release the pre-special edition OT on Blu-ray.
Now they don't have to worry about paying George Lucas' wife.
- Before Abrams came into the picture, Star Trek was a dead, irrelevant 20th Century cultural footnote. What he did was the closest thing to a film miracle.
I can see why someone who worked on Enterprise would think that, but you’re wrong overall.
Again, Star Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the series.
Sounds like that’s because they changed it. If you don’t comprehend that a series or concept doesn’t have to appeal to every demographic, maybe that tells you why Enterprise was cancelled...
- First Contact & Wrath of Khan are universally regarded as great films. However so is Star Trek '09. In fact more so than all other Trek films (95% on RT). Your personal bias against the film is of no interest. Facts are.
- Before Abrams came into the picture, Star Trek was a dead, irrelevant 20th Century cultural footnote. What he did was the closest thing to a film miracle.
- Transformers films did well but we're poorly reviewed. So your comparison is of no merit. Again, Star Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the series. It also scored the highest audience Cinemascore, and, on top of that, was a blockbuster. Old farts who rant against the new films are a fring group of antiquated super-nerds of no relevance to what's going on in reality.
ST 2009 has 4x more reviews. You do realize reviews are subjective, right? Plus I never said that one was terrible.
I can see why someone who worked on Enterprise would think that, but you’re wrong overall.
Sounds like that’s because they changed it. If you don’t comprehend that a series or concept doesn’t have to appeal to every demographic, maybe that tells you why Enterprise was cancelled... :p
Enterprise was cancelled because it was mediocre. It was mediocre drama and it was bad Star Trek. Nobody cared except a tiny sliver of clinging superfans who couldn't see past its banality. It deserved to be cancelled. And Star Trek deserved to die. At least for a decade, to cleanse the bad taste it left in popular culture. JJ kicked Star Trek's sagging ass back to life by making a great film on its own right, and on top of that recaptured the appeal and energy of the original series. Trek is not the plodding, stilted, heavy handed drivel of DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and those last 2 god-awful TNG films. Star Trek is dynamic, tightly scripted, sharply paced, character driven drama with a touch of morality play. Enterprise was none of that. It sucked. That's why it didn't last a proper 7 seasons.
Anyway. I've wasted too much time bottom feeding in this forum. You people enjoy each other. Gotta run.
As far I was concerned, Episode VII, VIII, and IX should have been called Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, and The Last Command, respectively. And hey, there happen to be great books with those titles! Isn't that funny? Well, I guess they could have just used those stories too... 8-)
I assume those are Timoothy Zahn's books which I remember fondly as each having three distinct storylines per novel that all came together brilliantly. I was very happy with that trilogy, but got bored and stopped reading the next teilogy Episodes 10-12, by a different author. That was a long, long time ago and the last time I read a Star Wars book.
Im with [@]MeniThings[/@]. The new ST reboot was excellent and eschewed all the crap that made those movies horrible for a cinematic experience. The TNG movies felt more like long episodes than feature films, but the entire series was so long in the tooth that a more(for lack of a better word) "realistic" feel about the future with a grown up vision. They actually became action movies possible for date night without your significant other having to be a ST fan. That's a major accomplish.
Oh man I see we have some ye olde Star Trek whiners on these forums too. The Tea Party of nerds.
Reality check grandpas, JJ Abram's Star Trek took a tired, irrelevant, and dead franchise (previous 2 films flopped a decade earlier and the last TV series was cancelled after its second season) and transformed it into a relevant, critical and commercial blockbuster. Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the entire movie series (95% on RT). The sequel, while not as strong but still well regarded (87% RT), made close to half a billion dollars - by far the most successful Trek film of all time. Get over yourselves, and the irrelevant bubble you live in.
In reality Star Wars 7 has a good shot at greatness. Because Abrams is a great director. But hey, random posters at an internet forum know so much more about good directors than say, Steven Spielberg, who's a fan Abram's work and championed for him to direct Star Wars.
This is why I rarely contribute to Internet forums. It's the bottom feeding ghetto of the internet.
I agree somewhat with once exception: the lens flare. There was so much lens flare and it looked so out of place, when I first saw his films I thought that it was some anomaly having to do with digital projection. But I couldn't figure out why a digital projector would emphasize the lens flair. (I used to be a consultant for a film tech organization and I was hired to review films on opening day to make sure the print and projection were up to par and I would have actually considered the lens flare to be a problem because I didn't think it was actually part of the intended image.)
However, here's where I disagree: While I have no problem with the Star Trek reboot and I also have no problem with changing canon, time travel is always a crutch that weak stories use. OK, in this case it was used to rationalize the canon change. But if you think about the time travel and villain aspects of the script of that first film too hard, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And I'm tired of villains who want to destroy the universe because they didn't get enough breast-feeding time. While I wish they didn't go back to Khan in the 2nd film, it wasn't a terrible story - I liked the parts where Kirk made lots of bad decisions. Hopefully the third film will be far more original. But the problem with any Trek movie as opposed to the TV show is that any movie is going to be primarily about the big battle scenes and associated special effects, both due to expectation and due to the fact that it has to play well in foreign markets, especially China, whereas the TV show, due to lower budgets and ridiculously fast production schedules is out of necessity going to be more about ideas.
As far as Star Wars is concerned, the trolls will destroy it no matter whether it's good or bad. I saw an interview with Lucas the other day on TCM and he said one interesting thing: when the OT was made, it was intended for people to see it in a theatre once. Since the technology wasn't there yet, it wasn't made with the intention of people analyzing it frame-by-frame as they can now do with home video. I thought that was actually insightful.
But no matter who made the next Star Wars movie, because we already know the world, the characters and the style, it could never be as special as when the first one was released because that was the first time a fantasy story was made with high production values. And without the kind of marketing campaigns that happen today, it was all a surprise (I didn't bother to see it until months after it was released, although it was still playing in first-run 70mm when I did see it.) It could have been Spielberg, Orson Welles, Kubrick, Scorsese (although I would have liked to have seen that), Coppola, Alfonso Curaon, Alfred Hitchcock, Peter Jackson, etc. - - doesn't matter. The trolls would still think it sucks. In fact I half expect that after it's released, all the trolls who hate Lucas will put him back on a pedestal again because they'll hate this worse.
But if you think about the time travel and villain aspects of the script of that first film too hard, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Rifftrax for it makes light of that:
*As Nero’s ship is being eaten by the black hole*
“I have no regrets. Well, except for waiting in space for 25 years for a revenge I never got; I guess I regret that. I regret that a LOT, in fact...”
And earlier:
“Sir, why don’t we just go to Vulcan now and kill Spock while he’s a kid?”
“NOPE, WAIT UNTIL HE’S OLDER.”
While I wish they didn't go back to Khan in the 2nd film, it wasn't a terrible story
I wish they had made Khan Khan. Get a Spaniard to play him (yes, I know he’s Indian) instead of Napoleon Cummerbund, give him that silky smooth accent, and have him actually quote the literature with which he grew up! They just ignored that. And yes, I guess you could say it was because “he was found early and conscripted by the Federation to be a weapon of war, thereby dehumanizing him and making him wan to be the man he used to be”, but that’s so flimsy an excuse as to be laughable. I had to invent it myself while watching to justify how unKhan Khan was.
*As Nero’s ship is being eaten by the black hole*
“I have no regrets. Well, except for waiting in space for 25 years for a revenge I never got; I guess I regret that. I regret that a LOT, in fact...”
And earlier:
“<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Sir, why don</span>
’t we just go to Vulcan now and kill Spock while he’s a kid?”
“NOPE, WAIT UNTIL HE’S OLDER.”
I understood that part because Nero wanted Spock to see the destruction of Vulcan.
*As Nero’s ship is being eaten by the black hole*
“I have no regrets. Well, except for waiting in space for 25 years for a revenge I never got; I guess I regret that. I regret that a LOT, in fact...”
And earlier:
“<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Sir, why don</span>
’t we just go to Vulcan now and kill Spock while he’s a kid?”
“NOPE, WAIT UNTIL HE’S OLDER.”
I wish they had made Khan Khan. Get a Spaniard to play him (yes, I know he’s Indian) instead of Napoleon Cummerbund, give him that silky smooth accent, and have him actually quote the literature with which he grew up! They just ignored that. And yes, I guess you could say it was because “he was found early and conscripted by the Federation to be a weapon of war, thereby dehumanizing him and making him wan to be the man he used to be”, but that’s so flimsy an excuse as to be laughable. I had to invent it myself while watching to justify how unKhan Khan was.
One good suggestion I read was that there should've been no Khan. It should've been his right-hand man instead. Khan was a global dictator and would've been as easily identified as Hitler.
Timothy Zahn should be in charge of writing the script for the films.
They should bring back Shatner to give him a better send off, the same way they brought back Denise Crosby in TNG. Generations wasn't bad, but it wasn't Kirk-level epic.
I never read those books, and I'm now glad I didn't. I'm sure you've already heard that Lucasfilm has relegated the entire Expanded Universe (including Zahn's books) to non-canon status.
I wouldn't want to see the new films with those apocryphal novels in my head. I don't mean to imply they are badly written, as I know a lot of fans who like them. I am merely pointing out that it's hard to enjoy a film if you've read the book first, because of all the expectations and prejudices you brought into the experience. In this case, Expanded Universe fans will have to deal with seeing the new movie after having read and enjoyed an entirely non-canon timeline. It amounts to a kind of "reboot" of the post-Battle-of-Endor timeline for them. But not for me.
And yes, Generations was pretty bad. Even Shatner wanted to un-kill Kirk after that movie with his own Trek novels.
Oh man I see we have some ye olde Star Trek whiners on these forums too. The Tea Party of nerds.
Reality check grandpas, JJ Abram's Star Trek took a tired, irrelevant, and dead franchise (previous 2 films flopped a decade earlier and the last TV series was cancelled after its second season) and transformed it into a relevant, critical and commercial blockbuster. Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the entire movie series (95% on RT). The sequel, while not as strong but still well regarded (87% RT), made close to half a billion dollars - by far the most successful Trek film of all time. Get over yourselves, and the irrelevant bubble you live in.
In reality Star Wars 7 has a good shot at greatness. Because Abrams is a great director. But hey, random posters at an internet forum know so much more about good directors than say, Steven Spielberg, who's a fan Abram's work and championed for him to direct Star Wars.
This is why I rarely contribute to Internet forums. It's the bottom feeding ghetto of the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeniThings
- Star Trek Enterrpise lasted for 4 seasons, not 5. I should know, I worked on it. And it was cancelled because of low ratings.
- First Contact & Wrath of Khan are universally regarded as great films. However so is Star Trek '09. In fact more so than all other Trek films (95% on RT). Your personal bias against the film is of no interest. Facts are.
- Before Abrams came into the picture, Star Trek was a dead, irrelevant 20th Century cultural footnote. What he did was the closest thing to a film miracle.
- Transformers films did well but we're poorly reviewed. So your comparison is of no merit. Again, Star Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the series. It also scored the highest audience Cinemascore, and, on top of that, was a blockbuster. Old farts who rant against the new films are a fring group of antiquated super-nerds of no relevance to what's going on in reality.
Response to Your Attitude Problem
You are out of line.
Your opinions are completely valid and you have every right to express them, but I feel compelled to point out that it's entirely unnecessary to be so rude and insulting to anyone whose opinion you disagree with. Sure, the AI forums can be a bit argumentative at times but you took the douchebaggery from 1 to 10 in one post, and it was inappropriate. I sometimes like to drink a glass of wine and giggle at the bickering here over the price of a smartphone or a watch, and ooh and ahhh over the rumors here from time to time....but attitudes like yours are nasty and ruin the mood for those of us who come here for a dose of fun gossip and some light-hearted banter about tech geekdom.
I myself appreciate the new Trek films, and for what he does, Abrams is certainly talented. And I don't dispute that his films are the most successful. But I don't particularly love them because they, (like so many other recent films that erroneously carry the tag "Science Fiction") are not really Sci-Fi at all but merely action/adventure films set in space, and they are not Star Trek. They are EXCELLENT action/adventure films, they're quick, they're exciting and they're even funny. They're also well-cast. But they're not Star Trek.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the new Abrams Trek films are actually the opposite of "relevant" (a word you have clearly come to really enjoy using to assign value to things...in recent years pop culture bloggers have started tossing it around in a way that I feel is slowly corrupting its actual meaning). Here's why:
You see, us "grandpas" (I'm 33, by the way) prefer the old-school Trek because it was about teaching us something about the human condition, and each story had a moral, a purpose...a reason for being told. Abrams' films are highly entertaining but they have very little to teach us about life, or if they do, Abrams must be uncomfortable risking his "cool card" to make his point. His films may be more relevant to today's film industry and/or to what demographics are telling producers to green-light, but they are far less relevant to our actual lives, than say, "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" (one of my all-time favorites, a simple but genius allegory to the cold war). Abrams' films are more like a roller coaster that is extremely fun and exhilarating but then leaves you all the way back on the ground, in the exact same spot where you started. Sure, you could watch them again...but why? I have never felt compelled to watch either Abrams' Trek film again after seeing them the first time. Because they say absolutely nothing about the human condition. Sure they're fun, but there are lots of fun movies out there that I haven't seen yet. Why watch the same one over? It's an alright flick but it doesn't bear repeating.
Now, perhaps the idea of a moral sounds silly and trite to you. That's fine. Not everything needs to have one. My only point is that many of us "whiners" dislike the new films NOT because they are new and shiny and different and a reboot, or because we're old ruddy-duttys who don't like change - but because despite what you may think they do not really "recapture the appeal and energy of the original series" in any meaningful way. TOS was high-concept Science Fiction, filled with allegories and philosophy, and they used the special effects available to set those parables in outer space to make them accessible, but achieved those effects in the simplest, least-expensive way possible...because the effects weren't the point. They were not about a wild ride, huge effects sequences, chases, eye-popping visuals, breakneck pace OR a showcase of glossy, overwrought, uber-trendy, music-video-style cinematography. They were about ideas and story, and everything else was frosting. Now don't get me wrong, those things are all great. But Abrams seems somewhat prone at times to getting sucked into the fun of all that glitz and fanciness to the detriment of storytelling. I'm not saying always...but often. His films are smooth to the point of featureless and sterile to me...and "Star Trek" (2009) is a prime example.
My opinion. Again...I'm not a grandpa. I'm 33.
Response to Your "Relevant" Ideas About STAR WARS
I agree that Abrams is probably a good fit for the SW franchise, and I think in a way he's better suited to that project than he was for Trek. Certainly even having his name attached to the project will help to drum up excitement for the films. However I'm uncertain as to why we now consider Spielberg to be an authority on what makes good Star Wars...? I'm excited to see the trailer and to see the original actors in their roles, if only to see how the characters have aged (not the actors, I know how they look lol).
Now just so you're not confused, those are my *opinions*. An *opinion* is all I am qualified to share on this forum, and they same goes for you. I won't be attempting to school anyone on why their feelings are in some way wrong, or age them, or insult them for no reason. Your inexplicable need to belittle and name-call those who prefer the older Trek universe to Abrams' schlacked-up Trek is in actuality the precise reason that internet forums are "the bottom feeding ghetto of the internet" that you referred to. Seems to me this petulant, bullying misbehavior robs you of your credibility. In the final line of your first post, where you attempted to figuratively sigh from exhaustion at having had to slum it in the "ghetto," you have actually been so childish and rude that you've inadvertently shown yourself to be an example of the problem, not the exception. And you all but ruined my bubble-bath with a side of cabernet sauvignon.
Now go to your room.
Sincerely,
Grandpa Methuselah
PS - Referring to STAR TREK as a "20th century cultural footnote" is absolutely ridiculous. It's heyday was over in the year 2000, yes. But it was FAR from a footnote in the 20th century. You have conveniently forgotten how unusual it is for any film franchise to even HAVE 10 installments, let alone 4 spinoffs, three of which ran for 7 seasons.
PPS - *If* you feel compelled to reply, please do so with a modicum of manners or don't expect a response. Better yet, just stay off of AI and don't come back.
It wasn't a rehash. It just wasn't that good. Too many issues with it.
Yes. The 2nd one just didn't work for me.
ST Enterprise lasted 5 years. Wrath of Khan and First Contact are way better than these two movies. Oh and those transformers movies made a shitload of cash too. That doesn't mean they were good.
Both of Abram's Treks were rehashes. He remade Wrath of Khan twice, the first movie is basically the first half with Abram's soap opera diarrhea filler squirted all over it.
Abrams' Star Wars will just be his excuse to reheat the Milenium Falcon and trot out the Darth Vader outfit again.
There's a reason they are dumping him after this one, instead of going with the original plan of letting him make all three of the next trilogy.
He's a franchise cockroach. The lens flare thing isn't even his, it's merely John Knoll's software package used without any taste.
Comments
Kaley Cuoco is Luke's aunt? Waitaminnit...
- Star Trek Enterrpise lasted for 4 seasons, not 5. I should know, I worked on it. And it was cancelled because of low ratings.
- First Contact & Wrath of Khan are universally regarded as great films. However so is Star Trek '09. In fact more so than all other Trek films (95% on RT). Your personal bias against the film is of no interest. Facts are.
- Before Abrams came into the picture, Star Trek was a dead, irrelevant 20th Century cultural footnote. What he did was the closest thing to a film miracle.
- Transformers films did well but we're poorly reviewed. So your comparison is of no merit. Again, Star Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the series. It also scored the highest audience Cinemascore, and, on top of that, was a blockbuster. Old farts who rant against the new films are a fring group of antiquated super-nerds of no relevance to what's going on in reality.
Cool. I hope the original Star Wars cast (lots of whom are in this movie) don't look too old.
I'm just not too excited about Star Wars right now. The best thing probably about the release is that Disney will look to milk the franchise and may release the pre-special edition OT on Blu-ray.
Now they don't have to worry about paying George Lucas' wife.
I can see why someone who worked on Enterprise would think that, but you’re wrong overall.
Sounds like that’s because they changed it. If you don’t comprehend that a series or concept doesn’t have to appeal to every demographic, maybe that tells you why Enterprise was cancelled...
ST 2009 has 4x more reviews. You do realize reviews are subjective, right? Plus I never said that one was terrible.
Enterprise was cancelled because it was mediocre. It was mediocre drama and it was bad Star Trek. Nobody cared except a tiny sliver of clinging superfans who couldn't see past its banality. It deserved to be cancelled. And Star Trek deserved to die. At least for a decade, to cleanse the bad taste it left in popular culture. JJ kicked Star Trek's sagging ass back to life by making a great film on its own right, and on top of that recaptured the appeal and energy of the original series. Trek is not the plodding, stilted, heavy handed drivel of DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and those last 2 god-awful TNG films. Star Trek is dynamic, tightly scripted, sharply paced, character driven drama with a touch of morality play. Enterprise was none of that. It sucked. That's why it didn't last a proper 7 seasons.
Anyway. I've wasted too much time bottom feeding in this forum. You people enjoy each other. Gotta run.
I assume those are Timoothy Zahn's books which I remember fondly as each having three distinct storylines per novel that all came together brilliantly. I was very happy with that trilogy, but got bored and stopped reading the next teilogy Episodes 10-12, by a different author. That was a long, long time ago and the last time I read a Star Wars book.
I guess you can’t read, then. So long and good riddance.
Oh man I see we have some ye olde Star Trek whiners on these forums too. The Tea Party of nerds.
Reality check grandpas, JJ Abram's Star Trek took a tired, irrelevant, and dead franchise (previous 2 films flopped a decade earlier and the last TV series was cancelled after its second season) and transformed it into a relevant, critical and commercial blockbuster. Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the entire movie series (95% on RT). The sequel, while not as strong but still well regarded (87% RT), made close to half a billion dollars - by far the most successful Trek film of all time. Get over yourselves, and the irrelevant bubble you live in.
In reality Star Wars 7 has a good shot at greatness. Because Abrams is a great director. But hey, random posters at an internet forum know so much more about good directors than say, Steven Spielberg, who's a fan Abram's work and championed for him to direct Star Wars.
This is why I rarely contribute to Internet forums. It's the bottom feeding ghetto of the internet.
I agree somewhat with once exception: the lens flare. There was so much lens flare and it looked so out of place, when I first saw his films I thought that it was some anomaly having to do with digital projection. But I couldn't figure out why a digital projector would emphasize the lens flair. (I used to be a consultant for a film tech organization and I was hired to review films on opening day to make sure the print and projection were up to par and I would have actually considered the lens flare to be a problem because I didn't think it was actually part of the intended image.)
However, here's where I disagree: While I have no problem with the Star Trek reboot and I also have no problem with changing canon, time travel is always a crutch that weak stories use. OK, in this case it was used to rationalize the canon change. But if you think about the time travel and villain aspects of the script of that first film too hard, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And I'm tired of villains who want to destroy the universe because they didn't get enough breast-feeding time. While I wish they didn't go back to Khan in the 2nd film, it wasn't a terrible story - I liked the parts where Kirk made lots of bad decisions. Hopefully the third film will be far more original. But the problem with any Trek movie as opposed to the TV show is that any movie is going to be primarily about the big battle scenes and associated special effects, both due to expectation and due to the fact that it has to play well in foreign markets, especially China, whereas the TV show, due to lower budgets and ridiculously fast production schedules is out of necessity going to be more about ideas.
As far as Star Wars is concerned, the trolls will destroy it no matter whether it's good or bad. I saw an interview with Lucas the other day on TCM and he said one interesting thing: when the OT was made, it was intended for people to see it in a theatre once. Since the technology wasn't there yet, it wasn't made with the intention of people analyzing it frame-by-frame as they can now do with home video. I thought that was actually insightful.
But no matter who made the next Star Wars movie, because we already know the world, the characters and the style, it could never be as special as when the first one was released because that was the first time a fantasy story was made with high production values. And without the kind of marketing campaigns that happen today, it was all a surprise (I didn't bother to see it until months after it was released, although it was still playing in first-run 70mm when I did see it.) It could have been Spielberg, Orson Welles, Kubrick, Scorsese (although I would have liked to have seen that), Coppola, Alfonso Curaon, Alfred Hitchcock, Peter Jackson, etc. - - doesn't matter. The trolls would still think it sucks. In fact I half expect that after it's released, all the trolls who hate Lucas will put him back on a pedestal again because they'll hate this worse.
But if you think about the time travel and villain aspects of the script of that first film too hard, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Rifftrax for it makes light of that:
*As Nero’s ship is being eaten by the black hole*
“I have no regrets. Well, except for waiting in space for 25 years for a revenge I never got; I guess I regret that. I regret that a LOT, in fact...”
And earlier:
“Sir, why don’t we just go to Vulcan now and kill Spock while he’s a kid?”
“NOPE, WAIT UNTIL HE’S OLDER.”
While I wish they didn't go back to Khan in the 2nd film, it wasn't a terrible story
I wish they had made Khan Khan. Get a Spaniard to play him (yes, I know he’s Indian) instead of Napoleon Cummerbund, give him that silky smooth accent, and have him actually quote the literature with which he grew up! They just ignored that. And yes, I guess you could say it was because “he was found early and conscripted by the Federation to be a weapon of war, thereby dehumanizing him and making him wan to be the man he used to be”, but that’s so flimsy an excuse as to be laughable. I had to invent it myself while watching to justify how unKhan Khan was.
But it has so many problems.
I understood that part because Nero wanted Spock to see the destruction of Vulcan.
Both Mark Hammil and Carrie Fisher lost a LOT of weight and went through rigorous physical training programs. I think most people will be surprised.
One good suggestion I read was that there should've been no Khan. It should've been his right-hand man instead. Khan was a global dictator and would've been as easily identified as Hitler.
No, Thrawn Trilogy was ten years after Jedi.
Timothy Zahn should be in charge of writing the script for the films.
They should bring back Shatner to give him a better send off, the same way they brought back Denise Crosby in TNG. Generations wasn't bad, but it wasn't Kirk-level epic.
I never read those books, and I'm now glad I didn't. I'm sure you've already heard that Lucasfilm has relegated the entire Expanded Universe (including Zahn's books) to non-canon status.
I wouldn't want to see the new films with those apocryphal novels in my head. I don't mean to imply they are badly written, as I know a lot of fans who like them. I am merely pointing out that it's hard to enjoy a film if you've read the book first, because of all the expectations and prejudices you brought into the experience. In this case, Expanded Universe fans will have to deal with seeing the new movie after having read and enjoyed an entirely non-canon timeline. It amounts to a kind of "reboot" of the post-Battle-of-Endor timeline for them. But not for me.
And yes, Generations was pretty bad. Even Shatner wanted to un-kill Kirk after that movie with his own Trek novels.
Oh man I see we have some ye olde Star Trek whiners on these forums too. The Tea Party of nerds.
Reality check grandpas, JJ Abram's Star Trek took a tired, irrelevant, and dead franchise (previous 2 films flopped a decade earlier and the last TV series was cancelled after its second season) and transformed it into a relevant, critical and commercial blockbuster. Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the entire movie series (95% on RT). The sequel, while not as strong but still well regarded (87% RT), made close to half a billion dollars - by far the most successful Trek film of all time. Get over yourselves, and the irrelevant bubble you live in.
In reality Star Wars 7 has a good shot at greatness. Because Abrams is a great director. But hey, random posters at an internet forum know so much more about good directors than say, Steven Spielberg, who's a fan Abram's work and championed for him to direct Star Wars.
This is why I rarely contribute to Internet forums. It's the bottom feeding ghetto of the internet.
- Star Trek Enterrpise lasted for 4 seasons, not 5. I should know, I worked on it. And it was cancelled because of low ratings.
- First Contact & Wrath of Khan are universally regarded as great films. However so is Star Trek '09. In fact more so than all other Trek films (95% on RT). Your personal bias against the film is of no interest. Facts are.
- Before Abrams came into the picture, Star Trek was a dead, irrelevant 20th Century cultural footnote. What he did was the closest thing to a film miracle.
- Transformers films did well but we're poorly reviewed. So your comparison is of no merit. Again, Star Trek '09 is the best reviewed film of the series. It also scored the highest audience Cinemascore, and, on top of that, was a blockbuster. Old farts who rant against the new films are a fring group of antiquated super-nerds of no relevance to what's going on in reality.
Response to Your Attitude Problem
You are out of line.
Your opinions are completely valid and you have every right to express them, but I feel compelled to point out that it's entirely unnecessary to be so rude and insulting to anyone whose opinion you disagree with. Sure, the AI forums can be a bit argumentative at times but you took the douchebaggery from 1 to 10 in one post, and it was inappropriate. I sometimes like to drink a glass of wine and giggle at the bickering here over the price of a smartphone or a watch, and ooh and ahhh over the rumors here from time to time....but attitudes like yours are nasty and ruin the mood for those of us who come here for a dose of fun gossip and some light-hearted banter about tech geekdom.
I myself appreciate the new Trek films, and for what he does, Abrams is certainly talented. And I don't dispute that his films are the most successful. But I don't particularly love them because they, (like so many other recent films that erroneously carry the tag "Science Fiction") are not really Sci-Fi at all but merely action/adventure films set in space, and they are not Star Trek. They are EXCELLENT action/adventure films, they're quick, they're exciting and they're even funny. They're also well-cast. But they're not Star Trek.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the new Abrams Trek films are actually the opposite of "relevant" (a word you have clearly come to really enjoy using to assign value to things...in recent years pop culture bloggers have started tossing it around in a way that I feel is slowly corrupting its actual meaning). Here's why:
You see, us "grandpas" (I'm 33, by the way) prefer the old-school Trek because it was about teaching us something about the human condition, and each story had a moral, a purpose...a reason for being told. Abrams' films are highly entertaining but they have very little to teach us about life, or if they do, Abrams must be uncomfortable risking his "cool card" to make his point. His films may be more relevant to today's film industry and/or to what demographics are telling producers to green-light, but they are far less relevant to our actual lives, than say, "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" (one of my all-time favorites, a simple but genius allegory to the cold war). Abrams' films are more like a roller coaster that is extremely fun and exhilarating but then leaves you all the way back on the ground, in the exact same spot where you started. Sure, you could watch them again...but why? I have never felt compelled to watch either Abrams' Trek film again after seeing them the first time. Because they say absolutely nothing about the human condition. Sure they're fun, but there are lots of fun movies out there that I haven't seen yet. Why watch the same one over? It's an alright flick but it doesn't bear repeating.
Now, perhaps the idea of a moral sounds silly and trite to you. That's fine. Not everything needs to have one. My only point is that many of us "whiners" dislike the new films NOT because they are new and shiny and different and a reboot, or because we're old ruddy-duttys who don't like change - but because despite what you may think they do not really "recapture the appeal and energy of the original series" in any meaningful way. TOS was high-concept Science Fiction, filled with allegories and philosophy, and they used the special effects available to set those parables in outer space to make them accessible, but achieved those effects in the simplest, least-expensive way possible...because the effects weren't the point. They were not about a wild ride, huge effects sequences, chases, eye-popping visuals, breakneck pace OR a showcase of glossy, overwrought, uber-trendy, music-video-style cinematography. They were about ideas and story, and everything else was frosting. Now don't get me wrong, those things are all great. But Abrams seems somewhat prone at times to getting sucked into the fun of all that glitz and fanciness to the detriment of storytelling. I'm not saying always...but often. His films are smooth to the point of featureless and sterile to me...and "Star Trek" (2009) is a prime example.
My opinion. Again...I'm not a grandpa. I'm 33.
Response to Your "Relevant" Ideas About STAR WARS
I agree that Abrams is probably a good fit for the SW franchise, and I think in a way he's better suited to that project than he was for Trek. Certainly even having his name attached to the project will help to drum up excitement for the films. However I'm uncertain as to why we now consider Spielberg to be an authority on what makes good Star Wars...? I'm excited to see the trailer and to see the original actors in their roles, if only to see how the characters have aged (not the actors, I know how they look lol).
Now just so you're not confused, those are my *opinions*. An *opinion* is all I am qualified to share on this forum, and they same goes for you. I won't be attempting to school anyone on why their feelings are in some way wrong, or age them, or insult them for no reason. Your inexplicable need to belittle and name-call those who prefer the older Trek universe to Abrams' schlacked-up Trek is in actuality the precise reason that internet forums are "the bottom feeding ghetto of the internet" that you referred to. Seems to me this petulant, bullying misbehavior robs you of your credibility. In the final line of your first post, where you attempted to figuratively sigh from exhaustion at having had to slum it in the "ghetto," you have actually been so childish and rude that you've inadvertently shown yourself to be an example of the problem, not the exception. And you all but ruined my bubble-bath with a side of cabernet sauvignon.
Now go to your room.
Sincerely,
Grandpa Methuselah
PS - Referring to STAR TREK as a "20th century cultural footnote" is absolutely ridiculous. It's heyday was over in the year 2000, yes. But it was FAR from a footnote in the 20th century. You have conveniently forgotten how unusual it is for any film franchise to even HAVE 10 installments, let alone 4 spinoffs, three of which ran for 7 seasons.
PPS - *If* you feel compelled to reply, please do so with a modicum of manners or don't expect a response. Better yet, just stay off of AI and don't come back.
Both of Abram's Treks were rehashes. He remade Wrath of Khan twice, the first movie is basically the first half with Abram's soap opera diarrhea filler squirted all over it.
Abrams' Star Wars will just be his excuse to reheat the Milenium Falcon and trot out the Darth Vader outfit again.
There's a reason they are dumping him after this one, instead of going with the original plan of letting him make all three of the next trilogy.
He's a franchise cockroach. The lens flare thing isn't even his, it's merely John Knoll's software package used without any taste.
NOW I feel old.