Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013 J.J. Abrams film) <possible spoilers>

Star Trek died while the original series was still on the air. Broad audience indifference, willingness of the network to invest, and weak scripts did that. Despite its popularity in reruns, it would have stayed dead, but it was resurrected because people came up with a new idea for what "Star Trek" meant that appealed to current audiences in a broad enough way to make investing the money worthwhile.

It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the third season had occurred in today's world, since with the increase in population and new means of content distribution you can serve a more limited audience and still make a go of it. Of course if you're going to make a movie you have to appeal to a much, much broader swath of the population, which some people think dictates certain decisions as to content.

John K.

 

"In 2011, the decision to cancel Star Trek by NBC was ranked #4 on the TV Guide Network special, 25 Biggest TV Blunders"

 

Interesting review that reflects much of what I felt about the film.

http://subspacecommunique.com/conte...-why-star-trek-into-darkness-succeeds-reopeni

 

Thanks for the info. I knew that Meyer did some work on the script but never realized to what degree. I'm sure Meyer also didn't fight for the WGA credit because he was directing and, knowing how the WGA feels about those directing trying to seek script credit, I'm not surprised.

 

Interesting point of view and worth the read, no matter which side of the debate you are on. I'm not sure I buy into his conclusion but it is different and well thought out, and that is good.

Here's my question:

I like the new Star Trek film, Dave Grohl, the Beatles vinyl remaster and The Monkees. What does that make me?

 

Third season TOS is a low point, to be sure. I did not feel TNG or DS9 betrayed the original concept. I really liked Enterprise as well -- bought all four seasons.

I'm not as much of a Star Trek nut today as I used to be. I like to think I helped get the franchise resurrected, being in on the ground level of the various letter-writing campaigns that demonstrated to studios the continued interest. So I do feel some minor share of personal ownership of it for that reason. I know what they're doing, they're doing to make money. Obviously it has to make money. But what they've done has a "we have to destroy the village to save the village" quality to it. They have to kill what I consider essential components of Star Trek to make it a justifiable commercial product. So be it. I spent not a penny on Star Trek (2009) and will not do so on (2013) either. Mind you, some of the earlier movies were crap, too.

 

So you didn't see either film?

They haven't killed anything related to the series. Some elements have been emphasized, some not obviously the elements (assuming you saw the two latest movies) you wanted emphasized. The transition from the series (not all of the episodes were classics mind you) alters things much as certain elements are often altered to make something work from page to screen or stage to screen (or even page to stage).

 

I guess he could've seen the 2009 flick for free on TV or via someone else's DVD. But it does smell like Autodidact's post follows in the "I know the reboot is trash even though I've not seen it" camp...

 

The Nell Carter poll is in another thread my friend.

 

can't wait to get this to complete the collection...

 

A Kid?

 

I saw this yesterday on IMAX 3D and two weeks before, I saw it in Real3D. What I found was the IMAX 3D was much more comfortable to watch than the other 3D. One thing I noticed is that the Real3D version had scenes with people talking, and foreground objects were there and kind of stood out and were distracting to the scene. In the IMAX 3D version, all those close foreground objects I found to be distracting were all blurred or soften, so they were not distracting anymore. Did anyone else notice that? I imagine very few here saw both 3D versions. Maybe I was seeing things, but that was my main impression after watching both.

 

Haha, Ive still not seen it, but in all honesty, Seeing a handful of trailers, im pretty certain does give one at least a fair view of what the movie "Appears" to aspire to look like, and how CGI and Action are at the top of importance. The shaky cam effect the lens flares, the tilting of the cam and all the shaking and zooming in on people running, jumping, and so on, pretty much cement it as an action over substance type movie.

Besides ive read about 3 dozen reviews, and most are making it out to be a mostly mindless fun type movie. I think im going to still see it, but so much I've read about it kinda concerns me. The fast pace story and editing, while visually "fun" and "appealing" in some ways, doesnt ( at least in the first of these "Trek movies by JJ" allow me to enter into the story at all.

Fast pacing is great if it follows a somewhat more tempered dramatic dialogue scene, but fast paced and blaring cant be the whole thing, otherwise it just tires.

 

Oh of course, I saw the first Abrams film, and I will see the second. I will wait until the library gets it and I can see it for free. I was warned about the first movie by my best and oldest friend, who was almost as big a fan of TOS as I was. In fact, I couldn't believe how bad the first film was, so I checked it out from the library a second time to make sure. No I have not seen the second film, but certainly a little reading will give one a good overview of what's in it, enough to know it does not meet my definition of Star Trek. And I literally don't want a penny of my money to go to supporting this "reboot." When you have been invested in something to the depth that I was, I suppose you have more of a visceral reaction when you feel that thing is betrayed (as I see it). I can't be dispassionate or objective, and it is hard to stay silent. But I'm sorry about the thread crap. I will quit.

 

It's difficult to give an assessment of a film from what is written. I'm reminded (not that I'm claiming that this is the same) of films that were later regarded as classics that met with indifferent responses or even hostility when they were released. Reading the material, I think, creates a bias prior to seeing the film.

I'm also a fan of the original series (and have been since I saw it at 6 in 1966) but the reality is thst none of the films have been the original series. They may capture elements of that but it's a different medium and every writer/director that approaches the material brings their vision or idea about what works for the film.

These films will never be the original series nor will they be the films made after it (and those were as distinct as the original series was on its own). A reboot is precisely that--a chance to explore new directions now whether or not they are valid directions will be up to the individual but this film embodies more of Trek than the first (for good and bad IMHO) but it largely works.

It just astonishes me ow negative those who haven't seen the film are without having given this film a chance. Each generation gets its own Star Trek.

Trailers can tell you nothing or everything. It's designed to get people I to the theater and they can be very misleading. Reading about the film is like reading about music--it's second hand experience and it gives us a very limited glimpse of what something is.

 

You are all kinds of superior, aren't you?

 

Not really.......sadly (( honestly )) forgot my wink face....looked back later and said..."oops"....

 

That put me in mind of Thelonius Monk's famous quote "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture," although that actually puts this whole forum's raison d'être into question...

 

Interesting page about that saying (I don't think it originated with Monk):

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/11/08/writing-about-music/

 

It didn't help that Gene Roddenberry walked off the show and ceded control to Fred Freiberger, widely looked upon as the "show killer." I think Freiberger was unfairly tarred with that brush, because it wasn't his fault that the show's budget got cut and it got moved to the death time slot of Friday night at 10PM. Roddenberry knew this would kill the show, since it was barely getting by in the ratings as it was.

I think Gene Coon leaving the show months before was what really hurt the show the most. Coon more than Roddenberry was the real guy who guided the scriptwriting process and hired a lot of the writers; I've always felt that Roddenberry was more the dealmaker and the administrator -- which is born out by the fact that Gene himself wrote very, very few produced scripts for Star Trek in his lifetime.

 

In 2011 (and by those Star Trek fanatical fans TV Guide). What point are you trying to make?

John k.

 

I think the worst mistake in network television history was to cancel the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. That was a stunning blow to me, especially when you consider it was an Emmy-award-winning show that was in the Top 10 when it was axed.

The main reason Star Trek was cancelled was because in the 1960s, the networks didn't have access to the demographic breakdown of the ratings. The overall ratings were low, but if NBC had just known how huge the show was with the 18-49 year-old college-educated viewers, they could've kept the show on for years and years. But probably not in that time slot.

Note that J.J. Abrams' TV shows have not always done that well in the ratings, but they almost always do well in that demographic.

 

Uh, self explanatory, you were talking about Star Trek being cancelled, and I posted a quote about it also.......I dont think there is any deeper meaning.

 

The ratings were low for a show with a high budget. They would have been acceptable for a sitcom... I take your point about the demographics though - the show had demographics to die for.

 

This is quite true. Good point. I recall that I was not impressed with Blade Runner on first viewing. Only in its life on home video did it become a "classic." I'm not sure why we didn't see it immediately. But obviously Star Trek fans want to like a new film. Even I wanted to...

*sigh*