ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Boycotting Into Darkness does nothing but hurt the future of Star Trek

Holo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 253

Report this May. 29 2013, 1:49 pm

Quote: warp speed @ May. 29 2013, 12:55 pm

>

>The story is a redo of the Wrath Of Kahn. It is not an original story. If the producers really want to attract younger people they should add heavy bass rap music and have the crew members curse and text each other. If money and crowd draw is all they care about then Star Trek is finished.

>


 


It's not just a redo o TWOK, that would almost be preferrable to what it is: an incoherent mashup of Insurrection and TWOK, with a too-little-too-late social commentary on drones. I think Star Trek should put a moratorium on Evil Admirals.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 29 2013, 7:38 pm

Quote: FastWebBuilder @ May. 29 2013, 12:41 pm

>

>Into Darkness was a very good movie. I am an old Trekkie so nothing will ever live up to my standards. 

>However, it has to be understood that this movie isn't for the old guard. Sure they want the loyal base to see the movie, but they really want to get new viewers to enjoy the franchise. Especially younger people, who in 20 years, will want to have another series of Star Trek they can call their own. There will be one more and hopefully what Paramount will learn is that it's not big budgets and huge effects that drive us to see the movies. It's an intriguing storyline and great acting that keeps us coming back. Lowering the budget of the next movie will probably make the experience more enjoyable for the fans and make the money focused execs happy

>


Well put. This was really Roddenberry's point when at one point he said that someone would come along and need to reinterpret Trek to suit the changing times (someday I will locate the exact quote). I find Abrams has more social commentary in it than many realize, but the problems he is addressing are missed due to misunderstandings or missed opportunities by the writers, or what have you. Its not perfect, and no movie will ever really be, especially as far as Trek fans are concerned


Also, Trek will never be the same, save for fan productions like Cawley's "New Voyages" or Farragut Films. These fan productions aim at reproducing TOS but that isn't for mass consumption. In order for Trek to be viable, new fans were going to be needed, regardless of the feelings of old fans. It sounds bad, and perhaps calloused, but the fact that Abrams didn't aim for currents fans was a lot smarter than most give him credit for.


Into Darkness demonstrates, to me at least, that Abrams is letting fan feedback come in and trying to give TOO many nods to TOS and not enough focus on an original storyline.


But, keep in mind, TWOK is considered the golden era of the Trek movie franchise, so all other movies will be judged by it, compared to it and want to be like it.


Even more mind blowing is the fact that TWOK was the film GR hated. Food for thought:


"Khan was not written as that exciting a character, he was rather flimsy. The Khan in the TV episode was a much deeper and better character than the movie Khan, except that Montalban pulled it off." (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages)

warp speed

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 29 2013, 8:13 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 29 2013, 7:38 pm

Quote: FastWebBuilder @ May. 29 2013, 12:41 pm

>

>

>Into Darkness was a very good movie. I am an old Trekkie so nothing will ever live up to my standards. 

>However, it has to be understood that this movie isn't for the old guard. Sure they want the loyal base to see the movie, but they really want to get new viewers to enjoy the franchise. Especially younger people, who in 20 years, will want to have another series of Star Trek they can call their own. There will be one more and hopefully what Paramount will learn is that it's not big budgets and huge effects that drive us to see the movies. It's an intriguing storyline and great acting that keeps us coming back. Lowering the budget of the next movie will probably make the experience more enjoyable for the fans and make the money focused execs happy

>

Well put. This was really Roddenberry's point when at one point he said that someone would come along and need to reinterpret Trek to suit the changing times (someday I will locate the exact quote). I find Abrams has more social commentary in it than many realize, but the problems he is addressing are missed due to misunderstandings or missed opportunities by the writers, or what have you. Its not perfect, and no movie will ever really be, especially as far as Trek fans are concerned

Also, Trek will never be the same, save for fan productions like Cawley's "New Voyages" or Farragut Films. These fan productions aim at reproducing TOS but that isn't for mass consumption. In order for Trek to be viable, new fans were going to be needed, regardless of the feelings of old fans. It sounds bad, and perhaps calloused, but the fact that Abrams didn't aim for currents fans was a lot smarter than most give him credit for.

Into Darkness demonstrates, to me at least, that Abrams is letting fan feedback come in and trying to give TOO many nods to TOS and not enough focus on an original storyline.

But, keep in mind, TWOK is considered the golden era of the Trek movie franchise, so all other movies will be judged by it, compared to it and want to be like it.

Even more mind blowing is the fact that TWOK was the film GR hated. Food for thought:

"Khan was not written as that exciting a character, he was rather flimsy. The Khan in the TV episode was a much deeper and better character than the movie Khan, except that Montalban pulled it off." (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages)


Your right about one thing. Newer audiences don't care if old stories are redone because they have never seen them. It looks like those of us who have already seen them are just out of luck. As long as the producers choose to redo old tv episodes and movies then Start Trek will be condemned to rerun heaven.

rob31989

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this May. 29 2013, 9:59 pm

I don't think they should ban the movie simply because people don't like it. The movie I thought had a few issues in the sense that it was a remake of the wrath of khan so the story for me was already laid out in my head so nothing entirely original came from this movie (which I felt the 2009 movie mixed things up). I think there was maybe a tad bit of a setup for the third movie being a klingon vs federation war but who knows.


That all being said the movie shouldn't be boycotted because it is hopefully going to get more people interested into star trek and bring new fans. It also gives those new fans the chance to discover all of star trek and then decide if for themselves if this movie is good or not.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 30 2013, 12:53 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 29 2013, 10:26 am

Quote: willowtree @ May. 29 2013, 5:46 am

>

>I got to meet her at a convention shortly before she passed away. She was amazing. Though having seen their son's pesentation at conventions before it feels more like he's milking his name more than anyting

 

I honestly felt the same way but after seeing the film I changed my mind.  It struck many personal chords with me as well, the fact that Gene died when Rod was so young and he never really knew him. I found it very genuine, a man trying to learn about his dad and his legacy. My impression is that he realized, now at 40 that his name means a lot more to the world and he wanted to understand it and find his own identity.

He lends the name to the Roddenberry Foundation, a philanthropic endeavor to fund projects that seek to further Gene's vision.

The Roddenberry Dive Team also seeks to do that, but with exploring the seam which appears to be one of Rod's personal passions.

I also love The Mission Log Podcast. They always come up with neat new treasures, such as never seen before memos from the 60s.

The kid's gotta make a living, so I don't fault him for doing some things for profit, like running the Roddenberry Store,  but he also appears to be really earnest in his intent to honor his parents' legacy.


Of interest to me is the fact that he keeps it running so well, and provides a lot of different ways for fans to connect through that site.


By the way, and I know I posted this before but it bears repeating, Rod supports "Into Darkness."


Actually, reading the News page on his site, I discovered that Shatner also supports the movie, and that CBS is the one deciding not to pursue a TV franchise, despite Abrams expressed interest. So, success or no success of Into Darkness, CBS is still holding off. Again, i don't blame them, given the current economic state, the expense of creating a pilot, let alone a series premiere, and hoping it makes some money, when TV has changed since even Enterprise has been on the air.


Of other interesting note, is this story discussing numbers in comparison to Into Darkness' performance:


http://1701news.com/node/264/sophomore-slump-can-it-be-good.html

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 30 2013, 7:40 am

Well Star Trek News is of course going to spin it like that.  I prefer sites like Forbes that provide pure financial analysis.


The TV deal was already known to have fallen through, partly due to reasons from article I previously posted about Abrams wanting to control merchandising. 


CBS may realize just how valuable the TV rights are.  With STID underperforming and the divide among longtime fans, it's understandable why CBS may not want to hand over the reins to someone who can make pretty movies, but may not be able to deliver more meaty television.  The movie can bring in non-fans, but TV will rely more heavily on long time Trekkies to keep it afloat past a few episodes or through a weak start. TNG and DS9 both took some time to find their footing and it takes the loyalty of fans to get past stinkers like "Move Along Home" and "The Naked Now" that may turn off casual viewers.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 30 2013, 7:50 am

 I actually kind of like Move Along Home and The Naked Now

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 30 2013, 8:01 am

I didn't like them when they aired, but now I sorta like them.  But I also appreciate Spock's Brain on some level.  

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 30 2013, 8:14 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 30 2013, 8:01 am

>

>I didn't like them when they aired, but now I sorta like them.  But I also appreciate Spock's Brain on some level.  

>


I like them in that they're sort of comic relief. they're light fun episodes

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 30 2013, 9:11 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 30 2013, 7:40 am

>

>Well Star Trek News is of course going to spin it like that.  I prefer sites like Forbes that provide pure financial analysis.

>The TV deal was already known to have fallen through, partly due to reasons from article I previously posted about Abrams wanting to control merchandising. 

>CBS may realize just how valuable the TV rights are.  With STID underperforming and the divide among longtime fans, it's understandable why CBS may not want to hand over the reins to someone who can make pretty movies, but may not be able to deliver more meaty television.  The movie can bring in non-fans, but TV will rely more heavily on long time Trekkies to keep it afloat past a few episodes or through a weak start. TNG and DS9 both took some time to find their footing and it takes the loyalty of fans to get past stinkers like "Move Along Home" and "The Naked Now" that may turn off casual viewers.

>


Well, like I said, numbers can always be spun


I just prefer to draw from multiple sources and draw my own conclusions from there.


I honestly feel that CBS is not willing to do a TV series simply out of fear they will lose more money. I doubt that they have advetisers clamoring to support a new show either. I don't think it has much to do with Abrams as much as it has to do with fear of losing money like Enterprise did.


"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" is really a current business model given the uncertain econmic times. Again, a TV series is not a cheap venture, especially when you have to create a "proof of concept" first, then the pilot and then the premiere.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 30 2013, 10:10 am

I really think that no network is going to gamble on a big budget sci fi series anytime soon.  It was barely feasable at the best of times and ad revenue has been going down for years.  The tv landscape has changed again over the last couple years with netflix and other sites gaining popularity 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 30 2013, 10:34 am

there might be some networks, for example SyFy had recent success with Battlestar Galactica and currently have a huge undertakin with a sci fi show video game tie in. I could see them taking on a new Trek series

Holo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 253

Report this May. 30 2013, 11:21 am

I would love a new series on SyFy or mabye a premium network. In many ways I think that would be preferrable to it being on one of the big networks, which have all been churning out absolute drivel for the past ten years or so.


And a smaller budget would force them to lean on good writing instead of mindless sfx.

captain saavik

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 854

Report this May. 30 2013, 11:31 am

Ok it is just plain dumb to not go and see this movie! I was not the biggest fan of the new Star Trek movie of 2009 but I went to see this one anyway because l love a good action flick. But for any self respecting Trekkie not go and see this movie saddens my heart! Into Darkness was a beautifully crafted film whether you like trek or not. We can no longer depend on our original movies to allow trek to continue to the next generation. If one can say they love trek but refuse to support the new influx of movies and other things i'm sorry but I would almost question how much you love this wonderous movement we all Star Trek. Star Wars, Doctor Who, and any other significant series is revamping and I am sure that some of their fans are resisting as well but all this does is harm the series they claim to love so much which inturn harms them.


Ok I am off my soapbox now please no one take offense to this simply go SEE the movie and then you may critic anything you want so long as you have SEEN the movie. I trully do love you all simply because you love Star Trek, but please don't give up on at least experiencing this new age of Trek.  


willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 30 2013, 11:58 am

Quote: captain saavik @ May. 30 2013, 11:31 am

>

>Ok it is just plain dumb to not go and see this movie! I was not the biggest fan of the new Star Trek movie of 2009 but I went to see this one anyway because l love a good action flick. But for any self respecting Trekkie not go and see this movie saddens my heart! Into Darkness was a beautifully crafted film whether you like trek or not. We can no longer depend on our original movies to allow trek to continue to the next generation. If one can say they love trek but refuse to support the new influx of movies and other things i'm sorry but I would almost question how much you love this wonderous movement we all Star Trek. Star Wars, Doctor Who, and any other significant series is revamping and I am sure that some of their fans are resisting as well but all this does is harm the series they claim to love so much which inturn harms them.

>Ok I am off my soapbox now please no one take offense to this simply go SEE the movie and then you may critic anything you want so long as you have SEEN the movie. I trully do love you all simply because you love Star Trek, but please don't give up on at least experiencing this new age of Trek.  

>


sorry but this statement s dumb. If someone doesn't want to see the movie they don't have to see the movie and they shouldn't be called dumb for it.


 


let me ask you a question. Let's say someone didn't like the first Hunger Games movie. Then after seeing trailers and knowing the plot of the second movie and considering they didn' like the first one, they decide not to go to the second movie. Is that dumb?


Personally I have no intention of seeing the new movie  because I didn't like the first movie and based on that plus the trailers and what I know of the plot of the second movie I'm not going to go to the second movie. But despite the fact that I go to several conventions a year, wear handmade uniforms (well my husband wears them I make them) despite owning all the dvds, despite watching the different series all the time, despite having a room in my house devoted to Star Trek collectibles, despite giving our pets Trek names I'm not a self respecting Trekkie, nor do I even love Star Trek simply because I don't want to see a movie. Doesn't that sound silly?

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: alfamav

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum