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

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 29 2013, 12:15 pm

Quote: wissa @ May. 29 2013, 12:08 pm

>

>yes she did.  Any good trekkie would know the controversy surrounding Shatners biography.  Since I didn't know instantly that she was referring to shatner's biography when she mentioned a book... well what other conclusion is there?  I'm not a good trekkie.  And the whole definition of a biography was condescending.  Obviously had I known it was a biography it would have been obvious she couldn't stop it. 

>


well think what you want, I'm not going to change your mind.  Personally I think you're reading too much into the post, and it seems like you're just looking for an argument.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 29 2013, 12:27 pm

perhaps I have just become over sensitive because of all the condescending and insulting things she has posted in the past. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 29 2013, 12:27 pm

Never said anything about being a "good Trekkie"  but whatever.  Anything I say is "troll agenda". Can't have a conversation without it, it seems. (and I'm the one who's combatative)


 


 


Shatner's bio was the first of the bios released in the 90s from all the cast (aside from I Am Not Spock) and it pissed a LOT of people off.  It was a very hot  topic both in and out of fandom in the 90s. Since you're a long term fan, one can suppose that you're familiar with the kerfuffle.  


Perhaps you should just read the words and not stuff emotion between them. You accuse me of being a troll yet I retain the ability to respond to you in a civil manner.  If you're going to attack back at every single thing I type no matter what it is, then it's going to be an unhappy experience for you since I'm an active poster.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

FastWebBuilder

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this 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


Honorable Domain Names and Website Hosting with Fast Web Builder - Qapla'!

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 29 2013, 12:50 pm

Quote: wissa @ May. 29 2013, 12:27 pm

>

>perhaps I have just become over sensitive because of all the condescending and insulting things she has posted in the past. 

>


I haven't seen anything like that from her. If anyone is being condescending it's honestly you.


but lets just forget all that and discuss the trek stuff without making it personal

warp speed

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 29 2013, 12:55 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

>


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.

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

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