Fingernail on 20/5/2009 at 22:27
okay, yeah, I didn't mean it as such. I just wanted to emphasise that there's absolutely nothing cinematic about it, it's absurdly underwhelming.
JohnnyTheWolf on 20/5/2009 at 23:09
Quote Posted by Fingernail
I think it was the fact that there are is no current series (and Enterprise was fairly poorly received), and the last couple of films were pretty bad - Nemesis is just like an extended episode of TNG only with an older, fatter Data. And there was hardly any potential for a Voyager or DS9 movie.
Yeah, well, there wasn't any Star Trek series between 1969 and 1987 (excluding TAS) either.
I haven't seen Enterprise yet, although it is said to have its moments. I understand that Berman/Braga didn't do a good job on this one, sure. What I don't understand though is the freaking urge to go back to TOS and reboot all the way. Kirk has been done to death already. Trying something new would have been riskier, yeah, but isn't it what Star Trek is supposed to be all about? Honestly, I was more interested in the "Star Trek: The Beginning" project, with Tiberius Chase and the Earth-Romulan Wars.
And please, Insurrection was alright, despite its episodic nature. Nemesis sucked as an action movie, because they stopped caring about continuity (Lore who?) and consistency, but, I gotta admit, the story was nonetheless interesting and the character moments, including those that were cut, were pretty good. There's also a fanedit in the works which will reinsert most deleted scenes while removing some of the more sillier aspects. That might be worth a look...
In any case, the point is, it takes more than one bad ST flick to kill the franchise. I mean, just look at Star Wars: three mediocre movies and the thing's still alive!
dj_ivocha on 20/5/2009 at 23:21
Quote Posted by JohnnyTheWolf
Yeah, well, there wasn't any Star Trek series between 1969 and 1987 (excluding TAS) either.
But the Star Trek "phenomenon" only really started to pick up after 1969. Whereas after Enterprise everything all but died out (except the various Save Enterprise efforts).
Other than that, agree with all your points. And what really stings about Enterprise is that just as it dumped all that time war stuff and started to get interesting in the 4th season after they brought in Manny Coto, it got canned. :mad:
But of course the most rabid haters ignore that fact and just blather on about how the 3rd season sucked...
Scots Taffer on 21/5/2009 at 01:02
Johnny, the Star Trek franchise was deader than prehistoric dogshit. Fingernail is bang on. The last few movies were critical and commercial failures, not even held in much regard by the fans, and when your glory days are a 13 year old film (First Contact) and a series that wrapped up 10 years ago (DS9) it's time to re-evaluate the situation.
For a hardcore Trek nerd I can see how Abrams revitalisation of the franchise could piss you off because it jettisons about 80% of what made Star Trek the show it was (allegories about politics and so on in space, moralistic and lofty goals for mankind, ridiculous technobabble speak and many situations that were resolved with an over reliance on Star Trek lore) but that stuff was also what could kill an episode or a movie when handled badly (Star Trek 5, Star Trek 9) and even the space battles on the big screen were becoming pedestrian (Star Trek 7, and so I hear: Star Trek 10).
You might get a little bit of what made older Star Trek so highly regarded creeping back into the franchise but expect it to be in the same glossy slick wrapper that Abrams created this movie in.
JohnnyTheWolf on 21/5/2009 at 02:22
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Johnny, the Star Trek franchise was deader than prehistoric dogshit. Fingernail is bang on. The last few movies were critical and commercial failures, not even held in much regard by the fans, and when your glory days are a 13 year old film (First Contact) and a series that wrapped up 10 years ago (DS9) it's time to re-evaluate the situation.
Once again, it WAS not dead. Dead is when the franchise doesn't sell anymore, which is not even the case. The series are still airing, DVDs are still selling well and Star Trek can always counts on a (almost too) loyal fanbase. Star Trek 11 was going to happen, one way or another. Apparently, the only reason why they've finally decided to go for a reboot instead is because of the appointment of a new studio president.
As for Star Trek "long-gone glory days", I have two words to say: STAR WARS.
Quote:
For a hardcore Trek nerd I can see how Abrams revitalisation of the franchise could piss you off because it jettisons about 80% of what made Star Trek the show it was (allegories about politics and so on in space, moralistic and lofty goals for mankind, ridiculous technobabble speak and many situations that were resolved with an over reliance on Star Trek lore) but that stuff was also what could kill an episode or a movie when handled badly (Star Trek 5, Star Trek 9) and even the space battles on the big screen were becoming pedestrian (Star Trek 7, and so I hear: Star Trek 10).
Oh God, not this "Trekkie" nonsense again.
You know what's weird? I'm NOT even what you call a hardcore nerd. So far, I've watched the films and I'm in the middle of TNG's second season right now. I have also watched the TOS episode "Space Seeds", since it's technically TWOK's prequel. And that's about it.
I just think that a franchise should try following his own rules instead of changing them whenever they feel like it. That was my main problem with Nemesis and it's also my main problem with ST 2009.
It's getting frustrating to be called a Trekkie whenever you defend Star Trek. For some reasons, you don't get to see that with Star Wars, despite the franchise's growing mediocrity.
Scots Taffer on 21/5/2009 at 03:00
Quote Posted by JohnnyTheWolf
Once again, it WAS not dead. Dead is when the franchise doesn't sell anymore, which is not even the case.
When I say dead I don't mean it's six feet under and people aren't even watching or buying it anymore, but that if the franchise had gone on with some Star Trek 11 that featured TNG cast or come weird hybrid of Enterprise or Voyager or whatever casts they'd bomb harder than a quantum torpedo (lol) at the box office because it was clear that they were creatively dead in that Universe. The whole thing had become stale and tired and doing anything innovative with it would have probably required retconning anyway, not to mention a whole ton of prior knowledge that a general audience wouldn't have. Again, all of this stacks up to saying that from a creative, critical and financial standpoint that nothing was going to happen with the current franchise.
For example, I'd say the Firefly franchise is dead, despite it selling well on DVD and them even making a movie off the back of that. It's dead in its current form.
And I wasn't meaning to incorrectly label you as a Trekkie and sorry if you take offence to it, but I just reckon it's pretty clear to most (except maybe a pretty hardcore fan) that the old Universe was commercially fucked. Plain and simple.
Stitch on 21/5/2009 at 03:38
Quote Posted by JohnnyTheWolf
As for Star Trek "long-gone glory days", I have two words to say: STAR WARS.
Get over this Star Wars thing, as it actively works against your argument.
Scots Taffer on 21/5/2009 at 03:42
Yeah, if anything Return of the Jedi should've been the obvious sign never to return to the franchise and do the unspeakable things that the prequel trilogy did. Same principle really.
Stitch on 21/5/2009 at 05:22
Plus the Star Wars enterprises--even the shitty ones--cause a stir and make STRONG CASH.
Pre-Abrams recent Star Trek makes unintentional humor and little else.
Fingernail on 21/5/2009 at 09:41
Yeah, I say this as someone who used to collect weekly Star Trek magazines that you collated into big folders over years as a kid, but none of the Star Trek films are as good as the original Star Wars trilogy. The TV series' were always what made Star Trek, and yes, obviously people still watch the ones made 15 or 20 (or 40) years ago, but there wasn't one being made NOW that had anything like the brilliance of TNG, for instance.
I mean, the last couple of films may have sold them awfully short, but TNG cast and their characters are pretty iconic, DS9 and Voyager each had something too, but what I saw of Enterprise just seemed like tired re-treading of the path those more successful series had worn. I dunno, maybe I'm too old to enjoy what I did when I was younger.
Honestly though, I still rate TNG as the greatest, and at the centre of why it works is Patrick Stewart. They'll be awfully lucky to be able to do a series again with an actor of such natural gravitas and charisma holding it together.
