Star Trek

[Unorthodox]

And before the TNG movies came out, TMP was widely considered the worst.

It was also the first, as this was the first of the reset.  Took OT a bit to hit a stride, the upcoming film so far actually appears to be addressing a few of the problems the first had. 

-Dude, this is like me coming into your horror movie thread to defend the Friday the Thirteenth flicks.  On the face of it, I'd be wrong...

I'm not defending it at all, I'm saying you're nit picking at things you overlook in other movies, which is silly.  Yes, it sucks, but not for all the reasons the above video was saying.  Nit picking every time physics in a movie...a sci fi movie no less, are not up to reality is just petty.  Especially when the physics involved are not really demonstrably worse than 95% of Hollywood titles. 

There's nothing wrong with loud and dumb as long as it's FUN.  (see Avengers) 

Now, we can agree that questionable character changes, wtf blood ship, and an awful villain make for a poor movie that is not fitting to the OT spirit. 

[Unorthodox]

Reviews are not looking good.

[Buster's Uncle]

Why We Still Love 'Star Trek,' Final Frontiers and All
SPACE.comBy Miriam Kramer | SPACE.com – 7 hrs ago...

 
The interstellar voyages of the Starship Enterprise have captured imaginations around the world for decades.

Astronauts, movie makers, scientists, engineers and others from all walks of life cite "Star Trek's" science and technology as an influence on their lives and worldview. But why? What makes "Star Trek" the enduring and thrilling science fiction epic it is today?

The optimistic crew led by Captain Kirk in the original series and Jean-Luc Picard in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" gave a science-minded generation an outlet for expression, Dr. Mae Jemison, one of the astronauts inspired by the show said. [See the Evolution of the Starship Enterprise in Photos]

"I saw 'Star Trek' the original series as a little girl and for me it was really great because it talked about and it dealt with situations that were going on at the time, but you saw it with a lens of another place, another time, another world, another group of people," Jemison, a former astronaut and the principal for the 100 Year Starship Foundation, told SPACE.com. "So it was easy to actually do some of those morality plays and really bring a number of issues to the foreground and really talk about them."

When Jemison — the first African-American woman to fly in space — began watching the original series, she felt affirmed by the diversity of characters represented on the show. At the time, that diversity wasn't present in the real-life astronaut corps.

"I think the other thing that 'Star Trek' did was it basically said that humanity would make it through all of the conflicts and catastrophes that we were facing," Jemison said.

"Star Trek's" particular brand of science fiction has also motivated other scientists.

"I think it's one of those things it all goes back to a deep desire to see some very incredible things maybe come to pass one day," Harold White, a NASA engineer, said of his "Star Trek" fandom. "The idea of going 'beyond' is, I guess, just a soft terminology meant to capture anywhere in the cosmos so everyone has a soft spot for one of the old explorers. 'What's over the next hill' sort of things. There's something inside of us that resonates with that, so I think you see that in a lot of people not just in the space program."

"Star Trek" serves as inspiration for the people responsible for making the next generation of science fiction movies today.

"I'm a sci-fi nerd," Gary Whitta, the screenwriter for "After Earth," a new science fiction movie set for release on May 31, told SPACE.com. "I grew up on this stuff. I grew up watching 'Star Trek' and 'Battlestar Galactica.' This is the kind of stuff I've always wanted to do."

Perhaps one of the most appealing aspects of the series is that it represents an imagined future for humanity.

"'Star Trek' is supposed to be our future in space. It is not fictional — it is of course — but it is not intended to be a galaxy far, far away," Adam Schneider, the man restoring the original series' Galileo Shuttlecraft, said. "It is intended to be what we do on this planet with our capabilities over the next few hundred years, and, as such, it's inspiring ... It's the career I would have wanted to have."

With "Star Trek Into Darkness," the most recent re-boot of the series, set for release tomorrow (May 16), a fresh stock of audience members might get a chance to experience that kind of inspiration. Jemison, however, is doubtful that the new films capture the attitude of the originals.

"'Star Trek' is 'Star Trek' because it was 'Star Trek,' not because it was somebody else's version of it," Jemison said of the new movies. "My question is: Where is the hopefulness in it? … The science and the geekiness is important. It's not accidental."

NASA is riding high on the "Star Trek" excitement. "Star Trek Into Darkness" director [[intercourse gerund] hack] and some of the film's stars will take part in a Google+ Hangout with current space station astronaut Chris Cassidy tomorrow at 12:15 p.m. EDT (1615 GMT).

http://news.yahoo.com/why-still-love-star-trek-final-frontiers-112459310.html

[Buster's Uncle]

How the Battle Over 'Star Trek' Rights Killed J.J. Abrams' Grand Ambitions
The franchise's licensing and merchandising rights are split between CBS and Paramount which created headaches for the multihyphenate's production company Bad Robot

Published: May 15, 2013 @ 7:41 pm
   
By Brent Lang


A struggle over the U.S.S. Enterprise's past and future helped sour J.J. Abrams on the "Star Trek" franchise and may have contributed to his decision to take on the "Star Wars" universe.

Competing ambitions between Paramount, CBS and Abrams' production company Bad Robot over merchandising surrounding the first film in the rebooted "Star Trek" franchise led the director to curtail plans to turn the series into a multi-platform experience that spanned television, digital entertainment and comic books, according to an individual with knowledge of the dispute.

"J.J. just threw up his hands," the individual told TheWrap. "The message was, 'Why set up all this when we'll just be competing against ourselves?' The studio wanted to please Bad Robot, but it was allowing CBS to say yay or nay when it came to what was happening with the 'Star Trek' products."

"Star Trek Into Darkness" arrives in U.S. multiplexes Thursday with tie-ins ranging from Bing to Hasbro. It is expected to gross more than $100 million at the domestic box office over the extended weekend.

Yet this marketing assault pales compared to the one that Abrams (above) and Bad Robot once envisioned for "Star Trek" and now plan to construct around the new "Star Wars" films.

A major stumbling block: "Star Trek's" licensing and merchandising rights are spread over two media conglomerates with competing goals. The rights to the original television series from the 1960s remained with CBS after it split off from Paramount’s corporate parent Viacom in 2006, while the studio retained the rights to the film series. CBS also held onto the ability to create future “Star Trek” TV shows.

Paramount must license the “Star Trek” characters from CBS Consumer Products for film merchandising.

Much to the dismay of Bad Robot, CBS' merchandising arm continued to create memorabilia and products based on the cast of the original 1960s series and market them to Trekkies. The production company did market research and found that there was brand confusion between Abrams' rebooted Enterprise crew and the one starring William Shatner and DeForest Kelley.

TheWrap has learned that Bad Robot asked CBS to stop making products featuring the original cast, but talks broke down over money. The network was making roughly $20 million a year on that merchandise and had no incentive to play nice with its former corporate brother, the individual said. In response, the company scaled back its ambitions to have "Star Trek's" storylines play out with television shows, spin-off films and online components, something Abrams had been eager to accomplish.

Also read: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Review: Thrilling Sequel Balances Fun with a Post-9/11 Sensibility

Paramount declined to comment for this article and a spokesperson for Bad Robot did not respond to a request to comment.

"As the merchandising rights holder for Star Trek, CBS Consumer Products has ongoing relationships with all our partners, including Paramount," a spokesman for CBS Consumer Products said in a statement. "We have worked closely with them for the last five years to create merchandise to enhance the movies and satisfy fans. We are all looking forward to a successful opening of ‘Into Darkness.’”

Despite the initial bumpy ride, it appears that Paramount, Bad Robot and CBS Consumer Products worked more harmoniously on "Star Trek Into Darkness." The parties collaborated on a Star Trek video game (left) that will feature the voices of the film's stars Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto; a graphic novel prequel to the film that was overseen by screenwriter Roberto Orci; and a novelization from Simon & Schuster (below).

Still, Jeff Gomez, CEO of the transmedia consulting firm Starlight Runner Entertainment, says there could have been so many more lucrative tie-ins. He contends that the rebooted franchise has enormous potential outside the multiplex.

"Right now the 'Star Trek' movies are movies," Gomez said. "There is no apparent ongoing transmedia strategy behind them, just a handful of licensing opportunities around the release of 'Into Darkness.'

"Why would that be attractive to an artist who sees beyond the boundaries of the silver screen to envision a true multi-platform narrative all based on a global franchise?”

Abrams' ambitions to create a multi-platform film franchise will find a more natural home at Disney, analysts and industry experts tell TheWrap. As successful as "Star Trek" has been, few franchises match the profitability and cultural prominence of George Lucas' space opera, which would be difficult for any director to pass up.

“Disney has always been oriented to multi-platform revenue stream situations,” Seth Willenson, a film library valuations expert, told TheWrap.

Moreover, Willenson notes that Abrams, who has a deal that is believed to include creative and profit participation in "Star Wars" inspired merchandise and spin-offs, will have more control in shaping the legacy of the Skywalker clan than he would have had with developing side projects for the "Star Trek" crew. Unlike with "Star Trek," with its rights split between Paramount and CBS, Disney owns the rights to “Star Wars” outright thanks to its $4 billion purchase of Lucasfilm last year.

"The derivative rights situation on 'Star Trek' is complicated because you’re dealing with cross-company cultures, so it makes it harder to implement a grand plan," Willenson said.

As for Disney's grand "Star Wars" plan, it's sounding an awful lot like the one Abrams once envisioned for "Star Trek." There will be television properties, theme park rides and spin-off films all centered around the new trilogy that Abrams will oversee.

It's a page borrowed from Disney's exploitation of the Marvel comic books and if it works out, it should make Abrams very rich indeed.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766

...For instance, IDW, the comic book company that currently holds the Star Trek license, was told that they could only publish ST derived from the 09 abomination.  The plan was all Abomination, all the time.

Anyone think we didn't dodge a bullet here?

[Buster's Uncle]

LeVar Burton To J.J. Abrams: "I Call Bulls**t"
March 7, 2013 By TrekNews.net Staff In Star Trek 2013, Star Trek: TNG

LeVar Burton, who played Geordi LaForge for seven seasons on Star Trek: The Next Generation, recently discussed the current direction of the Star Trek franchise — as it’s being handled by J.J. Abrams and the team at Bad Robot.

(Abrams’ Star Trek) was a great movie, and he brought a whole new generation to Trek. But I’m a little disquieted by things I hear coming out of his camp, things like he would like to be remembered as the only Trek – which would discount everything before he got there.

Burton went on to talk about how Abrams first film broke from the timeline of the original Star Trek universe.

There’s ‘breaking the canon,’ which he did (by re-inventing Star Trek’s timeline). But there’s also honouring the canon. And to pretend to be the only one is really egocentric and immature.

Burton, who’s character held the rank of chief engineer aboard the Enterprise D, discussed some recent scientific breakthroughs, which may lead to technology reminiscent of a holodeck and how TNG has influenced our culture.

I just came from a conference in San Francisco with Advanced Micro Devices, and they’re working on technology towards building a holodeck. That was Next Generation. And that’s part of what Star Trek has brought to the culture. So when JJ Abrams says, There should be no Star Trek except the one I make,’ I call bulls—, J.J.

/]http://www.treknews.net/2013/03/07/levar-burton-jj-abrams-i-call-[nonsense]/

Yeah; bulls**t, JJ.

[Unorthodox]

I always struggled to get past 'reading rainbow' with him...

[Buster's Uncle]

Star Trek: The Middle School Musical

[Unorthodox]

 

[CamKrist]

Similar matter has already been discussed at yahoo answers. I can post the link if needed

[Buster's Uncle]

 ?

[Unorthodox]

killit!!!!  (seen the same post across several forums now)

[Buster's Uncle]

Good enough for me.    The Mighty BotSlayer done struck again.

[Tarvok]

Allrighty then. Read the first three pages, read the last three pages, that ought to be enough, given that this thread appears to be about letting our Big Damn Opinions hang out the front. So let's get opining, shall we?

First off, the notion that TOS is True Trek, and everything that followed is Fake Trek: utter bollocks. The Original Series was a hybrid product of the mind of Gene Roddenberry and Executive Meddling from NBC. Per some Wikipedia editor, the show as originally conceived was "too cerebral", and so Captain Pike and his Female First Officer were replaced with scrappy womanizer William Shatner James Tiberius Kirk. This is also known as "Dumbing Down". You want True Trek, you have to go to The Next Generation, which lacked the Executive Meddling aspect of the series. The name similarity between Pike and Picard is no accident.

I agree with Green1 with regards to character development. TOS was The Shatner Show, whereas the following series had excellent ensemble casts. The Next Generation and DS9 occupy approximately similar positions among my preferences (though I have a marginal preference for DS9). Voyager and TOS are on the second tier, with a marginal preference for TOS over Voyager. Never bothered with Enterprise, primarily because their advertising felt like they were aiming for the Buffy demographic, which I do not occupy. (I had a similar problem with Stargate: Universe.)

As to why I tend to like DS9 best, I think it's mostly because of the character network. First off, the cast is the best ensemble in the franchise, in my opinion--and I really like ensemble casts. So many characters, all fairly likable, all getting development time. I also like good duos, and DS9 has duos in spades: Quark/Odo, Bashir/O'Brian, Bashir/Garack, and Worf/Jadzia, along with attempted duos Sisko/Dax, Kira/Jadzia, Jake/ Nog, and Kira/Odo. And I absolutely loved Captain Sisko, both how credibly he did "angry badass" and his relationship/rivalry/enmity with Dukat, who I also absolutely loved. That creepy Kira/Dukat dynamic was also quite enjoyable (and I think that was about the only time I really liked Kira).

TOS had no true duos; all it had was power trio Kirk/Spock/McCoy. And I think I'm maybe too young to properly appreciate TOS (it's kind of campy, which requires nostalgia to properly appreciate). But I stand by my recognition of TOS as a dumbed-down version of what TNG eventually became (rough first season notwithstanding).

I think TNG had a few attempted duos. I enjoyed Data/LaForge and Picard/Crusher (either of the Crushers, really, and it was when Beverly was interacting with Picard that I did not hate her). Guinan/Picard was a joy to watch (and Whoopie Goldberg's role in TNG was so well done my appreciation has spilled over into an appreciation of Whoopie Goldberg generally). Picard/Data was hit or miss, but Nemesis kind of ruined that duo for me. And then there's Q/Picard, which was always fun.

But what I really liked about TNG was the Captain. Kirk was a real hands-on, do-it-myself kind of guy; Picard knew how to delegate and develop his crew. Kirk lead through sheer energy; Picard maintained a certain calm, a kind of elegant gravitas. Picard was far better spoken than Kirk. Picard didn't need to be a womanizing scrapper; he had a first-officer for that.

Speaking of William Riker, I loved Riker-centric episodes. So many of them dealt with weird, psychological horror situations where Riker's sheer force of will and presence of mind helped him to see through the deceptions. Probably my favorite episode of Star Trek, any series, was "Frame of Mind".

Finally, I am one of the few who do not hope for Wesley Crusher to die in a fire. I was of just the right age, when the series was running, for Wesley Crusher to serve as a sort of POV character for me.

As for Voyager... eh. It had enough momentum from prior series to be a fun watch, but had some rather severe problems as well. The Science Fiction of the series was generally either nonexistent or abominable (a CRACK in the EVENT HORIZON?!?!?!). In many ways Janeway, to my mind, was just Kirk with [woman's bosoms], which I suppose was the point... but I prefer Picard, in any event. And I failed to get into it the first time around because the first season felt like a medical drama... IN SPAAACE!.. and I don't really care for medical dramas. Probably would't have ever watched it had a certain special lady not guided me into it.

But, on the bright side, Kes was adorable (Nine was abominable), Chakotay was cool, Tuvok was awesome (though I mourned the death of Tuvix and hated the high-handed and occasionally borderline murderous Janeway even more after that episode), and the Kim/Paris duo was always fun (though why McNeill was Tom Paris and not Nick Locarno, who was basically the same character in temperament, skillset and essential background, I'll never understand). And I appreciated their treatment of the subject of time travel, both the way they went about it and the fact that they touched the subject at all, given that before you can have a Federation with a fully developed "time cop" like organization, you first have to have some moron make a whole lot of mistakes with it... and Katherine Janeway seved well as that moron. 

Finally, movies. First off, I regard the new movie series as a welcome reboot of the series. Old Trek was fun (and by "Old Trek" I mean everything from TOS to Voyager, and maaaaaybe Enterprise, but as I said, I never watched it), but let's face it: Old Trek is dead. If the franchise had any future whatsoever, it was in just this sort of a reboot, and while the first New Trek movie kind of overwhelmed me with how Big and Loud it was (and the birth of Kirk on an exploding spaceship to a Wagnerian soundtrack was a bit much), on a second watch I realized just how well they had done. I like Chris Pine better than William Shatner (sorry, guys). Zachary Quinto doesn't quite fill Leonard Nimoy's shoes... but who does? And I don't know where they dug up Karl Urban, but I am honestly very surprised that there's anyone alive today that can properly portray Country Doctor cum Space Medic Leonard McCoy... but Quinto pulls it off better than any of us had any right to expect.

And Into Darkness? Hoo boy, did I ever enjoy it. It's still too new for me to go into details (don't want to spoil it), but it has both cinematic enough quality in its own right and callbacks, references, and homages to the old movies my jaw just dropped, and stayed that way. The role reversals really, really worked (hopefully, only those who have seen it will know what I mean).

As to Old Trek movies, I will comment in order of preference.

Insurrection was my favorite. I'm a TNG fan, and Insurrection felt like a two-hour episode of TNG. No canon was overturned, we get to watch Picard fighting the hierarchy for the sake of the Federation's sacred principles, and so on. Good stuff.

The Undiscovered Country is, in my view, a cinematic triumph. It's probably a better movie than Insurrection. Their treatment of the difficulties in ending a generations-long cold war is quite compelling.

Save The Wales The Voyage Home was just plain delightful and hilarious. I don't think I'll ever get tired of "I am luuking for de Nuklear Wessels". Other parts of the movie were also good.

I will readily admit The Wrath of Khan is a great movie. I think, however, that its aesthetics are too generationally distant for me to properly appreciate it; too much Big and Loud during my lifetime. Still, there's some great acting, and it is the origin of some of our best memes ("KHAAAAAAN!").

Generations is a fairly decent movie, and that's about it. Here we hit the midpoint.

First Contact is a fairly decent movie, but I will never forgive the writers for The Borg Queen (or Wacky Data, for that matter). The Borg in The Next Generation were, in my opinion, a really neat enemy. I saw them as the ultimate P2P network, at a neural level, no privacy, to the point where the individual cannot distinguish between his own thoughts and those of others close by in The Collective. They weren't The Evil Dictatorship; they were The Blob... until First Contact. Then they invented The Borg Queen. The Borg didn't need an Evil Dictator, and I feel like they overturned some pretty impressive science fiction when they invented her.

The Final Frontier is MST3K levels of bad... which works, ironically, in its favor. I could enjoy watching it, if I had a friend I could riff with.

The Motion Picture is... boring. That's about it. But the only problem with watching it is I can never get those two hours back. I wouldn't exactly call it a form of torture.

Nemesis I *would* consider a form of torture. Maybe I'll look back on it years later and think maybe it makes good MST3K material... but not today. Their treatment of Nature/Nurture via cloning was both late and simplistic. Picard, I felt, was way out of character. B4 did not need to exist. And that scene with the land rover, or whatever it was? REALLY? Worst. Movie. Ever

tl;dr: BUncle is wrong about everything. :p

[Buster's Uncle]

For those who don't know, this is exactly how I met Tarvok, lo, slightly over four years ago; he was rude about a matter of taste.  

I swiftly became quite fond of him - there is a certain value in the opinions of even completely tasteless individuals for those of us who actually understand Star Trek and value Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination.

[Tarvok]

lol, just responding in kind here, man. Also, this is how we first met? I don't recall. Was I insulting Vyeh or something?