There’s a new Star Trek trailer and it looks terrible

It has a lot of punching, precious little "science fiction."


Read the whole story

 

[Wickwick]

It's like the James Bond movies with Daniel Craig as 007. They're fun action movies but there's nothing that resembles what the Bond series had been up to that point. Yes, they could be campy but they had a tone that the new movies don't follow (haven't seen the latest - perhaps it saves itself?).

The two reboot Star Trek movies have been fun movies (if you can get over groaning at the Khan bits) but they're not really recognizable as Trek.

 

[Wickwick]

DrPizza[/url]":2rxn3716]

Sufinsil[/url]":2rxn3716]

DrPizza[/url]":2rxn3716]

jafstar[/url]":2rxn3716]Peter,

That's why your're a tech writer and not a Hollywood sci fi writer or director.

You would probably make it so boring and dull with all of your fluff theories and mystical space sounds that no one would want to watch it much less pay to watch it.

The Martian, which is a proper sci-fi film, cost a little more than half what Into Darkness cost to make, and has already done over $100 million more at the box office. It seems very clear to me that people will, in fact, pay to watch real sci-fi.

The new trailer looks good.

Your critique of it however, falls rather short and is filled with too much presumptuous ideas of what it's going to be.

Just because they used music in the trailer doesn't mean it will be in the movie.

Star Trek died with Gene Rodenberry, get over it.

You missed that the characters in the trailer acknowledge the music. That's taken from the film, and unless the footage is cut between now and release, it'll be on the big screen.

Matt Damon, recent popular book/screenplay hype and marketing sold it to the masses.

Don't have all of those, likely it won't sell very well.

Now, Star Trek itself has its brand to sell on, which it would be nice to see them try to "Save the Whales". But action is less risk.

I'd argue that the Star Trek brand is much stronger than the Martian's brand, and that if the Martian can do it, so too can Star Trek.

I'm not saying that Trek has to be some kind of hard sci-fi--the Martian was quite "reality-based", which is part of its appeal, and that wouldn't work for Trek--but it should be doing more than just "action". Explore the consequences of the prime directive, of intergalactic warfare, of a post-scarcity society, of cultures and societies that are built in a fundamentally different way than our own (especially if they result in Wesley being sentenced to death!). I think both the TV show and a fair few films have managed this.

Did you read The Martian before you watched the movie? Without letting out any spoilers, can you honestly tell me how the very ending (of the book) was changed wasn't anything but pandering to the popcorn-eating action movie style of over-the-top bullshit? I can understand the necessity of cutting out the other major section they cut. But the change at the end was just crap.

 

[Wickwick]

So where are we on the "Even-numbered Star Treks don't suck" mantra? Are we now in a situation where everything is an odd number from here on out?

 

[Wickwick]

DrPizza[/url]":1xe1g6ru]

Wickwick[/url]":1xe1g6ru]
Did you read The Martian before you watched the movie? Without letting out any spoilers, can you honestly tell me how the very ending (of the book) was changed wasn't anything but pandering to the popcorn-eating action movie style of over-the-top bullshit? I can understand the necessity of cutting out the other major section they cut. But the change at the end was just crap.

No, but nor did most people seeing the film.

Holding up The Martian then as what sci-fi can be without having read the book is like saying the new Star Trek movies are great - having had no experience to any of the previous series. Let me just suggest that it's not perhaps the best movie to hole up as the poster child for hard sci-fi. A bit long in the tooth but Contact was more faithful to the book and damned successful as a movie.

 

[Wickwick]

Operative Me[/url]":wqcl7asg]One thing I will say is that I think this move may be somewhat necessary. Not "good"...but necessary. I came to enjoy Star Trek later in life, and will freely admit I have not seen all the movies...but have any of the movies had to fully cover every bit of character development? What I mean is that for my memory, the other Star Trek movies have followed behind a television series where a lot of the more contemplative stuff can happen. You can learn about characters, have the world "breathe" from time to time. Attempting to shoehorn in the characters makes them come off as caricatures. But here, there is no such thing. In order to pitch it to be sold, it's necessary that it has that mass appeal. the problem is that this is ALL there is.

In some ways, one can imagine, this is a solvable problem. You look at the Marvel universe and they're doing a lot of cross-planning. With Star Trek you don't need that, but you could easily have a situation where Netflix puts out a 13-episode season in between the years of the movies. They could have done this with Star Trek reboot, having the movie introduce the characters and then have actual character development and space exploration in the series, building tensions for a few seasons before having the trope-y, fast-paced movie.

It'd be interesting, I think, to see how a person with zero knowledge of the TV show would view the movies alone. Would they hold up? Would they make sense? First Contact builds around a tension that stems from the show, does it not? As does Wrath of Khan.

I'm not trying to excuse the new movies, they are absolutely trying for blockbuster rather than introspective sci-fi, but they also don't have as much "space" to work with as the other movies did, where there was time to truly explore.

Were I in charge, I'd probably see about correcting that. Make a series for Netflix that gives the characters the time to do what Star Trek did. Sure, build up over the years to a blockbuster, but do so knowing that you're not trying to shove everything into a 90-minute punch-fest.

Imagine a season of Cumberbatch as a character, a season of heightened tensions with the Klingons, a sense of fear and dread on border worlds, explorations cut short by the necessity of encroaching war...all of which is exploited by ambitious people who want to see the war happen, and the slow reveal of Khan as the architect of much of the conflict in the movie, payoff for a season's worth of tension.

The problem with the current Star Trek, I think, isn't just that it's too action-focused. It's that the action focus is ALL there is, because there's no TV show to develop a deeper understanding of the world.

The only problem with that is usually people don't want to pay for stories or actors that are on TV (I'm sure there are a handful of exceptions). That's why, e.g. Pierce Brosnan was passed over as 007 when he was still contractually obligated to Remington Steele or the Star Trek movies were the old cast even though ST:TNG was out.

 

[Wickwick]

NetMage[/url]":1zcdx8jm]Can't believe no one suggested JMS as a better Star Trek steward.

After all the crap Star Trek did to ruin Babylon 5 I doubt JMS would want to be involved. Basically every guest star they could get interested was suddenly unavailable thanks to a Star Trek commitment.

 

[Wickwick]

AmericanCitizen[/url]":3f6o1aqb]Do you hate fun, Peter? It's okay, you can tell us; we're here for you.

He's a Microsoft evangelist reporter. How much fun can one man have in a lifetime?

 

[Wickwick]

mvmiller12[/url]":2relamvj]

zogus[/url]":2relamvj]

nickf[/url]":2relamvj]

Martin Blank[/url]":2relamvj]
The previous movies haven't been sci-fi. They've been action movies in space. That's not what Trek is about.

If we're discussing all Trek movies then the original film definitely wasn't an action movie. It was as slow as hell, and I loved it. Definitely my favourite.

While I don't hate TMP either, you and the six other people on the planet who loved that movie failed to make it a commercial success. In fact, another TMP would probably have killed off Trek for good.

Incorrect - adjusted for inflation, ST:TMP made MORE money (edit: at the domestic box office) than every sequel after it UNTIL the Star Trek reboot. It was most definitely a commercial success, just not a popular success.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises ... artrek.htm

It made enough money to justify making ST:II so it had to be commercially successful enough.