Into Darkness was great. They took the wrath of khan story then changed it a bit and they flipped Kirk and Spock's roles which was awesome! Remember that there cannot be new movies with the original cast and that a simple remake that did the exact same things would be boring. At the very least you have to admit that Simon Pegg was hilarious.
You say it was awesome, yet list a bunch of reasons why it was definitely not awesome. I actually thought it was a sarcastic post until the end.
I recently watched a youtube video on Batman 1989 and how it's performance compared to all the other Batman movies that followed, and rather than use ticket prices that were adjusted for inflation, they used a REALLY cool metric: tickets sold. That removes price completely, and in my estimation provides a much better figure by which to draw comparisons. Mentioning that here in case it is helpful.
STT messes with the timeline anyway, so why are there zero cards from the Star Trek reboot "Star Trek", "Beyond" and "Into the Darkness"? Does DB hold no license for those?
I love these refurbished characters so much, having some of them would be amazing.
I hope this is kosher considering we see ads for it all the time while playing STT, but that other Trek game Fleet Command is exclusively the reboot movie ships/crew, for what it is worth. That to me spells out precisely what has been said in this thread, namely that the licenses for each are separate.
I am not a fan of those films, but that is not why I would be opposed to those crew being included in STT, I think it would be redundant, and messy with regard to artwork. Just my point zero two dollars' worth.
I don't like the JJ movies at all. It's the version of Star Trek that JJ wanted, but it isn't the Star Trek created by Roddenberry or the Star Trek I like. But the truth is that JJ was very honest with that from the beggining. In november 2008, five months before the premiere of the movie, he came to Spain as a part of a European (probably world) press tour to present the second trailer and four scenes of the movie. I was there, and I remeber perfectly JJ saying that he really doesn't like Star Trek, that he liked Star Wars more. And with this movie (his first Star Trek), he was trying to make the Star Trek that he wanted to see. Well, he did it, that's sure. An article of his visit, in Spanish though.
Personally I don't care if the JJ movies are or not in the game, and if they are in the future, I didn't stop playing for that.
We don't need. And.. the players have voted.
No Kelvin timeline in SST. Period!
When was there a vote? I've been playing 2 and a half years and have seen no vote on this. I enjoyed JJ Trek.
Ya, there was.
It was a poll taken in this section about a year ago. You can do a search for it.
I would put a link, but I don't have time to find and paste here.
We don't need. And.. the players have voted.
No Kelvin timeline in SST. Period!
When was there a vote? I've been playing 2 and a half years and have seen no vote on this. I enjoyed JJ Trek.
Ya, there was.
It was a poll taken in this section about a year ago. You can do a search for it.
I would put a link, but I don't have time to find and paste here.
In a sci-fi future where we can accept the inclusion of Klingons, ferengi, romulans... We can even accept the odd Jem Ha'dar, Borg drone...
We can even debate whether Crell Moser and Prof. Moriarty are "evil holograms" and still include them in the universe we claim to love so much...
But the notion that we can't include someone else's interpretation of star trek?
Fleet Admiral of NCC UK Midlands."Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There's no room for it on the bridge." - J.T. Kirk, 2266
In a sci-fi future where we can accept the inclusion of Klingons, ferengi, romulans... We can even accept the odd Jem Ha'dar, Borg drone...
We can even debate whether Crell Moser and Prof. Moriarty are "evil holograms" and still include them in the universe we claim to love so much...
But the notion that we can't include someone else's interpretation of star trek?
It’s like how people claim to be “progressive” and “tolerant,” right up to the point where you don’t agree with them.
I believe that I am one of those in the minority, but (aside from a few logical points on time and distance) I really liked the movies. Yes they made a bunch of modernization changes, but they didn't pretend not to. I would welcome a version of each main crew.
You are not in the minority, the JJ movies did well in the theater. It is just that they were a little different than the original movies and some people don't like different. I felt it held true to the original characters but reimagined the stories and put in modern graphics, effects, and yes, lens flares. I loved the idea that Kirk was destined to be captain of the Enterprise no matter how the timeline gets altered. That very much fits in with star trek timelines.
Per Box Office Mojo, they're the top three highest grossing Trek movies to date. Even if we adjust for ticket inflation, the '09 reboot is still the most successful, and Into Darkness only drops from #2 to #4.
I always ignore the "box office receipts" for the last 10 years and their hype about "biggest box office opening weekend to date", "highest grossing whatever blah blah" etc.
[in the US] The 1979 box office ticket prices were about $2.50 for prime time, and 1.50 for matinee. the 80s: all the way up to $4. In the 90s: up to $5.
2010: $8.25
Average price today, about $10.50
So divide those ridiculous millions by the price of admission to get the actual number of PEOPLE who bought tickets.
For this example, I am averaging straight up 1/2 ticket sales at matinee prices, and 1/2 at prime time prices. Compare now: The Motion Picture 1979: 280,000,000 tickets sold
compared to: Star Trek JJ – 85,525,000 tickets sold.
I went to every [TOS] Star Trek movie at least 3 times back then. I almost fell asleep watching the reboot on the big screen. Oh, and I kept every ticket stub from every Star Trek anything I have ever been to.
I think us old timer Trekkies win.
That's a bit reductive, though. Going back to see the same movie in a theater multiple times isn't a decision that is made the same way today and it doesn't signify quite the same things today anymore, either. It's easier to decide to go back to see Trek for the third time when there isn't anything else grabbing your attention. Today's moviegoer, though, is bound to be interested in the latest Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney, Harry Potter/Wizarding World, Jurassic Park/World, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, etc. enough to choose that over a repeat viewing of Trek. It may be tempting to say, "But a *real* Trekkie wouldn't be into any of those things more than Star Trek!" but that's absurd for any number of reasons, not least of which being it doesn't mean they didn't go see Trek at all. Just not more than once.
Then there's the impact that the evolving home video market has had on movie-going decision making, to say nothing of the evolution of TV, streaming, video games, and the Internet all competing for one's time and money. Hollywood still hasn't figured out what to do about all that, and this year's sluggish box office sales have prompted renewed concerns that the movie-going experience altogether is an endangered form of entertainment.
Having said that, I am entirely jealous about you having those ticket stubs. That wasn't something my family, or anyone else I knew, did when I was a kid. Today, of course, I keep them, scan them in, add them to a Facebook album, and maintain a Letterboxd diary detailing the date and setting for each movie I see. Oh, those lost years...! *cries*
Yes a lot has changed. The main thing I think (besides cost) was those years the movies would stay in the theatre much longer, and you would be lucky to see them in video stores 18 months later. Now, I can get a digital copy of any first run movie for my home theatre within about a month or so of the premier. And yes, you have a solid point of all the choices as well. For instance, I am a pretty big Marvel fan at this point, but I waited until I got my HD copy of Avengers End Game for home a couple weeks ago, instead of seeing it in the theatre. Mostly due to time constraints, but I don't think I would have enjoyed it any more in the theatre.
I also have fond memories of meeting the entire original cast through all the Star Trek conventions all the way back to the 70's & 80's when I was a kid. I have all their signatures, some on bubble gum collector cards (remember those when there was actual gum inside the packs?)
I believe that I am one of those in the minority, but (aside from a few logical points on time and distance) I really liked the movies. Yes they made a bunch of modernization changes, but they didn't pretend not to. I would welcome a version of each main crew.
You are not in the minority, the JJ movies did well in the theater. It is just that they were a little different than the original movies and some people don't like different. I felt it held true to the original characters but reimagined the stories and put in modern graphics, effects, and yes, lens flares. I loved the idea that Kirk was destined to be captain of the Enterprise no matter how the timeline gets altered. That very much fits in with star trek timelines.
Per Box Office Mojo, they're the top three highest grossing Trek movies to date. Even if we adjust for ticket inflation, the '09 reboot is still the most successful, and Into Darkness only drops from #2 to #4.
I always ignore the "box office receipts" for the last 10 years and their hype about "biggest box office opening weekend to date", "highest grossing whatever blah blah" etc.
[in the US] The 1979 box office ticket prices were about $2.50 for prime time, and 1.50 for matinee. the 80s: all the way up to $4. In the 90s: up to $5.
2010: $8.25
Average price today, about $10.50
So divide those ridiculous millions by the price of admission to get the actual number of PEOPLE who bought tickets.
For this example, I am averaging straight up 1/2 ticket sales at matinee prices, and 1/2 at prime time prices.
Compare now: The Motion Picture 1979: 280,000,000 tickets sold
compared to: Star Trek JJ – 85,525,000 tickets sold.
I went to every [TOS] Star Trek movie at least 3 times back then. I almost fell asleep watching the reboot on the big screen. Oh, and I kept every ticket stub from every Star Trek anything I have ever been to.
I think us old timer Trekkies win.
You make a good point that even inflation incorporated would not be as accurate because inflation assumes all prices of everything rise equally when they don't, so I'm not sure if movie admission cost inflated at the same rate of general inflation. Number of patrons would certainly be more accurate, though I doubt that information was tracked in the 60's.
I think the major flaw in your analysis is that half the tickets are matinees! How many people can go to a matinee on a weekday?? The significant majority of tickets sold on weekdays would not be matinees obviously, and even weekends matinees only run from noon to what, 3pm start time? While non matinees are 5-midnight or so, so even if every theater were full it would be impossible to have 50% matinees.
I do not like TOS, mainly due to the way the show presented women. I know, it were the 60s, and at least they tried a female first officer in the pilot but the good will does not help with what was shown ever after. From today's perspective I cannot watch this and take it by any means seriously. Overacting, handcombat in nearly (or literally?) each episode and a girl for Kirk on each planet. The show met the audience's taste back then, but it does not meet mine in 2019.
Still I would never say that DB should not add anything from TOS any more as lots of players enjoy that stuff. Live and let live.^^
You have to realize even in that era, TOS was incredibly progressive for its time. To even feature Uhura, Sulu, and even Chekov was a HUGE deal, let alone the interracial kiss scene. Roddenberry was well ahead of his time.
And you're doing a disservice, because you're comparing something from an era where people would literally hang pie plates up to serve as UFOs. By today's standards, the only movies that hold up are the ones with incredible acting and writing, which, you're right, are two categories in which TOS did not excel.
----
Meanwhile, I'm going to say once more: JJ Abrams hated Star Trek. He took Star Trek and made a Star Wars movie out of it. That entire final scene in Into Darkness might as well be Coruscant. And worst of all, he made the Federation Fascist.
You have to realize even in that era, TOS was incredibly progressive for its time. To even feature Uhura, Sulu, and even Chekov was a HUGE deal, let alone the interracial kiss scene. Roddenberry was well ahead of his time.
And you're doing a disservice, because you're comparing something from an era where people would literally hang pie plates up to serve as UFOs. By today's standards, the only movies that hold up are the ones with incredible acting and writing, which, you're right, are two categories in which TOS did not excel.
As I said: Those were the 60s (and 70s) - I am fully aware of your arguments. But progressive back then is still backwards today. I do not see how time amends this. If I watch this today it just annoys me and I am not old enough to have transfigured childhood memories connected with it airing the first time. I eventually fell for ST with TNG. But even everything from TNG to DS9 and VOY I do not like to watch nowadays, for me it is just over. Still the characters out of these arouse positive emotions for me which TOS's simply not do.
But my point was not about how good or bad TOS or the JJ movies are but that not everybody likes the same stuff and that I find it terrible how selfish people are regarding this topic. The same is true for DISC btw. I preferred if the haters swallowed their perpetual comments on it.
Wir, die Mirror Tribbles [MiT] haben freie Plätze zu vergeben. Kein Zwang und kein Stress, dafür aber Spaß, Discord und eine nette, hilfsbereite Gemeinschaft, incl. voll ausgebauter Starbase und täglich 700 ISM.
I think the JJ haters are the same people that hate Disco and they will hate the new Picard series as well. Some fans do not want any new trek. They want to live in nostalgia with their treasured shows and movies they grew up watching. That's fine if people want to not watch anything new but they should allow the rest of us to and to enjoy it. And why does the criticism almost always use the word "hate?" Can't they just say that they "dislike" it or that it is not their "favorite." Why must it be this over the top rhetoric? It just makes them sound silly. Now one of them will probably quote me and say they use the word "hate" because they HATE it. Good grief. Haha.
You have to realize even in that era, TOS was incredibly progressive for its time. To even feature Uhura, Sulu, and even Chekov was a HUGE deal, let alone the interracial kiss scene. Roddenberry was well ahead of his time.
And you're doing a disservice, because you're comparing something from an era where people would literally hang pie plates up to serve as UFOs. By today's standards, the only movies that hold up are the ones with incredible acting and writing, which, you're right, are two categories in which TOS did not excel.
As I said: Those were the 60s (and 70s) - I am fully aware of your arguments. But progressive back then is still backwards today. I do not see how time amends this. If I watch this today it just annoys me and I am not old enough to have transfigured childhood memories connected with it airing the first time. I eventually fell for ST with TNG. But even everything from TNG to DS9 and VOY I do not like to watch nowadays, for me it is just over. Still the characters out of these arouse positive emotions for me which TOS's simply not do.
But my point was not about how good or bad TOS or the JJ movies are but that not everybody likes the same stuff and that I find it terrible how selfish people are regarding this topic. The same is true for DISC btw. I preferred if the haters swallowed their perpetual comments on it.
First, I understand if you don't like TOS as a show. I actually don't either. My reason is that I actually don't care much for characters - I love ships, and ship battles. That's why DS9 is my favorite series. I actually like DISCOVERY for the special effects and beautiful cinematography.
I'm just saying, in a larger sense, you can't really ignore history because it's racist or sexist. We are only here, enjoying the individual rights and freedoms that we enjoy in 2019, because of the work of progressives of those eras. It's important to study history regardless of how it makes you feel, because we can remember those lessons and not repeat the mistakes.
Perhaps I'm turning your simple dislike of a show into a soapbox issue about history, but I also spent time this week reading about how the president (of an entire country!) thought there were airports in 1783, so it's all relative.
I think the JJ haters are the same people that hate Disco and they will hate the new Picard series as well. Some fans do not want any new trek. They want to live in nostalgia with their treasured shows and movies they grew up watching. That's fine if people want to not watch anything new but they should allow the rest of us to and to enjoy it. And why does the criticism almost always use the word "hate?" Can't they just say that they "dislike" it or that it is not their "favorite." Why must it be this over the top rhetoric? It just makes them sound silly. Now one of them will probably quote me and say they use the word "hate" because they HATE it. Good grief. Haha.
Dude, come on. Obviously we want new content, and content changes with the era. Even Enterprise got WAY darker after 9/11, with the Xindi arc. We want a Trek that continues to evolve, so that it can excite new viewers the way it excited us (Myself in 1992, as an eight year old). Obviously they can't keep making a show like TOS in 2019 and have new viewers be interested.
However, that being said... There's a reason a lot of people think The Orville is a more fitting tribute to Trek than Discovery. In a word... optimism.
On a personal note, I'm not mad that Star Trek went in a different direction in 2009. I'm mad that Abrams only accepted the job to prove he could handle a Star Wars movie, and bragged about never being a fan.
Also, to the person somewhere in this thread that was HAPPY that Abrams effectively remade Star Trek II with "Into Darkness." Why? Why would you be happy about that? First off, why couldn't JJ come up with his own plot? But even in remaking, how on Earth was it in any way an improvement?
How can you tell when a Star Trek fan doesn’t like the Abrams movies? Don’t worry - they’ll tell you. Again and again. And again and again and again. Often without any prompting! And again and again and again and again and again....
I do not like TOS, mainly due to the way the show presented women. I know, it were the 60s, and at least they tried a female first officer in the pilot but the good will does not help with what was shown ever after. From today's perspective I cannot watch this and take it by any means seriously. Overacting, handcombat in nearly (or literally?) each episode and a girl for Kirk on each planet. The show met the audience's taste back then, but it does not meet mine in 2019.
Still I would never say that DB should not add anything from TOS any more as lots of players enjoy that stuff. Live and let live.^^
You have to realize even in that era, TOS was incredibly progressive for its time. To even feature Uhura, Sulu, and even Chekov was a HUGE deal, let alone the interracial kiss scene. Roddenberry was well ahead of his time.
And you're doing a disservice, because you're comparing something from an era where people would literally hang pie plates up to serve as UFOs. By today's standards, the only movies that hold up are the ones with incredible acting and writing, which, you're right, are two categories in which TOS did not excel.
----
Meanwhile, I'm going to say once more: JJ Abrams hated Star Trek. He took Star Trek and made a Star Wars movie out of it. That entire final scene in Into Darkness might as well be Coruscant. And worst of all, he made the Federation Fascist.
I don’t think you have to look very hard at all to find evidence that even the Prime Universe version of the Federation is rather fascist in its own right, never mind the Kelvinverse version. I have written at some length on that subject previously and in any case am in the middle of something, so I won’t do it again here.
I also find the Kelvinverse fascinating from a “how would the Federation develop differently” standpoint. The fact that Admiral Marcus is even able to do the things he did in Into Darkness suggest that the Narada’s appearance truly frightened the Federation into a different course of sociopolitical and technological development (same goes for the Klingons). Complain all you like about how Abrams made Trek too much like Star Wars, but Trek’s most impactful moments were when they examined people and politics (see also: DS9)...if you want an action-free series of diatribes on exploration and philosophy, there are plenty of places to get that from elsewhere.
I think the JJ haters are the same people that hate Disco and they will hate the new Picard series as well. Some fans do not want any new trek. They want to live in nostalgia with their treasured shows and movies they grew up watching. That's fine if people want to not watch anything new but they should allow the rest of us to and to enjoy it. And why does the criticism almost always use the word "hate?" Can't they just say that they "dislike" it or that it is not their "favorite." Why must it be this over the top rhetoric? It just makes them sound silly. Now one of them will probably quote me and say they use the word "hate" because they HATE it. Good grief. Haha.
To put this in perspective, I love JJ Abrahms work for all he did before ST. Alias is still one of my all time favourite shows. Westworld is amazing and genius. 11.22.63 was way better than I expected. Fringe was, again, one of my favourite shows on TV for the era. I could go on and on... (I never saw any of Lost, so I can't judge by that.)
[rant mode on]
When he got to Star Trek, and basically imploded the entire fandom of ST's brains with one scene by blowing up Vulcan, and creating the "JJ-Verse", it became clear to me that this was a reinventing of a story, but definitely NOT Star Trek. I consider it all non-canon. He may have used certain characters names and set it in a somewhat familiar setting, but again, NOT Star Trek.
That being said, the 'reboot' movies have some redeeming values as a standalone franchise. They are very JJ-ish, and should never be considered anything more.
I agree with whoever pointed out that JJ used Khan and other such factors in the movie(s). This is fundamentally the problem with the entertainment industry right now – no creativity or imagination. They continue to churn out rehashed garbage with all the 'remakes' and 'reboots'. Charlie's Angels is on it's 4th iteration. Some things have had their time, and need to be laid to rest. Now, if someone ever tries to remake any of Spielbergs masterpieces, I will have to blow up Hollywood!
I'm just saying, in a larger sense, you can't really ignore history because it's racist or sexist. We are only here, enjoying the individual rights and freedoms that we enjoy in 2019, because of the work of progressives of those eras. It's important to study history regardless of how it makes you feel, because we can remember those lessons and not repeat the mistakes.
Perhaps I'm turning your simple dislike of a show into a soapbox issue about history, but I also spent time this week reading about how the president (of an entire country!) thought there were airports in 1783, so it's all relative.
I fullheartedly agree. I absolutely appreciate all previous endeavoures to make us stand where we are today regarding equality (but there is still a lot of work to do), and learning from history seems to be more difficult nowadays than we thought a decade ago.
Imho TOS used to take two steps forward and one step back with this regards. But i really do not watch ST or any other sort of entertainment show for historic research reasons anyway.
And... the speech was really hilarious (at least from the outside).
Wir, die Mirror Tribbles [MiT] haben freie Plätze zu vergeben. Kein Zwang und kein Stress, dafür aber Spaß, Discord und eine nette, hilfsbereite Gemeinschaft, incl. voll ausgebauter Starbase und täglich 700 ISM.
We don't need. And.. the players have voted.
No Kelvin timeline in SST. Period!
When was there a vote? I've been playing 2 and a half years and have seen no vote on this. I enjoyed JJ Trek.
Ya, there was.
It was a poll taken in this section about a year ago. You can do a search for it.
I would put a link, but I don't have time to find and paste here.
Would be nice to see a new film, regardless, maybe something from the reboot with a crossed timeline that Shatner could manage a part in as he's not getting any younger.
We don't need. And.. the players have voted.
No Kelvin timeline in SST. Period!
When was there a vote? I've been playing 2 and a half years and have seen no vote on this. I enjoyed JJ Trek.
Ya, there was.
It was a poll taken in this section about a year ago. You can do a search for it.
I would put a link, but I don't have time to find and paste here.
I have no opinion one way or the other, but I am very new to all things Trek.
Yes, this was it. I think there was another one as well, but this does the trick. Thx.👍
That didn't look like an official DB poll. Looks like a player poll. So DB hasn't officially put out a poll habe they? Anyway, they don't have the rights do there is no need for the outrage.........
I'm just saying, in a larger sense, you can't really ignore history because it's racist or sexist. We are only here, enjoying the individual rights and freedoms that we enjoy in 2019, because of the work of progressives of those eras. It's important to study history regardless of how it makes you feel, because we can remember those lessons and not repeat the mistakes.
Perhaps I'm turning your simple dislike of a show into a soapbox issue about history, but I also spent time this week reading about how the president (of an entire country!) thought there were airports in 1783, so it's all relative.
I fullheartedly agree. I absolutely appreciate all previous endeavoures to make us stand where we are today regarding equality (but there is still a lot of work to do), and learning from history seems to be more difficult nowadays than we thought a decade ago.
Imho TOS used to take two steps forward and one step back with this regards. But i really do not watch ST or any other sort of entertainment show for historic research reasons anyway.
And... the speech was really hilarious (at least from the outside).
This whole subthread is starting to remind me very strongly of a debate between Ben and Cassidy during a certain casino-themed DS9 episode...
I'll repeat for those in the back who might have missed it, but the better metric to compare films across different generations is ticket sales, not revenue generated. No matter how you account for inflation, it will never be as apples-to-apples as straight up tickets sold.
Don't tell someone to "grow up" if you aren't mature enough to appreciate the difference between ENT and VOY versus that sh!tstorm that was the Abrams movies.
Ugh, they were so terrible.
They were terrible in your opinion.
With that in mind, I'll also tell you to grow up and recognise the difference between personal taste and objective reality.
All forms of Trek have failings, every series, every movie, which can be used to beat them with, just as they have qualities that can be found according to each individual.
Into Darkness was great. They took the wrath of khan story then changed it a bit and they flipped Kirk and Spock's roles which was awesome! Remember that there cannot be new movies with the original cast and that a simple remake that did the exact same things would be boring. At the very least you have to admit that Simon Pegg was hilarious.
You say it was awesome, yet list a bunch of reasons why it was definitely not awesome. I actually thought it was a sarcastic post until the end.
Same, I was laughing cuz I was like this guy gets it! Oops, he doesn't get it
Can we talk about the slap in the face that is "trans-warp beaming"? Why even bother with starships anymore we can just beam anywhere we want in the galaxy
Ultimately I don't really care either way, so convince me, why do I need a virtually identical second set of the same crew that will presumably have the same traits/skills/etc?
Also, to the person somewhere in this thread that was HAPPY that Abrams effectively remade Star Trek II with "Into Darkness." Why? Why would you be happy about that? First off, why couldn't JJ come up with his own plot? But even in remaking, how on Earth was it in any way an improvement?
good grief ... i swear. Heaven forbid, there are lots of people who really liked the new 3 movies and aren't zealots or fanatics about what Trek is ... or isn't, or whatevertheheckyouthinkaboutit. Entertainment is subjective, everyone has different opinions, and they are entitled to them. Stop giving people grief about their taste in movies/shows
And worst of all, he made the Federation Fascist.
Wow, not the first time I've seen someone on this forum completely butcher the use of that word. But hey, so does most of the MSM out there. Maybe that's where people get their misinformation from.
Comments
You say it was awesome, yet list a bunch of reasons why it was definitely not awesome. I actually thought it was a sarcastic post until the end.
I hope this is kosher considering we see ads for it all the time while playing STT, but that other Trek game Fleet Command is exclusively the reboot movie ships/crew, for what it is worth. That to me spells out precisely what has been said in this thread, namely that the licenses for each are separate.
I am not a fan of those films, but that is not why I would be opposed to those crew being included in STT, I think it would be redundant, and messy with regard to artwork. Just my point zero two dollars' worth.
Personally I don't care if the JJ movies are or not in the game, and if they are in the future, I didn't stop playing for that.
Ya, there was.
It was a poll taken in this section about a year ago. You can do a search for it.
I would put a link, but I don't have time to find and paste here.
Is this the poll you are referring to?
https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/6248/should-jj-abrams-star-trek-movie-characters-be-added-to-timelines/p1
I have no opinion one way or the other, but I am very new to all things Trek.
We can even debate whether Crell Moser and Prof. Moriarty are "evil holograms" and still include them in the universe we claim to love so much...
But the notion that we can't include someone else's interpretation of star trek?
It’s like how people claim to be “progressive” and “tolerant,” right up to the point where you don’t agree with them.
I went to every [TOS] Star Trek movie at least 3 times back then. I almost fell asleep watching the reboot on the big screen. Oh, and I kept every ticket stub from every Star Trek anything I have ever been to.
I think us old timer Trekkies win.
That's a bit reductive, though. Going back to see the same movie in a theater multiple times isn't a decision that is made the same way today and it doesn't signify quite the same things today anymore, either. It's easier to decide to go back to see Trek for the third time when there isn't anything else grabbing your attention. Today's moviegoer, though, is bound to be interested in the latest Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney, Harry Potter/Wizarding World, Jurassic Park/World, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, etc. enough to choose that over a repeat viewing of Trek. It may be tempting to say, "But a *real* Trekkie wouldn't be into any of those things more than Star Trek!" but that's absurd for any number of reasons, not least of which being it doesn't mean they didn't go see Trek at all. Just not more than once.
Then there's the impact that the evolving home video market has had on movie-going decision making, to say nothing of the evolution of TV, streaming, video games, and the Internet all competing for one's time and money. Hollywood still hasn't figured out what to do about all that, and this year's sluggish box office sales have prompted renewed concerns that the movie-going experience altogether is an endangered form of entertainment.
Having said that, I am entirely jealous about you having those ticket stubs. That wasn't something my family, or anyone else I knew, did when I was a kid. Today, of course, I keep them, scan them in, add them to a Facebook album, and maintain a Letterboxd diary detailing the date and setting for each movie I see. Oh, those lost years...! *cries*
Yes a lot has changed. The main thing I think (besides cost) was those years the movies would stay in the theatre much longer, and you would be lucky to see them in video stores 18 months later. Now, I can get a digital copy of any first run movie for my home theatre within about a month or so of the premier. And yes, you have a solid point of all the choices as well. For instance, I am a pretty big Marvel fan at this point, but I waited until I got my HD copy of Avengers End Game for home a couple weeks ago, instead of seeing it in the theatre. Mostly due to time constraints, but I don't think I would have enjoyed it any more in the theatre.
I also have fond memories of meeting the entire original cast through all the Star Trek conventions all the way back to the 70's & 80's when I was a kid. I have all their signatures, some on bubble gum collector cards (remember those when there was actual gum inside the packs?)
Quinto's Spock was brilliant
You make a good point that even inflation incorporated would not be as accurate because inflation assumes all prices of everything rise equally when they don't, so I'm not sure if movie admission cost inflated at the same rate of general inflation. Number of patrons would certainly be more accurate, though I doubt that information was tracked in the 60's.
I think the major flaw in your analysis is that half the tickets are matinees! How many people can go to a matinee on a weekday?? The significant majority of tickets sold on weekdays would not be matinees obviously, and even weekends matinees only run from noon to what, 3pm start time? While non matinees are 5-midnight or so, so even if every theater were full it would be impossible to have 50% matinees.
You have to realize even in that era, TOS was incredibly progressive for its time. To even feature Uhura, Sulu, and even Chekov was a HUGE deal, let alone the interracial kiss scene. Roddenberry was well ahead of his time.
And you're doing a disservice, because you're comparing something from an era where people would literally hang pie plates up to serve as UFOs. By today's standards, the only movies that hold up are the ones with incredible acting and writing, which, you're right, are two categories in which TOS did not excel.
----
Meanwhile, I'm going to say once more: JJ Abrams hated Star Trek. He took Star Trek and made a Star Wars movie out of it. That entire final scene in Into Darkness might as well be Coruscant. And worst of all, he made the Federation Fascist.
But my point was not about how good or bad TOS or the JJ movies are but that not everybody likes the same stuff and that I find it terrible how selfish people are regarding this topic. The same is true for DISC btw. I preferred if the haters swallowed their perpetual comments on it.
First, I understand if you don't like TOS as a show. I actually don't either. My reason is that I actually don't care much for characters - I love ships, and ship battles. That's why DS9 is my favorite series. I actually like DISCOVERY for the special effects and beautiful cinematography.
I'm just saying, in a larger sense, you can't really ignore history because it's racist or sexist. We are only here, enjoying the individual rights and freedoms that we enjoy in 2019, because of the work of progressives of those eras. It's important to study history regardless of how it makes you feel, because we can remember those lessons and not repeat the mistakes.
Perhaps I'm turning your simple dislike of a show into a soapbox issue about history, but I also spent time this week reading about how the president (of an entire country!) thought there were airports in 1783, so it's all relative.
Dude, come on. Obviously we want new content, and content changes with the era. Even Enterprise got WAY darker after 9/11, with the Xindi arc. We want a Trek that continues to evolve, so that it can excite new viewers the way it excited us (Myself in 1992, as an eight year old). Obviously they can't keep making a show like TOS in 2019 and have new viewers be interested.
However, that being said... There's a reason a lot of people think The Orville is a more fitting tribute to Trek than Discovery. In a word... optimism.
On a personal note, I'm not mad that Star Trek went in a different direction in 2009. I'm mad that Abrams only accepted the job to prove he could handle a Star Wars movie, and bragged about never being a fan.
Also, to the person somewhere in this thread that was HAPPY that Abrams effectively remade Star Trek II with "Into Darkness." Why? Why would you be happy about that? First off, why couldn't JJ come up with his own plot? But even in remaking, how on Earth was it in any way an improvement?
I don’t think you have to look very hard at all to find evidence that even the Prime Universe version of the Federation is rather fascist in its own right, never mind the Kelvinverse version. I have written at some length on that subject previously and in any case am in the middle of something, so I won’t do it again here.
I also find the Kelvinverse fascinating from a “how would the Federation develop differently” standpoint. The fact that Admiral Marcus is even able to do the things he did in Into Darkness suggest that the Narada’s appearance truly frightened the Federation into a different course of sociopolitical and technological development (same goes for the Klingons). Complain all you like about how Abrams made Trek too much like Star Wars, but Trek’s most impactful moments were when they examined people and politics (see also: DS9)...if you want an action-free series of diatribes on exploration and philosophy, there are plenty of places to get that from elsewhere.
To put this in perspective, I love JJ Abrahms work for all he did before ST. Alias is still one of my all time favourite shows. Westworld is amazing and genius. 11.22.63 was way better than I expected. Fringe was, again, one of my favourite shows on TV for the era. I could go on and on... (I never saw any of Lost, so I can't judge by that.)
[rant mode on]
When he got to Star Trek, and basically imploded the entire fandom of ST's brains with one scene by blowing up Vulcan, and creating the "JJ-Verse", it became clear to me that this was a reinventing of a story, but definitely NOT Star Trek. I consider it all non-canon. He may have used certain characters names and set it in a somewhat familiar setting, but again, NOT Star Trek.
That being said, the 'reboot' movies have some redeeming values as a standalone franchise. They are very JJ-ish, and should never be considered anything more.
I agree with whoever pointed out that JJ used Khan and other such factors in the movie(s). This is fundamentally the problem with the entertainment industry right now – no creativity or imagination. They continue to churn out rehashed garbage with all the 'remakes' and 'reboots'. Charlie's Angels is on it's 4th iteration. Some things have had their time, and need to be laid to rest. Now, if someone ever tries to remake any of Spielbergs masterpieces, I will have to blow up Hollywood!
[rant mode off]
Oh, and I love Discovery. Just saying.
speak for yourself yo.
Second Star to the Right - Join Today!
Imho TOS used to take two steps forward and one step back with this regards. But i really do not watch ST or any other sort of entertainment show for historic research reasons anyway.
And... the speech was really hilarious (at least from the outside).
Yes, this was it. I think there was another one as well, but this does the trick. Thx.👍
Is this a tribble on JJ Kirk's head?
That didn't look like an official DB poll. Looks like a player poll. So DB hasn't officially put out a poll habe they? Anyway, they don't have the rights do there is no need for the outrage.........
This whole subthread is starting to remind me very strongly of a debate between Ben and Cassidy during a certain casino-themed DS9 episode...
They were terrible in your opinion.
With that in mind, I'll also tell you to grow up and recognise the difference between personal taste and objective reality.
All forms of Trek have failings, every series, every movie, which can be used to beat them with, just as they have qualities that can be found according to each individual.
So it comes down to personal preference.
Same, I was laughing cuz I was like this guy gets it! Oops, he doesn't get it
Can we talk about the slap in the face that is "trans-warp beaming"? Why even bother with starships anymore we can just beam anywhere we want in the galaxy
good grief ... i swear. Heaven forbid, there are lots of people who really liked the new 3 movies and aren't zealots or fanatics about what Trek is ... or isn't, or whatevertheheckyouthinkaboutit. Entertainment is subjective, everyone has different opinions, and they are entitled to them. Stop giving people grief about their taste in movies/shows
Wow, not the first time I've seen someone on this forum completely butcher the use of that word. But hey, so does most of the MSM out there. Maybe that's where people get their misinformation from.
Second Star to the Right - Join Today!