Beyond was kind of silly, but I think that's okay in Star Trek. The Voyage Home was mostly a silly movie, but still fun.

bobinator said:

---

I'm not trying to say that Into Darkness was a particularly good Star Trek movie, I just didn't think it ruined the franchise or anything. But Nemesis and The Final Frontier were just absolutely horrible movies.

It seems like we probably both agree that the 2009 Star Trek was good, I thought it had plenty of character depth to go along with an interesting story and everything else.

---

To be clear, the 2009 movie IMO is what I'd consider a middle of the road film with but a slightly below average Star Trek film. Nero and his crew felt under utilized and that Spock's outbursts of emotion were pretty out of character for him. If we go back to the original "The Cage" pilot that would be more in character, but that episode's canonicity is kind of tenuous and in the Abrams-verse likely never happened since the ship was effectively launched in the 2009 film or it was implied. One thing the movie did well was strike a bit of a balance between the human relationship, family, loss, and the action. Into Darkness would depart from that and have a bunch of action, and continue to see Spock act from an emotional driven perspective.

Also, while Nemesis is bad, Insurrection is worse, but they both deserve spots towards the bottom of ranking. Though, I have rewatched Nemesis, The Final Frontier, and Beyond more than Into Darkness and I think that should speak for itself and I'd personally rank The Final Frontier higher than Into Darkness, hell, I'd rank The Motion Picture higher than it as well.

Quote:

---

So I guess I just don't see how Into Darkness could 'ruin' the entire franchise, and like you said, I think Beyond was actually a pretty good installment. Certainly at least in the middle tier of Star Trek movies.

---

Mostly because Into Darkness becomes a generic sci-fi film of you remove any Star Trek relation to the film. Remember how Pine did that Jack Ryan movie, but it felt more like a Die Hard movie? Pretty much in that same way since, as I recall, the Jack Ryan movie was originally a generic action film and was supposedly reworked to fit as a Tom Clancy film. When you remove the elements that make the franchise unique and interesting, that franchise tends to lose its identity and people/fans lose interest. I think that carried over from that film into Beyond's reception.

Quote:

---

But even before Abrams is not like Star Trek movies were all so unassailable that it would be blasphemous for someone like Tarantino to take a stab at one.

---

I mean, the best Star Trek show out right now isn't even a Star Trek branded show. It's The Orville, and MacFarlane wanted to do a true Star Trek show. I just don't see how what QT has made in the past fits in tonally/thematically with anything the franchise has done before. But the franchise and powers that be seems to have lost its way already.

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

bobinator said:

---

I'm not trying to say that Into Darkness was a particularly good Star Trek movie, I just didn't think it ruined the franchise or anything. But Nemesis and The Final Frontier were just absolutely horrible movies.

It seems like we probably both agree that the 2009 Star Trek was good, I thought it had plenty of character depth to go along with an interesting story and everything else.

---

To be clear, the 2009 movie IMO is what I'd consider a middle of the road film with but a slightly below average Star Trek film. Nero and his crew felt under utilized and that Spock's outbursts of emotion were pretty out of character for him. If we go back to the original "The Cage" pilot that would be more in character, but that episode's canonicity is kind of tenuous and in the Abrams-verse likely never happened since the ship was effectively launched in the 2009 film or it was implied. One thing the movie did well was strike a bit of a balance between the human relationship, family, loss, and the action. Into Darkness would depart from that and have a bunch of action, and continue to see Spock act from an emotional driven perspective.

Also, while Nemesis is bad, Insurrection is worse, but they both deserve spots towards the bottom of ranking. Though, I have rewatched Nemesis, The Final Frontier, and Beyond more than Into Darkness and I think that should speak for itself and I'd personally rank The Final Frontier higher than Into Darkness, hell, I'd rank The Motion Picture higher than it as well.

Quote:

---

So I guess I just don't see how Into Darkness could 'ruin' the entire franchise, and like you said, I think Beyond was actually a pretty good installment. Certainly at least in the middle tier of Star Trek movies.

---

Mostly because Into Darkness becomes a generic sci-fi film of you remove any Star Trek relation to the film. Remember how Pine did that Jack Ryan movie, but it felt more like a Die Hard movie? Pretty much in that same way since, as I recall, the Jack Ryan movie was originally a generic action film and was supposedly reworked to fit as a Tom Clancy film. When you remove the elements that make the franchise unique and interesting, that franchise tends to lose its identity and people/fans lose interest. I think that carried over from that film into Beyond's reception.

Quote:

---

But even before Abrams is not like Star Trek movies were all so unassailable that it would be blasphemous for someone like Tarantino to take a stab at one.

---

I mean, the best Star Trek show out right now isn't even a Star Trek branded show. It's The Orville, and MacFarlane wanted to do a true Star Trek show. I just don't see how what QT has made in the past fits in tonally/thematically with anything the franchise has done before. But the franchise and powers that be seems to have lost its way already.

---

So in your expert opinion.. Star Trek is at its best when its boring, campy, and has a ton of dialogue that makes the viewer fall asleep.

I'm only a fan of Star Trek because of the 2009 film and the two after, which did a great job of modernizing the franchise and getting rid of the campy crap, making it seem more realistic.

Sounds like you're more of a star wars kind of guy. And that's ok.

schmendeler said:

---

Sounds like you're more of a star wars kind of guy. And that's ok.

---

I was, but now I like both and can appreciate the best and worst from both.

I wouldn't want QT touching either.

But it sounds like you don't like star trek.

schmendeler said:

---

But it sounds like you don't like star trek.

---

I think some of the older stuff was pretty campy. But I've never said I don't like Star Trek.

mazag08 said:

---

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

bobinator said:

---

I'm not trying to say that Into Darkness was a particularly good Star Trek movie, I just didn't think it ruined the franchise or anything. But Nemesis and The Final Frontier were just absolutely horrible movies.

It seems like we probably both agree that the 2009 Star Trek was good, I thought it had plenty of character depth to go along with an interesting story and everything else.

---

To be clear, the 2009 movie IMO is what I'd consider a middle of the road film with but a slightly below average Star Trek film. Nero and his crew felt under utilized and that Spock's outbursts of emotion were pretty out of character for him. If we go back to the original "The Cage" pilot that would be more in character, but that episode's canonicity is kind of tenuous and in the Abrams-verse likely never happened since the ship was effectively launched in the 2009 film or it was implied. One thing the movie did well was strike a bit of a balance between the human relationship, family, loss, and the action. Into Darkness would depart from that and have a bunch of action, and continue to see Spock act from an emotional driven perspective.

Also, while Nemesis is bad, Insurrection is worse, but they both deserve spots towards the bottom of ranking. Though, I have rewatched Nemesis, The Final Frontier, and Beyond more than Into Darkness and I think that should speak for itself and I'd personally rank The Final Frontier higher than Into Darkness, hell, I'd rank The Motion Picture higher than it as well.

Quote:

---

So I guess I just don't see how Into Darkness could 'ruin' the entire franchise, and like you said, I think Beyond was actually a pretty good installment. Certainly at least in the middle tier of Star Trek movies.

---

Mostly because Into Darkness becomes a generic sci-fi film of you remove any Star Trek relation to the film. Remember how Pine did that Jack Ryan movie, but it felt more like a Die Hard movie? Pretty much in that same way since, as I recall, the Jack Ryan movie was originally a generic action film and was supposedly reworked to fit as a Tom Clancy film. When you remove the elements that make the franchise unique and interesting, that franchise tends to lose its identity and people/fans lose interest. I think that carried over from that film into Beyond's reception.

Quote:

---

But even before Abrams is not like Star Trek movies were all so unassailable that it would be blasphemous for someone like Tarantino to take a stab at one.

---

I mean, the best Star Trek show out right now isn't even a Star Trek branded show. It's The Orville, and MacFarlane wanted to do a true Star Trek show. I just don't see how what QT has made in the past fits in tonally/thematically with anything the franchise has done before. But the franchise and powers that be seems to have lost its way already.

---

So in your expert opinion.. Star Trek is at its best when its boring, campy, and has a ton of dialogue that makes the viewer fall asleep.

I'm only a fan of Star Trek because of the 2009 film and the two after, which did a great job of modernizing the franchise and getting rid of the campy crap, making it seem more realistic.

---

Not really what I was saying. Star Trek is at its best when you have both the deep, rich character elements that can be used to provide commentary mixed with action sequences to balance the more cerebral elements of the franchise. But I would personally put Beyond over the 2009, and I know I'm in the minority on that.

Though, I'll contend that throwing away those elements isn't real modernizing the franchise. Rather it's watering it down. The Abrams-verse produced one OK, one bad, and one good/OK film balancing that mix, but they're all decent popcorn flicks. TMP is pretty heavy on the cerebral/human condition, but it's also a feature length TOS episode that Roddenberry was [u]heavily[/u] involved in so this shouldn't necessarily be a surprise.

A fan is a fan, but even I don't care for or like everything the franchise pumped out. Liked TOS, DS9, and most of TNG. Was ok with ENT, didnt care for Voyager, and don't like Discovery. And I'll likely be passing on Picard.

I think a huge part of the issue is that Abrams didn't have a tv show to fall back on to develop characters.

Like, the only reason the characters work in the TNG movies is because we already know the characters from the TV show. They had years to develop them before they were on the big screen.

The TNG movies, without the show, would all be hot garbage.

But Abrams didn't have that, he's got to introduce the characters in the movie.

I actually liked that this Spock was different, but part of why he's different is because of the guidance of Old Spock and of his father, who only gave him that encouragement after the death of his mother, which were unique to this timeline. I kind of liked that aspect of it, if you change the circumstances, you change the man.

But back to my main point, I think introducing the characters to a whole new generation(s) of people and having the movie be really entertaining is a hard balance. I think they got it really right in the first movie, but then went a little sideways trying to be cute with the second movie.

But either way, I definitely think 'ruined the franchise' is overstating it. I'll still be seeing the next installation on opening night, even if it's some weird Tarantino version.

I'm not a huge Trek fan, but I did enjoy the 2009 movie. That and Wrath of Kahn are really the only two Trek movies I really liked. Into Darkness was decent, but I thought Beyond was bad. As far as Tarantino goes, I'm interested, but this is uncharted territory for QT with not only sci-fi, but an already established franchise. If this is a typical Tarantino script litter with f-bombs and N-words, and blood and gore all over the place, then it may look more like an SNL skit of a parody of Tarantino making a Star Trek movie.

Not really though right? He had to reintroduce all of them to everyone who's never seen any of the originals. He didn't just start the movie and not give anyone any backstory. No other Star Trek movie has had to do that.

And he had to recast all the characters. A difficult job that was done very well.

So there might actually be a decent Star Trek movie? He needs to do Star Wars next and give that something watchable.

TCTTS said:

---

Because Logan was such a disaster when they went this route...

---

I'm not against the dark & gritty remakes or versions, it's just that our goofy society can't handle it and will have to make EVERYTHING like that. It'll get tired and played out. The Twitter response was all: "Can't wait to see Spock/Kirk, etc. cuss their mother****ing heads off".

That's what 8th graders would say.

Maybe the QT movie could be a remake of The Voyage Home.

The crew comes to present-day where most everyone is vulgar, rude, and immature.

schmendeler said:

---

Either way I think Tarantino has earned the benefit of the doubt that he will make something highly entertaining and knows how to respect/pay service to a genre.

---

Agreed

Hollywood isn't suddenly going to start turning everything R, thus slicing a huge chunk out of their blockbuster audience. I don't know why everyone keeps saying this. That strategy wouldn't make any sense financially.

Exactly.

Mr. White said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Because Logan was such a disaster when they went this route...

---

I'm not against the dark & gritty remakes or versions, it's just that our goofy society can't handle it and will have to make EVERYTHING like that. It'll get tired and played out. The Twitter response was all: "Can't wait to see Spock/Kirk, etc. cuss their mother****ing heads off".

That's what 8th graders would say.

Maybe the QT movie could be a remake of The Voyage Home.

The crew comes to present-day where most everyone is vulgar, rude, and immature.

---

Spock will throw out some colorful mediphores, maybe neck pinch a thug with a boom box on a bus.

Yeah, like AliasMan02 said, I don't see how you don't think they'd need to reintroduce the characters.

Like I'd wager that MAYBE 10% of moviegoers could name the whole deck crew from the original series and what their characters are like. So he did *need* to re-introduce the characters. And not just their names, but enough of a backstory that we at least know them a little bit the first time any action pops up.

I consider myself a pretty hardcore Trek fan, which is why I just don't see how anyone could think the series was 'ruined' by Abrams. If you didn't like the movies, fine, but it's not like all of Hollywood needs to put down any Star Trek related projects because the whole thing is so far off the rails.

TCTTS said:

---

Because Logan was such a disaster when they went this route...

---

Logan has more heart than any Tarantino movie except maybe Kill Bill and I LIKE most of his movies. Just adding violence isn't what defines Tarantino, IMO.

I agree...

TCTTS said:

---

I agree...

---

I guess I should have clarified more that I don't think Tarantino could make a film like Logan. To be fair, this is a gut reaction because maybe Django has some elements of this. I could see Tarrantino making a film with some elements of the Star Trek universe (a klingon movie maybe).

We'll see how good Once Upon is, but generally I was really let down by the Hateful Eight. It felt like Tarrantino mailed that one in completely.

schmendeler said:

---

Either way I think Tarantino has earned the benefit of the doubt that he will make something highly entertaining and knows how to respect/pay service to a genre.

---

I've never been a fan of ST and I'm not that big on Tarantino, but Tarantino doing ST might get my attention.

Especially if it pays homage to the 60's series as far as the fashion is concerned. Chicks, human and alien, with big hair, short skirts, thigh high boots. I'm in.

As long as Johnny Depp isn't the lead, I'm in

Random thought...

The original Star Trek ended its initial TV run in 1969, the same year Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place. I know Tarantino did a lot of research for the OUATIH, and I wonder if in that research he came across some Trek nugget that gave him the idea for a Trek movie...

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

I would rather Taratino do a Jurassic World movie. that would be awesome.

---

hard reboot of Jurassic Park.

Sam Jackson reprises his role as Ray Arnold, the foul mouthed, chain smoking IT Director.

Hold on to your f***ing butts, mother f***ers

Ahhhh..AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....mother f***er raptor bit my f***ing arm off. AHHHHHH!