• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Star Trek's J.J. Abrams: 'This film's not for Trekkies'

Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Trey of Diamonds said:
Yes but why does your opinion matter? What matters is if there is enough interest to sustain the franchise. Obviously there is enough to get the movie approved and if it does well then there is enough for it to continue. The fact that you don't like it has little or no relevance.
Click to expand...
I'm sure to him it matters. To me it matters. "Matters" is relative. That the franchise has to survive is relative. That the movie be approved is relative. That Star Trek continue is relative.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Trek was always meant as a social commentary.. the sci-fi aspects were almost secondary.
I think a lot of the reason successive shows failed was they forgot that part of the show... the 60's morality play of it.

wa:do
 
Trey of Diamonds

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
I'm sure to him it matters. To me it matters. "Matters" is relative. That the franchise has to survive is relative. That the movie be approved is relative. That Star Trek continue is relative.
Click to expand...

I was responding in the context of his quote.

YmirGF said:
Personally speaking, I don't see why we need yet another Star Trek. Is it me or hasn't this been done to death already? I see this as just another sign that Hollywood has last its grip on creativity and originality.
Click to expand...

His opinion doesn't matter to Hollywood, for them the bottomline is will it sell and so what matters is whether or not there is a fan base who will pay to see the movie. His opinion matters to him and surely some others but as for Hollywood, not at all.
 
Elessar

Elessar

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
Trek was always meant as a social commentary.. the sci-fi aspects were almost secondary.
I think a lot of the reason successive shows failed was they forgot that part of the show... the 60's morality play of it.

wa:do
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Star Trek was meant as pure social commentary; the science fiction was absolutely secondary, and, in the 1960s on television, that was a good thing. Also, with the later series, they were trying to bend newer realities we understood from science around the relatively rationally developed (in its time) but incorrect science of the original series.

But, with the original series, the social commentary was always first, and science second. They had truly powerful social commentaries, such as "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" and "A Private Little War", commentaries on racism and the Cold War, respectively.

It was brilliant, in its day, but it was definitely not hard science fiction.
 
Smoke

Smoke

Done here.
YmirGF said:
But there's the rub, eh. When, exactly, was it last both "relevant and interesting"? My own thoughts are that Star Trek ran off the rails after TNG. I loved the original series, The Next Generation and most of the movies so far. The rest... Deep Snooze Nine and Voyeur... etc... seriously... sucked.
Click to expand...
I like TNG all right, and some of the movies, but DS9 was the only part of the whole franchise that I ever went out of my way to see.
 
J

Justcurious

New Member
Trey of Diamonds said:
It's sad but many people wont understand what you just said. They will consider Trek to be the very height of SF. I've always considered it to be a political potrayal of a socialist utopian state that promotes non-interferance over active participation in life. But that's just me.

Still, I always enjoyed the Trek series because they were a view into humanities possiblities. I just ignored the lack of science or had a good laugh at it.
Click to expand...

I am still looking up some of those words you just said. LOL I always enjoyed Star Trek because, and it's been said many times before, that it presented a Optimistic viewpoint of the future. So much Fantasy and Science Fiction is just down right depressing with its negativity. Like that John Ringo series you gave me to read Trey, I am allready on book three, it's been really enjoyable, but its not an optimistic viewpoint.

I think we could all use some optimism in this world today. Be optismistic while you still can before the politicians sap it out of you. lol Ooops, off topic.

Going to see Watchman now.
 
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
painted wolf said:
I think sometimes a few years off does a series good. It certainly helped Dr. Who.

wa:do
Click to expand...

I might be going to see Star Trek when it's a cheap end-of-release special, but if Doctor Who was a movie, I would be watching that on premiere day.
 
47Wasps

47Wasps

Member
Star Trek is an almost sacred franchise to me, and my feelings towards this film are very mixed. I think it will be an awesome action movie,with gorgeous special effects and starship designs.But I can't help but wonder if it will lack the feel of true Star Trek.

Still,all the reviews I've read have been ranged from outstanding to overall positive,so I have high hopes.
 
Trey of Diamonds

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Elessar said:
I won't read the review, because I don't want a single spoiler. But I highly doubt it beats out The Wrath of Khan, one of the finest films, science fiction or otherwise, of my experience.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Wrath is still my all time fav. Love me some Klingon Shakespeare.
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Wrath is great - probably the best - but I really love Undiscovered Country as well.
 
J Bryson

J Bryson

Well-Known Member
Undiscovered Country was excellent. A great send-off to the original cast. Frankly, if they'd allowed the Next Gen cast to simply have their own movie without the Kirk bridging device, I think that their introduction to the big screen would have been a better film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top