Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
AmarettoPie said:
But, see, that's funny because it only lasts a few minutes. You don't have to deal with the feeling of knowing it's going to be stretched to last a whole series.
Click to expand...
Yeah, rate me autistic, but this is what bugs me about people that don't understand comedy.

Silliness works for a "one off" - like the Robot Chicken sketch or Spaceballs. It CANNOT work for a sustained long work like a series. For that, you need a touch of seriousness - and by that I mean the characters have to be dead serious (even if they're hilarious). For an example, the showrunners of That 70s Show hired Aston Kutcher because they said of everybody that auditioned for Kelso, he was the only one who acted like Kelso believed he was smart.

For a grade A perfect exhibit, look at Galaxy Quest. Part of what makes it work is the character journey of the actors moving away from the self-awareness of "this is an act" into a sincerity of who the Thermians believe them to be.

At least what I've seen so far, the Orville looks to be improving in this regard, starting out a bit too self-aware silly but has been steadily growing into where it should have started.

Everyone admits that comedies start sucking when they become self-aware, when the 4th wall grows to thin. This whole animated show looks like it starts at the jump the shark moment of a long running sitcom.

Kinotobie said:
Once you establish magical abilities to do whatever you want, nothing is off the table. It's from the same way of thinking, that if its advanced tech then just anything is acceptable.
Click to expand...
@UnKillFill already pointed out the other flaws in your post. I'm just pointing out here that you undercut your own argument. Because TMP, the very first movie, established a primitive earth prob had magical powers to bring back the sexy bald chick. So then therefore there is no flaw with the genesis device because "just anything is acceptable." And I can apply this back to the TOS to bring up all kinds of episodes where magic shit happened per your standard so you just have to admit already that you hate all of Star Trek.
 
How long will it take for CBS to realize that you can't make Star Trek palatable to normalfags without taking away what makes it interesting
 
Joe Swanson said:
How long will it take for CBS to realize that you can't make Star Trek palatable to normalfags without taking away what makes it interesting
Click to expand...
By the time Star Trek tech is actually real
Edit: Looked up the trailer to laugh at it, but uhhhh

1594780889696.png

To use Plinkett:

How Embarassing
 
Uranus Pink said:
Major problem with the Genesis Device isn't whether it works or not, but the location of the target celestial body. No effing good to create an habitable world when it is still in a location that prevented said world from being life sustainable in the first place. Too close to a sun, or suns, black hole and such or too far away from a sun.
Click to expand...

You know what always bothered me the most about Genesis? It wasn't even the device itself, it was that cave they walk into in the middle of the movie. Pause the shot and look at the matte painting. It looks like there's sunlight beaming down from some location offscreen. In a cave. Now I know you can justify that with an artifical light source and all but like, with zero explanation that always made my brain think "oh yeah Genesis also just creates a sun incase you needed a sun".

ST3 rather dispproved that bit of weird headcanon anyway but it still makes me wonder what the fuck is generating that light since the Enterprise doesn't detect any kind of infrastructure on the planet.
 
Last edited:
Flexo said:
For a grade A perfect exhibit, look at Galaxy Quest. Part of what makes it work is the character journey of the actors moving away from the self-awareness of "this is an act" into a sincerity of who the Thermians believe them to be.
Click to expand...
I lied. My favorite ST movie is Galaxy Quest.

Seriously though, I don't think Lower Decks will be around that long, for all of the reasons mentioned above. Looks like licensed Rick and Morty garbage.

I've seen plenty of reviews saying DS9 is worth the watch but haven't gotten around to it. Only watched all the movies, TOS, and TNG. Voyager and Enterprise seem universally panned as well.
 
Hot Dawg said:
I've seen plenty of reviews saying DS9 is worth the watch but haven't gotten around to it. Only watched all the movies, TOS, and TNG. Voyager and Enterprise seem universally panned as well.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this myself. I also haven't seen DS9 but wouldn't rule it out. However, my last movie was the first reboot movie because I could see it in IMAX. I haven't seen any of the Woke Trek shit.
 
AnOminous said:
Pretty much this myself. I also haven't seen DS9 but wouldn't rule it out. However, my last movie was the first reboot movie because I could see it in IMAX. I haven't seen any of the Woke Trek shit.
Click to expand...
Honestly Beyond isn't that bad, probably the strongest of the reboot movies. Avoid Into Darkness at all costs. It was one of the only movies I ever left legitimately angry and disappointed.
 
Hot Dawg said:
Honestly Beyond isn't that bad, probably the strongest of the reboot movies. Avoid Into Darkness at all costs. It was one of the only movies I ever left legitimately angry and disappointed.
Click to expand...
Beyond was entertaining because they got a director that isn't a hack fraud milking nostalgia for all it's worth, and a screenplay not written by the dynamic duo of Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman. The whole cast got a chance to shine, and it wasn't just the Kirk and Spock Adventure Movie again. The plot was pretty forgettable (ANOTHER revenge story), but the character interactions were entertaining and helped to carry the film. Shame it did so poorly at the box office, just when the reboot was actually taking a positive turn.

I can't prove this for sure, but I think Into Darkness being as shitty as it was led to a lot of people skipping out on Beyond. They probably lost a lot of Trekkies by trying to pull the ol' "oh it's not just gonna be Wrath of Khan again!" switcheroo; I know I audibly groaned when Spock did the Khan scream. Dunno why normies gave up exactly; maybe they were put off by the depressing tone or the nonsense plot. Either way, yet another franchise that JJ managed to kill, and now Kurtzman is just raping the corpse.
 
King Dead said:
The plot was pretty forgettable (ANOTHER revenge story)
Click to expand...
and for the first time in JJ Trek, the revenge story made sense

I can't prove this for sure, but I think Into Darkness being as shitty as it was led to a lot of people skipping out on Beyond.
Click to expand...
The big delay between Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness killed the hype for the second and third movie. By the time they came up with a plot for Into Darkness, people had already moved on.
There's another issue: Bad Robot thinks that Star Trek can have the same amount of audience as Star Wars, they're wrong. It's a big franchise sure, but it's a niche franchise.
Like I said in a previous post, JJ Trek isn't Star Trek, it's Trek based on the pop culture references. That's why the big reveal in Into Darkness failed: "my name is... Khan". Khan who? Should nuKirk be scared of "Khan"? Why? They don't know each other, they have to get oldSpock on Skype from his bathroom to get the exposition dump. They've remade TWoK without having seen the movie.
 
Last edited:
Miller said:
and for the first time in JJ Trek, the revenge story made sense


The big delay between Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness killed the hype for the second and third movie. By the time they came up with a plot for Into Darkness, people had already moved on.
There's another issue: Bad Robot thinks that Star Trek can have the same amount of audience as Star Wars, they're wrong. It's a big franchise sure, but it's a niche franchise.
Like I said in a previous post, JJ Trek isn't Star Trek, it's Trek based on the pop culture references. That's why the big reveal in Into Darkness failed: "my name is... Khan". Khan who? Should nuKirk be scared of "Khan"? Why? They don't know each other, they have to get oldSpock on Skype from his bathroom to get the exposition dump. They've remade TWoK without having seen the movie.
Click to expand...
True. I think it's clear JJ wanted Star Wars all along (and we all know how that went when he did), but at the time Lucas wasn't going to make more Star Wars movies, so JJ had to settle for Trek instead. And because JJ doesn't know how to do anything besides plastering shitty nostalgia bait and references over a seizure-inducing CGI nightmare, that's what JJ Trek ended up being. It was only popular because it had brand recognition behind it and it was "cool" and "slick" or whatever, and even then it wasn't really popular.

I went and looked up the box office for the three movies because I was curious:
  • Star Trek (2009): budget $150 million, box office $385.7 million
  • Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): budget $190 million, box office $467.4 million
  • Star Trek Beyond (2016): budget $185 million, box office $343.5 million
So all of them did decently, but none of them were the runaway hits that Hollywood wants and needs. Beyond's box office being over $100 million lower than Into Darkness probably sealed the fate of the reboot series; Anton Yelchin's death probably didn't help matters either. I'd also forgotten that it was four years between JJ Trek and Into Darkness; I honestly thought it was only three years. You're probably right that it took too long to make a sequel that really capitalized on the first movie's success; a lot of people still saw it, but it wasn't a huge success.

I've been going back and watching/rewatching the TOS movies recently, and they really go to show just how soulless everything post-JJ Trek has been. Even the weaker ones like Star Trek V still feel like Trek, still have something to say. What do we get out of JJ Trek or Kurtzman Trek besides a crushing sense of disappointment?
 
FYI for the interested.
www.blu-ray.com

The Captains Collection Blu-ray (UPDATED)

www.blu-ray.com www.blu-ray.com
The Captains Collection Blu-ray
Shout Factory will release on Blu-ray The Captains Collection. The four-disc set will be available for purchase on October 20.

Description: For the first time on Blu-ray, The Captains Collection features four acclaimed Star Trek documentaries directed by William Shatner.
1595006956231.png
 
Miller said:
and for the first time in JJ Trek, the revenge story made sense


The big delay between Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness killed the hype for the second and third movie. By the time they came up with a plot for Into Darkness, people had already moved on.
There's another issue: Bad Robot thinks that Star Trek can have the same amount of audience as Star Wars, they're wrong. It's a big franchise sure, but it's a niche franchise.
Like I said in a previous post, JJ Trek isn't Star Trek, it's Trek based on the pop culture references. That's why the big reveal in Into Darkness failed: "my name is... Khan". Khan who? Should nuKirk be scared of "Khan"? Why? They don't know each other, they have to get oldSpock on Skype from his bathroom to get the exposition dump. They've remade TWoK without having seen the movie.
Click to expand...
One of the best criticisms I've ever heard about J.J Trek is that those films are based entirely on normie pop culture interpretations of Star Trek.
Think about it.
Kirk is a giga chad ladies man dude-bro because that's what your average normie thinks Kirk is like.
Spock is about muh logic, Bones is a doctor, not an *x* and so on.
Nu Trek is like the pod person version of Star Trek.
Filmmaking by cultural osmosis if that makes any sense.
 
Last edited:
BR55 said:
One of the best criticisms I've ever heard about J.J Trek is that those films are based entirely on normie pop culture interpretations of Star Trek.
Think about it.
Kirk is a giga chad ladies man dude-bro because that's what your average normie thinks Kirk is like.
Spock is about muh logic, Bones is a doctor, not an *x* and so on.
Nu Trek is like the pod person version of Star Trek.
Click to expand...
That's actually my theory. You will never find the spirit of Star Trek in any of JJ or Kurtzman productions because they rely only on the pop culture aspect of the brand.
 
I've noticed adverts as news articles (but I repeat myself) that seem to be pushing the same message. "Below Decks uses the '90s aesthetic!" "Star Trek is a hopeful message our Current Year needs!"

Maybe I'm the only one getting that impression, but it really seems to me that advertisements for Nu Trek are trying to distance it from Nu Trek.

It's a bit like how the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a huge hit, beloved by all but a small group of manchildren, but Lucasfilms decided to stop making live action films because Disney doesn't like money.
 
BR55 said:
One of the best criticisms I've ever heard about J.J Trek is that those films are based entirely on normie pop culture interpretations of Star Trek.
Think about it.
Kirk is a giga chad ladies man dude-bro because that's what your average normie thinks Kirk is like.
Spock is about muh logic, Bones is a doctor, not an *x* and so on.
Nu Trek is like the pod person version of Star Trek.
Click to expand...
Whoever made that observation was probably half in the baaaaaag.
 
Honka Honka Burning Love said:
So as I have been watching The Orville as I have detailed in the thread there, and I just finished a 2 part episode and..I think it rivals at least half of the TNG 2 part episodes in quality.
Click to expand...
It's almost like if you put people who genuinely like and understand a franchise in charge of it (or in this case, in charge of a close analog), you'll have a much better chance of producing something good. Who could have fucking guessed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom