Is a $72.5m Opening Weekend Enough For Star Trek? 820
brumgrunt writes "At first glance, JJ Abrams' Star Trek has won over audiences as well as critics as it stormed to a $72.5m US opening weekend. However, Den Of Geek sounds a note of caution. Can it hold an audience for a second week? How do its numbers stack up? And as Wolverine looks like its struggling to reach $200m off an $85m opening weekend, is Star Trek yet the huge hit blockbuster that some of the headlines are suggesting?"
Who cares? (Score:1, Insightful)
What does it all have to be about the opening weekend?
I don't know much about the industry, so I'd appreciate a good answer.
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between Trek and Wolverine is that fanboys were excited about seeing Wolverine while fanboys were enraged at the idea of a Trek reboot (thus the bigger opening weekend).
Except Wolverine was horrible. Really, really bad. For people who were fans of the characters, the movie completely got the characterizations wrong. For people who just wanted to see a good movie, the writing was atrocious and the story was just weak.
And Trek was really quite good - ESPECIALLY for a Trek film. There was enough there that new audiences could get into it and enjoy it as a film, and it was well done enough that fanboys have to grudgingly admit it was not the worst. movie. ever.
One opens strong and then tanks once people realize just how bad it is, the other opens a little less strong and I imagine it'll keep going strong for awhile.
Re:What Critics? (Score:2, Insightful)
This word you keep using; I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Worst Case (Score:5, Insightful)
sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek, however, is not going to struggle because it's about as perfect a reboot of the Star Trek franchise as one could hope for. Sure, hardcore Trekkies might rage about this or that and it isn't a flawless movie so someone will try to prove their movie critic cred by picking it apart but the reality is that it's an excellent movie that people are going to recommend to their friends.
Simple lesson to be learned - make a good movie and you'll have long term success. Make a hot movie and you'll have a great opening weekend. Make both and you'll have a great opening weekend and long term success. It's not rocket science.
Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reviews are the key to the second wave (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad thing is that your first sentence equates 'blockbuster' with "adaptation." This says a lot about the state of Hollywood... that nothing original can be a blockbuster now. Thank you MPAA.
Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Worst Case (Score:5, Insightful)
I got a kick out of Zephram Cochrane too. After all, if you literally are living in a post-apocalyptic world why wouldn't you be somewhat of a nihilist.
What competition does it have? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Terminator Salvation," comes out in two weeks, but after that there's nothing geared toward the 18-35 male demographic until "Transformers 2" in late July.
This summer is more full of empty weekends and movies geared toward other groups ("Angels & Demons" = adults, "Up"=children [though everyone likes Pixar movies]) than we've seen in a while. With good word of mouth, "Star Trek" should have some staying power against some thin competition.
Re:first post! (Score:2, Insightful)
Star trek will get the loyal fans from the earlier movies, Wolverine had less of a fan base
I don't know. Maybe I am in the minority, but I feel as though this movie really is a drastic departure from the Star Trek concept. I'm not going to see it until it comes out on DVD. From the previews, it just doesn't look like Star Trek anymore. They've finally removed the last little bit from the original concept and its just another action movie. The only reason I'm interested in it at all is because it seems to be a pretty good action movie. Might have even seen it in the theater if I wasn't a bit upset about the use of the Star Trek franchise to market this kind of movie.
Then again, it is better then having them try to be faithful to the Star Trek philosophy and failing, which is what most of the Star Trek movies have been lately. Its too bad. They really had something there with TNG and it just petered out.
It's all relative to expectations (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
And Trek was really quite good - ESPECIALLY for a Trek film. There was enough there that new audiences could get into it and enjoy it as a film, and it was well done enough that fanboys have to grudgingly admit it was not the worst. movie. ever.
It may not be the worst movie ever, but it is kinda like releasing a Sherlock Holmes movie where he runs around with a giant gun killing people until he solves the crime. Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially they explained it in the movie: It's an alternate reality -- alternate timeline. Spock and the Romulon's getting yanked into the blackhole back in time changed the original timeline. Wonder if Q cares enough to fix it.
Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought that's what "reboot" is supposed to mean. Clean slate, reimagine anything you like without being tied to canon.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this movie could re-gain some lost loyal fans. The fact that it wipes the slate clean and pretty much starts the franchise over again is a GREAT thing IMHO. Yeah, it's a little over the top, but that's probably what the franchise needs... Everyone is sick of stupid buzz words that don't mean anything, sitting along side a totally swiss cheesed universe.
Re:Worst Case (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd. I heard the exact opposite, from die-hard star trek fans that refused to watch the other recently released movies because "they're just SO NOT star trek". After suggesting they should watch it, they fell in love with it (again).
Maybe not being faithful in its representation of star trek made it faithful to it. I mean, if ST was about anything (well, more so the series, less so the movies) it was pushing the envelope of what's "standard" in its own world.
My guess is that people had enough of the cookie-cutter heroes without an edge or a speck on their shiny white armor. People don't want heros on podests. They want heroes they can identify with. And a drunk medic and a cheating smartass wanna-be captain certainly is closer to home to the average movie goer than a Earl Grey tea sipping diplomat.
Re:Worst Case (Score:2, Insightful)
I took the implication was that the Queen was just another drone that was chosen to embody the collective consciousness. It made for some interesting dialog between Data and the Queen. But I think the the idea is that even though the Borg have a collective consciousness why would that uber-mind be cold and emotionless. Since its probably damn near impossible to portray the traditional disembodied group echo as having emotion I think the Queen was a reasonable plot vehicle as a "Borg Mouthpiece" much as Locutus was meant to be.
Nope, sorry. The Borg Queen could not be a simple mouthpiece for the collective, because she was the point of failure for the entire local collective; her death caused the deaths of all the Borg she controlled.
Which is why, as was pointed out above, her addition to the plot was like a turd down the throat of the Borg's awesomeness.
Fandom (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone keeps saying Abrams wasn't a trek fan, but does anyone know if the actual screen writers (Orci and Kurtzman) are? It's like people forget the director doesn't pull a completed movie out of thin air without the involvement of anyone else.
I liked the film, I guess, and I thought Quinto nailed the young and conflicted Spock, but I would like to declare a moratorium in Hollywood on the use of black holes. A "temporal anomaly" would have been fine. And someone please explain to these writers exactly how BIG the galaxy is.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
I liked the movie a lot. It was a good movie, but I agree with GP that it wasn't good "Star Trek". It has nothing to do with the alternate universe explanation (it's far from the first time we've seen this, the Mirror universe provides precedent in several episodes).
It's more about the theme of the movie. It was about action rather than sci-fi. Star Trek explored issues in the future in a way that causes people to reflect upon the present. Star Trek had tons of aimless drivel among its episodes, but the best parts of Star Trek weren't action setpieces, but episodes that made you think. The franchise has touched upon issues like capital punishment, homosexuality, evaluation of moral perspective, discrimination and bias, tradition vs. progression.
However, these things are not easily handled in the framework of a movie. And hell, I like action movies too. I liked the new Star Trek movie and I'm interested in where they go from here.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to see it until it comes out on DVD.
Why is the parent modded Insightful?
He hasn't even seen the movie yet.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then every person you've talked to is dense.
Depends what one means by "faithful representation". The new movie has a Kirk very much like the old Kirk, a Spock very much like the old Spock, and so on. But is that what makes it Trek?
Overall this was an action movie with slick special effects and some comedy. The first two Star Trek series were decidedly about moral dilemmas and the promise of a utopian future for humankind. Thus to someone who thinks the "essence of Trek" is this "analysis of the human spirit", this new movie doesn't faithfully represent Star Trek: it has a ship named Enterprise with a captain named Kirk, but it is thematically very different from the original incarnation.
And of course there are many other ways to analyze the question of "faithful to the original". I won't comment on which interpretation I think is right... But it's important to remember that "faithful representation" has everything to do with perspective.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
...if ST was about anything...
Star Trek was about addressing and commenting on the norms and issues of current society. You go back and watch the original series and it is very obvious--and that's what was so endearing about he series. It wasn't about phasers, proton torpedoes, and teleporters. Those were just a veneer or a vehicle for people to think.
While I don't disagree that people relate better to characters who have flaws, it was also the shining optimism that Star Trek showed us. It showed us that despite our flaws, our societal qualms, we overcame, united as a species, and sprung from the cradle from which we had evolved. Humanity had proven itself master over its environment--we have yet (in our reality) to master ourselves. Star Trek's legacy shows us what we're capable of once we accomplish that.
Re:first post! (Score:1, Insightful)
It was chock full of cliche and fanservice. And physics and geometry errors that put "Fringe" to shame.
Ask me to believe in faster than light warp-drive or transporters, but don't ask me to believe that a life-supporting planet who's binary twin is a life-supporting planet with a population of billions which has had space-travel for centuries, will not be covered in colonies.
Also, don't ask me to believe that the "star fleet" is ridiculously irresponsible in putting experienced personnel on new ships, and capricious and irresponsible with regard to field promotions.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's worth keeping in mind that it IS a reboot. If the reboot isn't successful, they'll probably not do much else with it, but if it IS a nice success, then they'll have established a fanbase that'll hopefully allow them to explore once again all of those areas that made star trek so special. And I can't think of a better way to Reboot something than to give a thoroughly enjoyable experience for the masses.
Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:4, Insightful)
the real wet-navy Farragut was given command of a prize ship at age 12, and attained a command of his own at age 22)
Err, these things do not happen sanity-based fleets. No Ensign jumps to Captain in 24 hours, bypassing all the senior officers with many more years of experience. As to the level of sanity in the war of 1812, just the fact that you could become a mid-shipman at the age of 12 (or younger) speaks volumes. This sort of thing happens today only in such centres of civilization as Darfur, Somalia and Afghanistan....
And even in such an insane fleet it took Farragut 10 years to make it to Captain.
There's a few other factors. For the argument of Alexander becoming King when young, we've seen infants named king. This does not mean they're up to the task. Alexander was a man of extraordinary ability given the position to fully employ them. But he is an exception, not the rule.
With regards to Farragut, trying to draw comparisons between wartime and peacetime militaries is problematic to begin with but there's also the matter of advancing technology. We would tend to make an equivalency between a fighter pilot from WWI flying canvas and wood biplanes and a modern fighter pilot strapped into an F-22. There is no equivalency. The planes cost a thousand times more, they take more training to fly, and are very damned complex. They have to be for the abilities they possess. So to say that it's reasonable to have someone wash out of the armored cavalry and then finagle a position flying F-22's and point out it happened in WWI, it's just not a reasonable comparison.
Now someone will bring up that war can cause selection pressures not present in peacetime. Someone like a Patton would not have been able to rise to high rank in a peacetime army but was able to get away with his behavior because he won battles. Likewise with Grant; he was a disheveled alcoholic and a failure at most things in life but he won battles; Lincoln said he'd send a case of whiskey each to his other generals if they could fight like Grant. But when peacetime comes, the pressures are removed and things get back to normal. A winning general might be forgiven eccentricities by dint of his service but a drunk without a record isn't going to be cut any slack. In WWII, the Wehrmacht was forced to use boys and old men as infantry. Rest assured, they're not doing so now.
Now I'm sure someone will say that this is all because we mollycoddle kids in this country and don't give them responsibility. Ok, please point out any other navy in the world that would give command of a national flagship to a kid. I'm not talking about a PT boat from WWII. I'm not even talking about a WWII sub. I mean something like a modern diesel-electric, a modern nuke boat, a destroyer. It's just not happening.
Re:I'm in the minority here - the movie was bad (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that the movie is often just STUPID.
Romulus' sun goes supernova... what, the Romulans, who have starship technology, didn't know in advance?
The Romulans don't evacuate?
The Federation sends ONE BLOKE (Spock) to save their sun?
Chekov knows how to use the transporter a certain way, so he has to take elevators and run through corridors to get to the transporter? Its a huge ship. He can't communicate with anyone down their? The systems aren't interoperable? He's the only guy who knows how to do what's needed?
And Bad Boy Alternative-Universe Kirk...
- just rides up to the Federation Recruitment Facility on a motorcycle and jumps aboard a shuttle, no check-points, no questions
- bangs a green (literally) programmer so he can cheat the Federation exam?
- gets to be First Officer because Pike respected his dad?!
- gets strangled by a Vulcan and at least one Romulan and still has a trachea?
- is marooned on a random, dangerous Class M planet that just happens to have Nimoy-Spock and Scotty as residents?
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
So you dislike the TOS movies, TNG, TNG movies, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, learning Klingon, and are ashamed of Trekkers, yet you are still a Trekkie? I'd say your just some guy with an affection for a show from your youth.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
"People learning a fictional language?!? WTF?!?
If people are learning it, is it still fictional?
Re:first post! (Score:2, Insightful)
People learning a fictional language?!? WTF?!?
Try telling that to folks who speak Esperanto [wikipedia.org]
A general reply to the seemingly overzealous hater (Score:4, Insightful)
Preface : I am a lifelong Trek fan. I'm not "hardcore", I haven't ever been to a convention, but I have enjoyed the franchise.
For those complaining that Abrahms "wiped his ass" with the franchise ask yourself one question:
Would you rather there be no more Star Trek?
That was the option, re-invent & reboot or buh-bye. I'm glad they chose the former. They even took considerable pains to write into the story a plausible reason for it (time travel creating a splinter/alternate main timeline.) Admittedly this is a departure from some of the previous handling of temporal plot lines, but I'm workable because they needed a reboot. You still get Nimoy as Spock. I'm honestly glad he was the only original cast member in it.
My wife is a more intense fan than I am, to the point of having a real emotional attachment to the Trek universe/story. The first 8 minutes of the movie made her cry it was intense enough. She loved it and is already planning when we'll be going to see it again.
Even Nimoy said in an interview said that people who were hurt because it was disregarding previous canon and resetting things were doing so because they had an illogical connection to the minutiae of the universe rather than the story of the universe.
Besides, they didn't reset everything. Apparently Enterprise is still canon. (i.e. reference to Archer and his beagle)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Insightful)
WORD OF MOUTH is key. (Score:3, Insightful)
The big difference will be that the word of mouth from those who have seen the Trek reboot will keep Trek afloat, whereas the negative word of mouth about the Wolverine origins movie will continue to drag it down.
JJ Abrams is a frakkin genius. He cut the gordian knot of keeping track of 40 years of canon with a masterstroke. He assembled a dynamite ensemble cast. Rather than do Young Kirk as "The One," he built a crew for the Enterprise full of "Ones." And isn't that what the TOS cast was in the first place?
He's set Trek up for several really good movies. And maybe a series.
Oh yeah, real cool they shot the Enterprise engine room in my neighborhood. I live about a mile and a half from the North Hills Bud brewery. Awesome.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Insightful)
There were moral dillemmas in the movie. I thought the movie's theme was all about how to healthily deal with moral rage, differences because of your birth, and how one can still rise above understandable reasons for self-pity was well very done. There was a rather poignant moment when the old and new met, where that observation was driven home--that regardless of your circumstances, you can still be something.
It was an interesting movie. There was no lengthy speechifying and endless "peace summits" that occurs in most Star Trek Movies... and bogs them down to no end. There was not a lot of effort to overexplain the technologies in the system, and honestly, that was what made the movie refreshing. Star Trek has often been just a bit too in love with its technologies... this movie had cool stuff, and cool characters. I felt they took the best of the series and left out the heavy-handed contrived stories that bogged down all the many forms of teevee series.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
and a starship captain at a younger age (lots of opportunity for stories about a less experienced but still excellent captain)
This is where the movie lost me. Maybe it is because of my background in the USN, but the 4th wall was completely destroyed for me by the clumsy way the writers inserted Kirk into the Enterprise chain of command.
Here we have a *cadet* who is on academic probation for cheating - again, let me stress, he isn't even an ensign, hasn't actually received a commission at all, but for some reason the captain of a brand new starship just magically decides he is the new first officer. Seriously? That was such utter crap, I wanted to walk out of the movie then.
Unfortunately, I didn't - which caused me to suffer through the utterly improbable scene where this same person, who is not an officer, has been not only forcibly removed from the bridge but has actually been expelled from the ship itself, somehow manages to cause a mutiny on the ship and become captain by making fun of Spock's mommy.
Then, after miraculously taking over the entire ship, makes the utterly insane decision to single handedly attack a superior vessel, with one other person (Spock) instead of notifying the fleet that the *Earth is about to be destroyed*.
Fortunately, he is able to dance around while 15 or so enemies are shooting at him and avoid being hit. I haven't seen such improbable writing since the A-Team.
Then, instead of being immediately thrown in jail along with his co-conspirators, he is rewarded with a captaincy of the Enterprise (even though he hasn't actually finished the Academy yet).
I just don't get it. I'm honestly not trying to troll here (check my Karma, I don't do that) I really just don't understand how anyone could take this the least bit seriously, much less praise it.
The worst episode of TNG had better writing and plot than this movie.
It depresses me to hear the masses rave about it.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the somewhat negative reviews about the movie complained
that there was so much backstory. It's like this guy never heard
of the 3 Act structure and the requirement to introduce the
characters. This was especially interesting since this was someone
that "hates Trek films because of their pandering to Trekkies".
Well make up your mind. It either panders to the fans or is too
slow because it's trying to bring the non-fans up to speed...
re: original crew (Score:3, Insightful)
After seeing the new Trek movie, it suddenly dawned on me that the "colorful" characters are what makes or breaks Star Trek movies or episodes.
I really liked the TNG series on TV, but when you think about it, they had to "borrow" some of the most important character elements of the original show, just to make the series really "work".
EG. "Data" was really just a way to re-invent Spock's personality. So much of the "fun" and the "intrigue" in Star Trek hinges on that idea of having a purely logical character trying to understand what human "emotion" is all about. So instead of a Vulcan, you have a robot ... but same principle.
That said though, sure, TNG was never going to lend itself really well to feature-length movies, because it was more of a "soap opera in space" format than the original. I don't say that to "knock" it in any way -- but let's face it. How many soap operas ever got spun off into successful movies? A helluva lot of people watched the "classic" ones like "The Young and the Restless" or "As The World Turns" -- but nope, no movies came from those.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus to be 100% honest, I didn't want to go opening weekend because I was worried about being surrounded by a bunch of basement dwelling neckbeards who were going to be spouting off about canon the whole time. Speaking to some of my friends, I wasn't the only one who felt that way. I have a feeling that it's going to remain strong. It's just an overall great movie.
Re:I'm in the minority here - the movie was bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you make some very valid points, but to conclude the movie was "bad" from it? That's just personal opinion, and I'd argue you're possibly just biased towards certain types of science-fiction?
1. The camerawork (as you admit yourself) is really just one style of filming, and a viewer may love or hate it. It's supposed to give the viewer more of a feel of being involved in the action him/herself, instead of viewing it passively from the "outside". I think it's kind of a "fad" right now, and like most "techniques" - can be way over-used. (If it gets used with every single "action" movie out there, for example, it's going to entirely lose its purpose.) I happened to like the "raw, edgy" feel it gave to Battlestar Galactica though.
2. Sure, Kirk's story seems really "far fetched" ... but come on! Anyone willing to accept the overly-dramatic acting style of William Shatner in the original Trek series should be just as willing/able to accept this stuff, no? Besides, in the world of Star Trek, people are past worrying about issues of "money", as we worry about it today. In that light, maybe the Enterprise wasn't quite as big a concern as you're assuming it would have been to the Federation?
3. The engine rooms of the ships, I agree, might have been better. But again, this movie was based on the original TV series, where sets were often so bad, you were looking at cardboard boxes wrapped in aluminum foil with big, non-functional knobs or buttons glued on top. Given that background, I'm not sure if it would have been more "unbelievable" to do "state of the art" looking sets throughout the movie?
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your issue isn't with scientific inaccuracies so much as plot holes. Sci-fi, even hard sci-fi, is a lot of hand waving with varying degrees of effort to remain internally consistent.
Fringe is intentionally screwball, hence the name "Fringe". It's not intended to be anything like real science, in any way, in fact is usually a blatant exaggeration or misrepresentation. For gods sake the last episode presented spontaneous combustion of humans as "plausible" while "pyrokinesis" was "that Stephen King thing". It makes for a good show, but I wouldn't put down my physics textbook if I had a final coming up. It is the definition of brain-candy sci-fi.
Star Trek sometimes attempts to be very "realistic" in that everything they present has traditionally fell under the category of "plausible". Transporters, warp drives, energy weapons, etc. I still think it's a bit hokey to poke holes in their view of science, it is, after all, created for your viewing pleasure.
I haven't watched the new Star Trek, I probably will have to wait until DVD thanks to having a 14 month old, but thus far Starfleet has never really shown itself to be a very top-down organization. The Star-ship captains seem to have wide latitude for making policy, and are given extreme lenience on broken rules.
What would be a huge let down is if this is a war/sex driven soap opera, and not a somewhat more cerebral presentation of conflicting ideals. It would be very disappointing if BSG, previously the goofiest of 70s campware, became more intellectual than Star Trek.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, seriously, who wants to watch blockbuster movies about the average Joe who has to slog through the ranks to make it to their rightful place in the grand scheme of things? That is 19/20th century "Horatio Hornblower" style writing. Kirk is a Superhero, who somehow ends up in command simply by force of personality and because it's his 'destiny' to do so.
Yes, it's completely implausible, but it's a valid form of story telling that isn't going to go away any time soon. People have liked "capitol-H" Heroes since the Greeks wrote stories about their gods.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Romulans now look different, and not for the better. They were extremely unlikable,
The villains of the movie were unlikeable? SHOCKER!
This is why I stopped watching Enterprise and didn't like The Phantom Menace.
The reason everybody else didn't like The Phantom Menace was Jar Jar Binks. Star Wars fans weren't outraged because the movie was stomping over their continuity, they were outraged because it was a bad movie.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
Funny, then, that the generally acknowledged best ST movie (Wrath of Khan) was nothing more than a revenge/action movie without a single philosophical monologue to be seen.
ST has *always* been about *both* action and thoughful plot, but which you got depended on the episode. The Naked Time? Action. The City on the Edge of Forever? Thoughtful plot. To claim ST was only one or the other is to be blinded by fanboi-ism.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
With older film stock, its more important to deal with the loss of colour, ISO levels, the acceptable level of noise when the show was recorded, etc..
They can digitally clean up the picture to make the scenes more clear, but really, does cleaning up the picture on Star Trek TOS really improve the viewing experience? I mean really, the sets weren't exactly rocket science.
At least if they decided to remaster TNG, they could bring up the CGI to modern day levels making it more palitable to the younger generation without sacrificing the spirit of the source.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. I went with a group of 15, made up of mixed company of 20-somethings that ranged from fans of the show(s) to people who had never seen an episode of any of the different series. Everyone in the group loved it, and about half already have plans to see it again (also split between the established show fans and the n00bs). I remember JJ Abrams advising purists to stay home [imdb.com] as they would likely be the most disappointed, which seems to be true from many of the reviews I have seen. If you come to it with an open mind and an understanding that it's not a carbon copy of TOS, it can be a totally enjoyable experience.
Re:first post! (Score:2, Insightful)
Checkov bordered on disgraceful. He was made into pure comic relief (which didn't even work on that level).
Um, have you ever seen the series? In almost every episode he appears, he is pure comic relief. Usually though a combination of accent and outrageous claims about Russia. Having him as pure comic relief based on his Russian-ness is being pure and true to the original series.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, then, that the generally acknowledged best ST movie (Wrath of Khan) was nothing more than a revenge/action movie without a single philosophical monologue to be seen.
Eh? What about "needs of the many outweigh," and all that...? I mean, they fricken killed off Spock, though deep down we all knew he was coming back.
Actually, though, Wrath of Khan was more of a traditional naval-battle movie set in space. It worked so well in the "Balance of Terror" episode of the original series that they brought it back for a movie.
Re:Yes (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny, then, that the generally acknowledged best ST movie (Wrath of Khan) was nothing more than a revenge/action movie without a single philosophical monologue to be seen.
I disagree. "Wrath of Khan" was a very thoughtful movie. At its core, it was a movie about consequences and responsibility, about growing up and facing up to what you've done.
James Kirk was a man who flaunted responsibility, mocked the universe, and got away with it. He was a cheat, a shallow, immature adolescent.
-He cheated on the Kobayashi Maru.
-He cheated his family when he knocked up some chick and left her to deal with raising the child, not taking any part in their lives, not making the effort to be a father to his son.
-He ignored the consequences of his somewhat arbitrary decisions as captain in the past - leaving Khan Singh on Ceti Alpha V without so much as checking up on him and his people ONCE in the fifteen years since marooning him.
-He cheated death again and again throughout TOS, getting lucky over and over again, without paying for it, without losing anyone he actually cares about. Redshirts were always expendable to him - now he faces the loss personally.
-He took insane risks and was as cocky as can be, and he got away with it. Flaunting Starfleet regulations was OK in the TV series because he was lucky - but this time, it got a boatload of children slaughtered.
I don't think "Wrath of Khan" was mindless. I think it was about something much deeper than vengeance and space battles.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Insightful)
We had the same problem with some moron bringing their 2-year-old. We complained to the theater's management (we called and got someone as high up as we could) and told them this is why their revenues are falling so much these days. Who wants to go to the theater to enjoy a movie when idiots bring their young children to movies totally inappropriate for that age group, and then the theater staff refuses to do anything about it?
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
The end of the movie did not only destroy canon. It destroyed all future Star Treks. As a TNG and DS9 fan I felt betrayed by Star Trek paying absolutely no regard to future events that will unfold in the Star Trek universe.
Come on, man... The story wasn't hard to follow. You know why it was this way.
It's an alternate timeline. The "future events" of the Star Trek Universe are not destroyed; they're alive and well in another timeline. What kind of Star Trek fan are you?