JJ Abrams Star Trek film - Here's the "Enterprise"

Take back my doubts, looks pretty good! Not fond of Kirk and Uhara going at it, or the whole "rebel without a cause, getting his big break"-ness to it, but the action looks sound. The look is far more grittier than I thought it'd be, possibly even too much!
 
We've only really heard good things about it so far. Tbh I think the ship looks great. What exactly would be the point in making it look exactly the same as before? You can't say it doesn't look like the Enterprise. If someone showed you that pic 'Enterprise' is the first thing you would think of.

I like how fresh everything looks, despite them obviously taking a lot from the original series. 'Same old' would NOT have done. Trek needed this film so badly. Maybe for the first time ever we're gonna get what Star Trek was always supposed to be like. But obviously made for a 2008 audience.
 
It's unfair, but then so is WB holding the next Harry Potter movie hostage until next year. The way of the industry is to screw the fans over because they can.

I'm surprised it hasn't leaked onto YouTube already. The Dark Knight trailer was very fast to leak onto the internet upon release.
 
Which makes critising them at this point in time even sillier. Let them show what they're made of before deciding they aren't worthy. We've got no idea what they'll bring to the roles, so why not just keep an open mind? If they turn out to be bad - by all means, critique away. We just don't know yet and it isn't fair to judge anyone in this film right now.
 
Unfortunately, the reality is not quite so peachy. Paramount have invested a surprising $150 million in this film. If it fails to be successful, then they won;t be handing the reigns over to anyone. Not for a long time, at least. Studio bosses care very little about "what the fans want" or "artisic merit." If they don't make money on this, kiss goodbye to Star Trek.

My biggest fear on this is that I actually don't think it will ever make back its budget, not even if it is the best Trek movie ever. I believe the standard figure is a film neeRAB to make 2.5x its budget to be considered in profit. That means they'd need to make nearly $400 million at the box office for this to be a success. No Trek movie has EVER done that. They've always managed success by having comparbly small budgets.

But, alas, the modern movie climate is very different than it was at the beginning of this decade. Sci-fi and fantasy now require an astonishing level of SFX work to even appear on the radar. Star Trek is being forced to become as mainstream as possible for it to bring in the funRAB needed to keep the parent company interested.

I hope like hell this film is a quality piece of Trek and that it will be successful. If it fails on either count, I expect we will have seen the last of Star Trek.
 
Without this movie the franchise is dead. With it, you might just have some more trek. If you really don't like the sound of that, come May, just sit in a corner with your fingers in your ears saying "la la la la la" ;)

FWIW, I kind of understand your POV - I hate the Bond reboot, far too gritty and lost some of it's 'fun' factor. However, it in no way impinges on my enjoyment of any of the other films.

The trailer rocks, and hating a movie that's not yet finished is a bit sad. The final cut might suck, it might be great - I'm open to both possibilities, why aren't you?
 
Not that I condone piracy, but you would've though some one would have filmed it by now.

I've seen some fantastic reviews for it so far.
 
ditto, oh yes!

Hallelujah!
Common sense and stacks of it.

IMO those that criticise irrelevent trivia like Kirk's driving ability need to spend less time clogging their brains with such nonsenseand enjoy it for what it is, entertaining FICTION.

You don't see people moaning on ad infinitum that some character in Eastenders is nothing like how they were when they first appeared in the programme, e.g. Billy Mitchell.

(okay, I'm sorry, bad analogy, Eastenders is mass-produced fodder for the brain dead).
 
I don't think they have anything to fear as far as BO takings go. Everyone is going to want to see this one. Seriously, EVERYONE. They moved it to a May release for this reason (they could do this once Avatar was moved to December). The young, good-looking, cocky, rebellious Kirk is a character that will bring people to this movie who wouldn't normally see anything Star Trek. Also, the very modern-retro pseudo-Apple style of the whole thing is VERY 'now'.

All the steps have been taken to make Trek successful again. Going back to Kirk and co was the best move they could ever have made. People say Trek is bigger than Kirk but to a certain degree it never should have gone that far. To me, the worRAB 'Star Trek' instantly bring an image of Kirk and the Enterprise. I hated the fact that the Star Trek name was on Voyager and Enterprise (of course, it WASN'T on Enterprise for the first two seasons...).
 
I hate to repeat myself, but I really don't think I contradict myself. I say that the quality of the series has been erratic and that one film of any standard will therefore not effect the cultural value of the show (ie the value the franchise as it is now has for it's pre existing fans).
I then go on to state that the film neeRAB to be an economic success in order for there ever to be any further screen editions of the show.

I didn't say that I really think fans should be giving this film the benefit of the doubt, at least untill they've seen it/know its nature for sure.

After years of misfires (three out of the last four films are not good, enterprise and voyager (I know it has it's fans but I don't get on with voyager very well)), it seems to me as if JJ is finally putting the series back on track.
 
I like it. Technology has evolved a lot since the 1960s so no one can expect it to look exactly the same, surely? I think they've kept close to the original well, but while upgrading to reflect the technology and effects they can use in this movie. For once, something like this is being handled well.
 
The trailer was... meh. I don't care that much about Star Trek, but I get the feeling that this is going to be a Superman Returns-sized let-down. :(

I watched ST:Nemesis for the first time yesterday and thought it was fine, I can't see why people rag on it so much. :confused:
 
Do that and you might as well sign the franchises death warrant right now.

The problem with the majority of the films is that they have been for fans. Of course I understand that, like most franchises, without the fans there is no product, but if you keep aiming the product solely to the dedicated fans then there's no chance of casual fans going to see it, let alone non-fans.

Trek neeRAB this film or else its lights out. Sure it'll live on, like it did in those years between the '60's and '80's but that'll be about it.
 
And you bring up Babylon 5 after referring to bad acting and scripting? Sure, it had a well developed and thought-out arc, but some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard on a TV show and none of the actors could touch the best of the TNG crowd. Seriously, Patrick Stewart could out-act every member of that show (all on his own, playing all the characters by himself) Not forgetting that Babylon 5's whole story arc was nothing more than a "humans don't need alien-goRAB anymore" story, that good old Kirk would have wrapped up in under 45 minutes, leaving him enough time to snog the cute green alien girl before the credits roll.

But seriously, Babylon 5 would not even have got comissioned if it hadn't been for TNG and even when it did, it never came close to the success that TNG did in its prime. Say what you like about your presonal preferences towarRAB the show, but you cannot dismiss the massive success or influence it had.
 
Back
Top