New Kelvin Timeline Star Trek film goes into production late 2022

[Umbran]

Of course, the whole, we are a peaceful exploratory organization that JUST HAPPENS to also be massively well armed and armored

It turns out the galaxy is a very dangerous place. You'll find lots of exploratory expeditions in our history carried weapons - Magellan is known for demonstrating arms, armor, and artillery, for example.

I think the distinction comes in the idea that the primary purpose of a military organization is to engage in warfare. This distinguishes them from police or peacekeeping forces, which are also armed, but not generally intended to engage in warfare.

Admittedly, this brings into question what counts as "warfare". We can note that Starfleet isn't known for putting together large groups of ships to engage in violence, except in defensive actions like Wolf 359 and the Dominion War, which the Federation did not start. If they are not usually gathered in tactically relevant groups, it is hard to consider them military.

 

[ART!]

I will give Into Darkness credit for asking "hey, what if we flipped the Spock death scene?" and making it...actually work, I think? Quinto's Spock has his anger so close to the surface that his grief and rage there makes sense. Aaaaaaaand then he goes and has a flying fist fight with Cumberbatch.

 

[Mort]

On the other hand-

Star Trek Into Darkness

After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

www.metacritic.com

Star Trek Into Darkness

The crew of the Starship Enterprise returns home after an act of terrorism within its own organization destroys most of Starfleet and what it represents, leaving Earth in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Capt. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) leads his people (Zachary Quinto, Karl...

www.rottentomatoes.com

As opposed to-

Highlander II: The Quickening

In this sci-fi/fantasy sequel, Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) has become an elderly man after losing his immortality. Living in a bleak future where the world is protected from solar radiation by a massive shield, MacLeod regains his youth when he kills two assassins from his home planet...

www.rottentomatoes.com

It's possible that ... you're a little off-base?

Oh, I remember seeing the reviews, and being shocked. I also remember asking myself, friends and my wife if I'm crazy and living in an alternate universe after having read those reviews!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

FYI, the full rankings, worst to first, from Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, for all Star Trek Movies is as Follows:

Metacritic
13. Star Trek V (The Final Frontier)
12. Star Trek (The Motion Picture)
11. Star Trek III (Search for Spock)
10. Generations
9. Nemesis
8. Insurrection
7. Star Trek VI (Undiscovered Country)
6. Star Trek IV ( The Voyage Home)
5. Beyond
4. First Contact
3. Star Trek II (The Wrath of Khan)
2. Into Darkness
1. Star Trek (2009)


Rotten Tomatoes
13. Star Trek V (The Final Frontier)
12. Nemesis
11. Star Trek (The Motion Picture)
10. Generations
9. Insurrection
8. Star Trek III (Search for Spock)
7. Star Trek VI (Undiscovered Country)
6. Into Darkness
5. Star Trek IV ( The Voyage Home)
4. Beyond
3. Star Trek II (The Wrath of Khan)
2. First Contact
1. Star Trek (2009)


My notes- generally, more recent movies tend to score slightly higher than they should. That said, I think that this tells us something very important ... we really, really, really tend to not understand why movies are "popular."

Overall, I think most true Star Trek fans would quibble slightly- Khan is the greatest, for example. But this largely tracks what most people think of as the tiers of the movies.

If you're an older Star Trek fan, the degree to which you are harrumphing the Kelvin movies may be overlooking the people who just found some movies they enjoy as movies.


(And yes, I am very excited for another one! While they aren't perfect, they have largely been fun and with characters I enjoy. Given the history of Star Trek movies, that hasn't always been a given.)

 

[Mort]

I will give Into Darkness credit for asking "hey, what if we flipped the Spock death scene?" and making it...actually work, I think? Quinto's Spock has his anger so close to the surface that his grief and rage there makes sense. Aaaaaaaand then he goes and has a flying fist fight with Cumberbatch.

See for me, I disliked it.

The original scene was between two colleagues who had been friends for decades. They had been through everything together and stuck by each other through it all. It was just an amazing scene.

The Kelvin one? These 2 had known each other for a relatively short time. And 90% of that time - they absolutely HATED each other. Sure they'd been through a sticky situation or 2, but nothing like the non Kelvin pair. It felt forced and a cheap, an unearned attempt to capitalize on the pairing and friendship of the original Kirk and Spock.

 

[payn]

FYI, the full rankings, worst to first, from Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, for all Star Trek Movies is as Follows:

Metacritic
13. Star Trek V (The Final Frontier)
12. Star Trek (The Motion Picture)
11. Star Trek III (Search for Spock)
10. Generations
9. Nemesis
8. Insurrection
7. Star Trek VI (Undiscovered Country)
6. Star Trek IV ( The Voyage Home)
5. Beyond
4. First Contact
3. Star Trek II (The Wrath of Khan)
2. Into Darkness
1. Star Trek (2009)


Rotten Tomatoes
13. Star Trek V (The Final Frontier)
12. Nemesis
11. Star Trek (The Motion Picture)
10. Generations
9. Insurrection
8. Star Trek III (Search for Spock)
7. Star Trek VI (Undiscovered Country)
6. Into Darkness
5. Star Trek IV ( The Voyage Home)
4. Beyond
3. Star Trek II (The Wrath of Khan)
2. First Contact
1. Star Trek (2009)


My notes- generally, more recent movies tend to score slightly higher than they should. That said, I think that this tells us something very important ... we really, really, really tend to not understand why movies are "popular."

Overall, I think most true Star Trek fans would quibble slightly- Khan is the greatest, for example. But this largely tracks what most people think of as the tiers of the movies.

If you're an older Star Trek fan, the degree to which you are harrumphing the Kelvin movies may be overlooking the people who just found some movies they enjoy as movies.


(And yes, I am very excited for another one! While they aren't perfect, they have largely been fun and with characters I enjoy. Given the history of Star Trek movies, that hasn't always been a given.)

My guess is that the OG movies just feel dated. TNG movies often felt like glorified episodes. The Kelvin movies are like action flicks and much easier for the less trek initiated to enjoy.

 

[Ryujin]

Yeah, I mentioned that upthread. The actors completely nailed their parts but the writing just failed them!

Yup. Like I said a bit back, they had a great cast. I can easily see any and all in the roles for which they are cast. Zachary Quinto put serious time and effort into paying homage to the role, specifically as developed by Leonard Nimoy, and it shows. They just ended up in "Generic Paramount IP SciFi movie #347", instead of Star Trek.

 

[Ryujin]

I should also note that my bias for the original likely plays a very large part in my dislike of the Kelvin Cycle. I can admit my bias. They may well be fine movies, taken on their own, but I simply can't see them as something divorced from the ongoing narrative.

 

[payn]

I should also note that my bias for the original likely plays a very large part in my dislike of the Kelvin Cycle. I can admit my bias. They may well be fine movies, taken on their own, but I simply can't see them as something divorced from the ongoing narrative.

Kelvin is bad trek, but good big screen experience.

 

[Ryujin]

Kelvin is bad trek, but good big screen experience.

"Jupiter Ascending" was an amazing big screen experience, but an absolutely horrible movie. Cinematography and action can't save everything