And the worst part is it hasn’t occurred to these two, to the point that they’re apparently comfortable with going on record about it, that people who like Star Trek care about these things, very much. Or else they figure there are enough completionists out there, plus people who just like to watch things blow up real good, that it doesn’t matter.
Oh dear me, yes…
https://startrekwines.com/#Collectors_Pack
If you got about $120 to spend on some fancy wine!
I’m still wondering how someone could introduce that reboot without ever once thinking that it would change things. Even knowing about the future disaster would change things and make it easier to prevent the disaster. And destroying Vulcan would destroy Vulcan.
Was the whole movie created in some kind of fugue state?
Had they never encountered stories like City on the Edge of Forever, Back to the Future, or whatever else where changing the past changes things?
Were they just following the Rule of Cool without regard to continuity-- that’s not uncommon, see Doctor Who?
Ney, Lassie.
I think the whole movie was created by people who don’t actually like Star Trek and wanted to make it less Star Treky and more like a regular sci-fi action film… I want to say that Abrams said he didn’t like Star Trek… which of course, immediately makes him suspect, in my book at least!
I think all the making it fit into the Prime Universe was just a way to legitimize it, because people realized that they were alienating the core audience for Trek, and not really bringing in too many new fans for the films.
That’s for sure.
Actually I think Abrams doesn’t actually like sci-fi either. Never mind science fiction. I mean, “red matter?” What the hell is that? Why not just use an black hole? It would do the same job.
I don’t understand that… why direct sci-fi films or shows then (Lost)? The same thing with Tim Burton… he famously said he doesn’t like comics (when Kevin Smith made a joke about the end of his Planet of the apes). Well, stop directing comic films, then, Tim! Leave it to people who care!
The Abrams ST DVD commentary makes it pretty clear: ST was a way for Abrams to prove he could do Star Wars films. The Kelvin timeline exists to show off how he can handle a classic Joseph Campbell “chosen one” plot with a big effects budget.
Thanks for letting us help you with your resume, J.J. Now go away.
Well it was good practise he used two films to show he could badly retread old ground. Which basically describes the whole of the farce awakens.
Thank you. So glad I didn’t see that one in the theatres.
Maybe they should hand everything off to an s-f editor who:
-
Likes Trek
-
Has done good work with shared universes
-
Has done good work with time travel and time paradoxes
They’re going to need 1 and 3 to sort out the current mess, 1 and 2 to encourage creativity without creating new messes.
Eric Flint qualifies for 2 and 3 but I don’t know about 1. He could probably recommend a few people for all 3.
Apparently, they’ve handed off Picard to Michael Chabon. I’m not too familiar with his work, but I liked the Short Treks episode (“Calypso”) that he directed.
I agree. The current crop of folks helming the new series seem to be serious trek fans who understand shared universes and time travel. But, like much else in our consumer driven world, sometimes the money guys win out…
I haven’t read a lot of his stuff but it’s generally a bit more thoughtful and crafted than someone like Neil Gaiman (I was not super-impressed by Good Omens—it had good moments but didn’t seem to have anyone fully on the job of editing and other post-production bits) it’ll be interesting to see if Chabon can translate his talent to video. He might turn out to be only interested in No-Fun Story Time of the Bleaks.
If that were the case, they’d have him running Discovery, not Picard.
I might try again to watch that later, when I might be less irritated by the unnecessary, distracting background music.
Really? I love his music choices.