[linkinpark875]

At the time I watched it it was great cinema. I remember it got people to the cinema who weren't even fans of the series or movies. It was good action and modern cinema but looking back it for me feels too different to the original ones before it?

I have read people who have similar views wonder if the same thing will happen when J. J. Abrams writes the new Star Wars?

Also Star Trek 2 having 3D is a bit of a fad.

[CD93]

Some people didn't like Voyager or Enterprise - that didn't mean the entire franchise was ruined.

If this version of Trek doesn't do it for some people, there will be another one along at some point, with the previous ones still there for the taking. Whether induviduals like it or not, Abrams revived Trek for the timebeing. The floodgates were opened for new films, comics, games, crossovers and content dumps across various mediums.

The reboot made it difficult to nail it down to a familiar, comfortable format. 'Star Trek' was the first Trek film without any background (beyond older Spock). There wasn't a TV series to establish the new Universe and it's new take on the original characters. Ultimately it had to come back with a bang and as you say, attract new viewers.

I expected Star Trek Into Darkness to pull it back a little and settle down, but it looks like it's going far in the other direction. I'll be interested to see if it works.

tl;dr, J.J chose to go for attractive, flashy action as opposed to lots of walking and talking, and sitting and talking.

[Jimmy_McNulty]

I liked it, apart from obviously Simon Pegg's scenes.

[linkinpark875]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_McNulty

I liked it, apart from obviously Simon Pegg's scenes.

He's a great actor in his own type of own role movies but not ones like Mission Impossible.

[Deserana 12]

Simon Pegg was fine. He done what he needed to do for 09 Trek. Into Darkness however seems looks to be a more dramatic movie so hopefully he'll get time to show us what he has got.

09 though was fantastic and I was extremely surprised at just how good it was.

[stvn758]

How could they cast Bones so well and Scotty so badly, baffles me. Any new Trek is good with me though.

[treme]

Even my wife liked the reboot, so in bringing Star Trek to the masses, Abrams definitely succeeded. But she knows nothing anyway and can go watch her own frikkin movies, Star Trek is for us geeks.

[Karis]

Personally, Trek was ruined by Enterprise.

But that's not to say another series can't come along and undo all the damage done.

A really good Trek series will supercharge the viewing public and all the long-time fans will quickly return.

[Iggyman]

Abrams does has a penchant for shallow, poorly written action films, and that's what the 2009 reincarnation was (and I don't have any great hopes for this year's release either). Even the woeful Star Trek V was better than Abrams' 2009 popcorn flick.

[Metal Mickey]

Star Trek (like Sherlock Holmes or Dracula) seems able to withstand any number of variations and iterations without any lasting damage being done, though I think these movies might make it harder for a new TV series, as the effects are so far out of a TV budget's range that any new show would look really cheap in comparison... I'll be interested to see how the forthcoming SHIELD series fares (if it gets past pilot stage) on that score, too...

[Residents Fan]

No, it's fine. "Nemesis" basically sank the TNG movies and DS9, Voyager and
Enterprise weren't popular enough to merit movie versions. Abrams' way seemed like
the best way to dis-inter "Star Trek" and make it popular again.

[flagpole]

no. it hasn't.

[gemma-the-husky]

it's clever when future history gets changed etc etc.

i liked the reboot.

[Theo_Bear]

Most Star Trek fans will watch JJ Trek because it's Star Trek. Quite a few didn't like the reboot, and may well not watch In to Darkness. While the reboot bought a lot of new Trek viewers to the cinema, lets not pretend that Star Trek 2009 made a load of money for the huge, hyped up blockbuster that the media and Paramount were trying to make it out to be, because it didn't.

Paramount are now making Star Trek movies for an increasingly dwindling audience. Outside of Star Wars (if you can call Star Wars sci-fi) proper science fiction has always been a hard sell. I caught TWOK on CH4 yesterday just to remind myself what a proper Trek film should be. While I quite enjoyed Trek 2009, and am reserving judgement on In to Darkness, JJ can only dream about making a Trek film as good as TWOK. It's possible he could if someone gave him a good enough script, but the Early Learning Centre for Writers run by Kurtzman and Orci are never going to him that.

[Bio Max]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

Abrams does has a penchant for shallow, poorly written action films, and that's what the 2009 reincarnation was (and I don't have any great hopes for this year's release either). Even the woeful Star Trek V was better than Abrams' 2009 popcorn flick.

Seems you're in a wee minority considering how successful it was.

[Johnny Clay]

Originally Posted by Bio Max

Seems you're in a wee minority considering how successful it was.

2009 Star Trek found favour in US audiences ($258m) far more than abroad ($128m).

Paramount are canny enough to not let as well known a name as Star Trek to slip by in this age of franchise cinema - they know a certain audience will lap up big screen Trek in any iteration. But they'll want a significant improvement on the international figure for ST to be a true major player, because that's how it rolls these days.

[Inspiration]

Star Trek was in a bad state of health before this reboot and personally I think it's added new life to the franchise at a time when it badly needed it.

The second film will be key to if it works in the long term.

[Jen-B]

It was a bit...meh, to be honest. As a long-term Trek fan, I remember going in to watch New 'Trek excited, and coming out feeling rather disappointed.

The story felt a bit rushed and felt like they compromised plot for special effects (good old lens flare).

[Voynich]

It had hit a brick wall. They had done just about everything with the current cast. So no, I don't think it was wrong. Either way it was going to be mostly a whole new cast.

[Big Boy Barry]

Generally no, it hasn't been. It was spoiled by Voyager and Enterprise, both of which were bland Berman-led series. It also wasn't helped by Next Generation being brought to a premature end in order to spin off into movies, most of which were dreadful. Deep Space Nine was the last Trek series to be meaningful.

Granted, the reboot is fairly brainless, full of lens flares and explosions, but it seems to be what the audience wants these days.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

2009 Star Trek found favour in US audiences ($258m) far more than abroad ($128m).

Paramount are canny enough to not let as well known a name as Star Trek to slip by in this age of franchise cinema - they know a certain audience will lap up big screen Trek in any iteration. But they'll want a significant improvement on the international figure for ST to be a true major player, because that's how it rolls these days.

I doubt Paramount gives a shit where the money comes from, as long as they get it. And Star Trek will probably always be considered a major player because of the heritage

[soulboy77]

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Star Trek was in a bad state of health before this reboot and personally I think it's added new life to the franchise at a time when it badly needed it.

The second film will be key to if it works in the long term.

Ultimately the new films won't take the franchise forward because they have gone back to the beginning. We will probably have a third film and that will be that because the TNG films are still to fresh in peoples memories to have a re-boot.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

I doubt Paramount gives a shit where the money comes from, as long as they get it. And Star Trek will probably always be considered a major player because of the heritage

Any business that didn't care where the money came from wouldn't be in business for very long.

After the previous two failures a new movie was a risk. But it was a risk worth taking, and whilst maybe not being the instant pot of gold they were hoping for as previously suggested, it did renew a spark and interest in the Trek universe, and in the long run that will pay dividends.

[jenzie]

i really enjoyed the 2009 reboot, breathless action and an actual storyline to boot! changing it to sit in with the new trek universe was always gonna rub some people the wrong way, but not me as i equally enjoy the rest of the movies and tv!

it'll be interesting to see how it pans out, and compare how each timeline measures up to each other, but one thing will be certain ..... IT WILL BE EXCITING!!!

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

Any business that didn't care where the money came from wouldn't be in business for very long.

After the previous two failures a new movie was a risk. But it was a risk worth taking, and whilst maybe not being the instant pot of gold they were hoping for as previously suggested, it did renew a spark and interest in the Trek universe, and in the long run that will pay dividends.

I meant which country, not whether it came from illicit sources or not. I imagine they'll look and see where it came from, perhaps advertise more in countries where it took less money. But overall as long as it gets them loads of money I doubt they'll be too fussed about the international/domestic split