Summer Movies 2013

[Animusubi]

I guess I said Oz was a summer movie accidentally because I haven't seen it. Though now reading the comments, I'll wait for DVD. Probably better that way.

I totally forgot about The Great Gatsby, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Man of Steel, and Iron Man 3. Definitely looking forward to those!

[Armblessed]

Well, that describes the various Star Trek TV series, but not the movies. (Except for the first one, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which was practically a rehash of one of the old TOS episodes. However, it was not a big box office draw.) As awesome as The Wrath of Khan was, it set the tone to make the Star Trek movies more action-oriented. Some of them were good, but several of them were bad. The TNG movies were mostly letdowns, and one could wonder if Rick Berman was even paying attention to the TNG TV show when he made the movies. The TNG episodes were mostly well-written and it was about space exploration, moral issues, science, etc. The TNG movies, on the other hand, featured Worf pulling a purple space bazooka out of his ass. The First Contact movie was watchable, at least.

Yeah, the Star Trek movies occupy an interesting space between the TV series and mainstream movies. In theory, they should have been able to make a movie that satisfied mainstream audiences, and remained Star Trek-ey, but they failed most of the time. In part its probably the difficulty of adapting from a TV series, but I also think the majority of Star Trek movies were just poorly made. They thought that since they had the brand name, they could churn out some crap and people would watch it.
Then again, the 2009 Star Trek movie did apparently satisfy mainstream audiences, which completely baffles me. I'll leave out my direct criticism of it, since I don't think people want to read my diatribe. I'll just say that I don't even think the movie stands on its own. The 2009 film may entertain for awhile, but since they left behind what was special about Star Trek, I don't think its going to breathe any sort of long-term new life into the franchise.

I guess I'm the target audience for these new Star Trek movies, as in 'what the average person knows about Star Trek.' I enjoyed the last one and the new one looks fun. I don't know that I'd watch a Star Trek anything that didn't have the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic going on - - I tried manfully to watch the Next Generation, really I did. Way too beige.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the 2009 movie, but I am curious what part of Next Generation you watched. I'll be the first to admit that the 1st season of the series ranges from mediocre to outright laughable crap. However, in my opinion, it starts to find its legs and by the end of the 3rd season, it's consistently quite good, while occasionally knocking them out of the park. It does start to falter towards the end of the run, but I'd take the best of TNG episodes over any of the movies, any day.

Also, its not a summer movie (November 8), but the Thor 2 trailer is out, for those who are interested in such things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j41qNcjDoc8

[davemerrill]

I watched the TNG pilot, and a few episodes here and there, and I watched whatever season finale they had with the Cybermen, er, I mean, the Borg; I was visiting friends and it was imperative that we drop whatever we were doing and watch it. None of it impressed me much. Mostly what I recall is Marina Syrtis putting a hand to her head and saying "Captain, I sense something." Appliance-forehead aliens, padded beige interiors, self-important "meaningful" storylines, hours of people on sets talking to people on other sets, crucial problems solved by Blind Guy Who Can Actually See Perfectly Well hitting THIS button instead of THAT button and reversing the trans-warp properties of the Q-37 Space Modulator... I noped right out of that one. And before you ask, I didn't like Babylon 5 either, so it's not like I have some axe to grind there.

I will take Frank Gorshin in black-white makeup, or Shatner reciting the pledge of allegiance, or the Nazi Planet, or Spock's Brain any day of the week. And I won't even take much of that; when I got into SF fandom it was Star Trek this and Star Trek that. You couldn't get away from Star Trek. When we started our anime con the Klingons wanted to know if they could host panels and march around providing "security", and they got all huffy when we declared that we were going to do this Japanese cartoon thing and if they wanted to do the Japanese cartoon thing that was fine, but it's a Japanese cartoon thing and they need to leave their forehead appliances and their communicators at home. So there's been a push-back against Star Trek on my part, yeah. I get it, I get that people like it a lot, I've seen "Trekkies". But I can take it or leave it alone.

Still waiting for the movies to give us space hippies.

[greg]

There is certainly a difference between Kirk Star Trek and Picard Star Trek. TNG tried to emulate the original show for the first two seasons, with using obvious studio sets and such, but TNG does have an overall different feel to it. The thought never crossed my mind that fans of Star Trek would reject TNG though, until I saw the movie Free Enterprise. I like them both actually, but I must admit that so many TNG episodes are rather boring. I never got into DS9 because I was a Babylon 5 fan, and I always saw DS9 as a boring rip-off even before I learned the truth behind all that. People tell me that DS9 got very good in the later seasons, but I could not get past the first season or so. Both Babylon 5 and Deep Space 9 centered action around a space station, but while the former was uravelling mysteries to the universe and the awakening of an evil power upon the galaxy, the later was all about either computer viruses making the space station wonky or some dumb illness epidemic or something. Boring. Voyager was a big disappointment for me as well.

I enjoyed the recent Star Trek reboot movie, but I completely understand why people would hate it. I never got into Enterprise, but I heard that one season sucked so bad that they wrote it off as just a dream or some parallel universe tangent or something. The Star Trek machine wasn't going anywhere for Paramount, so something had to happen. Either reboot it to make it exctiting to the normals and risk infuriating the die hard fans, or just let the franchise stagnate and die. Aside from the annoying camera lens flares, the Star Trek movie seemed to pull it off and be entertaining.

On the other hand, there is the talk of this new Star Wars trilogy by Disney also being done by JJ Abrams, which similarly is just a cash grab to just make more Star Wars movies for the heck of it without having any real thought first of how it should be done. There's a difference betweeen saying, "Hey, I have a really awesome idea for a new Star Wars movie trilogy to revitalize the series" and merely saying, "Hey, let's make a bunch of new Star Wars movies to make money off the sheeple. We'll figure out what the movies will be about later once we get to that point." That's how we ended up with the Crystal Skull. They wanted to make another Indiana Jones movie for the sake of making another Indiana Jones movie. So what we ended up with was a lame plot, nonsensical aliens, CG gophers and monkeys, and Lucas and Spielberg, who did not hesitate to show Nazis as being nasty, going to great lenghts to avoid condemning the Soviets and portray them as loyal patriots instead of as evil and nasty, despite the fact that Stalin was an even bigger murderer than Hitler was.

So going back to the new Star Trek movie, I am a bit hesitant since the trailers make it seem that the movie focuses too much on Earth. I want to see the Enterprise doing neat crap in space and exploring new worlds and stuff. That's what space adventure is about. Everything else these days focuses on Earth, with zombies, vampires, and werewolves. NASA has been all but scrapped, now focusing on Muslims outreach rather than space exploration (seriously, WTF?). Like Bruce Boxleitner said, we need to look to the horizon instead of staring at our feet. I want science fiction to take me where imagination lies beyond our world. I want Star Trek to boldy go where no one has gone before. Star Trek IV took place mostly on Earth, and while it was a cute, "feel good" type of movie, it was weak as a result (although V was the worst of those movies, for sure). I've been to San Francisco. I already know what it's supposed to look like in the future. That's where Kirk goes in the beginning of a Star Trek movie before flying across the galaxy in the Enterprise to go punch aliens in the face. I don't want this new movie to focus on Earth. And it had better not involve Khan! I sure hope that is just a rumor.

[Heero]

I'll just say that I don't even think the movie stands on its own. The 2009 film may entertain for awhile, but since they left behind what was special about Star Trek, I don't think its going to breathe any sort of long-term new life into the franchise.

From what I understand, the 2009 movie is not supposed to "stand on its own", the goal was to make a movie that reboots the franchise in such a way that the "hardcores" could "keep the original continuity pure" while the mainstream could start fresh. I think it has pros and cons, but I also think it was largely successful at that effort. Also, I think Star Trek & Star Wars are large enough cultural touchstones that you can pull from the originals and if you're not going for really obscure components, people will know what you're talking about even if they haven't SEEN the original source. (seriously, I think Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all well known, even to people who haven't watched one second of the show because they're quite literally REFERENCED in everything from other tv shows to pop music and books) Heck, even to "Kobayashi Maru" is a less obscure reference than it would've been in say 1980.

[llj]

Everything else these days focuses on Earth, with zombies, vampires, and werewolves. NASA has been all but scrapped, now focusing on Muslims outreach rather than space exploration (seriously, WTF?).

I know you were talking about movies when it comes to zombies, vampires and werewolves, but I can't help but notice that there's this new trend of actual real-life unironic academic seminars in various cities talking about how to prepare for a zombie/vampire/werewolf apocalypse. Zombie apocalypse seminars... this is what happens when ironic internet hipsterism starts bleeding into the "real" world.

As for your second point about NASA...well, modern day economics sure is a bitch. I'm honestly skeptical as to whether anyone can ever put together a serious, dedicated space program again under the current international economic system. Nations no longer have the vast funds to support a space program like glory years of NASA, and inflation in general has increased so much that just doing anything would already put you in a billion dollar hole. The muslim outreach thing also points to another problem with the world in general--we can't get along long enough to get our collective shit together to do anything to seriously advance the progress of mankind as a whole. But then again, Star Trek always had a sort of utopian view of the world. If we ever did start exploring space, we would more likely end up like Gundam, where we just end up beating each other up for the same things as we did on earth, except this time we're doing it in space.

[Armblessed]

From what I understand, the 2009 movie is not supposed to "stand on its own", the goal was to make a movie that reboots the franchise in such a way that the "hardcores" could "keep the original continuity pure" while the mainstream could start fresh. I think it has pros and cons, but I also think it was largely successful at that effort. Also, I think Star Trek & Star Wars are large enough cultural touchstones that you can pull from the originals and if you're not going for really obscure components, people will know what you're talking about even if they haven't SEEN the original source. (seriously, I think Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all well known, even to people who haven't watched one second of the show because they're quite literally REFERENCED in everything from other tv shows to pop music and books) Heck, even to "Kobayashi Maru" is a less obscure reference than it would've been in say 1980.

I guess what I meant was that if you had taken the name "Star Trek" away from it and renamed all the characters to cut any ties to the original series, the movie would have come and gone without anyone caring. The movie gets by almost entirely on decades of built-up pop zeitgeist and goodwill towards the original series. The story is a joke, the characters are one-dimensional, the drama is ham-fisted, and the action scenes are forgettable.
I want to put it out there, that I'm not a big original series fan. I give credit where credit is due, but I just can't get over how dated it is. That being said, there's a reason that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are household names when countless other sci-fi shows and movies have been forgotten. This movie doesn't have that reason within it. Just as an example, in the show, Spock is coldly logical, but also fighting back emotion. His impartial rationale is often disconcerting to us, the viewer, but a part of you knows he's right. There's something to it and a reason to find him interesting. In the movie, there is nothing special about him. Hes doing the same things everyone else is doing - having a case of the not-gays and acting... illogical.

...we can't get along long enough to get our collective shit together to do anything to seriously advance the progress of mankind as a whole. But then again, Star Trek always had a sort of utopian view of the world. If we ever did start exploring space, we would more likely end up like Gundam, where we just end up beating each other up for the same things as we did on earth, except this time we're doing it in space.

You bring up an interesting point here, and another thing I think the movie was completely missing. The utopian view of the future in Star Trek is admittedly corny and unrealistic, but at the same time, it makes you feel positive watching it, and gives you a reason to keep your chin up. Its nice to think "Hey, things are shitty now, but this shows a way for it to be better. If we try to be like them, move forward with science and reason, and be kind to each other, maybe we'll have something to look forward to." If you watch the movie, what you have to look forward to is the captain of your ship being a cocky jerk who got promoted to captain over those who had actually done well in Starfleet academy and spent years working their way up the ranks. And his first officer, the logical alien, maroons him on an ice-planet, effectively a death-sentence, for no good reason. I could go on at length. Its the same stupid behavior we have to deal with every day. There's no hope, no sense, in any of it.

[Heero]

The utopian view of the future in Star Trek is admittedly corny and unrealistic

This reminds me of a thought that struck me watching one of this spring's anime: "Gargantia"
Early on it presents a situation where a character has significantly more advanced military hardware than other people. It leaves an interesting question of war. The standard issue (for example, in Gundam) is that you have so much "collateral damage". Many civilians or other "innocents" get injured or killed due to fighting. Suppose for a moment that you could remove that variable, suppose it was merely the "fighters" at risk. Assuming you are NOT a pacifist, what would be the argument against removing your enemies in this scenario, assuming (as is presented) that you did not initiate hostilities?

The reason this came to mind and the further point raised to me is I wonder if Star Trek gave people an unrealistic expectation with respect to conflict. I am NOT old enough to really have perspective for the 40s and before, but looking at "The Lone Ranger" as an example, sometimes bad people need to be taken out. You can't always resolve all conflict "peacefully". But with Star Trek, even if you couldn't convince people to stop, you could harmlessly "stun" them and keep them from doing bad. But until technology catches up to that, we don't have that capability, but much of society seems to believe we SHOULD be able to do that.

So far, the anime hasn't really explored this question, but it came to my mind and was something I was really pondering.

[greg]

So from what I understand, Iron Man 3 has not yet been released Stateside, however it was released here in Japan last Friday. I was planning to see it with a friend of mine over the weekend, but last week I had caught a cold, and on Friday I had a lapse. The cold virus even gave me pink eye/conjunctivitis as a secondary infection. I haven't had pink eye since I was a child, but so far this year I've had it twice!

Anyhow, I haven't seen many previews for Iron Man 3, but I'd really like to see it.

[usamimi]

It's coming out this Friday! I'm debating on watching it opening week or waiting until our Trip to Dallas to possibly see it in IMAX...(This is a tough choice, lol.)