SCIFIHISTORY.NET
  • MAINPAGE
  • About
  • Reviews
  • December
  • November
  • October
  • September
  • August
  • July
  • June
  • May
  • April
  • March
  • February
  • January

Stardate 5.24.16.a: Is Trek Really Dead?

5/24/2016

 
Picture
Where to begin?

In fairness to no one other than myself, I do tend to keep an awful lot of my editorializing to myself.  For example, when Fox TV announced that there would be more cases explored on The X-Files in 2016, I didn't think it boded well to have Chris Carter back at the helm.  Yes, I realize "It's his baby," but I also realize he was largely responsible for raising the child poorly.  The latest revisitation in prime time really only underscored to me how Mr. Carter might be better served to move along, let bygones be bygones, and maybe do like George Lucas has done in surrendering the keys to the kingdom to essentially "the next generation" for storytelling purposes.

Furthermore, I was one of the lone hold-outs saying that Walt Disney's selection of JJ Abrams to continue those adventures "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" likewise didn't inspire confidence.  As I've often said about JJ, he turns in some of the most interesting eye candy this side of Steven Spielberg (after anything done in the late 80's), but his stories are pure narrative garbage.  Now, I'll admit I did have "fun" with Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (even now, I can't begin to tell you how much I despise the title!), but -- fun aside -- I today consider it little more than "a sterling bowl of puke."  (Sorry, wifey, but I gotta call it the way I see it.)

... and that brings me to Justin Lin.

First, there's absolutely nothing wrong with his Fast and Furious franchise.  Auto films have traditionally been some quality popcorn entertainment.  For any number of reasons, flicks of that sort are packed with some terrific visceral thrills, and -- while I haven't seen all installments -- I can certainly understand why they've performed so well at the box office, especially given a mainstream's audience ability to stay focused only so long as there's pounding music, hot chicks, acceptable hunks, and fast fast cars.

Second, anyone familiar with that franchise knows that its stories and characters have been allowed to evolve (not so much in individual films but over the course of the franchise).  New players have been brought in.  The stakes have been raised.  Bad guys morphed into good guys (or maybe that's really "bad boys morphed into even badder ones").  The formula has been tinkered with creatively, but -- at the end of the day -- the property respects what it wants to be and with great precision continues to be that.

Now ... I'm all for things being fast and furious ... but for the life of me I keep seeing this motorcycle, and that does not bode well.

I don't care that it's written by Simon Pegg.  Yes, he's crafted some interesting stuff, but he's also crafted some not so interesting stuff.  I 'get' that he's a Trek enthusiast (my term, not his), but I've yet really to see any 'respect' from him for the franchise.  Instead, his approach tends to be much like JJ's: "I'm all for making a film I want to see, and maybe that isn't what the fan base wants."

Seriously, Paramount?  Is this motorcycle so important to Star Trek, its legacy, and -- dare I say -- its future that it must continue to thumb its nose at diehard fans?  I get that you don't like us.  I get that you wish we'd go away.  And, yes, I get that you'd rather see us in court (Google the whole Axanar issue) than with our butts in the seats ... but is that the message of inclusion you want to sell?

Apparently, CBS doesn't believe enough in televised Star Trek any more to even risk it on the boob tube as the next incarnation will only get a 'premiere' on the network but then will immediately switch over to a monthly pay service where you even have to sit through commercials for a price.  How sad is that?

I'm all for going boldly in new directions, but -- if I'm required to take a motorbike -- maybe what Dr. McCoy said so long ago really is accurate:

​"It's dead, Jim."

Comments are closed.

    Reviews
    ​Archive
    ​

    Reviews

    birthdays
    Archive
    ​

    January
    February
    March
    April
    May
    June
    July
    August
    September
    October
    November
    December

    mainpage
    ​ posts

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly