http://www.entertainmentearth.com/cjdoorway.asp?url=hitlist.asp?collect=Pop!+Vinyl+Figures

Flashback: Super Bowl 2009 Brings Star Trek to the masses

Today is Super Bowl XLIV, which marks the one year anniversary of a seminal Trek event, the first ever Super Bowl commercial for a Trek film. Last year’s Star Trek Super Bowl commercial was a sort of ‘coming out’ for the Star Trek film to the mainstream. The commercial was a big success and led the way to the film being one of the top blockbusters of the year. See it again below with links to our over 2009 coverage, plus a look forward to 2012.   

 

Star Trek Super Bowl Commercial 


[sizes available: 480 | 720 | 1080 | YouTube]

More Star Trek Super Bowl Details:

The commercial that began the big mainstream campaign
In November 2008 Paramount had released their first Star Trek theatrical trailer with the film Quantum of Solace. However, the trailer ended up being seen with only 2/3s of QoS screenings, and the film only did $168M domestically (a bigger hit overseas). On the other hand, the Star Trek Super Bowl commercial was to be seen by 100 million viewers and was going to be the first exposure to a new Star Trek film for the mainstream.

At a cost of $3 Million, it was an expensive gamble, but by all measurements it was a big success. Media critics immediately gave the spot high marks, with the ‘this is a new kind of Star Trek’ buzz carrying all the way into the summer. Plus, all the polls had the commercial ranked as the 2nd most memorable movie spot (out of the 10 movie spots) behind Transformers 2. Star Trek ended up out-performing the domestic box office of all eight of the other films on the list.

Super Bowl XLVI here we come?
The Star Trek sequel comes out June 29, 2012, and so would be poised to benefit from a Super Bowl spot in 2012. However there is no guarantee there will be a spot. This year fewer studios are buying are buying fewer Super Bowl spots. Although Paramount is one of three studios joining in, they are buying two spots instead of the four they did last year. One of Paramount’s spots is for The Last Airbender which is slated for the 4th of July weekend. Last year they also ran a commercial for that weekend (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) and so that could indicate a trend for Paramount to buy spots for its big 4th of July summer movie (which would include the Star Trek sequel in 2012). However, Paramount did not buy a spot for Iron Man 2, which comes out May 7th. That could indicate that Paramount now feels they don’t need to buy such an expensive ad for a sequel to a successful film, as it has buzz already built in. If that is the case, then the Star Trek sequel may not be on the list for the 2012 Super Bowl.

Of course economic times will likely be different in 2012 so we will may still see that Star Trek: Something Something Super Bowl spot, but there will never again be a moment like last year. Last year’s Super Bowl can be seen as the turning point for Star Trek, when the buzz on the film went from the geek-o-sphere to the mainstream.

 

 

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest
T2
February 7, 2010 12:50 pm

I remember it well. I was more excited for that than the game!

February 7, 2010 12:53 pm

Not to be an ass but XVI is 16. Either way, I hope that Super Bowl XLVI also features the Pittsburgh Steelers (in a victorous match!)

Chadwick
February 7, 2010 1:02 pm

Never a sports fan, watched the trailer so many times didn’t even watch the super bowl for the commercial. But I do remember the hype for the commercial, and I do remember my football loving friends talking about how great Star Trek looked, now that I loved.

Sunfell
February 7, 2010 1:10 pm

That trailer, and the ones that followed it, were amazing. I wonder if they can repeat the excitement in two years?

I hope so.

Christine
February 7, 2010 1:33 pm

That was suuuuuuuch a slow game. But at least the team I was rooting for came out on top. :D

The trailer was better than the halftime show, hahaha. But I’m way excited for this year’s Colts vs. Saints.. GO COLTS!!!

(Yes, I love my football. Whoot!)

Captain Hackett
February 7, 2010 1:36 pm

GO SAINTS GO!

Pat D.
February 7, 2010 1:39 pm

Ummm, plus there is a big difference between May 8 and and June 29 when buying a superbowl ad.

CmdrR
February 7, 2010 1:53 pm

If the Saints divert all power to phasers and deflectors, they should easily anihilate the Colts.
Q’plah!

Michael Hall
February 7, 2010 1:59 pm

I was quite intrigued by this trailer myself, having downloaded and watched it a number of times. Unfortunately, for my money it promised a more thoughtful, serious epic film than the one we got. :-(

February 7, 2010 2:11 pm

And most important of all … the Who are playing tonight!!

Oh, and there’s supposed to be some kind of football game or other.

Kirk, James T.
February 7, 2010 2:12 pm
However popular Star Trek was with the mainstream – Paramount will have to spend AS MUCH on advertising the sequel – Star Trek is still not as easy a sell as an Iron Man or Batman film is going to be. That stigma is still there and Star Trek still has it’s work cut out for it – do not be lead to believe that everything is 100% go for the sequel to attract such mainstream support. Abrams and Co. are going to have to pull dozens of rabbits from their hats if Star Trek is to BUILD NOT MAINTAIN but BUILD on it’s success last year. It worries me that Paramount will assume that the sequel will already have a built in mainstream audience. The sequel already has to prove itself overseas where Star Trek failed to produce the BO numbers associated with a summer tent-pole release. I’m from the UK and my god Paramount have a mission on their hands to secure Star Trek’s mainstream popularity – to many who weren’t fans, however good the Trek film was in 2009 they still regard Star Trek as Nerdvana and way less cool than Star Wars and wont be inclined to go see it unless it’s more appealing. The way i see it is this; JJ Abrams and Co and Paramount Pictures HAVE far more work to do making the sequel a success. Globally Star Trek needs a bigger profile, more advertising and merchandise, video-games and something that makes Star… Read more »
Hat Rick
February 7, 2010 2:20 pm
Wise words, 12. There are two countervailing considerations at work here, and they may each be described as follows: 1. Star Trek is back. 2. Star Trek is back. The first connotes anticipation. The latter connotes familiarity. It isn’t just marketing that must be considered here. At this stage, such elements as plot, character, theme, and forward momentum are issues that can be addressed and finessed to yield the best result for the franchise. The Superbowl advertisement for the movie was fantastic: It showed that far from a moribund blabfest that too many in the general audience believed Trek to have become, the new Star Trek movie would be action-oriented and therefore enjoyable. (Recall the Onion’s satirical reference claiming that Trekkies condemned the new movie for being fun and watchable.) But the advertisement for the next one should be both different and compelling, lest ennui set in. Action, action, action may be one of the points of departure here around which the plot might be shaped. As previously noted in my postings, there should be many elements of warfare and conflict, and massed starships and joined battles, to garner interest in the public at large. At the same time, there should be a plausible element of romance and sentimentality to bring in the distaff side. Bringing such things together is a tall order. In a few years, we will see another Superbowl commercial, I hope, for the new Trek sequel. I, for one, want to be amazed all over again.
MDSHiPMN
February 7, 2010 2:20 pm

#9. Actually I think the trailer pretty much is all action, not really promising much more than action, yelling, figting exploding and more action.

Alec
February 7, 2010 2:33 pm

I completely agree that Trek 2009 was simply a great beginning and that subsequent Trek films, most notably the sequel of course, will need to build on Trek 2009’s success. The next film will not succeed if its budget (marketing or otherwise) is cut by any noticeable margin. One does not rest on ones laurels after resuscitating a sleeping giant.

To capture the international audience, we need an international star. It’s quite simple. And not a star masked by make-up; so no Borg, Klingons, Romulans, etc. But one who is easily identifiable, as an actor; and as a character. In short, we need Khan; and we need a Hollywood A-lister to play him. With a great (and novel) script, direction and special effects, the 2012 ‘Star Trek 12’ Khan epic will be loved by all: mainstream and hardcore fans alike.

Bring on 2012.

PS. Regarding future projects for these guys, I’d love for them to do a Bond film. And they have a history of dabbling with old cartoons and children’s shows; so why not bring back a classic such as, ‘The legend of Prince Valiant’? Seriously. That show had great writing, music, and character development. It won awards and dealt with noteworthy concepts and subjects, especially for children, such as destiny, honour, friendship, duty, justice, racism. sexism, and domestic violence.

captain_neill
February 7, 2010 3:20 pm

Once again insults to the past Treks and loads of praise for the new movie

Can’t we like both equally?

Hugh Hoyland
February 7, 2010 3:25 pm

#12 & 15 spot on. And I believe that the movie is in good hands with the SC and they are well aware of these points to. And #15 I to think Khan is really needed, not a remake of TROK of course, not even a remade Space seed, more like a vastly expanded Space Seed, as only part of the movie. Other elements could be added as well, particularly an aditional villian, ie The Gorn keeps coming to my mind. But maybe another new villian as well. I thought a new villian such as an Invader Force who used implanting (mind contol on a large scale) could be menacing.

And I agree to keep the romace going strong, GA likes it, as I think most of us do to a certain extent. Keep a balance with epic battle scenes, Action, romance, an A list actor playing Khan, and they will come up with something a broad audiance will enjoy. And of course Marketing must be strong, big time.

As a side, I read one of the first attempts at a Star Trek motion picture story POTT, circa 76-77. IMO that had promise, to bad it was rejected though. Maybe someday something can be done with that.

captain_neill
February 7, 2010 3:37 pm

15

Khan better NOT be in the next Trek film

Yes it will get the mainstream interested but how many more Trekkies will walk away from Trek if they just rehash and reuse villains from before.

How about an original idea for the next movie.

Hugh Hoyland
February 7, 2010 4:39 pm

One way that they could do a new twist on Khan would be either have some villian with knowlege of Khan (Gorn or whomever) discover the Guardian before the Enterprise does. Using the Guarian they go back to the time of the Eugenics war and give khan vital technical and administrative data before he escapes. With this data he builds a much more advanced ship capable of nuclear and phaser weaponry. This data also gives him access to Earth/Federation defences ect.

Pardon my fanboyism here, but like a lot of fans that post, its kind of fun just trying to dream up ideas for the next movie from ones own point of view. :}

Alec
February 7, 2010 5:39 pm
18. captain_neill – February 7, 2010 Do we want Star Trek to continue for years to come and go from strength to strength? Do we want Star Trek to be as ‘big’ and as favorably viewed as the original Star Wars films? If we answer yes to either or both of these questions, we understand that we need the mainstream audience. I would argue that the best way of enticing the mainstream audience is to bring back Khan. He’s the best and the best known of all the Trek villains. He would generate a lot of buzz for the new film. He is perfect for a mainstream Hollywood A-List actor to play. All in all, he’s the best way of enticing both the mainstream and the international audiences which Trek so badly needs. So long as the Trek team creates a good film with Khan, very few if any Trekkies will walk away. Those Trekkies that now have reservations about using Khan are but a small subsection of the group of Trekkies who used to have reservations about the whole recasting project (myself included). If they can recast Shatner and Nimoy, they can recast anyone. Further, why do Trekkies have reservations about Khan in the first place? The argument that it won’t be original is unconvincing. For this would be an entirely new story, just with many of the same characters. In short, it will be creatively as ‘original’ as any Star Trek film, all of which reuse the same… Read more »
ryanhuyton
February 7, 2010 6:34 pm

#20 Well said sir!

As far as I am concerned, NOTHING should be off limits in regards to the sequel, including Khan. After the success of “Star Trek”, I have complete faith in the Supreme Court’s abilities to craft a “classic” sequel that could rank up there with such hits as “The Empire Strikes Back”, “The Dark Knight”, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” and “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”.

Rocket Scientist
February 7, 2010 7:08 pm

5. Christine

“The trailer was better than the halftime show, hahaha. But I’m way excited for this year’s Colts vs. Saints.. GO COLTS!!!”

I beg to differ, young lady! The Who were the main reason I watched the game, and they did not disappoint. They may have *looked* like a couple of old farts, but they are rock legends. Icons who are as much a cultural treasure as Kirk, Spock, etc.

I guess you had to be there…

Maggie
February 7, 2010 7:24 pm

JJ Abrams and the writers of the next Trek movie have a HUGE job ahead of them. The franchise is 40 years old and there is a very good reason it has survived 40 years. ST is not about action and science – it’s about gadgets and plots that challenge us cerebrally with a bit of action and science thrown in.

If the next Trek follows the path of the 2009 Trek (which I enjoyed) ie action without the familiar challenges to ethics and philosophy underlying the plot, then it will do ST and Roddenberry’s concept of ST no favors at all. It will pull Trek into the class of “just another Hollywood action in space movie” which is really the antithesis of true Trek. There are no franchises that have survived very long (let alone 40 years) on action alone – it becomes boring.

The 2012 Trek needs a decent, challenging plot steeped in ethics, philosophy, metaphysics etc. A skilled writer can mix this with the required amount of action. Without this, Trek will die.

Christine
February 7, 2010 7:49 pm

#22 :: The Who were at last year’s Super Bowl? I thought it was someone else… hm… Maybe I’m just losing my mind. But my sources say it was Bruce Springsteen.
They were awesome tonight, though. Loved it! (I missed their concert in Omaha… Boohoo. But I was off on a MIssion trip, so whatever.) And FYI, I am a sucker for old bands… I went to an REO Speedwagon concert and it was the coolest thing EVER. “Ride in the Storm” = Amazing.

bgiles73
February 7, 2010 8:13 pm

Geaux Saints!!! The Who Dat Nation won a proud victory an earned their place in Sto’ Vo’Kor!!!!

Rocket Scientist
February 7, 2010 8:14 pm

Oh, my bad. You were referring to *last* year’s halftime vs. the trailer. My apologies!

Christine
February 7, 2010 8:32 pm

#26 :: Yeah… It’s cool, though. We misread comments here all the time. Heck, I do that. xD No hard feelings!

Pro-Khan-sel
February 7, 2010 9:18 pm

To all the pro-khan forces!!

Keep up the good work!

Syn4Ever
February 7, 2010 9:35 pm

I say the get Peyton Manning for the sequel. A lot could be done on that awesome forehead of his

captain_neill
February 7, 2010 11:31 pm

Perhaps Khan is what is needed for the mainstream crowd but why does every one think that Khan is the only good villian in Trek?

There are many great villains like Gul Dukat, Genaral Chang, Kai Winn, the Borg Queen and Borg,etc.

It seems that movie is going looking for either the Borg or Khan and there is a lot more to Trek than Khan and the Borg.

Khan’s story will have to play out very similar to before as his back story would be the same, meaning the Eugenics Wars in the 90s, they ret con that then it confirms that the whole Trek XI was in a different universe anyway.

Also the Borg don’t belong in Kirk’s time their ‘official’ first contact did not occur until 24th Century.

I personally think Star Trek needs to go back to TV to get the great stories.

Redoing Khan in my opinion is a lazy idea from writers who can’t think of anything better in an era of Hollywood where the only thing to do is either remake a clasic or reboot a classic.

Khan and First Contact are my fav films so I love both Khan and the Borg but I am more in favour of something new for the next film.

So forgive me if this trekkie is against a redo of Khan.

February 8, 2010 1:21 am

#20 opines “Do we want Star Trek to continue for years to come and go from strength to strength? Do we want Star Trek to be as ‘big’ and as favorably viewed as the original Star Wars films? If we answer yes to either or both of these questions, we understand that we need the mainstream audience.”

(A) Only the second one requires a mainstream audience. (B) Making something branded “Star Trek” popular is _not the same thing_ as making Star Trek popular. (C) Read (B) over and over again until it sinks in.

captain_neill
February 8, 2010 1:42 am

23

Exactly but from these reports I don’t think that is what we will be getting.

Skeptical in these darke days of Hollywood.

February 8, 2010 2:19 am

#23: “A skilled writer can mix this with the required amount of action.”

Yes.

Alas.

captain_neill
February 8, 2010 2:43 am

Hollywood is in trouble these days

Its too derivitive of its past.

It seems the movies are probably going to go in a direction that I will not be happy with.

It sucks but got to live with it

The mainstream always wins over the fans and at the moment n cinema I hate the mainstream so obviously to appeal it seems Trek is going to move further from what the fans want and that will probably mean more fans will walks after the nest movie.

Maggie
February 8, 2010 4:05 am

34.

I fear this too. I feel it’s a symptom of how viewers currently guage “entertainment” – over the past 10-15 years, look at the increasing numbers of reality tv shows (touted as “social experiments” – oh puuulease!). Most of them are nothing more than mindless drivel that do nothing to stimulate the imagination. AFter all, why pay decent actors and writers when you can get away with a third rate celebrity hosting a bunch of idiots in a reality show. Viewers seem to have become nothing but passive voyeurs. Films based firmly in action also do little to stimulate the imagination or engage the mind and are quickly forgotten. So for Hollywood, why bother hiring decent writers when you can make a quick buck out of a minimalist plot and mindless action? This is NOT what Star Trek is about and the controllers of the Trek franchise would do well to remember that – if not, Trek will be gone forever (after another 1-2 films).

Alec
February 8, 2010 5:49 am
31. S. John Ross – February 8, 2010 ‘#20 opines “Do we want Star Trek to continue for years to come and go from strength to strength? Do we want Star Trek to be as ‘big’ and as favorably viewed as the original Star Wars films? If we answer yes to either or both of these questions, we understand that we need the mainstream audience.” (A) Only the second one requires a mainstream audience. (B) Making something branded “Star Trek” popular is _not the same thing_ as making Star Trek popular. (C) Read (B) over and over again until it sinks in’. You are mistaken. If statement (A) doesn’t involve the mainstream audience, then the statement is tantamount to one which says that Star Trek will continue for years to come and go from strength to strength without the mainstream audience. I.e., Trek will continue for years to come and go from strength to strength with only the Trekkies. The flaw is obvious; it can be captured in one word: Nemesis. Many people tend to forget, perhaps they’re blinded by the glow and warmth of Trek 11, that prior to the reboot, the franchise was essentially dead. Nothing new was being produced, or had for some time been produced, for either TV or film. Trek lived on only in the dwindling memory of the faifthful. It would soon had died out completely, like so many prior sci-fi shows, without the new creative efforts of the Supreme Court. Quite simply, we… Read more »
Alec
February 8, 2010 6:34 am
A ‘conversation’ with 30. captain_neill – February 7, 2010 ‘Perhaps Khan is what is needed for the mainstream crowd but why does every one think that Khan is the only good villian in Trek?’ Khan isn’t the only good villain in Trek, of course. But he’s one of the best – if not the very best. ‘There are many great villains like Gul Dukat, Genaral Chang, Kai Winn, the Borg Queen and Borg,etc’. None of these villains, with the possible exception of the Borg, are as beloved by the Trekkies and the mainstream as Khan. Moreover, with the possible exception of Chang, it’s too soon for our heroes to encounter Winn and Dukat and other villains from the TNG-DS9-VGR era. Chronologically, it wouldn’t work: these characters don’t yet exist; and might never exist in this universe. Whereas, Khan is out there…somewhere. Furthermore, Winn and Dukat had their stories fleshed-out very well over many, many episodes with a definite conclusion. ‘It seems that movie is going looking for either the Borg or Khan and there is a lot more to Trek than Khan and the Borg’. See above. ‘Khan’s story will have to play out very similar to before as his back story would be the same, meaning the Eugenics Wars in the 90s, they ret con that then it confirms that the whole Trek XI was in a different universe anyway’. Trek 11 belongs to one of an infinite number of possible universes where each and every possibility is played-out.… Read more »
February 8, 2010 6:38 am

#36:”[…] prior to the reboot, the franchise was essentially dead.”

Prior to the reboot, there was only licensed tie-in merchandise. After and during the reboot, there is only licensed tie-in merchandise.

“Trek 11 showed that we can keep the ‘Star Trek’ in Star Trek and attract the mainstream at the same time.”

Wow.

captain_neill
February 8, 2010 7:00 am

I guess I have to get use to the fact that they will be doing Khan whether we like it or not.

Damn you Abrams

captain_neill
February 8, 2010 7:10 am

sorry I am dreading one of my favourite villains being rehashed when it should be going in a new direction.

Looks like I will probably be against future decisions made by this ‘supreme court’ I hope I will love the next movie but I do fear they will do something that a lot of fans won’t be happy with.

Buzz Cagney
February 8, 2010 8:38 am

Wow that made me all excited again for the film- and I must have seen it 15 times! lol

February 8, 2010 9:02 am
The real question I have when it comes to the whole appealing to the mass market vs. the fans always goes back to how Star Trek originated. Why was the original Star Trek made in the first place? What type of audience did Gene Roddenberry want to showcase the series to? The Scifi audience in general, or anyone who wanted to see something different? The big factor here is that there were no Star Trek related fans when this series started, so the makers of Star Trek didn’t have any expectations to meet. Even with “The Cage”, Gene didn’t want to have it be a big action epic the way the studio wanted it to be, but thank god they gave him another chance in at least trying to give it a little ‘oomph’ that gave the series the green light. Well, the end result created a fanbase, several spin off series and loads of publicity. Now with Trek 09, the current mind set of Star Trek as set by JJ Abrams is “We’re not making Star Trek for fans. We’re making it for fans of movies.” I just want to emphasize that when he says he was not making this movie for the fans, what do you think that really means? Does it mean that he doesn’t want to be bogged down with details that he must limit himself to when he’s telling a story? I guess that makes some sense. Even Star Trek at it’s core would forget… Read more »
February 8, 2010 9:17 am

40. sorry I am dreading one of my favourite villains being rehashed when it should be going in a new direction.

Ya, cause uh….. nothing says going in a new direction by…. rehashing Kirk, the Enterprise, Spock, Earth in danger, bad guys upset over dead wives and are hell bent on revenge…… uh.. Are you sure you’re talking about the same Star Trek? That last movie was nothing but a rehash.

I have a question. Did any Batman fan say they didn’t want the Joker in “The Dark Knight” and cry out that they wanted the Batman series to go in a new direction? Was there any ‘No Joker!’ talk at all? The Joker has had over a dozen different incarnations over many many decades. And now the mere thought of Khan returning is considered blasphemes? That’s just goofy.

February 8, 2010 10:02 am

@42. Jeyl

– Why is the stardate format important from a film making standpoint?

– Or the color of Vulcan’s sky?

– First Contact used a number of practical locations for sets, including one pivotal to the film — the phoenix launch silo. I’ve happened to taken a tour of the Titan Launch silo in Arizona, and I promise you very little was done to the location to ‘dress it up’, where as in Star Trek, pretty major set pieces and design elements were brought in for the brewery.

The “Saving Earth” plot line featured in:

– The Motion Picture
– The Voyage Home
– First Contact
– Nemesis

and now Star Trek.

February 8, 2010 10:04 am

Furthermore, Star Trek has always been a Human story, about the Human condition and our place in the stars. Your line of think would eventually lead to ‘why does every star trek movie and show have to be about the federation! gosh!!’.

February 8, 2010 11:02 am

#43: “The Joker has had over a dozen different incarnations over many many decades. And now the mere thought of Khan returning is considered blasphemes? That’s just goofy.”

A fundamental difference is that Batman has always been a white-hat type fighting and defeating villains, and the Joker is his arch-rival.

It’s like comparing apples and orangutans, let alone oranges.

February 8, 2010 11:08 am
44- Why is the stardate format important from a film making standpoint? A. That isn’t a good argument because when it comes to film making, there are no standpoints. Anyone can make anything they want to. Ever heard of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet being presented in nothing but a white screen with no sound for an hour? That’s been done. B. In my opinion, it bothers me because it further emphasis that Earth is the center of the Trek universe. Compared to the original series’ use of Stardates, it’s just boring and lazy. And I liked the idea of using a non-Earth related time frame because it sounds more universal. 44- Or the color of Vulcan’s sky? Because it wasn’t blue before? Geez, why not just say “why does Uhura being a woman or black have any importance from a film making stand point?” Again, it doesn’t. 44- First Contact used a number of practical locations for sets, including one pivotal to the film — the phoenix launch silo. Read my comment again. See the “Interior starship sets” line? The phoenix launch silo was NOT an interior starship set. The only time they ever used a practical location on a starship was when they were using the holodeck, and on a lot of occasions they made sets for those as well. 44- The “Saving Earth” plot line featured in: Ya, I know. And I’m really sick of it because it all ends the same way, which only leaves future Trek writers… Read more »
February 8, 2010 11:09 am

46. “A fundamental difference is that Batman has always been a white-hat type fighting and defeating villains, and the Joker is his arch-rival.”

Sounds a lot like what Star Trek is becoming. Fighting and defeating villains.

February 8, 2010 11:32 am

#48: “Sounds a lot like what Star Trek is becoming. Fighting and defeating villains.”

It’s been a strong trend in the tie-in films, yeah. :(

Like I’ve said many times before (and will say many times again for as long as the Khan speculation continues): the curse of the success of STII is that filmmakers took the wrong lessons from it. In that, it’s more comparable to the Lord of the Rings movies than to Batman :)

February 8, 2010 12:46 pm
49. “the curse of the success of STII is that filmmakers took the wrong lessons from it.” No joke. And Star Trek writers and directors take the wrong lessons from that movie in more ways than just using a villain. Remember how Kirk’s cheating the ‘no-win’ scenario was played out as a character flaw for Kirk? In Trek09, it’s played out as a strength. That kind of baffles me a bit because in the movie, Kirk obviously fails to save Vulcan from the Romulans, but not once in the whole movie does the ‘I don’t like to lose’ or ‘I don’t believe in the no-win scenario’ trait come up because of it. It’s like Kirk didn’t even care that Vulcan was lost and he failed to rescue it. So really, when you build a character like Kirk who cheats in order to win, and on his first assignment he fails and six billion lives are lost, then story wise, what was the point of him cheating if he thinks nothing of losing? Was it because you wanted something to connect to Spock’s line “A trick I learned from a friend.”? No, because that line doesn’t make any sense. Spock has only been in this timeline for at least a couple of days compared to Nero’s 25 years, and everything that changed because of his arrival was out of his control. Everything involving Kirk’s line about Spock traveling back in time and changing things is probably the worst exchange in the… Read more »
wpDiscuz