As a Trek fan who likes to see the franchise progress and move forward, I was not clamoring for the "return to the good old days" when the last movie was going to be a new take on the original crew. I've even argued after the film was released that certain details it carried over from the original series did more to detract my opinion of the film than elevate it. I trust everyone here knows what kind of details I am referring to.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
As a Trek fan who likes to see the franchise progress and move forward, I was not clamoring for the "return to the good old days" when the last movie was going to be a new take on the original crew. I've even argued after the film was released that certain details it carried over from the original series did more to detract my opinion of the film than elevate it. I trust everyone here knows what kind of details I am referring to.
Blackbirdcd
Well-Known Member
Missed your post, nwjedidave, oops
Zombie_61
Master Member
And yet, they still look far better than those chrome-plated, toy-like, emitter-spinning water pistols in the '09 movie...they're just not particularly "Trekish".
Proper
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
augofett
Sr Member
Ok, I´m 46. I was born the same year, almost the same month as Trek was premiered. I´ve founded the fan club in my town. I´ve watched Star Trek for 40 years. Star trek was concieved as a science fiction show where people was more important that the starship as it was "just a plate". Star Trek is also Horatio Hornblower in space, a wagon train in outer space. Nazi planets, roman slaves planet, gangster planet, native american planet, just to reuse wardrobe and props. Shootouts, fist fights, rubber aliens, comedy, ilogical and unbelievable situations were also part of Star Trek. JJ Abrams Trek shows some of those aspects of the series. When people say this is not old Star Trek, they are right, this is a new vision of the same characters. And I like it a lot.
Proper
Well-Known Member
Agree 100%. I thunk Abrams did a wonderful thing for Star Trek and for Star Trek fans.
Last edited:
nwjedidave
Sr Member
from what I've seen so far I agree!
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
I've lightened up considerably about Trek '09 since making that original post 13 months ago.
http://www.therpf.com/f47/star-trek-2009-i-gave-another-chance-136040/
And I must say Proper that your subsequent replies to all the Trek '09 bashing are some of the best responses I've read yet. I agree with just about all of what you say. :thumbsup
The truth is that "Trek" has in the past made the same "non-Trek" choices that the '09 film made, however all of those "choices" in Trek's past are looked at now with rose coloured glasses and given a free pass.
There are many things I "don't" care for in the new direction that Star Trek has taken lately, however my choice is to accept that Star Trek either has to evolve or die. There "was" a time in which I would rather it just died a quiet death rather than trying to "jazz it up" for today's audiences. And frankly that is a pretty selfish attitude for me to have.
Everyone loves to give Star Trek II (IMHO the best Trek film to date) a free pass as to all the changes it made in the direction of the Franchise, but no one wants to acknowledge that it "did" take Trek from a path of exploration to that of a "space action" genre film.
Balance of Terror was a "battlestations" episode as well, however that was "one" episode out of 79 in the series. The series "on the whole" was about exploration (and in turn exploring the human condition).
Wrath of Khan changed all that. Anyone willing to openly argue this is in denial. They changed the duty uniforms from practical to formal, made the protocol much more militant in nature (did they ever say "Admiral on the bridge" in the TOS?) and as I've said before (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record like another member here) the whole film revolves around two ships battling each other like tall ships at sea.
I remember reviews from '82 saying things like, (paraphrasing from my 30 year old memory) "It gave fans something they always wanted (but never got) to see in the Original Series."
Whenever a Trek film has tried to "recapture" the glory days, it ends up being a carbon copy of Star Trek II...
-Villain bent on revenge
-Super destructo device
-death of a main/recurring character
I can name at least 3 out of the 9 films that followed Wrath of Khan using this formula.
Trek '09 has some massive gaps in logic but so did Wrath of Khan...
The most glarring is that a planet can spontaneously explode in such a fashion as to affect a sister planet (presumably hundreds of thousands... perhaps "millions" of kilometers away) so as to "shift the orbit of that planet laying waste to everything" AND cause that planet to assume the original orbit of the planet that exploded in the first place; thereby causing a starship on course to mistake one planet for the other... Also causing that starship's personnel to overlook the fact that the system that once had 6 planets orbiting the sun now has five. :unsure
Chekov recognizes the SS Botany Bay buckle and realizes where they are... but doesn't call for an emergency beam out. Would have been a pretty short film if he had yes?
Khan activates the Genesis device, but no one tries to beam the device from the Reliant into deep space like they did with Redjac or Nomad. The transpoters worked fine as Kirk suggested beaming aboard to stop the device, but even Spock couldn't think of beaming the device itself.
Huge plot points that are overlooked in order to "tell the story."
Hey like I said, there are some massive leaps in logic in Trek '09; it is certainly not Trek at its best. It's just that the "hate" becomes absoultely dripping with hypocrisy when Trek '09 is compared with what Trek has done in the past.
There is no plothole in Trek '09 that can't be directly compared to previous plotholes in all the incarnations of what we believe Trek to be. They "all" had their ups and downs.
Kevin
DARTH SABER
Master Member
I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but where exactly was this "intellectual" aspect in TOS?
Don't get me wrong, TOS was smartly written and had more substance than any sci-fi at the time, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it was "intellectual" in the sense that one need a pHD to enjoy or understand the stories (which is what seems to be suggested around here).
TOS was comprised of a (thinly veiled) positive social message, teamwork or friendship, a bit of adventure and a dose of science theory tossed in.
All of these elements were present in JJ-trek as well, so I'm confused in regards to this so-called "intellectual" advantage that TOS has over JJTrek.
The only Trek film which comes close to being "intellectual" is ST:TMP.....and we all know how that fared at the box office.
I honestly don't understand why TOS is painted to be the uber intellectually philosophical exercise....it's not.
Last edited:
Actually Star Trek: The Motion Picture did quite well at the box office when it was released, bringing in 139 million dollars world wide. Not exactly Star Wars money, but certainly a success. The reason why Paramount decided to go with a big change for the sequel was because creator/producer Gene Roddenberry was almost impossible to work with so they replaced him with Harve Bennett.
And I would say that the intellectual part of TMP is clumsy at best. Whenever Spock starts to describe V'Ger, it's always "Thought patterns in exactingly perfect order" and "I sense no emotion. Only pure logic.". If that's the case, how come it's also described as having "insatiable curiosity", or when it throws those random tantrums? Cripes, set designers changed the mood of the V'Ger set from gray to red to reflect how impatient V'Ger was getting.
MooCriket
Master Member
I'm not going to get all worked up over this film. It is not the Star Trek I grew up watching as reruns. It's not Next Gen. It's just by an large mindless action. I can live with it. I'm just going to turn my brain off and go in watching this on auto pilot and enjoy it for what it is.
clancampbell
Sr Member
Agreed, i still don't understand why so many people get bent out of shape by this itteration of Trek......the first film was fast paced, exciting and had the REAL Spock in it.......
....the second looks to be intense, frightening and perilous.........
....to those who say they lament the days of Cerebral, Thinking-Man's Star Trek....i say HUMBUG!!!!!! Episodes of such a nature were few and far between........give me more action, adventure and peril, with a bunch of characters i actually care about!
One of the reasons i liked Star Trek 5, (amidst a sea of despair and naysayers....) was the flawless character interaction and dialogue..........they all just seemed like REAL FRIENDS to me........
I'm hoping for Nu Trek 1 times 10 in the new pic........
Rich
I also think a lot of the kind of "cerebral" Trek stories people seem to be lamenting are much easier to accomplish in episodic TV as opposed to a big budget film. I don't think any Star Trek film was much more then a fun action film, so why judge new Trek this way? Makes no sense.
How many action scenes were there in Star Trek II?
Adventure movies maybe a better descriptive. But no matter how why each define movie genre's, Star Trek films have bee smart but I wouldn't go so far as to call them cerebral, at least in terms of some of the episodes of TV Trek over the decades. That's a ton of content so of course we will be able to explore so much more. JJ needs to put ass in seat at $12 a pop and he better make it worth people's while. that means phasers and fun not "A Measure of a Man" or "Inner Light".
Jedi2016
Sr Member
Two, and they were both space battles. There was no jumping out of the ship with a parachute, sword fighting on a flying platform, or phaser fights at the O.K. Corral.
I never expected this new series to be like the old one. I had no expectations, and that leaves me free to enjoy them for what they are. I liked the first one quite a bit, and I'm sure I'll like this one just as much.
Star Trek needs to go back to TV.
MooCriket
Master Member
True, and I don't see why we can't have it both ways.
Proper
Well-Known Member
Just make sure you don't forget to turn your brain back on afterward.
Again, I thought the concept of ST'09 was very thought-provoking, smart and great sci-fi. For the life of me I don't understand why folks would feel that it was "a large mindless action" Trek. Please explain it to me. I'd love to hear it, because maybe I'm injecting intelligence where the writers and Abrams wanted none. Maybe because I feel the movie is smart, I'm not. So please help me out here and present your evidence along with your vehement allegations so I don't feel so JJ-duped.
And while you're at it, and since you insist on direct comparisons to a TNG series that supposedly is... the Holy Grail of Star Trek sci-fi, :rolleyes please explain to me how you can judge the "simpleton" movie next to a "brainiac" TV show that has a different crew, different ship, different star date (as well as Whoopi, Q, and the Ferengi—now that's smart!). Look, seriously, I understand that TNG was a good show—admittedly not my fave—but for the love of Picard how can you compare it to Star Trek the Old Generation movie of 2009? :confused
:confused
Last edited:
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
How many "thought provoking/cerebral/moralizing" scenes were there?
-I can only think of "one" in which Spock and McCoy debate the moral aspects of the Genesis device.
However about "action"...
-The film opens with an "attack" on the Enterprise that "kills" nearly the entire bridge crew. It turns out to just be a simulation, but what would some viewer who didn't know in advance call this sequence? An "action" sequence.
-Khan captures Chekov and Terrell and puts creatures in their ears. Really thought provoking and cerebral.
-The Reliant approaches/Khan attacks/Kirk double crosses
-Kirk, McCoy and Saavik beam over to Space Station Regula 1 to find it deserted and the remaing scientists slaughtered- while there is not a lot of "flash-bang" action, this sequence is full of tension with a couple of jump scares. Oh and bodies hanging upside down with their thoats cut... very intellectual.
-Kirk and the gang beam down to Regula. Fist fight with David, followed by Jedda getting phasered into particles, Chekov and Terrell revealing they are under Khan's control, Terrell committs SUICIDE, and the Ceti eel decides that Chekov's brain has had enough and makes a bloody exit... to be blasted by Kirk.
-Kirk and the gang beam back aboard the Enterprise, the battle in the Mutara Nebula, Khan activates Genesis, Spock saves the ship- this comprises essentially the last 20 minutes of the film and is the longest of the "action" scenes.
The above sequences make up half the movie's running time (not including the opening and end credits).
Please help me understand how this is not considered an "action" oriented film as opposed to an intellectual journey?
Kevin
Last edited:
Similar threads
