It was NEVER like that. It's your misinterpretation of on line in one episode. All Picard was trying to get across was his belief in the potential of humanity. :facepalm:facepalm:facepalm
Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
It was NEVER like that. It's your misinterpretation of on line in one episode. All Picard was trying to get across was his belief in the potential of humanity. :facepalm:facepalm:facepalm
THEY ARE.
That is the only perspective in which we can interpret a story. Whether the protagonist is human, Klingon, Ferengi, Cardassian... It's all about humanity.
So should we classify Star Trek as being part of the same genre as Hamlet, Transformers, Star Wars, Caligula, Die Hard, Little Mermaid, Silence of the Lambs, Dredd, Godzilla, The Hunt for Red October, Rear Window, Thunderball, ect.? If every story ever written is about humanity, why should saying Star Trek is about humanity make it unique when that's the case for everything? It's like saying "My movie is special because it's a movie!". You've got to have a little bit more going for it than just that.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
I already do. It's called the "entertainment" category.
I'll go one step further and call it science fiction. Not allegorical fiction, science fiction.
Zuiun
Sr Member
It's like when you are categorizing living organisms. You start general and drill down to the specifics. On a general level, humans and dogs are similar, for example. On a specific level, not so much.
On a general level, all stories are about US.
When you drill down, you get to specifics. It's the specifics that separate Star Trek from, say, Die Hard. The fundamental message of Star Trek is that humanity will not only survive into the future, but will be better than it is now. Not perfect, but better.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
That's a sub-category. There are an additional two sub-categories below that as well: "suck" and "does not suck." Example: The Phantom Menace would have ended up in the "suck" category were it not for Ray Park making all of Darth Maul's fight scenes such visual poetry. Abrams' take on Trek also doesn't fall in the "suck" category because it's entertaining. It may not be the old school Star Trek we're all used to but like Kirk said to Scotty in the third film: "Young minds, fresh ideas."
I'll agree with that. Although I'm not a fan it doesn't "suck". You can tell there's solid production quality on all levels. It's just not targeting me as a more classical Trek fan.
I will be seeing the new one though. :thumbsup
Mola Rob
Sr Member
Do you read the full post before you respond? I made no reference to Star Trek Into Darkness I only commented on your statement that you like aliens that look and act differently from us. It seems you have a blanket argument that you throw out without ever seeing if it fits the statement you are disagreeing with. You steer the conversation away from the point someone is trying to make.
You don't seem to like much of Star Trek and condemn it because of one line or one episode that doesn't sit well with you. The actions of one character seem to be enough to alienate you from an entire series. That's why I wonder why you bother.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
Why do I feel...dirty, all of a sudden? Just kidding. Glad to see there is reason across the board in some things.
Well it seems to be the only category that matters to it's "It's about humanity!" fan boys. Sometimes I wonder why anyone even bothers with the alien concept when all they do is think to themselves "These klingons are not aliens. They're human beings" when, you know, they're not.
Yeah, but do you really want to hold JJ's Star Trek film as the epitome of all the things that makes a good Star Trek product? Granted, it is a fun film that many people seem to enjoy, but some variety can go a long way. Some of the best Star Trek stories don't even involve space battles, fist fights, evil bad guys or random gratuitous shots of women in their underwear. Unfortunately since Star Trek seems to be trapped in the movie business, it has to appeal to the most widest audience imaginable so there's not a whole lot of room to do much of anything else except fight a bad guy who attacks Earth in every movie.
Because nothing says 'fresh ideas' like using the same characters from the original series doing things you'd expect them to do. What's this? A captured villain manipulates the good guys from within to further his own agenda? Yeah, saying Star Trek Into Darkness is chocked full of fresh ideas is like saying Catwoman's High Heals in TDKR totally fits in with Nolan's realism. It's all bull crap so why bother saying otherwise? Nothing wrong with using the original crew, just don't call it a 'fresh idea'.
Zuiun
Sr Member
Maybe I missed something, but who is trying to make JJ's Trek the epitome of all things that make a good Trek?
Recognizing it as an entertaining movie isn't the same thing as holding it up as the example of what Trek is meant to be. Even recognizing it as an entertaining TREK movie isn't equal to labeling the "epitome" of good Trek.
Jeyl, you really should change your username to Straw Man. You've perfected the technique...
I guess it's gotten to the point that what makes a really good Star Trek product isn't the priority. Doesn't mean it can't happen judging by how many people liked the last movie, but this is after all a big budgeted movie made by a director who still to this day doesn't see the appeal of Star Trek in general. Over the years, JJ Abrams never really discusses what makes Star Trek it's own unique thing, instead choosing to say that this film is for everyone and you don't need to be familiar with Star Trek (or even the last movie in the case of STID) in order to get it. There just doesn't seem to be any real faith or enthusiasm in Star Trek from the folks who are making it.
Contrast that with the folks who made the recent Judge Dredd movie. They didn't shy away from the fact that it was Judge Dredd. They openly stated from Day 1 that they were going to make a Judge Dredd movie about a hard core policeman named Dredd who resorts to very violent methods of fighting crime and never takes his helmet off. I just wish there was some of that enthusiasm for Star Trek.
Says who? Your conclusion is completely incorrect.
True, but Dredd was a complete box office flop.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
I cant really take anything Jeyl says seriously anymore.
Common sense would indicate any person who dislikes something would avoid it....But yet he's stated that he'll be going to see the movie , claiming that he "cant make a judgement without seeing the film"...??
Hes been making judgements about the film for the last 70 pages without having seen the film!!!
Common sense would indicate any person who dislikes something would avoid it....But yet he's stated that he'll be going to see the movie , claiming that he "cant make a judgement without seeing the film"...??
Hes been making judgements about the film for the last 70 pages without having seen the film!!!
Mola Rob
Sr Member
Which Trek should they be faithful to? The original series? If so which season? The animated series? The incredibly dull first movie that was not very Trek like at all? The sitcom nonsense with the whales? The sloppy and ill conceived fifth movie? The first season of TNG or a latter season? The early Deep Space Nine or the latter Deep Space Nine? Voyager? Enterprise?
Star Trek has at one point or another been everything; drama, comedy, action, deep, shallow, smart, stupid, sexy, exciting, bland, exceptional, terrible, and on and on. The basic principles that were there in the beginning are still there. The style and tone depend on who's doing the writing, producing, directing, and what the studios target audience is at the time.
Star Trek has at one point or another been everything; drama, comedy, action, deep, shallow, smart, stupid, sexy, exciting, bland, exceptional, terrible, and on and on. The basic principles that were there in the beginning are still there. The style and tone depend on who's doing the writing, producing, directing, and what the studios target audience is at the time.
Box office flop, but not a critical failure. A lot of RPFers here including my self speak very highly of the film in the DREDD forum, and the film still boasts a 78% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I even went as far to declare Dredd my favorite film of 2012. Even if JJ's Star Trek film was a flop, I wouldn't fall on that fact alone to dismiss anyone's opinion of it. Heck, Nemesis was a box office bomb, but I didn't use that as a reason to dismiss anyone who liked it.
I'm not dismissing anything (jeeze, a straw man in every post!). I'm merely saying that the changes JJ made, although to a classic Trek fan they may seem to compromise the brand, made the film successful.
Like it or not JJ's "this is for everyone, not just the fans" got more people into the theatre and has renewed peoples interest in the franchise.
Similar threads
