Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
06-14-2012, 11:38 PM
One thing I will say is that modern audiences will not, and cannot believe in a perfect utopian future, like what was portrayed in the early TNG seasons. Ever since 9/11, americans lost the ideal of a world unified by peace. Now, the american public feels that to get what you want as a country, you need to kill stuff/blow something up. You can see how this is reflected in today's media.

I personally feel that J.J.'s recent Star Trek movie was not necessarily a Sci-Fi movie, or even really a "Star Trek Movie", in the traditional sense. I saw it more as an action movie. I feel that, as an action movie, J.J's Star Trek does well (though I can understand it being terrible for a Sci-Fi movie).

I think with the new movie coming out, J.J. has an opportunity to follow a similar pattern with TOS. My hope is for an action movie, with lots of FX and action, but having the problem solved through peaceful and non-violent means. That is more akin to TOS, and I think it could possibly work with the general public as well (possibly).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
06-14-2012, 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romulus_Prime View Post
The "spirit of Trek" is "let's have a space adventure that doesn't suck."

I don't care how much of a moral story is in a movie if the movie itself is lame. STV is a PRIME example. It has a great underlying theme about friends sticking together and facing personal demons, but the movie sucks...BADLY. Same with Insurrection.
What makes a movie suck in your thoughts. V was a weak film but had a interesting premise of searching for god, friends, and facing personal demons. The last 2 were things that went okay in that film and the God thing should have been done differently. Insurrection was a better film but sadly did not have enough of a plot to justify a film. To me Star Trek was not only exploration but also exploring the human condition and the human journey. Kirk was perhaps the best example of the best and worst parts of being Human. Data and the Doctors and 7 of 9 were a viewing of what makes us human and what it is all about. I found it enlightening and endearing as a child and I still do as a grown man.

What JJ Trek was missing was that human heart beating at its center and it was by definition a Summer Popcorn Flick that was pretty damn good on its own qualities as a not to over thought out film and by Abrams movies standards was a hit as was M.I. 4 . He never really did have a focused film with a strong human center and is one of his weak points as a film maker.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
06-14-2012, 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traven158 View Post
One thing I will say is that modern audiences will not, and cannot believe in a perfect utopian future, like what was portrayed in the early TNG seasons. Ever since 9/11, americans lost the ideal of a world unified by peace. Now, the american public feels that to get what you want as a country, you need to kill stuff/blow something up. You can see how this is reflected in today's media.

I personally feel that J.J.'s recent Star Trek movie was not necessarily a Sci-Fi movie, or even really a "Star Trek Movie", in the traditional sense. I saw it more as an action movie. I feel that, as an action movie, J.J's Star Trek does well (though I can understand it being terrible for a Sci-Fi movie).

I think with the new movie coming out, J.J. has an opportunity to follow a similar pattern with TOS. My hope is for an action movie, with lots of FX and action, but having the problem solved through peaceful and non-violent means. That is more akin to TOS, and I think it could possibly work with the general public as well (possibly).
Yeah that is perhaps true. I also think and believe they need a refreshing jolt of hope in a turbulent time. That is what will revive Star Trek.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
06-15-2012, 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twg042370
It's.

Not.

A.

Religion.

It's.

A.

Product.
Uhuh, and as consumers, we've somehow lost the ability to express out opinion that a product we once enjoyed is moving in a direction we no longer will?

Sorry chief, "it's a product" does not make it immune from critique, emotional investment, or any of the other things normal human beings do when they enjoy something. Even if that expression is futile, it's our right to hold and express it, and it's no less valid for the subject being a commercial product, because everything is a commercial product these days.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
06-15-2012, 01:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_E_D_Allen89
What makes a movie suck in your thoughts. V was a weak film but had a interesting premise of searching for god, friends, and facing personal demons.
This is what made STV suck:

Fart jokes
Bad comedy
The helmsman and navigator of the ship are lost on their home planet in the 23rd century.
"Marsh melons"
Star Trek V: The Search for God
Naked Uhura dancing with feathered boas while on a life & death mission
Deck 72, 73, 74, 75, 76...
The crew drinking the "mental" cool aid
The Scotty-Uhura romance
A "Romulan" chick who looks like an Asian drag queen
A Klingon chick who looks like a Euro drag queen
Crap special effects
Getting to the center of the galaxy in a matter or hours/days
The tri-bewbed cat chick
Sybok running around in his night gown in the final quarter of the movie


Like I said and as you wrote, the premise of friends sticking together and dealing with personal demons is a promising theme. But the delivery is a mountain of A$$. STV sucks.

As for Insurrection - Red Letter Media's dissection of the film is near flawless and I agree with it.


Quote:
To me Star Trek was not only exploration but also exploring the human condition and the human journey. Kirk was perhaps the best example of the best and worst parts of being Human. Data and the Doctors and 7 of 9 were a viewing of what makes us human and what it is all about. I found it enlightening and endearing as a child and I still do as a grown man.
Since TOS went into syndication and the audience broadened, Kirk's ONSCREEN character has always had the advantage of being a media icon, thus people are somewhat familiar with him even if they don't watch Trek. Furthermore, while the movies have chances to expand on it, it never derides the movie from the central theme which is action and adventure, and him leading his crew and us through it. STIV is different only by way of the nature of the mission and "culture-clash" comedy occurring via circumstance.


Picard? Data? - what happens to them onscreen? They get turned into action heroes and the movies become the Picard and Data show because those are the two TNG characters who most people in the BROADER movie-going audience are familiar with. And even then, the mainstream audience really don't know who they're all about, just that Data is a bot and Picard is bald and the captain.


The rest of the Trek characters from the other shows cannot make a film work because they don't have what it takes to have a broad appeal to the masses. DS9 comes close with regards to the characters, but even then, their story arcs are all done.



Quote:
What JJ Trek was missing was that human heart beating at its center and it was by definition a Summer Popcorn Flick that was pretty damn good on its own qualities as a not to over thought out film and by Abrams movies standards was a hit as was M.I. 4 . He never really did have a focused film with a strong human center and is one of his weak points as a film maker
The TOS characters are cultural and media icons. Abrams took them and set it up so that they were involved in a huge adventure AND made them young enough to be around to do the movies for a while. That in itself, is brilliant in its simplicity. But I do see the heart in that film. Everything for Kirk and Spock get's effed up by Nero, and they both have to put their egos in check in order to bring the crew together and defeat him. And people who claim Nero has no personality completely ignore the fact that he is an enraged psychopath who chose to blame someone for the loss of everything in his life. Hell, he successfully destroyed a key Federation planet and ally - that's more than what any Trek villain has ever accomplished.

As for MI4, it's the first one I've seen since the 1st movie. I thought it had enough emotion to keep me thinking. It's a roller coaster ride, just like Star Trek was. He's hired to make that type of movie, and if I'm enjoying the ride, I'm gonna go back for more. And I did. If I want super-science + technobable and sci-fi morality plays questioning the deeper meaning of existence...c'mon, there are TONS of Trek shows which do that. Not every single Trek incarnation HAS TO be a lesson on what it means to be human in a sci-fi universe. The Ferengi episodes of DS9 are a great example of that - sometimes you just have to have shows and movies that are FUN to watch.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
06-15-2012, 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosolidshoe View Post
Uhuh, and as consumers, we've somehow lost the ability to express out opinion that a product we once enjoyed is moving in a direction we no longer will? .
You need to keep up with current events - it's BEEN moved. It started with Generations and went full-ballistic with Rambo Picard in First Contact, so please don't pretend this is some new and different way we are experiencing Star Trek at the movies.


Quote:
Sorry chief, "it's a product" does not make it immune from critique, emotional investment, or any of the other things normal human beings do when they enjoy something.
Immunity from criticism is not even anywhere near the point. The point is the product being successful or tanking means we either get more Trek or ZERO for another 5yrs....AGAIN. If Trek was the Titanic, Nemesis and Enterprise were the icebergs which sank it. Fortunately, Abrams movie was a financial success. Titanic saved. That means there are still people with $$$ who will invest in more Trek productions and related merchandise. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.


Quote:
Even if that expression is futile, it's our right to hold and express it, and it's no less valid for the subject being a commercial product, because everything is a commercial product these days
I don't see anyone saying you or anyone else can't express an opinion. Why you're implying otherwise, I have no idea.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
06-15-2012, 02:38 AM
Oh forheavens sake CAN YOU NOT LET RODDENBERRY REST already?

He was a horrible writer, a horrible person (creating lyrics for intros so that you can dip into the profits? yeah great move) and he pretty much created a universe that was conceptually broken so much that salvaging it took not only his death (to stop his executive mddling) but also nearly 50 years of shows.

Star Trek is a collaborative effort of many people, Gene Roddenberry was not some kind of genius, he was a writer with as much misses as he had hits.




As for Star Treks future:

In theaters they should simply churn out entertaining action flicks like they did with the abrams reboot. Keep that universe cinema exclusive.

As for any shows: yeah. future of the timeline DS9 left us with. Because it would be interesting to learn how the federation has change dafter going through that meat grinder that was the dominion war.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
06-15-2012, 03:39 AM
Was JJ's film entirely an action flick though? Wasn't there a fair bit regarding Spock facing discrimination, and the need to balance logic with intuition and/or initiative?

Not to mention establishment of characters and other interactions thereof, everyone sorting out and earning their places on and off the bridge....

Much of that we harder core fans might take for granted, given these are characters we are used to, but that doesn't mean the character development isn't there.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
06-15-2012, 04:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
Was JJ's film entirely an action flick though? Wasn't there a fair bit regarding Spock facing discrimination, and the need to balance logic with intuition and/or initiative?

Not to mention establishment of characters and other interactions thereof, everyone sorting out and earning their places on and off the bridge....

Much of that we harder core fans might take for granted, given these are characters we are used to, but that doesn't mean the character development isn't there.
YES.

Something I'm sick of of is the fact that everyone says the new film had no thought provoking substance, or was little more than action.

Spock's home was DESTROYED, his mom DIED and his father admitting he followed his heart with his mom, not his logic. He had a breakdown, something rare among most vulcans.

So much happened to him that differed vastly from the alpha verse, and yet he still stayed by the enterprise, is still fast friends with Kirk. It just shows that sometimes, it's possible to make the best out of what you have. It's just a mix of nostaligia and cynicsm that people can't admit that maybe the light show was just that, and that if they looked past that, there actually was something there, instead of getting distracted by the FX they so deride.

Honestly, I think it is jsut as good or even better than Roddenberry's vision, it's got that exact same idealism that he wanted in the show, which I think is exactly what matters.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
06-15-2012, 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman56
YES.

Something I'm sick of of is the fact that everyone says the new film had no thought provoking substance, or was little more than action.

Spock's home was DESTROYED, his mom DIED and his father admitting he followed his heart with his mom, not his logic. He had a breakdown, something rare among most vulcans.

So much happened to him that differed vastly from the alpha verse, and yet he still stayed by the enterprise, is still fast friends with Kirk. It just shows that sometimes, it's possible to make the best out of what you have. It's just a mix of nostaligia and cynicsm that people can't admit that maybe the light show was just that, and that if they looked past that, there actually was something there, instead of getting distracted by the FX they so deride.

Honestly, I think it is jsut as good or even better than Roddenberry's vision, it's got that exact same idealism that he wanted in the show, which I think is exactly what matters.

But kirk, a CADET that hhadn't even finished academy was given command at the end! Chekov's original age would of meant he would of only just been born by that point!
I don't doubt it was a BRILLIANT movie and its condition in star trek quality is debatable... but talk about things that dont make sense in that universe!? Who could of known that destroying one ship on a deep space mission would of caused retardation within Starfleet!
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:34 AM.