quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Having never been a huge fan of TOS I don't know what it means that I liked the Star Trek...it wasn't just mindless action, they did a good job of capturing the feel of the characters, and then putting them in alternate universe so of course they were different. And I enjoyed it.
Yeah. I didn't like that either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just a couple notes: I think all the TNG Trek movies were terrible action movies, including First Contact.
Also, Lyr, DS9 is definitely the best series. By a wide margin, in my opinion. The lack of Roddenberry "idealism" (yuck) is a point in its favor, not a mark against it.
I agree! Especially compared to what we get today, none of the Star Trek movies are action-oriented romps. Other than the opening battle in First Contact, it's mostly very tense walking and talking, with the occasional phaser rifle being fired.
And it was still awesome. The newer movies are sacrificing everything that made Wrath of Khan and First Contact awesome to punch up the action. Apparently they haven't been able to find a balance between the two yet. I think the older movies did tension very well, but they all kept the action to an absolute minimum, in keeping with the show.
DS9 had more action than any other show, and it was high flying and impressive at times, but even then, my favorite episodes aren't the shoot 'em ups (though I do love them). The best episodes, like "In the Pale Moonlight," wrestle with moral quandaries. Sisko's was especially compelling because he strayed well over the line.
Heh, I can't tell if you're intentionally yanking my chain or you misread me.
I think the TNG movies tried to be action movies. And they were terrible. The new Trek tried to be an action movie, and succeeded.
I can totally understand people who think the new Trek fails to live up to the shows. I don't totally agree, but I get it.
But saying the new Trek fails compared to First Contact, or, god forbid, Insurrection? Malarkey. Rose colored glasses.
Hey now, I never mentioned Insurrection. I think it was an okay movie, but not one of Star Trek's best.
But if I was on a desert island and could only pick one Star Trek movie to watch forever (the island has power, and HD tv), the new Star Trek wouldn't be last, but it also wouldn't even be in the top 5.
Whether the old movies were trying to be high class action movies or not is debatable, but they were first and foremost about living up to the best traditions of the Star Trek franchise. I don't think the new Star Trek does that. I think it sacrifices that for the sake of flash over substance. And that's not looking back with rose colored glasses, it's looking back and remembering what made Star Trek Star Trek, and realizing you can't just put the name on a pile of CGI and call it Star Trek. The last Bond movie was awesome action AND a great Bond movie, but if we'd swapped out a couple characters and added a space ship, it wouldn't have been Star Trek. That's what this trailer feels like, and it's what a lot of the last movie felt like too.
The thing I'm disagreeing about is the extent to which the TNG movies actually live up to the traditions of the Trek franchise. I don't think they do. I think they try to make them action flicks, disregard lots of what makes Trek Trek, and basically just fail all around.
Insurrection certainly does. I'm reminded of part of the Red Letter Media review of it... He juxtaposes scenes of Picard arguing for intervening in Insurrection with Picard chastising Wesley for wanting to intervene on some planet in a TNG episode. Picard is literally arguing with himself.
In general his reviews of the TNG flicks are spot on, I think.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, again, Insurrection isn't a movie I'm really in a place to put up a serious defense for. So you can keep on that if you want but you'll have to find another sparring partner.
I don't think the majority of Star Trek fans would agree with you in general about the movies. And even if they agreed with you on the TNG movies, they wouldn't agree about the TOS movies. Personally I think Nemesis was a terrible movie was awesome graphics. I think Insurrection was an okay movie. I think Generations and First Contact were great. And then I think half the TOS movies are great as well.
There's more to these movies than just the dialogue and the CGI. There's the underlying story. The dialogue in the new Star Trek movie was fine, if completely forgettable. The CGI was fantastic, they had all the requisite number of things blowing up. But the story didn't feel like a Star Trek story to me. They were doing something else.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, Star Trek was completely dead at the time the last movie came out. I mean, most people were saying that it wouldn't come back successfully for another 20 years. So at least they've kept it alive.
I think that there's a big difference between the movies and the TV shows (I loved the last movie, but I can understand the criticisms). Hopefully, somewhere in the next five to ten years we'll get 'real' Trek back in the form of a weekly TV show, and then we and the new fans who got into Trek from the new movies can all argue about how not enough stuff blows up.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Having never been a huge fan of TOS I don't know what it means that I liked the Star Trek...it wasn't just mindless action, they did a good job of capturing the feel of the characters, and then putting them in alternate universe so of course they were different. And I enjoyed it.
The alternate universe thing was one of the laziest things about the movie. It's such a blatant contrivance and an insult to the established cannon. Why not just truly reboot the Star Trek franchise? Oh yea, because then they couldn't shoehorn Lenard Nemoy in and would've had to be more original in coming up with new ideas. Just look at all the dumb stuff necessary for the time travel shenanigans to occur:
-The mighty Romulan empire can't handle their own business in regards to their own home world being in danger. -Red matter. -A villain being willing to go back in time to exact petty revenge rather than using that position to potentially save his home world, give his people endless technological advantages, and so on... -How do old Spock and Kirk meet? Purely by accident when Spock just happens to be at the exact random spot on the exact random planet that Kirk gets thrown to by Spock because the Enterprise doesn't have a brig for some reason.
You know, "Star Trek: Generations" gets a lot of criticism, but even it was a far better film. At least it had the stuff about the Nexus...you know, interesting, science-fictiony type of stuff. You absolutely understood why Dr. Soran would be willing to be so murderous to go back to that place. There's storytelling satisfaction to be had from that understanding. The 2009 film had none of that. Even the destruction of two major planets in the Star Trek canon is emotionally empty.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It looks horrible, like the first one. Another Star Trek film for people who never liked Star Trek.
Ugh, I really hate the trio of Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. Two of these guys were behind Transformers, guys. Transformers.
You could also argue that it was Transformers. Think about the source material for a live action 2 hour movie. Was anyone really expecting a logical story about robots turning into vehicles?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was absolutely nothing science fiction about the nexus.
Not that the new movie was the best, but I liked there idea for a new universe. That way fans like you can truly ignore it.
Rebooting it really would have paid no respect to canon, and they still would have had the same silly plot devices.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It looks horrible, like the first one. Another Star Trek film for people who never liked Star Trek.
Ugh, I really hate the trio of Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. Two of these guys were behind Transformers, guys. Transformers.
You could also argue that it was Transformers. Think about the source material for a live action 2 hour movie. Was anyone really expecting a logical story about robots turning into vehicles?
It's possible to take a banal premise and make something good from it. I grant that robot cars is a specially limiting premise but it would've been nice to be surprised, and Orci and Kurtzman are never the kind to surprise, except when they're desperate to and resort to blowing up planets.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: There was absolutely nothing science fiction about the nexus.
It was something fantastical and interesting. Something wondrous that the film tries to get you interested in (by having Whoopi Goldberg describe it and all.) Something so Star Trek.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: There was absolutely nothing science fiction about the nexus.
It was something fantastical and interesting. Something wondrous that the film tries to get you interested in (by having Whoopi Goldberg describe it and all.) Something so Star Trek.
I'm not sure what it means when Sa'eed and I agree, but a rip in space-time is absolutely CLASSIC Trek, and has a fairly long general SF history as well.
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: So at least they've kept it alive.
If this is alive, it was better off dead.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: -A villain being willing to go back in time to exact petty revenge rather than using that position to potentially save his home world, give his people endless technological advantages, and so on...
Doesn't the movie explain the time travel wasn't intentional? I mean, it was some sort of black hole mumbo jumbo, but Nero didn't intentionally go back in time. He got shoved there in his pursuit of old Spock.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: -A villain being willing to go back in time to exact petty revenge rather than using that position to potentially save his home world, give his people endless technological advantages, and so on...
Doesn't the movie explain the time travel wasn't intentional? I mean, it was some sort of black hole mumbo jumbo, but Nero didn't intentionally go back in time. He got shoved there in his pursuit of old Spock.
That's sort of the whole problem with the movie in a nutshell. A "true" Star Trek story would've focused on the ramifications of Nero destroying the timeline and what that might say about our conception of time and identity. There would've been some great, thoughtful discussion between Kirk and Spock (or Picard and Data, or Sisko and Kira, or even Janeway and Chakotay) about what this all means. But nooo. Instead, the Zombie Trek story we got ignores all of that potentially interesting existential stuff in favor of yet another revenge plot that doesn't make any sense when you think about it for more than two seconds. And then Orci and Kurtzman shoehorn in the destruction of Vulcan because they have no freakin' clue how to write anything with "stakes" unless it's a half-baked 9/11 callback.
As a counterexample: Dan_Frank, even if we grant that "First Contact" is kind of mediocre as an action movie, you have to grant our point that it made some real effort at emotional and philosophical resonance beyond the scary Borg bits. Think about those fantastic scenes wherein Picard is enthralled at touching the metal skin of the Phoenix, or where Lily sees Earth from space for the first time, or the actual moment of First Contact - there is absolutely nothing that even tries for that sort of transcendence in Abrams' "Star Trek." And its moments like those that define Trek at its best.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: So at least they've kept it alive.
If this is alive, it was better off dead.
Well, lots of people say this about the new Doctor Who - apparently it's a travesty and we should all be horrified that they have done this to such a wonderful show... And most people my age who had never even watched Doctor Who now love it, and their kids love it, and they go find the old series and love that too.
There were people who were upset that they updated Battlestar.
I remember a time around 1990 when my Treker mother had the same attitude to TNG (absolute travesty, nowhere as good as the original, run by idiots), and she has recovered from that and now loves it for what it is, which is, not TOS.
Would I have loved TOS if TNG and the sequels had not existed? Probably. Would it have seemed at all relevant to me in the 1990s, if it hadn't still been such a part of present popular culture? I'm not sure.
So it's not your Star Trek. But it means that Star Trek still exists and is loved by more people and a whole new generation who are seeking out the old episodes and discovering new frontiers all over again for the first time. Totally worth it, in my book.
Better alive and different than dead and forgotten. But I'm fine about disagreeing on this (and Seven/Chakotay! ).
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Better alive and different than dead and forgotten.
It was not forgotten.
It may not have been bringing in enough money to make the franchise owners happy, but it was definitely not forgotten.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: That's sort of the whole problem with the movie in a nutshell. A "true" Star Trek story would've focused on the ramifications of Nero destroying the timeline and what that might say about our conception of time and identity. There would've been some great, thoughtful discussion between Kirk and Spock (or Picard and Data, or Sisko and Kira, or even Janeway and Chakotay) about what this all means.
I certainly wasn't debating this. I was just pointing out the folly in the statement the villian preferred to use time travel as opposed to any other choice. It may be an issue with the writing, but it's not an issue within the story as it is written.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were arguing otherwise. Your post was just a convenient jumping off point for what I wanted to say. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised that it seems like the recent Star Trek movie is unanimously disliked here. I thought I remembered it being pretty well-liked in the original thread when it was released and I remember OSC raving about it.
I've never seen any other Star Trek stories, so as a stand-alone for me, I loved it. I thought the action, writing, and acting were all excellent, even if there were a few plot holes. This trailer reminds me of the Star Trek trailer, focusing mostly on the action and epicness of it to draw in a large audience, with the movie then having alot more subtle qualities in it. I'm hoping Into Darkness is the same.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I'm surprised that it seems like the recent Star Trek movie is unanimously disliked here. I thought I remembered it being pretty well-liked in the original thread when it was released and I remember OSC raving about it.
I remember that too, lots of people enjoyed it. But then, that was in 2009. There were a lot more active members of Hatrack then. There seem to be about 20 of us now, at the most.
Yeah, I get that Star Trek wasn't forgotten about in 2009. Absolutely right. But by 2015, ten years after the last show went off the air, with nothing to attract new fans, I think it would have been nostalgia, and could have sat doing nothing for twenty years, and then been re-booted in a way that would have been much more offensive to everyone than what we have.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chatting with some people before class this morning, it was pretty much universally agreed that new Star Trek is basically Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek.
If you have to change something so substantially to get more people to watch it, you might as well call it something else. It's trying to have your cake and eat it too. They want the fanboys and fangirls to watch it, so they put the name on it. But they want a bigger audience, so they make it darker, add explosions, and make it generic but with well-known, established names so both sides are sated.
Doesn't work for me. I'm looking forward to a new Star Trek show set after Voyager. They're talking about it again. If they try to reset the series to turn the current movies into a TV show, I think it will be a flop. It worked for BSG because BSG was obscure. Most of us who like it had never seen the original. When they tried to make Stargate edgy and dark, it failed, miserably, because it lacked most of what made the original so compelling. I think it'll be the same here, especially since I think it would be hard to keep the production value the same on such an expensive project. They need to do the show they wanted to do after Enterprise before they decided to shelve the franchise for awhile.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Chatting with some people before class this morning, it was pretty much universally agreed that new Star Trek is basically Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek.
Not true. It's also for people who like gaudy, stylized, visually sumptuous movies.
The look of that movie is amazing. On cinematography grounds alone, I love it. The only recent sci fi movie with more visual originality is Sunshine.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
I swear. Everyone here wants to be so contrary. It's like everyone who comes on here wants to use their "intellect" to take over the world. Sheesh.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
I swear. Everyone here wants to be so contrary. It's like everyone who comes on here wants to use their "intellect" to take over the world. Sheesh.
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs!
If hating that they took something that I love and tore it to shreds, and then used some of the bloody pieces to build something altogether different makes me a snob, then I wear that label with pride.
posted
The song from the ending outclassed the movie, and I really loved the movie. It was still playing when I started hunting it down on the internet.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
I swear. Everyone here wants to be so contrary. It's like everyone who comes on here wants to use their "intellect" to take over the world. Sheesh.
I liked the new movie too. It's not my favorite of the film franchise but I liked it well enough.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs!
If hating that they took something that I love and tore it to shreds, and then used some of the bloody pieces to build something altogether different makes me a snob, then I wear that label with pride.
I thought you hadn't seen it?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the new ST, not only was it entertaining to the extent that I didn't fall into any minor plot holes, but it had a cool message: no matter the time line, our beloved crew belong at the helm of the Enterprise, saving the galaxy and having adventures.
My dad cried when old Spock was getting all sentimental with new Jim.
One of the major things that the new movie got right from the original was: it was fun. And yes, it could have had a deeper meaning as often ST does, but I have to agree that all this hating reeks of snobbery.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
There's probably a nicer way to put this, but I'm afraid that many Trek fans are more interested in the franchise for its own sake (with all its hallmarks intact) than they are in watching good movies and TV. (That's fine, I sometimes get in the same mood regarding Star Wars--but I'm not proud of it.)
I would generally judge that anyone with a positive opinion of Voyager or Enterprise is one of the people I'm talking about, though there are exceptions to every rule where aesthetic preference is concerned.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
There's probably a nicer way to put this, but I'm afraid that many Trek fans are more interested in the franchise for its own sake (with all its hallmarks intact) than they are in watching good movies and TV. (That's fine, I sometimes get in the same mood regarding Star Wars--but I'm not proud of it.)
I would generally judge that anyone with a positive opinion of Voyager or Enterprise is one of the people I'm talking about, though there are exceptions to every rule where aesthetic preference is concerned.
Voyager had some good episodes and one or two good characters. And sure following DS9 was a pretty hard act.
But in general? Meh. You'd think it would have lowered the threshold for Enterprise, but that was a big pile of boring.
And as far as being a snog goes...I'm a total Star Trek snob. I'm a LOTR snob and a Star Wars snob. And I have no problem with that at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
New movie looks awesome. The last one was superb. A new take for a new generation, and it works better than pretty much every other reboot around.
posted
One thing that was so characteristic about the Star Trek TV shows was the utopianism of Gene R. Roddenberry. People in the future are different: smarter, more driven, self-improving, interested in science and knowledge for its own sake. This led to some problems on the early seasons of Next Generation as everyone in it was so uptight, but overall it was one of the most distinctive and interesting things about this universe, and it's what characters like Janeway, Wesley, Data and Julian Bashir and Picard have in common. They all speak intelligently, in a quasi-theatrical fashion. When Kirk in the 2009 film says "why are you even talking to me, man" to Captain Pike...a part of me died. What a douche.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the new Trek movie. I'm on record, despite some glaring plot holes and the fact that the Romulan's actions only truly make sense if you read the 4-comic mini-series that came out just before the movie. And the glares on the bridge were not only annoying, they were potentially hazardous on a military vessel. But mostly they hit the right sense of action, humor, science fiction, drama and wonder that made me fall in love with the show in the first place. After several sub-par movies and a very disappointing "Enterprise," "Star Trek" was sorely needed.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the glares on the bridge were not only annoying, they were potentially hazardous on a military vessel.
A number of people have complained about that lens flare look. I couldn't disagree more. I think it lent visual energy to the utopian atmosphere that Sa'eed thinks was missing from the film (but I think was there in spades). And it was beautiful and unique.
I want to see more lens flare in the next one. The whole movie should basically be all lens flare.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will admit to enjoying the new movie myself as well. But I wasn't particularly a huge fan of the all of the various series. More of a casual TNG fan myself.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was never a huge Star Trek fan to begin with - although I've probably seen every episode of TNG and most of TOS, DS9 (I'll throw in with the others who noted that as their favorite), and Voyager and probably half the films - but I totally get what the critics of the new film are getting at.
The new film had characters with the same names, but it didn't "feel" like Star Trek much to me. The storyline, tone and world they inhabited (I know, it's an alternate universe) just felt... off.
That said, I'm not a hater - it's probably Orci and Kurtzman's BEST work. I guess I would say I view it as officially licensed and well funded fan-fic.
And I'll be there for this sequel. Mainly for Cumberbatch, Quinto playing Spock, Pegg playing Scotty and did I mention Cumberbatch?
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
