The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies XI+ (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50)
-   -   Trek & Pseudo-Trek (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=205825)

Noitartst March 11 2013 10:23 PM

Trek & Pseudo-Trek
 
I don't consider myself a true Trekkie, and am more of a Star Warrior, if you catch my drift, but all the same have a deep admiration for the franchise dubbed "Star Trek."

Star Trek, as I understand it, is not exploration of space, but ideas, and big ones, at that. Oh, and wonderful characterization, making it watchable, other simply creepy and mysterious, ala The Twilight Zone. And an optimistic sense of idealism, too.

Action? In measured amounts, there was. Nowadays, there's -plenty of action, but the guardians of the Trek have forgotten what the journey was all about.

J.J. Abrams wasn't a true fan of Star Trek, which helps explains his creative choices, and they are for the epic, but without any sense of aesthetic, or wonder. Yes, Abrams likes myseries, but they're plot mysteries. (Such sensibilities are nothing I don't like, but they're not Trek's.)

DS9 is the only Trek I regularly watched, but I know Trek, even at its least Trek-like, stands for something more than big booms, and rebelliousness always getting the last word. In short, Abrams made Star Trek into a parody of itself, and fan or not, it grieves me.

WHat saddens me most, though, is that this pseudo Trek'll garner fans unto itself. Remaking Kirk or Spock--fine, recasting them, yes, but lacking any appreciation for what made them great? Slay me.

BillJ March 11 2013 10:35 PM

Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek
 
Quote:

Noitartst wrote: (Post 7788493)
J.J. Abrams wasn't a true fan of Star Trek...

Neither were Nick Meyer, Harve Bennett, Rick Berman or Michael Piller. They, like Abrams, simply knew how to produce Trek that satisfied audiences for the most part.

I thoroughly despise the true Trek/true Trek fan non-sense.

F. King Daniel March 11 2013 10:36 PM

Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek
 
Don't believe the hype. The Original Series was a fun action-adventure in space with likable characters first and foremost. That's what Abrams captured perfectly with Star Trek.:bolian:

Flake March 11 2013 10:57 PM

Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek
 
Star Trek was action/adventure/scifi with strong characters. The only difference thus far between Abrams movies and the original 1964 pitch is that the Enterprise ain't doing much exploring at the moment :P

The characters are spot on imho, their character traits have been dialled up a notch. The action is great! I am damn sure Roddenberry would have had lots of action in TOS if he could afford it, infact I think there are interviews around with other members of the 60s team that said so.

Spock/Uhura romance I could do without :)

Majority of TOS episodes had phaser fights and hand to hand combat and ships fighting/people dying. Week in week out. It was action/adventure.

If Trek had started as a movie franchise in 1966 instead of on TV they would have had a heck of a lot more action & special effects etc imho! They where restricted by the budget. A restriction now gone.

Therin of Andor March 11 2013 11:01 PM

Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek
 
Quote:

Flake wrote: (Post 7788658)
Star Trek was action/adventure/scifi with strong characters. The only difference thus far between Abrams movies and the original 1964 pitch is that the Enterprise ain't doing much exploring at the moment :P

Actually, Kirk didn't do much exploring of strange new worlds in ST II, IV, V, VI or "Generations" either.

JJ's "Star Trek (2009)" was "action/adventure/scifi with strong characters".

Quote:

I am damn sure Roddenberry would have had lots of action in TOS if he could afford it...
He could afford it with ST:TMP and TNG's "Encounter at Farpoint". Huge budgets! Both of them are high on talk and low on action.

Flake March 11 2013 11:07 PM

Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek
 
Quote:

Therin of Andor wrote: (Post 7788667)
Quote:

Flake wrote: (Post 7788658)
Star Trek was action/adventure/scifi with strong characters. The only difference thus far between Abrams movies and the original 1964 pitch is that the Enterprise ain't doing much exploring at the moment :P

Actually, Kirk didn't do much exploring of strange new worlds in ST II, IV, V, VI or "Generations" either.

JJ's "Star Trek (2009)" was "action/adventure/scifi with strong characters".

Quote:

I am damn sure Roddenberry would have had lots of action in TOS if he could afford it...
He could afford it with ST:TMP and TNG's "Encounter at Farpoint". Huge budgets! Both of them are high on talk and low on action.

I am referring to Roddenberry of 1966 not the later one !

SonicRanger March 11 2013 11:13 PM

Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek
 
No, this is Pseudo Trek...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIfNv9qLvy4

... and it might even count as canon as filmed with Shatner and Doohan.

M'Sharak March 11 2013 11:22 PM

Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek
 
Quote:

Noitartst wrote: (Post 7788493)
[...] Slay me.

Nah, I don't think that'll be necessary.

However, this really isn't about the movie, and would perhaps have made a better blog post than it does the premise for a discussion thread in this forum, so I'll just close this now.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.