Who says Kirk doesn't have things to learn? Also, isn't a lot of the fleet destroyed by Nemo? Captains are at a premium. This is how Spock and Bones will help Kirk in his command decisions.
No, actually the only Starfleet ships Nero destroyed were six of the seven sent from Earth to Vulcan, apparently crewed mostly by cadets. The rest of Starfleet is still intact, somewhere in or around the conveniently distant Laurentian system.
Therin of Andor wrote:
Captain Robert April wrote:
and finally suck in that elusive mass audience that doesn't want to actually think about what they just saw
You know, everyone I know who's seen the movie, fan and not-already-fan, has done plenty of thinking and talking about this movie and its themes.
Really? I've seen lots of talking about plot and acting and continuity, and even a little about emotional impact (the way it celebrates family and friendship). But actual themes
? Pretty much zilch. What do you think they were?
The fact-of-the-matter is, more deep moviies like, say, The Wrath of Khan just wouldn't work today.
I honestly have no idea what you're getting at. TWOK
was a better film by far, yes, and did have actual themes underlying the story... although calling it "deep" might be overstating the case. But what is there about it that you think wouldn't work today? Specifically? You seem to have a hypothesis here about how storytelling styles and/or audience tastes have changed in the last 27 years, but I just don't see evidence for it.
Heck, just look at X-Men
. Recent, big-budget adventure films with fancy special effects, yes... but still with stories built around serious social commentary, and a sense of gravitas that this film lacked. (As did X-Men 3
, sadly. But I digress.)
I pulled this quote from another forum that had only a single thread on Star Trek.
This is why we have a winner, people that have never seen Star Trek in there lives, wanting to see it multiple times.
Not to be snarky, but why should I care? I like what I like (books, TV, movies, whatever) for reasons of my own. How does it affect my experience one iota whether or not people previously unfamiliar with the material choose to like it?
Or, as another poster put it quite succinctly:
I am rambling but I see nothing gained by a bunch of "normies" liking this movie and then not understanding anything else. Who benefits? oh yeah Hollywood ... so what.
Tom Servo wrote:
No, but it's a problem when someone thinks that if someone enjoyed a film for other reasons, or that that maybe the point of the film was not to be intelligent trek, but a fun ass movie, that they are somehow inferior and "drinking the koolade". I respond to April with venom because he presents his views with a condescending tone, and bitches just to bitch...
The Kool-Aid line really seems to have gotten under your skin. Don't know why, and don't care to speculate. FWIW, though, to whatever extent it's true that "the point of the film was not to be intelligent Trek," then IMHO that is a problem
. If you don't see it as one, then Kool-Aid or no, at the very least you're one of those folks who (as I wrote upthread) somehow manage to like Trek without actually valuing what's best about it.
I love this though. The fact that people are destroying this film because it was not intelligent enough for them. What was so intelligent about TWOK? Or TVH? Or FC? Those three films are the most successful of the bunch, but they are also the most fun, just like this film.
I won't defend FC
except as being the best of the TNG-era films, which is definitely damning with faint praise. But as for the others? If you have to ask, I suspect you wouldn't understand. Long story short, they were more intelligent because the writers wrote them that way, so that audiences could watch them without having their own intelligence insulted. Hell, Trekker4747 considers TWOK
downright "deep." If you want to delve into details, that's probably fodder for a different thread.