View Single Post
Old April 28 2013, 04:03 PM   #1
LancerKind
Ensign
 
Location: XiaMen, China
View LancerKind's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to LancerKind Send a message via Yahoo to LancerKind
Let's get back to Roddenberry's trek

(Spoiler Free) The Trek movie franchise was in trouble. JJ Abrahms has made it a commercial success but at the cost of the Trek vision of social utopia.

While I loved the 2009 movie, it was a departure from the Roddenberry vision. (Why Trekkies hated the 2009 movie)

I predict Into Darkness will be similar: Successful, but more of a Star Wars than a Star Trek. I think everyone agrees with this but the discussion is about the *degree* of departure. So dyed in the wool trekkie Hal Dace and I came up with a Trek Purity Test to measure the departure (Into Darkness, Spectacle or Spectacular?).

Check out the Purity Test. If you've seen the movie, Vote on how you think Into Darkness did.

Comment on the Purity Test if you think it's fair or lacking. Shouldn't future movies or TV do well on this test? Wouldn't it be better if Trek was treated like the Tolkien films where the franchise is re-invigorated by telling really great Star Trek stories? Isn't it an easy cheat to tell the "3rd act" where the utopia falls rather than tell adventure and stories about how the Roddenberry utopia struggles with adversity? Aren't we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

==>Lancer---
__________________
==>Lancer---
Science Fictionist
LancerKind is offline   Reply With Quote