Art Vandelay wrote:
Therin of Andor wrote:
[...] Funnily enough, when the next incarnation of Trek comes along, people tend to find the second-to-last one more tolerable. You don't see as much hatred for ST:TMP or "Enterprise" these days.
Thing is, I liked every incarnation of Trek up until Trek 09. Some more (TNG, ENT, DS9), some less (VOY). (Although I tend to try and forget Nemesis
exists.) There is no series/film that I used to denigrate and then grew softer towards as new things came along. Indeed, my deep affection for ST:TMP was love at first sight.
The thing with Trek pre-2008 is that it didn't need to be wall-to-wall action. It didn't have to be marketed as the next Dark Knight
. 90% of the promotional artwork for Into Darkness
had me going: "This is supposed to be Trek? Why are the characters armed to the teeth with huge ego-shooter guns?" I guess that's a sign of the times.
When in the past they did bad science (Genesis
), Braga at least had the decency to hang his head in shame. Nowadays, we have Spock proclaiming that supernovas can destroy whole galaxies. We have transporters that only require a quick firmware update to achieve limitless range. And no idea of what rank means, either. Kirk is insubordinate, commandeers the ship, gets to be captain on a technicality? Bah - he destroyed that evil Romulan, so let's have this heroic Cadet skip the ranks of Ensign, Lieutenant j.g., Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander and Commander altogether and make him Captain. And while we're at it, let's not give him some science vessel, let him have the flagship of the Federation. That's not Trek, that's "Marvel's Kirk & Spock".
When you get a sandbox like the Trekverse to play in, stick to the rules. Bend them if you must, us fans are willing to look the other way in case of minor or mid-sized infractions. It's this careless, indifferent "anything goes, who gives a f**k" attitude the writers seem to have that drives me up the wall and makes me yearn for the Trek "of old".
I guess I wouldn't be so bitter if we had a "proper" TV series doing what Trek is best at (character-heavy plays), and the action films were special events. Now all we have is this monster movie franchise, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Wrong thread, I suppose. But boy did it feel good to vent. I miss Star Trek so very much.
I have given up this fight, but I agree with what you are saying, if I don't necessarily agree with the tone (ranting). The fact is that Star Trek has 5 series and 10 movies that do the things you wish. Not every episode was a sit-down-and-talk-out-a-problem story arc. JJ Trek has helped me to romanticize the Trek that came before it. The bar is low and I am amazed that what I learned in my sociology, philosophy, logic, theater, psychology, literature, anthropology, chemistry, and biology classes ended up in a television show. It's college level, an introduction to college-level material for the novice. Star Trek has improved with my education as well.
I wasn't always in agreement with you. I think of DS9 as the show about oppression, a 177-hour arc about an issue that has faced every civilization, the othering of different people. When I was 15 and not paying attention in school, I liked the war. I liked the perseverance. I never thought about a theme or had any semblance of how to write a story (although I did want to be a writer). That as a writer, you start with trying to communicate an idea.
Now, this version of Trek seems to have defenders, calling old Trek heavy-handed, self-aware of its importance, and other excuses for the dumbing down of America. Everyone has critics.
I agree with you--part of being an artist is taking risks. That means you offend sometimes. That means sometimes the people in the audience don't get what you are trying to say. This isn't stupid Star Trek, it's safe Star Trek. And people pointing out that we need to bend to the will of what is marketable and financially viable, are saying "keep it safe. We don't want Star Trek to die."
I would rather have one really good series with one really good movie, one that is timeless, than 35 movies and 10 television series. Less is not more, but more is not more, either. Why should I spend my hard-earned money and my time and energy on something that isn't worthy of my education and time? It keeps me away from the movie theater and Trek is about to go the way of the that cynicism as well.
This isn't Trek for me. It's for the 15-year-old fan I once was. When Star Trek, or anything, stops making me think, that's when it is no longer viable in my mind. Sacrifices will be made...friendships will be tested..., these things already let me know that it was an appeal to emotion, not to my intellect.
So I will see it because I am curious. I will see it because of sentimentality. But I will not see it again and again or talk about it ad nauseum on this board or in any other venue. It simply isn't interesting enough.
Feel free to rip away. It won't change how I feel.