View Single Post
Old May 19 2013, 03:07 AM   #3003
Lapis Exilis
Rear Admiral
Lapis Exilis's Avatar
Location: Underground

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post

thus Nature vs. Nurture might make an interesting fan debate but it in no way affects what happens in STiD.
So it can only be true Star Trek if the characters realise something and not the audience?
Please reread my post - I said quite clearly that STiD is definitely Star Trek. But it is Star Trek lacking anything cerebral. It's a perfectly fine story with perfectly good character motivations, but one of the things that tends to characterize the high water marks of Star Trek are the characters making decisions based on philosophical concerns. That, to me, is the defining difference between the universe of Star Trek and today's world - not that there's no poverty or war and everyone's happily living in Paradise, but that the characters engage with and are motivated by a higher order set of concerns, not simply personal and selfish ones like we regular mortals.

And one of the biggest criticisms about the story of ST:TMP is that it should have been Kirk or Spock making guest-star Decker's climactic sacrifice to save the Earth from V'ger.
OK - but thats an entirely different issue than what I was talking about. TMP has the characters making decisions because of their engagement with philosophical concerns. Abrams' Trek doesn't.

Abrams' Trek is fun, entertaining and looks good - but it's not in the same ballpark. I think one review said it best when it dubbed the film "a Star Trek flavored action movie".
Well, I hate action movies, but I love JJ Abrams' "Star Trek" movies.

What's so terrible about "Star Trek flavored action movies"?
Nothing, really. Except that it's part of a grand trend of skinning the symbols of various long running cultural tales and grafting them onto the same generic framework. Now we've got the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies which are just Sherlock flavored action movies, and Star Trek flavored action movies -but they're all just Hollywood action movies in the end. That's disappointing to me because part of what I've admired about the Trek franchise is its ability to do new things while keeping a unique identity. I believe Ubik said upthread - by making Star Trek flavored action movies, Abrams is playing it safe, working within a formula. It's an entertaining formula, but it doesn't take any risks or do anything that surprises. Maybe it's a consequence of my age, but I've now seen so many this or that flavored action movies that I find action movies boring.

They create new fans of the ongoing franchise, just as ST IV (a "Star Trek flavored" comedic movie) did. CBS already reported that the 2009 film caused huge spikes in sales of all "Star Trek" DVD boxed sets: all of the movies and all of the TV series, as new fans explored what had come before.
Creating new Star Trek fans may be one of their concerns, but it's not one of mine. I'd vote for seeing the franchise take a risk and possibly fail, rather than retread ground we've seen a hundred times.
Because I have found I can tolerate being judged far better than I can being of no consequence. - Spock, World Enough and Time, Star Trek: New Voyages
Lapis Exilis is offline   Reply With Quote