View Single Post
Old March 23 2014, 11:43 PM   #131
Warped9's Avatar
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
I've heard the same argument repeated over and over again all these years: you can have either smart or stupid, but not both.

That answer is wrong. As has been stated countless times a bit of rewriting and thought could have fixed most if not all the logic flaws in TWOK and still delivered all the drama and character the film is lionized for. Intelligence and enthusiasm are not mutually exclusive.
The arguments repeat because they were rendered correct by the reaction in 1982, and its consideration over the decades to follow. The so-called "logic flaws" are debatable, as it did not prevent plot A from linking to B, and so on to a worthy, rational conclusion...with effect.

Respecting the characters, their developed history and why ST became a phenomenon at all (i.e. treatment of its basic hallmarks) is in that film--that was the key to TWOK and franchise survival.

Remember, ST fans (of that era--and I stress that) were not the type who accepted any over-produced, flashy geek-fest that was rammed into 1980's theaters, such as much of the fantasy directed or produced by Spielberg or his company. They expected something that was bigger than life--but the first priority was that the film was in keeping with the clever, thought-provoking sci-fi which defined TOS. Anything less, and ST as a filmed property would have died in 1982.

There would be no third chance, let alone anyone daring to think of another TV series.

So, unless one is willing to attack the fans who were certain TWOK restored ST, you have to accept their knowledge, their insight about what makes ST tick, and what was required to give new life to ST.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Used to be everyone "knew" the world was flat. And lo and behold all of them were wrong. To say "this is the only way it could have been" is just stubborn denial of other possibilities. Also I don't have to attack anyone, but I can certainly can disagree with their conclusions. And given how most film goers aren't that analytical their consensus is hardly persuasive.

And TWOK hardly saved Star Trek. That had already been done by TMP's financial success. If it hadn't been for that there would have been no TWOK.
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote