Did STID Meet Your Standards as a Trek Film?

I thoroughly enjoyed STiD, and it certainly qualifies as a "Star Trek" film by every measure imaginable.

 

Personally, I love STID!

 

NOT ENOUGH MAGELLAN REFERENCES OR SHAKESPEARE QUOTES

 

A very valid point about the Shakespeare.

Which has made me think, as long quoting literature has been brought up, ST03 would greatly exceed my standards if all it did was have a character quote a Jacqueline Susann or Harold Robbins work (and fit into the story, of course). Seriously. That would be so cool.

 

Very true. What most audiences are failing to realize is that Hollywood has become extremely formulaic since around 1995, give or take a decade. They're interested only in protecting and advancing their investments. Entertainment is a byproduct and entertainment of the cerebral few is an afterthought.

And enlightenment isn't even on the menu...

 

Uh. Hollywood has always been formulaic and about advancing their investments.

The whole "Hollywood isn't like it used to be kids." argument is so tired and is such bullshit.

Like silent comedies weren't formulaic. Or spaghetti westerns. And Jack Warner was a fun-loving, communist saint.

 

Canon issues aside, the new films brought an old concept to a new generation. ST was fast becoming the bastion of middle age and old men and women. Hence, it was probably time to do a 'reboot.' (BTW: I hate that term as it implies failure on the part of the previous version). This way, Star Trek gains a new fan base and possibly even a new series that will please everyone.

Yeah right. I couldn't even type that last line with a straight face.

 

However, I can agree with your sentiment that "reboot" or "reimagining" seems appropriate.

What about (to borrow from Dr.Who) "regeneration"?
Just as each new Doctor brings a different characterization to the table, even if it is in the same universe, Abrams' Trek is a regeneration of the Prime Universe. Different, but somehow same. Same, but somehow different. . There are some commonalities, but a lot of changes too.

 

This bullshit belief comes from the way Hollywood was in the late 60's and most of the '70's, what with all of the 'Young Turks' who were making movies (Scorsese, Lucas, Spielberg, Ashby, Coppola, etc.) and 'shaking up the system'. Of course they forget that Hollywood (and the other 'Woods around the planet) was having low viewership and decreased box office, which is why the moves that were made were made without any interference, and that when one of them made a costly flop, it all came crashing down, with only two of them surviving and thriving, and the Big Six studios going back to more 'conservative' fare.

Considering all of the independent movies made that are premiered to the world at a festival that's held in a little town in Utah, most of which are critically acclaimed and and considered the best, I don't really see what the big deal is, myself.

 

My standard for Star Trek movies is what new thing they bring to the table and how they continue a story. Of the original six movies, I only consider one of them to be completely superfluous because it's presence not only hurts Star Trek in general, but the film in and of itself doesn't accomplish anything. Yeah, it's Star Trek 5.

TMP barely hangs on to the standard because elements that refer to the transition from series to movies are clearly present. The Enterprise has been refitted, Kirk is now an admiral and Spock goes through a little development himself. TWOK is where the standard really kicks in by continuing Kirk's regret in accepting his Admiral rank, Khan returning as a villain and Spock's death. TSFS may have brought Spock back to life, but in doing so destroyed the Enterprise, killed Kirk's son and left Kirk and crew as renegades of Starfleet. TVH brings our crew back into Starfleet with a new Enterprise and a new sense of purpose. TUC brings the Klingon conflict from TSFS and TVH to the center ring and features a now promoted Sulu commanding his own ship. A lot of stuff changes in these movies and it really makes for an interesting coherent story that actually goes somewhere important.

Trek09 did a lot of stuff not only establishing the typical groundwork for being a Star Trek 'thing', but also doing things to set it's own universe apart from the previous one. It was pretty huge.

STID on the hand fails the standard for several reasons. It's a rehash of the previous film with lifted scenes, same revenge driven bad guy who's from a different time and succeeding in accomplishing the same exact resolution as the last film. Depending on how much material STID chooses to carry over into the new film (Unlikely much since the #1 marketing message was that you don't need to see the last movie to enjoy it), I'm almost positive that you can watch Trek09, skip STID and go right into the third film without missing anything. It just depends on how much the third movie follows the others.

 

That's an interesting take on it that I'd not really thought of before. As much as I've loved both new movies, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say here.

 

Very nicely written, Jeyl. I think you're right in that the STID didn't really advance from where ST09 was. In fact, you may also Nemesis and see many similarities. That movie almost singlehandedly ended Star Trek movies, or at least for a few years it did.

 

As much as my opinion as cooled on ID over my past couple of viewings, I still think it is a fine Trek film. Khan doesn't bother me, and the "magic blood" certainly doesn't, especially real world science dealing with a similar concept.

I think the one thing that saves the film for me is the character driven arc of both Kirk and Spock. Regardless of the feelings on the WoK scenes (Trek has been doing similar stuff for years-again, nothing new), Kirk's arc has a lot more punch to me because of his journey from 09 to his willingness to sacrifice himself in ID.

I could go on, but suffice to say, the characters make ID "Star Trek" for me.

 

You're wrong. The words you want are "tastes," "biases," "preferences," even "likes" or "prejudices."

"Standards" is another thing altogether, and almost no one really cleaves to any where the things they take pleasure in are concerned.

 

My sentiments exactly.