Levar Burton aka Geordi La Forge criticizes Star Trek 2009

[DalekJim]

Franklin wrote:

---

Maybe what you're saying is Trek is best left to TV. Have the four or five episodes of phaser battles and hand-wringing villains, then sneak in a more thougtful or deeper-themed episode. Like sneaking vegetables into the pizza sauce. But popular culture, where Trek belongs, is not the place to nourish your mind. You'll end up malnourished. It's a place to treat yourself to some delicious high quality junk food. Go elsewhere for your nourishment.

I appreciate that sci-fi literature is of far more merit than Star Trek, as are shows like Babylon 5 and Neon Genesis Evangelion which take a far more ideas driven approach.

But even if it has to be action/adventure, it doesn't have to be fucking stupid action/adventure. The Trouble With Tribbles and Wrath of Khan are excellent scripts despite being adventure stories instead of science-fiction ones. Best of Both Worlds and Call to Arms are blockbuster action but smartly written. There's no excuse.

[Franklin]

DalekJim wrote:

---

The more hardcore an Abrams fan is, the more abhorrent their behaviour seems to devolve to. I'd repeat what another poster said about those with Abrams avatars but I'd probably get a bollocking.

It's always the danger of having a cult of personality though really. Read Frank Herbert's Dune for more information.

There also seems to be a cult of personality around The Roddenberry. Not poking at anyone with a stick here. Not making personal accusations. Not making a value judgement. Just making an empirical statement based on forty years of being a Trek fan.

[Lt. Cheka Wey]

Yes there is, it was the first movie. The second one will be more complex and spend more time exploring ideas.

[Franklin]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I appreciate that sci-fi literature is of far more merit than Star Trek, as are shows like Babylon 5 and Neon Genesis Evangelion which take a far more ideas driven approach.

But even if it has to be action/adventure, it doesn't have to be fucking stupid action/adventure. The Trouble With Tribbles and Wrath of Khan are excellent scripts despite being adventure stories instead of science-fiction ones. Best of Both Worlds and Call to Arms are blockbuster action but smartly written. There's no excuse.

On that I agree whole-heartedly. We just draw our lines in different places and have different expectations going in.
Personally, I don't want my intelligence insulted, either. If I think STID is stupid, I'll certainly say so. But I'm also not expecting my horizons to be expanded when I go to see an action-adventure flick like STID, or even a comedy for that matter. It's where one sets the bar, I guess. That's cool.

[DalekJim]

Franklin wrote:

---

There also seems to be a cult of personality around The Roddenberry. Not poking at anyone with a stick here. Not making personal accusations. Not making a value judgement. Just making an empirical statement based on forty years of being a Trek fan.

I think the cult of Gene Roddenberry died when TNG S1 sucked donkey dick.

Gene L. Coon, Harlan Ellison, Michael Piller and Ira Steven Behr are the writers you're more likely to see me jizz about. Though I'm sure some nice chap will be along shortly to say Orci and Kurtzman are better because Transformers 2 and Star Trek 2009 made more money.

[The Mirrorball Man]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Gene L. Coon, Harlan Ellison, Michael Piller and Ira Steven Behr are the writers you're more likely to see me jizz about. Though I'm sure some nice chap will be along shortly to say Orci and Kurtzman are better because Transformers 2 and Star Trek 2009 made more money.

You're sure of that? When has that ever happened? Ironically, the only person around here who has articulated that kind of thought is you.

[BillJ]

Franklin wrote:

---

On that I agree whole-heartedly. We just draw our lines in different places and have different expectations going in.
Personally, I don't want my intelligence insulted, either. If I think STID is stupid, I'll certainly say so. But I'm also not expecting my horizons to be expanded when I go to see an action-adventure flick like STID, or even a comedy for that matter. It's where one sets the bar, I guess. That's cool.

I think if we're all honest here, we've all seen a shitload of stupid Star Trek over the years. Is Abrams the smartest Trek I've ever seen? No. Is it the dumbest Trek I've ever seen? Not by a long shot.

[DalekJim]

Every Star Trek show has those few episodes where you wonder what the fuck everybody was thinking. Even Deep Space 9 had shit like Profit and Lace, in one of the show's best seasons no less.

The difference is we didn't have Profit and Lace as the flagship installment of the franchise in absence of everything else.

[Opus]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Rubbish. You won't be followed around the forum and crudely heckled for liking the movie. It certainly seems to appeal to a certain type of fan sadly.

I have no love for NEM, INS, ENT or VOY. Yet, I have successfully been able to avoid being chased around this message board or heckled by those who've enjoyed these incarnations of Trek.

From the reading of your posts, it might have more to do about the tone of your posts about those who enjoyed the last Trek movie and the frequency of posting on things you so dislike all the time that causes this. You get what you give.

Just saying...

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

You seriously don't see how The Cage or The Motion Picture resemble literary science-fiction more than Abrams Trek?
.

I've read quite a bit of SF and no I don't.

Rubbish. You won't be followed around the forum and crudely heckled for liking the movie. It certainly seems to appeal to a certain type of fan sadly.

You're in a forum about Star Trek, specifically one about the newer films. People are going to comment on what you say about them. No one is following you, they are just posting in the same threads as you.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Every Star Trek show has those few episodes where you wonder what the fuck everybody was thinking. Even Deep Space 9 had shit like Profit and Lace, in one of the show's best seasons no less.

The difference is we didn't have Profit and Lace as the flagship installment of the franchise in absence of everything else.

I'm not talking about ill-conceived episodes, I'm talking about episodes that do head scratching things for no other reason than to move the plot along (much like the 2009 film did).

One of my absolute personal favorite TOS episodes is The Naked Time. But in order for the Enterprise to be compromised we have to believe three absolutely insane things: 1) That during a critical orbit that the Engineering deck only has two officers on duty, 2) That Scott would be gullible enough to abandon engineering on the word of another officer with the only other engineer on duty, 3) That the engineering section has only one door and no way to override the locks.

It's an incredibly stupid set of events that have to happen to make the episode go, but the episode writing outside of that coupled with the acting make it one hell of an entertaining episode.

And you can count mountain sized plot-holes and other stupidities on about eighty percent of Trek episodes as a whole.

[DalekJim]

BillJ wrote:

---

One of my absolute personal favorite TOS episodes is The Naked Time. But in order for the Enterprise to be compromised we have to believe three absolutely insane things

My favourite TOS episode is This Side of Paradise and it's hardly realistic. Still, I am more forgiving if an episode is more conceptual or ambitious than if it coasts along a generic formula. Most of my favourite Trek episodes (Such as In The Pale Moonlight, The Inner Light, The Visitor and City on the Edge of Forever) push the format in some way. I don't feel Abrams is doing this so it feels like the franchise is in a rut and to get out of it, I feel it must return to television.

The novel range seems to be doing quite well though.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I don't feel Abrams is doing this so it feels like the franchise is in a rut and to get out of it, I feel it must return to television.

I think it's fairer to say Abrams isn't doing it yet. We honestly don't know what the future holds in regards to Star Trek Into Darkness (I haven't seen it yet and refuse to damn it with praise or ridicule until I have) and the inevitable Star Trek 2016.

But even if he does go down the more philosophical route, it will still be more in the background as his job is to sell movie tickets first and foremost.

[Franklin]

BillJ wrote:

---

I'm not talking about ill-conceived episodes, I'm talking about episodes that do head scratching things for no other reason than to move the plot along (much like the 2009 film did).

One of my absolute personal favorite TOS episodes is The Naked Time. But in order for the Enterprise to be compromised we have to believe three absolutely insane things: 1) That during a critical orbit that the Engineering deck only has two officers on duty, 2) That Scott would be gullible enough to abandon engineering on the word of another officer with the only other engineer on duty, 3) That the engineering section has only one door and no way to override the locks.

It's an incredibly stupid set of events that have to happen to make the episode go, but the episode writing outside of that coupled with the acting make it one hell of an entertaining episode.

And you can count mountain sized plot-holes and other stupidities on about eighty percent of Trek episodes as a whole.

Which brings up another point. Not only have we all probably watched a shitload of good and bad Trek, as you pointed out, BillJ, but we've watched a lot more Trek than anyone probably intended to be watched. The TV episodes, even movies, were not written to be pieces that would be watched over and over and picked apart ten, twenty, or even fifty years later. (Fifty years. Yikes!) Not even Shakespeare was writing thinking his works would be scrutinized over four hundred years after they were written. He was entertaining people in the moment.

Very few popular culture TV shows and movies stand the test of time or heavy and repeated scrutiny. Considering they're all shot with finite budgets, deadlines to meet, egos to massage, profitability in mind, and other things that can affect "artistic quality," it's a wonder they can stand up to even one viewing.

[BillJ]

Hell, I watched Obsession today and they left an impulse vent open because they didn't think it was important when battling a fog creature.