RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,585
Posts: 5,403,572
Members: 24,866
Currently online: 666
Newest member: Enterprise Capt

TrekToday headlines

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 20 2014, 05:54 AM   #61
Campe98
Commodore
 
Campe98's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Synnöve wrote: View Post
Campe98 wrote: View Post
Because the moviegoing audience wanted 'splosions. They wanted conflict. Not people arguing on the bridge and looking out the viewscreen for ten minutes. They wanted a blockbuster. Well, the Trek movies didn't really reach that point more than a handful of times, but damnit, they tried.
WOK wasn't a success because of action and explosions, it was a success because it stayed true to and elaborated upon the characters we knew from the show, because it was well paced with a good story, and a plethora of resonant themes that grew organically from the plot, and well placed action that furthered the story when it needed it.

Not that most casual movie go-er can articulate such things, but I'd argue TMP skates by more on it's level of visceral experience way more than WOK does. One need look at the new Trek movies, Transformers, and similar schlock to see movies that are a success more for the explosion a minute set pieces and editing than for a story and characters.
The point I was trying to make (and maybe I didn't convey it well enough... I'm tired) was that the 80s was the beginning of a turning point in film from smart features into blockbuster schlock. Particularly in the 80s, you see that with the Trek movies.

TMP is very cerebral. TWOK and TSFS are fairly good romps, with TSFS a little less so. TVH is a comedy and while it has a nice message, I don't think either hold up today. It's too over the top in places. TFF...Granted, it was mired by a lot of problems with budget and the writers strike. And really? Even though it tries and the Kirk/Spock/McCoy stuff is great, it just isn't good overall. The forced comedy. The action sequences. Ugh. And personally, I like TUC. It, however, can be argued that the film destroyed characters in order to make its point and have a lot of action. But by the time you get to the TNG movies? Well, the less said the better. By the time you get to Nemesis, it truly is all just 'splosions and truly destroying the characters to make its point. And as entertaining as I find them and as much as I enjoy them, yeah, the same thing could be said about JJ Trek.
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed."
John Lennon, Strawberry Fields Forever
Campe98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 06:08 AM   #62
Campe98
Commodore
 
Campe98's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Campe98 wrote: View Post
You know what, I was expressing a point. In fact, I was actually playing devil's advocate. I think the fact that I stated that I liked TMP would have proven that. I would expect a little bit more mature of a response than "Whatever" in a Trek forum.

Guess if I don't hate Abrams Trek, I can't get that here.
It's been explained clearly and repeatedly so what else is there to say?
Gee, here's a thought... Don't respond at all. Anyway...

People seem locked into the idea it has to be either this or that and seemingly not able to see any other possibilities. Following up TMP doesn't automatically mean doing exactly what TMP did. TOS is full of different kinds of story ideas that didn't involve looking back and resurrecting something (or someone) done before.

Many of the ideas in TWOK still could have been done in a different way, but they chose not to do that. They chose to hit the reset button and erase/ignore what TMP had set up.

We're not going to agree on this. You're fine with what they did and I'm not.
You know what... *I* agree with you. I would love to see the kind of stories you're talking about. But would audiences go for it? I really doubt it. Hollywood goes for what's succesful. They build off of ideas. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Star Wars was succesful. Audiences and critics agreed. Paramount thought they'd try it with Trek. Star Trek: The Motion Picture wasn't. Yes, it brought in money. But critics and audiences at the time were indifferent at best. Paramount went in a different direction. And Star Trek, ultimately, has thrived financially because of that decision. Creatively? There have been some questionable decisions. I was born in '79, but had I been my age now then, I would have loved to see more adventures in the vein of the original series. Just wasn't to be.
__________________
"Living is easy with eyes closed."
John Lennon, Strawberry Fields Forever
Campe98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 06:09 AM   #63
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

You see even with the issues I have with TWOK it still has redeeming elements. I applaud its energy and pacing and character, but I deplore the basic story.

I also dislike how it sort of retcons "Space Seed." Kirk did not maroon Khan and his people. Kirk offered Khan and McGivers a choice. But the film, as told through Khan (now a deranged character), paints a different story that many in the audience seem to buy. But that wasn't what happened.

Although I would have preferred a different story you could still have done TWOK essentially the same but fixing some of the things I didn't like. You could have picked up with the Enterprise crew on patrol about a year or so after the events of TMP wherein they answer a distress call from Regular One and the Reliant. The Enterprise responds, encounters the Reliant and the story proceeds much like it did in the finished film. I'd have done away with all that Academy stuff and the Enterprise as training ship. If you want age angst you've got Saavik and Peter Preston there to remark on it. And just when Kirk is wondering if he's still got it along comes his clash with Khan to prove that he does indeed still have what it takes.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 06:44 AM   #64
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote: View Post
I also dislike how it sort of retcons "Space Seed". Kirk did not maroon Khan and his people. Kirk offered Khan and McGivers a choice. But the film, as told through Khan (now a deranged character), paints a different story that many in the audience seem to buy. But that wasn't what happened.
Agreed, this always bugs me. It's a side-effect of movies having a wider audience than the TV shows ever did, so there genuinely are people in the audience who've seen TWOK countless times, but never so much as glanced at "Space Seed". Which means that the popcultural osmosis version of the earlier episode's events is weighted that it happened exactly as Khan describes it in TWOK.

It sure doesn't help that Admiral Kirk himself never disputes Khan's account of events at any point throughout the movie (Chekov, to his credit, tries to set the record straight when Khan first mentions the events of "Space Seed", but Khan just shouts him down).

Anyone who actually goes back and watches "Space Seed" will certainly see the situation differently. Problem is, not many of the casual viewers do go back and watch the TOS episode, so the picture that is painted by TWOK is taken as gospel: that Kirk deceived Khan somehow in his deliberations at the end of "Space Seed"... but it just isn't true.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 07:13 AM   #65
Synnöve
Lieutenant
 
Synnöve's Avatar
 
Location: PNW
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Lance wrote: View Post
Agreed, this always bugs me. It's a side-effect of movies having a wider audience than the TV shows ever did, so there genuinely are people in the audience who've seen TWOK countless times, but never so much as glanced at "Space Seed". Which means that the popcultural osmosis version of the earlier episode's events is weighted that it happened exactly as Khan describes it in TWOK.
It's quite obvious that Khan is insane and somewhat biased in his recounting of things with the death of his wife & the turning of a possible paradise with potential for growth in to a hell one random day. The mistake Kirk made was never checking back (which he didn't according to the show) and I think the audience is more inclined to trust the words and attitudes of Kirk and his crew (especially Chekhov) than Khan's recounting of the situation.

Khan isn't too dissimilar from Satan in Paradise lost, who places all blame at God's feet when it becomes rather in the story that he manufactured a lot of his own circumstance. As I mentioned countless times, this is part of his character! Khan is a megalomaniac who is not going to recount the story the way the hero is. Kirk's reluctance to mention why Khan has it out for him, except "I know what he blames me for!" shows fear, uncertainty, and doubt concerning his decision making. This is Kirk who is unsure of things, mostly himself as he fears he has lost his spark. By the time the film concludes he has his spark back, but he isn't going to start a soliloquy concerning Khan's prior motivations...
Synnöve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 10:55 AM   #66
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

There is no mention in "Space Seed" that Kirk will or is obligated to check on Khan. Indeed after he reports to Starfleet (which he'd have to do given everything already in the ship's logs and that you can't silence 430 people who also know about the Botany Bay and Khan) he might have been ordered never to go back there. In the meantime Starfleet and the Federation can now take their time to decide what to do with Khan---leave them there or go get them. And there was a serious fuck-up in how the system wasn't flagged so that no other starship could go there either except that Reliant does just that.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 11:47 AM   #67
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

And this whole business of Ceti Alpha VI "blowing up" ... what's THAT about? Does Nicholas Myer honestly go by the assumption that planets just randomly explode, on their own? Or is this also a product of a planet reaching "old age" like what the Enterprise and its crew are experiencing so profoundly? (Are our Solar System planets susceptible to this unfortunate tendency? NASA ... reassure me!) Was there a notation in the margins of the script that noted how Nero's Red Matter either got tested there, or that the Doomsday Machine happened to be wandering by and took a casual nibble? And the convenience of said explosion knocking Khan's planet in the precise orbit it needed to be in was a little too convenient to be believable, for my tastes ... and obvious intelligence. And that the planet took on the exact same features of Ceti Alpha VI, just from having been moved into that orbit is uncanny ... Wow! Sure fooled me! Looks exactly like it! Ehhhh ...
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 04:39 PM   #68
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

RyanKCR wrote: View Post
Clark Terrell wrote: View Post
  • Meyer insisted on treating starships like ancient mariner vessels and acted as though they were traveling along an imaginary horizon, something that doesn't exist in space in any capacity.

Actually Kirk's final maneuver at the end of the Mutara Battle was to take advantage of the 3 dimensions in space. Remember Spock said that Khan was intelligent but not experienced. His pattern indicated 2 dimensional thinking.

Also look at the Khitomer battle. The Bird of Prey was attacking the Enterprise from all sorts of positions around, above and below.
Funny thing about Khan being intelligent but unexperienced -- by the late 1980s, every other space simulator video game took into account the third dimension of travel. Khan's war was in the 90s and was frozen after that. If only Khan had spent more time with his Nintendo...!
__________________
“You do not use science in order to prove yourself right, you use science in order to become right.”
Cyke101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 04:42 PM   #69
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Cyke101 wrote: View Post
RyanKCR wrote: View Post
Clark Terrell wrote: View Post
  • Meyer insisted on treating starships like ancient mariner vessels and acted as though they were traveling along an imaginary horizon, something that doesn't exist in space in any capacity.

Actually Kirk's final maneuver at the end of the Mutara Battle was to take advantage of the 3 dimensions in space. Remember Spock said that Khan was intelligent but not experienced. His pattern indicated 2 dimensional thinking.

Also look at the Khitomer battle. The Bird of Prey was attacking the Enterprise from all sorts of positions around, above and below.
Funny thing about Khan being intelligent but unexperienced -- by the late 1980s, every other space simulator video game took into account the third dimension of travel. Khan's war was in the 90s and was frozen after that. If only Khan had spent more time with his Nintendo...!
What I really find telling is that Kirk should have thought of the three-dimensional aspect long before Spock reminded him.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 05:01 PM   #70
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Actually, to get the real tos feel, the exchange should have been the old finish-the-other-guy's-thought bit.

Spock: he's intelligent but lacks experience. His pattern demonstrates ...

Kirk: ... demonstrates Two-dimensional thinking!
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 06:16 PM   #71
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote: View Post
What I really find telling is that Kirk should have thought of the three-dimensional aspect long before Spock reminded him.
Yeah that's always seemed weak to me. Kirk the experienced starship tactician should have been just naturally kicking ass on Khan the two-dimensional thinker, without having to talk about it. And speaking of dimensions, I always thought Enterprise should have pitched bow-up toward Reliant and fired away at her underside, rather than rising vertically as if on an elevator and firing at her narrower stern silhouette. Of course, the phasers really should have been able to just train "upward," without the ship having to "point" at the target, but that wouldn't be as cool.
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 06:20 PM   #72
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
What I really find telling is that Kirk should have thought of the three-dimensional aspect long before Spock reminded him.
Yeah that's always seemed weak to me. Kirk the experienced starship tactician should have been just naturally kicking ass on Khan the two-dimensional thinker, without having to talk about it. And speaking of dimensions, I always thought Enterprise should have pitched bow-up toward Reliant and fired away at her underside, rather than rising vertically as if on an elevator and firing at her narrower stern silhouette. Of course, the phasers really should have been able to just train "upward," without the ship having to "point" at the target, but that wouldn't be as cool.
Well I uess this is evidence of Nick Meyer's two-dimensional thinking.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 06:35 PM   #73
ssosmcin
Rear Admiral
 
ssosmcin's Avatar
 
Location: ssosmcin
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

trevanian wrote: View Post
Actually, to get the real tos feel, the exchange should have been the old finish-the-other-guy's-thought bit.

Spock: he's intelligent but lacks experience. His pattern demonstrates ...

Kirk: ... demonstrates Two-dimensional thinking!
Bender: "Like letting the air out of a balloon!"
__________________
"Tranya is people!"
ssosmcin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20 2014, 08:02 PM   #74
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote: View Post
J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
What I really find telling is that Kirk should have thought of the three-dimensional aspect long before Spock reminded him.
Yeah that's always seemed weak to me. Kirk the experienced starship tactician should have been just naturally kicking ass on Khan the two-dimensional thinker, without having to talk about it. And speaking of dimensions, I always thought Enterprise should have pitched bow-up toward Reliant and fired away at her underside, rather than rising vertically as if on an elevator and firing at her narrower stern silhouette. Of course, the phasers really should have been able to just train "upward," without the ship having to "point" at the target, but that wouldn't be as cool.
Well I uess this is evidence of Nick Meyer's two-dimensional thinking.
Also Sallin's, Minor's and ILM's. (incidentally, I do agree that the pitch-up-&-fire notion would have been preferable.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 06:29 AM   #75
Nebusj
Rear Admiral
 
Nebusj's Avatar
 
View Nebusj's Twitter Profile
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

2takesfrakes wrote: View Post
And this whole business of Ceti Alpha VI "blowing up" ... what's THAT about? Does Nicholas Myer honestly go by the assumption that planets just randomly explode, on their own? Or is this also a product of a planet reaching "old age" like what the Enterprise and its crew are experiencing so profoundly?
Well, heck, between the second and third seasons of Trek alone there were, what, six planets actually destroyed and at least two more that were set for obliteration if the Enterprise hadn't intervened? And with the Enterprise being refitted or getting a new trainee crew there'd be all those times the only ship in the quadrant wasn't even in the quadrant, thus, doom.
Nebusj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.