Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by bbjegglebells, Sep 6, 2013.
You'd probably get more answers than the number of asked fans.
Exactly. We all know the dictionary definition of "cerebral," but what does that mean in the context of a Star Trek movie? I mean, it's easy to say that "oh, we want something more intellectual," but how does that translate into storytelling terms?
Do you want more talk of quasars and pulsars and warp theory? Or do want serious discussions about important social issues? Do you want a story that appeals more to the head than to the heart? Do you want less emotion and melodrama? Do you want more about the sociology and politics of alien races? Do want more world-building and less romance and sex appeal? Do you insist on an uplifting message? Where exactly do fun and excitement and humor fit into this equation?
Or, to couch this in more Trekkish terms, do you want something more like "City on the Edge of Forever?" Or "In the Pale Moonlight?" Or "The Inner Light"? Or "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"?
What kinds of Trek stories do we want to emulate here? Which are considered "cerebral"?
I want a big screen version of "The Omega Glory". For whatever it's worth.
I'm holding out for "Catspaw 2: Wrath of the Giant Black Cat."
To be released on Halloween, of course.
I just want the next movie (and series) to entertain & embrace the real joy of Star Trek.
When you boil down the premise, it's not hard science, it's not deeply 'cerebral' discourse, it's not pure escapism, or action theatrics… it's all of those things! It always was, rolled up into one giant, colourful ball. Each show & each movie accentuated different elements of those components but at the end of the day, the finest Trek entertains & tells a rollicking yarn, and if it makes you care about the characters & leaves you thinking, well… bonus! There are plenty of duff 'character' or 'issue' eps that only got half the mixture right, and forgot to have fun.
Each person's idea of what makes Trek entertaining is different, of course, but if what comes next has that sense of wonder, sense of adventure, sense of humour… it stands a good chance of pleasing most of the people at least some of the time, maybe more than certainly STID did among fandom.
I'd like "Spock's Brain II: Attack of the Cerebral Clones".
After the preamble, Kirk could go on to read the bill of rights.
Thank you, that was great. Money is by the door. Please be gone by the time I finish my shower.
Decades of being a Trekker has taught me to be cautious when trying to expect/dictate what Trek should do, where it should go, next. Even if it seems the logical thing to do.
Speculation is fine but when you start betting the farm on the future you're likely to end up bitter and or disappointed.
Nicely put! That's pretty much my attitude, too.
The whole discussion was predicated on the idea that today's Trek is as it is because it could be represented in no other fashion. Abrams trek was far from intelligent.
The contention was that you can indeed make an intelligent slow paced movie, and if done properly, today's audience would accept it. We are talking about conceptual ideas, not specifics. Again, people not following the discussion are focusing on the wrong things. This has absolutely nothing to do with a specific story, or wanting a specific story. This discussion is about what message is being said on what medium, whether or not there is a choice, and if the medium dictates the message.
Since you know the definition, I have no idea why you ask the question. There's more than 1 way to make an intelligent piece of literature, or film. I know the internet deals in absolutes, and black and white, but real life isn't like that. The only thing that is absolute, is to avoid being contrived and derivative.
But everything you've just said (I think, because I don't really understand all of it), come right back *to* story in the end. No creative sets out to write a cerebral message, they are trying to explore character, emotion, and by default making the audience *feel* along the way. Successful or not, 'unintelligent' or not, STID was trying to do just that, as has all Trek.
Not to insinuate anything about Mr. Cox here, because I haven't read his work.
But being a novelist and editor does not necessarily denote intellect and acumen. So your argument is flawed. Novelists wrote Twilight, 50 shades of grey, Da Vinci Code, Kane and Abel, etc.
Yes people most certainly start out intending to write a cerebral film if that's their goal. Abrams certainly did not set out to make a cerebral film. However, those points are irrelevant to the discussion...
Ok I'll explain a different way. people are saying if you made a slow paced, political thriller star trek(like TUC for example), that it would bomb, because the audience wouldn't sit for it. And that it could only be this fast paced popcorn adventure. That's the only way star trek could be successful today. And that the reason that star trek today is a mindless popcorn flick, is because it's movies being produced in the 2010's. That because it's in movies, it dictates that star trek be mindless fun.
The other people are saying, that you can make it intelligent, and you can give the general audience a little more credit than that. And that just because it's a movie being made in 2010's, doesn't mean it HAS to be mindless to be successful. And that you can make an intelligent movie, and the contemporary audience would accept it.
This discussion isn't nutrek vs. berman trek. We're not talking about what is, or what could have been. We're talking about the medium(movies or tv), and the era, dictating the tone and artistic direction of the property; and whether or not the general audience would accept intelligent movies.
Much of Star Trek is "contrived" and anything with the name "Star Trek" on it is going to be derivative in some sense. There's over seven-hundred hours of this stuff, intentional or not, they are going to hit the same notes over and over.
I think Greg Cox is asking a fair question. What is it that someone like you wants that is lacking in the Abrams films? Beyond the generic "I want it more intelligent".
I went on record earlier in this thread that there was no other way to bring Star Trek back other than in the form that Abrams did:
The way you talk about Star Trek reeks of elitism. I also tend to think you're trying to hold the Abrams films to a standard that Trek has very rarely achieved before.
I really do think you're putting words in people's mouths a bit here, to be completely honest.
No one directly said a 'slower-paced' Trek would bomb - that's not the point. You use TUC as an example; that film reflected not just the era (the end of the Cold War), but also the *end* of an era with an ageing crew on their final adventure. Now try doing that film with Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto et al… think about it, that kind of story doesn't work for them. I'm being specific with that example but it goes back to the point - if you choose to reboot TOS, the way Abrams did it very much is in tune with the way Roddenberry started the franchise. Infact, had Gene made a TOS movie with today's effects, I'd put money on him doing something really quite similar.
What denotes an intelligent film is subjective, like most art. You'll get just as many people sniff at, say, Dark Knight Rises as people who champion it. Trek is no different.
I think you've taken the position that the Abrams films aren't intelligent without really knowing how the audiences that went and saw them feel about them. I think you also tend to discount that sometimes people go to the cinema to be entertained, first and foremost.
No one is holding a gun to your head making you watch them. I just wonder why you wasted your money and time with Into Darkness when you obviously were disenchanted with Star Trek (2009)?
Doesn't seem like a very intelligent thing to do?
Meyer, Brown, and James are all undoubtedly very intelligent people. And seeing as how they've made shit-loads of money off their craft, I'd say their acumen is just fine.
I still haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises because The Dark Knight put me to sleep. Though the Missus loves the Nolan films.
You're not really following lol.
It was an example dude. I don't get how people can look at an example and completely lose focus of the topic. And no, I didn't put words in peoples mouths, reread the discussion, people most certainly claimed that TUC would bomb today. I don't need to quote it because I know it for a fact, but you should go back and read it because you're making assumptions.
And yes, I don't know how else to explain it to you. This is basically a debate about the medium is the message. This has absolutely nothing to do with specifics, or tastes.
Separate names with a comma.