Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by AmbassadorPointyEars, May 2, 2014.
I think STID lost what was built in Star Trek, the interaction between the characters and the spirit of adventure. But instead it chose to show a movie with pure action. But I liked the movie.
So... you don't want a fish sandwich?
And yet "more optimistic than existed in the 60s" is both highly subjective and, also, a pretty low bar, one I think STID more than rises to.
Grasped and rejected, yes.
But what it says to you and what it is are two completely different things. Obviously you believe that there's a certain "ethos" in TOS that is very important to you personally, but that is again a subjective judgement being presented analytically.
Of course, there are certain TOS episodes you don't personally care for for whatever reason, and if you really looked I bet you would discover a few episodes that deviate from TOS' overall "ethos" too. Therefore, the most you can say is that STID didn't have enough of what YOU wanted to see, but to claim that it lacks essential qualities of Star Trek is, IMO, disingenuous.
Which goes back to my earlier point about America's high divorce rate: you're assigning highly weighted importance to something that was not necessarily even a major selling point for TOS in the first place. Which, actually, is what a lot of husbands/wives wind up doing for their partners in midlife (e.g. she's gained weight; he doesn't take me places anymore; she's not as pretty as she used to be; he doesn't buy me nice things anymore; the excitement has gone out of our relationship; etc).
OTOH, I'm a child of the 90s, so I may be re-interpreting TOS 1960s "ethos" through the inherent cynicism of the Epic Fail generation and it's entirely possible that you and I have very different opinions on what constitutes "optimism."
Actually, I thought it had better characterization and interaction than any Star Trek movie since "Voyage Home." And STID captured the "spirit of adventure" pretty solidly in the opening scene on Nibiru.
I still maintain that a lot of the backlash against the Star Trek movies is the reaction of kids who have grown into adults and have forgotten that they were still kids when they originally discovered Star Trek.
Luckily it is ST09 not STID that I am complaining about.
Yet that interpretation still seems quite reasonable. I mean, if Pepsi Cola also cured cancer, would you regard it as more than just a beverage then? If so, I think we are only talking about a matter of degree.
Its not that subjective actually. Many people recognize TOS has those qualities but just don't seem to find them that important. As I pointed out, some even complain that such qualities are over done!
That is all I'm saying (except about ST09 ).
No, that's what you seem to think I'm saying for some reason unconnected to what I actually wrote. On a personal level, I'm saying that ST material shouldn't conflict with those qualities without a damned good explanation, which was missing in ST09. The writers etc seemed to think about such things a little more in STID, though I wouldn't say it was perfect. Anyway it didn't feel like negative Trek.
I didn't say it was a selling point. I only ever said it was important to me. Which is way "I" can't just ignore it as you wanted me too. In defense of that point I have also said that the issues I have highlighted are normally regarded as being important (in the scheme of things), but only in response you view that they are nitpicks.
Rest assured that the problems I have with ST09 are less superficial than those sort of clichés, as per my original example.
I dig how, again, Abrams is - seemingly - referencing STAR WARS, by way of having Carol Marcus in the same sort of position as Princess Leia was, between Luke and Han "competing" for her, only Carol had Kirk and Bones doing it. I wonder if the STAR WARS inspirations will cease with a new director in the next STAR TREK movie ...
I don't think Bones and Kirk were competing for Carol. Some folks have noticed some chemistry between Urban and Eve but I don't think it was intentional. ( on the part of the writers or director)
As far as I could tell, Bones was just pouring on the southern charm, which was something he did even with the ladies who were already "spoken for" by Kirk. Happened in TOS quite a bit.
It isn't. It's just a smaller number of vocal super-fans.
Believe it or not, you don't have to be part of that "vocal super-fans" group to regard it as mediocre.
Yes. It would be a beverage with a useful medicinal quality.
That's a far cry from saying that Pepsi is some sort of important social phenomenon whose significance transcends its nature as a commercial product, to the degree that releasing a version of Pepsi that DOESN'T cure cancer would totally ruin the product.
To put that another way: is Pepsi still Pepsi if it's caffeine free?
Yeah, I think that makes sense.
No, no they're not. A black person is not made black by the colour of their skin, nor is a white person, etc. You are only demonstrating that you haven't a clue what race actually is. The idea that it has any basis in human anatomy or biology is obsolete, and of the time when scientists went around measuring skulls and noses. Please stop talking about race since you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.
How can I become a super-fan? Are there prizes? Are there discounts on special merchandise chosen especially for me?
Either way, I wouldn't need my arm twisted to believe that men would fight over the Carol Marcus in this movie. When it came time to find Kirk a love interest, J.J. Abrams couldn't have chosen better ...
You have to be able to make a mean sandwich, and to have mastered the technique of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
Its not about ruining a product at this point (though I believe ST09 doesn't just leave out TOS's ethos but negatively impacts it.). The only question is whether TOS (that has shaped some people's lives) or a soft drink (that also did something useful or alternatively deleterious) are more than just a "TV show" or a "beverage" respectively. The answer, as you agree, is obviously yes. And its the principle not the magnitude that's important, so long as the magnitude is sufficient to be noticeable of course.
It appears the quoting bug in these forums may have corrupted your efforts in accurately represent my last post. Anyway, its great we could reach agreement.
It involves being bitten by a radioactive fanboy or being caught in the blast of a fanrage.
^ My Canon Sense is tingling!
^Probably because I'm about to release a blast of useless trivia.
Separate names with a comma.