Discussion in 'Star Trek - Original Series' started by ZapBrannigan, Sep 3, 2013.
I watch Star Trek to have fun, first and foremost.
Agree. I have been a fan since 1973, when as a young boy I first encountered reruns of TOS and the Saturday morning TAS. I too enjoy the Abramsverse films in which the Kirk era lives.
Sure, but how each person defines fun will vary.
That goes without saying.
You'd think so, but often enough it doesn't come across that way. Often enough when someone says they watch something "just for fun" the implication is you shouldn't think too much about watch you're watching.
So I can say I enjoy TOS because of the fact that it's not only visually interesting but it also exhibits a good measure of intelligence in how it's put together. From that my sense of "fun" is going to have certain expectations. If I have to suspend any measure of critical thinking too far then I'm not having fun anymore.
On the face of it a show like Futurama looks like utter nonsense and yet it's often pretty damned clever in how it's put together.
I feel the same way about Star Trek Into Darkness.
Well, this is where we part company.
I think many people hold the Abrams movies to a much higher standard than they hold TOS or any of the Modern Trek series.
I didn't read the whole thread so maybe something similar to this has been said, but why does it always have to be one vs the other in similar genres?
Why is LiS the enemy of ST? Why can't I like Star Trek and Star Wars at the same time. Sure I'll like some sci-fi shows more than others, some not at all, but it's like some have to validate their love for one by actively hating the other.
I agree. It's all about the IDIC. We can like things that are different from each other, and we can respect other people's right to like things we don't like, rather than feeling we have to argue them into submission.
The word "fan" used to mean someone who likes stuff. These days, it seems to mean someone who goes out of one's way to hate and reject things.
...actually I've chosen to delete my reply, which wasn't offensive in the least, but I simply have no repsect whatsoever for JJ and his work so it's best for me not remark further.
I'm not trying to troll or flame you, Warped9. Just something I've noticed from many people, not just you.
It was more of a general comment about the state of the franchise. I do think some people hold Abrams and Company to a higher standard than whatever their favorite version of the franchise is.
I responded to this blog...
About the supposed "trick transporters" used by Abrams and Company that somehow make starships obsolete. Yet no one I've seen has ever uttered a peep about how transporters in the Prime universe should really make death itself obsolete.
I think also there are some people who will simply not accept a Star Trek reboot no matter how good it is.
That said, I didn't like the Abrams films.. But I'm all for future Trek reboots.
It has always been thus. A decade ago, posters on this board and elsewhere were constantly condemning Enterprise or declaring it an alternate reality for continuity glitches no worse than those that had existed in the previous shows and films. Like I said before, we're always harder on what's more recent because we've had time to get used to the flaws in the older stuff, to gloss over and rationalize and forgive them. The illusion of nostalgia, the way the brain smooths out the past, leading to the false perception that the present is worse.
Well I suspect a lot of people would been more accepting of ENT's continuity problems if the writing had just been a lot stronger, and not so painfully cheesy and derivative (and seemingly aimed only at teenage boys). I think that's what makes the biggest difference for most fans.
It's usually only after a show fails to engage you with the storytelling that you find yourself focusing on nitpicky details and continuity errors like that.
A reboot of Trek was inevitable just as other properties have been rebooted. Sometimes it works and sometimes not.
Except that the "true" TOS fans were just as hostile toward TNG when it came along. Granted, it took a couple of seasons before it started getting really good, but some fans took even longer than that to accept it. Quality can help overcome the initial resistance, but the resistance is going to be there as a kneejerk reflex anyway.
Even I'm not immune to it. When I got the assignment to take over the post-series Enterprise novels and went back and rewatched the series, I found I liked it a lot better the second time around. The first time, I'd watched it through the filter of "Oh, that's not what I expected"/"That's not what I would've done," and that colored my view of it. But when I came back and just accepted that it was what it was, took it on its own terms rather than weighing it against my preconceptions, I found it had a lot more merits. Oh, it definitely had its flaws and its failures, but a lot about it worked quite well for me.
Oh please. As someone who also saw TOS first run on NBC; the above argument makes little sense as there was PLENTY that TOS (especially 'The Cage') 'got wrong' too. I mean hell, they are 18 light years from Talos IV; yet at 'Timewarp Factor 7' - get there in about 30 seconds. Amazing Kirk's Enterprise which was certainly upgraded/refit with newer components after 12 years, could seem to match that speed, etc.)
And if you go by the first run Nielson ratings of Star Trek - in general, audiences didn't 'buy it' (IE it didn't 'earn their suspension of disbelief') on the initial run either.
To me they have more in common with TRANSFORMERS films than with TOS; they're action movies whose scripts are built around (and out of) action set pieces, one right after the other. You can feel when you're at the beginning of a set piece, in the middle, at the end, and when the next one starts. It's predictable. One after another after another. It used to be that a film script would provide rising action throughout the film; the actions scenes would be the payoff, have more power because of the build-up. Now action rises, falls; rises, falls; rises, falls; at a steady and prediactable rate. It makes for a really flat movie experience.
For someone who claims not to have known anything about screenplay structure, Nick Meyer structured TWoK perfectly. That kind of structure has virtually gone out the window now, and I think it's a shame. It's not JJ Abrams' fault, that's just the way action movies are made these day.
And that right there is why I just can't get into the fan series. More power to the writers, director, actors doing these things; clearly they're in it for the love. But I want Trek to be more than a self-referential fanwank.
I think there was a time-passing dissolve during that warp sequence. We saw them set out, we saw them arrive, but there was a transition that skipped over the travel time in between.
But how about this: they've just come from Rigel, and are heading to Vega Colony for medical treatment. Rigel is 863 light-years from Earth... and 883 light-years from Vega! They're in more or less opposite directions from us. There is no way in hell that Vega is a convenient stopover point after leaving Rigel.
Heck, even in Star Trek Star Charts and the novels, where Trek's Rigel has been retconned into a nearer "Beta Rigel" system, it's still closer to Earth than it is to Vega.
Separate names with a comma.