STAR TREK the enemy of LOST IN SPACE?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - Original Series' started by ZapBrannigan, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Zero redeeming qualities whatsoever? I can understand not liking the movies, but that seems a trifle harsh. If you want to see a few movies with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, I'm sure I could direct you to a few fine examples on Netflix that might make you re-evaluate that statement. ;)

    (Gods, sometimes their sci-fi section on their streaming service is terrible).
     
  2. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Whereas I find him far less dangerous and threatening, because he's gone from a cunning, devious mastermind with plans of galactic conquest to a scenery-chewing madman whose goals have shrunk to vengeance against one man, and whose obsession blinds him and leads him into bad decisions so that he practically defeats himself. I feel TWOK squandered the potential of the character. STID's interpretation of Khan was, to me, a far better realization of the potential of the character created in "Space Seed" -- at least prior to the climactic action, which didn't really work well for me overall.


    And also some of the cheesiest melodrama, like Scotty bringing Peter Preston's bloodsoaked body to the bridge, and the "KHAAAAAAAN!!!!!" moment, which I find completely embarrassing to this say (and yes, I found it even worse when they copied it in STID -- that film is certainly not flawless).

    And it's TSFS whose dialogue I enjoy the most. There are a lot of lines there that are downright poetic -- Harve Bennett crafted a really nice script for that one. I don't remember the dialogue in TWOK standing out as much.


    Whereas I find the action scenes to be ponderous and tediously paced -- and I'm saying that as someone who likes ST:TMP. There are a couple of moments where both Kirk and Khan are alerted to something the enemy is doing but then just stand there staring off into space for ten seconds before reacting -- what the hell? And the exteriors are just ships lumbering around slowly like hippos in the mud. What you find tense and exciting, I find sluggish and dull.


    What should be obvious, what's been known for so many centuries that there's a saying about it in Latin, is that de gustibus non est disputandem -- there is no arguing over taste. Different people like different things, and it's generally useless trying to convince other people to like the things you like or to hate the things you hate. There is no objective right or wrong here.

    To get back on topic here, we've seen that there are one or two people in this thread who like the Lost in Space movie, even though most of us found it a failure and critics and mass audiences tended to agree. There are surely people who like seasons 2-3 of LiS too -- heck, there must've been, or the show wouldn't have maintained good enough ratings in season 2 to rate a third year.

    But those people weren't the target audience for Star Trek, and that's the real point. For a long time, most SFTV had been aimed at the audience that LiS was going for, but there had been nothing for more adult or more sophisticated audiences except the occasional anthology, mostly The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits. So if ST was trying to compete with LiS, it was only in the sense of offering an alternative approach to SFTV, appealing to the viewers that LiS wasn't made for, as opposed to competing for the same audience.

    Maybe we need to understand that about Abrams Trek too. It's made for a new audience -- not trying to compete with or replace the original in its fans' hearts so much as to provide an alternative and broaden the appeal of the overall franchise. I'm flexible enough to enjoy both versions of Trek, but then, I'm flexible enough to enjoy both ST and LiS (at least the first season), or to enjoy both the Nolan Batman and the '60s sitcom Batman. Other people prefer just one over the other, but that's okay. No franchise succeeds by appealing to only one fan, or one category of fan. The wider you can cast your net, the better it is for the success of the franchise as a whole. So maybe instead of arguing over which version of a franchise is better, we should be glad that there are so many options available. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations and so forth.
     
  3. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    People are funny. Once they decide they dislike something many cannot find a thing good about it and will make ridiculous statements to support it. I just watched STID last night and while there are definitely missteps and bad decisions, there are really good aspects to it, one simple example being the aftermath of the jump ship attack which is played with no sound save music and faintly heard breathing and where the actor's performance communicates the emotion without dialog.
     
  4. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Frightening. That's like sticking the cast of Gilligan's Island in TOS.

    ...yes, Bob Denver & Alan Hale would be Spock and Kirk...
     
  5. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    No, I stand by the statement. I recall watching ST09 twice. The first time out of curiosity and the second time some time later to re-evaluate my intial opinion. No, I could find nothing whatsoever to like in that film.

    Well...I will allow the shade of red used for the engineering uniform was pleasant. But story, characterizations, concepts and all the important things I look to a film to engage and entertain me were just thoroughly lacking.

    The only difference I could see between Battlefied Earth (another pile of smelly stuff) and JJtrek was that BE just left me dumbfounded that something could be so bad. Some films are so bad at least they make you laugh, but BE couldn't even manage that. JJtrek actually offends me because it purports to serve up something extremely disappointing in name of something I actually like very much.
     
  6. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Chalk it up to Iwin Allen, who selected form (and image) over function everytime. Take all of the rooms and space in Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea's Seaview; there's no way to fit the observation deck, Flying Sub hangar, large lab, torpedo room, galley, sickbay, bridge, and two dozen additional rooms into the assumed dimensions of the sub.
     
  7. davejames

    davejames Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Location:
    Sac, Ca
    I agree about TSFS being severely underrated. Nimoy really expanded the Trek universe and gave it a magical and romantic quality that I just absolutely love. And that the first two movies (as good as they are) didn't really have.

    Hmm, interesting. I could almost make the exact same argument about a certain Superman movie that came out recently.....

    Heh, sorry, couldn't resist. ;)
     
  8. plynch

    plynch Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Outer Graceland
    "It's made for a new audience."

    Yes, tastes change. Hence my treasuring my original 79 in the clamshell DVD edition. I was a huge Superman fan as a lad. Couldn't bring myself to see the new one after reading about it. I am officially not of this age, and that's ok.
     
  9. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Actually, if Man of Steel had had a different third act, I might've considered it the best Superman movie ever. Parts of it are that good, that innovative and well-handled. And Henry Cavill is the best Superman since Reeve. Unfortunately, the things that don't work about the film are, for me, so awful and offensive that on balance, I came out rather hating the film. And I'm usually not someone who hates any movie. There are ones I don't like much, but they rarely inspire genuine anger in me. That one did.

    As far as Star Trek goes, to me, the series is intrinsically about seeking out the new and different in the spirit of curiosity and acceptance. So I try to be open to all its incarnations. I think it should move forward and reinvent itself. When it started, it was on the cutting edge in a lot of ways, a forward-looking, futurist show that pushed boundaries and took chances and did things that no SFTV series had ever done before. If it were to become nothing but an exercise in nostalgia for the past, that would be a terrible fate for it.
     
  10. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    It's the nature of things. Sometimes something new comes along that really steps forward and engages me. Other times the new can be a (very) shallow imitation of the what came before.
     
  11. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    True...many remakes, "reimagining" or reboots have suffered from wearing the skin of the source, but being nothing more.
     
  12. Ssosmcin

    Ssosmcin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Location:
    ssosmcin
    I know, I was kiddin'. I always enjoy the information you provide, I learn a lot.
     
  13. davejames

    davejames Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Location:
    Sac, Ca
    Yeah I've always looked forward to every new incarnation or interpretation of the Trek universe (and stuck with both VOY and ENT longer than I normally would have simply because of how much I loved the premises and actors behind them).

    When it comes to the Abrams movies I was onboard from the start with the idea of the new timeline and new actors, and I loved the heck out of the first movie. But the second just felt a little too dark and cynical for my taste, and a little too action-obsessed (and yes I realize the irony, as that's the exact same complaint many have about MOS). :p
     
  14. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    I've found Trek movies to be too action-obsessed ever since TWOK. TMP was an attempt to make ST into thoughtful SF cinema in the vein of 2001 or Silent Running, but by that point, Star Wars had introduced a new paradigm and the pressure was on for every SF movie to be about action and space battles, and Trek succumbed to that pressure from TWOK onward. It's one of the reasons why Trek movies in general are rarely among the best examples of Trek storytelling -- the nature and expectations of SF movies in the modern era tend to work against the franchise's strengths.
     
  15. Duncan MacLeod

    Duncan MacLeod Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Location:
    New England
    Christopher, I think you just hit the nail right on the head. Both in what happened and the reasons for it.

    It also explains why so many of the older fans, that grew up with TOS, were so put off by the movies in general and Mr. Abrams movies in particular.
     
  16. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    ^Please don't generalize like that. Many of us who grew up with TOS, like me, feel that Abrams has done a great job recapturing its spirit. Yes, the new movies have the same kinds of faults that most SF/action movies today have, but they also have plenty of merits to compensate for those faults. I think they're very true to the spirit of the characters of TOS, and do a decent, if imperfect, job of exploring the same kinds of ideas. For instance, STID had some good statements about choosing peace over violence, and recaptured the classic Gene Coon Kirk-Spock dynamic in which Kirk's first impulse is an aggressive one but Spock persuades him to try a more peaceful approach.

    The Abrams films are both among the most profitable Trek films ever and among the highest-rated Trek films on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb. Granted, the Trek fanbase doesn't constitute the majority of their audience, but given that their ratings are in the vicinity of 90%, on a par with films like First Contact and The Voyage Home, it's hard to believe that they're as widely unpopular among Trek fans as their harsher critics keep claiming. I think it's just that the minority who hold negative views are so vocal that they dominate the conversation, which is often the case on the Internet.
     
  17. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Agreed. Well said.

    But that's not the only reasons JJ treks are a huge fail in my estimation.
     
  18. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I've been a fan since 1975 and love the Abramsverse films. :shrug:
     
  19. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    I can only speculate that people bring different expectations to films and possibly have different perceptions of the materiel, particularly of the original subject matter.
     
  20. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Of course they do. Enjoyment of fiction is a personal thing. A good work of fiction is rich and multifaceted enough to convey a wide range of different meanings to different people. And audiences often read things into a creation that the creators never intended or would have imagined. I've seen fans who saw Star Trek as military SF and fans who saw it as anti-war; fans who saw it as promoting their liberal politics and others who felt it reinforced their conservative views; fans who saw it as emphatically secular and humanist and others who've read deep religious meaning into it.

    This is why it's so irrational to talk about one's personal tastes toward a show or movie as if they're some universal consensus, or to speak about "fans" as a collective having a uniform reaction to anything. It's the nature of fandom that different people are fans of different things. And that's why it's good for a franchise like Star Trek to have a variety of different facets that appeal to different audiences -- that makes it more egalitarian, more inclusive. No one person is going to enjoy every facet of the whole, but just about anyone will be able to find some part of it that they enjoy.