Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Opus, Sep 15, 2013.
Double this. In fact...THAT!
All of these!
On a serious note, though, I do agree with Khan444 that Gene had some good ideas. Still, his best contribution, IMO, is the Star Trek franchise. It was a good idea that hit at the right time, and worked because the casting was right (on the second try), and the writing was solid. That's what made it all work.
Didn't a lot of Star Trek's concepts that remain popular to now come from Gene Coon? He's responsible for Klingons, the Federation and the Prime Directive.
Probably. Gene tended to surround himself with excellent people.
When pressed, about the only thing you'll be able to get out of someone harping on "Gene Roddenberry's Vision" and the reason they think Gene is god-like is because he 'dreamed of a future where man overcame their obstacles and all got along.' Hell, that's the hope of any message board moderator!
I'm glad STID took the DS9 route, for me that is one of its few redeeming features. But DS9 has chartered the oh-not-so-perfect Federation fifteen years ago and did a far better job. Heck in DS9 the Federation almost had a civil war, DS9 introduced us to Section 31 and let's not forget the episode In the Pale Moonlight.
If you want to debate those points, why don't you join those other boards and debate them? Why post them here? This just seems like an attempt to start another thread of fan-rage.
Of course a lot of that was fleshed out over 5 seasons.
Sorry I haven't been on the board in a while. Life and stuff...
I would join if I could. It's read only unless you are a personal member. Ack! But I figured I'd share here and get opinions. It's interesting the similarity of angst, no?
Now on to catching up on the thread.
The similarity of complaints between the ones in the OP directed at the Abrams films and complaints delivered at an earlier era of Trek on film...tasks me.
Mmm. Everything that was old is new again...
I shall say this to you sir, and also because it's my favorite quote:
I'm reading the Solow and Justman Trek book.
I think Solow surrounded Gene with excellent people.
Gene was good at taking others ideas and making them his own.
I am not into an ideology. I do have my criticisms of STiD. I would say the last one, 2009, lacked the "morality plays" angle of most of Star Trek. It was just a fun introduction to the cast. This movie attempted to tackle contemporary political problems in the 21st century, the defining moments of US policy that were overlooked during Enterprise.
The opinions that I have revolve around actual elements of the film. Kirk doesn't seem like a capable commander in this timeline. He lacks the requisite training and he doesn't grow in this movie, he just does the same thing he did in the last one. This movie showed everyone responding to being wronged by seeking revenge. Some little speech at the end doesn't make it a theme. This movie is about what not to do when someone wrongs you. If you want a moral of the story, that's not a particularly strong one.
The movie has some very poor performances. I am thinking of Robocop himself. He sounds like a villain the moment we see him. He has some very good points to make and the delivery makes me reject it out-of-hand.
It's an action flick. I don't like action flicks. I like Star Trek to make me think, not make me feel like I'm at a fireworks display. I like the "boring" characters because they were professionals in their jobs. You saw Spock and Kirk start to respect one-another after they had been through enough life-or-death situations. You saw Picard rely on his crew to get things done. It wasn't about the interpersonal relationships that are full of gossip and back-stabbing. It wasn't a soap opera in space. It was about the decisions, life and death decisions, that a Captain has to make. It was about competent people who could do the job, and it was a job. So I reject the notion that Star Trek had little conflict. Just put yourself in Captain Kirk's shoes next time you watch an episode. You'll be a little sweaty thinking about the problem. That's conflict.
Was Gene Roddenberry perfect? No. Was he a genius who came up with every great idea Star Trek ever offered? No. But this idea that we need to throw out Gene's concepts of the future because it's bad drama needs to end. There was plenty of drama while Gene was alive.
I think Star Trek Into Darkness is simply an okay movie. Not bad, not good. I have my reasons for both. But most of it is based on subjective opinions and not hard facts.
We simply saw very different movies.
Well, here's the reveal:
These aren't quotes about STiD. I didn't copy them from some message board of enraged Star Trek fans about STiD. Nope.
I couldn't join in on their conversation. Not without a flying Delorean and a Mr. Fusion at least.
But they are quotes from Star Trek fans. About a Star Trek movie. It was a movie that came out 31 years ago. Here's the link: Interstat
Here are some of the quotes, now unaltered and for your approval:
And here are two favorites:
And a needed voice of reason through the vitriol. Vitriol from the truTrekFans. And their HATE of Harve Bennett. And his terrible new movie blockbuster - The Wrath of Khan:
Anything sound... familiar?
All this has happened before.....
Oops, wrong franchise.
Someone page Richard Hatch.
Fandom hasn't changed one bit.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Separate names with a comma.