Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Opus, Sep 15, 2013.
22 episodes? That's got to be over $50 million dollars!
The comparison does not follow. Star Trek II and Star Trek Into Darkness are two completely different movies. It is true that both were popular for their day and that both have critics. But that is where your hasty generalization should stop.
Debate on the merit of the issue before us instead of trying to shut down all debate by saying "see how stupid you guys look?" And anyone who has the gumption to stand up and say this does not compare, apparently will be ridiculed?
If every movie has critics, why would you try and shut down the debate? Kirk did change from the series to the movies. His promotion changed who he was. I happen to think that it's an evolution towards a more arrogant Kirk, but the arrogance is justified--he's saved earth and the Federation too much.
What bothers me about these movies is that the arrogance is there before he ever does anything, the training is not, and all he can do is save the world. He doesn't have the training necessary to be Captain. He doesn't know, because he doesn't care, what the rules of engagement are between himself and a new life form. He doesn't have the judgment to know when to follow the rules and when not to. He gets busted down to the Academy, and he should've stayed there.
This is not just a different Kirk, this is one that tells us Starfleet needs nothing but fly-by-your-pants Captains. The more successful he is, the worse this will get as far as arrogance, and, in the real world, he will get people killed.
It's like going 150 miles an hour in a car. You get to your destination faster. If you stay alive, you are a damn good driver, if there's a person with a gunshot wound in the back, you may save their life. But you run just as much risk that you'll crash into the median and kill you both. Kirk is the guy driving the car. He has one speed and no nuance now. He doesn't know the rules of the road. And this is not at all an interesting character to this fan.
Not sure at whom this is directed (and I don't suppose it really matters that much) but wasn't the point of the exercise to show that the types of criticism leveled—both then and now—were in many ways quite similar?
But no one is proposing any of that.
Debate has not been shut down, nor do I see that happening any time soon. Anyone wishing to draw or dismiss comparisons is welcome to stand up and do so, with gumption or without (but be civil about it - calling other fans or groups of fans stupid will not be tolerated, and may be actionable.)
I disagree. Fans in both times, about both movies, complaining about how the new regime in charge has changed what Roddenberry created to make a money-making blockbuster with no message. Both questioning if it should be considered "real" Star Trek. Both having disparaging comments about the writers and directors. Both thinking the films hold style over substance. Both complaining how they changed Khan into a one dimensional mustache-twirling villian. I'd say there is plenty to discuss about this interesting phenomenon. And with TWOK being held up (now) by fans as Trek's standard-bearer, I'd say the need FOR debate is necesssary.
This,what you just said - It's the whole point of Kirk's journey in the movie. He thinks he can do no wrong. He thinks his breaking of the rules is justified because no one under his command has died. Pike recognizes it. That's why he took his command away from Kirk. yes, Kirk is arrogant.
Kirk chasing down Khan, losing members of his crew, and ultimately facing down the barrel of Marcus' gun, he's forced to realize he's not perfect. He turns to his crew and apologizes. He gives command to Spock because Kirk now knows he's been wrong. He goes over to Vengeance with Khan to save his crew. And Kirk makes the ultimate sacrifice by saving his crew and ship. Kirk's soul-searching brings him face to face with that arrogance, and he beat it. Now, on to the five-year mission...
I hope someday in the future there will be a Trek you enjoy again, because the other point of posting the Interstat quotes was to show that Trek has continued despite fan outrage. Abrams Trek will not last, just as Roddenberry, Bennett and Berman Trek did not last. Someone else will take up the Trek mantle again. Be patient.
Like I said before, some fans think it's a religion, with a founding moment that can't be violated, ever. And we've seen that with reactions to the new movies and TWOK.
What 'prequel debacle'? The movies were one of the most successful trilogies in recent history, breaking (surpassing) the box office records of the previous trilogy, and creating a whole new generation of fans, not to mention injecting the franchise with new energy by going back to the past and giving us new concepts like Clone Troopers, Padwans, and the best female Star Wars characters since Leia herself, Ahsoka Tano and Leia's mom Padme! Who are these fans that think that the Prequel Trilogy was/is a failure, and why should I care what they have to say?
Also, if the movies are so bad then why is Disney making more? (I know that the prequel trilogy counts as a popular failure to most, but it doesn't to me.) It seems that the Star Wars franchise has the same kind of fans that we hate in the Star Trek trilogy that hate the new movies.
I'm a little surprised to see this thread being resurrected after so long, and I guess we'll have to disagree on the idea of Padme being one of the best characters ever (off the top of my head she falls in love with a guy who kills women and children in a petty act of revenge, and loses the will to live right after having twin babies), but oh well...
She is played by Natalie Portman, though. She's got that going for her.
Yeah, a strong female character she isn't.
But she is nothing like sand, so she's got that going for her.
That must be the first argument I've ever heard in favor of sand.
This continues to sound quite crazy every time you repeat it, BTW. Just FYI. Also of a piece with stuff like this:
I'm not sure what you mean by "we," but I for one am glad that really few Trek BBSers are nuts enough to actually hate someone for having different tastes than theirs. That would be like me saying I "hate" you for liking AbramsTrek -- that would sound a bit nuts, wouldn't it?
I think that was the one where the movies mostly sucked, despite being profitable. You see, sometimes a thing can be a financial success but an artistic failure, which means people don't look on it with fondness after having shelled out their hard-earned to watch it. (And if you can't conceive of a way that might happen that doesn't involve those people being crazy religious fanatics out to piss in your cornflakes, it's likely that the problem is you.)
It's not much of a reveal, Opus. One of the first quotes you used is right there in your sig with its source and year identified.
And I'll discuss it: trying to equate Abramskeptics with a few nuts writing in a fanzine in the early Eighties about the Wrath of Khan strikes me as pretty childish rhetorical gamesmanship. Yes, those poor bastards from '82 sound a bit loopy; so do more than a few on both sides* of the pro-/not-so-pro-Abrams divide, such as it is. OTOH there are very few, even among its fans, who would rate STiD as being artistically comparable to TWOK, so trying to front-load an assumption that all disagreement with your tastes is as irrational as these selected long-ago complaints about Wrath is IMO an exercise doomed to failure.
[* EDIT: Actually, one ironic feature of the present day is seeing some of the same complaints about Wrath in Interstat being resurrected by nuTrek fans eager to prove Abrams' work is better than Bennett's. It's been quite "fascinating" to see that. As at least one version of Spock would say. ]
Why? Have you seen anyone develop a new love for Nemesis because they didn't like STiD or ST09?
In the depths of the Cold War it was a sentiment that could seem like something of a forlorn hope. Roddenberry most certainly didn't invent the sentiment, but that he went out of his way to make the Enterprise crew international and multi-racial was a genuinely distinguishing feature of Trek. (Though far from its main distinction, which wasn't in fact an ideology.)
I'm not a huge Star Wars fan but I think the claims that the prequel trilogy as an artistic failure are overblown. I think mainly by people who think it's fashionable to hate on them yet likely paid to see them multiple times in the cinema, bought them on home-video and bought the merchandise.
The original and prequel trilogies are analogous to TOS and Modern Trek. One was playful action adventure, the other tried to be a more serious "grown up" take on the respective universes.
You always see new appreciation for older material when new material comes out. I like the Abrams films but I also like Nemesis more than I did a decade ago.
I already mentioned the word 'popular failure' in my post that meant the same thing without so much verbiage.
Bullshit. The prequels aren't just criticized because it's the popular thing to do, they're also criticized for being subpar. I don't think they're the worst things to ever come out of cinema, but they are certainly not that good. Plenty of bad films made it big at the box office despite not being good, such as TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN.
I don't know? Many people criticize them for the same reasons they criticize the Abrams movies: it wasn't what they wanted done with the property. I think it's disingenuous that many, many people went and seen the movies multiple times and then try to count them as some kind of failure.
The prequels aren't my favorite films, but much like Nemesis, when I revisited them after several years away I didn't find them nearly as flawed.
I'm talking about the criticisms that go beyond "a lot of people hate it, therefore I hate it too". Besides that, there are things Lucas did that many didn't want out of the prequels that you can't blame them for criticizing: Bad writing and bad directing.
+1 -- Those who think STiD's portrayal of Kirk was off need to go rewatch TOS and stop projecting TNG sensibilities onto James T. Kirk's character.
I think if one watches them without trying to compare them to 'The Original Trilogy', there's a lot to like about them. But, I don't think they could ever live up to the original trilogy, I'm not sure the Abrams films will either.
The original trilogy of films were movies that were in the right place at the right time (much like Star Trek:TOS) and they hold a special place in many people's hearts, and any prequels/sequels are going to be judged in a much harsher light because of it.
To this day, Lucasfilm has had no issue selling the prequel trilogy over and over again (I'm betting Paramount wishes The Final Frontier and Nemesis sold as well) and was even able to spin the Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated series off of it. Not bad for a set of movies everyone supposedly hated.
If there's any proof that the original trilogy is susceptible to nostalgia bias, it's pretty much the whole of Return of the Jedi.
I had never seen a Star Wars film until I was well into high school and that was the first one I saw. And I just didn't get it. The script was poor, the actors weren't interested, and most of the action was puerile slapstick. The direction was mostly flat, also. Yet the film constantly gets a free pass because it's part of the OT.
If you showed it and the PT to someone who had never seen or knew much about Star Wars, he'd almost surely say they were all about the same level of quality. In fact, he'd probably say Revenge of the Sith was better.
I actually do like Revenge of the Sith better.
Separate names with a comma.