Trek & Pseudo-Trek

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Noitartst, Mar 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Noitartst

    Noitartst Cadet Newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    I don't consider myself a true Trekkie, and am more of a Star Warrior, if you catch my drift, but all the same have a deep admiration for the franchise dubbed "Star Trek."

    Star Trek, as I understand it, is not exploration of space, but ideas, and big ones, at that. Oh, and wonderful characterization, making it watchable, other simply creepy and mysterious, ala The Twilight Zone. And an optimistic sense of idealism, too.

    Action? In measured amounts, there was. Nowadays, there's -plenty of action, but the guardians of the Trek have forgotten what the journey was all about.

    J.J. Abrams wasn't a true fan of Star Trek, which helps explains his creative choices, and they are for the epic, but without any sense of aesthetic, or wonder. Yes, Abrams likes myseries, but they're plot mysteries. (Such sensibilities are nothing I don't like, but they're not Trek's.)

    DS9 is the only Trek I regularly watched, but I know Trek, even at its least Trek-like, stands for something more than big booms, and rebelliousness always getting the last word. In short, Abrams made Star Trek into a parody of itself, and fan or not, it grieves me.

    WHat saddens me most, though, is that this pseudo Trek'll garner fans unto itself. Remaking Kirk or Spock--fine, recasting them, yes, but lacking any appreciation for what made them great? Slay me.
     
  2. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Neither were Nick Meyer, Harve Bennett, Rick Berman or Michael Piller. They, like Abrams, simply knew how to produce Trek that satisfied audiences for the most part.

    I thoroughly despise the true Trek/true Trek fan non-sense.
     
  3. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Don't believe the hype. The Original Series was a fun action-adventure in space with likable characters first and foremost. That's what Abrams captured perfectly with Star Trek.:bolian:
     
  4. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Star Trek was action/adventure/scifi with strong characters. The only difference thus far between Abrams movies and the original 1964 pitch is that the Enterprise ain't doing much exploring at the moment :P

    The characters are spot on imho, their character traits have been dialled up a notch. The action is great! I am damn sure Roddenberry would have had lots of action in TOS if he could afford it, infact I think there are interviews around with other members of the 60s team that said so.

    Spock/Uhura romance I could do without :)

    Majority of TOS episodes had phaser fights and hand to hand combat and ships fighting/people dying. Week in week out. It was action/adventure.

    If Trek had started as a movie franchise in 1966 instead of on TV they would have had a heck of a lot more action & special effects etc imho! They where restricted by the budget. A restriction now gone.
     
  5. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Actually, Kirk didn't do much exploring of strange new worlds in ST II, IV, V, VI or "Generations" either.

    JJ's "Star Trek (2009)" was "action/adventure/scifi with strong characters".

    He could afford it with ST:TMP and TNG's "Encounter at Farpoint". Huge budgets! Both of them are high on talk and low on action.
     
  6. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    I am referring to Roddenberry of 1966 not the later one !
     
  7. SonicRanger

    SonicRanger Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2001
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
  8. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Nah, I don't think that'll be necessary.

    However, this really isn't about the movie, and would perhaps have made a better blog post than it does the premise for a discussion thread in this forum, so I'll just close this now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page