Why did they bother...

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Captain Nebula, May 26, 2013.

  1. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    A theory I share. It would seem the only venue that would satisfy them would be a TV series that would have room and time to explore some of the themes that are necessarily given short shrift in a 2 hour movie once every 3-4 years.
     
  2. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Heh, I remember going to into a Hollywood Video, back in the late 1990s and asking for Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte and got a very strange look, and the kid at the counter was only about 10 years younger than me. I can't imagine what knowledge someone in their mid-20s no longer has of Classics 15 years later.
     
  3. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    Very reminiscent of the attitude I see among my students. Once I could simply assign a topic for research and expect the students to go the library and do the legwork--with no grumbling, save from a small minority (there's always at least one lazy student in a class). Now, though, if students don't get all the assigned readings pre-packaged as pdf files taken from the relevant journals and a detailed list of suggested sources to consult (in other words--all the legwork done for them), I get a lot of complaints (including, on occasion, some fairly nasty comments about how unfair I am because I'm not accounting for how "busy" their lives are). While I've not entirely given in, I do provide a list of suggested sources (with the caveat that they need to find x number of others on their own--x depends on the scope of the assignment--cuts down on a lot of gibberish, in the end).

    It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.
     
  4. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    This strikes me as generalizing the critics of the movies in order to delegitimize those critics. I think you'll find enough exceptions and qualification to these generalizations to make them pointless.
     
  5. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    I think that this is a fair point. I would rather put things together for myself rather than have the film over-explain everything. When the plot stops so that the exposition character can tell everyone what's going on it's patronizing and ejects me from the reality of the film.

    I think you would agree, however, that if there is such a thing as over-explaining that there is also such a thing as under-explaining. What either amounts to is a debatable question, but I think we can agree, in principle, that a film should not ask the viewer to have to imagine too much.
     
  6. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Not that I agree with the statement you replied to, but saying "mostly" isn't a generalisation. It simply means that most (read: over 50%) of the set of X is composed of items with the feature A. He didn't say "bah, they're just a bunch of TNG fans with no appreciation for true Trek."
     
  7. thumbtack

    thumbtack Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    TNG fans don't appear to appreciate much of anything, including TNG.

    Unless you feel that "about 20% of them are still quite watchable" qualifies as an enthusiastic endorsement of the show.
     
  8. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    I don't think so. Of course, every generalization is subject to exceptions (something I warn my students of rather frequently) but generalizations can still be made with sufficient data points AND they can help discern broad patterns. As this is not a dedicated research site for statistical analyses of audience preferences broken down by demographics and viewing experiences, this theory is (as already conceded) more of an interesting hypothesis (if we must, in a casual setting, be so precise). And like all hypotheses, it could be wrong--even spectacularly so. But I'd set a small wager on the hypothesis being correct to sufficient degree as to be a viable generalization (subject to the usual caveats of such things).


    That's fair. The transition point from too much to too little is highly dependent on the film type, though. A Terrence Malick film frequently offers what most movie viewers would consider far too little exposition--but if you are a fan of Malick's work (as I am), you are willing to live with that as, by now, such an absence of exposition is an expected element of the viewing experience. On the other hand, I fully expect a Tarantino movie to have as much dialogue as twice the collected works of Malick and would be disappointed otherwise.

    First and foremost, I want movies to entertain me (there are a few exceptions, some of which I make use of in my work, but they are not numerous). If they make me think (in a good way), so much the better--but it's not a requirement. I also don't require that my entertainment necessarily conform to some checklist of items by the committee for the promotion of the "way things out to be". Again, if it's there (and makes sense within the context of the film) so much the better. And most important to me, about any work of art (commercial or otherwise)--I want something that first satisfies the artist's desires. I don't want something made "for the fans", unless that is what the artist wants to do. All art should be the product of what the artist wants. I have the right to like it or not, but I have no right to expect satisfaction on my terms. As I have a wide palette of what I find entertaining, I'm rarely frustrated by any art (if I don't like it, I leave, stop watching, listening, etc.). And even when I am frustrated, I don't usually spend much time telling others they should be too (well, except with The Blair Witch Project--that is something no sentient being should suffer ;) ).
     
  9. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    I would appreciate if you quoted me in a way that didn't make it appear as though I said something I didn't say. I was clearly quoting a hypothetical person saying something that wasn't said.

    Is that an actual quote ?
     
  10. marksound

    marksound Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    Planet Carcazed
    That movie came out when I was about 4 years old. I think my parents saw it at the drive-in with us kids "asleep" in the back. What I saw freaked me out and I've never tried to watch it since. The theme song still gives me the willies. :lol:

    Agreed.

    Then again, I'm not a critic. Just a fan.
     
  11. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    For a time, in the 70s, Roddenberry and Paramount were thinking it would be Paul Newman and Robert Redford, with Walter Koenig as Chekov's father!
     
  12. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    Casting a Puerto-Rican/Haitian actress as Nyota Uhura.

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    No. Just. No.

    Keep trying. You'll get there eventually.
     
  13. Kevman7987

    Kevman7987 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Location:
    Erie, PA, USA
    The TOS crew is now sci-fi James Bonds; the characters are timeless in that they are not connected to any one actor (though we'll always have our Sean Connery/favorites).
     
  14. sj4iy

    sj4iy Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Location:
    US
    Oh god, I laughed so hard at the one where Kirk "changed bodies" with a woman. It was so horrible.
     
  15. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Yeah. Only Shatner can pull that off.
     
  16. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    So the current ones are the Roger Moores of Star Trek? :alienblush:
     
  17. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    ^ Basically.

    After all, Roger Moore was the one who gave us some of the more outlandish-yet-amusing 007 storylines. Who else, after all, could have pulled off an infantry battle in orbit?

    The good news is, at the pace we're going, the Daniel Craig generation of Trek actors will be able to film ENTIRELY on location :D.
     
  18. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    I don't care, because I will be dead.
     
  19. TorontoTrekker

    TorontoTrekker Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Not at all. I'm perfectly fine with new stories. In fact, I want new stories - not retreads with the serial numbers filed off.

    It's not even about the fact that they used Khan as the antagonist, although I admit that I did a reverse headdesk into my seat's headrest when Khan revealed who he was.

    Had they shown me Marcus having Khan do his bidding and seen Khan's mounting frustration, he would have been a much more interesting and sympathetic character. Orci and Kurtzman broke the first rule of writing: "Show, don't tell." More story, and less idiotic action (not "less action" - less "idiotic action"), and STID would have been a much better movie.

    I would even have been willing to lose the opening sequence on Nibiru - which I loved - to give more time to the backstory of why Khan is so pissed off at Marcus. Instead, we got Spock trying to beat up Khan while riding on top of a flying car. Ooo. And the laws of physics getting thrown out the airlock.

    If anything, this movie was a blatant attempt to tell a story that had been told before, only with the identities of the characters swapped around a bit.

    I love space opera, and The Final Frontier is probably my least favourite of all the Trek films - though I see what Shatner was trying to do. I just don't think he quite got there. (Then again, I'm one of those old-school fans - I'm 45 years old, and discovered TOS in syndication around 1980.)

    It's possible to combine them. With another couple of drafts, Nemesis could have been a brilliant movie, with its nature-versus-nurture theme and some "good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure". STID could have been in my top three Trek movies - but I was so pissed off at its shortcomings that I didn't even realize until later that there was a current-day political allegory in there screaming to be let out. (My favourite Trek film is The Undiscovered Country, because it's an unashamed political allegory.)
     
  20. newtontomato539

    newtontomato539 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    I agree. They should have spent 3 hours on a flashback.

    Various scenes they should have shown us, but were jerks:

    1. Khan's mom is puffing. Khan pops out covered in slime. Using cgi eyelids and lips. he turns to the camera, winks and says, "I will have my vengeance!"

    2. Khan is on the toilet reading the newspaper. Joachim knocks on the door. "My Khan, no one likes us. :sob:" Khan: "Damn! Ready the Botany Bay."

    3. The Botany Bay lifts off. Khan: "Did anyone pack my porn?" :crickets: "Come on people!"

    and so forth.