The First Trailer
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
By action, do we mean our heroes vs. some antagonist? I ask because Gravity had quite a lot of action in the form of physical exertion, chases, and urgent challenges. While I wouldn't classify Gravity as an action movie, all those things made it thrilling sci fi adventure.
I'm not opposed to the idea, though. I'd love for Trek writers to see that pitch and say, "Challenge Accepted." But if they're up against a cosmic mystery or a natural phenomenon or anything relating to the great unknown, there's still going to be some large action component to it.
On a side note, I thought the most contrived thing that Interstellar could ever have was a fist fight with a traitor on an alien world. But to me that was its only flaw.
TOS was always action-adenture. Even TV Guide listed it as action-adventure. The new movies returned it to it's roots. So to cover all the bases: it's a space opera/action-adventure/science fiction show. There's always been a lot of running and jumping and shooting in space.
Agreed, though I'd say that I don't mind action so much as gratuitous violence. I'd say that the films you've cited had plenty of action and roller-coaster ride spectacle, but were still intelligent movies about humans relationship with nature.
I keep on citing all of the films you mention, but could also cite Her, Contact, Close Encounters, ET, The Abyss, Master and Commander, and some of the more indie science fiction I mentioned earlier in the thread like Looper, Another Earth, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Europa Report, District 9, and Cube. All of these were at least modest successes.
I wish that instead of shooting for the international box office numbers by mimicking superhero movies, they'd do it by appealing to the philosophy of diversity built into Roddenberry's idea of spaceship Earth. His penchant for commentary gets overblown, but his groundbreaking diversity is maybe even underrated.
It's the difference between being judgmental and being opinionated. Either, in most cases, can be highly irritating when used properly.
In my opinion, of course.
In my opinion, of course.
If you're looking for a realistic command and promotion scturure, Star Trek has never been the place to look.
For example. Why was an Admiral in command of the Enterprise for a couple of movies, when it already had a commanding officer?
Because Kirk wanted.
An Admiral was demoted (not court-martialed) for stealing a ship to save his dead friend. And then given another ship because he saved Earth.
By the end of TOS movies the entire command staff had been serving together for how many decades? They had all been promoted to at least Commander, just to serve in the same position as when they were Lieutenants. Starfleet just lets people stay together because they were friends? That's nice.
Picard lost a ship. Rewarded with another ship. Twice.
Riker was offered commands a half dozen times but turned them down because he felt he wasn't ready. It's sweet that Starfleet kept offering commands to this guy who wasn't sure of himself.
Wesley was given a job piloting the D. He wasn't even old enough to drive, but he's smart so why not?
The only realistic aspect was when Sulu got promoted and served elsewhere - but why would the fleet give the command of it's newest and most powerful starship to an untested captain with no command experience. Shouldn't that command come from someone who was already commanding elsewhere?
This isn't even mentioning that the Enterprise was usually the only Starship near Earth - the most important plant in the Federation.
Going by all that, it seems that Starfleet awards commands based on merit, and not experience or time in grade. If Kirk was the smartest person in the room then offering him the XO position and then the captain's chair seems to fit what we've already seen - it's just accelerated because the speed of the plot.
I didn't say I liked the practice. I just said it's common.
By "action," I don't mean conflict, or thrills, or suspense, or tension, or adventure. All of those things are great. I just mean action-spectacle for the sake of an adrenaline rush, without drama or purpose. The Enterprise battle against Khan in Star Trek II and against Kruge in Star Trek III are extremely tense and dramatic and thrilling. But they don't make either of those movies "action movies." The tension and suspense in Gravity was amazing - but, as you say, not an action movie.
Star Trek does it itself a grave disservice when it reduces itself to the genre of "action movie."
This. Star Trek has treated cadet status fairly loosely, and Kirk's promotion in 09 was a field one, followed up by Pike's recommendation.
Nepotism? Yep. New to Star Trek? Nope.
I can understand that, though I see Nemesis or FC as falling closer to the mark of "action movie" than Abrams films.
Though, in my opinion, I don't like the label" dumb action movie" at all, as it seems to stymie any engagement with the creative work.
Because it doesn't have to be stated, it's a given. People should be sufficiently aware to pick up that he said alot of subjective things. It's only fragile people who think some posters post on a forum is intended to be some writ of law that cannot be contested.
It is nice to read though. Text removes a lot of social conversation cues and the "in my opinion" can help reduce the tone of hostility or finality in a text form.
Social niceties online are difficult sometimes, so I appreciate the comment.
Personally, I'm loving it.
I've seen all different kinds of Trek over the years, and the Abrams stuff is second in my mind behind TOS.
Wait, holodeck malfunction episodes aren't doing it for you?
Shoot, judging by the soundtrack for the episodes, you could tell that the Trek music scene had died!
I agree with your points! I liked TNG but it did contribute to the sometimes stilted feel of it.
Mr Awe
Respect his opinion. Glad he says "hang in there" for those of us who are looking for more than explosions. Obviously he knows that what was shown in that trailer was not real Star Trek.
Um... they shot it, and its likely in the movie.
I really would've been a bit more okay with it if, if the show really had to stick to classical, Picard listented to a couple pieces that were composed *just* for the show and he merely said a composer's name from the 23rd century. It's not like anyone would have to add electronic music or invent a new instrument like TMP's Blaster Beam anyway.
Loved "The Big Goodbye". Got seriously tired of them after that. They were more often embarrassing than anything else.
Call me crazy, but my guess is Saul was probably referring to the way the trailer was edited which did not feel like real Star Trek "in his opinion."
Similar threads
