5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise

[Rahul]

Good point. But notice how many of those episodes had a bad guy?

High stakes are definitely part of supernatural story telling. But notice, the higher the stakes were, the more thought went into justifying those stakes? The Doomsday Device was a remnant of intelligent superweapons from a civilisations far beyond us at war. And in "the city on the edge of forever", the entire point was the significance of small events on the entirety of history.

I'm just tired of every movie having a single (either over-acting or british) bad guy that has genocide on it's morning schedule...

I should have specified that. It's not the high stakes I'm against. It's needlessly cramming a bad guy wanting to destroy Earth in everything. As a result, no one can take those stakes seriously anymore (because they aren't the exception anymore, they are the rule). And antagonists become very limited in their characterisation. You can't have complex, serious villains, if all of them are basically repainted James Bond-villains from the Roger Moore-era.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

You know, modern TV Trek seemed pretty dated in the 1980's. I liked that about it at the time - it was nostalgically true to the original - but I don't know that it's aged well.

And that was as a result of Roddenberry being drug-addicted and out of it, as well as being impaired by strokes. I thought that what Melinda Snodgrass said at a convention about Gene Roddenberry was strange to hear, but then I got the book about him by Joel Engel (Gene Roddenberry: The Man & The Myth Behind Star Trek) and I found out the truth. He truly had no business being in charge of a TV show at all.

But notice how many of those episodes had a bad guy?

High stakes are definitely part of supernatural story telling. But notice, the higher the stakes were, the more thought went into justifying those stakes? The Doomsday Device was a remnant of intelligent superweapons from a civilization far beyond us at war. And in "the city on the edge of forever", the entire point was the significance of small events on the entirety of history.

I'm just tired of every movie having a single (either over-acting or British) bad guy that has genocide on it's morning schedule...

I should have specified that. It's not the high stakes I'm against. It's needlessly cramming a bad guy wanting to destroy Earth in everything. As a result, no one can take those stakes seriously anymore (because they aren't the exception anymore, they are the rule). And antagonists become very limited in their characterization. You can't have complex, serious villains, if all of them are basically repainted James Bond-villains from the Roger Moore-era.

They may not work for you, but they work for the format of these movies. At least Abrams & Co. aren't creating strawman bad people who are diversions for the real bad people, as in Insurrection (the Ba'ku and the So'na, with the former being the real villains of the movie because of their snottiness in wanting to keep the immortality energy for themselves while remaining primitive enough for the Enterprise-E crew to feel sorry enough to defy the Federation and Starfleet and fight the So'na for them.) The villains in the past two movies were just that, and that's better. And they weren't doing s stupid and dumb 2001 knock-off that consisted of flying through a cloud to get to its center to save Earth (TMP.)

I'm sorry that you don't like it, but this is not Star Trek-The Next Generation these movies are based on, but Star Trek-The Original Series; there is a difference.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Having a cartoon show doesn't strike me as the best way to get merchandise moving. Getting actual merchandise that a wider market would want to buy in the first place is what's needed.

I heartily disagree. The merchandizing was ancillary to Clone Wars, which was already popular in its own right. But it also helped to raise the show's profile and kept it visible in the minds of kids and, indeed, the parents who watched the show with their kids and started liking it themselves.

An animated series would be good for the Trek Franchise in and of itself; the boost in merchandise sales would be a part of that too.

CBS' new series might have this effect of they do it right. One can only hope...

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Having a cartoon show doesn't strike me as the best way to get merchandise moving. Getting actual merchandise that a wider market would want to buy in the first place is what's needed.

I heartily disagree. The merchandising was ancillary to Clone Wars, which was already popular in its own right. But it also helped to raise the show's profile and kept it visible in the minds of kids and, indeed, the parents who watched the show with their kids and started liking it themselves.

An animated series would be good for the Trek Franchise in and of itself; the boost in merchandise sales would be a part of that too.

CBS' new series might have this effect of they do it right. One can only hope...

An animated series would only work if CBS or the CW still had a Saturday morning block to air it on; I don't think that they'd want to air a cartoon based on a franchise of theirs on another company's animation channel, but one that they own. It's too bad there's no Saturday or Sunday night animation block for CBS to air a Star Trek cartoon on similar to Fox's animation block on Sunday-perhaps it can air on CBS's streaming service.

I think he means "The Next Generation" rather than the original, which was an action-adventure show in space.

And exactly what these movies are based on.

 

[Overgeeked]

Prequels, not sequels. That statement isn't supposed to be a compliment.

Yeah, that's what I get for posting when I'm exhausted.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Wellll.... that's 30 seconds I won't get back.

 

[Rahul]

...

But notice how many of those episodes had a bad guy?

High stakes are definitely part of supernatural story telling. But notice, the higher the stakes were, the more thought went into justifying those stakes? The Doomsday Device was a remnant of intelligent superweapons from a civilization far beyond us at war. And in "the city on the edge of forever", the entire point was the significance of small events on the entirety of history.

I'm just tired of every movie having a single (either over-acting or British) bad guy that has genocide on it's morning schedule...

I should have specified that. It's not the high stakes I'm against. It's needlessly cramming a bad guy wanting to destroy Earth in everything. As a result, no one can take those stakes seriously anymore (because they aren't the exception anymore, they are the rule). And antagonists become very limited in their characterization. You can't have complex, serious villains, if all of them are basically repainted James Bond-villains from the Roger Moore-era.

They may not work for you, but they work for the format of these movies. At least Abrams & Co. aren't creating strawman bad people who are diversions for the real bad people, as in Insurrection (the Ba'ku and the So'na, with the former being the real villains of the movie because of their snottiness in wanting to keep the immortality energy for themselves while remaining primitive enough for the Enterprise-E crew to feel sorry enough to defy the Federation and Starfleet and fight the So'na for them.) The villains in the past two movies were just that, and that's better. And they weren't doing s stupid and dumb 2001 knock-off that consisted of flying through a cloud to get to its center to save Earth (TMP.)

I'm sorry that you don't like it, but this is not Star Trek-The Next Generation these movies are based on, but Star Trek-The Original Series; there is a difference.

Have you actually seen the original series? Then tell me: How many bad guys were there?

There were antagonists. Lots of them. But hell, wether they were alien warriors like the Klingons or Romulans, they were almost all very humanized. Hell, even Kodos, the Executioner, truly a mass murderer, got a whole episode centered around his motives! ("The consience of the king"). The only exception would be Khan. Who also had much more personal goals in his episode.

These aren't problems specific for the new Trek movies. They are general problems of the trend of turning every IP known to public and turn it into a blockbuster franchise.

I am not a fan of Transformers. So for me, Michael Bays Transformers superficially looks a lot like a "new, hip" adaption of the old cartoon series. In the same way, the JJverse movies superficially look like Star Trek. That's not a bad thing per se, it actually might bring people who liked those mivies to check out more material, and delve deeper into it.

My problem is that most blockbusters (including Star Trek) are squeezed down to a formula of minimal risk, avoiding anything resembling complexity, moral or political discussions, ambiguity or anything beyond a "must stop bad guy before he destroys the world" approach. Only very few blockbusters ascend those formulas, and those are praised and admired for a long time. Most of them are enjoyed by general public, and completely forgotten by most only a few years later. Only very few, those steping away or adding to the blockbuster formula, have actually staying power, with people still remembering and talking about them years afterwards. The new Star Trek doesn't belong in this category.

That the old movies were problem ridden to no end either was never disputed. They just had different problems

 

[Joel_Kirk]

So for me, Michael Bays Transformers superficially looks a lot like a "new, hip" adaption of the old cartoon series. In the same way, the JJverse movies superficially look like Star Trek. That's not a bad thing per se, it actually might bring people who liked those mivies to check out more material, and delve deeper into it.

I'm with the crowd who believes the new Transformers look like shit; they - Transformers - don't look like anything except meshes of metal forming some kind of robotic creature. Not hip, in my opinion, but kinda ugly. I prefer my Transformers with faces, looking sleek, looking cool, having distinct personalities and features. I found none of that in the new films, aside from the non-existent storylines.

The nuStar Trek, on the other hand, the designs (set designs, costume designs, sound designs) are amazing. And yes, the 2009 film did bring a new, energetic, hip version of the TOS crew we are familiar with. As RedLetterMedia brought out: Everything is ramped up for the new age.

 

[Xhiandra]

I agree with the author's jist (that the JJ movies aren't really Star Trek and have done more harm than good to the franchise), but:

- The tone of the article was indeed very whiny.
Ultimately, we're not forced to watch the new movies. Yes, it's sad that Star Trek is apparently becoming "Fast and Furious in Space", but ultimately, nothing we can do.
And some people will probably enjoy Beyond, so good for them.

- That article was very disjointed. It went all over the place, ultimately only to repeat the same point over and over again.


- I see the grand Cracked tradition of writing titles without reading the article is still going strong.

 

[Amaris]

There's also the fine Cracked tradition of changing the titles after being published, too, which is annoying also.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

- That article was very disjointed. It went all over the place, ultimately only to repeat the same point over and over again.


- I see the grand Cracked tradition of writing titles without reading the article is still going strong.

It's interesting seeing feedback about Cracked articles not only on this site but elsewhere. I was paid for co-writing an article (which hasn't been published yet) and I have two pitches I'm readying for the site - others, particularly one about Trek and diversity, was rejected. Hence, I need to step up my game.

I do agree that the article comes off a bit 'whiny' and disjointed, not to mention biased which many posters have brought out. The writer, who is actually one of the site editors, is obviously a TNG fan and that's what he's basing his thoughts on. I felt it would have made a stronger article if he made a fair argument and looked at all the series in relation to the first film and why he thinks a TNG television series approach would work vs. an adventure, shoot-em-up, energetic version that we got.

And can you explain writing the titles without reading the articles? You mean the titles don't exactly match the article content? Similar to Yahoo! click bait articles?

There's also the fine Cracked tradition of changing the titles after being published, too, which is annoying also.

I understand that happens even if the article has been published for a few months or years.

 

[Amaris]

There's also the fine Cracked tradition of changing the titles after being published, too, which is annoying also.

I understand that happens even if the article has been published for a few months or years.

Indeed it does. I wish they wouldn't do it.

 

[Mudd]

Abrams hasn't done Star Trek any harm - as Picard told Data in "The Neutral Zone:"

"[It was] already dead. What more could have happened?"

 

[Rahul]

So for me, Michael Bays Transformers superficially looks a lot like a "new, hip" adaption of the old cartoon series. In the same way, the JJverse movies superficially look like Star Trek. That's not a bad thing per se, it actually might bring people who liked those mivies to check out more material, and delve deeper into it.

I'm with the crowd who believes the new Transformers look like shit; they - Transformers - don't look like anything except meshes of metal forming some kind of robotic creature. Not hip, in my opinion, but kinda ugly. I prefer my Transformers with faces, looking sleek, looking cool, having distinct personalities and features. I found none of that in the new films, aside from the non-existent storylines.

The nuStar Trek, on the other hand, the designs (set designs, costume designs, sound designs) are amazing. And yes, the 2009 film did bring a new, energetic, hip version of the TOS crew we are familiar with. As RedLetterMedia brought out: Everything is ramped up for the new age.

Well, I guess everyone has a different taste

I personally don't like the new Transformers design. But I never was a fan of the old one either, so for me they got the general shapes right.

In case of Star Trek: There are a lot of people in this forum complaining about the "uglyprise". In this case I'm a bit more torn apart. I really like the shape of the JJ-prise (I think it's distorted. But in a good way). But I find myself liking Ryan Church's design more than what was actually visible on screen, because the CGI-model got the general generic blue/grey-future look, and they really fail in recreating the models' hull plating with CGI.

Generally, I dislike a lot of JJ Abrams design choices. The uniforms don't fit (but the pattern on them is great), the props are too broadly shaped, and the colour scheme is a nightmare (everything screams 'generic future look'). But Abrams is a very capable director. With his 'floating' camera, a lot of otherwise unremarkable stuff looks absolutely great. But I think a lot of the casual designs (like the uniforms and props) have actually improved in the 'Beyond'-trailer.


The point being: taste varies. But there is no denying that both the new Transformers as the new Trek are the big budget blockbuster-variation of already pretty much finished in distinctive designs.

 

[dub]

Ah well. I found parts of it humorous. Definitely overstated/hyperbole in tone. I didn't take it as whining, because again I thought it was meant to be humorous. And I enjoyed some of the comparisons even if they came out of left field. Some of it even made me chuckle. Sorry for recommending since I am clearly alone here. I admit I'm a weirdo. That's okay though, because some of your reactions here also made me chuckle!

 

[Shaka Zulu]

...

But notice how many of those episodes had a bad guy?

High stakes are definitely part of supernatural story telling. But notice, the higher the stakes were, the more thought went into justifying those stakes? The Doomsday Device was a remnant of intelligent superweapons from a civilization far beyond us at war. And in "the city on the edge of forever", the entire point was the significance of small events on the entirety of history.

I'm just tired of every movie having a single (either over-acting or British) bad guy that has genocide on it's morning schedule...

I should have specified that. It's not the high stakes I'm against. It's needlessly cramming a bad guy wanting to destroy Earth in everything. As a result, no one can take those stakes seriously anymore (because they aren't the exception anymore, they are the rule). And antagonists become very limited in their characterization. You can't have complex, serious villains, if all of them are basically repainted James Bond-villains from the Roger Moore-era.

They may not work for you, but they work for the format of these movies. At least Abrams & Co. aren't creating strawman bad people who are diversions for the real bad people, as in Insurrection (the Ba'ku and the So'na, with the former being the real villains of the movie because of their snottiness in wanting to keep the immortality energy for themselves while remaining primitive enough for the Enterprise-E crew to feel sorry enough to defy the Federation and Starfleet and fight the So'na for them.) The villains in the past two movies were just that, and that's better. And they weren't doing s stupid and dumb 2001 knock-off that consisted of flying through a cloud to get to its center to save Earth (TMP.)

I'm sorry that you don't like it, but this is not Star Trek-The Next Generation these movies are based on, but Star Trek-The Original Series; there is a difference.

Have you actually seen the original series? Then tell me: How many bad guys were there?

There were antagonists. Lots of them. But hell, wether they were alien warriors like the Klingons or Romulans, they were almost all very humanized. Hell, even Kodos, the Executioner, truly a mass murderer, got a whole episode centered around his motives! ("The consience of the king"). The only exception would be Khan. Who also had much more personal goals in his episode.

These aren't problems specific for the new Trek movies. They are general problems of the trend of turning every IP known to public and turn it into a blockbuster franchise.

I am not a fan of Transformers. So for me, Michael Bays Transformers superficially looks a lot like a "new, hip" adaption of the old cartoon series. In the same way, the JJverse movies superficially look like Star Trek. That's not a bad thing per se, it actually might bring people who liked those movies to check out more material, and delve deeper into it.

My problem is that most blockbusters (including Star Trek) are squeezed down to a formula of minimal risk, avoiding anything resembling complexity, moral or political discussions, ambiguity or anything beyond a "must stop bad guy before he destroys the world" approach. Only very few blockbusters ascend those formulas, and those are praised and admired for a long time. Most of them are enjoyed by general public, and completely forgotten by most only a few years later. Only very few, those steping away or adding to the blockbuster formula, have actually staying power, with people still remembering and talking about them years afterwards. The new Star Trek doesn't belong in this category.

That the old movies were problem ridden to no end either was never disputed. They just had different problems

I'm sorry, but as said before a while ago:

TMP-Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt. A little bit of Pew! Pew! in the wormhole asteroid scene.

TWOK-Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!

TSFS-GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk’s son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!

TVH-They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.

TFF Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!

TUC-Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!

GEN-Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!

FC-BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!

INS-Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!

NEM-Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

AXANAR (upcoming fan film in 2016)-Federation and Klingon Empire at war. Blasted Federation colonial cities. Tons of space battles. I DO NOT FEAR THE KLINGON EMPIRE! Another metric fuckton of Pew! Pew! (and this movie is what Star Trek Beyond's being compared to as well by fans that hate the Abrams movies due to Pew! Pew!!)

Star Trek was an action franchise from the second pilot episode onward with some elements of complexity thrown in. To suggest (and believe) otherwise is to completely ignore what Roddenberry said in his prospectus for the show back in 1964/'65.

No moral complexity or social commentary like the old shows, you say? Into Darkness having a discussion on drone usage (long range torpedoes and beaming) terrorism (/Harrison/Khan doing his bombing in London, attacking top Starfleet brass in Frisco, attacking the Klingons on Kronos in Ketha Province) disproportionate retribution (Section 31 doing black ops to cause a war with the Klingon Empire, having Harrison/Khan build a dreadnought-class ship to fight the Klingons with) and blowback from said retribution/preparations (said dreadnought crashing into the middle of Frisco) wasn't enough for you? That's the kind of social commentary that Star Trek did in the past, and did in this movie-were you even paying attention?

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I think he means "The Next Generation" rather than the original, which was an action-adventure show in space.

Star Trek was an action franchise from the second pilot episode onward. To suggest (and believe) otherwise is to completely ignore what Roddenberry said in his prospectus for the show back in 1964/'65.

No. It was a show about human psychology and contemporary social issues disguised as an action-adventure show in space.

 

[Mudd]

I think he means "The Next Generation" rather than the original, which was an action-adventure show in space.

Star Trek was an action franchise from the second pilot episode onward. To suggest (and believe) otherwise is to completely ignore what Roddenberry said in his prospectus for the show back in 1964/'65.

No. It was a show about human psychology and contemporary social issues disguised as an action-adventure show in space.

No, that's the line that GR and the fans took as fandom coalesed into a force he could use to further his career.

If it had really been intended to be those things, one would have to say that it was too simplistic to have been good at its mission.

 

[TheFlutteringHorde]

I think he means "The Next Generation" rather than the original, which was an action-adventure show in space.

Star Trek was an action franchise from the second pilot episode onward. To suggest (and believe) otherwise is to completely ignore what Roddenberry said in his prospectus for the show back in 1964/'65.

No. It was a show about human psychology and contemporary social issues disguised as an action-adventure show in space.

Actually it was about ethics in 23rd century journalism.

IMHO it was very much action-adventure, and much more varied in how it actually explored contemporary issues. And even more varied in whether or not it was actually good or actually progressive.

Not that NuTrek hasn't also explored contemporary issues. Into Darkness was pretty heavy on terrorism, security, and all that stuff. And no one tried to destroy Earth as an extra bonus.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Most episodes of TOS had a clear message or moral that the story was trying to get across to the audience about the human condition. The action was there to facilitate that, not the other way around. I don't care what Roddenberry told the network or the fans or whomever about what his intent was, or when he told it to them. This is what's in the stories themselves, what was actually presented to audiences.

I never said jack about what "NuTrek" has or hasn't done. I'm just tired of people saying that TOS was founded on action rather than explorations of social/moral/ethical dilemmas. That was not something that was imposed after the fact, it was right there in the writing all along.