Should I Be Ashamed as a TOS fan to like the Rebooted Movies?
- Thread starter VulcanMindBlown
- Start date
That's actually what I like most about it. Not that Kirk is shooting people...but that we see a young cocky UNTESTED Kirk. This is an inexperienced Kirk...not the Kirk we saw in TOS at a later stage in his life. THAT Kirk...the experienced seasoned Kirk is what I hope this Kirk will grow into. Someone who will not just go in and shoot everybody.
Last edited:
Some of us like character development. It's ok if you don't. We can't all like the same things or life would be boring.
Exactly. It provides a dramatic arc, and the cocky youth who grows into a mature leader of men has been the stuff of drama and literature since the ancient Greeks at least. See also Gilgamesh, Achilles, Shakespeare's "Prince Hal," D'Artagnan, etc.
And even Shatner's Kirk was never supposed to be a flawless role model. He made mistakes, acted rashly and impetuously sometimes, lost his temper on occasion, and often struggled not to let his emotions get the better of him. See: "Obsession," "The Conscience of the King," even "City on the Edge of Forever."
Was it good for you?
Perhaps you missed the sarcasm implied by @The Wormhole's post.
Or, perhaps, this thread was just Godwined.
Interesting to note that GR did not think that The Wrath of Khan fell in to his vision either. He felt it was too militarized, that Khan was a poor caricature of himself and the film was all about action. He and Meyer, the director, disagreed on a number of points.
Gene's "vision" (whatever that may be-it changed a lot) is about humanity bettering itself, at least in the latest edition. What does Kirk do but go from a selfish and cocky know-it-all to a humbled and more wise individual who has the potential to grow. Abrams' films, in my opinion, are all about characters growing and reaching their potential. It doesn't get more GR vision than that.
Also, why should anyone be ashamed?
Care to expand or shall I just guess and hope I'm right?
- Too much action
- Not in line with Gene's vision-high debatable by the way
- Too much like Star Wars
- Destroyed Vulcan
- Destroyed Romulus
- Nero is a poor villain
- Marcus is a poor villain and behaves in a way no Starfleet Admiral would
- They reused Khan
- They messed up the transporters
- The Enterprise looks stupid
- Cured death
- Kirk is too cocky, rude, disrespectful and obnoxious.
- Spock is too emotional
- Spock ends up in a relationship
- Scotty's accent isn't right
- Engineering set is stupid
- Water turbines are stupid
- Kirk gets promoted to captain
- Red matter
- Spock Prime doesn't travel back in time to undo the movie
- Too many lasers, explosions and people dying
- The music is bad
- No grand speech or moral lesson learned by the end
98/100
There are no lasers in the movie.
The Enterprise does not look stupid, it looks like the Enterprise-A/TMP- Refit. It looks stupid for TOS.
The rest is correct.
@PhaserLightShow
Not bad, but heard it all before as well. Given that the phasers in the movie behave as laser bolts do, it is a common enough complaint.
Enterprise was designed to combat a larger threat. I can buy in to the redesign when facing a more superior foe. History is filled with examples of arms races, and is commiserate with TOS' presentation of the Alpha Quadrant powers, before there was an "Alpha Quadrant."
With Abrams Trek and "Roddenberry's Vision" it depends on which version of the vision is adhered to. From my reading of TOS history, Abrams Trek is a 21st reimagining of TOS' pitch as a western action-adventure stories with social commentary.
I get that it isn't for everyone, but it certainly isn't the "anti-Trek" that it gets painted as across the Internet. I also don't think anyone should be shamed for liking it.
Last edited:
Earth is peaceful. The Federation is peaceful.
But there are a bunch of aggressive empires, dominions and whatnot out there beyond the frontier. It would be naive for our heroes to assume that the whole universe is peaceful, and be unprepared to deal with it on its terms.
Kor
This was Gene's vision back in the 60s Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide
YES, THE STAR TREK FORMAT IS ACTUALLY THAT SIMPLE. IF YOU'RE A TV PROFESSIONAL, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE FOLLOWING SEVEN RULES:
I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame- work. We must reach out, hold and entertain a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we simply don't stay on the air.
II. Tell your story about people, not about science and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare never did a monologue about the theory of anes- thetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and dis- cusses the breed of his horse before he rides off on it.
III. Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate field of literature with rules of its own, but, indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story -- including a jeopardy of some type to someone we learn to care about, climactic build, sound motivitation, you know the list.
IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter- weave in it any statement to be made about man, society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some- thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do on any other show. We don't need essays, how- ever brilliant.
V. Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy; whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre, must have some basis in either fact or theory and stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy Starflight capability and then have them engage our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords.)
VI. Don't try to tell a story about whole civilizations . We've never yet been able to get a usable story from a writer who began... "I see the strange civilization which...".
VII. Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How many cowboys, police officers and doctors wrote westerns, detective and hospital shows?
Frankly the spin-offs forgot a lot of this
YES, THE STAR TREK FORMAT IS ACTUALLY THAT SIMPLE. IF YOU'RE A TV PROFESSIONAL, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE FOLLOWING SEVEN RULES:
I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame- work. We must reach out, hold and entertain a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we simply don't stay on the air.
II. Tell your story about people, not about science and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare never did a monologue about the theory of anes- thetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and dis- cusses the breed of his horse before he rides off on it.
III. Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate field of literature with rules of its own, but, indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story -- including a jeopardy of some type to someone we learn to care about, climactic build, sound motivitation, you know the list.
IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter- weave in it any statement to be made about man, society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some- thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do on any other show. We don't need essays, how- ever brilliant.
V. Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy; whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre, must have some basis in either fact or theory and stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy Starflight capability and then have them engage our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords.)
VI. Don't try to tell a story about whole civilizations . We've never yet been able to get a usable story from a writer who began... "I see the strange civilization which...".
VII. Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How many cowboys, police officers and doctors wrote westerns, detective and hospital shows?
Frankly the spin-offs forgot a lot of this
Plus, STAR TREK was never really about Earth. We never even saw the presumably advanced Earth of the 23rd century on the original TV series. STAR TREK wasn't about life in a "utopian" society. STAR TREK was about boldly going where no one has gone before, out on the Final Frontier, where things were much more dangerous and uncertain and far from utopian. "Risk is our business," etc.
Indeed, the original show was distinctly leery of utopias. Pretty much any time the Enterprise stumbled onto a "paradise" that was "too" peaceful and utopian, rest assured there was a fly in the ointment somewhere: a deranged computer god, mind-altering alien spores, etc.
Similar threads
