We haven't seen it yet. And similarities can be in the abstract without the literal look.
Chris Pine's comments that modern movies can't be cerebral... what about Interstellar? The Martian?
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
I wasn't being literal.
Interstellar is for dummies.
Bad movie.
Bad movie.
I know what people are trying to say - but I still don't agree with this kind of thing, and I see it as revisionism for the sake of revisionism when some Gizmodo blog argues Star Trek was "never intelligent to begin with", or something of that sort.
It's still a show, which, while often thrillingly action-based, had it's original pilot (The Cage) rejected for being "too cerebral". The second pilot, (Where No Man Has Gone Before), deals with issues like the nature of the human ego, and how it is transformed by power; whether human identity is the same after such a transformation, even when the essence of the person hasn't changed - and was also tellingly pushed back in the broadcast order. Maybe things like 'City on the Edge of Forever' don't seem as shocking to people now, precisely because Star Trek popularized such ideas of causality - for subsequent shows like Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, Farscape, etc, to retread. Can you imagine their fresh impact at the time, especially outside literary sci-fi?
I don't feel that the issues Star Trek dealt with, such as the rights of sentient life, is less mature or important than say, drug addictions (to cite an example given here), just because one is more socially immediate and personally emotional. I think they are different but equally valuable ultimately.
from the second trailer, it does not look to be like guardians of the galaxy but trailers can be deceiving. I just pray the film does not end up been like guardians of the galaxy.
It was intelligent to a degree, just not to the degree some folks claim. I imagine hard sci-fi fans would come in and laugh at what we consider "intelligent".
There has to be a difference made between "cerebral" and "intelligent". We can absolutely have an intelligent Star Trek blockbuster movie in this day and age. But we can't have a "cerebral" blockbuster movie anymore. That's why I'm a little bit saddened with Trek being turned into a blockbuster franchise to compete with Marvel and Star Wars in the first place, whereas in my mind it should have been a medium summer tentpole to compete with the likes of "Prometheus", "The Martian" or "Gravity".
That being said, it's absolutely possible to make a smart blockbuster nowadays. It's just damn hard. I would have actually prefered more action in "Into Darkness", because it wasn't a smart movie, and watching non-smart characters trying to outsmart each other was painful to watch. IMO they should have "owned" the action-movie aspect more, make it more fun, lighthearted and entertaining, and not try to obfuscate it with overpainted, forced "smart" social commentary.
"Beyond" finally seems to go in the right direction. They start with a scifi-premise (crew on alien planet without ship), set it actually out in space, and try to make an interesting, light-hearted action-romp out of it. Even if they fail, in my opinion that's what should have been done right after Trek09. Judging solely from the trailers, "Beyond" looks like the direct sequel to Trek09 that should have come out 5 years ago, instead of "Into Darkness".
That being said, it's absolutely possible to make a smart blockbuster nowadays. It's just damn hard. I would have actually prefered more action in "Into Darkness", because it wasn't a smart movie, and watching non-smart characters trying to outsmart each other was painful to watch. IMO they should have "owned" the action-movie aspect more, make it more fun, lighthearted and entertaining, and not try to obfuscate it with overpainted, forced "smart" social commentary.
"Beyond" finally seems to go in the right direction. They start with a scifi-premise (crew on alien planet without ship), set it actually out in space, and try to make an interesting, light-hearted action-romp out of it. Even if they fail, in my opinion that's what should have been done right after Trek09. Judging solely from the trailers, "Beyond" looks like the direct sequel to Trek09 that should have come out 5 years ago, instead of "Into Darkness".
Last edited:
Basically these arguments boil down to "I don't want STAR TREK to appeal to a broad, mass audience," which is a funny way of looking at it since STAR TREK was originally intended to bring science fiction to a broad, mass audience.
I don't know why there is so much upset of Chris Pine's comments. I thought he was being critical of the the studios mentality that only films heavy on action and explosions can make money. I didn't think he was being rude to fans or calling Beyond crap like some have suggested.
Exactly. Folks are having a knee-jerk reaction because their perception of TREK is greater than perhaps what the show actually is.
Anything can be trivialized. And people do seem to be making an effort at that for whatever reason. USS Einstein is correct in his assessment of revisionism. Some folks go so far as to deny Star Trek was optimistic and an inspiration to the careers of generations of intelligent people such as many of those at NASA, etc., who outright say that Star Trek and its vision is the reason for what they do.
I'm sure many of those folks would've found their way to NASA and other pursuits if Star Trek never existed. It didn't create sci-fi and other things would've came along to stoke their interests.
Back to the Future inspired a real-life hoverboard. That doesn't make it cerebral or intellectual. Inspiration can come from many places.
They need to find that sweet spot between 2009 and Into Darkness.
The former was a thrill ride and a truly cinematic experience with some beautiful visuals, a great cast, some heartstring tugging moments, and well-directed action, which was used to complement the plot and not carry it as with the sequel. The problem with 2009 was that, while it nailed the swashbuckling action-adventure side of TOS, it didn't have any ideas or questions, it didn't have any real substance to it, which was the other side of TOS. It was an origin story to beat all origin stories, literally showing Kirk's evolution from newborn baby, to ambitious child, to astray young man, to Starfleet cadet and eventually Starfleet captain. The writing is very hit-and-miss, and with a less competent director, it could have turned out a lot worse than it did. It was a great start to the reboots, and excited fans because of all the possibilities it provided for the many sequels to come.
Into Darkness tried to do the things that 2009 didn't. Like Star Trek VI used its Klingon conspiracy plot as a way to say something about the Cold War, Into Darkness tried to incorporate its own political allegories, like the Enterprise crew deciding against using the 72 advanced torpedoes aboard the ship as weapons, inspired by the dangers of drone warfare in the real world, as well as the evil conspiracy to start a war with the Klingons being painfully inspired by the war in Iraq. The script tried a little too hard to nail that other side of TOS, and ended up shoving these "meaningful" political allegories down our throats and providing an utterly confusing and nonsensical plot with some awfully strange character inconsistencies, as well as a heap of plot holes and comically plot convenient devices being created like the transwarp beaming device as well as Khan's magic blood curing death. It was big, bad and it looked good as hell, but the good direction couldn't outweigh the shitty script. One step forward, two steps back.
Star Trek Beyond needs to balance the positives and negatives of these two films. We're never going to get another Star Trek: The Motion Picture, that much is obvious, but if Beyond, with a good director/writer like Lin and Pegg (I'm feeling optimistic just that I know Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof won't get their hands on this), can balance the two elements of "swashbuckling action-adventure" with big ideas, smart writing and more cerebral elements tied into those big action set pieces, Beyond will be a nice 50th Anniversary gift to the fans.
The former was a thrill ride and a truly cinematic experience with some beautiful visuals, a great cast, some heartstring tugging moments, and well-directed action, which was used to complement the plot and not carry it as with the sequel. The problem with 2009 was that, while it nailed the swashbuckling action-adventure side of TOS, it didn't have any ideas or questions, it didn't have any real substance to it, which was the other side of TOS. It was an origin story to beat all origin stories, literally showing Kirk's evolution from newborn baby, to ambitious child, to astray young man, to Starfleet cadet and eventually Starfleet captain. The writing is very hit-and-miss, and with a less competent director, it could have turned out a lot worse than it did. It was a great start to the reboots, and excited fans because of all the possibilities it provided for the many sequels to come.
Into Darkness tried to do the things that 2009 didn't. Like Star Trek VI used its Klingon conspiracy plot as a way to say something about the Cold War, Into Darkness tried to incorporate its own political allegories, like the Enterprise crew deciding against using the 72 advanced torpedoes aboard the ship as weapons, inspired by the dangers of drone warfare in the real world, as well as the evil conspiracy to start a war with the Klingons being painfully inspired by the war in Iraq. The script tried a little too hard to nail that other side of TOS, and ended up shoving these "meaningful" political allegories down our throats and providing an utterly confusing and nonsensical plot with some awfully strange character inconsistencies, as well as a heap of plot holes and comically plot convenient devices being created like the transwarp beaming device as well as Khan's magic blood curing death. It was big, bad and it looked good as hell, but the good direction couldn't outweigh the shitty script. One step forward, two steps back.
Star Trek Beyond needs to balance the positives and negatives of these two films. We're never going to get another Star Trek: The Motion Picture, that much is obvious, but if Beyond, with a good director/writer like Lin and Pegg (I'm feeling optimistic just that I know Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof won't get their hands on this), can balance the two elements of "swashbuckling action-adventure" with big ideas, smart writing and more cerebral elements tied into those big action set pieces, Beyond will be a nice 50th Anniversary gift to the fans.
You do realize that whole second paragraph is basically pot/kettle.
Explain?
TUC is nothing if not an "evil conspiracy to start a war with the Klingons that ended up shoving these "meaningful" political allegories down our throats and providing an utterly confusing and nonsensical plot with some awfully strange character inconsistencies, as well as a heap of plot holes and comically plot convenient devices."
I'm not sure if you watched the same film as I did.
I'll consider TUC nothing then.
I've watched both, several times--there is nothing in TUC that is more sophisticated in its commentary on "current events" than in STiD. I enjoy both films--I actually enjoy every Trek film (even those that get slammed) but the new films in no way come up short against the old ones (I'd say the reverse, but I allow for differences in available technology and in filmmaking styles). Naturally, one can prefer one approach over another, but let's not pretend the "prime" movies were anything approaching cinematic masterpieces.
Come on. I never said STID was bad solely because of its overcooked allegories, and neither did I say the old films were anything approaching cinematic masterpiece. I know you guys like to get very defensive when it comes to this stuff, perhaps I posted in the wrong forum, but don't go putting words in my mouth.
