Chris Pine's comments that modern movies can't be cerebral... what about Interstellar? The Martian?

[The Wormhole]

That's a lot of "everyones." There's just no way that such an extreme generalization is true, especially around here. And everyone but you agrees with me.

As you say, everyone agrees. And that was the Prime Universe's magic, it made everyone come together and agreement and unity, even now seven years after it was abandoned by the watered-down Trek-Lite from Abrams. Which has turned fandom against each other as we engage in vicious flame-wars and hurl insults against our mothers. And unlike Batman and Superman, we don't have the benefit of our mothers having the same names, thus allowing us all to put aside our differences and become friends.

Things were simpler with the Prime Universe.

 

[JWPlatt]

As a sarcastic post, that makes total sense to me.

But you apparently missed the rancor following the leak of the Star Trek IV plot amid shouts of "Nuke the Whales!!!"

 

[johnjm22]

So was TOS and the films it spawned in their day.

The primary genre of TOS was not action. Was there some action in it? Yes, but not anywhere near the degree of the new JJ movies.

Also, there was very little action in the TOS films, unless we have a different definition of action.

 

[Mage]

I'm not going through 6 pages of topic, so what I'm saying might have been said already.

But....

There are certain things people expect from Star Trek. And although, at times, it has been quite thought-provoking, and quite intelectuel, it was always wrapped in prostethics and phasers. Movies like The Martian and Interstellar can do without Klingons and photon torpedoes because they simply don't excist there. In Star Trek, they do. So, when you make a Star Trek movie with out bumpy-headed aliens and space battles, people won't like it. Hell, even TMP and TVH, the two movies that tried there best at being intellectual and thought-provoking, had all of the others. But that was ages ago.
And that, sadly, was Chris Pine's point. Star Trek doing a movie ala Interstellar is simply NOT what people want. A few fans, sure. But the big, general audience? Nope.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

The primary genre of TOS was not action. Was there some action in it? Yes, but not anywhere near the degree of the new JJ movies.

Also, there was very little action in the TOS films, unless we have a different definition of action.

Trekkies really need to know their STAR TREK history better. TOS is an action-adventure science fiction show. It's stated quite clearly in Gene Roddenberry's original 1964 pitch document:

STAR TREK is...

A one-hour dramatic television series.

Action - Adventure - Science Fiction

The first such concept with strong central lead characters plus other continuing regulars.​

Source: http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/1_Original_Series/Star_Trek_Pitch.pdf

And having read a lot of the memos from the show's production, I can tell you that Roddenberry pushed just as much for the action as he did the social commentary. In fact, he had to remind writers that STAR TREK was an action-adventure show. @Harvey can probably say more than I on this as he's examined the memos far more closely.

Sure, TOS didn't have the same amount of action as the newer movies because of the simple fact that it was produced in a different era. Simply that. Today's action movies are very different from action movies and shows of the 1960s. It's the times, not any grand STAR TREK design.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The primary genre of TOS was not action. Was there some action in it? Yes, but not anywhere near the degree of the new JJ movies.

Also, there was very little action in the TOS films, unless we have a different definition of action.

The writer's guide for TOS very clearly calls it an action adventure show. The movies, with the exception of TMP and possibly TVH were action adventure film. Some of the trailers for TMP make it look like an action film, thouigh.

 

[Mark 2000]

I can tell you that Roddenberry pushed just as much for the action as he did the social commentary.

I'll say it over and over to trekkies who think the new movies have too much action: You're talking about a show where Kirk fought a lizard man with a bazooka for an hour. The same franchise where Doomsday Machine, Wrath of Khan, Yesterday's Enterprise, and First Contact are considered the high points. And don't get me started on DS9 or Axanar fans.

Plus, did everyone but me completely miss Into Darkness's commentary on the war on terror and the military industrial complex? That movie said more about us than TWOK or FC did. Not that I like the film, but if you're going to criticize something then do it for the right reasons.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Plus, did everyone but me completely miss Into Darkness's commentary on the war on terror and the military industrial complex? That movie said more about us than TWOK or FC did. Not that I like the film, but if you're going to criticize something then do it for the right reasons.

Exactly, even if the execution wasn't perfect. INTO DARKNESS was trying to say something — the movie just didn't fully get there. And it would've been a better film had they not shoehorned Khan into it.

 

[Maurice]

Harvey can cite the specific memo, but the staff had to remind writers that Trek was an action adventure show and not a social-issue drama.

 

[drt]

Sure, TOS didn't have the same amount of action as the newer movies because of the simple fact that it was produced in a different era. Simply that. Today's action movies are very different from action movies and shows of the 1960s. It's the times, not any grand STAR TREK design.

I'd bet the 80s TOS movies would have been less sedate if the actors were 20 years younger.

 

[johnjm22]

Trekkies really need to know their STAR TREK history better. TOS is an action-adventure science fiction show. It's stated quite clearly in Gene Roddenberry's original 1964 pitch document:

And having read a lot of the memos from the show's production, I can tell you that Roddenberry pushed just as much for the action as he did the social commentary. In fact, he had to remind writers that STAR TREK was an action-adventure show. @Harvey can probably say more than I on this as he's examined the memos far more closely.

Sure, TOS didn't have the same amount of action as the newer movies because of the simple fact that it was produced in a different era. Simply that. Today's action movies are very different from action movies and shows of the 1960s. It's the times, not any grand STAR TREK design.

Like I said, action was a part of TOS. I wouldn't say it was THE primary genre of the show.

The writer's guide for TOS very clearly calls it an action adventure show. The movies, with the exception of TMP and possibly TVH were action adventure film. Some of the trailers for TMP make it look like an action film, thouigh.

We must have different definitions of action, because I see hardly any action in the TOS films. Just watched TWOK of the other day.

I think the TNG films, with the exception of Generations, contain quite a bit more action than the TOS films.

 

[Mark 2000]

We must have different definitions of action, because I see hardly any action in the TOS films.

LOL. TWOK has three space battles. Several people disintegrate. There's bloody bodies hanging from the ceiling. There a ticking bomb at the end. TSFS has a chase sequence on foot and in vehicles, a space battle, four different ships exploding spectacularly, and a fist fight over lava. TVH has two on foot chase scenes and a ship flying into the sun twice. TFF has several land battles, a space battle, and Kirk running from a giant head shooting lasers out of its eyes. Said head is shot and killed(?) by a low flying Klingon. TUC has two space battles, an on ship blood fest, several fist fights, and Kirk jumping through the air to stop an assassination.

I feel like you're being purposefully intellectually dishonest and borderline trolling.

 

[BillJ]

The writer's guide for TOS very clearly calls it an action adventure show. The movies, with the exception of TMP and possibly TVH were action adventure film. Some of the trailers for TMP make it look like an action film, thouigh.

We shouldn't let pesky things like history get in the way of our delusions.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

We shouldn't let pesky things like history get in the way of our delusions.

Exactly. Artifacts from the actual show production, written by the Great Bird himself, shouldn't interfere with delusions that STAR TREK was a serious social issues drama that didn't have any action in it.

 

[The Wormhole]

Roddenberry was a visionary and among the only writer/producer of his time who knew to make television meaningful and thoughtful as opposed to forgettable action trash everyone else was spewing out. Gene had a vision that humanity could stand united as a race of explorers who reject the military (but act like the military anyway) preaching to aliens about the superiority of the Human Condition. He tried to encourage humanity to forsake the shallowness of greed, because as we all know, Gene Roddenberry was not about money at all.

At all.

 

[Maurice]

Like I said, action was a part of TOS. I wouldn't say it was THE primary genre of the show.

Let's hear from the Great Bird himself from a 1966 memo on the first draft of "Charlie X". I trimmed this down to the some relevant statements:

[The drama about an adolescent in the Charlie X script] belongs in a category which can only be classified as “dangerous”. Perhaps not so much in the cycle of "East Side West Side” and “The Defenders”, but certainly recent experiences show that these stories, even when well and beautifully done, simply do not draw audience…our job is to get STAR TREK into the top ten. None of us intend to prostitute ourselves to do it…I’m simply saying that this type of story by its very nature leans away from action-adventure and it is our job and challenge now, without destroying it [the script], to see that it becomes the action-adventure we’ve promised to deliver at 8:30 p.m. Thursdays.​

 

[TheFlutteringHorde]

Let's hear from the Great Bird himself from a 1966 memo on the first draft of "Charlie X". I trimmed this down to the some relevant statements:

[The story] belongs in a category which can only be classified as “dangerous”. perhaps not so much in the cycle of "East Side West Side” and “The Defenders”, but certainly recent experiences show that these stories, even when well and beautifully done, simply do not draw audience…our job is to get STAR TREK into the top ten. None of us intend to prostitute ourselves to do it…I’m simply saying that this type of story by its very nature leans away from action-adventure and it is our job and challenge now. without destroying it [the script], to see that it becomes there action-adventure we’ve promised to deliver at 8:30 p.m. Thursdays.​

This actually sounds more like what Pine's saying in the full context than anything else.

Also Dangerous Genre would be so much cooler than Action Genre.

 

[Maurice]

"Dangerous" in this context meant "drama about an adolescent".

 

[TheFlutteringHorde]

"Dangerous" in this context meant "drama about an adolescent".

DON'T CRUSH MY DREAMS

 

[Khan 2.0]

LOL. TWOK has three space battles. Several people disintegrate. There's bloody bodies hanging from the ceiling. There a ticking bomb at the end. TSFS has a chase sequence on foot and in vehicles, a space battle, four different ships exploding spectacularly, and a fist fight over lava. TVH has two on foot chase scenes and a ship flying into the sun twice. TFF has several land battles, a space battle, and Kirk running from a giant head shooting lasers out of its eyes. Said head is shot and killed(?) by a low flying Klingon. TUC has two space battles, an on ship blood fest, several fist fights, and Kirk jumping through the air to stop an assassination.

I feel like you're being purposefully intellectually dishonest and borderline trolling.

Trying to recall the 3rd WOK space battle (prefix code, nebula, and...?) and the 4th SFS ship exploding (freight, Grissom, Enterprise..and...?)