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

[The Wormhole]

Where it failed for me was, firstly, pacing - it didn't know when to stop and take a breath

Fast paced is how Abrams makes his movies in general. I remember around Christmas I was talking to some people who saw TFA who haven't seen any of the Abrams Trek movies and their first (and only) complaint was that it was too fast paced.. I just smiled and said "that's Abrams for you."

So yeah, too much action. "But wait!", I hear you cry, "it didn't only have action. There was character drama, and commentary on terrorism and the military!".

IMO, people really overstate the social commentary element of STID. 1) It only pays lip service to the themes of terrorism and post 9/11 fear mongering without having anything meaningful or profound to say on the matter and 2) Commentary on terrorism and fear mongering has been done so often the past decade that inserting it into STID just makes STID look more derivative and unoriginal than it already does what with the blatant rehashes of TWOK.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

IMO, people really overstate the social commentary element of STID. 1) It only pays lip service to the themes of terrorism and post 9/11 fear mongering without having anything meaningful or profound to say on the matter and 2) Commentary on terrorism and fear mongering has been done so often the past decade that inserting it into STID just makes STID look more derivative and unoriginal than it already does what with the blatant rehashes of TWOK.

Let's be honest, most of TREK when it deals with a "social issue" or "social commentary" is only paying lip service. Looking at you, "The Outcast."

 

[The Wormhole]

Let's be honest, most of TREK when it deals with a "social issue" or "social commentary" is only paying lip service. Looking at you, "The Outcast."

Very true, the "social issues" aspect of Star Trek in general has been overstated. A lot of the times it is just lip service or heavy-handed and preachy. But at least there's often a somewhat original or entertaining idea behind the premise that hasn't already been rammed into the ground by everyone else. The Outcast, for example is the only on-screen example of Star Trek depicting homosexuality. In the Prime Universe, anyway, DS9 did get silly and turn every woman into a lesbian in the Mirror Universe.

But 9/11 allegories have been done, by everyone. There's nothing left to be said, no more themes to explore that haven't been handled by every movie, TV show, novel, comic, documentary, whatever since 2001. Star Trek itself already did it's take on 9/11 with the Xindi story on Enterprise. STID just comes off as derivative and unoriginal in being a 9/11 allegory twelve years after the fact.

 

[fireproof78]

So yeah, Star Trek doesn't always need to be Interstellar, but that doesn't mean it has to go to the opposite extreme and be an Avengers film. There's room in between. Or it could go in other directions, and be a comedy, or a romance, any other number of things. The main thing though is that it needs to have originality and good execution. And if Beyond somehow manages to fail, it won't be because it wasn't 'Star Trek' enough, whatever that means, it'll be because the execution was bad, like with Into Darkness. But of course it's not out yet, and I'm cautiously optimistic that it'll actually be really good. For the moment, I trust Simon Pegg.

I personally think that ST 09 and STID set up Kirk's arc perfectly and I think Beyond will conclude it beautifully.

I think that Abrams' Trek is also far more complex than it is ever given credit for.

Anyway, your confrontational bait aside, in this thread (which I was talking about) a few people have argued that TOS isn't the cultural phenomenon it's cracked up to be, and someone posted an article with some typical Gizmodo type hyperbole saying "Star Trek was never clever" or something of that sort. I've also noticed this before in the main forum; for example in threads about everything from trekonomics to utopianism. Clearly not everyone, but a few people seem to actively dismiss their favourite franchise in relation to other things. It was intended for them.

Fast paced is how Abrams makes his movies in general. I remember around Christmas I was talking to some people who saw TFA who haven't seen any of the Abrams Trek movies and their first (and only) complaint was that it was too fast paced.. I just smiled and said "that's Abrams for you."

IMO, people really overstate the social commentary element of STID. 1) It only pays lip service to the themes of terrorism and post 9/11 fear mongering without having anything meaningful or profound to say on the matter and 2) Commentary on terrorism and fear mongering has been done so often the past decade that inserting it into STID just makes STID look more derivative and unoriginal than it already does what with the blatant rehashes of TWOK.

First of all, I actually thought that TFA was slow for an Abrams' film.

Secondly, social commentary can vary individual to individual. I guess I must have been stepped in the political news regarding drone strikes to note the arguments being made. They aren't bombastic and in your face, and they may have been done before, but so what? One of the most influential writer's on my writing is E.B. White. To paraphrase him he stated that everything has been told before-tell your story anyway.

I don't think it pays lip service, any more than i think that it pays lip service to the characters. I think they explore the characters in a unique way, and gives a more contemporary view on some issues, even with the social commentary, without beating people over the head, like "Racisms=bad"

I know it's not for everything, but these films definitely hit me on a level that most films don't.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Anyway, your confrontational bait aside, in this thread (which I was talking about) a few people have argued that TOS isn't the cultural phenomenon it's cracked up to be, and someone posted an article with some typical Gizmodo type hyperbole saying "Star Trek was never clever" or something of that sort. I've also noticed this before in the main forum; for example in threads about everything from trekonomics to utopianism. Clearly not everyone, but a few people seem to actively dismiss their favourite franchise in relation to other things. It was intended for them.

It's not really unique. This is a trend that goes beyond Trek fandom. I've seen this with STAR WARS a decade ago when fans defended the prequels by pointing out flaws in the original films and exaggerate them. "sure, sure, Hayden Christensen isn't that great, but look back at Mark Hamill, he was pretty awful in some of those scenes too!"

 

[BillJ]

Anyway, your confrontational bait aside, in this thread (which I was talking about) a few people have argued that TOS isn't the cultural phenomenon it's cracked up to be, and someone posted an article with some typical Gizmodo type hyperbole saying "Star Trek was never clever" or something of that sort. I've also noticed this before in the main forum; for example in threads about everything from trekonomics to utopianism. Clearly not everyone, but a few people seem to actively dismiss their favourite franchise in relation to other things. It was intended for them.

I've been a fan of Star Trek for a long time, I started watching when TOS was the only show. Many aspects of the original show have been blown out of proportion compared to what was actually there. It is what it is.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Let's be honest, most of TREK when it deals with a "social issue" or "social commentary" is only paying lip service. Looking at you, "The Outcast."

I've always thought Star Trek did social commentary or social issues best when it wasn't forced or intended. (A rarity in Trek, I think).

 

[eyeresist]

I was just thinking of two undeniably classic TOS episodes that don't have messages:

Mirror Mirror - a mind-bending thriller
The Trouble With Tribbles - a comic romp.​

Now, you can draw interesting themes from these episodes if you try, but those are not the purpose or the main effect of the stories.

 

[The Wormhole]

And it does amuse me that one of the more popular TNG episodes is what many would essentially consider the "anti-Trek." Yesterday's Enterprise is set in a timeline where Starfleet is openly military and the Enterprise is a warship.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And it does amuse me that one of the more popular TNG episodes is what many would essentially consider the "anti-Trek." Yesterday's Enterprise is set in a timeline where Starfleet is openly military and the Enterprise is a warship.

Down deep we all love the pew pew.

 

[JWPlatt]

...a few people seem to actively dismiss their favourite franchise in relation to other things.

Yes, I've noticed. You're not wrong about that. I've seen optimism and inspiration denied or dismissed by fans. I've seen relevance denied. I've seen careers inspired by Star Trek denied by fans, despite the testimony of a large number of NASA scientists, or doctors, etc. I've not seen it discussed so much in the specific quality of writing, but usually in the context of arguing against a more broad issue. It's like elevating oneself at the expense of another; throwing Star Trek under the proverbial bus.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Yes - I've seen it time and again - including in this thread.

I'm glad other people have noticed this as well.

 

[M'Sharak]

a few people seem to actively dismiss their favourite franchise in relation to other things.

Yes, I've noticed. You're not wrong about that. I've seen optimism and inspiration denied or dismissed by fans. I've seen relevance denied. I've seen careers inspired by Star Trek denied by fans

Yes - I've seen it time and again - including in this thread.

I'm glad other people have noticed this as well.

They mock the Lawgivers. They are not Of The Body™.



Don't tell Landru.

 

[JWPlatt]

Anything can be trivialized. It's not difficult. But it's not a positive or redeeming trait either.

 

[BillJ]

Some things deserve to be trivialized.

 

[Mudd]

Were Interstellar and The Martian cerebral?

Because talking?

Huh.

 

[SpaceLama]

Anything can be trivialized. It's not difficult. But it's not a positive or redeeming trait either.

Yup. You can reduce violin music to a description like "someone rubbing horse hair against a string", or piano music to some technical description like "a percussion instrument hitting notes via a set of hammers". It's technically true, but does not either explain the appeal of the thing, or the emotional value, or touch on the philosophy that informs it. Some people love trivializing TOS and TNG. Perhaps they didn't enjoy those shows, or genuinely don't see what others see in them. It's alright not to like something. It's alright to disagree. Many people find classical music boring. If they listen to Chopin, they might think "what is all the fuss about". But just because you don't like classical music, does not mean it doesn't have value. There is always a few who feel the need to say "it's all exaggerated/outdated, and people who like it are being pretentious". I wish they wouldn't assume. I wish we didn't have to hear people slag things off, just because they disagree. I can appreciate someone not liking something, but all too often, we just hear sardonic mocking of others - something I have no respect for in a person, any more than I respect a bully.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Placing the show in it's proper cultural perspective, busting the myths and admitting it's flaws is not trivializing it.

 

[BillJ]

Placing the show in it's proper cultural perspective, busting the myths and admitting it's flaws is not trivializing it.

Some people would rather delude themselves.

 

[fireproof78]

Placing the show in it's proper cultural perspective, busting the myths and admitting it's flaws is not trivializing it.

This. No one is denying Star Trek's place, but I'll not hype it. I didn't get interested in space and research because of Star Trek. Star Trek fed that love and fascination that was nurtured by teachers and parents.

I have no doubt that others are inspired by Star Trek, as well as many other things. It isn't diminishing it by asking that something be viewed in historical context. Star Trek could be ground breaking and also very much behind the times. Star Trek was innovative, and some times stuck in its own vision of the future.

I know that contemporary media is more dark and depressing, but good grief-Star Trek isn't the only optimistic source out there.