It really is not. The props are pure retro and the unforms are different sort of retro. Costumes of Stella and her dad, along with their ship were retro. But most of the other stuff tries to be contemporary.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Yeah, sorry - I've been a fan since 1966 and find nothing deeply dissatisfying about the Abrams films.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Good grief are some still crying about the films.
That dead horse has been flogged enough.
The films were fine for me.
Then again I watched them with an open mind.
Taste is subjective, obviously, and people are entitled to like whatever they like. But there's really no argument to be made that the Abrams films were ever intended to recapture the "vibe" of TOS, or to appeal to people who had enjoyed it as it was. They were aiming for something decidedly different. Abrams himself was on the record that he'd never been a Trek fan and didn't "get" that vibe, and even if he'd never said so, ST09 and STID made it abundantly clear.
(For my part, I did indeed find them deeply dissatisfying... a contest between the moments that felt like Star Wars, and the moments that felt like a video game. Those may be perfectly enjoyable things in their own right, but they're not what I'm looking for from Star Trek. It's akin to the difference between the original LOTR trilogy, with its respectful adaptation of the source material, and the Hobbit trilogy, with its bastardization of same... except even more so, as those projects were at least created by the same people. Or the difference between Game of Thrones season two, and Game of Thrones season seven. They're just not trying to do the same things.)
That's beside the point, though. The whole reason I linked the piece wasn't to derail things into an argument about the films... it was to underscore the point that including (allegedly "hidden") Easter eggs is simply not the same as being faithful to the underlying source material... what Horakova calls "the sense of a stable world necessary for the development of emotional and thematic through-lines." I think that's the sensibility Longinus was alluding to in the post to which MirrorMirror replied... and I'll stand by that point.
(For my part, I did indeed find them deeply dissatisfying... a contest between the moments that felt like Star Wars, and the moments that felt like a video game. Those may be perfectly enjoyable things in their own right, but they're not what I'm looking for from Star Trek. It's akin to the difference between the original LOTR trilogy, with its respectful adaptation of the source material, and the Hobbit trilogy, with its bastardization of same... except even more so, as those projects were at least created by the same people. Or the difference between Game of Thrones season two, and Game of Thrones season seven. They're just not trying to do the same things.)
That's beside the point, though. The whole reason I linked the piece wasn't to derail things into an argument about the films... it was to underscore the point that including (allegedly "hidden") Easter eggs is simply not the same as being faithful to the underlying source material... what Horakova calls "the sense of a stable world necessary for the development of emotional and thematic through-lines." I think that's the sensibility Longinus was alluding to in the post to which MirrorMirror replied... and I'll stand by that point.
Just random list of Trek movies from worst to best: https://nerdist.com/all-13-star-trek-films-ranked-from-worst-to-best/
5. Star Trek: First Contact
4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
2. Star Trek (2009)
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
If Kelvin movies were so "bad", how could 2009 version be right behind TWOK? And ahead of TVH and TUC? Kelvin movies are just fine. Can't wait for QT version.
There will never be a missed opportunity to flail Abrams.
He stated that when he was younger. He garnered more of an appreciation as he produced the films. Let's put that myth to the grave right now.
ST 09 and ST ID fit the feel of Star Trek just fine: action/adventure with social commentary. Period. Meyers did the same thing with TWOK and TUC and never was a "Star Trek fan" either.
Because art carries subjective, not objective, value.
Umm, that's one guy's ranking on one web site. How does it signify anything other that his personal taste?
What myth? He stated it in 2009: "Star Trek ... always felt like a silly, campy thing. I remember appreciating it, but feeling like I didn't get it. I felt it didn't give me a way in. There was a captain, there was this first officer, they were talking a lot about adventures and not having them as much as I would've liked. Maybe I wasn't smart enough, maybe I wasn't old enough." He never hid the fact that Star Wars was much more up his alley.
Granted, Nicholas Meyer wasn't a fan before he got involved with Trek either. I'm not saying it's a litmus test. But IMHO Meyer did a much better job of capturing the feel of the original, its pacing, its gravitas... if only because he was trying to. Abrams, like I said, wasn't even trying to. He was trying to make a different kind of movie. That's apparently what the studio wanted from him, for good or ill. I'm not telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't like; there's nothing to take personally here; I'm just saying it wasn't of a kind with its source material, nor trying to be.
It's a lot more in line with TOS than anyone will ever give Abrams credit for. And, given the Internet's reaction to Abrams he will likely never get it.
Abrams took the premise of an "action/adventure with social commentary" and built it with a 2008 audience in mind, not a "Star Trek" audience and not a "Star Wars" audience.
And for all the "respect" that Meyer was supposedly paying to the original, he sure did piss off GR in the process. So, who is more correct here?
Ah, the myth of a "2009 audience." (Now updated to a "2018 audience" by defenders of DSC.) 
What exactly does that mean? Who exactly do you imagine those audiences to be? How exactly do you imagine that their tastes are different than audiences of the 1990s or the 1960s? How do you imagine Abrams imagined their tastes? Why do you imagine his films (or now, DSC) are necessarily more suited to those tastes than something else might be?
It's all a big game of psychological projection. People — including Hollywood producers and directors, and including you, and most of us here — naturally consider our own tastes to be reasonable and relatable, and concomitantly assume that other people (at least most of them) share those tastes. Even when there's not a shred of empirical evidence for it, it's a comforting thing to believe, and thus an easy argument to mount in defense of making stuff that we like. You can tell, because you see it mounted in defense of wildly different stuff, even at the same time.
What exactly does that mean? Who exactly do you imagine those audiences to be? How exactly do you imagine that their tastes are different than audiences of the 1990s or the 1960s? How do you imagine Abrams imagined their tastes? Why do you imagine his films (or now, DSC) are necessarily more suited to those tastes than something else might be?It's all a big game of psychological projection. People — including Hollywood producers and directors, and including you, and most of us here — naturally consider our own tastes to be reasonable and relatable, and concomitantly assume that other people (at least most of them) share those tastes. Even when there's not a shred of empirical evidence for it, it's a comforting thing to believe, and thus an easy argument to mount in defense of making stuff that we like. You can tell, because you see it mounted in defense of wildly different stuff, even at the same time.
Last edited:
Increased paced, younger actors, themes of mentors and father figures.Ah, the myth of a "2009 audience." (Now updated to a "2018 audience" by defenders of DSC.)
Yes, so mythological.
ETA:
Quote from an interview with Abrams were he discusses his "outsider" status:
Source
Last edited:
Why don’t you chimps start another thread where you can talk till your blue in the face about the mediocre Abrams Star Wars trek films
This thread is about the USS Enterprise in Discovery not all that other crap
This thread is about the USS Enterprise in Discovery not all that other crap
At 163 pages and counting, it IS about all other crap
That's the best part of the thread!
Pretty sure that was finished at least 30 pages back
Yeah, I know. For some reason it didn't auto-renew this year, and I've been trying to get it taken care of for three weeks now. The support from my hosting company has been less than exemplary. Royal pain. What of it?
Chimps? Now we're talking about "Extinction(ENT)"?
(*Facepalm*)
(*Facepalm*)
That was absolutely stellar article. Very long, but very thoughtful. And it perfectly describes the reasons why I cannot tolerate the Pine-Kirk. This toxic masculinity infused fratboy is such an character assassination of epic proportions, that it makes me sick. (He is more tolerable in Beyond where he resembles Shatner-Kirk a bit more.)
This is one of the reasons I really don't want to see Spock in Discovery. I really don't want to see his character being similarly tampered with (though it is unlikely that they could do worse than Psycho Spock from JJ films.)
In any case, Discovery's approach to continuity is cargo cult continuity; easter eggs here and there to make the viewers feel clever for spotting them, while wreaking merry havoc to the big picture.
Similar threads
