What will make it "Star Trek"?

[BillJ]

Well, you do you, but to my eyes that reads as roughly the same as arguing that Bye Bye Birdie is a better musical than Next to Normal or Hamilton.

Once again, it is about personal taste. While I loved Hamilton when I saw it on Disney+, it isn't the end all, be all of entertainment. It is a piece of entertainment that I happen to like, that speaks to me on some level and is entertaining. I know next to nothing about the theater, but I can guarantee there are folks out there who like Bye, Bye Birdie more than Next to Normal or Hamilton.

It is the great thing about art, there is no right or wrong or objective better or worse. It is about what it means to the individual. The Mona Lisa is great (I guess), but give me my kids various finger painting from kindergarten every day of the week.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

 

[TngFan01]

It seems like the last 6 movies excluding First Contact:
Generations,Insurrection,Nemesis,Reboot,Into The Darkness,Beyond
All have one bad guy hell bent on destroying the universe/earth/federation.
I'm not sure why the writers keep going that way. The reboots have strong enough plots to overcome it.

 

[BillJ]

It seems like the last 6 movies excluding First Contact:
Generations,Insurrection,Nemesis,Reboot,Into The Darkness,Beyond
All have one bad guy hell bent on destroying the universe/earth/federation.
I'm not sure why the writers keep going that way. The reboots have strong enough plots to overcome it.

Mainly Khan syndrome, everyone trying to replicate Star Trek II. First Contact does fall into that trap as well.

 

[Orphalesion]

It seems like the last 6 movies excluding First Contact:
Generations,Insurrection,Nemesis,Reboot,Into The Darkness,Beyond
All have one bad guy hell bent on destroying the universe/earth/federation.
I'm not sure why the writers keep going that way. The reboots have strong enough plots to overcome it.

Isn't the Borg Queen also hellbent on destroying earth/the Federation?

Also I can't remember insurrection very well, but don't the bad guys just want to remove the space hippies from their magical immortality planet?

 

[BillJ]

Also I can't remember insurrection very well, but don't the bad guys just want to remove the space hippies from their magical immortality planet?

They were expelled by the Baku. So revenge on their elders was part of the objective.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Insurrection wasn't a "destroy the federation" per se -- the council had already approved it, and given the number of people in fandom who sympaphise with the Badmiral it's not even destroy it's soul.

First contact has 1 bad guy destroying (asimilating) Earth -- the Queen

In Generations the bad guy didn't give a stuff about Earth or the Federation, Veridian 3 would have been destroyed, but that wasn't his goal, just a side effect.

TMP: VGer destroying Earth
TVH: Whale Probe destroying Earth
TFF: 'God' wanting to destroy (presumably) the galaxy

 

[fireproof78]

is the great thing about art, there is no right or wrong or objective better or worse. It is about what it means to the individual. The Mona Lisa is great (I guess), but give me my kids various finger painting from kindergarten every day of the week.

Exactly.

 

[Sci]

Once again, it is about personal taste.

Enjoyment is about subjective taste. Artistic merit, no so much.

I don't enjoy The Sopranos. I've seen it; it's not my thing, I didn't watch it regularly, and I don't watch it on streaming. Same with Mad Men. But objectively speaking, these shows are artistically superior to other shows I do enjoy, and I won't pretend otherwise.

I know next to nothing about the theater, but I can guarantee there are folks out there who like Bye, Bye Birdie more than Next to Normal or Hamilton.

There may well be people like like Bye Bye Birdie more than Next to Normal or Hamilton, but there is no defensible argument to be made that Bye Bye Birdie is artistically superior.

 

[BillJ]

Enjoyment is about subjective taste. Artistic merit, no so much.

Artistic merit is subjective, or else you wouldn't have different people with different opinions on the same pieces of art, writing, entertainment.

 

[fireproof78]

Artistic merit is subjective, or else you wouldn't have different people with different opinions on the same pieces of art, writing, entertainment.

Indeed, yes. And I think striving for objective standards in art leads to a whole lot of frustration and miscommunication, no matter how well intended.

 

[BillJ]

Indeed, yes. And I think striving for objective standards in art leads to a whole lot of frustration and miscommunication, no matter how well intended.

"Artistic merit" is another code for "the Star Trek I like is better than the Star Trek you like, because of some nebulous reason, usually because I'm smarter than you are". Art is art, it affects us all in differing ways. Sometimes it engages us, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it engages a lot of people, but that doesn't mean it has any more artistic merit than something fewer people appreciate.

 

[Orphalesion]

I don't enjoy The Sopranos. I've seen it; it's not my thing, I didn't watch it regularly, and I don't watch it on streaming. Same with Mad Men. But objectively speaking, these shows are artistically superior to other shows I do enjoy, and I won't pretend otherwise.

And how do you measure said "artistic merit". Who decides on it?
Why do you say that the Sporanos or Mad Men (really Mad Men of all freaking things?) has any "artistic merit"? Because you read it somewhere?

 

[BillJ]

Why do you say that the Sporanos or Mad Men...

I've watched the first three seasons of Mad Men, and I think there is a verisimilitude to it that a lot of other shows lack, from sets to costumes to social mores of the times. Those are my opinions on it, though those things don't mean it has more artistic merit over other shows. I'm sure there are many people out there with the exact opposite view of the show.

 

[Orphalesion]

I've watched the first three seasons of Mad Men, and I think there is a verisimilitude to it that a lot of other shows lack, from sets to costumes to social mores of the times. Those are my opinions on it, though those things don't mean it has more artistic merit over other shows. I'm sure there are many people out there with the exact opposite view of the show.

I'm not saying the show can't resonate with a lot of people. Personally I'd say that Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for example, is a much better show, that's much more true to life, but again it's subjective.
I do think that there is something as objective levels in quality of writing. But whether I'd call certain shows "high art" because of that, I'm not so sure.
And of course it's also true that we like what we like. Imagine a brilliantly written novel about a subject you have no interest in. You probably won't enjoy it.

And honestly I'm also kinda confused why a lot of the shows people often laud as "brilliant" have such ugly premises or deal with such base subjects. Like is that somehow a requirement for "artistic merit?(tm) If so...then where's the merit in that?
Like I'm not talking Discovery here. But Sporanos, why would I ever want to watch a show about a mobster?

 

[BillJ]

I do think that there is something as objective levels in quality of writing.

I'm not so sure, or else these producers/directors/writers would be able to smell stinkers a mile a way.

 

[Orphalesion]

I'm not so sure, or else these producers/directors/writers would be able to smell stinkers a mile a way.

Honestly i think a lot of the time they know it's bad (unless they are deluded) but they continue creating it anyway in hopes that it will make some money anyway.
I mean twilight made a lot of money.

Or maybe they just don't have the skill to properly give shape to their "creative vision" and it ends up bad and they continue anyway, because it's better than nothing/will hopefully help them improve in the future.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Mainly Khan syndrome, everyone trying to replicate Star Trek II. First Contact does fall into that trap as well.

There are two formulas for Trek films: TWOK and TVH. FC tries to use both.

 

[fireproof78]

If so...then where's the merit in that?

That these experiences are not unique to the people experiencing them. I may not want to see all of the ugliness of the human experience but there is an aspect of being able to say "This experience is just not only my own."

 

[BillJ]

I mean twilight made a lot of money.

I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there that absolutely love Twilight. My wife was one until she moved onto other things. I never got the love to be honest, found it cringeworthy, but my wife is a hell of a lot smarter than I am. To me, it is a fool's errand to bring "artistic merit" or "objectivity" into these types of discussions that essentially boil down to taste, also the the question of whose "artistic merit" or "objectivity" comes into play. Whose standards are we judging by?

 

[jackoverfull]

I found the twilight movies extremely enjoyable for the unintentional silliness of them. That said, I’m told the books were way better...

Anyway, art is subjective by definition. One’s masterpiece is someone else’s train wreck.