So a version that skips from the Opening Credits right to the End Credits. Interesting.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
So a version that skips from the Opening Credits right to the End Credits. Interesting.
Sorry if it felt like piling on to something you had already answered. I hadn't seen all the other replies to your post before I made mine. Usually I start at the end of a thread and work my way back so I can see all the subsequent posts before the one I choose to quote. This time I just dove right in from the last place I left off.
I understood what you were saying about the pacing of the scene contrasting with the coming threat, I'm just not bothered by it, because I feel the scene is justified by the in-universe reasons I mention. To each their own.
Your observation is appreciated and I think offers a point of clarification about my point. I'm not against the beauty shots. It's more the contrast and the timing within the film that stands out as odd to me. Now, I know TMP is not know for it's breakneck pacing, but the showing of a threat and then immediately slowing the pacing is just odd to me. I think you could have those beauty shots throughout the film, rather than 5 minutes of it during an emergency situation.
That's my controversial opinion for the day.
Last edited:
In support of your point, they reuse much of the same spacedock inspection footage in TWoK when Admiral Kirk and the Enterprise command crew are coming aboard for his inspection, but the scene is shorter and takes place before anyone at Starfleet Command is aware of the developing crisis, and TWoK is a much faster-paced film. People rarely complain about that scene given those differences.
Thank you. I had not made the connection between the films before. I think that does illustrate what I am trying to say is that once a crisis is established taking time away from that can affect perception of pacing.
That's a good example.
Scifi has always been a vehicle for allegory and examination of the human condition, though. Be it in writing or on the TV screen. In fact, that was how Asimov defined scifi: as an examination of the reactions of human beings to change in science and technology. Not as "fights, but in space!".
Having action elements is one thing, being mindless action series/movies (hi DSC and Abrams movies) is another. Even in the realm of action movies, you can have themes and discussions of ethics (it's the difference between Christopher Nolan movies and Michael Bay movies - both make action movies, but one much more mindless than the other).
And let's be honest here: Kirk Fu and other TOS "action" scenes work better as humour than as action, anyway. If we have to let that dictate how Trek has to be, then it should be pure comedy.
It's true that TNG emphasised the more contemplative elements of TOS rather than the fisticuffs, but I'd argue that was for the best, as it resulted in a more scarce product. Outside of scifi, where on TV would you find something akin to the Measure of a Man?
Whereas action, well, that's the norm in most series.
I have discussions about the themes about 09 Star Trek more than I do about any of the TNG films. Just because it has action doesn't make it mindless.
I agree in many ways, but I don't think it was just Roddenberry who re-branded the franchise like that. Like if I look at TOS, it seems to me they often had to cut down on the action and insert scenes of characters talking due to budget restraints (such as that scene in Cloud Minders where Spock just re-caps the events we have just seen and adds some mild commentary) and I suspect the "it's intellectual!" excuse was also used by fans when people who were used to more fast-paced SciFi said that TOS was "slow" and "talky" to them.
That's not being said that there aren't any good, slow parts in the various incarnation of Star Trek, for example Picard explaining his ideas of death and mortality in "Where Silence has Lease", or Janeway intimidating the personification of Fear with her presence alone in the Thaw.
But yeah the core of Star Trek is an action-adventure show.
What one person calls "mindless," others might call "good, escapist fun."
I don't need or want to watch 2001, Inception, and Solaris every day. Sometimes I like to watch Transformers, Armageddon, and Independence Day.
Star Trek's strength is, and has always been, that it is pretty good at pulling off both (and everything in between) pretty effectively. That's a good thing....not a bad thing as many fans would try to lead you to believe.
I think people get a little too much "tunnel vision" as to what elements "good Star Trek" needs to contain to be viable.
Also- for the record...completely disagree with your take on "TOS action is better as humor" (nope), "TNG emphasis on contemplative elements was for the best" (nope), and I've been on record repeatedly for saying, by my book, Measure of a Man is vastly over-rated.
YMMV of course
It's an easy button to tag things as "mindless action" to discredit them if we don't like them.
IMHO Trek is actually best when it's neither action nor message, but character drama.
My favorite Trek episodes are things like The Inner Light, Duet, In the Pale Moonlight, The Visitor, etc. I've always found the "high-octane" episodes like BOBW a bit overrated, and I'll freely admit that most of the "message" episodes are above average at best.
My favorite Trek episodes are things like The Inner Light, Duet, In the Pale Moonlight, The Visitor, etc. I've always found the "high-octane" episodes like BOBW a bit overrated, and I'll freely admit that most of the "message" episodes are above average at best.
My controversial opinion is that Star Trek is best when it picks a genre I like and does it really well.
The TV shows do well with character drama, because all you need for that is a decent script and some good actors, but it can pull off some great action and science fiction when there's enough time and budget to make strange new worlds and elaborate new fight scenes.
The TV shows do well with character drama, because all you need for that is a decent script and some good actors, but it can pull off some great action and science fiction when there's enough time and budget to make strange new worlds and elaborate new fight scenes.
Honestly, I think you need all of those elements at times. Straight up character drama is awesome in Trek if done well, but there's nothing particularly "Star Trekky" about it, and I can watch "This Is Us" or "Mad Men" and get plenty of that.
Star Trek's specialty is doing action/adventure, comedy, character drama, intrigue etc. in a well-established and interesting sci-fi universe. The appeal is in the diversity of stories and story TYPES you can do, all within the same fantastic sci-fi framework and universe.
Star Trek's specialty is doing action/adventure, comedy, character drama, intrigue etc. in a well-established and interesting sci-fi universe. The appeal is in the diversity of stories and story TYPES you can do, all within the same fantastic sci-fi framework and universe.
I agree on this point. Trying to boil down Trek to a bare essence is difficult when Trek frequently utilizes a multifaceted approach. The framework and the universe don't change much but the different story types work can work within it.
It's why I like something like SG-1 which could do very Trek style planet of the week exploration plot. It worked well because the universe allowed for it.
Sure, I mean, most people watch action movies/series from time to time. I wouldn't have used those examples because the dialogue is just too terrible (and because the latter 2 are way too full of American jingoism), but if you'd said Enter the Dragon or Kickboxer, I'd be with you.
In fact, I watched and very much enjoyed Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion's Revenge yesterday. It's not a very cerebral movie, to say the least.
Still, I maintain that, as fun as Kickboxer and Scorpion's Revenge are, an action movie with stronger focus on drama (e.g. The Seven Samurai) tends to be better.
Yes, I gathered that it did not meet your approval/wasn't your preference. That's fine.
I meant for the best from a variety standpoint. There's a trend in entertainment in the last few decades for everything to become faster-paced and more action-oriented. TNG's approach (and, to some extent, much of scifi) provided an alternative to that, so I tend to be wary of Trek embracing the trend.
I like Die Hard, but I don't want all movies to be Die Hard. 12 Angry Men and The Seventh Seal have their places, too. Which is why I really don't like announces like "13 Angry Men: The Revengening, starring Jason Statham" (no, they haven't announced that yet - but I wouldn't be too surprised to see it at this point).
Abrams/Kurtzman Trek is that to Piller/Berman Trek, to a less hyperbolic extent of course.
To each his own, I know I, too, disagree a lot with the fan consensus on some episodes.
Now this one is surprising. It's quite obvious that Kirk Fu is not a very effective martial art, as Shatner himself admits.
I have no idea how moves such as the human projectile/torpedo (below) can elicit anything but laughter.
Agreed, those are some of the best episodes in all of Trek.
Because of the tone of the scene.
Shame he ended up just hanging around places.
Similar threads
- Locked
