Here's the Entertainment Weekly article:

[cardinal biggles]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

Galen, this post belongs in the Trek XI forum, not here. If the Trek XI mods choose to close it because it's the eleventy-billionth thread expressing that point of view, that's up to them, but it really doesn't have a place in Trek Movies.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

Given that Gene has been dead for quite a bit TGT (and, one suspects, will remain dead), is there any circumstance upon which you could enter any new Star Trek endeavor into your own personal canon?

Nope. Aside from my feudal belief in creative ownership (to quote the dearly departed TrekBBS.com member Zero Hour), what today passes for MediaSF has - thanks to "The Star Wars Effect" for lack of a better term - diverged to such an extent from LitSF that there is simply nobody in early 21st century Hollywood equipped to execute a Trek pastiche I could conceivably see myself enjoy and, just as importantly, respect.

TGT

Too, too true. Look how well the last two lovingly crafted LitSF adaptations were received: Solaris (which was good) and A Scanner Darkly (which was fantastic) tanked. Croneberg's eXistenZ, which mannaged to be philosophically deep and darkly comic at the same time, was completely lost in the "our way or the highway, Coppertop" (at least when Swayze used that same line in Roadhouse, it rhymed--and even then, a second-rate sitcom like NBC's Empty Nest called it on its imbecility) glitz of the first Matrix movie and the rightfully acclaimed Children of Men had to struggle to be released and did disapponiting box office as well.

Star Trek was never that kind of SF, of course, but it was closer to it than it was to the relatively dumb escapism of Star Wars (and I like Star Wars but, even as a kid, I knew it was the dumb blonde to Trek's sexy librarian). Now there is to be no difference and Abrams is proud of that and a great many people here are excited about it. As we say on earth, c'est la vie.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

TNG was never all that great (maybe ten episodes were truly good, over a 7 year run,

as opposed to 30 or so from TOS's 3 years) and Voyager was a monstrosity from the get-go. DS9, wchich had the least input from Berman and none from Braga, was pretty good and ENT, which was entirely their baby, made Voyager look good. So I have to disagree with you on the "over a decade" thing.

I'm talking about when Berman stepped in and was wholly in control once Gene had passed. That would be late 1991 to 2001. You can watch over that decade as the quality slipped little by little, and then just plummeted toward the end.

And, while I find this new bridge to look silly (I kinda like silly, btw), it's not my biggest worry. My biggest worry is the story, which--from the time travelling Romulan element to the track records of the guys putting it together--looks to be plenty awful.

You may say I have little to go on and that may be true. I say that I have as much on which to base my expectation that the film will be crap as you do that it will be gold. We won't really know till May and, even then, we may still disagree. I can dig it.

However, I don't expect it to be gold. I hope it will be gold. I hope it'll be diamond platinum substrate. I want it to do well, so obscenely well that it makes Iron Man look like Plan 9 From Outer Space. But most importantly, I want a great story, I want friendship, and I want it to work, but I have no such expectation. I am excited for the movie, I want to see it, and it's making me feel like a kid again to see all of the things they're doing. I hope it all comes together. I am being very optimistic, because for me, that optimism is at the heart of Star Trek.


J.

Dass cool, baby. Anybody who has an avatar of a sapphic three-way has his heart in the right place in my book. I'd hazard even TGT would concur.

Oh, and I hope the movie will be good, too. I just think it is a longshot that gets longer with every new tidbit Paramount throws our way.

 

[Sector 7]

you people that are offended that this movie exists, need to calm down. The sun will still rise, you still have family and friends, and your cherished DVD's from yesterday's Trek as well as the wonderful memories we all share...

now let's sit back and see if Team Abrams can do something different with Trek. If he fails or succeeds, I will still have my happiness.

So true.

You sound like you feel you're owed something.

That's exactly how it sounds.
It reminds me of Comic Book Guy.


J.

It's this attitude of ownership and entitlement from fandom that's sullied the "franchise." All it's done is result in the bullshit rhetoric of "canon" and adhering to an aesthetic that's over 40 years old.

The original Trek is always going to be my favorite. I love the uniforms, the ship, the set designs and the stories (even the bad ones). However, what I love most is the sense of adventure and the characters. I want that back. In the course of 40 years, that sense of fun has gotten diluted by "playing it safe" to the point where Trek became the McDonald's of science-fiction television. Tasty, but not really satisfying and occasionally leaving you with indigestion.

I was thrilled with DS9 because it tried to take Trek into different areas but it still played it safe. VOY was a disappointment because the conflict it set up was dispatched by the third or fourth episode. I had high hopes for ENT because I wanted that show to forge its own unique identity rather than adhere to the "canon." I wanted Trek to remove the albatross that had been hung around its neck. An albatross that grew bigger and bigger with each passing series and movie to the point where that was all that remained--canon and pedantic fans who pray at its alter.

Now, I've enjoyed the novels and how they've navigated that canon while still being able to tell enjoyable and challenging stories. But as far as filmed Trek is concerned, it's time for change.

From what I've seen in these pictures, it seems that Abrams and company have captured the flavor of the original while not being too beholden to the outdated look of the 60s series. I love that look and I'm glad it's been replicated in fan films such as Exeter and Phase II/New Voyages. But it's time for change. And as Captain Kirk said in TUC, "People can be very frightened by change."

I want to boldly go again with Kirk, Spock and McCoy on board a ship called Enterprise. I want there to be a good story with good characters on an adventure in the Final Frontier. As long as it has those elements, the rest be damned. Screw canon! Screw uptight fandom that don't think their shit stinks!

TNG was never all that great (maybe ten episodes were truly good, over a 7 year run, as opposed to 30 or so from TOS's 3 years)

All these lines are giving me Futurama flashbacks!

"People can be very frightened by change." This should be the Star Trek XI board motto now.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

The revisionist history displayed by the writer was inexcuseable and completely undercut the story. This part in particular...

But since the box office peak of the original film series in 1986, the Trek brand has devolved into a near-irrelevant cultural joke, likely to inspire giggles and unprintable curses from even its most ardent supports. After a succession of contrived TV sin-offs (the last, UPN's Star Trek: Enterprise mustered only a feeble 2 milion viewers in its final seaosn) and medicore features based on the best of the bunch (Star Trek: The Next Genration), even people who built their entire careers around Trek could see the writing on the wall.

Excuse me but Star Trek The Next Generation was NOT a contrived spin-off. It took a little while before the show founds it legs but TNG was a major hit (its ratings in syndication beat out a lot of the popular show on regular television at the time) and was received very well by critics, with its last season being nominated by the Emmys for Best Dramatic Show. The TNG movies were a mixed bag indeed but First Contact (which was a really good film) grossed over $250 million dollars worldwide. Entertainment Weakly is the last group that should forget about the popularity of TNG...they had a cover story on the final episode of the show in 1994 for God's sake!

Deep Space Nine might have been the black sheep of the ST franchise but it was arguably its best show. It also produced Ron Moore, who went on to produce the amazing BSG.

It was after First Contact's success in 1996 that the show began it's decline. But EW's writers are douches to begin with and too lazy to write that.

Yeah, even I, hardly a TNG fan, had to give a and a to EW's dismissal of TNG. At the time, they were no doubt among the many who trumpetted how TNG had totally eclipsed the by comparison campy and simplistic (cough-bullshit!-cough) TOS (a postition which steamed me to no end even when I would never miss an episode of TNG). The big thing back then was how many people liked TNG but thought TOS was crap; I remember writing it into a mainstream story I wrote for a creative writing class back in 1993. And FC was a big deal and a huge success--a lot of fun, too, despite its multitude of stupidities.

But it's a dumb-ass entertainment rag, one step up from People. What do you expect?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

All these lines are giving me Futurama flashbacks!

"All power to the engines!"

"People can be very frightened by change." This should be the Star Trek XI board motto now.

We need a dedication plaque made up with that motto and stick it to the top of this forum!

 

[Therin of Andor]

Spoiler: Temporal mechanics

Nero apparantly makes Kirk an orphan, but was Kirk always an orphan (in TOS), or is this new Kirk's whole live changed?

Spoiler: Kirk

The novels tell us that Kirk's father, George Sr, died in service to Starfleet, but the actual incident is classified and has never been described. IIRC, Kirk doesn't know the actual details. The novels have featured Winona Kirk as still alive for several years beyond her husband, but I think I recall she's passed on by the later movie timeline. In the novels anyway. The names of his parents are from the novels. George Samuel Kirk Jr, Kirk's brother, died in the canonical "Operation: Annihilate!"

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

Galen, this post belongs in the Trek XI forum, not here. If the Trek XI mods choose to close it because it's the eleventy-billionth thread expressing that point of view, that's up to them, but it really doesn't have a place in Trek Movies.

Since the OP of this thread is citing the Entertainment Weekly article and we already have a thread dedicated to that topic, why don't I just merge this one with that?

Hold on a sec...

 

[Amaris]

Dass cool, baby. Anybody who has an avatar of a sapphic three-way has his heart in the right place in my book. I'd hazard even TGT would concur.

Truly, lesbians will unite us all some day.

Oh, and I hope the movie will be good, too. I just think it is a longshot that gets longer with every new tidbit Paramount throws our way.

I can understand the bit of pessimism. I just find it disconcerting about people announcing the death of all Star Trek because the bridge looks like the Apple store (it kind of does). I don't think that helps at all. I don't mind people saying "Oh, that bridge sucks", because taste varies, that's fine. Matters of taste are always up for debate.


J.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The decision was made consciously by GR and the other people involved at the time that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy could only be played by the original actors, and thus, TNG was born.

That's not the entire reason for setting TNG a century ahead in time. GR realised he could free himself of many 60s TV constraints and have his 24th century humans reflecting his new, evolved philosophies.

And yet, at the same time, someone at Paramount was seriously working on "Star Trek: The Opera", which would have traveled the US and hopefully beyond, and would have recast Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al, with performers who could sing opera. Maybe fans would have been more accepting of new actors in the old roles for ST XI had we seen "Star Trek: The Opera".

Think about the two Saaviks. Different interpretations, very different directing, different hair, eyebrows, eye colour. Both actresses had a large fanbase, and both sides claimed that their Saavik was the best. Many other movie-goers didn't notice it was a new actress.

 

[Aragorn]

The revisionist history displayed by the writer was inexcuseable and completely undercut the story.

It's EW. The article just being poorly written undercuts itself.

 

[Amaris]

The decision was made consciously by GR and the other people involved at the time that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy could only be played by the original actors, and thus, TNG was born.

That's not the entire reason for setting TNG a century ahead in time. GR realised he could free himself of many 60s TV constraints and have his 24th century humans reflecting his new, evolved philosophies.

And yet, at the same time, someone at Paramount was seriously working on "Star Trek: The Opera", which would have traveled the US and hopefully beyond, and would have recast Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al, with performers who could sing opera. Maybe fans would have been more accepting of new actors in the old roles for ST XI had we seen "Star Trek: The Opera".

Think about the two Saaviks. Different interpretations, very different directing, different hair, eyebrows, eye colour. Both actresses had a large fanbase, and both sides claimed that their Saavik was the best. Many other movie-goers didn't notice it was a new actress.

Agreed.



J., a Robin Curtis man

 

[DarthPipes]

The revisionist history displayed by the writer was inexcuseable and completely undercut the story.

It's EW. The article just being poorly written undercuts itself.

Very true, very true. That's why it's Entertainment Weakly.

TNG was a darling of that rag back in the nineties.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The revisionist history displayed by the writer was inexcuseable and completely undercut the story.

It's EW. The article just being poorly written undercuts itself.

Very true, very true. That's why it's Entertainment Weakly.

TNG was a darling of that rag back in the nineties.

Really? Do you recall their review of "Encounter At Farpoint?"

Here's the actual fact: EW soon discovered that their newstand sales went up whenever they put "Star Trek" on the cover. End of story.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

TGT at least is fun about it...

No.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

In other words, ST is about to become lowbrow entertainment that appeals to the lowest common dominator.

I know many ST fans who said that about "Star Trek IV". Our ST club lost a lot of original 60s members as a result of fan anger about ST IV, but our ranks were overwhelmed by all the new fans attracted to ST fandom by ST IV and then TNG.

 

[James Bond]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

My fears have been confirmed. J.J. Abrams and the studios have this idiot conception that ST has to be "revived" and “re-imagined” to appeal to a "wider audience" instead of understanding that it just needed to be done right.

In other words, ST is about to become lowbrow entertainment that appeals to the lowest common dominator.

To say nothing of the complete contempt that Abrams has displayed towards a millions plus fan base that has sustained the franchise thus far.

Remember how Mission Impossible went from being a smart TV series to a brainless action movie showcasing Tom Cruise?

ST is next.

Well, it was good while it lasted. Rest in peace old friend.


http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?cnn=yes

HOP TO

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

Actually, "Mission Impossible" was a clever but completely formulainc TV series. There was nothing smart about it.

 

[Data Holmes]

TGT at least is fun about it...

No.

I disagree, respectfully.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Dass cool, baby. Anybody who has an avatar of a sapphic three-way has his heart in the right place in my book. I'd hazard even TGT would concur.

Truly, lesbians will unite us all some day.

Oh, and I hope the movie will be good, too. I just think it is a longshot that gets longer with every new tidbit Paramount throws our way.

I can understand the bit of pessimism. I just find it disconcerting about people announcing the death of all Star Trek because the bridge looks like the Apple store (it kind of does). I don't think that helps at all. I don't mind people saying "Oh, that bridge sucks", because taste varies, that's fine. Matters of taste are always up for debate.


J.

Well, I am a "death to Star Trek" kinda guy but only for the reason that I think all stories should be allowed to end. In litSF, Frank Herbert milked Dune for all it was worth, to diminishing returns long before his son and Kevin Anderson exhumed the cow for yet more titty-tugging. I really hope that my all-time favorite tv show--The Sopranos--is as dead as the abrupt ending suggests its hero is. I want no theatrical film, no prequel series, any more than I'd want a Citizen Kane II or a prequel to Hamlet, even if John Updike himself were to write it. Also, I feel people should really think twice before remaking a classic (wouldn't want a remake of Citizen Kane, either, even if it was directed by Ridley Scott or Martin Scorsese and starred Russell Crowe or Daniel Day Lewis--Hamlet, of course, is a different story). The reason why NuBSG is such a marvel is because it took a pretty lousy show and managed to make it into something that advanced SF on televeision as much as Star Trek did back in the sixties. Star Trek was already pretty fucking great--I wouldn't be here if I didn't still list TOS among the best things put on tv.

I find it is next to impossible to say these things around here without being radicalized, pushed into an armed camp and flirting with a flame every third post--which is the fun and shame of the TrekBBS.