Of course, but it's simply not the same "many of us".
In the version I saw, there were dozens and dozens of efforts "to build upon the things that brought TOS to life for many of us".
What's keeping me out of the theatre....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
This evening I'll write out a more specific explanation of why I didn't like many aspects of the film. And I'll try to do it without spilling overt spoilers.
That said in the cooler light of day this morning and rereading my initial thoughts I still stand by them.
In fairness I'd say much depends on your expectations or definition of what Star Trek is. This is very contemporary Trek like (but faster paced) and if you like that version of Trek then you stand a good chance of liking this film. If your taste runs more to a Master And Commander type of Star Trek then I'm inclined to think you'll be disappointed at least on some levels.
That said in the cooler light of day this morning and rereading my initial thoughts I still stand by them.
In fairness I'd say much depends on your expectations or definition of what Star Trek is. This is very contemporary Trek like (but faster paced) and if you like that version of Trek then you stand a good chance of liking this film. If your taste runs more to a Master And Commander type of Star Trek then I'm inclined to think you'll be disappointed at least on some levels.
Last edited:
Picture the scene - it's 1966 - people are pitching Gene Roddenberry ideas for episodes. One guy comes up and says:
"Ok, so we can have a scene where they skydive from fucking ORBIT onto a massive energy drill thing, have a swordfight, fall off, and get beamed back aboard the ship, and it'll look great and won't be too expensive to film. Later on, Kirk will be chased across an ice-planet by a non-cheesy looking monster. Even further on - Kirk and Spock will infiltrate the bad guys' huge scary looking ship, have a gun battle, a fistfight, then blow it up with a suicide run. Remember this will all be well within our capabilities and will look outstanding..."
Do you think Roddenberry's response would have been: "Bah, not intellectual enough!"
Or: "All in one two hour story? Sign me the fuck up!"
"Ok, so we can have a scene where they skydive from fucking ORBIT onto a massive energy drill thing, have a swordfight, fall off, and get beamed back aboard the ship, and it'll look great and won't be too expensive to film. Later on, Kirk will be chased across an ice-planet by a non-cheesy looking monster. Even further on - Kirk and Spock will infiltrate the bad guys' huge scary looking ship, have a gun battle, a fistfight, then blow it up with a suicide run. Remember this will all be well within our capabilities and will look outstanding..."
Do you think Roddenberry's response would have been: "Bah, not intellectual enough!"
Or: "All in one two hour story? Sign me the fuck up!"
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Good...that is exactly what some fans need to do. Just close the door and walk away...thins out the lines to the next movie. Instead of 500 people in line, I'll have to worry about 497 people in line..whew!!!...
Rob
"And at the end, we'll have an academy graduate become the capatin of the Federation's finest vessel."
To which I think GR would have said "Re-write!"
To which I think GR would have said "Re-write!"
EDIT: I find it puzzling and bracing that I, who loved this movie, still find myself much more simpatico with the detractors than the gushers.
I find it so funny whenever I hear the usual response: "Well, they wanted to attract new fans and that's why they went with this approach."
Bullshit. Why can't you have something fun AND smart? They're not mutually exclusive audiences. We've had films before that were both fun and smart. The Dark Knight was fun and smart. Casino Royale was fun and smart. There have been lots of films that have satisfied both audiences.
TOS was fun and smart for the most part. That was one of the reasons I loved the show, because the fun stuff was usually done in a credible and convincing manner.
They didn't go that route because they were either lazy and didn't care or they didn't know how. And if they think that they did go the "fun and smart" route then they just proved themselves incompetent.
Bullshit. Why can't you have something fun AND smart? They're not mutually exclusive audiences. We've had films before that were both fun and smart. The Dark Knight was fun and smart. Casino Royale was fun and smart. There have been lots of films that have satisfied both audiences.
TOS was fun and smart for the most part. That was one of the reasons I loved the show, because the fun stuff was usually done in a credible and convincing manner.
They didn't go that route because they were either lazy and didn't care or they didn't know how. And if they think that they did go the "fun and smart" route then they just proved themselves incompetent.
You know Warped9; I do understand what you're getting at, biut given that success for a film is determined by Box Office take (and DVD sales, etc.); and that the film made 76 million in the U.S. (plus another 35 million around the world); and the majority of old Star Trek fans do like the film and the majority of the general public ALSO like the film (which may translate in to some ofm them starting to look and watch the 'originals' (I have a few workmates who now fall into this category); I don't think it's honestly fair to characterize those who made this film 'incompotent'.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Noname on this one, Warped9.
SF that takes itself at all seriously will always have a tough row to hoe. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, that's why TOS was a bottom-third rated show which guys like Abrams found "talky." So he made the Star Trek he wanted instead, the only Trek movie dumber than TFF (I never would have thought that possible, btw) and not only does he have an overwhelming critical and box office success, he has die-hard fans of Trek telling each other that Star Trek was always this stupid. Yes, it was, if by Star Trek they mean the parallel universe of old Mego playsets with the transporter on the bridge and Gold Key comics.
In short, Abrams has shown himself supremely competent at giving people--even smart people--the dumb entertainment they want.
I posted this over in the DS9 forum in response to another fan's allergic reaction to dumb but it goes triple for you: I feel your pain. I loved this movie as an entertainment--it reminded me of the days we'd play phaser fight in a darkened basement using Trek and Space: 1999 toy pistols--but I have absolutely no respect for it. It's like a really hot and really dumb stripper in that regard--very stimualting to the senses but it does absolutely nothing for the intellect. Of course, I'll go the library if I want my intellect stroked. This movie was more like a trip to the champagne room.
EDIT: To reteun to an earlier analogy you found useful, Pirates of the Caribbean made a fuck-and-a-half-load more than Master & Commander. Domestically, poor Capatn Aubrey didn't make his money back. Meanwhile, Capatin Jack Sparrow can afford eye-liner made from the charred remains of virgins sacrified to the volcano gods.
SF that takes itself at all seriously will always have a tough row to hoe. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, that's why TOS was a bottom-third rated show which guys like Abrams found "talky." So he made the Star Trek he wanted instead, the only Trek movie dumber than TFF (I never would have thought that possible, btw) and not only does he have an overwhelming critical and box office success, he has die-hard fans of Trek telling each other that Star Trek was always this stupid. Yes, it was, if by Star Trek they mean the parallel universe of old Mego playsets with the transporter on the bridge and Gold Key comics.
In short, Abrams has shown himself supremely competent at giving people--even smart people--the dumb entertainment they want.
I posted this over in the DS9 forum in response to another fan's allergic reaction to dumb but it goes triple for you: I feel your pain. I loved this movie as an entertainment--it reminded me of the days we'd play phaser fight in a darkened basement using Trek and Space: 1999 toy pistols--but I have absolutely no respect for it. It's like a really hot and really dumb stripper in that regard--very stimualting to the senses but it does absolutely nothing for the intellect. Of course, I'll go the library if I want my intellect stroked. This movie was more like a trip to the champagne room.
EDIT: To reteun to an earlier analogy you found useful, Pirates of the Caribbean made a fuck-and-a-half-load more than Master & Commander. Domestically, poor Capatn Aubrey didn't make his money back. Meanwhile, Capatin Jack Sparrow can afford eye-liner made from the charred remains of virgins sacrified to the volcano gods.
Last edited:
Uh, Brutal, TOS's ratings were actually middling to good throughout it's original run - and, of course, it was legendary once it was in syndication. The only reason it's considered 'lower rung' now is because it's been played pretty much non-stop in some capacity for forty years running. Not even shows like the Twilight Zone can quite make that claim.
Ha, yeah I'll give you that one - something of an eye-rolling moment for me as well - and, of course, actually predicting what Roddenberry would have done is impossible and pointless. I might be a gusher - actually I think I'm somewhere in between gusher and you. I had my nitpicks, but I enjoyed the movie a great deal. If all Star Trek had been like Abrams' Star Trek, I think I would have watched it, but would never have been such a devotee. Still, TOS means a lot to me, maybe not as much as it does to the OP, but I do feel a little sad that he couldn't enjoy it - not that I'm going to tell him he should - clearly our tastes are very different.
Not to single you out in particular, but as a sentiment, please do get over yourself.
Dumb? Star Trek? W T F
Warp 10 Salamada? Do klingons take prisoners or what? Is there a barrier at the edge of the galaxy? There is? Bollocks!
The smart fans want to see the Enterprise gang having more outings, and if it takes dumb entertainment to do that, why not? Entertainment is entertainment is it not?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I think that means you might be the most balanced person on the board.
You can have your cake and eat it, but you don't eat so much that you find yourself throwing up, either on yourself or those around you.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Depends on how dumb you are, I'd guess. Not knowing you, well ...
trevanian
Rear Admiral
If that were the case, it would not have been CANCELLED during its second season, only to be brought back due to the first mail-in campaign. And the lousy ratings stayed lousy through the third year.
Warped, forgive me for pointing this out, but the name of this thread, which was started by you, is "What's keeping me out of the theatre..." So you knew you didn't want to see this movie. But you went anyway.
Now, I have no problem with people not wanting to see the movie. I am going to see it, long-time (and I do mean "long") fan who enjoys continuity though I am, but I can understand why other people wouldn't.
So...why did you go? You just couldn't stand not seeing it for yourself? But you knew you were going to hate it, so why did you go? I'm not criticising you...I'd really like to know why.
Now, I have no problem with people not wanting to see the movie. I am going to see it, long-time (and I do mean "long") fan who enjoys continuity though I am, but I can understand why other people wouldn't.
So...why did you go? You just couldn't stand not seeing it for yourself? But you knew you were going to hate it, so why did you go? I'm not criticising you...I'd really like to know why.
Last edited:
trevanian
Rear Admiral
And yet anybody on this board who makes that claim about TREK gets a zillion gushers going for the throat, saying you can't evaluate it on the basis of some clips. Lovin' that double standard.
I didn't love the movie, yet find myself most simpatico with the gushers.
What does that say about me? (Nothing good, I'm sure.
)
The thread title only means that he wouldn't see it in the theater, not that he wouldn't see it at all.
I didn't love the movie, yet find myself most simpatico with the gushers.
What does that say about me? (Nothing good, I'm sure.
He did qualify that with "I think", followed by a "might".
Also, the mail-in campaign wasn't a huge fan movement. It's more of a testament to copy machines and ditto paper.
