Yeah, the more I think about GEN, flawed as it is, it comes out slightly ahead of XI. GEN had more heart even if it was botched in many respects, Soran at least had understandable motivations for what he did and why and the characters shined more than in XI. It wasn't all wham!bam! ACTION
I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.
- Thread starter Gepard
- Start date
Rose, I love your avatar
I am having a hard time fitting the movie into the rest of the overall feel of the previous series and movies, it just seems... off
I know people are vehemently denying this movie is a Trek Lite or something very akin to Star Wars, but I earnestly think it is moving Trek in that direction. Space opera != Science fiction, after all.
LOL thanks. I can't take credit for making it. It's been floating around LiveJournal for yearsssss now.
And I too, have a difficult time fitting ST: 09 into the rest, but I gauged it on how it made me feel, how likely I'd be to watch it over and over and over again, the dialogue between these much beloved characters, and a few other intangibles that are best summed up as gut feelings.
Yeah, Generations is looking a lot more appealing since this new Trek.
Rose, I love your avatar
I am having a hard time fitting the movie into the rest of the overall feel of the previous series and movies, it just seems... off
I know people are vehemently denying this movie is a Trek Lite or something very akin to Star Wars, but I earnestly think it is moving Trek in that direction. Space opera != Science fiction, after all.
This is why I was asking about other people's favourite Trek movies. I mean, I know Trek XI has a weak plot, but none of the Trek movies, to my memory, have been hard science fiction, so I don't understand this complaint.
Rose, I love your avatar
I am having a hard time fitting the movie into the rest of the overall feel of the previous series and movies, it just seems... off
I know people are vehemently denying this movie is a Trek Lite or something very akin to Star Wars, but I earnestly think it is moving Trek in that direction. Space opera != Science fiction, after all.
This is why I was asking about other people's favourite Trek movies. I mean, I know Trek XI has a weak plot, but none of the Trek movies, to my memory, have been hard science fiction, so I don't understand this complaint.
I think it's the amount of action and the style it was shot in that contributes to the "it's like Star Wars" complaint, rather than the actual substance of the plot or the content (or that the action was more the focus of the movie rather than the content).
I don't want to speak for everyone, but that would be my guess, based on what I've heard from fellow fans.
I agree with you. I think a small percentage of the people who dislike the movie, dislike it simply for the action sequences. Because they don't like the cover of the book and are unwilling or unable to look deeper.
Rose, I love your avatar
I am having a hard time fitting the movie into the rest of the overall feel of the previous series and movies, it just seems... off
I know people are vehemently denying this movie is a Trek Lite or something very akin to Star Wars, but I earnestly think it is moving Trek in that direction. Space opera != Science fiction, after all.
This is why I was asking about other people's favourite Trek movies. I mean, I know Trek XI has a weak plot, but none of the Trek movies, to my memory, have been hard science fiction, so I don't understand this complaint.
Hard science fiction as in some aspects of Armor and maybe Asimov? No, even the Honorverse is harder than Star Trek. But the distinction between even soft sci-fi and space opera is very, very pronounced.
http://www.writing-world.com/sf/sf.shtml
Sci-Fi: Built around conveying ideas, philosophies, and hypotheticals in a futuristic world that allows one to work with these ideas
Space Opera: Built to stir emotion in a futuristic setting, revolves around low drama and action.
It's the difference between Star Trek (Sci-fi, though perhaps softer sci-fi) and Star Wars (Space Opera through and through)
I don't think it's that at all. I think a legitimate criticism can be made against a movie when the action is given precedence over substance and plot. If some people believe that it what happened here, I think you could see how they arrived at that conclusion, when comparing this new movie against previous ones.
For me the problem is not that it's not hard science fiction, it's more that the plot implausibilities were big enough to hinder my suspension of disbelief.
And I think the following Trek movies are better than IX: TUC, TWoK, TSFS, TVH, FC and GEN. I can't remember INS or NEM well enough to compare, since I only saw them once, and TFF was probably worse.
As I've said elsewhere, I think Trek works best on the small screen as a tv series rather than as a film franchise. The last one I walked a way from having just seen that left me wholly satisfied was TUC.
I know many love FC but I don't think it was great. Looking back now it looks better compared to stuff I've seen over the years as far as films but it still had issues that irk me to this day--the all too brief battle in the beginning, the introduction of an overly emotional Queen who behaves like a scorned woman who gets pissy over Picard's rebuke so she finds another stud in Data, the retconning of Locutus as a counterpart king, some of the forced humor and aspects of Cochrane. There were certain things I loved like the score which is only second to Jones' BoBW efforts, Lily, the underlying message of the film.
I know many love FC but I don't think it was great. Looking back now it looks better compared to stuff I've seen over the years as far as films but it still had issues that irk me to this day--the all too brief battle in the beginning, the introduction of an overly emotional Queen who behaves like a scorned woman who gets pissy over Picard's rebuke so she finds another stud in Data, the retconning of Locutus as a counterpart king, some of the forced humor and aspects of Cochrane. There were certain things I loved like the score which is only second to Jones' BoBW efforts, Lily, the underlying message of the film.
I agree completely. I know the importance of Vulcan to the Federation and yet I felt NOTHING when Vulcan was destroyed. You're right, we see no cities or Vulcan people whatsoever so when the planet is destroyed, we don't care. Most people would think it's a barren planet anyways! The entire bridge should have stopped what they were doing and just gasped at what they were seeing. We should have felt something. The music should have built.
It comes back to not establishing what the Federation is and what it stands for in this film. Why is Vulcan so important? And you're right, after Vulcan is destroyed, they just move on and go back to comedy. There should have been a scene after Vulcan is destroyed where Acting Captain Spock says to Uhura, "Get me Starfleet Command" and then there is communication between Enterprise and Admirals and Vulcan Ambassadors on Earth. And Spock could warn them that "We were unable to stop Nero. We believe he is on course for Earth..." Suspense! Emotion! That in itself would establish how everyone is working together on the same side (a Star Trek theme). Damn, this movie could have been a great Star Trek movie.
Wow, DiS, you sure do love to reach sometimes
Seriously though, the Star Wars criticism is a valid one. From the thematic qualities of the film to character interaction to the plot itself, the whole thing is more reminiscent of a space opera and not a proper science fiction, and specifically Trek science fiction, film.
Seriously?
Nero and Soran had the same motivation.
Nobody but Picard, Data, Soran & Guinan had a part in Generations......and Guinan isn't even a main cast member.
Nero is symbolistic of Capt. Nemo.
His ship resembled a squid, similar to the original designs of the Nautilus.
J.J. Abrams used actual literary influence to create the character and motivation behind him.
The Wrath of Khan. It's the gold standard of Trek movies.
I think the classic definition of science fiction as original adapted by Carl Sagan, Issac Asimov, Dan Simmons, Gene Roddenberry and other great authors of the last 50 years has for the most part been lost or abused by modern filmakers.
Let's look at the definition of "science fiction":
Past Star Trek productions sometimes ventured outside this definition in order to advance the plot, usually to a very poor result. The best of ST stayed within the bounds of defined science fiction and intricately wove it into the story so that it was ever present yet mostly subtle. However, characer and plot delvelopment was never forgoten, the aspect sci-fi tech served as platform for the story to build upon.
I know this is a tired comparison but ST II: TWOK executed this beautifully, which is why it's such and enduring film. I could qoute other examples but the main point is that ST franchise was at it's best when it strove to meet these goals.
Alas, those days are gone. Hoepfully not forever.
Yes but the writers at least attempted to give some depth to his loss and why he wanted to return to the Nexus. I could understand that and relate to the character. Nero, on the otherhand, I could have cared less about because he was a Threat[TM] and an action figure with no depth.
But they at least had some depth in those scenes. There was emotion. Picard's loss wasn't just treated as one of a thousand plot points. It actually resonated and tied into greater themes. The writers stopped and made me feel and think.
Amanda's death, Vulcan's destruction were there for the big bang not any relevant emotional payoff or reflection. It didn't move me or stun me beyond the actual boldness of the idea itself. That is what elevates GEN over XI in that regard.
And I could care less if Abrams used Nemo and literary sources to guide his influence on Nero. You couldn't tell from the shallow characterization.
Sorry but I could tell right away, Nemo is written the same way.
A man of few words, even mysterous. That's why in the story, those that came onboard this ship had no idea of how sinister he was until he revealed his plot of revenge.
Actually Gene really isn't considered much respected because he only had ONE HUGE SUCCESS in his life time and things like Andromeda and Earth: Final Conflict were written by others based off his ideas. Most of Gene's early work wasn't even Sci Fi, it was Westerns and Cop shows. The few Sci Fi's he did write were dissmal failures except in the case of Star Trek with them usually only getting a pilot episode and then buried in obscurity.
I think he's been surpassed by people like Frank Herbert, Anne McCaffery, Alan Dean Scott. Who have all written and created much more successful Sci Fi stories like Dune, Dragon Riders of Pern, and Star Wolves. IMHO.
I'm with you on those other guys though.
BTW Star Trek: TWOK was Written by a person who wasn't a fan of trek.
He was also more well known for his Television writing and Production.
Sound familiar here?
I think he's been surpassed by people like Frank Herbert, Anne McCaffery, Alan Dean Scott. Who have all written and created much more successful Sci Fi stories like Dune, Dragon Riders of Pern, and Star Wolves. IMHO.
I'm with you on those other guys though.
BTW Star Trek: TWOK was Written by a person who wasn't a fan of trek.
He was also more well known for his Television writing and Production.
Sound familiar here?
Good because I couldn't if you hadn't bothered to relay that from an article you read.
Ah, Dune... sweet, sweet Dune. Pure and true, with an awesome mini-series.
Similar threads
