I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

[TheGodBen]

Re: Cut the budget and just WRITE something worth watching.

The characters have been introduced in an entertaining way, paving the way for having your cake and eating it too.

Cake can be good but it works best after a good meal, on its own it leaves me wanting more. Now if I was after having a nice plate of chicken in black bean sauce then I might like a slice of cake afterwards, but I wouldn't want cake to be the whole meal.

 

[Borgminister]

Re: Cut the budget and just WRITE something worth watching.

The characters have been introduced in an entertaining way, paving the way for having your cake and eating it too.

Cake can be good but it works best after a good meal, on its own it leaves me wanting more. Now if I was after having a nice plate of chicken in black bean sauce then I might like a slice of cake afterwards, but I wouldn't want cake to be the whole meal.

Hopefully you know how I meant the metaphor. Win-win.

By the way, I DO want more after this movie.

 

[exodus]

Re: Cut the budget and just WRITE something worth watching.

The characters have been introduced in an entertaining way, paving the way for having your cake and eating it too.

Cake can be good but it works best after a good meal, on its own it leaves me wanting more. Now if I was after having a nice plate of chicken in black bean sauce then I might like a slice of cake afterwards, but I wouldn't want cake to be the whole meal.

In showbiz: "leaving them wanting more." was a good way to get an audience to return for more.

 

[Butters]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

[

The problem is though; there are no fresh ideas. Star Trek isn't fresh; it's just more stale, meaningless, SFX reels strung together by juvenile jokes. It's a parody of itself. JJ Abrams produced Galaxy Quest 2, and slapped Star Trek on it. In fact, Galaxy Quest deserves the title Star Trek more than JJ's shit.

Rarther than repost the whole post...

I found the jokes funny, mostly, but I've got to query your assertion that its meaningless.

Its a film, a story, a tale of how our team got together. You talk of layers of meaning, of intelligence, but where?

What you might see as layers of meaning, I might call patronising pap. What you might call shit loads of intelligence, I might say 'where'?

Please show me when Trek was Trek. Show me the layers of themes, the deep meaning, the real charaters and this all important intelligence.

Gimme five intelligent stories with these multilayered themes.

 

[Ryan S]

Ok, since I am in the minority and will continue to draw alot of fire for my opinion on this film and what it's done to this franchise let me say this: I was very optomistic and open minded about this film. I was initally awed and inspired by the opening sequence, even with it's flaws.

As I this movie droned on the inital high quickly started to fade and I just couldn't get past the gaffs in the characters, tech, plot holes, cinematography, lackluster score, everything! If any one area had been weak, as most feature films are, then fine I could looked past that. Everything was bad.

Enjoying a sci-fi movie requires some suspension of disbelief, the movie should help us along in that regard, not challenge us at every turn!

In my opinion the audience for STXI is split into three camps:

1. The regular summer action flick audience (Paramouns' profit center) that have never seen or have never had a real interest in Star Trek. They'll enjoy it as a visually enertaining romp, walk out, and forget it.
2. The die hard purists who not only won't accept the 'new' universe but what Abrams and company have done to the franchise.
3. The middle of the road ST fans who are just happy someone has done SOMETHING to resurrect the series.

It's the last group that I think will eventually turn on STXI. Many will go back and dig out their movies, start wathcing the series on TV, and so on. After a while STXI will be seen for what it is, which I've already discussed in detail.

I personally don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that this has Star Wars: Episode One written all over it, though probably to a lesser degree. You just could not criticize it at the time of it's release without being mercilessly attacked. Eventually sanity returned and it was seen for what it is, even by the die hard Star Wars fans.

 

[anothertrekfan]

Well the whole point of this movie was to reintroduce us to the original characters and to revive interest in the franchise. I see Star Wars EP1 as an introduction and as such it is a great movie. I see this new Trek as an introduction too and as such it blows away EP1 to the ends of the universe! You have to start somewhere and now that the introduction is over I truly believe we will see "classic" Trek in the sequel.

 

[Cryogenic]

Your exteremely overbearing need to aggressively put down an entire canon of films, made by hundreds of incredibly talented individuals, whose efforts have enriched (and continue to enrich) the lives of many, is sad.

If Star Trek XI entertains people, more power to it. But it is an incredibly superficial piece of cinema, far inferior to even the worst of the preceding Trek movies, in my opinion.

In all fairness, isn't your last statement doing exactly what you accused cmdrbolly of in the paragraph before it?

No, it most certainly is not. I merely appended my opinion at the end of a calm and rational response to cmdrbolly ... something he is unable to extend to others.

If Star Trek XI entertains people, more power to it.

Exactly--it sets the stage for an even better follow up.

But it is an incredibly superficial piece of cinema, far inferior to even the worst of the preceding Trek movies, in my opinion.

Yup--Kirk's father's sacrifice in the face of certain death, Pike's mentoring of Kirk as father figure, Spock's profound loss of his mother and home planet--superficial as hell.

So funny how it is so binary to many who so passionately expound their views here; the truth often lies in between, and so it is with this movie.

Thanks for the totally superfluous laughter emoticon -- I already get it that you're another superficial dunderhead who'd rather use derision than employ understanding.

You hastily and ignorantly decided I was talking about subject matter. I was not. I was talking about presentation. In the words of Roger Ebert: a film is not about what it's about, it's about how it's about it.

Oh, and as I indicated with use of the phrase "in my opinion", I was giving my opinion, not expounding on a matter of objective fact, which you seem to have gotten confused in your response.

 

[exodus]

Your exteremely overbearing need to aggressively put down an entire canon of films, made by hundreds of incredibly talented individuals, whose efforts have enriched (and continue to enrich) the lives of many, is sad.

If Star Trek XI entertains people, more power to it. But it is an incredibly superficial piece of cinema, far inferior to even the worst of the preceding Trek movies, in my opinion.

In all fairness, isn't your last statement doing exactly what you accused cmdrbolly of in the paragraph before it?

No, it most certainly is not. I merely appended my opinion at the end of a calm and rational response to cmdrbolly ... something he is unable to extend to others.

That very well may have been your intent but that isn't how it came off.

BTW, flaming a MOD, bad form dude. Very bad.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Re: Cut the budget and just WRITE something worth watching.

I'm of the opinion that they could've cut 1/2 of the budget, and thus most of the beautiful but ultimately pointless CGI, and just written something fresh and compelling and logical. A strong character driven story that preserved the core elements of ST would have worked. I'm not a writer (like that's not obvious from my posts) so I don't claim it's a easy task but I think it would have been a better apporach to 'rebooting' the franchise. Of course it was never meant to be, Paramount wanted a big money summer popcorn flick at any cost and they got.

What you're asking for are the exact reasons nobody outside the die hard fan base likes Trek. The majority find Trek boring and wish Trek did have more action. Paramount knows Trek needs to find a audience outside the fanbase because purist are abandoning Trek. Paramount believes Trek and whatever it's about should be shared by all, not just the fans.

Of course Paramount believes that - because Trek "being shared by all" works out for them at $12 a head.

Really, if we're not ascribing any highminded notions to the writers and directors of Trek, let's not ascribe any to the studio, which could not be more obvious about the fact that they want Trek to turn a massive profit, and they're happy to morph it into whatever will do that. Bully for them. They are a business after all. The question is, do I want to give them any more of my money for this product? Plenty of people are shouting a resounding yes - again, bully for them.

Is it wrong to have a fun action film if it draws new people in to go back & discover the deeper meaning Trek does have? Would it for once be nice to talk Trek with other people outside of a message board where only fans gather?

I could not care less about talking about Trek with people outside the fanbase. When it comes to developing my social networks talking about Trek does not even appear on the list.

And a fun action film is fine - I love a fun action film. The problem is this one falls apart in the second half, robbing it of the fun as it became eye-rollingly silly and predictable in the vein of such stinkers as Armageddon. Fanboys hate that movie, but they seem plenty willing to forgive similar flaws in this flick (pointlessly reckless and rebellious hero with paper thin character development, outrageously ridiculous plot contrived to pitch the ensemble of characters from one ever so exciting action sequence to the next) because it has the name Star Trek slapped on it. Everyone's jumping up and down because Star Trek will live on, and apparently the important part of that is simply that some sort of cinematic production with that name will continue to make Paramount money.

 

[exodus]

Re: Cut the budget and just WRITE something worth watching.

I'm of the opinion that they could've cut 1/2 of the budget, and thus most of the beautiful but ultimately pointless CGI, and just written something fresh and compelling and logical. A strong character driven story that preserved the core elements of ST would have worked. I'm not a writer (like that's not obvious from my posts) so I don't claim it's a easy task but I think it would have been a better apporach to 'rebooting' the franchise. Of course it was never meant to be, Paramount wanted a big money summer popcorn flick at any cost and they got.

What you're asking for are the exact reasons nobody outside the die hard fan base likes Trek. The majority find Trek boring and wish Trek did have more action. Paramount knows Trek needs to find a audience outside the fanbase because purist are abandoning Trek. Paramount believes Trek and whatever it's about should be shared by all, not just the fans.

Of course Paramount believes that - because Trek "being shared by all" works out for them at $12 a head.

Really, if we're not ascribing any highminded notions to the writers and directors of Trek, let's not ascribe any to the studio, which could not be more obvious about the fact that they want Trek to turn a massive profit, and they're happy to morph it into whatever will do that. Bully for them. They are a business after all. The question is, do I want to give them any more of my money for this product? Plenty of people are shouting a resounding yes - again, bully for them.

Is it wrong to have a fun action film if it draws new people in to go back & discover the deeper meaning Trek does have? Would it for once be nice to talk Trek with other people outside of a message board where only fans gather?

I could not care less about talking about Trek with people outside the fanbase. When it comes to developing my social networks talking about Trek does not even appear on the list.

And a fun action film is fine - I love a fun action film. The problem is this one falls apart in the second half, robbing it of the fun as it became eye-rollingly silly and predictable in the vein of such stinkers as Armageddon. Fanboys hate that movie, but they seem plenty willing to forgive similar flaws in this flick (pointlessly reckless and rebellious hero with paper thin character development, outrageously ridiculous plot contrived to pitch the ensemble of characters from one ever so exciting action sequence to the next) because it has the name Star Trek slapped on it. Everyone's jumping up and down because Star Trek will live on, and apparently the important part of that is simply that some sort of cinematic production with that name will continue to make Paramount money.

In your own words, Bully for you.

 

[Opus]

In my opinion the audience for STXI is split into three camps:

1. The regular summer action flick audience (Paramouns' profit center) that have never seen or have never had a real interest in Star Trek. They'll enjoy it as a visually enertaining romp, walk out, and forget it.
2. The die hard purists who not only won't accept the 'new' universe but what Abrams and company have done to the franchise.
3. The middle of the road ST fans who are just happy someone has done SOMETHING to resurrect the series.

It's the last group that I think will eventually turn on STXI. Many will go back and dig out their movies, start wathcing the series on TV, and so on. After a while STXI will be seen for what it is, which I've already discussed in detail.

I personally don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that this has Star Wars: Episode One written all over it, though probably to a lesser degree. You just could not criticize it at the time of it's release without being mercilessly attacked. Eventually sanity returned and it was seen for what it is, even by the die hard Star Wars fans.

I think you forgot one group: Diehard Trek fans who have seen all Trek that has come before and embraces the new direction and new movie with open arms. These new fans actually saw that Berman era Trek, though good for its time, had gotten stagnant and Trek needed a bold new direction. They wanted GOOD Trek again, and this movie of Abrams et al delivers just that for them.

In that sense, this movie is not Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. It's actually like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Purists in the Star Trek fandom didn't care for this movie at first either, and they were a small but vocal minority too.

 

[3D Master]

If Star Trek XI entertains people, more power to it.

Exactly--it sets the stage for an even better follow up.

But it is an incredibly superficial piece of cinema, far inferior to even the worst of the preceding Trek movies, in my opinion.

Yup--Kirk's father's sacrifice in the face of certain death, Pike's mentoring of Kirk as father figure,

Pike and Kirk should not have any contact at all until Kirk takes over the Enterprise if even then. This is a clear example of the bullshit "destiny" crap that is as fleeting thin as anything else. It's bad fanfic mary sue writing. Look; he/she has contact with everyone, knows everyone - even though it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Spock's profound loss of his mother and home planet--superficial as hell.

They were making jokes only moments after the planet blew up. Remember that whole deal about about oBSG being so unrealistic because "they went to a casino planet, and being all joyful"? And how so much superior the nBSG show was therefor?

Well, making jokes moments after a planet with billions of people die, makes the oBSG casino planet look like nBSG in comparison.

Oddly enough, it seems all those who are heralding nBSG and deriding oBSG for exactly the above reasons, now have the audacity to claim Star Trek profound on the same.

So funny how it is so binary to many who so passionately expound their views here; the truth often lies in between, and so it is with this movie.

Successfully (re)introducing the public to the world of Star Trek so entertainingly and still incorporating signature Trek values is a major accomplishment on the part of all concerned.

The next movie can go deeper--I just hope it doesn't get ploddingly pedantic and sink again in the process.

They did NOT incorporate ANYTHING of the signature Trek values. All the Trek values were ripped to shreds and tossed out the window.

What you're asking for are the exact reasons nobody outside the die hard fan base likes Trek. The majority find Trek boring and wish Trek did have more action. Paramount knows Trek needs to find a audience outside the fanbase because purist are abandoning Trek. Paramount believes Trek and whatever it's about should be shared by all, not just the fans.

Is it wrong to have a fun action film if it draws new people in to go back & discover the deeper meaning Trek does have?

None of those people will go back and discover the deeper meaning of Trek. Hell, even while watching the new "summer popcorn flick" they happily continue deriding the old Trek and fans of old Trek, and how much superior the empty SFX scene after SFX scene strung together by humor is to the "old boring stuff". Do you really think people like that, are now going back to see he old stuff? And hell, IF at least continuity was kept, there might have been SOME incentive the watch "the old boring stuff", to figure out what else happened to these characters, but with the old blatant alternat timeline they don't even need to do that, because all of that did NOT happen to the characters.

Well, except maybe Enterprise, but that's a pile of crap, the one thing that should have been ignored and forgotten.

Would it for once be nice to talk Trek with other people outside of a message board where only fans gather?

No, I quite have enough of gushing about the empty SFX fest on the message board. To hear it at work as well would only get worse.

[

The problem is though; there are no fresh ideas. Star Trek isn't fresh; it's just more stale, meaningless, SFX reels strung together by juvenile jokes. It's a parody of itself. JJ Abrams produced Galaxy Quest 2, and slapped Star Trek on it. In fact, Galaxy Quest deserves the title Star Trek more than JJ's shit.

Rarther than repost the whole post...

I found the jokes funny, mostly, but I've got to query your assertion that its meaningless.

Its a film, a story, a tale of how our team got together.

The team didn't get together. The team got force together through "destiny". On top of that, the team is not meant to get together. They just happen to have been posted to the same ship, and some people transferred off, and new ones got back in. Such is real life on a military ship.

You talk of layers of meaning, of intelligence, but where?

What you might see as layers of meaning, I might call patronising pap. What you might call shit loads of intelligence, I might say 'where'?

Please show me when Trek was Trek. Show me the layers of themes, the deep meaning, the real charaters and this all important intelligence.

Gimme five intelligent stories with these multilayered themes.

If you don't understand where they are, you're either a. not intelligent enough to grasp them, or b. no fan at all. A fan wouldn't have to explain the bleeding obvious to another fan. But if you must know, let's name just four of countless:

1. ST:TMP: were we made in god's likeness, or do we make our gods in our likeness? And that's just the beginning; it's only the major theme, which is deep on its own.

2. ST:Generations: Time and how it effects people; what is paradise?; along with a whole slew of character developments.

3. ST: First Contact: how revenge effects us; hero(religious)-worship yay or nay.

4. ST:TNG - First Contact: Are infiltration missions into primitive societies really the way to go? When and how is a society / culture ready to embrace the unknown, the new, and the different?

 

[exodus]

None of those people will go back and discover the deeper meaning of Trek. Hell, even while watching the new "summer popcorn flick" they happily continue deriding the old Trek and fans of old Trek, and how much superior the empty SFX scene after SFX scene strung together by humor is to the "old boring stuff". Do you really think people like that, are now going back to see he old stuff? And hell, IF at least continuity was kept, there might have been SOME incentive the watch "the old boring stuff", to figure out what else happened to these characters, but with the old blatant alternat timeline they don't even need to do that, because all of that did NOT happen to the characters.

I can only speak from my own personal experance on this. The majority of people I know who are fans and/or have more than just a passing fimilarity with did became so due to the film(s), then went back to enjoy the shows. So I don't believe "none" of them will.

...and if they just like it for the SFX, then so what? It's clear we all like things for different reasons. So me personally, I don't care why they liked it, I just enjoy the fact they did.

 

[ST-One]

None of those people will go back and discover the deeper meaning of Trek. Hell, even while watching the new "summer popcorn flick" they happily continue deriding the old Trek and fans of old Trek, and how much superior the empty SFX scene after SFX scene strung together by humor is to the "old boring stuff". Do you really think people like that, are now going back to see he old stuff? And hell, IF at least continuity was kept, there might have been SOME incentive the watch "the old boring stuff", to figure out what else happened to these characters, but with the old blatant alternat timeline they don't even need to do that, because all of that did NOT happen to the characters.

I can only speak from my own personal experance on this. The majority of people I know who are fans and/or have more than just a passing fimilarity with did became so due to the film(s), then went back to enjoy the shows. So I don't believe "none" of them will.

...and if they just like it for the SFX, then so what? It's clear we all like things for different reasons. So me personally, I don't care why they liked it, I just enjoy the fact they did.

Indeed.
Hell, I didn't become a fan at the age of seven because of some greater underlying moral meaning in Trek. I was just fascinated by that gigantic green hand holding the Enterprise in deep space (Who Mourns For Adonais was my first episode).

 

[EnsignRicky]

I thought for the most part it was an enjoyable film; My concern lies with the sequel. After thinking about it, once you remove the reintroduction to old characters novelty, the rest of the movie is essentially the same piece of crap that Nemesis was, with gags lifted right out of Galaxy Quest sprinkled throughout for good measure.

Since this is the first outing, I have no real problem with giving it a pass, hell TMP wasn't much to beam home about at the time. But if the next one doesn't deliver something really special and unique, we won't have to keep debating what to call this altered universe; It will simply be known as those two weird Trek movies that came out in the early twenty first century.

 

[Delta1]

Indeed.
Hell, I didn't become a fan at the age of seven because of some greater underlying moral meaning in Trek. I was just fascinated by that gigantic green hand holding the Enterprise in deep space (Who Mourns For Adonais was my first episode).

If the show had only been hands and other body parts floating through space, would you still be a fan today? Would there have been films, TNG, and a reboot if the series had nothing to commend it but hands in space? It seems self-evident that, for all its superficial charms, there was a deeper meaningfulness to Star Trek that many people find absent in the new movie.

I haven't seen Star Trek yet--work and Mother's Day had priority--but the negative reviews, and the detailed positive reviews, make this film sound like loud, shiny hands flying through space cracking jokes and ham-handedly tugging on the occasional heartstring. Even the positive reviews generally describe a movie I suspect I would not particularly enjoy, and a movie that would be inconsequential if not for the fact that it bears the Star Trek label.

I wonder how this movie will be regarded once the collective effervescence wears off. "Popcorn flicks" kind of fall by the wayside once the popcorn runs out.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

It is what it is. I saw it, I laughed some, I shook my head some, I'll watch it one more time on DVD and then wait for the next one. Star Trek comes and Star Trek goes but the dream lives on.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

[

The problem is though; there are no fresh ideas. Star Trek isn't fresh; it's just more stale, meaningless, SFX reels strung together by juvenile jokes. It's a parody of itself. JJ Abrams produced Galaxy Quest 2, and slapped Star Trek on it. In fact, Galaxy Quest deserves the title Star Trek more than JJ's shit.

Rarther than repost the whole post...

I found the jokes funny, mostly, but I've got to query your assertion that its meaningless.

Its a film, a story, a tale of how our team got together. You talk of layers of meaning, of intelligence, but where?

What you might see as layers of meaning, I might call patronising pap. What you might call shit loads of intelligence, I might say 'where'?

Please show me when Trek was Trek. Show me the layers of themes, the deep meaning, the real charaters and this all important intelligence.

Gimme five intelligent stories with these multilayered themes.

Let me begin by saying - you have a point. A point I've often made myself. Trek is not Shakespeare and it's depth is pop at best. But, once upon a time it was good science fiction, mostly of the HG Wells, rather than Asimov/ Heinlein school.

As for 5 intelligent stories, well time constrains me to only three, but there are more:

Th Enemy Within - a surprisingly sharp Jungian look at human psychology. Kirk is split into Ego and Shadow. Making the point that every good man has a savage inside capable of criminal acts, the show does not roundly condemn that side of ourselves, instead the final conclusion is that the Shadow holds vital parts of a person's strengths. That was then and still is relatively complex for filmed entertainment.

This Side of Paradise - beginning with the premise we all fantasize about - wouldn't it be great if we were perfectly happy and healthy, this episode advances a relatively simple idea of the Protestant work ethic (Sandoval's angst that they haven't accomplished anything on the colony), but character bits bring complexity to the concept as Spock, to be himself, must give up bliss, and Kirk and McCoy reference Genesis with the conclusion that humanity chooses to challenge itself by doing things like going into space - this is a subtle criticism of the very Protestantism that supplies the episode's other theme. Humanity is not damned to suffering by God, humanity chooses struggle because it creates growth.

And here's one of Trek's cheesiest episodes displaying hidden depths

The Way to Eden explores charismatic leaders and counter culture movements. Our hero is cast as an uptight, rule-following, military jarhead by the space hippies - Kirk is the representative of conventional society. As the charismatic leader is shown to have led his followers down the primrose path and to be dangerously contagious himself, it might seem this tale is a simplistic condemnation of counter culture ideas. Except Spock reaches - and represents a dedication to a spiritual idealism and quest for a better society regardless of outer differences, like flowerchild outfits and military uniforms.

This is Trek's strength, not some super intellectualism, but being able to explore interesting societal and psychological themes in the midst of multicolor adventure. Abrams' Trek got the multicolor adventure right (sort of, it's still a fundamentally flawed plot structure and thus not a great movie), he just forgot to have any interesting ideas at all, other than the most rote buddy movie, I love you, Man, bromance bs.

 

[Borgminister]

Thanks for the totally superfluous laughter emoticon -- I already get it that you're another superficial dunderhead who'd rather use derision than employ understanding.

How incredibly ironic.

Oh, and as I indicated with use of the phrase "in my opinion", I was giving my opinion, not expounding on a matter of objective fact, which you seem to have gotten confused in your response.

I don't feel compelled to preface my opinion with "in my opinion" OR "my opinion".

"In my opinion", that's how I'd present it, were it not incredibly redundant to do so anyway, since everyone already assumes that's what your giving anyway.

I'm not blond, by the way...

 

[exodus]

Indeed.
Hell, I didn't become a fan at the age of seven because of some greater underlying moral meaning in Trek. I was just fascinated by that gigantic green hand holding the Enterprise in deep space (Who Mourns For Adonais was my first episode).

If the show had only been hands and other body parts floating through space, would you still be a fan today? Would there have been films, TNG, and a reboot if the series had nothing to commend it but hands in space? It seems self-evident that, for all its superficial charms, there was a deeper meaningfulness to Star Trek that many people find absent in the new movie.

Come on, are we scraping the bottom of the barrell to go as far as to question what made people watch Trek now?

I mean seriously?

Not everybody watches it for intellectual enlightenment, some just watch because it entertaining. Besides, Trek doesn't teach anything that shouldn't have already been taught by our parents. You shouldn't have to took to TV to teach people how to get along with each other.