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

[TheGodBen]

He was not the perfect writer/creator that many claim, in fact i think some of his ideas for future Trek films are worse than the drivel currently in the cinema- Spock travelling back in time to kill JFK anyone? i'd rather stick with Darth Nero.

Sorry, but that's something you have to cite sources on.

It s story which has been going around for some time, it seems legit. Here's an article about it.

Paramount rejected the idea, and they soon turned to Harve Bennett to produce The Wrath of Khan. Roddenberry felt extremely hurt, and he took the rejection and demotion to "executive consultant" personally. An ensuing period of intense depression was accompanied by increased alcohol and cocaine abuse.

It seems more likely that the cocaine and alcohol abuse might have started before he wrote the script, not after.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

GodBen,

The key word is "increased"...

 

[TheGodBen]

The key word is "increased"...

Touché.

 

[3D Master]

I've viewed them all over a dozen times. The lessons were never "deep" (and rarely subtle--they appeared both when I was much younger, though). I also think that any "lessons" were secondary to the primary goal of entertaining the viewers. Perhaps my point was not as clear as it should have been--I take issue with the idea that the purpose of Star Trek was to be a deep fount of lessons on morality and ethics. Any such lessons were incidental to the goal of entertaining the viewers and making money.

Uh, not deep? Kirk had take back a part of himself that was and is capable of rape back in order to function properly. Just how much more deep do you want to get - even today?

The problem is, that you're judging Star Trek from present day point of view. You have to judge it for the era it was created. For the 60's Star Trek ocean deep. We are so utterly different, especially to the average 60s going it is like night and day. Just look at some of the things done with women in Star Trek - and no, I do not mean the miniskirts; I mean something like Spock's disgusting prompt to Rand that she liked evil Kirk's and his attempt to rape her.

We have come SO far, and are assimilating SO much information every single day, in such an incredibly short amount of time, it is almost mindboggling.

In many cases, Star Trek HAD to get that low and shallow and obvious - because it was the only way to maybe touch some of the people of that era. To you, I, most people this day and age, and children whatever age; "treat all people with respect" may seem obvious, but to a lot of grown ups, especially back then, this wasn't obvious AT ALL. (Or do you think MLK was mostly just talking out his ass?) Even today we have problem with this most basic tenant - in fact, most sadly, it seems especially the middle-east and the US are sliding back to 60s sentimentalities and further.

The thing of it is, of course, as we evolved, Star Trek should have evolved with us. And for a time it did - a little, a very little bit; and most of it under tenure and producers of a show that had the guts and willingness (and a little bit of luck that the studio was mostly focusing on the network show) to give the honchos a metaphorical middle finger.

And then came that network show, and it's recreation in a prequel. I mean seriously, there's one Asian on Voyager's bridge... and he's American! What happened to half of all of Earth's population? The rest of the bridge crew - except the token aliens - American! All the characters in the background - American - I can't think of one that wasn't. And the prequel, except the one token Brit -SAME DEAL! Look at the 60's show; there's more non-Americans on there then Americans. But the late 90s and 21st century have nothing? It is laughable!

And what happened to all the colonists? The moon has cities. Mars is lush and green and has cities. According to Kirk humanity has spread to a 1,000 worlds in TOS; yet every single human on the bridge of any ship are not only all from Earth - there all from America!

There's a reason why every few months the thread, "What about homosexuals" pops up. Because it is utterly ridiculous there hasn't been such a character on Trek yet! That's why!

While we evolved, Trek got worse, more shallow, less depth, pandering to the plethora of people in the US who do not believe that you should treat all people equally and that everyone deserves respect. Where TOS attempted to brow beat even this most basic tenant into their skulls with sledgehammers, latter Trek under control by the studio and pencil pushers, did everything in its power to not offend them, and show nothing that might challenge their notions.

And that, for years, a decade even, many, many, many Star Trek fans; have been screaming for. For Star Trek to finally evolve with them. To finally be the depth it couldn't be in the 60s - but gave it a valiant try and even succeeded on an occasion - to have even more to say, to show even more, and to go really into it. More depth, less reverting, less reusing old plots, to finally MOVE FORWARD.

And on comes JJ, the new Trek, and... it's even worse than those two shows under studio management! Do you think JJ would have used nationality-diverse characters and ethnically deverse cast if the original didn't have them and to remake it he pretty much had to? There's nothing there at all! It's just flashy SFX and loud sounds, strung together with more juvenile stupid humor than any Star Trek incarnation before ever had.

Instead of moving forward; for Trek to finally catch up with us; it went even further back and became even MORE juvenile and empty. And the weirdest thing is; so many people go "Yay!" Even the people who have been complainng about Trek not have grown up with us, are now going "Yay!" because of some flashy SFX and some loud music.

I don't get it. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only thing I can think of, was that it was so loud and flashy it induced brains to produce dopamine and other tranquiling substances and all of them don't know a way to counteract them.

My post was not about liking or not the movie. It was about the other poster which claimed Star Trek was always only about mindless action/adventure. Its clearly not the case while you watch all Star Trek series. The creator of Star Trek also state otherwise. I do like mindless action movies when they are well done as much as the next man. But, I've always considered Star Trek to be a little more than this. I also like other hollywood movies with more depth such as Batman Returns, 12 Monkeys, Truman Show, Gattaca or even The Island. They are not in the 2001 range but they manage to be both entertaining and with some depth at the same time. I think its what Roddenberry was going for when he created Star Trek.

I didn't mean to single you out, but in some ways Roddenberry has become a heroic figure with a "vision" when the truth is that he was a television producer earning a living. No doubt he loved and cared about Star Trek, but I am a little bitter about how he hampered the potential for drama in the TNG series by forcing the writers to make humans "perfect".

When I think of the reasons why I don't like this new movie the lack of interesting ideas is one of the big things I will point to, but it isn't because that is what Gene Roddenberry would have wanted, it is because it is what I want. Star Trek is many things to many people, but to me it was always more than just mindless fun.

The dude was flawed, does that mean every single thing ever have come out of his mouth is a lie. Hardly.

The fact is, that Gene Roddenberry DID want to have morality parables in Star Trek. If he didn't, it wouldn't have been in there! Gene Roddenberry DID want there to be intelligence to the show. If he didn't it wouldn't have been in there!

Did he overstate his own goodness and sweetness: hell yes.

Did he even lie about it: hell yes.

Did fans start worshiping the guy as the second coming way too much: hell yes.

Did he start believing his own press: hell yes.

Did the adulation get to his head: hell yes.

Was making the characters of TNG "perfect" a mistake: hell yes.

Does that mean he never spoke a single word of truth, and he couldn't care whether Star Trek had any intelligence or morality parables in it at all? Fuck no.

For the relative few who watched it, perhaps. It would be wise to remember that the show was not watched all that much (else it would not have struggled in the ratings and been cancelled so swiftly) and its initial influence on popular culture was rather more limited than is commonly believed.

Not this again. No, Trek was VERY popular. The thing is, that at the time there was an crippled rating system in place, that just wasn't able to properly say how many people and of what demographics were watching. A short while after the new system was in place, and the new system was used to retroactively estimate how many people had been watching.

The new ratings system showed that Star Trek was watched by a lot of people and was popular.

 

[stonester1]

So help me, I'm disagreeing with 3d. But it is TRUE about Trek, and why it sets itself apart in science fiction, especially when TOS was release. It seemed just about all science fiction outside books in that day were directed at kids.

Trek clearly wasn't, aspired to much higher. Adult content, INCLUDING, yes, DEEP philosphical ponderings. Not every episode (nor was it necessary to do so). Other kinds of adult content as well, such as drama, violence depicted as violence, not fun and games, etc etc.

Abram's Trek is a hit, and rightfully so. It even has some deep thoughts running under it's pretty, swift moving waters. The key difference between Abram's Trek and the original series is that the original show wore it's intellect, when exercising it, on it's sleeve. The new film is much more serreptitious about it. Sign of the times, but overly smart is considered unforgivably nerdy and to be avoided.

That Abrams could make successful Trek that is NOT dumb is nothing short of a marvel in our modern climate. But it's NOT dumb.

And TOS certainly wasn't.

Why must we now deny what we've known all along made the show special and gave it it's staying power?

Equally galling, however, is the intellectual snobbery and condescension from those who don't like the film, those very few. I have a not so metaphorical middle finger for them. It may not be your cup of tea, fine. But your unwillingless to pull the stick out of your ass (you enjoy it right where it's lodged, thank you) does not bespeak of intellectual superiority.

And your denigrating fellow fans just makes you a jackass.

 

[Ovation]

I've viewed them all over a dozen times. The lessons were never "deep" (and rarely subtle--they appeared both when I was much younger, though). I also think that any "lessons" were secondary to the primary goal of entertaining the viewers. Perhaps my point was not as clear as it should have been--I take issue with the idea that the purpose of Star Trek was to be a deep fount of lessons on morality and ethics. Any such lessons were incidental to the goal of entertaining the viewers and making money.

Uh, not deep? Kirk had take back a part of himself that was and is capable of rape back in order to function properly. Just how much more deep do you want to get - even today?

The problem is, that you're judging Star Trek from present day point of view. You have to judge it for the era it was created. For the 60's Star Trek ocean deep. We are so utterly different, especially to the average 60s going it is like night and day. Just look at some of the things done with women in Star Trek - and no, I do not mean the miniskirts; I mean something like Spock's disgusting prompt to Rand that she liked evil Kirk's and his attempt to rape her.

We have come SO far, and are assimilating SO much information every single day, in such an incredibly short amount of time, it is almost mindboggling.

In many cases, Star Trek HAD to get that low and shallow and obvious - because it was the only way to maybe touch some of the people of that era. To you, I, most people this day and age, and children whatever age; "treat all people with respect" may seem obvious, but to a lot of grown ups, especially back then, this wasn't obvious AT ALL. (Or do you think MLK was mostly just talking out his ass?) Even today we have problem with this most basic tenant - in fact, most sadly, it seems especially the middle-east and the US are sliding back to 60s sentimentalities and further.

I'm an historian who teaches a class on the US in the sixties. I need no lecture from you about understanding historical context (and don't kid yourself, we are no more smarter today than we were 45 years ago). And while The Enemy Within was provocative, and maybe "ocean deep" by TV standards--it wasn't all that complex an idea IN AND OF ITSELF. That is my beef with the rose-coloured nostalgia of "ooooh, Trek was so smart". It was best summarized above--Trek was Aesop's Fables, not Charles Dickens (let alone Schopenhauer, Kant or Hegel). Too many people have romanticized it as some giant intellectual achievement when it was just a TV programme that, on occasion, rose above other TV programmes in terms of the ideas it addressed.

I love TOS. Those ideas appealed to me as a youth. However, I grew up. I discovered (while still a teenager) that as interesting as some of those ideas were, they were presented in rather simplistic fashion. Of course I don't expect that TV from the sixties, or even today, in mainstream pop culture, will present Hegelian dialectics in a complex fashion while interweaving them into a weekly drama (sci-fi or otherwise). I do not fault Trek itself for its simplistic approach to the ideas it raised. What I find fault with is the notion that it was some sort of great intellectual achievement in and of itself. I further object to screeds from people who make such a grandiose (and false) claim and then attack the integrity (intellectual, moral or otherwise) of others who happen to enjoy the "non-intellectual" elements of Trek--either in the latest movie or elsewhere--because they dare to take pleasure in something that violates some "sacred obligation". The issue is not whether Trek presented things that "made you think". The issue is the exaggerated level of sophistication ascribed to the series (by some) and the arrogant presumption, by the the same, that "real fans" must think as they do (coupled with demands that people justify why they find something enjoyable and dismissing out of hand any response that suggests the enjoyment isn't "rationally" based).

NO ONE gets to define who is a "real fan". Being a fan of anything is a self-defined thing and needs no approbation from anyone else--no matter what criteria the individual chooses as his own justification.

I don't get it. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only thing I can think of, was that it was so loud and flashy it induced brains to produce dopamine and other tranquiling substances and all of them don't know a way to counteract them.

Again with the snarky put-down. YOU don't have to like what Trek has become (and it is crystal-clear that you don't). That is entirely up to you. But you DON'T get to pigeonhole others for disagreeing with you as somehow "defective" without getting called on it.

For the relative few who watched it, perhaps. It would be wise to remember that the show was not watched all that much (else it would not have struggled in the ratings and been cancelled so swiftly) and its initial influence on popular culture was rather more limited than is commonly believed.

Not this again. No, Trek was VERY popular. The thing is, that at the time there was an crippled rating system in place, that just wasn't able to properly say how many people and of what demographics were watching. A short while after the new system was in place, and the new system was used to retroactively estimate how many people had been watching.

The new ratings system showed that Star Trek was watched by a lot of people and was popular.

No. It was NOT "very popular".

What About Demographics?
For decades, it has been suggested that NBC cancelled Star Trek shortly before the television networks began using demographic breakdowns when determining the relative success or failure of television programs. If demographics had been taken into consideration, some believe, Star Trek would never have been dropped. However, demographics were a part of the decision making process during the mid-1960s.
In February of 1967, as Star Trek was winding down its first season, CBS made the shocking decision to cancel its long-running western Gunsmoke, despite the fact that the series had a 21.7/35 Nielsen rating [44]. CBS was disappointed that twice as many viewers over the age of 50 were watching Gunsmoke compared to viewers in the 18-to-34 demographic. CBS eventually reversed its decision, but the precedent had been set. At the time, an NBC spokesman noted that the network was focusing on general rating trends when canceling programs [45].
A year later, however, Broadcasting reported that NBC’s upcoming 1968-1969 schedule “represents the fruition of a five-year process in building shows with youth appeal [46]. The schedule “would emphasize an attraction to the young influentials,” or the “articulate, upper-income families from the more heavily populated areas of the country” [47]. At the same time, officials noted that the network wasn’t forgetting other age groups: “Our programming is aimed for balance, diversity, with strong leaders, such as Bonanza and the Dean Martin Show, which appeal to all age groups” [48].
Star Trek was renewed for the 1968-1969 season — perhaps due in part to a letter writing campaign — but saw a drop in its per minute commercial price, from $39,000 to $36,000 [49]. At the end of the 1968-1969 season, Star Trek’s last, NBC trumpeted its ratings success in a variety of categories, including the 18-to-49 demographic [50]. If Star Trek had been a demographic success, why would it have been cancelled?
In reality, Star Trek’s young adult audience wasn’t any larger than the ABC and CBS programs it competed with. According to Television Magazine, the four episodes broadcast between October 27th and November 17th, 1966 averaged 8,630,000 viewers in the 18-to-49 age group, making up 43% of the show’s total audience [51]. By comparison, during the same period ABC’s Bewitched (which aired opposite Star Trek from 9:30-10PM) averaged 10,210,000 young adult viewers or 37% of the total audience.
As for CBS, My Three Sons (aired from 8:30-9PM) averaged 8,580,000 young adult viewers (the series was pre-empted on October 27th) or 36% of the program’s total audience. Thus, while Star Trek had a larger percentage of viewers in the young adult demographic, two of the programs it competed with had more viewers overall (and Bewitched had more young adult viewers as well). This was at the start of the show’s run; ratings fell every season.

(emphasis mine) source

 

[stonester1]

Again with the snarky put-down. YOU don't have to like what Trek has become (and it is crystal-clear that you don't). That is entirely up to you. But you DON'T get to pigeonhole others for disagreeing with you as somehow "defective" without getting called on it.

Go check out prior posts of 3d. SOP for him. He can't not disagree with someone without disparaging them and setting up an inferior/superior set of assumptions in his thoughts.

 

[3D Master]

I've viewed them all over a dozen times. The lessons were never "deep" (and rarely subtle--they appeared both when I was much younger, though). I also think that any "lessons" were secondary to the primary goal of entertaining the viewers. Perhaps my point was not as clear as it should have been--I take issue with the idea that the purpose of Star Trek was to be a deep fount of lessons on morality and ethics. Any such lessons were incidental to the goal of entertaining the viewers and making money.

Uh, not deep? Kirk had take back a part of himself that was and is capable of rape back in order to function properly. Just how much more deep do you want to get - even today?

The problem is, that you're judging Star Trek from present day point of view. You have to judge it for the era it was created. For the 60's Star Trek ocean deep. We are so utterly different, especially to the average 60s going it is like night and day. Just look at some of the things done with women in Star Trek - and no, I do not mean the miniskirts; I mean something like Spock's disgusting prompt to Rand that she liked evil Kirk's and his attempt to rape her.

We have come SO far, and are assimilating SO much information every single day, in such an incredibly short amount of time, it is almost mindboggling.

In many cases, Star Trek HAD to get that low and shallow and obvious - because it was the only way to maybe touch some of the people of that era. To you, I, most people this day and age, and children whatever age; "treat all people with respect" may seem obvious, but to a lot of grown ups, especially back then, this wasn't obvious AT ALL. (Or do you think MLK was mostly just talking out his ass?) Even today we have problem with this most basic tenant - in fact, most sadly, it seems especially the middle-east and the US are sliding back to 60s sentimentalities and further.

I'm an historian who teaches a class on the US in the sixties. I need no lecture from you about understanding historical context (and don't kid yourself, we are no more smarter today than we were 45 years ago). And while The Enemy Within was provocative, and maybe "ocean deep" by TV standards--it wasn't all that complex an idea IN AND OF ITSELF. That is my beef with the rose-coloured nostalgia of "ooooh, Trek was so smart". It was best summarized above--Trek was Aesop's Fables, not Charles Dickens (let alone Schopenhauer, Kant or Hegel). Too many people have romanticized it as some giant intellectual achievement when it was just a TV programme that, on occasion, rose above other TV programmes in terms of the ideas it addressed.

I love TOS. Those ideas appealed to me as a youth. However, I grew up. I discovered (while still a teenager) that as interesting as some of those ideas were, they were presented in rather simplistic fashion. Of course I don't expect that TV from the sixties, or even today, in mainstream pop culture, will present Hegelian dialectics in a complex fashion while interweaving them into a weekly drama (sci-fi or otherwise). I do not fault Trek itself for its simplistic approach to the ideas it raised. What I find fault with is the notion that it was some sort of great intellectual achievement in and of itself. I further object to screeds from people who make such a grandiose (and false) claim and then attack the integrity (intellectual, moral or otherwise) of others who happen to enjoy the "non-intellectual" elements of Trek--either in the latest movie or elsewhere--because they dare to take pleasure in something that violates some "sacred obligation". The issue is not whether Trek presented things that "made you think". The issue is the exaggerated level of sophistication ascribed to the series (by some) and the arrogant presumption, by the the same, that "real fans" must think as they do (coupled with demands that people justify why they find something enjoyable and dismissing out of hand any response that suggests the enjoyment isn't "rationally" based).

NO ONE gets to define who is a "real fan". Being a fan of anything is a self-defined thing and needs no approbation from anyone else--no matter what criteria the individual chooses as his own justification.

In other words; I'm right, you're even agreeing with me. For a tv show especially in the 60s IT WAS OCEAN DEEP! You've just agreed with me.

And instead of keeping it ocean deep for its times and was allowed on tv, Star Trek staid stuck in 60's mode. And THAT is what fans across the board for the past 10 years have criticizing Star Trek for; that it remained stuck in 60's morality mentality that may have been ocean deep back then, is flimsy thin now.

And now comes a movie. A MOVIE! A movie with a brand new production crew. With a studio that finally let the dogs loose because they got desperate. Have you seen the Dark Knight!?

We could have had The Dark Knight. We FINALLY could have seen Star Trek grow up, we could have seen a Star Trek that could have been deep, that could shown of what Star Trek originally was all about - but to our level of movie story telling.

And instead, we got LESS. It was even MORE flimsy that the original Star Trek 60s TV SHOW - and not relatively speaking, but absolutely speaking. Let's face it; there was nothing there.

And people are claiming it was great, even those who have been laying into what Trek degenerated into. Trek got worse folks; everything even the worst of Trek did right, got tossed out the window, and everything it did wrong, got worse.

I don't get it. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only thing I can think of, was that it was so loud and flashy it induced brains to produce dopamine and other tranquiling substances and all of them don't know a way to counteract them.

Again with the snarky put-down. YOU don't have to like what Trek has become (and it is crystal-clear that you don't). That is entirely up to you. But you DON'T get to pigeonhole others for disagreeing with you as somehow "defective" without getting called on it.

What snarky put-down? It's not a snarky put-down. It's genuine despairing question. Because I have seen people put the same criticism of latter-day Star Trek as I have; the exact same things that the new movie does even more so. Yet they're all "Yay!". Hell, there were people who claimed Star Trek wouldn't be the empty pile of shit it was going to be; you just "had to wait and see and only then criticize". Well, it's here, and it's exactly the empty pile of shit some of us new it would be. And yet, they're all still going "Yay!" and "Just wait for the sequel!" It doesn't make any sense to me, except that the return of Trek any Trek, with enough flash and volume indeed create a mixture that shut down criticial thinking.

It literally it does not make sense, I can't grasp it, and it despairs me. If this is the majority of fans; Star Trek is well and truly going to be dead to me, because it will just be more of same: empty shit.

 

[Dyabolikal]

And now comes a movie. A MOVIE! A movie with a brand new production crew. With a studio that finally let the dogs loose because they got desperate. Have you seen the Dark Knight!?

We could have had The Dark Knight. We FINALLY could have seen Star Trek grow up, we could have seen a Star Trek that could have been deep, that could shown of what Star Trek originally was all about - but to our level of movie story telling.

And instead, we got LESS. It was even MORE flimsy that the original Star Trek 60s TV SHOW - and not relatively speaking, but absolutely speaking. Let's face it; there was nothing there.

Who says we still won't get a movie comparable to the Dark Knight? It was necessary for Batman Begins to introduce the universe and characters so that the next movie could take the ball and run with it.

 

[Ovation]

Uh, not deep? Kirk had take back a part of himself that was and is capable of rape back in order to function properly. Just how much more deep do you want to get - even today?

The problem is, that you're judging Star Trek from present day point of view. You have to judge it for the era it was created. For the 60's Star Trek ocean deep. We are so utterly different, especially to the average 60s going it is like night and day. Just look at some of the things done with women in Star Trek - and no, I do not mean the miniskirts; I mean something like Spock's disgusting prompt to Rand that she liked evil Kirk's and his attempt to rape her.

We have come SO far, and are assimilating SO much information every single day, in such an incredibly short amount of time, it is almost mindboggling.

In many cases, Star Trek HAD to get that low and shallow and obvious - because it was the only way to maybe touch some of the people of that era. To you, I, most people this day and age, and children whatever age; "treat all people with respect" may seem obvious, but to a lot of grown ups, especially back then, this wasn't obvious AT ALL. (Or do you think MLK was mostly just talking out his ass?) Even today we have problem with this most basic tenant - in fact, most sadly, it seems especially the middle-east and the US are sliding back to 60s sentimentalities and further.

I'm an historian who teaches a class on the US in the sixties. I need no lecture from you about understanding historical context (and don't kid yourself, we are no more smarter today than we were 45 years ago). And while The Enemy Within was provocative, and maybe "ocean deep" by TV standards--it wasn't all that complex an idea IN AND OF ITSELF. That is my beef with the rose-coloured nostalgia of "ooooh, Trek was so smart". It was best summarized above--Trek was Aesop's Fables, not Charles Dickens (let alone Schopenhauer, Kant or Hegel). Too many people have romanticized it as some giant intellectual achievement when it was just a TV programme that, on occasion, rose above other TV programmes in terms of the ideas it addressed.

I love TOS. Those ideas appealed to me as a youth. However, I grew up. I discovered (while still a teenager) that as interesting as some of those ideas were, they were presented in rather simplistic fashion. Of course I don't expect that TV from the sixties, or even today, in mainstream pop culture, will present Hegelian dialectics in a complex fashion while interweaving them into a weekly drama (sci-fi or otherwise). I do not fault Trek itself for its simplistic approach to the ideas it raised. What I find fault with is the notion that it was some sort of great intellectual achievement in and of itself. I further object to screeds from people who make such a grandiose (and false) claim and then attack the integrity (intellectual, moral or otherwise) of others who happen to enjoy the "non-intellectual" elements of Trek--either in the latest movie or elsewhere--because they dare to take pleasure in something that violates some "sacred obligation". The issue is not whether Trek presented things that "made you think". The issue is the exaggerated level of sophistication ascribed to the series (by some) and the arrogant presumption, by the the same, that "real fans" must think as they do (coupled with demands that people justify why they find something enjoyable and dismissing out of hand any response that suggests the enjoyment isn't "rationally" based).

NO ONE gets to define who is a "real fan". Being a fan of anything is a self-defined thing and needs no approbation from anyone else--no matter what criteria the individual chooses as his own justification.

In other words; I'm right, you're even agreeing with me. For a tv show especially in the 60s IT WAS OCEAN DEEP! You've just agreed with me.

You haven't understood anything I've written (either that, or your particular case of cognitive dissonance is exceptionally strong).

"For a TV show" is NOT a blanket endorsement of the notion that the show was (and I repeat, again, for those who might be confused) "deep" IN AND OF ITSELF. Moreover, a handful of episodes that were RELATIVELY "deep" (don't forget how low the baseline for the comparison was, by the way), does not translate into an absolute statement like "Trek was intellectually deep". I quite specifically referenced ONE episode with that moniker. ONE.

And instead of keeping it ocean deep for its times and was allowed on tv, Star Trek staid stuck in 60's mode. And THAT is what fans across the board for the past 10 years have criticizing Star Trek for; that it remained stuck in 60's morality mentality that may have been ocean deep back then, is flimsy thin now.

You're doing it again. Speaking for "fans across the board". You really need to stop doing that.

And now comes a movie. A MOVIE! A movie with a brand new production crew. With a studio that finally let the dogs loose because they got desperate. Have you seen the Dark Knight!?

Yes. I quite enjoyed it. It is more complex in its themes than Star Trek (the new movie--just so we're clear). However, it is hardly the apex of cinematic achievement and not without its problems (particularly if given the same level of scrutiny some Trek fans are wont to do with Trek programming). My enjoyment of either film is not contingent upon the other. I find enjoyment in all kinds of entertainment--from the films of Agnes Varda to re-reading the occasional old Spider-Man comic I first bought in the seventies.

We could have had The Dark Knight. We FINALLY could have seen Star Trek grow up, we could have seen a Star Trek that could have been deep, that could shown of what Star Trek originally was all about - but to our level of movie story telling.

And instead, we got LESS. It was even MORE flimsy that the original Star Trek 60s TV SHOW - and not relatively speaking, but absolutely speaking. Let's face it; there was nothing there.

To you. I found enough there to be entertained and find it a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours (twice now--and many more when the Blu-ray comes out). You want "nothing there", watch Out of Season (a really, really crappy movie--compared to that, I guarantee you'd sign the Oscar nominating papers for the new Trek movie). Even then, I'm sure someone watched Out of Season and found it entertaining. That's the beauty of entertainment--everyone gets to decide for themselves if it is, in fact, entertaining.

And people are claiming it was great, even those who have been laying into what Trek degenerated into. Trek got worse folks; everything even the worst of Trek did right, got tossed out the window, and everything it did wrong, got worse.

Again. To you. YOU don't get to make such a determination for anyone else. We're all quite capable of deciding for ourselves, thank you very much.

 

[Ovation]

I don't get it. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only thing I can think of, was that it was so loud and flashy it induced brains to produce dopamine and other tranquiling substances and all of them don't know a way to counteract them.

Again with the snarky put-down. YOU don't have to like what Trek has become (and it is crystal-clear that you don't). That is entirely up to you. But you DON'T get to pigeonhole others for disagreeing with you as somehow "defective" without getting called on it.

What snarky put-down? It's not a snarky put-down.

Really? Saying that the vast majority of the viewing audience is in some sort of "drug-addled"-like state that it is powerless to overcome because it doesn't share your particular (and minority) view is not a "put-down"?

It's genuine despairing question.

"I don't get it" would have been more than sufficient to convey your "sense of despair". The rest is most certainly a "put down".

Because I have seen people put the same criticism of latter-day Star Trek as I have; the exact same things that the new movie does even more so. Yet they're all "Yay!". Hell, there were people who claimed Star Trek wouldn't be the empty pile of shit it was going to be; you just "had to wait and see and only then criticize". Well, it's here, and it's exactly the empty pile of shit some of us new it would be. And yet, they're all still going "Yay!" and "Just wait for the sequel!" It doesn't make any sense to me, except that the return of Trek any Trek, with enough flash and volume indeed create a mixture that shut down criticial thinking.

And again. You know, this approach you have towards those who disagree with you is not one designed to elicit sympathy for your perspective.

It literally it does not make sense, I can't grasp it, and it despairs me. If this is the majority of fans; Star Trek is well and truly going to be dead to me, because it will just be more of same: empty shit.

Clearly it is NOT "empty shit" to most of the viewers (or even most of the fans who post here). Perhaps you should cut your losses now and not bother with Trek anymore (at least from this movie on). Spare yourself the "pain and anguish".

 

[Augustus]

Yeah, I am unsure about how this Trek is worse than the average Voyager or Enterprise episode. Or how is was some how less entertaining than DS9's greatest moments.
Sure to many it may lack the depth of say "City on the Edge of Forever" or "Best of Both Worlds". But that depth was only established because the characters were established. Because you knew who they were and you cared about them.

If Abrams had tried to make another "City on the Edge of Forever", who would have watched it? Would it even be making money right now?

Star Trek is a business, and in every business, the bottom line has to be met. Once the bottom line is met, then you can start worrying about exploring character and depth and the finer points of morality.

Case in point, on opening night I went to see the movie with 14 of my friends, all non-fans. They loved it, now they are emotionally invested in the characters, now they will come back for another one and now if there is a moral lesson involved they will listen.

Think anyone was listening to the moral lessons of Enterprise or Nemesis? (Or even going back through syndication to listen to older Trek messages?)

Come one man, the flood gates of Trek influence just opened all the way up, let's enjoy the moment!!!

 

[TheGodBen]

Case in point, on opening night I went to see the movie with 14 of my friends, all non-fans. They loved it, now they are emotionally invested in the characters, now they will come back for another one and now if there is a moral lesson involved they will listen.

Good for them. However, I have known these characters for decades, I did not need an introductory exercise. If this movie worked in bringing in non fans then that is none of my concern, it makes me neither happy nor sad, all I care about is whether I felt this was a good movie and unfortunately that is not the case.

 

[Ovation]

Case in point, on opening night I went to see the movie with 14 of my friends, all non-fans. They loved it, now they are emotionally invested in the characters, now they will come back for another one and now if there is a moral lesson involved they will listen.

Good for them. However, I have known these characters for decades, I did not need an introductory exercise. If this movie worked in bringing in non fans then that is none of my concern, it makes me neither happy nor sad, all I care about is whether I felt this was a good movie and unfortunately that is not the case.

The movie wasn't made with those who "have known these characters for decades" in mind. I hope you are not begrudging them for wanting to make introductions (even if you do not care for how those introductions were made--a separate issue).

 

[Augustus]

Case in point, on opening night I went to see the movie with 14 of my friends, all non-fans. They loved it, now they are emotionally invested in the characters, now they will come back for another one and now if there is a moral lesson involved they will listen.

Good for them. However, I have known these characters for decades, I did not need an introductory exercise. If this movie worked in bringing in non fans then that is none of my concern, it makes me neither happy nor sad, all I care about is whether I felt this was a good movie and unfortunately that is not the case.

well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but like I said, Paramount needs to make money, and they weren't doing that off the likes of the BBS. So they HAD to hope that other new people would come in and be introduced and like these characters.

Like I said, I don't understand the pessimistic point of view. Its influence is about to explode and that includes the popularity of older Trek. This is a blessing for the franchise...

 

[Gepard]

Yeah, I am unsure about how this Trek is worse than the average Voyager or Enterprise episode.

It's not. But then, most of Voyager and Enterprise sucked.

Or how is was some how less entertaining than DS9's greatest moments.

Entertaining? Yes. Holding it up to something "great?" No. It would need to be as well-written for that to be the case.

Good for them. However, I have known these characters for decades, I did not need an introductory exercise. If this movie worked in bringing in non fans then that is none of my concern, it makes me neither happy nor sad, all I care about is whether I felt this was a good movie and unfortunately that is not the case.

The movie wasn't made with those who "have known these characters for decades" in mind. I hope you are not begrudging them for wanting to make introductions (even if you do not care for how those introductions were made--a separate issue).

Abrams is on record saying he didn't make Star Trek for fans of Trek--he made it for fans of movies. So why can't they manage character introductions, a sophisticated plot and intelligent storytelling all at the same time? It's not an impossible task. Lots and lots of movies have done it before. This isn't a zero-sum game where you can only pick one of the three, and, oh, sorry, we used it all up on character introductions, so no decent story for you. Is this really a counterargument to "I didn't feel it was a good movie?"

 

[Ovation]

Good for them. However, I have known these characters for decades, I did not need an introductory exercise. If this movie worked in bringing in non fans then that is none of my concern, it makes me neither happy nor sad, all I care about is whether I felt this was a good movie and unfortunately that is not the case.

The movie wasn't made with those who "have known these characters for decades" in mind. I hope you are not begrudging them for wanting to make introductions (even if you do not care for how those introductions were made--a separate issue).

Abrams is on record saying he didn't make Star Trek for fans of Trek--he made it for fans of movies. So why can't they manage character introductions, a sophisticated plot and intelligent storytelling all at the same time? It's not an impossible task. Lots and lots of movies have done it before. This isn't a zero-sum game where you can only pick one of the three, and, oh, sorry, we used it all up on character introductions, so no decent story for you. Is this really a counterargument to "I didn't feel it was a good movie?"

You're essentially restating my point. Be critical of the way it's done, if you feel the need, but don't begrudge the decision to introduce characters to the audience just because you, as an individual (referring to GodBen's post, not you), are already familiar with them.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Is this really a counterargument to "I didn't feel it was a good movie?"

There is no counterargument to "I didn't feel it was a good movie."

That's like making a counterargument to "I don't like broccoli."

 

[Gepard]

You're essentially restating my point. Be critical of the way it's done, if you feel the need, but don't begrudge the decision to introduce characters to the audience just because you, as an individual (referring to GodBen's post, not you), are already familiar with them.

Ah. Well, I don't think GodBen is intending to say they shouldn't have bothered to introduce the characters--I think the point is that, since he's already familiar with them, he didn't get anything enjoyable out of those introductions; and since that's pretty much all the film has going for it, he didn't like it. Which takes us back to what I said: why can't a movie have character introductions, a good story and string plotting? Is it too much to ask, especialyl when 90% of the people who've seen it rave about how good it is? (Have the standards for a good movie shifted in the last five years?)

Is this really a counterargument to "I didn't feel it was a good movie?"

There is no counterargument to "I didn't feel it was a good movie."

That's like making a counterargument to "I don't like broccoli."

And yet, somehow, there will be pages and pages of people responding to that with comments about how full of vitamins it is, and what a lovely shade of green it becomes when boiled. They clearly seem to think there's a counterargument.

You kids get off my grass! *shakes cane*

 

[Ovation]

You're essentially restating my point. Be critical of the way it's done, if you feel the need, but don't begrudge the decision to introduce characters to the audience just because you, as an individual (referring to GodBen's post, not you), are already familiar with them.

Ah. Well, I don't think GodBen is intending to say they shouldn't have bothered to introduce the characters--I think the point is that, since he's already familiar with them, he didn't get anything enjoyable out of those introductions; and since that's pretty much all the film has going for it, he didn't like it. Which takes us back to what I said: why can't a movie have character introductions, a good story and string plotting? Is it too much to ask, especialyl when 90% of the people who've seen it rave about how good it is? (Have the standards for a good movie shifted in the last five years?)

Five years? How Green Was My Valley beat out Citizen Kane for the Best Picture Oscar in 1941. Beyond that, "good movie" is, for the vast majority of people, a purely subjective label. It may frustrate "serious film lovers" (I used to be far more irritated by that notion years ago), but it's the way it is. No one has to justify why they like a movie if they don't want to. (and the reverse is true as well)