What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[Ward Fowler]

I accepted that I'm predisposed not even to see the incongruities, illogic and silliness of the TOS episodes that I consider good.

It's always interesting to see something through fresh eyes. Often times it can be humbling.

 

[Anticitizen]

I'm 28 years old, and I've been a Star Trek fan since I was old enough to watch TV. I was raised on TOS reruns, the movies, and TNG's first run. Read a vast amount of the novels and was able to quote The Wrath of Khan word for word in 3rd grade. Met my lifelong best friend in elementary school because he spotted me doodling the Enterprise. We used to arrange the furniture in his basement to be 'bridge-like' and role-play Trek, including throwing ourselves across the room and smacking into walls to simulate impacted enemy torpedoes.

Just wanted to say all that before I said this:

I didn't like the film.

I am by no means a purist. I don't mind resetting the universe if you intend to reboot a franchise. Worked well for Bond and Batman. As long as what made the original stories work is intact, go for it. However, as far as I could tell, virtually nothing from the original work made the cut. We're presented with a sort of half-ass reboot that tries to maintain that this movie will fit in with the previous canon, that the changes to the universe are due to time travel - but in no way does it explain why the Enterprise is roughly three times larger than the TOS ship with completely different proportions and set design, etc. Note, I wouldn't be complaining about this if they had just simply pushed the reset button and started anew. As it stands in the film we got, there was no good reason to change things like that, other than an apparent desire to make the Enterprise 'bigger and badder'.

I feel that the only things necessary to keep intact in a true reboot are the premise, tone, and characters. Unfortunately, these were unnecessarily altered as well, for the same reason the Enterprise was given a testosterone injection and the Romulans given bad-boy tattoos - to make them edgy and more 'xtreme'. Not your Father's Trek, indeed.

Why bother to reboot the franchise with the original characters if you're going to change them? This 'altered timeline' nonsense changed their natures. Spock possessed enough discipline to turn off physical pain in the original series, yet twice we see him viciously physically attack others in response to verbal jabs in the film. He was also the symbol of extreme intelligence, yet none of that shows in the film - Chekov is the science wiz now, and Spock's role seems to be to say 'that seems logical' when someone else has an idea. He also seemed to have a gigantic stick up his ass the entire film. Kirk was the embodiment of the nobility of the human spirit in the show, but now he's a cocky, careless, self-destructive character who is only spurned to take his role in Starfleet to prove a point to others. McCoy was really wasted, as he became a Plot Facilitator, getting Kirk aboard the ship - there was no philosophy or ethics issue in the film for the good doctor to weigh in on as he did in the series (which was his role, as a foil to Spock).

I had high hopes for the film because of JJ's assertion that he wanted to bring optimism into the film, a key element of Trek, but I found none of it present in the film. The tone was much darker and grittier than previous installments. Just for example, optimistic, evolved society Earth policemen wearing scary-looking cyborg SWAT clothing and speaking with gravelly metallic voices. The cop looked like something out of a dystopia, like THX-1138 or Logan's Run. Then we're treated to Beastie Boys, wrecked cars, and our noble spacemen picking EXTREMELY bloody barfights... etc. When JJ said the future was bright, he was talking only of lens flares. TOS always made me feel good after watching it. It was a universe I'd have liked to live in. I can't say the same for this one.

Then there's the awful plot, which falls apart at the very premise. Nero wants to destroy Vulcan just because the guy that WAS TRYING TO SAVE HIS HOMEWORLD failed to do so? I know that bereaved family members will for a short while irrationally blame the doctor for the death of a loved one, but I've yet to hear of one kill everyone the doctor ever loved for failing to save them. Not only that, but he held on to that irrational rage for 25 years... and somehow convinced his entire crew to go along with such a stupid plan that possibly could result in them never being born? Given his intial skirmishes with the Kelvin and later a Klingon fleet, if anything, he's inviting all the known races in the galaxy teaming up to take out Romulus hundreds of years before the nova ever could!

The rest of the plot isn't any better. The script relies almost entirely on ridiculous coincidences/contrivances in order to move along. When Old Spock first showed his face, I thought that he had travelled back to that particular point, to that particular place, to deliver a message to Kirk... but when he opens his mouth, out comes 'How did you find me?'

Was he speaking for the audience?

I won't go into the many other plot contrivances here as I feel they've been adequately covered by others.

I found the classic 'space... the final frontier' narration at the end to be quite jarring, as its content had nothing to do with the movie.

At some point, someone abandoned the original dream and decided Star Trek was all about space battles. That point was, of course, after the lukewarm reception of STTMP, and TWOK was created to feed the legions of new sci-fi fans who had seen Star Wars.

Don't get me wrong, The Wrath of Khan is a fantastic movie that works on many levels and explores philosophical questions about life, death, and sacrifice. But it was the point at which the spirit of the original series started to take a backseat, somewhat, to the 'action' plots.

This is the part that most people will probably disagree with me on: I think The Final Frontier best invoked the spirit of the original series. Taking a starship to the center of the galaxy to find 'god' is straight out of TOS scriptbook - in the spirit of exploration not just of the cosmos, but the human spirit, evocative of both 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' and 'Who Mourns for Adonais?'. There is a Klingon antagonist in a Bird of Prey, but the antagonism ends in mutual celebration and the beginnings of a friendship between enemies, the sort of idealism that - with intended irony - did not exist on the 'planet of intergalactic peace' in the beginning of the movie. It reminded me of 'Day of the Dove', a previous TOS outing where we see the crew and Klingons laughing together at the conclusion. The events that took place and lessons learned simply felt very 'Trek' to me, having been raised on TOS.

I'm probably going to raise some ire here by saying that almost everything about the TNG movies was uninspired crap in terms of plot, and capturing the Trek spirit. Every movie was a typical beat-the-bad-guys-in-combat story. First Contact, which I feel the best of them, even took away the only unique and interesting thing about the Borg - their collective hive mind and lack of individuality - by introducing the Borg Queen. Data's quest to learn about humanity is gone thanks to his new emotion chip, so he's just another crew member now, but really smart and made o' metal which has made him a sort of deux ex machina (no pun intended) for wrapping up plot problems. From this point on the films abandoned anything resembling the optimistic dream about a ship that travelled to the distant stars and discovered unimagineable wonders. TNG's final two outings were downright embarassing, and I think a little piece of me died inside when Riker starts piloting the Enterprise via the use of a friggin' joystick that pops up out of nowhere.

I know I'm rambling a bit, but I wanted to make it clear what it is that I understand Star Trek to be. I think another Enterprise Versus The Bad Guys that is merely relying on kitsch references to TOS has done the franchise no favors.

I do not want an angsty, angry, violent Spock who's 'torn between two worlds'. Spock, along with Kirk and McCoy, served a specific purpose to the show - they each represent a unique and different perspective to whatever philosophical quandries our intrepid ship meets in space: Spock championing logic and reason, McCoy counterweighing with emotion and old-fashioned human values, and Kirk the icon of decision, intuition, and the noble spirit.
Changing this dynamic takes away what I think is the core of the spirit of the original series. I know personal angst is 'in vogue' right now in TV fiction, but it has no place in these characters.

If you saw the horrible remake of 'The Time Machine' a few years ago, you'll know what I mean. The time traveller from the orignal HG Wells novel was a man motivated only by the quest for knowledge and exploration. In the modern remake, the storytellers decided that that motivation wasn't apparently valid or at least easy enough for viewers to relate to, so they tack on a scene at the beginning of the movie where the traveller's beloved fiance is killed, driving him to create the time machine in an attempt to go back in time to save her. Apparently the the human need to explore and discover that was present in both Trek and The Time Machine are no longer considered valid human qualities by the cabal of Hollywood screenwriters, and only something as basic and trite as 'The Power of Love' or something can help mankind achieve anything. Star Trek was about self-improvement and pushing forward for the sake of its own reward.

I don't want *any* of these characters to be driven by something in their 'dark past'. I want the gung-ho, we-can-do-it crew we knew before.

Oh... and Spock and Uhura? Why? Just... why?

 

[Anticitizen]

He's still in weapons range after Kirk's call.

Maybe not, because the Reliant had already reduced speed before Kirk's call.

The movie plot turns on Kirk sitting in his chair and doing nothing, for no good reason, in the face of unexplained and suspicious - "damned peculiar" - behavior on the part of another ship's commander despite having it directly pointed out to him that reasonable caution requires the completely harmless and routine act of shielding the Enterprise.

Spock catches the Reliant's commander in a lie concerning Reliant's supposed problems, and Kirk still does nothing.

Why does Kirk do nothing?

Because he's not perfect.

Because if he acts reasonably Khan does not have the opportunity to hurt the Enterprise, and the writer needs Khan to damage the Enterprise.

That's it. Period, full stop.

This is incorrect. They could've written it just slightly differently so Kirk was saved the disgrace of making a mistake... but it is part of the plot that he makes that mistake.

Sir, you did it!
I DID NOTHING! Except get caught with my britches down. Must be getting senile...

You remember those lines don't you?

How about these?

They still haven't raised their shields.
Of course! We are one big happy fleet!

Realistic characters have flaws, make mistakes. Kirk flubbed that one, and we even see Khan comment on the flubbing in real-time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why does Kirk do nothing?

Because he's not perfect.

At that moment, he is not minimally competent.

Suddenly. And then he becomes brilliant again.



If you want to buy it, you buy it. And if you don't you can make a perfect case for why it's senseless.

 

[Gepard]

If you want to buy it, you buy it. And if you don't you can make a perfect case for why it's senseless.

It's not a dealbreaker, but the moment could have been sold better. Rewatching the scene recently, I was struck by how it was looked like Kirk almost knew something was coming--as if he'd read the script and was antsy about the coming conflict. Why? It makes no sense.

 

[Anticitizen]

It seems like space battles happen every day in Star Trek now, but back then it wasn't an everyday occurance. Imagine two US Navy ships happening upon each other at sea, during peacetime. The first ship tries to radio the other, with no response... until a guy on the deck of the other ship flashes a flashlight in morse code, explaining the radio's jacked up...

Nobody's first assumption would be that the second ship would be about to open fire on them.

 

[Gepard]

Nobody's first assumption would be that the second ship would be about to open fire on them.

You know, that's the problem: every character knows something is up, except Kirk. Saavik even quotes him a regulation about it before Spock shuts her up. Eh? If they'd all just been going about their business and just didn't think of hostile intent, I wouldn't give the scene a second look.

 

[trevanian]

They could've written it just slightly differently so Kirk was saved the disgrace of making a mistake... but it is part of the plot that he makes that mistake.

Sir, you did it!
I DID NOTHING! Except get caught with my britches down. Must be getting senile...

That's a pretty huge mistake on his part though, with a shitload of fallout. When I first saw the movie, that scene made me flash back to a TMP review in CFQ that said when they need to show Kirk has flaws, why not have him spill food in the mess, instead of push his people to the point of fatally messing up a couple of transportees. By way of comparison, Kirk's error in BOT -- at least he seems to think it is -- involves stopping the shooting long enough to look at what the debris is, and the ship gets half-nuked as a result. That didn't play anywhere near as awkwardly (when I watch BOT, I don't see that as a bad call like the character does.)

The fact that the whole film, and indeed, the whole so-called trilogy, hinges on Kirk messing this one thing up makes it a really bad call, one that is extremely hard to ignore on any viewing for me. Part of the problem is the score and the cutting ... all of that is very well done in TWOK, so the suspense is excellent plus you KNOW bad shit is coming. They might as well have had Kirk distracted by Saavik's ass if they wanted to contrive things toward a certain 'Reliant shoots first' conclusion, or had him suffering a hangover after talking with Carol ... bad as those are, they at least arise out of CHARACTER as opposed to just being arbitrary stupidities.

To me, Kirk in that moment is like Wendy Torrance in Kubrick's THE SHINING, he is stupid ... and badly contrived to be that stupid. One of the only times i've ever yelled at the screen (maybe the only time) was when Shelly Duvall was being slow and dense about escaping the Overlook, and I yelled, 'you deserve to die, you bitch!' (I wasn't wild about the movie either, took a few viewings on that one to get on board with the approach, so sue me.)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I accepted that I'm predisposed not even to see the incongruities, illogic and silliness of the TOS episodes that I consider good.

It's always interesting to see something through fresh eyes. Often times it can be humbling.

She liked Spock a lot - the kind of dry humor behind "Only the Romulans know what they think of Earth" appealed to her. She was surprisingly attentive to and interested in details, saying that she liked oldSpock's ears better than nuSpock's - more elegant - and remarking upon Rand's "unfortunate hair." More than passingly familiar but not exhaustively so with oldTrek she was rather surprised and curious that Kirk seemed to have a girlfriend aboard ship.

And oh, her clear preference for Chris Pine is unshaken and understandable in every respect.

I was struck by how it was looked like Kirk almost knew something was coming--as if he'd read the script and was antsy about the coming conflict. Why? It makes no sense.

Exactly - he knows something's not right, he's uncomfortable about, and when raising shields is directly suggested to him he ignores the suggestion.

It does not require that his "first thought be that the other ship will fire on him" for him to raise his own ship's shields, as a precaution, as suggested and as regulations dictate. Hell, that "Ferris Bueller" captain in Generations would have done as much. Within the context of the scene as one watches it, his behavior is foolish.

Incompetent...but only for the couple of seconds necessary to propel the plot forward.

 

[buzzknox]

When discussing how the characters in the movie don't meet expectations, it's important to remember that even in a perfectly "canon" TOS movie, we would have never met these characters before. We didn't "know" Kirk in his Academy days or for much of his youth, just as we didn't know Spock as an adolescent, or young adult. What we know of Spock as a young officer is that he was emotional and smiled in awe of flowers as in The Menagerie. We knew the people that these characters would become after years of trials and experience.

Toss in the fact that these individuals universes have been literally tossed upside down and things change. Would the Spock who smiled at flowers be devastated by the loss of his planet and his mother? Would the always a bit rebellious and arrogant Kirk be torn apart by not having the family he was meant to have? How must it feel to know that your father sacrificed himself so that you could be born?

It seems that people are treating the TOS characters as cardboard cutouts more than real people (if such can be said of characters on a show). They are expected to act a certain way, even if that's not how they always acted. They are expected to continue acting a certain way, even when the foundations of their personalities and upbringing are shaken.

For me, the question was whether I could see the inherent nature of the TOS characters in the new portrayals. The answer to that is a resounding yes.

 

[Praetor]

The only variable is personal tolerance.

Which is, in fact, a tremendous variable.

I watched "Balance Of Terror" today - one of my favorite Trek episodes, somewhere in my top twenty for TOS - with a very observant and much younger person who'd not seen it before. This person was so full of questions this afternoon about the specific dialogue and logic of the story for which there are no good answers other than interior and manufactured "Trek logic" that I was a little exasperated.

Oh, and she called out the husband-to-be as dead-by-the-end on his first appearence in the teaser - by any modern standard that stuff is so cliche and so telegraphed in the episode that I guess it's hard to miss.

By the time we got to the part where everyone turned off the noisemakers and lights on the bridge so as not to alert people on another spaceship somewhere many kilometers off in the vacuum of space as to their whereabouts I knew it was a lost cause. I accepted that I'm predisposed not even to see the incongruities, illogic and silliness of the TOS episodes that I consider good.

And this person wasn't even hostile to the thing - she kind of enjoyed it. When I explained that it was copied from a destroyer-versus-submarine story some of the nonsense in the story immediately fell into place for her. And in any event she said that an alien being named "Nero" made more sense having seen centurions and a guy named "Decius" running around on the bird-of-prey in this one.

That's so weird - I had almost the exact same experience recently. I have a friend who's slightly older and watched some TNG as a kid but has never really seen any TOS, so building up to the movie we'd been watching my TOS DVDs, and he had almost the exact same reactions to "BoT" that your friend did. Especially the "silence" scene.

I was struck by how it was looked like Kirk almost knew something was coming--as if he'd read the script and was antsy about the coming conflict. Why? It makes no sense.

Exactly - he knows something's not right, he's uncomfortable about, and when raising shields is directly suggested to him he ignores the suggestion.

It does not require that his "first thought be that the other ship will fire on him" for him to raise his own ship's shields, as a precaution, as suggested and as regulations dictate. Hell, that "Ferris Bueller" captain in Generations would have done as much. Within the context of the scene as one watches it, his behavior is foolish.

Incompetent...but only for the couple of seconds necessary to propel the plot forward.

Agreed there. I think the intent was to make him feel "rusty" on the job but... yeah. That was a bit much. I like to pretend that he was insecure to the point he was afraid to fire first on another Starfleet ship... but even that was a bit much. Like trevanian said, have him spill his food in the mess or something instead.

 

[Neopeius]

By way of comparison, Kirk's error in BOT -- at least he seems to think it is -- involves stopping the shooting long enough to look at what the debris is, and the ship gets half-nuked as a result.

"And ONE... METAL.. CASED... OBJECT!!!!!"

"So?"

"Nothing. Just mentioning."

*bonk as can of Beefaroni hits the ship*

"Resume firing, Mr. Sulu."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's so weird - I had almost the exact same experience recently. I have a friend who's slightly older and watched some TNG as a kid but has never really seen any TOS, so building up to the movie we'd been watching my TOS DVDs, and he had almost the exact same reactions to "BoT" that your friend did. Especially the "silence" scene.

The experience made me a little sad - she did like the show, she wants to like the series, but the age of the thing in some ways is just becoming insuperable as time goes by in at least some regards.

It's as much a matter of technique as anything else - take editing. TOS is not as well-constructed as film as, say, a B movie of the 1940s. Where and when they could the cinematographer and editors did some really nice and sometimes beautiful things on the show, but it had to be assembled on a TV budget and a TV schedule and was put together to a TV standard...forty years ago. This hit home yesterday during the "OMG Spock looks like the Romulans" sequence - by any current standard the cutting back and forth, the length of shots, isn't just leisurely - it's plodding, and comes across as heavy-handed (especially with the bombastic, martial score - DUM-da-dum-da-dum-da-DUM). Fans may defensively label the impatience of the modern audience as "ADHD" but their learned reaction to this kind of thing is anything but that - today, the scene plays as "we assume that you're really dim, so we're going over this real slow."

We make allowances for the circumstances and era of the series without even thinking about it. With every passing decade it's less and less reasonable to think that many people will bother and it's certainly not because the show's too "good" for them to get. Casablanca, to use the obvious and overused example, holds up as film (it comes to mind because the same acquaintance caught Casablanca recently and is now requiring that everyone she knows watch it with her. Repeatedly ). Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully.

 

[Cakes488]

That's so weird - I had almost the exact same experience recently. I have a friend who's slightly older and watched some TNG as a kid but has never really seen any TOS, so building up to the movie we'd been watching my TOS DVDs, and he had almost the exact same reactions to "BoT" that your friend did. Especially the "silence" scene.

The experience made me a little sad - she did like the show, she wants to like the series, but the age of the thing in some ways is just becoming insuperable as time goes by in at least some regards.

It's as much a matter of technique as anything else - take editing. TOS is not as well-constructed as film as, say, a B movie of the 1940s. Where and when they could the cinematographer and editors did some really nice and sometimes beautiful things on the show, but it had to be assembled on a TV budget and a TV schedule and was put together to a TV standard...forty years ago. This hit home yesterday during the "OMG Spock looks like the Romulans" sequence - by any current standard the cutting back and forth, the length of shots, isn't just leisurely - it's plodding, and comes across as heavy-handed (especially with the bombastic, martial score - DUM-da-dum-da-dum-da-DUM). Fans may defensively label the impatience of the modern audience as "ADHD" but their learned reaction to this kind of thing is anything but that - today, the scene plays as "we assume that you're really dim, so we're going over this real slow."

We make allowances for the circumstances and era of the series without even thinking about it. With every passing decade it's less and less reasonable to think that many people will bother and it's certainly not because the show's too "good" for them to get. Casablanca, to use the obvious and overused example, holds up as film (it comes to mind because the same acquaintance caught Casablanca recently and is now requiring that everyone she knows watch it with her. Repeatedly ). Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully.

Take your trash talk somewhere else.......in case you didn't notice it's the TOS forum...for people who LIKE TOS...which excludes you...you're just a bitter, bitter man and I know all about why!

The venom that is spewed about TOS from you is uncalled for and more importantly it has no merit. I see this from you all over the board, whenever you get the chance you like to take a dump on TOS and I've just about had it pal.......you were delighted when someone posted TOS is dead...you quipped yeah...let's throw dirt on the corpse and bury it...I've been silent for some time...but no more as you just go unchecked throught the forum...you think your the got damn authority about everything around here.....well you ain't...you're a smart fella, I'll give you that....but that's another one of your problems isn't it....you think you're smarter than just about everybody else...don't you!

TOS silly and doesn't hold up....why I oughtta...... - and everybody lets this guy get away with these insults!

I'm not even going to dignify the specifics of your post with a response....the utter nonsense...

Just do yourself a favor and stop watching TOS...and really I don't want people who can't appreicate TOS watching it....so I'm coming over to confiscate your DVD's...no this will not be a pleasure visit...you can forget that ever again...I told you one more bad word about TOS and you're cut off...so now no more Cake for you!

 

[Praetor]

Dennis is right, though - TOS is at that age now where it is glaringly dated. Ask Average Joe and he'll tell you that TOS is cheesy - guys in rubber suits, guys with weird ears, "cheap" special effects, etc. Indeed, the only reason modern Trek probably gets more of a pass from Average Joe is because of the more modern styling, production and special effects - and TNG and even parts of DS9 and VGR, as much as I love 'em, are starting to look a little low-rent at this point.

The only reason fans put up with TOS is because we like what's beneath the cheese. Myself, I even like the cheese. But I know that it's cheesy.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm not even going to dignify the specifics of your post with a response...

You can not answer the specifics of what I said in a coherent fashion, so it's unsurprising that you will not try.

I've tried humoring you in the hope that you might rise above this truculent ranting whenever I post something that you disagree with. That has had no good effect, so just understand that your histrionics do not impress me.

Now, we are having a discussion here.

Ask Average Joe and he'll tell you that TOS is cheesy - guys in rubber suits, guys with weird ears, "cheap" special effects, etc.

It's not even that - it's that the technical aspects of the show are often clumsy by modern standards and no longer communicate, to new viewers who've grown up with more sophisticated TV production, the kinds of mood and tension (again, referring to the example of the crew reaction to the Romulan/Spock reveal) that they once did. It's not generally a matter of deficient content but of outdated form.

Roddenberry recognized it later and alluded to it when discussing what he saw as the potential of ST:TMP. Among the things he considered as luxuries of the movie form of production were the "opportunity to reshoot moments so that they really work." Whether his film was able to deliver on that kind of thing or not, he had an inkling ten years later of the effect the limits of 1960s TV production had on the show.

Nimoy told a story in his autobiography of fighting for a certain approach to Spock's break-down scene in "The Naked Time" - he was alerted by a crew member to a certain short-cutting the director intended to take to the lighting or camera set-up on the briefing room set and he insisted on having it done in a somewhat more time-consuming but flexible way so that he was able to begin the scene with a cross, etc. Those kinds of economies went with the territory, and you know that if he challenged and won that battle there were dozens of similar situations where a more pragmatic approach carried the day. That would have been more true as the series ground on, especially after the producers began offering directors a premium for bringing their episodes in early and under budget (according to Justman and Solow).

 

[Cakes488]

Well I see you do have a lot of free time on your hands! How much you must google per day is boggling my mind. You should consider volunteering...ya know get you out of the house a bit. Oh and you can humor yourself ....you don't need to reply to me...er I mean my rants....... do keep that in mind old chap.

Considering the show was made over 40yrs ago...I think it's held up quite well...warts and all. I don't need to break trek down scene by scene...good lord get another hobby! I don't think you give the younger audience enough credit...they are all not all ADHD...I know this is true..... and it depends on the person who you are exposing to Trek...... so that was the reaction from your little lady friend... Yeah and???? Who the hell is she the ultimate judge??????? The people and kids I've introduced trek too...some have liked it and some have not. Anybody who doesn't like the show because of "production values" shouldn't even be watching then in the first place because yes they will be disappointed...... they also shouldn't watch anything at all pre 1990.....just the knowledge that it was made in 1967 with no money allays all those "concerns". I disagree that it's glaringly dated... glaringly..really Praeter...glaringly......no, I could accept a "little" dated but glaringly...I'm revolting against that adjective!!

How about twilight zone and the honeymooners..what about their "techincial aspects"...I showed a troop of kids...about 7 of them ranging in ages 7-16 both and they loved it...they didn't say "hey cakes the film quality sucks on this"...no they were too busy being intrigued and laughing...and they understand these shows were made long ago so of course they cannot be judged the same way a modern production would be. A fuckin 7yr old understood that.

For me and many others the slow and plodding nature of Trek (you forgot to include stodgy) ...as you say..... works for me...and it's working for the next generation in my experience. I know Trek isn't perfect and some of your points are/may be valid....but really Dennis you go out of your way it seems to put it down whenever and wherever you can and in a condescending manner... and I don't like it. I'd like to know why you have such contempt for TOS...but this new movie to you is like the Trek Bible....what kind of fumes are you inhaling over there in wherever the hell you live which I hope is nowhere near me!

Look around and you'll see new TOS fans stemming from this movie...but you can't see because your head is so far up this new movies ass... LOL

And FYI I type as it comes to me...I don't sit here for an hour and carefully craft replies (obviously LOL) and edit a million times *ahem ahem*... can you shoot from the hip?? Yeah I think not! Well you have a wonderful weekend Dennis dear...do try to get outside and get some fresh air rather than being on the board all weekend...OK! Love Ya!! Cakes xoxoxooxxoox

 

[Praetor]

Ask Average Joe and he'll tell you that TOS is cheesy - guys in rubber suits, guys with weird ears, "cheap" special effects, etc.

It's not even that - it's that the technical aspects of the show are often clumsy by modern standards and no longer communicate, to new viewers who've grown up with more sophisticated TV production, the kinds of mood and tension (again, referring to the example of the crew reaction to the Romulan/Spock reveal) that they once did. It's not generally a matter of deficient content but of outdated form.

Roddenberry recognized it later and alluded to it when discussing what he saw as the potential of ST:TMP. Among the things he considered as luxuries of the movie form of production were the "opportunity to reshoot moments so that they really work." Whether his film was able to deliver on that kind of thing or not, he had an inkling ten years later of the effect the limits of 1960s TV production had on the show.

Nimoy told a story in his autobiography of fighting for a certain approach to Spock's break-down scene in "The Naked Time" - he was alerted by a crew member to a certain short-cutting the director intended to take to the lighting or camera set-up on the briefing room set and he insisted on having it done in a somewhat more time-consuming but flexible way so that he was able to begin the scene with a cross, etc. Those kinds of economies went with the territory, and you know that if he challenged and won that battle there were dozens of similar situations where a more pragmatic approach carried the day. That would have been more true as the series ground on, especially after the producers began offering directors a premium for bringing their episodes in early and under budget (according to Justman and Solow).

I agree - I actually meant in my prior post to allude to the fact that probably what Average Joe sees is exacerbated by what they perceive in addition to it, in the form of outdated techniques, cut corners, etc. People who grew up with it might be less likely to notice it, and it's definitely something you can get used to if you let yourself, but I can't help but think a lot of people won't let themselves.

Hopefully the new movie gives some new fans reason to go back and revisit; I'm just not sure how successful the results will be.

Being at the moment unemployed, I have a chance to watch a lot of old TV drama - "Marcus Welby," "Quincy," "Emergency," what have you. And a lot of those, while interesting, still suffer from being products of their era in a technical sense that make a lot of moments that should be tense or dramatic fall flat and make me think of TOS. (And even some of TNG.)

 

[I Grok Spock]

Mrow!

Grrrrr!

I hate it when Mom and Dad fight.

 

[number6]

Mrow!

Grrrrr!

I hate it when Mom and Dad fight.

I made popcorn and bought a six-pack.