What's keeping me out of the theatre....

[Brutal Strudel]

I'm afraid it goes beyond movies too... the quality of the average individual has diminished. A product of our over commercialized materialism centric society. Few escape... thus the disease proliferates. The gene pool weakened. So sad... losing our potential to be so much more.

Sure seems that way but I wonder: the good ol' days were days when intolerance--of other races, other sexual orienations, other religions, even of the other sex, if we limit ourselves to us dudes--was tolerated to a much greater degree than it is today. It was in many ways expected and demanded. As a high school teacher, it's tempting for me to condemn these "kids today" outright but I rather think human evil and imbecility is like a game of Whack-A-Mole: as we improve in one area, we decline in another.

But this does pin-point why I find the relative frothiness of this film (as compared to TOS's best and/or most sententious) to be so disturbing. I've long felt that, for me, Trek opened a doorway into an ever expanding mansion of deeper things: real LitSF, like Herbert, Bradbury, Ellison and eventually my beloved PKD; the nautical adventure novels of Forrester and, much later, O'Brian; talky tv dramas like The Paper Chase, Hill Street Blues and, much more recently, The Sopranos, The Wire and Mad Men (especially Mad Men). Looking at it now, I'd probably have found my way to much of that even without Star Trek as my gateway but, sentimentally, Star Trek will always be the tv show--the fucking tv show--that led this dyslexic kid to conquer his distaste for reading and eventually earn an MA in English Lit from a damn fine public university. (I honed my skills at literary analysis--using textual evidence to support an argument--not in papers written for high school but in the "letters of comment" I wrote to Interstat in the wake of TSFS. I still remember fondly the "Dirty Jim" debates.)

And you hear this all the time, from people far smarter than I could ever hope to be, who tell you that Star Trek led them to careers in science and engineering, even into space. Hell, the guys who brought us Google were inspired by Spock's library-computer. I can't help but think it was that veneer of seriousness, the sense that we were watching grown-ups in space who worked long and hard to get where they were, that inspired us to achieve what little or what lot we have achieved. I saw little of that on display in this film. No matter how we try to spin it, the Transformer scribes aren't Norman Spinrad, Richard Matheson, Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Bloch or any the others. Maybe this movie will lead some kids to TOS and maybe that will open the door. But, taken in itself, this loud and flashy and charming wad of cotton candy? I doubt it.

 

[Kirk1980]

TOS did try to be different. Whether or not it was because GR felt it was needed or profitable or both is of course up for debate.

I'll reserve full judgement until I see it but...how was this movie different than what's already on movie screens already? I'll take any non-sarcastic and non-dismissive answer!

 

[number6]

TOS did try to be different. Whether or not it was because GR felt it was needed or profitable or both is of course up for debate.

I'll reserve full judgement until I see it but...how was this movie different than what's already on movie screens already? I'll take any non-sarcastic and non-dismissive answer!

This film shows early character development of Kirk and Spock. We see their inner conflict and the emotional impact of circumstances that make them the people we know. We also see the beginnings of the bonds of friendship we see between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Since Shatner and Nimoy are already lifelong old friends and De Kelley is dead, the only way to really get a glimpse of this chemistry is to see it through these new actors. Now one could easily argue since this movie takes place in an alternate reality, that this development happens under circumstances that would never have happened in the actual TOS timeline. I concede that to a point, however, we do see young Spock's struggle with being half human and the bond that he has with his mother, which was only hitherto hinted at over the course of the series. We see how he betrayed his father in his youth and how he ultimately gets to meet Jim Kirk. I truly believe that the altered timeline may not have changed these facts. Jim Kirk's rebellious nature is another story. In this timeline he grows up without a father, but in the TOS timeline his folks are involved in the Tarsus IV massacre. Perhaps his cocky, rebellious nature is derived from that. The underlying theme of this movie is how man is controlled by destiny and the pull of strong friendships to overcome adversity. It is reasonable to assume that Kirk and Spock were once adversaries, eventually united in common cause in both timelines. This new timeline gets our crew together sooner, but that doesn't in any way preclude much of what happens in the original timelines to occur.

What's different is that this film goes for a sense of realism that hasn't been attempted since TMP. We see a handing of the torch that pulls on the hearstrings not accomplished in Generations and we get to see what these characters may have been like before we get to see them in TOS. The pace of this film allows us to get sucked into the story and engage the viewer into caring about what happens to these characters, even if we know the inevitable outcome (Original crew warps into space ready for their first adventure). Did anyone care about Data dying in Nemesis?? Did anyone care about the Baku in Insurrection?? Did anyone care about Kirk on Veridian III??? The emotional intensity lacking in the last few films is in this film. This film has more fun with the characters and the humour is far less groan worthy than the last handful of films.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

It's been said countless times already, but I fail to see the brilliance of a script that has a Vulcan captain, eject an unconcious, if unruly element, out the side of a ship with a perfectly functional brig, so he can land on a random icy planet, where he will not only meet the older version of that Vulcan, but the soon to be chief engineer as well.

Great writing that.

I think it demonstrates that Spock (and Nero, for that matter) were genre-savvy.

That makes it worse in my view. It makes it self referential, a wink to the audience, pretty unnecessary in a film that is by its very nature self referential enough. It's like Austin Power's over complicated death scene (sharks with frickin lasers) Bond movie spoof in the first movie.

But as I said, I don't think this movie was that smart.

 

[David cgc]

That makes it worse in my view. It makes it self referential, a wink to the audience, pretty unnecessary in a film that is by its very nature self referential enough. It's like Austin Power's over complicated death scene (sharks with frickin lasers) Bond movie spoof in the first movie.

No, that's the opposite of what happened, where they embraced the cliché because that's The Way It's Done without caring whether it was effective. Kicking Kirk off the ship is more like if Dr. Evil had simply shot Austin Powers because he'd noticed that overcomplicated executions never worked, just as Spock realized leaving Kirk on the ship, even locked up, would be giving him the opportunity to continue causing mischief.

 

[Jimmy_C]

It's been said countless times already, but I fail to see the brilliance of a script that has a Vulcan captain, eject an unconcious, if unruly element, out the side of a ship with a perfectly functional brig, so he can land on a random icy planet, where he will not only meet the older version of that Vulcan, but the soon to be chief engineer as well.

Great writing that.

I think it demonstrates that Spock (and Nero, for that matter) were genre-savvy.

That makes it worse in my view. It makes it self referential, a wink to the audience, pretty unnecessary in a film that is by its very nature self referential enough. It's like Austin Power's over complicated death scene (sharks with frickin lasers) Bond movie spoof in the first movie.

But as I said, I don't think this movie was that smart.

The thing is, you met the people that you hang out with somewhere. You didn't always know them. Seriously, is it a coincidence that a wife and a husband happened to meet in college when they were from different cities/states? Or in Trek for example, is it a plot contrivance that Geordi was a pilot of Picard's shuttle before Picard picked him for his next command? Life is just a series of coincidences.

I think it makes sense. The ice planet was close to Vulcan. So that's the logical place to drop off people you want to get rid of in lieu of Vulcan itself. Spock wasn't thinking rationally when he ejected Kirk, too. That was one point of that scene. The only coincidence is Scotty being stationed there, but that's a minor quibble.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Post-script to my last post: I watched some of SciFi's Land of the Lost marathon and saw bylines by Margaret Armen and Norman Spinrad.

Kind of puts The Transformers and Felicity into perspective.

Forget everything I said. We're all devo.

 

[number6]

Post-script to my last post: I watched some of SciFi's Land of the Lost marathon and saw bylines by Margaret Armen and Norman Spinrad.

Kind of puts The Transformers and Felicity into perspective.

Forget everything I said. We're all devo.

Frankly I am more upset about the LOTL reboot.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I'm not upset but I think its interesting. When Hollywood reboots, they can go higher or lower brow than the original. The only time I can remember them going higher is BSG. (Ive said my piece regarding Trek, though I found your take a few posts above interesting.) When the reboot goes for lower brow (here's to good friends, tonight is something... never mind), they inevitably are arch and condescending about it. That's what we have here: a low-brow, arch remake of a kid's show so a bunch of aging hipster douchebags can feel superior to their seven-year-old selves.

For those who hated the Star Trek reboot (and that's exactly what it is--all nods to alternate timeline and even the presence of Spock Prime are mere fig leaves) need only look at this or I Spy or even Starsky & Hutch to see that it could have been much, much worse.

 

[number6]

I'm not upset but I think its interesting. When Hollywood reboots, they can go higher or lower brow than the original. The only time I can remember them going higher is BSG. (Ive said my piece regarding Trek, though I found your take a few posts above interesting.) When the reboot goes for lower brow (here's to good friends, tonight is something... never mind), they inevitably are arch and condescending about it. That's what we have here: a low-brow, arch remake of a kid's show so a bunch of aging hipster douchebags can feel superior to their seven-year-old selves.

I didn't think anyone noticed that post! I was a fan of LOTL when I was a kid. I certainly would have preferred some kind of serious attempt to remake it versus making it another Will Farrell comedy. The bitter truth is that it will achieve greater success as a Will Farrell vehicle.

For those who hated the Star Trek reboot (and that's exactly what it is--all nods to alternate timeline and even the presence of Spock Prime are mere fig leaves) need only look at this or I Spy or even Starsky & Hutch to see that it could have been much, much worse.

This is a point I've been making for years...as far back as when people were complaining about their childhoods being raped by Voyager.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I still respect their issues with the movie, though. Hell, you and I almost came to virtual blows over my disliking TVH and look at us now, talking civilly over tea and crumpets. It's only entertainment, after all.

Milk or lemon?

 

[number6]

I still respect their issues with the movie, though. Hell, you and I almost came to virtual blows over my disliking TVH and look at us now, talking civilly over tea and crumpets. It's only entertainment, after all.

Milk or lemon?

Lemon.

I would respect their opinion more if they would just come right out and say that they wanted the new producers to subjugate all their creative aspirations and make a shot for shot recreation of the 60s show and would expect nothing more or less, because what they're really saying. But instead we get countless, pointless threads about lens flares, nacelles and how these guys are "morans."

I liked TVH. I hated the music, loved the trousers.

 

[Warped9]

I can set aside continuity and canon inconsistencies because it's a reboot.

I can set aside character inconsistencies because it's a different interpretation.

But I cannot set aside that I still thought so much of Trek XI was ridiculous and none of it made me laugh. Still, I accept that this is the current view of Trek and it's not for me. I'm disappointed, but that's fine.

Predisposed to dislike it? I was predisposed to dislike Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull and yet I rather enjoyed it. I felt it resonated with Raiders Of The Lost Ark better than the second and third sequels.

I think it's reaching when those who like the film say, "Oh, but TOS has been silly." Yes, it has, but I'd argue even its silliest wasn't on this film's level. And even so TOS was better far more often than it was ever silly.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Last week on Wednesday I was off work because I had to work Saturday over the Easter weekend. On that day around 2pm I opted to chill for a bit and turned on the TV. It just so happened that I channel surfed past SPACE and "Courtmartial" was just starting.

Now I've seen this episode countless times. And while I enjoy watching things unfold even though I know it inside and out and backwards, beyond that I find myself watching the mechanics of how these things are put together.

It was the proverbial nail in the coffin for me.

For the last couple of years I've been reading and hearing about the next film. I'm as familiar as anyone with what we may expect. I've seen all the trailers and (having no intention to pay to see it) I had no problem reading the reviews and spoilers after the film's screening in Australia. On that point this film held few surprises and it's appears to be pretty much what I thought it would be.

And that's why "Courtmartial" nailed the lid shut.

"Courtmartial" is one of the best episodes of TOS. It ably delivers the kind of drama that TOS could be really good at. Every aspect of storytelling is well delivered (even knowing what we know about computer programming today). This was good science fiction. The writing is good, the acting is good and the story is good.

Star Trek had action and space battles and run-and-jump and adventure. But they were grounded in good story. Sure the production and f/x would have been more elaborate with more time and money, but the production standard rarely if ever detracted from what was unfolding in regards to story.

But for me one of the essential key elements of Star Trek at most times, and particularly at its best, was that it was smart. The show sometimes faltered but generally when I think of Star Trek I think of a wonderful balance of enthusiasm and intelligence in its storytelling.

When I look at the trailers for the forthcoming film in addition to what I know about it I see lots of energy and hyper polished f/x. But I see next to zero intelligence. Granted it's a reboot, and that's fair enough, but what I see are essentially poor story ideas lifted from previous films and rehashed together yet one more time.

And all that following other Trek films (and series) that have disappointed me brings me to appreciate TOS all the more.

Yes, I can see where things could have been done a bit differently in individual episodes. But overall Star Trek hit the target they were aiming for, even with the occasional missteps.

It wasn't just fun because of all the cool stuff we like to see in good SF. It was fun because even more so they generally took a smart approach to all the cool stuff.

It's that wonderful balance of enthusiasm and intelligence that keeps bringing me back. And that essential element that will keep me out of the theatre.

Thank God!!!! Having you beside me at the theater would have been a bore!

 

[Neopeius]

I would respect their opinion more if they would just come right out and say that they wanted the new producers to subjugate all their creative aspirations and make a shot for shot recreation of the 60s show and would expect nothing more or less, because what they're really saying. But instead we get countless, pointless threads about lens flares, nacelles and how these guys are "morans."
.

It seems you haven't actually read anyone else's posts. You've set up this straw man and you keep pushing it over, but you're really just talking to yourself.

Star Trek XI was lame on its own merits. I haven't bitched about nacelles, used the word "moran", called for a shot for shot recreation of the old show, and if I've mentioned lens flares, it's only been in passing.

But you don't want to talk to me. You want to bitch about the phantom canonistas. And say FAIL a lot.

 

[number6]

I would respect their opinion more if they would just come right out and say that they wanted the new producers to subjugate all their creative aspirations and make a shot for shot recreation of the 60s show and would expect nothing more or less, because what they're really saying. But instead we get countless, pointless threads about lens flares, nacelles and how these guys are "morans."
.

It seems you haven't actually read anyone else's posts. You've set up this straw man and you keep pushing it over, but you're really just talking to yourself.

Star Trek XI was lame on its own merits. I haven't bitched about nacelles, used the word "moran", called for a shot for shot recreation of the old show, and if I've mentioned lens flares, it's only been in passing.

But you don't want to talk to me. You want to bitch about the phantom canonistas. And say FAIL a lot.

I have actually. I noticed you use "straw man" like you just heard it somewhere and it seems cool..

 

[trevanian]

Post-script to my last post: I watched some of SciFi's Land of the Lost marathon and saw bylines by Margaret Armen and Norman Spinrad.

I don't think Armen was ever any good, but Spinrad wasn't the only sharp guy bushwacked on LOTL; I think Gerrold took a huge hit on that one (he might have been the story editor for a time.)

 

[number6]

Post-script to my last post: I watched some of SciFi's Land of the Lost marathon and saw bylines by Margaret Armen and Norman Spinrad.

I don't think Armen was ever any good, but Spinrad wasn't the only sharp guy bushwacked on LOTL; I think Gerrold took a huge hit on that one (he might have been the story editor for a time.)

He was. He also co-wrote many stories with Larry Niven.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Gerrold more or less created the show and, apparently, he threw as much work to TOS and SF friends as he could. D.C. Fontana wrote at least one episode. Nothing wrong with that--money is money and work is work and kid shows need scripts, too. Thing is, after watching a couple of hours, I was impressed at how many relatively sophisticated SF ideas they managed to sneak into what was undeniably a dopey little kid show brought to you by the guys who also gave us Lidsville. So maybe I was right all along. It's a mark at how well they did their jobs marinating two or three generations in SF that Hollywood no longer sees fit to seek out LitSF writers. Talk about biting yourself in the ass.

 

[number6]

Gerrold more or less created the show and, apparently, he threw as much work to TOS and SF friends as he could. D.C. Fontana wrote at least one episode. Nothing wrong with that--money is money and work is work and kid shows need scripts, too. Thing is, after watching a couple of hours, I was impressed at how many relatively sophisticated SF ideas they managed to sneak into what was undeniably a dopey little kid show brought to you by the guys who also gave us Lidsville. So maybe I was right all along. It's a mark at how well they did their jobs marinating two or three generations in SF that Hollywood no longer sees fit to seek out LitSF writers. Talk about biting yourself in the ass.

Sid and Marty shows had loads of subtext!!
But also a lot of cheese and LOTL had loads of it.