Is it snobbery?

[Rackon]

I'm a snob - at least a film snob.

I really do love Tarkovsky's Solaris (a minimalist, slow moving, arty SF film if ever there was one), movies like Pi, The Navigator and a host of other artsy fartsy sci-fi/fantasy movies. I don't generally like blockbusters, and I usually hate action flicks. I do like some popular films but on the whole my "best of" movie list looks a lot like Sight & Sounds' best of list - almost entirely classic, foreign, art and independent movies from 1914 onwards. I even admit to having studied film with avante garge American filmmaker Stan Brakhage.

But I loved XI and I really don't worry about those who didn't. Being a snob doesn't mean you have to be nasty. I would never be rude to someone who doesn't like the movie since I'm confident enough in my own taste and judgement.

This doesn't mean that I think XI ranks up there with Sunrise or Citizen Kane or even 2001. But In think it's a terrifically entertaining and well crafted movie with wonderful casting and performances, a lotta love and respect for TOS...and the absolute best FX ever in a Trek movie. I don't say it's flawless. But I enjoyed the heck out of it and I'm looking forward to the next one.

As an older fan who saw the premier of TOS on TV, I've been interested to note that most of my generation of fans whom I know enjoyed the movie. I'm a realtor by profession, and I had a Trek novel lying open at my open house today. Almost every young couple that came through commented on that book and asked whether had I seen the movie, because they had and they loved it.

It's inevitable with Star Trek that Abrams wouldn't be able to please everyone. I simply refuse to loose sleep over the wrangling.

 

[Vigilance]

Yes, there's quite a bit of snobbery.

The one that really irks me is the "how can a REAL trek fan like this movie" like those of us who saw and liked it have somehow let the franchise down.

 

[Mr. B]

The utter disdain of the film that is. There are exceptions ofcourse, but the general opinion of the those recieving this film negatively didn't just not enjoy it, some go as far to insult the intelligence of anyone who did.

I'm a Trek fan and film buff (to the extent I can be at age 25) that pretty much abhorred this movie, but I understand why most people liked it. It had Kirk, Spock, some one-liners and lots of 'splosions. Call me snobbish for defining the average movie-goers expectations in such a manner but the material Hollywood churns out proves the point.

In my opinion, one's appreciation or lack thereof for this movie comes down to expectations. Clearly many folks here are just glad Trek is "alive" again with no particular concern for the new state of affairs.

I get that a lot of the criticism of this film is unwarranted. Hostess stations on the bridge aren't deal breakers, but judged purely as cinema, XI fails on several levels. The new movie had this great look to it but when it comes to the story and plot, it fails miserably.

I have demonstrated this to myself a few times for my own amusement. None of my friends or family are fellow Trek fans but they all saw this film and loved it. In discussing the movie, I asked them individually what the movie was about and what happened during the film. Each time, they would stumble through some highlights of the story. What they did remember usually centered around something blowing up. One friend of mine had forgotten about the whole ice planet sequence and the appearance of Spock Prime. Not a single person could give me a steady 100-200 words about the plot of the Trek movie.

Ultimately Star Trek XI is no different that any other summer blockbuster. It had pretty people and expensive effects strung together by an inconsequential and barely coherent storyline. It's fun to watch but ultimately quite forgettable. That's what most movie-goers pay for and that's fine. I was hoping for more and was sorely disappointed.

 

[Cakes488]

And there are plenty of "Get The Hell out of Our Way, Old Man!" types on the other side bashing anyone who doesn't think Abrams Trek is the greatest gift of God to mankind.

[citation needed]

Nobody on "our side" has said XI was a perfect movie. Largely because there's no such thing as a perfect movie, no matter what some fans seem to believe.

Starship Polaris and Plumster come to mind off the top of my head. Esp the "trek Jihad" thread.

I'm not sure if I'd call the general defense and offense of this movie snobbery -- but the snobbing does go both ways for sure. However, there is a much larger pro nuTrek camp than anti...so to me it sounds like the "I love this movie no matter what and there is nothing wrong with it that I can't explain away" crowd is much louder and much more numerous.

Oh and believe me there are plenty of people who think this movie is "perfect"...now I liked the movie but come on...this ain't no 4 star production here that really makes you think.

 

[Ovation]

In my opinion, one's appreciation or lack thereof for this movie comes down to expectations.

A critical point that bears repeating. I quite enjoyed the film (I'm generally not all that critical of Trek or Bond--personal nostalgia about each "franchise" tends to forgive a great deal). However, I can readily see and proclaim the latest Trek film is not "perfect". I can also see why some people would not like the movie, even be sorely disappointed with it. I have no qualms with that either.

What I do find annoying (extremely so) is the kind of comment that either explicitly or implicitly states that anyone who did like the movie is somehow unintelligent. And that kind of condescension has been FAR more prevalent among the detractors of the film rather than the supporters. It's not even remotely close.

 

[Peter the Younger]

I'm not sure if I'd call the general defense and offense of this movie snobbery -- but the snobbing does go both ways for sure. However, there is a much larger pro nuTrek camp than anti...so to me it sounds like the "I love this movie no matter what and there is nothing wrong with it that I can't explain away" crowd is much louder and much more numerous.

Oh and believe me there are plenty of people who think this movie is "perfect"...now I liked the movie but come on...this ain't no 4 star production here that really makes you think.

I'd call it a solid three stars, and no, it doesn't include meaty food for thought. But then, none of the Trek movies have done that for me. They've taken a few half-assed stabs at it, and usually fallen flat on their face in the process, but the movies have always been at their best when they're telling adventure stories featuring compelling characters. The discussion of weightier issues seem to work much better in TV format, and even then, it's more of a condiment sprinkled on the adventure. I love "serious" SF movies like Pi and Gattaca, but Trek is and never will be that type of story.

I have so admit that for me, the rudeness and extreme statements of the detractors have pushed me further into the other camp. Yes, there are some calling the movie "perfect." But if I'm here saying, "well it was pretty good," and there's somebody else saying "No it's not, it's crap! It's an abomination! You're a gusher!" Well I'm going to find it hard to empathize. I haven't had anyone tell me that I'm not appreciative enough when say, I complain about Delta Vega or Kirk's promotion.

I keep trying to avoid comparisons to modern American politics, but then I keep seeing the same dynamic: a small, shrill minority keeps pushing away anyone who doesn't demonstrate absolute fealty to their philosophy, which is defined almost exclusively in the negative. Not a great way to win people to your cause.

But in the end, our reactions to the movie are purely emotional, and emotions can't be argued with. Despite what my mother thinks.

 

[Amaris]

When someone has legitimate criticism of the new movie, I can respect their opinion. It is not a perfect movie (although I think it IS a great movie!).
My problem is when others try to justify their unreasonable hatred of the movie by insulting those who do like it. Then it becomes sad and irritating.

Agreed, and that goes for all involved, people who like and dislike the movie. There is never a need to insult someone's intelligence.

J.

 

[neozeks]

What I do find annoying (extremely so) is the kind of comment that either explicitly or implicitly states that anyone who did like the movie is somehow unintelligent. And that kind of condescension has been FAR more prevalent among the detractors of the film rather than the supporters. It's not even remotely close.

Yeah, but on the other side you have the comments that imply that anyone who didn't like the movie is boring, 'unfun', stuck up, takes it too seriously etc.

 

[Butters]

The utter disdain of the film that is. There are exceptions ofcourse, but the general opinion of the those recieving this film negatively didn't just not enjoy it, some go as far to insult the intelligence of anyone who did.

I'm a Trek fan and film buff (to the extent I can be at age 25) that pretty much abhorred this movie, but I understand why most people liked it. It had Kirk, Spock, some one-liners and lots of 'splosions. Call me snobbish for defining the average movie-goers expectations in such a manner but the material Hollywood churns out proves the point.

In my opinion, one's appreciation or lack thereof for this movie comes down to expectations. Clearly many folks here are just glad Trek is "alive" again with no particular concern for the new state of affairs.

I get that a lot of the criticism of this film is unwarranted. Hostess stations on the bridge aren't deal breakers, but judged purely as cinema, XI fails on several levels. The new movie had this great look to it but when it comes to the story and plot, it fails miserably.

I have demonstrated this to myself a few times for my own amusement. None of my friends or family are fellow Trek fans but they all saw this film and loved it. In discussing the movie, I asked them individually what the movie was about and what happened during the film. Each time, they would stumble through some highlights of the story. What they did remember usually centered around something blowing up. One friend of mine had forgotten about the whole ice planet sequence and the appearance of Spock Prime. Not a single person could give me a steady 100-200 words about the plot of the Trek movie.

Ultimately Star Trek XI is no different that any other summer blockbuster. It had pretty people and expensive effects strung together by an inconsequential and barely coherent storyline. It's fun to watch but ultimately quite forgettable. That's what most movie-goers pay for and that's fine. I was hoping for more and was sorely disappointed.

By the imaginary intellectual standards that Star Trek is being judged against, it was mediocre at best. Its not even the best mindless action movie ever made. I enjoyed it, it wasn't bad. I can't see what was to abhore about it though.

The intellectualism of the other trek films, against which this is judged, weren't exactly deep. They were based, like the TOS episodes, on a single theme or premise. No layering, no new experience with every viewing.

I've seen many posts celebrating this film and the energy and life that its injected in to the Product, but not one single post that I have seen said it was perfect. I'd put it in the same league as True Lies or Titanic or other films that I like. The snobbery accusation is aimed squarely at those who hate the film purely because it has mass appeal, and the justification for that opinion is that real trek is so much more than this and the masses will never understand.

Some would like trek to be more like 2001. I loved that film, it got me reading scifi novels, but entertaining it aint. Its a chore to watch and there are many out there that hate me for letting themselves be duped in to watching it till the end on the grounds of my assurance it would be worth it. TMP, inspired by 2001 was boring to watch. Buzzing with ideas but ultimately rubbish as entertainment. I know there are people that will disagree, but while I've been lurking here over the years the future of trek forum has seen its fair share of stupid suggestions along the lines of "an anthology show about the street sweeper or the tram driver and moon shuttle conducter..." There are some very small minds here, and its the smallest that seem to do the most judging.

What trek needs is popularity, and a vocal minority will always just turn their nose up at anything the public like because they can't help it. The film might not tickle everyones fancy, but everything that was worth keeping from TOS has been safely preserved, it could have been a better film, easily, but it might have then lost what this film captured. The TOS crew in their naked form ready to exite on their ongoing mission.

 

[Trilliam]

The utter disdain of the film that is. There are exceptions ofcourse, but the general opinion of the those recieving this film negatively didn't just not enjoy it, some go as far to insult the intelligence of anyone who did.

I'm a Trek fan and film buff (to the extent I can be at age 25) that pretty much abhorred this movie, but I understand why most people liked it. It had Kirk, Spock, some one-liners and lots of 'splosions. Call me snobbish for defining the average movie-goers expectations in such a manner but the material Hollywood churns out proves the point.

In my opinion, one's appreciation or lack thereof for this movie comes down to expectations. Clearly many folks here are just glad Trek is "alive" again with no particular concern for the new state of affairs.

I get that a lot of the criticism of this film is unwarranted. Hostess stations on the bridge aren't deal breakers, but judged purely as cinema, XI fails on several levels. The new movie had this great look to it but when it comes to the story and plot, it fails miserably.

I have demonstrated this to myself a few times for my own amusement. None of my friends or family are fellow Trek fans but they all saw this film and loved it. In discussing the movie, I asked them individually what the movie was about and what happened during the film. Each time, they would stumble through some highlights of the story. What they did remember usually centered around something blowing up. One friend of mine had forgotten about the whole ice planet sequence and the appearance of Spock Prime. Not a single person could give me a steady 100-200 words about the plot of the Trek movie.

Ultimately Star Trek XI is no different that any other summer blockbuster. It had pretty people and expensive effects strung together by an inconsequential and barely coherent storyline. It's fun to watch but ultimately quite forgettable. That's what most movie-goers pay for and that's fine. I was hoping for more and was sorely disappointed.

By the imaginary intellectual standards that Star Trek is being judged against, it was mediocre at best. Its not even the best mindless action movie ever made. I enjoyed it, it wasn't bad. I can't see what was to abhore about it though.

The intellectualism of the other trek films, against which this is judged, weren't exactly deep. They were based, like the TOS episodes, on a single theme or premise. No layering, no new experience with every viewing.

I've seen many posts celebrating this film and the energy and life that its injected in to the Product, but not one single post that I have seen said it was perfect. I'd put it in the same league as True Lies or Titanic or other films that I like. The snobbery accusation is aimed squarely at those who hate the film purely because it has mass appeal, and the justification for that opinion is that real trek is so much more than this and the masses will never understand.

Some would like trek to be more like 2001. I loved that film, it got me reading scifi novels, but entertaining it aint. Its a chore to watch and there are many out there that hate me for letting themselves be duped in to watching it till the end on the grounds of my assurance it would be worth it. TMP, inspired by 2001 was boring to watch. Buzzing with ideas but ultimately rubbish as entertainment. I know there are people that will disagree, but while I've been lurking here over the years the future of trek forum has seen its fair share of stupid suggestions along the lines of "an anthology show about the street sweeper or the tram driver and moon shuttle conducter..." There are some very small minds here, and its the smallest that seem to do the most judging.

What trek needs is popularity, and a vocal minority will always just turn their nose up at anything the public like because they can't help it. The film might not tickle everyones fancy, but everything that was worth keeping from TOS has been safely preserved, it could have been a better film, easily, but it might have then lost what this film captured. The TOS crew in their naked form ready to exite on their ongoing mission.

Don't get me wrong, I love Trek and have done since I was 9 in 1969, but
intellectualism of the the other Trek Movies

Dickens, Shakespeare, Bronte Sisters, Arthur Miller, Asimov etc, they ain't.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

It had Kirk, Spock, some one-liners and lots of 'splosions. Call me snobbish for defining the average movie-goers expectations in such a manner but the material Hollywood churns out proves the point.

In my opinion, one's appreciation or lack thereof for this movie comes down to expectations. Clearly many folks here are just glad Trek is "alive" again with no particular concern for the new state of affairs.

I get that a lot of the criticism of this film is unwarranted. Hostess stations on the bridge aren't deal breakers, but judged purely as cinema, XI fails on several levels. The new movie had this great look to it but when it comes to the story and plot, it fails miserably.

While not entirely agreeing OR disagreeing with you, I'd just like to point out a major irony:

Trek almost was stillborn due to the perception that it was TOO intellectual (the "too cerebral" thing). Now there are no small numbers of fans rejecting the new Trek for not being "cerebral" ENOUGH.

Gene himself, back in the 70s often said that Trek worked best when (paraphrasing here): "[we] told a good story, with good characters and action, and then (when you weren't looking) slipped you an idea or two to think about."

I have no doubt that JJ and Co knew damn well that they had ONE shot at this. They HAD to get Joe and Jane Buttsintheseats into the theatre. So they went "populist" with Trek (as was done with ST IV) and have more or less managed to succeed. Now that they have the audience's attention, they can start "slipping in" more weighty intellectual fare.

 

[Gepard]

Trek almost was stillborn due to the perception that it was TOO intellectual (the "too cerebral" thing).

The small problem with that is that it isn't true--the "too cerebral" bit was a studio cover for the other issues they had with The Cage: it's frank sensuality, Rodenberry casting a woman he was sleeping with as one of the stars, plus the issue iof the studio deliberatly picking the pilot script they thought had the least potential for a series becuase they initially weren't sure the production team could pull Star Trek off on a weekly basis.

That said, the new film is dumb as a box of bricks.

 

[Trilliam]

That said, the new film is dumb as a box of bricks.

Now, I enjoyed this film, as did my family, so we must be dumb? I guess we'd better hand back our qualifications (between 5 of us there are at least 3 completed Bachelors' degrees, 2 in the process of being completed, 2 completed post grad degrees and another in the process of being completed) to the appropriate institutions - we're obviously too dumb to have earned them. We'd better get the 16yo to drop out of high school too - she's obviously too dumb to go into tertiary ed as well

 

[Gepard]

]Now, I enjoyed this film, as did my family, so we must be dumb? I guess we'd better hand back our qualifications (between 5 of us there are at least 3 completed Bachelors' degrees, 2 in the process of being completed, 2 completed post grad degrees and another in the process of being completed) to the appropriate institutions - we're obviously too dumb to have earned them. We'd better get the 16yo to drop out of high school too - she's obviously too dumb to go into tertiary ed as well

It's entirely possible to enjoy stupid things without being stupid oneself. Hell, I thought Independence Day and Godzilla were both pretty good films, and they're dumber than box of bricks, a sack of doorknobs and three rusty nails. That you take my comment and spin it into not only an insult against yourself, but against your spouse, relatives and extended friends and relations is...remarkable.

 

[Trilliam]

It's entirely possible to enjoy stupid things without being stupid oneself. Hell, I thought Independence Day and Godzilla were both pretty good films, and they're dumber than box of bricks, a sack of doorknobs and three rusty nails. That you take my comment and spin it into not only an insult against yourself, but against your spouse, relatives and extended friends and relations is...remarkable.

Oh honey, I was pulling your leg. (not about the degrees - my husband, kids and I do hold those) It takes far, far more than that to insult me!

Having said that, I didn't find this movie dumb. I didn't go in looking for deep, meaningful, spiritually uplifting whatever -but I've never expected that from Trek. I went it expecting a fun/ripping yarn (yep), told in an engaging/enteraining way (yep), that we'd all enjoy as a family (offsrping age range 16-24) , (yep), that has led to ongoing discussion around the dinner table (yep). So this film works for me.

I didn't find "Independence Day" dumb - it was a very good retelling of "Earth vs The Flying Saucers". "Godzilla", well I give you that. The remake was nothing on the 50th anniversary release of the remastered original.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Don't get me wrong, I love Trek and have done since I was 9 in 1969, but
intellectualism of the the other Trek Movies

Dickens, Shakespeare, Bronte Sisters, Arthur Miller, Asimov etc, they ain't.

Perhaps not, but to dismiss them en mass as being bereft of intellecutal weight is not justified.

Take WoK/TSFS for example. I always pair them up becasue they may be two movies in form, but they are really one story.)

I don't have time right now to go on a massive typing binge and lay this out in full, so here's the "Cliff's Notes" version of my thesis:

The story is about Death, the many forms of thereof, and how we as individuals react to it. The major thematic device that showcases that is of course the Genesis Project. Again, I could expound for quite some time about the various aspects of Death covered just by the project itself, but suffice to say that ultimately it boils down to death being the doorway to new life.

More layers of exploration of the theme come from the various character arcs: Kirk, Spock, the crew as a unit, Khan, and the Klingons.

Kirk's most obvious death-related arc involves his confrontation of his own mortality, combined with his internal examination of "what could have been, but wasn't". He told Saavik that how one faced death was as important as how one faced life. Applying that to his own life, it was obvious that Kirk was seeing the flaws in the way he had been living his life (esp of late). Kirk never stopped until then to really contemplate death. ("I don't believe in the no win scenario [death metaphor].")

Spock of course, faced his death theme as a Vulcan should: logically. The interest in his death theme is to watch how it conflicts and intertwines with those of the others.

The crew as a unit was facing the death of their careers as they had known them. Some were being "beached", some were moving on to other things, but it still meant the death of the "Enterprise family", and that had an effect on them. In the last part of the film(s), they were facing the death of their careers period, due to the Genesis scandal. (this theme would come back in ST VI.)

Khan, of course, is the dark mirror of Kirk in so many ways. Khan is not just confronted with death, he is swamped by it, burried alive by it. The death of many of his followers after the explosion of Ceti Alpha VI. The death of his wife. The death of his very dreams, in that his "world to win" was reduced to a "no way out" struggle just to survive one more day.

Where as Kirk ultimately once again rejected death, Khan embraced death. Having died inside, he BECAME death. His nihillism is the counterpoint to Kirk's stubborn affirmation of fighting for life.

The Klingons were looking at death as well. Death of culture, death of independence. Kruge said it best: "warm sun, woman at your side, children playing, and overhead, flutering in the breeze is the flag of the Federation." Kruge feared that Genesis would kill the Klingon cultural soul, as it took away the reasons for them to struggle. (a common Trek theme, by the way). Paradoxically, he also EMBRACED Genesis, as the "ultimate weapon", one which not only killed your enemy, but made it as if he were never there to begin with. Not just subjugation, but obliteration.

Even (if in a very minor way) the Enterprise herself has a meaning to her death. Her day considered done, she is to "fade away", in the manner of old soldiers everywhere. To the extent that she was considered at least a metaphorical member of the cast/crew, her arc rejected "going quietly into the night", and gave her the ending befitting a proud and gallant warrior queen: in battle, striking one last blow against her enemies even in her death throes.

There are problably aspects of the theme I haven't even realized yet, and a few I have skipped over for time and space (like how all the deaths tie together to birth "new" life in the end).

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Trek almost was stillborn due to the perception that it was TOO intellectual (the "too cerebral" thing).

The small problem with that is that it isn't true--the "too cerebral" bit was a studio cover for the other issues they had with The Cage: it's frank sensuality, Rodenberry casting a woman he was sleeping with as one of the stars, plus the issue iof the studio deliberatly picking the pilot script they thought had the least potential for a series becuase they initially weren't sure the production team could pull Star Trek off on a weekly basis.

This is the first I've heard of this arguement...sources?

 

[Peter the Younger]

Don't get me wrong, I love Trek and have done since I was 9 in 1969, but
intellectualism of the the other Trek Movies

Dickens, Shakespeare, Bronte Sisters, Arthur Miller, Asimov etc, they ain't.

Perhaps not, but to dismiss them en mass as being bereft of intellecutal weight is not justified.

Take WoK/TSFS for example. I always pair them up becasue they may be two movies in form, but they are really one story.)

I don't have time right now to go on a massive typing binge and lay this out in full, so here's the "Cliff's Notes" version of my thesis:

The story is about Death, the many forms of thereof, and how we as individuals react to it. The major thematic device that showcases that is of course the Genesis Project. Again, I could expound for quite some time about the various aspects of Death covered just by the project itself, but suffice to say that ultimately it boils down to death being the doorway to new life.

More layers of exploration of the theme come from the various character arcs: Kirk, Spock, the crew as a unit, Khan, and the Klingons.

Kirk's most obvious death-related arc involves his confrontation of his own mortality, combined with his internal examination of "what could have been, but wasn't". He told Saavik that how one faced death was as important as how one faced life. Applying that to his own life, it was obvious that Kirk was seeing the flaws in the way he had been living his life (esp of late). Kirk never stopped until then to really contemplate death. ("I don't believe in the no win scenario [death metaphor].")

Spock of course, faced his death theme as a Vulcan should: logically. The interest in his death theme is to watch how it conflicts and intertwines with those of the others.

The crew as a unit was facing the death of their careers as they had known them. Some were being "beached", some were moving on to other things, but it still meant the death of the "Enterprise family", and that had an effect on them. In the last part of the film(s), they were facing the death of their careers period, due to the Genesis scandal. (this theme would come back in ST VI.)

Khan, of course, is the dark mirror of Kirk in so many ways. Khan is not just confronted with death, he is swamped by it, burried alive by it. The death of many of his followers after the explosion of Ceti Alpha VI. The death of his wife. The death of his very dreams, in that his "world to win" was reduced to a "no way out" struggle just to survive one more day.

Where as Kirk ultimately once again rejected death, Khan embraced death. Having died inside, he BECAME death. His nihillism is the counterpoint to Kirk's stubborn affirmation of fighting for life.

The Klingons were looking at death as well. Death of culture, death of independence. Kruge said it best: "warm sun, woman at your side, children playing, and overhead, flutering in the breeze is the flag of the Federation." Kruge feared that Genesis would kill the Klingon cultural soul, as it took away the reasons for them to struggle. (a common Trek theme, by the way). Paradoxically, he also EMBRACED Genesis, as the "ultimate weapon", one which not only killed your enemy, but made it as if he were never there to begin with. Not just subjugation, but obliteration.

Even (if in a very minor way) the Enterprise herself has a meaning to her death. Her day considered done, she is to "fade away", in the manner of old soldiers everywhere. To the extent that she was considered at least a metaphorical member of the cast/crew, her arc rejected "going quietly into the night", and gave her the ending befitting a proud and gallant warrior queen: in battle, striking one last blow against her enemies even in her death throes.

There are problably aspects of the theme I haven't even realized yet, and a few I have skipped over for time and space (like how all the deaths tie together to birth "new" life in the end).

I agree with you about TWOK, certainly, and while I think TSFS is a bit more mixed thematically speaking, it's also strong in this regard.TWOK is actually one of the tightest scripts I've ever read - everything feeds into that theme, right down to Spock and McCoy's birthday gifts. I still put it at the top of my list of Trek films mainly for this reason, and can't imagine anything toppling it.

 

[Gepard]

[
This is the first I've heard of this arguement...sources?

It's from Inside Star Trek; Dennis quoted a relevant passage about this very subject not too long ago, which is whta made me think of it, though I can't remember in which thread.

 

[Ovation]

Trek almost was stillborn due to the perception that it was TOO intellectual (the "too cerebral" thing).

The small problem with that is that it isn't true--the "too cerebral" bit was a studio cover for the other issues they had with The Cage: it's frank sensuality, Rodenberry casting a woman he was sleeping with as one of the stars, plus the issue iof the studio deliberatly picking the pilot script they thought had the least potential for a series becuase they initially weren't sure the production team could pull Star Trek off on a weekly basis.

This is the first I've heard of this arguement...sources?

I've come across that argument a number of times. I wouldn't go so far as to entirely dismiss the "too cerebral" comment--I have no trouble believing that someone at the meeting brought that up--but I do think it is a rather flimsy (and ill-suited) "reason" all on its own to explain why the pilot was not picked up "as is". The "too cerebral" comment has, as with many things in life, grown in importance in the re-telling--to the point where it is accepted without question by many people.