Is a Galaxy-Quest type movie the best way to restart Star Trek?

[polyharmonic]

The point I am making isn't so much that Star Trek 09 is such a blatant comedy or parody. It is not and doesn't go that far. It is nowhere THAT silly. But for whatever reason, it just felt silly and seemed made purposefuly so to a level a little more than I'd like.

Now maybe a "silly", fun, light-hearted, don't take it serious Star Trek franshise is the best way to go as far as mass appeal. And the Voyage Home movie was the best attempt so far at doing so (but there you clearly knew that that movie was a good family friendly fun movie rather than good sci-fi). I don't need to have a overly dark serious film to enjoy it on its merits.

But the point is that Abrams seems to have laid a foundation with this movie is that Startrek ITSELF not just this one movie is somewhat "silly". What I mean is that I just can't see Abrams ever making a more serious, well thought out, more in depth sci-fi Startrek movie based on the foundation he laid in this one.

Which is fine if people prefer light fare other more thought out fare.

 

[Squiggy]

Which is fine if people prefer light fare other more thought out fare.

They do.

 

[number6]

The point I am making isn't so much that Star Trek 09 is such a blatant comedy or parody. It is not and doesn't go that far. It is nowhere THAT silly. But for whatever reason, it just felt silly and seemed made purposefuly so to a level a little more than I'd like.

Now maybe a "silly", fun, light-hearted, don't take it serious Star Trek franshise is the best way to go as far as mass appeal. And the Voyage Home movie was the best attempt so far at doing so (but there you clearly knew that that movie was a good family friendly fun movie rather than good sci-fi). I don't need to have a overly dark serious film to enjoy it on its merits.

But the point is that Abrams seems to have laid a foundation with this movie is that Startrek ITSELF not just this one movie is somewhat "silly". What I mean is that I just can't see Abrams ever making a more serious, well thought out, more in depth sci-fi Startrek movie based on the foundation he laid in this one.

Which is fine if people prefer that.

I think we all get it, but thank you for spelling it out for clarification purposes. I think most people would disagree with your conclusion, because your premise is so very flawed.

 

[neozeks]

I wish. It is interesting how many of these Trek XI SUXXXX threads are being started by "cadets."

Calling a thread where someone gives his arguments for not liking something 'Trek XI SUXXXX' isn't very polite, wouldn't you say?

That line of reasoning is certainly specious.


Kirk got promoted due to extraordinary circumstances.


If you don't recall any "cadet straight to captain" stories, you should rewatch DS9's "Valiant."

In "Valiant" IIRC the extraordinary circumstances were that there's was a war going on, they were behind enemy lines, it was a cadet ship and their officers were dead. Rather different than we have here. Plus, seeing how it ended (not very well )I would rather say it was actually a cautionary tale against the cadet to captain thing.

And in current events, a 31 year old man was placed in charge President Obama to handle GM until a new board of directors is sworn in. Funny how life imitates art.

Let's remember that nuKirk received captaincy at age 28. Riker was offered his first command in his late 20s as well, soon after he became Picard's XO. Starfleet's attitude is about the quality of experience, not simply the amount of experience.

Now, I would've much rather preferred a field commission to lieutenant commander or even first officer, and I think captain is pushing it. But it's not a story-robbing nit anyway.

Running a company is pretty different from running a military vessel. plus, as you say, it's temporary.
Was Riker really that young? Anyway, he surely wasn't offered the flagship of the Federation. Plus, he worked his way through the ranks to the XO position.

 

[neozeks]

Which is fine if people prefer light fare other more thought out fare.

They do.

Which is, if you ask me, sad.

 

[polyharmonic]

The thing I also would point out is that if they wanted a light-hearted family fun Star Trek they should HAVE JUST DONE THAT PERIOD and not mix in stuff that is supposed to be more serious with a supposedly uber-evil villain Nero who kills billions of people and tries to kill billions more. Because the movie was overall "light" and "funny" that whole Vulcan destruction event seemed (to me anyway) more like a children's action cartoon rather than something that should be very tragic and serious. But it just wasn't handled that way. Vulcan was treated no better than as a "redshirt Planet".

 

[mredom]

It was made to be a movie that appealed to everyone from children to regular movie goers with lots of fast paced action where you just sit back and watch all the visuals go by. But it was NOT made to appeal to people that wanted a mostly serious tightly and well written sci-fi flick.

I am so off the charts sick of the pretentious seriousness of some of us...

Trek was very seldom serious sci-fi. How many parallel Earth's can there be. How about the Nazi planet-wait how about the one where we fought a nuclear war with Asia (not looking so far fetched now I think!), wait, what about when we came upon the halloween planet with the funky alien Witch and Warlock who could magically shrink the Enterprise to a Pewter pendant and kill everyone with candleflame....

Serious sci-fi...please. This is NOT "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" or "A Scanner Darkly", It's "Wagon Train to the Stars", with monsters and natives and weird aliens and mad scientists....

Seriously-get a grip.

 

[number6]

The thing I also would point out is that if they wanted a light-hearted family fun Star Trek they should HAVE JUST DONE THAT PERIOD and not mix in stuff that is supposed to be more serious with a supposedly uber-evil villain Nero who kills billions of people and tries to kill billions more. Because the movie was overall "light" and "funny" that whole Vulcan destruction event seemed (to me anyway) more like a children's action cartoon rather than something that should be very tragic and serious.

Maybe they should have hired you as a consultant. You may want to apply for the job now that they've announced a sequel. Better hurry.

 

[KingstonTrekker]

This entire post is redundant. There is no need to "restart" Star Trek.

It has already been restarted by a gem of a movie called Star Trek ('09).

 

[Lindley]

I wish. It is interesting how many of these Trek XI SUXXXX threads are being started by "cadets."

Don't worry, they'll be captains in a couple of hours.

 

[neozeks]

It was made to be a movie that appealed to everyone from children to regular movie goers with lots of fast paced action where you just sit back and watch all the visuals go by. But it was NOT made to appeal to people that wanted a mostly serious tightly and well written sci-fi flick.

I am so off the charts sick of the pretentious seriousness of some of us...

Trek was very seldom serious sci-fi. How many parallel Earth's can there be. How about the Nazi planet-wait how about the one where we fought a nuclear war with Asia (not looking so far fetched now I think!), wait, what about when we came upon the halloween planet with the funky alien Witch and Warlock who could magically shrink the Enterprise to a Pewter pendant and kill everyone with candleflame....

Serious sci-fi...please. This is NOT "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" or "A Scanner Darkly", It's "Wagon Train to the Stars", with monsters and natives and weird aliens and mad scientists....

Seriously-get a grip.

What about City on the Edge of Forever, Wrath of Kahn? And why do we always have to talk only about TOS? What about Inner Light? I, Hugh? Duet? In the Pale Moonlight? Cogenitor?
Perhaps it was seldom like that, but those were it's best moments. I doubt it would have survived this long had it not had it's more serious elements.

 

[number6]

I wish. It is interesting how many of these Trek XI SUXXXX threads are being started by "cadets."

Don't worry, they'll be captains in a couple of hours.

Too bad there was never a cautionary tale about that.

 

[Lindley]

As a non-Trek fan, I have to say: I never really thought Trek was less silly than other forms of science fiction. It just thought it was more serious. Which is part of why Galaxy Quest is awesomely funny. It pokes holes in the Very Serious Business of science fiction television. The thing is, modern audiences have seen Galaxy Quest. The veil has lifted and we can no longer take a five year mission quite so seriously.

While I agree with much of what you're saying, I must take issue with the view that Galaxy Quest "pokes holes" in anything. I would call Galaxy Quest an extremely loving tribute to science fiction television and fandom.

Of course, that's what makes it such a great movie. Everyone is able to see in it what they want to see.

 

[neozeks]

The thing I also would point out is that if they wanted a light-hearted family fun Star Trek they should HAVE JUST DONE THAT PERIOD and not mix in stuff that is supposed to be more serious with a supposedly uber-evil villain Nero who kills billions of people and tries to kill billions more. Because the movie was overall "light" and "funny" that whole Vulcan destruction event seemed (to me anyway) more like a children's action cartoon rather than something that should be very tragic and serious.

Maybe they should have hired you as a consultant. You may want to apply for the job now that they've announced a sequel. Better hurry.

That's not answering the man's criticism. A valid criticism.

I wish. It is interesting how many of these Trek XI SUXXXX threads are being started by "cadets."

Don't worry, they'll be captains in a couple of hours.

Too bad there was never a cautionary tale about that.

You do realize most admirals in Trek were bad guys, mr Vice Admiral?

 

[miniglik]

I think if someone had made a new Star Trek that seemed totally unaware that the genre itself requires willing suspension of disbelief, audiences would have been uninterested, much like they were uninterested in other recent Star Trek. (Unless, of course, it went the New BSG way, and was so swamped in "realism" I'm not sure how Kirk, Spock, and Bones could have retained much of what was crucial to their characters.)

There's "suspension of disbelief" and humor and then there's just plain nonsense. There's tightly well written plots and loosely written drivel. I won't go into too many details but it should be self-explanatory.

Galaxy Quest was well-written. It was meant to be a loving spoof, but it was definitely not poorly written drivel. It was a good movie. Star Wars was a good movie (Episode 1? not so much).

Are you angry about plot holes or tone? Because you're switching complaints here. I thought you were comparing nuTrek to the more lighthearted feel of SW/GQ and the tongue-in-cheek nature of some of the jokes, not complaining about the holes in the plot. (Which, btw, Galaxy Quest and Star Wars don't have more in common with each other than each does with Star Trek. Trek was "serious" scifi, SW was space opera, and GQ was parody.)

 

[Cyke101]

And in current events, a 31 year old man was placed in charge President Obama to handle GM until a new board of directors is sworn in. Funny how life imitates art.

Let's remember that nuKirk received captaincy at age 28. Riker was offered his first command in his late 20s as well, soon after he became Picard's XO. Starfleet's attitude is about the quality of experience, not simply the amount of experience.

Now, I would've much rather preferred a field commission to lieutenant commander or even first officer, and I think captain is pushing it. But it's not a story-robbing nit anyway.

Running a company is pretty different from running a military vessel. plus, as you say, it's temporary.

In some ways different, in other ways the same. Not to stray too far off topic, but GM has almost always been a tentpole for the American economy, which is why the government has been giving them so much focus in the first place. That's pretty heavy compared to most other companies. Whether it be the Enterprise or GM, both new leaders are saving something huge and significant, relatively speaking.

Was Riker really that young? Anyway, he surely wasn't offered the flagship of the Federation. Plus, he worked his way through the ranks to the XO position.

When is saving the Earth not considered significant? That's a Herculean feat right there. He helped plan an attack, coordinated the crew, got his ship ready in no time.

I honestly think there's a huge disconnect between being a viewer and being an actual character in the movie, t to the point where 40 years of Trek have desensitized us to a degree. We the viewer can sit back and make judgement calls, sure. But if a cadet saved the modern-day US from nuclear annihilation, we would never stop giving him accolades and promotions. Not to demean Capt. Sully Sullenberger, but he got a ton of attention and was praised as a national hero for landing a plane, to give the topic some perspective. If any one of us was an actual high ranking member of Starfleet, we would give Kirk the moon if he wanted (Thank goodness old Spock told him to be captain instead).

On the side, Riker was offered command of the Drake right after he became XO at the age of 29. He would have beat Kirk Prime's record of youngest captain by two years.

 

[Squiggy]

Which is fine if people prefer light fare other more thought out fare.

They do.

Which is, if you ask me, sad.

Yes. Heaven forbid people want to be entertained. The horror!

 

[number6]

The thing I also would point out is that if they wanted a light-hearted family fun Star Trek they should HAVE JUST DONE THAT PERIOD and not mix in stuff that is supposed to be more serious with a supposedly uber-evil villain Nero who kills billions of people and tries to kill billions more. Because the movie was overall "light" and "funny" that whole Vulcan destruction event seemed (to me anyway) more like a children's action cartoon rather than something that should be very tragic and serious.

Maybe they should have hired you as a consultant. You may want to apply for the job now that they've announced a sequel. Better hurry.

That's not answering the man's criticism. A valid criticism.

Because it's a specious argument. Star Trek XI isn't a light-hearted family movie, nor was it intended to be.

You didn't like it, that's totally your perogative, but the whole intent of the OP was to imply that fans of this film like silly light hearted family films, which is a flawed conclusion based on a faulty premise.

 

[Devon]

One person wrote a very scathing criticism of the movie:
http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/
and I kind of know where he is coming from.

That's one sad blog that you don't want to necessarily be using to "back up your points."

 

[neozeks]

[
When is saving the Earth not considered significant? That's a Herculean feat right there. He helped plan an attack, coordinated the crew, got his ship ready in no time.

I honestly think there's a huge disconnect between being a viewer and being an actual character in the movie, t to the point where 40 years of Trek have desensitized us to a degree. We the viewer can sit back and make judgement calls, sure. But if a cadet saved the modern-day US from nuclear annihilation, we would never stop giving him accolades and promotions. Not to demean Capt. Sully Sullenberger, but he got a ton of attention and was praised as a national hero for landing a plane, to give the topic some perspective. If any one of us was an actual high ranking member of Starfleet, we would give Kirk the moon if he wanted (Thank goodness old Spock told him to be captain instead).

On the side, Riker was offered command of the Drake right after he became XO at the age of 29. He would have beat Kirk Prime's record of youngest captain by two years.

Your hippothetical cadet would get a medal, maybe even a honorary rank, but no way would he become a captain of a carrier.
But Riker still had to go through the ranks, no shortcuts.

They do.

Which is, if you ask me, sad.

Yes. Heaven forbid people want to be entertained. The horror!

And heaven forbid us wanting entertainment and something for our brain to chew on at the same time...