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

[neozeks]

Since Trek hasn't ever given us that before, I don't know why you were expecting one now.

Why, oh why is it neccessary to denigrate earlier Trek just to propel this one?
Ok, Wrath of Khan, Best of Both Worlds, First Contact. Or are they not entertaining enough?

1. Simmer. I'm not "denigrating" anything.
2. They're all plenty entertaining.
3. None of them were exactly Citizen Kane.

1. you said Trek never gave us anything for our brains to chew on, at least it seemed to me; that's not exactly flattering...
2.yeah
3. but they aren't slapstick comedy either

TOS was silly.
It was an adventure show in space, not serious sci-fi.
The average TOS episode was MORE silly than this movie.

Quit revising history, Trek was always lighthearted fun mixed with serious issues.
TNG and DS9 changed things, and they were great, but they were major departures from TOS, the best series, and the series this movie is based upon.

Yeah, mixed. And why limit Trek to TOS? TNG and DS9 were just as much Trek as TOS (actually, i liked them better, though i love TOS)

 

[number6]

1. you said Trek never gave us anything for our brains to chew on, at least it seemed to me; that's not exactly flattering...
2.yeah
3. but they aren't slapstick comedy either

Trek XI isn't slapstick comedy, though it can be argued that TOS had quite a few comedic moments, even when they were being all dark and serious.

And why limit Trek to TOS? TNG and DS9 were just as much Trek as TOS (actually, i liked them better, though i love TOS)

TOS=The Original Series..i.e the one that started the whole ball of wax.

You say "Star Trek" to anyone in the world that's never seen the show and they will know about Kirk, Spock and "Beam me up, Scotty."
That's why we got TOS characters in this film.
There's no way a TNG or DS9 film would have generated this much interest.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Yeah, mixed. And why limit Trek to TOS? TNG and DS9 were just as much Trek as TOS (actually, i liked them better, though i love TOS)

Yeah mixed just like this movie was... both "serious" and "silly". You can do both in the same episode, in fact that actually happens in many films.

You left out ENT and VOY... they're Trek as well. I used to love TNG, when it first came on the air. Now I can't stand it, I find it pretentious and condescending and that I really don't like anyone but Worf on it.

What I found about this movie is that its the type of film I could watch a number times and not leave it feeling like I had been talked down to. The last few Treks to one degree or another often left me with that feeling, their faux deepness left my head ringing.

TMP I lose interest in after Spock hears V'Ger... NEM after the Senete gets fried, ISUR yawn been there done that, should have been a preachy ep.

Sharr

 

[Fid]

Starfleet is not a military organization. This is a point that has been made time and time again, even by GR himself.

There are bridge officers on the Enterprise that weren't cadets. Sulu was one, comm officer was another. Kirk was given a field promotion in an extreme situation and it was established that Pike thought Kirk was "Starfleet material" not to mention an overachiever.

The cadets were called into action because of a planetary emergency (Vulcan under attack.).

Starfleet WAS a military organization as shown in TOS. 'joint services' - US Naval command structure, blah, blah blah. Just one of the functions they provided to the Federation, the non-military organization they served under.

Field promotions are temporary and not permanent. He would have reverted back to his prior rank. This was fun to watch but distinctly different from the attention to detail shown in TOS. If we were talking about a gun boat with a dozen crew, perhaps. But with a ship and crew of hundreds (or thousands), it simply made Pike look silly. Imagine the Admiral (Fred Thompson's character) in 'The Hunt for Red October' appointing civilian CIA analyst Jack Ryan to XO of the carrier just because he served at the academy and his father flew combat missions with Viper. Yeah, that bad...

I think what this film did was done well and every issue you seem to have can be easily explained by paying attention.

Although fun, I repectfully disagree. The more attention you pay to the film, the more serious it's flaws. It is not Science Fiction so much as Science Fantasy.

 

[number6]

Starfleet is not a military organization. This is a point that has been made time and time again, even by GR himself.

There are bridge officers on the Enterprise that weren't cadets. Sulu was one, comm officer was another. Kirk was given a field promotion in an extreme situation and it was established that Pike thought Kirk was "Starfleet material" not to mention an overachiever.

The cadets were called into action because of a planetary emergency (Vulcan under attack.).

Starfleet WAS a military organization as shown in TOS. 'joint services' - US Naval command structure, blah, blah blah. Just one of the functions they provided to the Federation, the non-military organization they served under.

Field promotions are temporary and not permanent. He would have reverted back to his prior rank. This was fun to watch but distinctly different from the attention to detail shown in TOS. If we were talking about a gun boat with a dozen crew, perhaps. But with a ship and crew of hundreds (or thousands), it simply made Pike look silly. Imagine the Admiral (Fred Thompson's character) in 'The Hunt for Red October' appointing civilian CIA analyst Jack Ryan to XO of the carrier just because he served at the academy and his father flew combat missions with Viper. Yeah, that bad...

I think what this film did was done well and every issue you seem to have can be easily explained by paying attention.

Although fun, I repectfully disagree. The more attention you pay to the film, the more serious it's flaws. It is not Science Fiction so much as Science Fantasy.

Don't tell me, let me guess: You're in the military?

 

[Jeri]

If any of you in the military ever actually save the planet, I'm sure your field promotion will stick -- permanently.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

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

Actually, the word 'cadet' is a misnomer in term of age, since most of the negative blog reviews are by big adults, and are very well-written. I'll bet that the 'cadets' here are also older as well.

 

[theFirebottle]

Oh god, we fucking get it already. You're mature, thoughtful wise elders who care deeply about Trek and the rest of us are little children who are too busy laughing at fart jokes and being distracted by the lens flares to understand the intellectual poverty of the script... Or perhaps you're a bunch of immature twits who keep picking your scabs off and showing them to us until we want to feed them to you!

These threads are as shallow, mindless, and full of holes as their posters think the movie is; but while they admit that the movie was fun, these threads are anything but.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

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."

And which I just left some snarky comments of my own at. The only ones this guy will get, possibly.

 

[number6]

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."

And which I just left some snarky comments of my own at. The only ones this guy will get, possibly.

Everytime you post on those blogsites the terrorists win.

 

[number6]

Oh god, we fucking get it already. You're mature, thoughtful wise elders who care deeply about Trek and the rest of us are little children who are too busy laughing at fart jokes and being distracted by the lens flares to understand the intellectual poverty of the script... Or perhaps you're a bunch of immature twits who keep picking your scabs off and showing them to us until we want to feed them to you!

These threads are as shallow, mindless, and full of holes as their posters think the movie is; but while they admit that the movie was fun, these threads are anything but.

On the contrary, I am quite entertained.

 

[polyharmonic]

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.)

I never claimed that Galaxy-Quest was poorly written or a bad movie. It was actually a great movie. But it worked because you knew going in that it was a comedy and meant to be a comedy primarily and its plot and events were in line with that movie. It never tried to be truly serious and was never intended as such.

ST09 seem to be trying to accomplish and be too many things at the same thing. It has lots of contrived goofy funny moments and things that seem silly. But it isn't trying to be a comedy. It has a psychotic planet destroying villain who killed BILLIONS of people (and tries to be somewhat dramatic and serious) but never gave such an event the treatment it deserved. Instead it felt the same as those cartoon show destruction that you don't take too seriously.

As neozeks said in another thread: If they wanted a light movie, they shouldn't have destroyed Vulcan. If they wanted to destroy Vulcan they should have given it the gravitas it deserved.

By having both and not really treating Vulcan's destruction with any kind of sufficient seriousness, they just made the movie have this overall "silliness" feel to it. All I saw was Uhura offering Spock "anything" to comfort him, a moment that felt more silly than truly somber.

I mean for most of the audience, they laughed at the goofiness and the slapstick and shrugged their shoulders when Vulcan, planet of billions was destroyed. That set the tone (to me) that Abrams is aiming mostly for light fun slapstick type movie and is making no effort to make it serious at all.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

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

They do.

Which is, if you ask me, sad.

Why?

 

[M'Sharak]

Why, oh why is it neccessary to denigrate earlier Trek just to propel this one?

That "why do you hate Star Trek?" card (because that is what you did there, though you were at least careful enough to word it differently) is one too often played by those who are not being entirely honest about their reasons for posting here. Try not to be too eager to play it yourself, eh?

 

[goran'agar]

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.)

I never claimed that Galaxy-Quest was poorly written or a bad movie. It was actually a great movie. But it worked because you knew going in that it was a comedy and meant to be a comedy primarily and its plot and events were in line with that movie. It never tried to be truly serious and was never intended as such.

ST09 seem to be trying to accomplish and be too many things at the same thing. It has lots of contrived goofy funny moments and things that seem silly. But it isn't trying to be a comedy. It has a psychotic planet destroying villain who killed BILLIONS of people (and tries to be somewhat dramatic and serious) but never gave such an event the treatment it deserved. Instead it felt the same as those cartoon show destruction that you don't take too seriously.

As neozeks said in another thread: If they wanted a light movie, they shouldn't have destroyed Vulcan. If they wanted to destroy Vulcan they should have given it the gravitas it deserved.

By having both and not really treating Vulcan's destruction with any kind of sufficient seriousness, they just made the movie have this overall "silliness" feel to it. All I saw was Uhura offering Spock "anything" to comfort him, a moment that felt more silly than truly somber.

I mean for most of the audience, they laughed at the goofiness and the slapstick and shrugged their shoulders when Vulcan, planet of billions was destroyed. That set the tone (to me) that Abrams is aiming mostly for light fun slapstick type movie and is making no effort to make it serious at all.

I prescibe an enterprise marathon for u bud, it'll make u feel better....trust me

 

[Anticitizen]

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.

Oh, SNAP!

 

[Anticitizen]

Oh god, we fucking get it already. You're mature, thoughtful wise elders who care deeply about Trek and the rest of us are little children who are too busy laughing at fart jokes and being distracted by the lens flares to understand the intellectual poverty of the script... Or perhaps you're a bunch of immature twits who keep picking your scabs off and showing them to us until we want to feed them to you!

These threads are as shallow, mindless, and full of holes as their posters think the movie is; but while they admit that the movie was fun, these threads are anything but.

Why do you bother reading them?

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Most of them will be gone in a couple of months.

 

[noknowes]

The way the movie was written and made it was certainly a fun, don't take it seriously type of movie. I don't necessarily have a problem with that but I wonder if we want Star Trek going forward to be basically a version of Galaxy-Quest or Star Wars. Not quite as outlandish but certainly not serious sci-fi at all.

Imagine that this movie was called "Star Quest" and all the characters were renamed such as Dirk, Spom, etc. If that were done then you'd simply see this as a mostly silly, dumb and entertaining movie and just ignore all sorts of plot holes and things that don't make sense. You'd see Jero as some one dimensional villain and Mulcan being destroyed as just a big cartoonish event rather than a major tragic event that it is should have been.

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

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.

Lots of scenes and events were clearly gratuitous or non-sensical. (Magical red matter? People carrying swords? Amazing coincidence of meeting Spock, Cadet to captain promotion, etc etc). Lots of things were thrown in as plot devices without attention or care to detail. (So Scotty can beam people anywhere even on moving ships far away, why do we need starships then?)

It's not that Star Trek (2009) wasn't entertaining or enjoyable. But there's just too much silliness and non-sense in it to take it seriously as a real sci-fi film. And now that they've established this tone for the Abrams vision of Star Trek, I just don't see how they could really made good future sequels that are well written sci-fi stories rather than more silliness and ridiculousness.

I agree with the comments at:http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/

i have read all the comments since it was create and they are all valid.

This not star trek at all it is just a mindless action hollywood flick.

I urge everyone to visit http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/ and view all the comments not just by the author but by the visitors who agreedy this is not Star Trek at all.


JJ Abrams has killed Star Trek.

http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/

I weep and so should you.

 

[EnsignRicky]

That's an interesting question because they just did something exactly like that. The answer appears to be a resounding Yes. Galaxy Quest was a great movie.