• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

A TOS (only) fan's reaction

A big reason for the exaggerated emphasis on "message" in "Roddenberry's Trek" is that Roddenberry wasn't a terribly good writer in many respects. A couple of folks who knew a great deal more than he did about telling stories and/or about producing movies have famously said, respectively, "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot" and "If you want to send a message, call Western Union."

Which is not to say that good stories shouldn't mean anything or ever attempt to convey ideas, but simply that the emphasis on the GR-approved didactic aspects of some Star Trek stories is largely a defensive attempt to deflect or minimize well-founded criticism that those tales fail on more basic narrative and entertainment levels.
 
Beaker, it's weird--I agree with damn near everything you say in your original post (I haven't read the rest of the thread, yet) but yet I still really like this movie--it's third on my list after TMP and TWoK. Go figure.
 
Star Trek: The Motion Picture pretends profundity by throwing around underthought - well, "ideas" probably isn't the right term; the movie throws around underthought phrases as if they're somehow significant.

The most obvious is the central conceit of a "living machine." Now, there are contexts in which that phrase might represent some worthwhile idea, but in terms of how ST:TMP fails to investigate or elaborate upon it, it means no more or less that something like "subatomic waffle iron" or "self-rinsing avocado windshield."

Nope, not at all--it very clearly means "a self-aware machine capable of consciousness, volition and even a strangely emotionless form of frustration." I understood that at the ripe old age of nine--I may not have been able to express it in those words, but I got it.

The crux is that, for all of that, it lacked any conceptualization of emotion and sensuality yet possessed an almost instinctive knowledge that it needed these things, which led it to first contact Spock, who it sensed could serve as a translator of sorts, and then, of all the carbon units on the bridge, digitize and recreate the most emotionally and sensually evolved member of the crew.

The substance is there. Clever rhetorical tricks won't make it go away, nor will it make an ultimately vapid explosion fest (fun as it is) the better iteration of the intellectual ambitious (if not always successfully so) Trek many of us become fans of.
 
Last edited:
beaker full of death said:
John Cho is a cypher as the newly Korean Mr. Sulu.
Sulu is Korean? When did the actors ethnic bachgroud become the same as the characters? Was Kirk a Candian Jew in TOS?
 
Star Trek: The Motion Picture pretends profundity by throwing around underthought - well, "ideas" probably isn't the right term; the movie throws around underthought phrases as if they're somehow significant.

The most obvious is the central conceit of a "living machine." Now, there are contexts in which that phrase might represent some worthwhile idea, but in terms of how ST:TMP fails to investigate or elaborate upon it, it means no more or less that something like "subatomic waffle iron" or "self-rinsing avocado windshield."

Never mind the fact that *we* are "living machines" -- massive protein synthesisers, to be more exact -- and that V'Ger, in its own massiveness and existential nature, is a mirror for the basic truth of our own origin, functioning, limitations and desires. All of the dialogue and situations in TMP is deeply allegorical. I won't even bother to elaborate on the recurring emphasis of 3's, 6,s, 9's and 12's, seen from the opening sequence on, and what the numerical patterns mean in terms of truth, logic, emotion, balance and wisdom, since no-one on this forum, save perhaps a handful of TMP adherents, has the intellectual equipment to deal with the film, much less its esoterica.

And some of the "deep" messages that some claim to have gotten from TMP, when revealed to us, aren't really deep or anything useful.

In fact, this is one thing that some Trekkies who proclaim that Star Trek should have a message and supposedly "always had one" seem to not get... messages should be useful, at least. This is something that most of Star Trek's "messages" have failed to do. Therefore I am under the very safe assumption that these particular Trekkies simply want anything that they could perceive as "intelligent philosophy" merely for the sake of claiming that Star Trek has them, not because they actually represent anything intelligent or useful that we don't already know about through life experiences (if those messages are even relevant in that respect.)

Have fun with that. One of the cornerstones of speculative fiction is self-examination via extraordinary means; accordingly, there are many human ideas and themes being expressed and explored in TMP, all provoked by the onset of the V'Ger cloud. For those that appreciate the film and understand its workings, that is. To be honest, with your combined emphasis on the value of everyday experience and the need for everything to be immediately apparent and/or useful, you come off as disparaging the human intellect and human imagination. All great art and science exists, by and large, on the periphery of society, precisely because it doesn't satisfy, or even attempt to satisfy, the more pressing wants and needs of the human animal. That isn't what makes it great, per se, but it's usually part of the package nonetheless.
 
^Funny how that echoes the "science should be useful" canard--ignoring that science is often most useful when it seems most abstruse. TMP--for all of its problems with pacing and rushed post-production--is still the only Trek movie that gets in the ring to wrestle with essential questions about the human condition.
 
Sulu is Korean? When did the actors ethnic bachgroud become the same as the characters? Was Kirk a Candian Jew in TOS?

No, Kirk was an Iowan Jew, just like Spock was a half-Vulcan Jew! ;)

Well, Walter Koeing was an American-born Russian Jew playing a Russian Chekov, and Anton Yelchin is a Russian-born Russian Jew playing a Russian Chekov. So at least the Chekovs are still mostly the same!
 
it is Star Trek for a new generation of fans

And here I thought I sold this generation short.

Just a note on this generational thing. I think society at large (and the posters here as a microcosm of that) spent far too much time worried about compartmentalizing each other. Young vs. old, liberal vs. conservative, gay vs. straight, and so on. We're all just people, man. Where's the hippie smiley when I need it? :bolian:

I took "startrekrks's" comment not to apply to "Gen Y" vs. "Gen X" but just to mean that just as the 60s Trek reached 20 years of fans, so will this one.

I know people pushing 70 who loved this movie, and kids in their teens who didn't. I know people who were lifelong Trek fans who loved this movie, and those that didn't. This is the movie that turned my wife into a Trekkie, for God's sake! And she's still in her 20s, BTW.

I think we're all individuals, with individual taste. If we like the movie or not isn't a function of being young or old or sophisticated or dumb, it's just what we like. It's certainly not a sign of the apocalypse if this movie sold more tickets to 13-25 year-olds than 50+ year-olds, nor would it mean the movie is more or less sophisticated if it sold a lot of tickets to 35-49 year olds.

No need to compartmentalize or besmirch those who don't share our own opinions. Even when they're wrong. :p ;)
 
Beaker, it's weird--I agree with damn near everything you say in your original post (I haven't read the rest of the thread, yet) but yet I still really like this movie--it's third on my list after TMP and TWoK. Go figure.

It's a fun movie. I don't dislike it on its own terms (said terms being "put your brain in park and hang on for a thrillride"). I'd probably see it again.
It simply doesn't aspire to be anything more than that.
 
This is the movie that turned my wife into a Trekkie, for God's sake!
Yeah like the TMP could have done that, that's whats so great about this movie, it expanded the fan base. Other Trek movies weren't doing that.
 
I enoyed Star Trek: 2009 immensly. Loved it. Saw it...oooo 5 or 6 times, and I thought it was cool that a lot of it was an inversion of TWoK and that Spock got to do the Space, the final frontier bit

But

I agree that it is a big dumb summer movie. It is good at being what it is but it suffers from the same condition as most if not all new sci fi. Better aliens, better explosion, realistic looking spaceships and futeristic tech do not necessarily make better science fiction. Plot and character are more important than SFX and few people appreciate that anymore. I was also largely confused by the whole Spock/Uhura thing. Where did it come from? In TOS you could make a reasonable argument for Scotty/Uhura. I could, I suppose, see my way to Kirk/Uhura (protocol and necessity of command non-with standing) but Spock and Uhura seemd to come out of nowhere.

And Star Trek: 2009 is AU. I'm no stranger to AU having been a fanfiction nut for years but some things changed that really shouldn't have, like ages and George Kirk's wife being in space in the first place.

It seemed to me like they should have hired half a dozen fans, let them read the script and then asked 'does this work?'
A B and C works really wel, fans will love that, check check check but get rid of X Y and Z because it's bloody stupid.
 
A non fan would dismiss TMP as boring.

Hell, most FANS dismiss TMP as boring.

For me, Star Trek (NuTrek) had the same strengths and weaknesses as Transformers (2007) did. It's not an awful movie, but for Trek, I was hoping for something closer to The Wrath of Khan rather than the most recent Lost in Space flick...
 
Star Trek has been given a new life. Deal with it.

And fuck you too along with the horse you rode in on.

See how pointless that was? Trek was the 'new thing' this year, like Iron Man and Transformers in previous years. Take this poll again NEXT year and we'll see how different the results are.

It's an awful lot like those 'top 100 games of all time' polls you see, where nearly half of the list is the crap that came out this year. Or those 'top 100 movies' lists that have the same issue, etc...

But you're willing to threaten, harass, and personally HATE people for the heinous and terrible crime of not being as enamoured by a summertime flick as you, then frankly I've got no use for you - and you've kinda missed the entire point of Star Trek in the first place.
 
The younger generation likes this film, the older generation likes this film. Perhaps it is most others who are fully capable of looking past the "bright lights," and it is people such as yourself who can not?

I'm with you!

The statistic that amazes me is "Rotten Tomatoes". Not that I've checked too far but there doesn't seem to be many ST movies - or any movies - that come close to ST XI's 95% approval rate from pro reviewers. Their comments summarize that the film had everything that A beaker full of death claims is lacking.

And some of the "deep" messages that some claim to have gotten from TMP, when revealed to us, aren't really deep or anything useful.

The most successful movies are the ones where the audience members can all take something different from the movie. Often there are also messages that the writers never intended, but become significant due to the acting performances or the direction.
 
This is the movie that turned my wife into a Trekkie, for God's sake!
Yeah like the TMP could have done that, that's whats so great about this movie, it expanded the fan base. Other Trek movies weren't doing that.

Here you're actually hurting your own point. The 'expanded fan base' hasn't translated to more than the movie itself, and most of that 'fan base' has moved on to the next movie already - it was called "Revenge of the Fallen". It sucked. It beat Star Trek.

This didn't suddenly make a huge wage of Star Trek fans who rushed out and bought action figures and the new Enterprise model (now on clearance in huge stockpiles everywhere). It didn't boost DVD sales of the existing movies, it's not making huge Amazon records, etc.

It was, and is, a hit summer movie, and that's all. It didn't translate past that. And few people were saying "Man, this movie rocked, let's go look at Amok Time and the one about the Whales wanting to reach their creator now!"
 
ST XI is nothing like that "Lost in Space" movie.

Yeah, well you're a horrible person and should feel bad! :P

You're entitled to your opinon. The movie just looked like fluff to me, which is fine for what it is. I'm only really annoyed that there are STILL some that, even after it was trounced by the awful "Revenge of the Fallen" swear it was the 'second coming of the franchise'... which it most clearly isn't.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top