: /
I've found the else-worlds idea to be less 'sci-fi' than crazy aliens on other the side of the galaxy.to countless movies, films, tv shows, comics etc diluting the concept.
Last edited:
The Final Frontier vs. Star Trek XI
- Thread starter JarodRussell
- Start date
I've found the else-worlds idea to be less 'sci-fi' than crazy aliens on other the side of the galaxy.to countless movies, films, tv shows, comics etc diluting the concept.
Crazy aliens haven't been utilized in countless movies, films and TV shows?
Diluting the concept really doesn't make it any less sci-fi or fundamentally any less of a good idea (The Man in the High Castle, anyone?)
Bottom line, parallel universe stories and time travel and aliens and planets exploding from superweapons, these things are sci-fi. Now, the new Star Trek film comes in the tradition of action & adventure stories, but this is the traditional venue of much space opera (the term originated derogatorily to label hokier sci-fi compared to the more serious, complex works).
But heck, that's what Star Trek is - a space opera. That it's also been capable or interested in telling ambituous sci-fi narratives on occasion shouldn't ignore the roots of the concept. And while I can understand and sympathise with people wanting to see that in a movie, I can't wrap my head around Star Trek fans objecting to action-adventure on principle.
Bottom line, parallel universe stories and time travel and aliens and planets exploding from superweapons, these things are sci-fi. Now, the new Star Trek film comes in the tradition of action & adventure stories, but this is the traditional venue of much space opera (the term originated derogatorily to label hokier sci-fi compared to the more serious, complex works).
But heck, that's what Star Trek is - a space opera. That it's also been capable or interested in telling ambituous sci-fi narratives on occasion shouldn't ignore the roots of the concept. And while I can understand and sympathise with people wanting to see that in a movie, I can't wrap my head around Star Trek fans objecting to action-adventure on principle.
Crazy aliens on the other side of the galaxy, remember. And for a show set in space, the concept of aliens isn't met with an almost universal groan of disapproval unlike time-travel.Crazy aliens haven't been utilized in countless movies, films and TV shows?
Yes, but I don't find it to be a good idea to start with, something I said a few pages back.
I don't think people are rejecting the idea 'on principle' but rather that they flat out just didn't find it to be a particularly good film regardless of genre.
Ah, but your main criticism of it so far is it isn't trying to be a sci-fi film and isn't dealing with serious sci-fi ideas.
Saying it sucks because it's a bad action & adventure movie, rather than simply because it's an action & adventure movie, is another matter entirely.
number6
Vice Admiral
Going with Trek XI.
TFF did have a lot of heart, and the premise was interesting, but the execution of the story was embarassingly unwatchable most of the time. It was great to have all the original cast, but it looks like Shatner was shitting all over the supporting cast.
TrekXI managed to capture the spirit of the original cast, while breathing new life into it.
Both stories had a Star Trek feel to it, but XI seemed like a fresher approach to a familiar concept, while TFF just went through the motions of a mediocre Star Trek episode.
TFF did have a lot of heart, and the premise was interesting, but the execution of the story was embarassingly unwatchable most of the time. It was great to have all the original cast, but it looks like Shatner was shitting all over the supporting cast.
TrekXI managed to capture the spirit of the original cast, while breathing new life into it.
Both stories had a Star Trek feel to it, but XI seemed like a fresher approach to a familiar concept, while TFF just went through the motions of a mediocre Star Trek episode.
And I still think that. The science-fiction is 4th fiddle to things blowing up, catchphrases, and monsters. It's an action film with some sci-fi as opposed to a sci-fi film with some action.
Which is totally what space opera classically is. Flash Gordon, Professor Zarkov and Dale Arden are off to Mongo to defeat Ming the Merciless!
So I don't see the problem with it being an action movie. I can get seeing it as a poorly done action movie, but it's possible to be just an honest to goodness space opera romp and as a consequence be a good film. Which Star Trek is.
Look, I'm a pretentious git. If anyone asks, Moon was my favourite movie of the summer, and of the two high-concept sci-fi films released in the summer this is the one which didn't have any action sequences at all (the other is District 9).
But that doesn't mean I'm going to condemn an action movie for being an action movie, or a space opera movie for revelling in the conventions of the genre rather than rising above them (because the former is not such a bad idea, really.)
And neither would I if I thought it was any good to start with. That's how I can like Terminator 2 and not Terminator Salvation.
Trek XI had unbearable dialogue, unlikeable characters and left me feeling nothing on exiting the theatre. I am likely biased by my disinclination to like Orci/Kurtzman dialogue, the general lack of enthusiasm with Abrams and being put off by the camerawork. I freely admit it.
Trek V had some unbearable dialogue with occasional fantastic one-liners (What does God need with a starship, et al), some good character dynamics with painfully shoe-horned studio-mandated KOMEDY moments and at least left me wondering what might have been given better circumstances.
Trek V wins for me.
Trek V had some unbearable dialogue with occasional fantastic one-liners (What does God need with a starship, et al), some good character dynamics with painfully shoe-horned studio-mandated KOMEDY moments and at least left me wondering what might have been given better circumstances.
Trek V wins for me.
Having Sybok as Spock's half-brother was a bad move, an old childhood friend or adversary perhaps would have been better. Sarek was married to a Vulcan princess - I was unaware that royal families existed on Vulcan, and their babies were delivered by priestesses with tons of make-up and BIG hair - didn't ring true with what we knew of Spock and his parents.
What difference does it make?
Because Spock having a brother didn't make any sense whatsoever?
Why can't Spock have a brother? It's not the first time we learn something about a main characters past that has never been mentioned before. It makes sense, it's explained in the movie. Sarek had a relationship with a Vulcan before Amanda. What's the big deal? When Sybok's mother died, Sarek went on in his life and married Amanda, and Spock was born. And when Sybok became a relatively agressive revolutionary and got banished from Vulcan, Spock decided to officially forget about him.
The only wrong thing about Sybok is that he wasn't played by Sean Connery, as originally intended. But Luckinbill was great, too.
The only wrong thing about Sybok is that he wasn't played by Sean Connery, as originally intended. But Luckinbill was great, too.
It didn't add anything of worth to Spock as a character. It was totally unnecessary and lame in a soap opera kind of way.
Well not really. It was as necessary as red matter or whatever in that Sybok being Spock's brother meant that he didn't just shoot him and end the story right there.
You may find it to be a cheap plot device (as I do red matter) but it wasn't 'unnecessary'.
For Spock not to shoot him, I think childhood friend would suffice.
Also, if making Sybok Spock's brother was the only logical reason Spock didn't pull the trigger, they should/could have just changed the script so that Spock weren't in that position in the first place. Not a hard task to do I reckon.
