How will Trek XI blend in with the rest of Trek

[Disillusioned]

Like I said, saying it happened before doesn't make it any less lame and stupid. It was lame and stupid when they did it before, and it's still lame and stupid now.

 

[Amaris]

Like I said, saying it happened before doesn't make it any less lame and stupid. It was lame and stupid when they did it before, and it's still lame and stupid now.

"Lame" and "stupid" to you. To each their own.


J.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

Sorry, but the swollen hands and tongue bit reminded me of Jar-Jar's run in with Anakin's pad racer. It was cheap, immature physical humor, and pointing to previous examples of it doesn't somehow make it good. I thought the time Archer did a face plant into T'pol's breasts was lame and I also thought that Kirk winding up with his hands on Uhura's breats was lame in exactly the same way. It might be amusing to people who are all like, "LOL, BOOBIES!" but it was just immature and contrived to me.

I found the humor refreshing, the last series Enterprise took itself so seriously while at the same time it was very terrible. Jar Jar had no purpose in the Star Wars films, if he had been say the clumsy genius mechanic, who always did indispensable work on damaged ships people would have loved him because as a character he would have actually mattered to the story; Jim Kirk's comic scenes weren't terrible for everyone, many actually liked them including myself, and as a character he had weight unlike Jar Jar, so the comparison isn't a good one. I'm sorry that you didn't like the scene but it's no George Lucas type of bad writing.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

Like I said, saying it happened before doesn't make it any less lame and stupid. It was lame and stupid when they did it before, and it's still lame and stupid now.

"Lame" and "stupid" to you. To each their own.


J.

Agreed!

 

[Disillusioned]

I found the humor refreshing, the last series Enterprise took itself so seriously while at the same time it was very terrible.

I'm going to have to disagree there. Having finally seen ENT in its entirety, I can see a lot of the same issues with it that I see with this movie, and one of them is not taking itself very seriously.

Jar Jar had no purpose in the Star Wars films, if he had been say the clumsy genius mechanic, who always did indispensable work on damaged ships people would have loved him because as a character he would have actually mattered to the story;

Basically what they did to Scotty, which I didn't care for either.

Jim Kirk's comic scenes weren't terrible for everyone, many actually liked them including myself, and as a character he had weight unlike Jar Jar, so the comparison isn't a good one. I'm sorry that you didn't like the scene but it's no George Lucas type of bad writing.

It's a good comparison because it's the same type of physical humor. It was childish and added nothing but a false sense of urgency to the movie.

 

[Amaris]

Sorry, but the swollen hands and tongue bit reminded me of Jar-Jar's run in with Anakin's pad racer. It was cheap, immature physical humor, and pointing to previous examples of it doesn't somehow make it good. I thought the time Archer did a face plant into T'pol's breasts was lame and I also thought that Kirk winding up with his hands on Uhura's breats was lame in exactly the same way. It might be amusing to people who are all like, "LOL, BOOBIES!" but it was just immature and contrived to me.

I found the humor refreshing, the last series Enterprise took itself so seriously while at the same time it was very terrible. Jar Jar had no purpose in the Star Wars films, if he had been say the clumsy genius mechanic, who always did indispensable work on damaged ships people would have loved him because as a character he would have actually mattered to the story; Jim Kirk's comic scenes weren't terrible for everyone, many actually liked them including myself, and as a character he had weight unlike Jar Jar, so the comparison isn't a good one. I'm sorry that you didn't like the scene but it's no George Lucas type of bad writing.

That's how I felt about it. All 3 times I saw it in the theater, the whole room burst into laughter at that scene. Some of us, myself included, with tears streaming down our faces because to me (I like slapstick), it was just so damned funny, and a welcome treat.

J.

 

[Disillusioned]

And some of us don't find the ol' pie in the face to be funny.

 

[Amaris]

And some of us don't find the ol' pie in the face to be funny.

That's fine, but slapstick is a part of the legitimate theater. You don't have to like it, but it is an established method, and for many of us, it made the film that much more fun. Your mileage may vary, but all in all, I still like and respect the characters, and felt a depth of humanity I haven't felt in a while watching a Star Trek movie. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. To each their own.


J.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

Think of it like Shakespeare, he had character whose only purpose was comedy some style of slapstick humor, its there to break the tension that builds throughout the story and therefore I submit to you does serve a function.

 

[Amaris]

Think of it like Shakespeare, he had character whose only purpose was comedy some style of slapstick humor, its there to break the tension that builds throughout the story and therefore I submit to you does serve a function.

Oh certainly. There has to be some kind of respite for movies like this, because the fast pacing and the dramatic aspects will wear you out. I think it was delightfully done.


J.

 

[Disillusioned]

That's fine, but slapstick is a part of the legitimate theater. You don't have to like it, but it is an established method, and for many of us, it made the film that much more fun. Your mileage may vary, but all in all, I still like and respect the characters, and felt a depth of humanity I haven't felt in a while watching a Star Trek movie. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. To each their own.

So a modern version of the Three Stooges would do real well then, right? Or at least you'd like it, right?

I can't say that I really see all that much slapstick, if any, in modern shows that are actually trying to take themselves seriously. The only ones that do it are meant to be mindless fluff. And if you want to argue that this movie is nothing but mindless fluff (something I'd agree with), that's fine, but you can't then argue this movie is in any way "deep" and deserving of some kind of academy award for being thoughtful and provoking. I suppose you could always nominate it as "Best Comedy."

Think of it like Shakespeare, he had character whose only purpose was comedy some style of slapstick humor, its there to break the tension that builds throughout the story and therefore I submit to you does serve a function.

So who was this character in "Julius Caesar" or in "Hamlet?" I mean, people are going to have their likes and dislikes when it comes to any collection of works, and Shakespeare is no exception to that. Plus there's always how well it's done and how far they go with it. This movie had a lot of it that tended to be jarring and childish and they just kept going with it.

 

[Amaris]

That's fine, but slapstick is a part of the legitimate theater. You don't have to like it, but it is an established method, and for many of us, it made the film that much more fun. Your mileage may vary, but all in all, I still like and respect the characters, and felt a depth of humanity I haven't felt in a while watching a Star Trek movie. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. To each their own.

So a modern version of the Three Stooges would do real well then, right? Or at least you'd like it, right?

If it were done well, then I could like it, yes.
You realize, of course, that slapstick is not relegated to the Three Stooges, and that many modern comedies use slapstick as a part of their repertoire.

I can't say that I really see all that much slapstick, if any, in modern shows that are actually trying to take themselves seriously. The only ones that do it are meant to be mindless fluff. And if you want to argue that this movie is nothing but mindless fluff (something I'd agree with), that's fine, but you can't then argue this movie is in any way "deep" and deserving of some kind of academy award for being thoughtful and provoking. I suppose you could always nominate it as "Best Comedy."

I disagree. The original series used slapstick, as I have shown in previous posts. If you would like to argue that the original series is not being faithful to the seriousness of the original series, I would have to step out of such a discussion. Star Trek has always mixed moments of drama with liberal doses of comedy and satire. This movie was no different in that approach.

J.

 

[Disillusioned]

If it were done well, then I could like it, yes.
You realize, of course, that slapstick is not relegated to the Three Stooges, and that many modern comedies use slapstick as a part of their repertoire.

I know that, but they are an example of slapstick comedy. It's also why the movie they made in the '60s is on the "50 Worst Movies Ever Made" documentary.

I disagree. The original series used slapstick, as I have shown in previous posts. If you would like to argue that the original series is not being faithful to the seriousness of the original series, I would have to step out of such a discussion. Star Trek has always mixed moments of drama with liberal doses of comedy and satire. This movie was no different in that approach.

I would argue that the original series wasn't taking itself seriously when it used slapstick comedy. The same as any of the series or movies, because there are more than just the one series.

 

[Amaris]

I know that, but they are an example of slapstick comedy. It's also why the movie they made in the '60s is on the "50 Worst Movies Ever Made" documentary.

They are but one example, unless you would now like to make the claim that Star Trek: Nemesis represents all of Star Trek.

I would argue that the original series wasn't taking itself seriously when it used slapstick comedy. The same as any of the series or movies, because there are more than just the one series.

So TOS and the other series' and movies weren't taking themselves seriously when they used slapstick? Then how is Star Trek XI guilty of such a crime when others are not?

J.

 

[Disillusioned]

They are but one example, unless you would now like to make the claim that Star Trek: Nemesis represents all of Star Trek.

The Three Stooges are an example of slapstick done poorly and over the top and NEM is an example of Star Trek done poorly and over the top.

So TOS and the other series' and movies weren't taking themselves seriously when they used slapstick? Then how is Star Trek XI guilty of such a crime when others are not?

What? I just said that they were guilty of not taking themselves seriously when they used slapstick. You just repeated what I said and somehow got that last sentence out of that?

 

[Amaris]

They are but one example, unless you would now like to make the claim that Star Trek: Nemesis represents all of Star Trek.

The Three Stooges are an example of slapstick done poorly and over the top and NEM is an example of Star Trek done poorly and over the top.

I think while you might have people agree on Nemesis, there's a reason why the Three Stooges have remained a universal constant for all these years. They are dearly loved by many. That aside, none of this has anything to do with Star Trek XI.

What? I just said that they were guilty of not taking themselves seriously when they used slapstick. You just repeated what I said and somehow got that last sentence out of that?

I said that the original series used slapstick. You made the statement that when they used slapstick they weren't taking themselves seriously. I agree to that. However, you're making a point that this differentiates Star Trek XI from the other movies in what way? You must have brought this up for a reason, because as it stands my statements are as follows:

1) Star Trek XI contained elements of slapstick.
2) The Original Series contained elements of slapstick.
3) The previous Star Trek movies contained elements of slapstick.

What is it that you're arguing?

J.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Kirk Prime would never have played this scene. Cannot.. picture it.. at all..

However who cares.

 

[Amaris]

Kirk Prime would never have played this scene. Cannot.. picture it.. at all..

However, he has played slapstick.

However who cares.

Good point.


J.

 

[Disillusioned]

I said that the original series used slapstick. You made the statement that when they used slapstick they weren't taking themselves seriously. I agree to that. However, you're making a point that this differentiates Star Trek XI from the other movies in what way?

Actually I'm not. Pretty much all I've said is that I think slapstick is stupid and lame.

You must have brought this up for a reason, because as it stands my statements are as follows:

1) Star Trek XI contained elements of slapstick.
2) The Original Series contained elements of slapstick.
3) The previous Star Trek movies contained elements of slapstick.

What is it that you're arguing?

That Slapstick is stupid and lame. This is just one of the many ways the movie sucks, not the sole reason it sucks. People have tried to argue that this movie deserves academy awards because they think it's a thought provoking and "deep" movie that deserves it. I saw the same movie and didn't see anything particularly deep, and the only thoughts that were provoked from me where about how horrible this movie was. Some of that was from how much slapstick humor there was and how far it was taken.

I'm also pointing out that the "but it's been done before" argument is invalid because someone who doesn't like it being done now probably didn't like it when it was done back then either.

 

[Amaris]

Actually I'm not. Pretty much all I've said is that I think slapstick is stupid and lame.

Then it is merely your personal opinion, which you are welcome to hold.

That Slapstick is stupid and lame. This is just one of the many ways the movie sucks, not the sole reason it sucks.

Then it is solely your opinion.

People have tried to argue that this movie deserves academy awards because they think it's a thought provoking and "deep" movie that deserves it. I saw the same movie and didn't see anything particularly deep, and the only thoughts that were provoked from me where about how horrible this movie was. Some of that was from how much slapstick humor there was and how far it was taken.

Then you are arguing purely from personal taste.

I'm also pointing out that the "but it's been done before" argument is invalid because someone who doesn't like it being done now probably didn't like it when it was done back then either.

Irrelevant. Basing an answer on what someone "probably" didn't like does not bolster a statement of authority or one that is conclusive. I gave you data that verified the correlation of slapstick and physical humor between Star Trek the original series and Star Trek XI. You are giving me personal taste and opinion. Again, you are more than free to say how you feel, I would not stop you in any way, but in lieu of the evidence shown, your statement that the movie "sucks" is entirely your opinion, and not supported or relevant by the data at hand. It all comes down to personal taste.

J.