Any other TOSers give up post-Abrams?
- Thread starter jayrath
- Start date
I've been quiet on the board for a long time. No reason, just real life's interferences.
This time a year ago, my childhood friends (who were never Trekkies or Trekkers) began to place odds on how many times I would go to see JJ's Trek movie in the theater. The highest bet was for 11 viewings (apparently one for each movie that had been released). The lowest bet was for three viewings...one for Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.
The low man won. I went on the second night of opening. Three of those old childhood friends went with me...boys night out. That turned out to be the only time I saw it in the theater.
I squirmed and squirmed. I felt like I was rewatching Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ...when one knows how the movie will end, the only question remains is can the viewer suffer through the storyline along with the protagonist...just one more time.
At some time in the first 15 minutes, I was ready to go. But to finish it, there had to be a series mental explanations as to how I could finish watching the movie without being rude. So, I decided to watch the rest of the two hours as if I were critiquing cinematography, special effects, editing, soundtrack, etc, etc, for a movie review. After a dose of self-hypnotism to ignore the storyline and characterization, relaxation spread across my body, and I "enjoyed" the movie.
For a Christmas gift, there was the 2-disc release wrapped under the tree. The family insisted that we watch it again over the holiday weekend. I went through it again from stem to stern. This time, I noticed that it was a comedy mixed with action adventure sprinkles.
Will I watch ST-XII? Yes, sci-fi, action-adventure movies thrill me. They're cool. Will I consider it to be my brand of Star Trek? No. I've already placed ST-XI into the same category as Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels. You know Turtledove's idea, Pickett's Charge broke the Union lines at Gettysburg to force Lincoln to sue for peace. That sort of thing. Nice entertainment can use up hours of spare time, but one walks away from it knowing that Lee's failed gamble was the first step toward reuniting my country on its way to becoming a superpower. That's how I've decided to categorize JJ's Trek...nice entertainment, but history is history.
This time a year ago, my childhood friends (who were never Trekkies or Trekkers) began to place odds on how many times I would go to see JJ's Trek movie in the theater. The highest bet was for 11 viewings (apparently one for each movie that had been released). The lowest bet was for three viewings...one for Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.
The low man won. I went on the second night of opening. Three of those old childhood friends went with me...boys night out. That turned out to be the only time I saw it in the theater.
I squirmed and squirmed. I felt like I was rewatching Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ...when one knows how the movie will end, the only question remains is can the viewer suffer through the storyline along with the protagonist...just one more time.
At some time in the first 15 minutes, I was ready to go. But to finish it, there had to be a series mental explanations as to how I could finish watching the movie without being rude. So, I decided to watch the rest of the two hours as if I were critiquing cinematography, special effects, editing, soundtrack, etc, etc, for a movie review. After a dose of self-hypnotism to ignore the storyline and characterization, relaxation spread across my body, and I "enjoyed" the movie.
For a Christmas gift, there was the 2-disc release wrapped under the tree. The family insisted that we watch it again over the holiday weekend. I went through it again from stem to stern. This time, I noticed that it was a comedy mixed with action adventure sprinkles.
Will I watch ST-XII? Yes, sci-fi, action-adventure movies thrill me. They're cool. Will I consider it to be my brand of Star Trek? No. I've already placed ST-XI into the same category as Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels. You know Turtledove's idea, Pickett's Charge broke the Union lines at Gettysburg to force Lincoln to sue for peace. That sort of thing. Nice entertainment can use up hours of spare time, but one walks away from it knowing that Lee's failed gamble was the first step toward reuniting my country on its way to becoming a superpower. That's how I've decided to categorize JJ's Trek...nice entertainment, but history is history.
The thing I didn't like about the new film is the same thing I haven't liked about any of the Trek spinoffs: a lack of a compelling SF story. Abrams has the same problem as Rick Berman. He's not using real SF authors who understand SF. It's got nothing to do with what the sets look like or how flashy the FX are. It has to do with the story.
To me, Trek hasn't changed much from Voyager to this new film. The shows/films are still being written by people who don't get SF. The thing is, they're back to trying to make real Trek again, with Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. And that in itself places it a notch above almost anything Berman/Braga ever did.
And that said, what's there to "give up" exactly? Star Trek is still out there. In fact, last year was a great year for Trek with the entire series being released on blu-ray. That's gotten me more excited about Star Trek than I've been in years. And the best thing about the new film is that they've shown you can always reboot Trek and keep it relevent. There's always hope for the next reboot.
To me, Trek hasn't changed much from Voyager to this new film. The shows/films are still being written by people who don't get SF. The thing is, they're back to trying to make real Trek again, with Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. And that in itself places it a notch above almost anything Berman/Braga ever did.
And that said, what's there to "give up" exactly? Star Trek is still out there. In fact, last year was a great year for Trek with the entire series being released on blu-ray. That's gotten me more excited about Star Trek than I've been in years. And the best thing about the new film is that they've shown you can always reboot Trek and keep it relevent. There's always hope for the next reboot.
I dont think Star Trek has ever been about telling "compelling SF stories". Compelling stories, yes but the SF was usually secondary. The stories seem to be about humans and humanity (even when they were aliens) than about some science derived concept. I think thats what GR meant when he talked about doing an adult SF show. Stories about people, like what was being done in Westerns, cop shows and other serious dramas in the 50s and 60s. The SF was just a hook to hang those stories on.
That said, I found Spock and Kirk's stories in the new movie compelling and the Science concepts used interesting.
That said, I found Spock and Kirk's stories in the new movie compelling and the Science concepts used interesting.
So fucking true! As much as I enjoy this new movie, it was absolute rubbish as a work of SF. And while it had some snappy, clever and arch moments, the film is, at it's core, profoundly stupid. It's my recognition of this--my recognition that this film has more in common with the Gold Key Comics and Peter Pan story album Star Trek than with the show I'm an incurable fan of--that puts me on the side of the haters whenever there's a silly debate over the merits of the movie even though I thoroughly enjoy it.
For all of its embarrassing episodes (roughly a quarter to a third of the show, imao), TOS was an ambitious tv show that did more to legitimize space opera as a valid genre of storytelling, as worthy of respect as the western or the hard-boiled crime story rather than kid's stuff worthy only of contemptuous dismissal, than any other single "work" of SF--more even than Clark and Kubrick's 2001,although its artistic and intellectual merit is far greater than that of TOS. The movie Star Trek, by contrast, was a painlessly goofy and strangely emotionally affecting pastiche of that show, with an agreeably juvenile tone best exemplified by Scotty's Willy Wonka pipeworks adventure.
Abrams's movie appealed solely to the kid in me but I'm cool with that. I'm fond of saying that Trek was wonderful because when I was a kid, Trek made me feel adult and now that I'm an adult, Trek makes me feel like a kid. I'm a coupla months shy of forty now. Like so many Americans, I live in fear of losing a job I hate. I'll take feeling like a kid again, even if it means I get the big-screen equivalent of Peter Pan's "A Passage to Moav" or "In Vino Veritas" rather than Norman Spinrad's "Doomsday Machine" or Ellison's "City...," I'll take it.
I just discovered this thread, and it sure has been interesting.
A few random comments -
I like that.
Iowagirl, I'm glad you came back happy from Vegas, but I do think that, before you critique a movie, you ought to actually watch it.
As far as good, intelligent sci-fi writing goes, I'm not sure that it can be done for an entertaining action film. For the series, it was easier, since 40 minutes allowed the "thoughtful" aspects to be kept narrow and focused, which isn't the case in a two-hour film. Generally, good sci-fi in films ends up being way too serious for entertainment. And although I respect good writing, I prefer a movie that entertains me. Call me shallow, but I'd rather watch Wrath of Khan than Bladerunner, any time.
To answer the topic of this post, my point of view seems to be a little different from anyone else's I've read so far. I'm a huge TOS fan. But although I love many many things about it, including the stories, what I loved best was the interaction of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Seeing them play off each other and complement each other's virtues and faults was solid gold to me.
When JJ brought out his movie, I admit I went to see it with the idea that I was not going to like it. I didn't - I loved it. I thought it was fun, cool, and exciting, and that it had a lot of heart. But now I'm holding my breath for the second film. In XI, JJ laid the groundwork for the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate. I am now praying that he continues to develop that and make it a strong and central theme.
So no, I have not given up. In fact, I feel refreshed and excited. I just pray that JJ will continue on the right path and bring back, in a new way, the one thing that made Star Trek my favorite TV show ever.
A few random comments -
I like that.
Iowagirl, I'm glad you came back happy from Vegas, but I do think that, before you critique a movie, you ought to actually watch it.
As far as good, intelligent sci-fi writing goes, I'm not sure that it can be done for an entertaining action film. For the series, it was easier, since 40 minutes allowed the "thoughtful" aspects to be kept narrow and focused, which isn't the case in a two-hour film. Generally, good sci-fi in films ends up being way too serious for entertainment. And although I respect good writing, I prefer a movie that entertains me. Call me shallow, but I'd rather watch Wrath of Khan than Bladerunner, any time.
To answer the topic of this post, my point of view seems to be a little different from anyone else's I've read so far. I'm a huge TOS fan. But although I love many many things about it, including the stories, what I loved best was the interaction of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Seeing them play off each other and complement each other's virtues and faults was solid gold to me.
When JJ brought out his movie, I admit I went to see it with the idea that I was not going to like it. I didn't - I loved it. I thought it was fun, cool, and exciting, and that it had a lot of heart. But now I'm holding my breath for the second film. In XI, JJ laid the groundwork for the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate. I am now praying that he continues to develop that and make it a strong and central theme.
So no, I have not given up. In fact, I feel refreshed and excited. I just pray that JJ will continue on the right path and bring back, in a new way, the one thing that made Star Trek my favorite TV show ever.
The best SF stories are about people. The biggest misconception about science fiction from people who don't actually read science fiction is that it isn't about people.
^The best SF is about people wrestling with ideas, which is why SF appeals to so many intellectuals, since they regularly wrestle with ideas.
I take that as a compliment.
I take that as a compliment.
Right. When I hear someone complain that they don't like SF because they like stories about people, I think, "What you really mean is you like stories about people in which you don't have to think too much."
We reach!
Hello Dragonfare, I did watch it (go figure), but I was trying to make my point by fooling around a bit, just to make sure everybody understood that...I...hated...it.
BANG!Right. When I hear someone complain that they don't like SF because they like stories about people, I think, "What you really mean is you like stories about people in which you don't have to think too much."
Thank you very much!
BANG!Right. When I hear someone complain that they don't like SF because they like stories about people, I think, "What you really mean is you like stories about people in which you don't have to think too much."
Thank you very much!
Double BANG!
The alternate complaint is Great Sci Fi is boring, and usually the person making such a claim is A) showing contempt prior to investigation (i.e. not taking the time or effort to understand it) or B) Does not care to think just wishes to be SHOWN.
Though I did like the Abrams film and took it for what it was, going back to the old topic I am still very much a TOS'er and find my trek is still alive and well in my DvD's a few good novels and my soon to be had Blue Rays.
I am occasionally appalled however by the seeming growing nature of ADHD like mindset that seems to becoming the norm when folks go to movies or watch TV. It seems if its not fast paced and sprinkled with explosions every 15 mins then its deemed boring.
Maybe its my age, but give me the old Doomsday Machine eppy or Balance of Terror, or realistic explorers that seem to be 'old salts'/vets than the green,barbie/ken doll eye candy that seems to fill the shoes of most modern day scifi roles.
I still would rather watch the old Andromeda Strain and be marveled at the scifi science of the time than break my brain on 'Armageddon' like films.
Just my two cents.
Vons
I don't disagree, I've been reading SF almost as long as I've watched Star Trek. Still I think the human aspects in Star Trek always outshined any science ideas involved.
Hello Dragonfare, I did watch it (go figure), but I was trying to make my point by fooling around a bit, just to make sure everybody understood that...I...hated...it.
Apologies! Left my sense of humor in my other purse, I guess!
A
Amaris
Guest
It's not really an old age thing. I don't know how old you are (and I won't ask, that would be rude
), but I'm 29 and love the new movie, but also am a huge TOS fan. One of my favorite episodes is "Balance of Terror". I love the whole feel of that episode, it's like submarine warfare in space, and the strategy, the exposition, the end result, everything culminates in a wonderful episode. It's one of my top 5 favorite episodes, so I think it's more of a willingness to enjoy. As in, if you really want to enjoy something, you make the time and bring yourself to watch it without having to look for fast cuts and explosions just to stay attentive. I like being intrigued, and BoT does that terrifically.Hello Dragonfare, I did watch it (go figure), but I was trying to make my point by fooling around a bit, just to make sure everybody understood that...I...hated...it.
Apologies! Left my sense of humor in my other purse, I guess!
No need to apologize, Dragonfare. I often tend to leave my humor in some other universe, whenever Abrams is concerned.
Similar threads
- Locked
