Is the great rift repairable?

[Dusty Ayres]

Exactly.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Too many people on this BBS spend far, far too much time seemingly going out of their way to NOT enjoy stuff. I just don't understand it.

Not me-I enjoy Star Trek in all its forms; I just don't make a big deal about bad episodes. If an episode is bad, its bad
-full stop. Nothing I can do about it If I, however find an episode bad, it is bad-full stop. (And episodes I find bad-some of those are favorites of people, like 'Hollow Pursuits'!) I NEVER got all of this bashing of Berman & Braga-what episodes that were bad aren't any worse as the stinkers made in the third season of TOS, like 'The Way To Eden'-which was another level of shit and then some, or 'Spock's Brain', which was the same thing. Most of the worse of TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise isn't even that bad, not even 'Threshold', the supposedly stinky one of Voyager. Life is short, and it's too short to spend hating something you don't like in entertainment, so I just enjoy Star Trek-if that means that I can't see the 'bad', then so be it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For starters, this whole nonsense in referring to the reboot as "the great rift" and asking if it can be repaired is overly melodramatic, rather stupid, and frankly, stereotypical of the "Trekkie" mindset and persona which, I think, many of us would rather leave behind.

Secondly, nothing needs to be "repaired." The franchise is working just fine now.

Yeah, let's say good-bye to the Drama Queen Fanboy types.

Yep.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I don't get the mentality that making a popular movie is a bastardization of Star Trek. Roddenberry certainly didn't pitch it to the suits as a show that wouldn't be popular.

No one is saying that making a popular movie is wrong. But bastardizing not only good moviemaking, but good TREK to make a popular movie is VERY wrong.

In terms of filmmaking, Trek 09 is a disaster. It panders to the 2 second attention span crowd with lots and lots of jump cuts, "shaky cam", plus nauseating camera moves in the FX sequences made infamous by Michael Bay's crowd. The cinematography is harsh, either too over exposed or underexposed , gritty, and unpleasant to the eye. Shoddy camera work is not only celebrated, but MAGNIFIED by the use of artificial lens flares (something any beginning camera operator student is taught to AVOID).

Character-wise we get "treated" to Kirk the Letch as opposed to Kirk the Ladies' Man, Mad Scientist Scotty, mawkishly overdone Checkov accents, et al. Do we HAVE to have our heroes with such feet of clay? Are cheap laughs REALLY worth undermining your lead characters that way?

The franchise didn't run out of steam because it was being true to its "ideals" and producing smart, provocative televised entertainment. It stalled because it just didn't keep up with the times.

The two are not mutually exclusive. "Current" does not have to mean reducing yourself to the LCD.

Get Manny Coto in and give HIM a go. Get Mike Okuda back. Get the Reeves-Stevenses back. They were getting it done with Enterprise in S4, but they were not given the time to fix all the damage Berman did with his insipid and burned out "leadership".

 

[DonIago]

Well, I think everyone generally is entitled to their opinion, but I also think that while not liking Trek '09 is all well and good, it seems more productive to try to have a positive attitude of "Well maybe the next film will be more to my liking, I can afford to be hopeful" than an attitude of "J.J. ruined Trek forever." One bad movie is an aberration, not a pattern.

Hell, if people had taken the latter attitude after TMP we wouldn't be having this delightful conversation now.

If you feel the latest movie betrayed Trekkian ideals, I recommend showing some yourself and having some faith that the future is not without hope.

As to the idea that Trek must never be shallow, I have four words for you - The Trouble with Tribbles.

 

[Char Aznable]

In terms of filmmaking, Trek 09 is a disaster. It panders to the 2 second attention span crowd with lots and lots of jump cuts, "shaky cam", plus nauseating camera moves in the FX sequences made infamous by Michael Bay's crowd. The cinematography is harsh, either too over exposed or underexposed , gritty, and unpleasant to the eye. Shoddy camera work is not only celebrated, but MAGNIFIED by the use of artificial lens flares (something any beginning camera operator student is taught to AVOID).

Says you. I thought XI was the first Star Trek film to actually feel like a FILM in years. Sorry you wanted it to look like a 90's TV show like the last couple movies.

Character-wise we get "treated" to Kirk the Letch as opposed to Kirk the Ladies' Man, Mad Scientist Scotty, mawkishly overdone Checkov accents, et al. Do we HAVE to have our heroes with such feet of clay? Are cheap laughs REALLY worth undermining your lead characters that way?

Again, says you. Chekhov, Sulu, and Uhura were FAR more interesting here than they ever were in TOS. Kirk was just as much of a ladies man as ever, they were just allowed to get away with a bit more. Besides, he's supposed to be younger anyhow.

The two are not mutually exclusive. "Current" does not have to mean reducing yourself to the LCD.

It does mean making Trek fun and interesting though. Which it has been for the first time in years.

Get Manny Coto in and give HIM a go. Get Mike Okuda back. Get the Reeves-Stevenses back. They were getting it done with Enterprise in S4, but they were not given the time to fix all the damage Berman did with his insipid and burned out "leadership".

Good TV does not equal good cinema. Besides, XI blew ENT out of the water, no matter what the season.

 

[YARN]

"Current" does not have to mean reducing yourself to the LCD.

You hear this thinking in RedLetterMedia's review of the film too. "Audiences today want big dumb action movies" (not actual sci-fi which is allegedly boring), "so you can't criticize a film for meeting today's expectations." There are realistic practical concerns that have to be considered (like making money), but you can lower the bar too far if turning a quick buck is all that counts.

The last film was better than most Trek movies, so I don't think it is time to freak out. Nevertheless, the film also had flaws which deserve to be discussed.

Do these flaws justify the creation or assertion of some great rift in the fanboy-nerd continuum? I don't think so, but I can see justified reasons for concern.

 

[doubleohfive]

I don't get the mentality that making a popular movie is a bastardization of Star Trek. Roddenberry certainly didn't pitch it to the suits as a show that wouldn't be popular.

No one is saying that making a popular movie is wrong. But bastardizing not only good moviemaking, but good TREK to make a popular movie is VERY wrong.

Why? The film was a financial success, thereby guaranteeing more future installments. How is that necessarily bad?

In terms of filmmaking, Trek 09 is a disaster. It panders to the 2 second attention span crowd with lots and lots of jump cuts,

I don't think you know what the term 'jump cut' refers to, as you are using it incorrectly here.

"shaky cam", plus nauseating camera moves in the FX sequences made infamous by Michael Bay's crowd. The cinematography is harsh, either too over exposed or underexposed , gritty, and unpleasant to the eye. Shoddy camera work is not only celebrated, but MAGNIFIED by the use of artificial lens flares (something any beginning camera operator student is taught to AVOID).

And yet stylistically, the film is still coherent, enjoyable and comes together in a satisfying manner.

Character-wise we get "treated" to Kirk the Letch as opposed to Kirk the Ladies' Man,

How is Kirk a "letch" in this film? I've said it before -- Kirk is an asshole. He always has been. He just dresses it up nicely. (I love how all the ardent Trek fans are only now realizing this.) In the 2009 film, we're just seeing Kirk coming in to his own. Just like James Bond isn't really James Bond until the very last scene of the 2006 Casino Royale, James T. Kirk isn't really James T. Kirk until the end of the 2009 film. So what?

Mad Scientist Scotty, mawkishly overdone Checkov accents, et al. Do we HAVE to have our heroes with such feet of clay? Are cheap laughs REALLY worth undermining your lead characters that way?

It's a movie, not the New Testament.

The franchise didn't run out of steam because it was being true to its "ideals" and producing smart, provocative televised entertainment. It stalled because it just didn't keep up with the times.

The two are not mutually exclusive. "Current" does not have to mean reducing yourself to the LCD.

Nor did the 2009 film "reduce itself to the LCD." What the 2009 film did do was appeal to a broader audience by actually being, you know, entertaining. Just because this brand of entertaining does not fit in to a small, fringe group of niche Star Trek fans' expectations does not automatically mean it wasn't an entertaining film. The box office take should at least back that assertion.

Get Manny Coto in and give HIM a go. Get Mike Okuda back. Get the Reeves-Stevenses back. They were getting it done with Enterprise in S4, but they were not given the time to fix all the damage Berman did with his insipid and burned out "leadership".

I think a lot of this last paragraph is really unfair of you to suppose. It's all recycled, TrekBBS discussion and media hogwash that has slipped in to the local Trekkie lore and legend.

The fact of the matter is it is irrelevant whether Berman was burned out or if Coto could do better, or why they "didn't have the time fix all the damage" -- Abrams still did better. And the film was a success. That much is undeniable.

 

[doubleohfive]

The last film was better than most Trek movies, so I don't think it is time to freak out. Nevertheless, the film also had flaws which deserve to be discussed.

Do these flaws justify the creation or assertion of some great rift in the fanboy-nerd continuum? I don't think so, but I can see justified reasons for concern.

A very reasonable, and mature way of addressing precisely this point, all the more so because such commentary is seemingly increasingly fleeting on this BBS. I for one will be happy to discuss this topic in a thread about same.

 

[Char Aznable]

The last film was better than most Trek movies, so I don't think it is time to freak out. Nevertheless, the film also had flaws which deserve to be discussed.

Do these flaws justify the creation or assertion of some great rift in the fanboy-nerd continuum? I don't think so, but I can see justified reasons for concern.

Agreed. XI was awesome, but flawed. The problem is that the detractors keep trying to pick apart the movie by either;

1) ignoring the equal or greater flaws in other Trek productions.

2) simply misunderstanding XI's plot (for a film that supposedly, "dumb," there are so many people who can't understand it) and claiming its an error.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

As to the idea that Trek must never be shallow, I have four words for you - The Trouble with Tribbles.

The 'Trouble With Tribbles' was a comedic episode, one thing that most shows are allowed to have-there was NOTHING shallow about it. And it entertained while being true to what Star Trek is as a concept.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Well, I think everyone generally is entitled to their opinion, but I also think that while not liking Trek '09 is all well and good, it seems more productive to try to have a positive attitude of "Well maybe the next film will be more to my liking, I can afford to be hopeful" than an attitude of "J.J. ruined Trek forever." One bad movie is an aberration, not a pattern.

The problem with this arguement is that Trek 09 was the "direction setter" for what JJ intends for the franchise. Future JJ Trek isn't going to depart radically from the tone and feel that he's set already.

If you feel the latest movie betrayed Trekkian ideals, I recommend showing some yourself and having some faith that the future is not without hope.

See above.

As to the idea that Trek must never be shallow, I have four words for you - The Trouble with Tribbles.

There's not deep and then there's shallow. Yes, TTWT didn't really have a lot to say, but it didn't feature sleezy feel coping and other puerile, juvenile stunts designed to get a laugh out of a crude audience either.

Says you. I thought XI was the first Star Trek film to actually feel like a FILM in years. Sorry you wanted it to look like a 90's TV show like the last couple movies.

How can a film filmed at least 50% location "feel like a 90s TV show (Insurrection, FC for example). Not only is your premise false factually, you make no mention of the other six films that likewise did not "feel like a 90s tv show".

Again, says you. Chekhov, Sulu, and Uhura were FAR more interesting here than they ever were in TOS.

Checkov: locked on a transporter and did a "bad accent" joke

Sulu: swordfought (and not even with the right kind of sword). Ran the helm (oh and forgot the parking brake)

Uhura: Ok, I'll grant you that Zoe got a meatier part than Nichols ever got, but it wasn't anything ground breaking. She got felt up by Kirk and was Spock's girlfriend.

Kirk was just as much of a ladies man as ever, they were just allowed to get away with a bit more. Besides, he's supposed to be younger anyhow.

Why am I not surprised that you don't know the difference between a charming ladies man and a sleezy feel copping bar lout?

The two are not mutually exclusive. "Current" does not have to mean reducing yourself to the LCD.

It does mean making Trek fun and interesting though. Which it has been for the first time in years.

Fun, interesting and ultimately empty...what ever happened to wanting more from Trek than eye candy?

Good TV does not equal good cinema.

Nor does it equal BAD cinema. They should get the chance.

Besides, XI blew ENT out of the water, no matter what the season.

Utter BS. I'd take the WORST season of Enterprise over JJ Trek any day. It was better written, better filmed and had far more respect for the Trek legacy.

 

[Char Aznable]

How can a film filmed at least 50% location "feel like a 90s TV show (Insurrection, FC for example). Not only is your premise false factually, you make no mention of the other six films that likewise did not "feel like a 90s tv show".

Oh, please. Plenty of Trek eps has locations. That doesn't change the fact that the last couple movies looked cheap. FC I'll grant you, however. That was the only TNG movie that actually felt like a movie.

Checkov: locked on a transporter and did a "bad accent" joke

And Prime Chekov did . . . what that was so special by comparison?

Sulu: swordfought (and not even with the right kind of sword). Ran the helm (oh and forgot the parking brake)

As opposed to Sulu using a foil sword while under an influence? At least NuSulu actually made use of his skills.

Why am I not surprised that you don't know the difference between a charming ladies man and a sleezy feel copping bar lout?

Why do none of the destractors seem to get that Kirk groping Uhura was an accident due to being thrust into her during the bar fight (which he didn't even start BTW)?

Fun, interesting and ultimately empty...what ever happened to wanting more from Trek than eye candy?

I thought the new movie offered plenty. For instance, the lady next to me (or in our group anyway) was shocked at Spock's mother dying and genuinely felt for him and his situation. She'd never seen Star Trek or knew what Spock was. Contrast that with me seeing NEM after years of watching TNG. When Data died, I practically yawned. One of these movies had more soul than the other.

Nor does it equal BAD cinema. They should get the chance.

Frankly, I'm happy with things as they are now thank you.

Utter BS. I'd take the WORST season of Enterprise over JJ Trek any day. It was better written, better filmed and had far more respect for the Trek legacy.

Enterprise

had far more respect for the Trek legacy

 

[kkozoriz1]

Yeah, the brewery made it look soooo much like a film. Unfortunately that film was Strange Brew.

Let's not forget the label dispensers on the helm.

And the oh so advanced looking space Scotty was found in. Where did they film that, a back alley in a bad part of town somewhere?

 

[Char Aznable]

Still looks better than the constantly recycled sets in INS and NEM.

 

[DonIago]

If the detractors of the film aren't willing to extend any benefit of the doubt to future films, logic would suggest they shouldn't watch them. Similarly there seems little point in continuing this dialog as neither side is going to alter the others' opinion.

Of course, Trek fans have never been the type to stop dwelling on the past, which is rather ironic given the franchise is set in the future and deals with people who generally look to the future optimistically.

 

[doubleohfive]

If the detractors of the film aren't willing to extend any benefit of the doubt to future films, logic would suggest they shouldn't watch them. Similarly there seems little point in continuing this dialog as neither side is going to alter the others' opinion.

Of course, Trek fans have never been the type to stop dwelling on the past, which is rather ironic given the franchise is set in the future and deals with people who generally look to the future optimistically.

Indeed. Irony seems to be the most common element in the Star Trek universe.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Oh, please. Plenty of Trek eps has locations. That doesn't change the fact that the last couple movies looked cheap. FC I'll grant you, however. That was the only TNG movie that actually felt like a movie.

Nemesis I can kind'a get. No location shoots that couldn't've been soundstage work, and the Scimitar's sets were a little off (like the needlessly gothic bridge, which I suspect was supposed to play into the whole "vampire chic" motif of the Remans).

Insurrection had a TON of gorgeous location shots in locations that were remote enough the filmmakers didn't have to stay in medium and tight shots to keep highways and power lines out of the frame.

Checkov: locked on a transporter and did a "bad accent" joke

And Prime Chekov did . . . what that was so special by comparison?

Ok, so a lot of Koenig's Checkov was his "Russia-phillia", but I thought he showed some real depth on the rare occasion that he got even a hint of material to work with ("The Apple" and "The Way to Eden", esp).

As opposed to Sulu using a foil sword while under an influence? At least NuSulu actually made use of his skills.

The whole point of NOT doing a katana (which the writers wanted to do for "The Naked Time") was to show Sulu as more than a stereotypical Asian by making him a Dumas fan.

JJs writers were content to just play Nu Sulu straight into the stereotype, not to mention that one does not "fence" with a katana. Fencing is a particular school of European swordfighting based on the use of fast, light blades such as the foil or the epee.

Why do none of the destractors seem to get that Kirk groping Uhura was an accident due to being thrust into her during the bar fight (which he didn't even start BTW)?

And Pine ruined it with his "Oh, look...TITTIES!" leer when it happened. Having him give her an apologetic look would have completely changed the way that moment came across, and showed that Kirk had some class after all.

I thought the new movie offered plenty. For instance, the lady next to me (or in our group anyway) was shocked at Spock's mother dying and genuinely felt for him and his situation. She'd never seen Star Trek or knew what Spock was. Contrast that with me seeing NEM after years of watching TNG. When Data died, I practically yawned. One of these movies had more soul than the other.

I admit the whole Vulcan/Amanda dying thing was a genuine moment, a hell of a shock, and a daring move storywise. But it came on the heels of a whole lot of cheap characterization and stupid sight-gags (like the entire "reacting to the vaccine" sequence. I thought the film would settle down from then on, and it did until we got to Delta Vega and the start of the Scotty stuff (which Pegg did a remarkable job of getting the most out of, I will concede).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Indeed. Irony seems to be the most common element in the Star Trek universe.

Where fandom's concerned, but not in Trek itself. Star Trek is about as irony-free as any entertainment aimed at people who aren't sleepwalking.

Maybe JJ and company can do something about that.

 

[Squiggy]

In terms of filmmaking, Trek 09 is a disaster.

I know what this thread needs, a game!

Let's name all the Star Trek movies that have won an Oscar.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

darkwing is not an authority, expert, or even particularly observant about the technical aspects of what constitutes good or bad filmmaking. His opinion on such matters is no more useful or interesting than my opinion on launch trajectories for a geosynchronous satellite.