The only way forward for Star Trek
- Thread starter Delta Vega
- Start date
- Status
Two...and then I hope they kick his hack ass to the curb.
One of the parts I found especially "dark,' and that emphasized the differences in the two Kirks, was in the Kobayashi Maru. Kirk change the simulation so that the Klingon ships shields dropped, at the same time obviously the Klingons also stopped firing on Kirk's ship.
So on the field of battle, you have hundreds of now defenseless Klingon warriors, who are no longer any threat to Kirk's ship or the ship he's there to rescue.
At which point Kirk orders the Klingons killed.
One of the most critically acclaimed films of 2010 was the science fiction movie Inception, this was in no way a "dumbed down" sci-fi flick. It had a budget of $160 million, and a box office of $825 million.
Star Trek Eleven had a budget of $140 million, and a box office of $386 million.
I just don't buy the often mentioned excuse that the audience won't sit still for a complex science fiction film, they don't want to think. Each of the Lord of the Rings movies, had multiple factions and you had to keep straight a somewhat large cast participating in separate story arcs.
Also, Zoe Saldana's character in Avator was shown to have a slow built romance, Zoe Saldana's character in ST Eleven wasn't. Breaking news, audences like romance, ST Eleven didn't make clear that anything more than a sex hook-up was happening. Again no complexity.
In TOS you say?
In Balance of Terror, after Kirk disabled the Romulan ship he ceases fire and offered assistance. In Elaan of Troyius, after he partially disabled the Klingon ship he ceases fire and allowed it to withdraw. In Journey To Babel, after he disabled the Orion ship he ceases fire and offered surrender. In The Wraith of Khan, after he disabled the Reliant he ceases fire and told Khan his ship was to be boarded.
In Arena, Kirk at the end could have easily killed the Gorn, he didn't because it was at his mercy. The Horta, he initially ordered it shot on sight believing it to be basically wildlife, later believing it to be intelligent he was willing to fire upon it only while it was in a aggressive posture, once wounded he held his fire.
When the Romulan commander in BOT refused Kirk's offer of assistance, Kirk then didn't immediately open fire on his disabled ship.
That would have been truly "dark and gritty."
Last edited:
Personally, I thought the new movie felt much more like classic TOS than, say, VOYAGER or ENTERPRISE.
Trek was starting to feel a bit stodgy and geriatric. The new movie gave it much-needed dose of adrenalin . . . or maybe Viagra!
(And, yes, I stole that Viagra bit from the SFX review, which I thought hit the nail on the head.)
Trek was starting to feel a bit stodgy and geriatric. The new movie gave it much-needed dose of adrenalin . . . or maybe Viagra!
(And, yes, I stole that Viagra bit from the SFX review, which I thought hit the nail on the head.)
Last edited:
Since when do we care about making STAR TREK "respectable"? Respectable is boring. When was the last time you heard somebody raving that a new scifi movie or tv show was "respectable"?
If anything, latter-day TREK was in danger of getting a little too dignified and self-important, to the extent that it was starting to forget to be fun. TREK needed to get back in touch with its pulpy space opera roots . . . .
Mission accomplished!
Last edited:
Precisely. I'm looking forward to seeing what the sequel brings.
You don't like my opinion or how I express myself, even figuratively...then too bad. I call it as I see it.
Nice rebuttal.One of the parts I found especially "dark,' and that emphasized the differences in the two Kirks, was in the Kobayashi Maru. Kirk change the simulation so that the Klingon ships shields dropped, at the same time obviously the Klingons also stopped firing on Kirk's ship.
So on the field of battle, you have hundreds of now defenseless Klingon warriors, who are no longer any threat to Kirk's ship or the ship he's there to rescue.
At which point Kirk orders the Klingons killed.
One of the most critically acclaimed films of 2010 was the science fiction movie Inception, this was in no way a "dumbed down" sci-fi flick. It had a budget of $160 million, and a box office of $825 million.
Star Trek Eleven had a budget of $140 million, and a box office of $386 million.
I just don't buy the often mentioned excuse that the audience won't sit still for a complex science fiction film, they don't want to think. Each of the Lord of the Rings movies, had multiple factions and you had to keep straight a somewhat large cast participating in separate story arcs.
Also, Zoe Saldana's character in Avator was shown to have a slow built romance, Zoe Saldana's character in ST Eleven wasn't. Breaking news, audences like romance, ST Eleven didn't make clear that anything more than a sex hook-up was happening. Again no complexity.
In TOS you say?
In Balance of Terror, after Kirk disabled the Romulan ship he ceases fire and offered assistance. In Elaan of Troyius, after he partially disabled the Klingon ship he ceases fire and allowed it to withdraw. In Journey To Babel, after he disabled the Orion ship he ceases fire and offered surrender. In The Wraith of Khan, after he disabled the Reliant he ceases fire and told Khan his ship was to be boarded.
In Arena, Kirk at the end could have easily killed the Gorn, he didn't because it was at his mercy. The Horta, he initially ordered it shot on sight believing it to be basically wildlife, later believing it to be intelligent he was willing to fire upon it only while it was in a aggressive posture, once wounded he held his fire.
When the Romulan commander in BOT refused Kirk's offer of assistance, Kirk then didn't immediately open fire on his disabled ship.
That would have been truly "dark and gritty."
Nuance and suggestion are often lost on some in the audiences today. Unless it's viscerally in-your-face and blatantly obvious it sails right over the head of many. There was plenty of darkness and grit in TOS only it didn't need to be visceral and blatant.
The characters of TOS were intelligent and credibly flawed. The nuTrek characters are idiots and thoroughly flawed and never written as credible---they're all caricatures. The TOS universe had a sense of plausibility to it (within its fictional context). Nothing in the nuTrek universe makes any sense whatsoever. The overall mindset of the TOS creators was adult oriented even while having enthusiasm for the subject matter. The mindset of ST09's creators was patently juvenile reflecting the apparent maturity and worldview of a teenager with next to no real world experience.
It isn't a question of what you like or don't like. The work and final product is what it is.
Last edited:
Apparently you don't grasp someone speaking figuratively, do you? "Kick his ass to the curb" is just a more colourful and emphatic way of saying "showing him the door." Or do you need that one explained as well?
I'm not bothered by anyone not liking whatever I choose to say. I express my opinion openly. Sadly, though, we live in an age where so many are afraid of mere words and take issue or offence over any little thing. The problem isn't in what I say, but more with the thin skin of those easily offended and always on the defensive.
Oh I don't honestly think for a second you'd have the nerve to approach Abrams in person should you ever meet him, so no but that does not make the sentiment any less dispicable.
Whether you like it or not the standing contract for the reboot under Abrams is set at 3 movies, which it looks well on its way to getting. At that point he probably will step down, but anything based in the Trek franchised from this point on will be based on Abrams Trek or some variation of the new theme and aesthetic he has created.
From this point on, Trek will only ever be less and less like the dead 'prime verse' and further from what you and a tiny minority of whinging vocal nobodies want it to be, no one here listens to you, the larger world couldn't care less, and the studio's even less so, you're childish responces, brattish name calling and spoilt behaviour end with your posts and count for nothing, other than to make us dispise your very presence and take you about as seriously as a drunk on a street corner.
Get used to the new form of Trek, it is the future of this franchise, Abrams Trek and whatever new shows and merchandise Paramount chooses to bring out afterwards. You can join us all in enjoying it, or endlessly bitch and cry yourself to sleep, nothing you say or do will change whats happening. And I think that's honestly what scares you into this mask of passive agressive drivel.
Huh?
TOS had plenty of examples of humans doing bad things. Lying, cheating, stealing, loving and crying. So did TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.
If by "a more realistic portrayal of humanity" you mean you'd rather watch "Babylon 5" or the relaunched "Battlestar Galactica" or "V", you are quite welcome. I prefer ST to attempt to set the bar for humanity to aim just a little higher as we head towards the 23rd and 24th centuries.
Then you don't know me. Granted I would be more diplomatic if I met the man face-to-face, but I wouldn't shy for a second in expressing that I completely disagreed with his entire approach to his reboot.
So he makes another two films or so. Big deal. When the Brosnan era for Bond came along I easily bailed and said "so what." The Daniel Craig Bonds brought me back when the franchise got back on track (and hopefully stays there for awhile). When Batman got stupid after the '89 Michael Keaton film I easily bailed on that franchise, until Christopher Nolan made Batman good again.
So I can wait out JJ Abrams easily until someone with a far better grasp of Star Trek comes along. And there a sufficient number of genuinely good films out there to keep me occupied in the interim. For 2012 I look forward to The Dark Knight Rises, John Carter, Skyfall and Prometheus. And there'll probably be a few others I'm not expecting coming along as well. I'll have no reason or worries to waste my time and money on another hack job from JJ.
I can see that you don't play video games...
We don't know how the original Kobayashi Maru played out.
I think there is a difference in what an audience is expecting when they go to see a Star Trek or Star Wars movie vs. something like Inception. People want to see fighting and shit blowing up in the former.
This is apples and oranges comparison and I think you know it. The Commander from Balance of Terror didn't just execute six billion people and have a possible escape route where he could continue carrying out his mayhem. Let's not forget that Chang's ship was crippled with the first shot in The Undiscovered Country and Kirk and Sulu continued firing until it was destroyed.
While I thought the Spock/Uhura romance showed they paid attention while watching TOS, I too thought it was poorly done.
To be fair, "kicked to the curb" is just a common expression. That doesn't bother me. Claiming that it's an incitement to violence is stretching it.
But I still think "fun" trumps "respectable" where STAR TREK is concerned. Nobody ever got hooked on STAR TREK as a kid because it was really, really respectable . . . .
But I still think "fun" trumps "respectable" where STAR TREK is concerned. Nobody ever got hooked on STAR TREK as a kid because it was really, really respectable . . . .
I know when I was five, I was watching because of the cool spaceships and fist-fights.
Which means you may sometimes trample over the feelings of people who attempt to engage you in discussion?
A two-way street there, surely.
Totally agree! The differences between "The Cage" and "Where No Man..." say it all.
Last edited:
I know when I was five, I was watching because of the cool spaceships and fist-fights.
Don't forget the aliens and monsters! I know I was watching it for the Gorn and the Horta and the Doomsday Machine . . .
I know when I was five, I was watching because of the cool spaceships and fist-fights.
Don't forget the aliens and monsters! I know I was watching it for the Gorn and the Horta and the Doomsday Machine . . .
Yeah. But the cool spaceships and the fist-fights were constant elements that you could depend on being there every episode.
For the billionth time, you can't compare a TV series, with three full seasons with which to develop the characters, to movies, with two paltry hours every three years, and at least half the running time needs to be devoted to explosions.
Of course the movie characters are going to be caricatures! Abrams doesn't have time to do more with them. Considering the constraints, he (and the actors) have accomplished more than I'd hoped.
TOS didn't really develop the characters all that much when you compare it to what shows do nowadays, but that was a hallmark of the times. There will be no real character development until Star Trek returns to TV.
Of course, if and when that happens, it could end up someplace like Showtime, where the expectations for any show will make that Star Trek very different from anything we've seen to date. Abrams' movies might seem slavishly true-to-TOS by comparison. One of the reasons I'm rooting for a return to TV is that I know it won't return looking like anything we've seen on TV to date. It will be far more like Game of Thrones than TNG. The fights that break out around here will be even more entertaining than the show.
- Status
