Star Trek isn't about "space shots". And "exploration" is just a story springboard not a story in its self.
Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek
- Thread starter brian577
- Start date
- Status
Star Trek is a show about a group of people that travel the stars.
So, it irritates me that we're just getting two movies from Jar Jar Abrams about heroes in familiar locations shooting at a baddie who has a doomsday device and a vendetta against the Federation. It seems repetitive and a complete waste of the precious little Star Trek I am able to get in the current time.
So, it irritates me that we're just getting two movies from Jar Jar Abrams about heroes in familiar locations shooting at a baddie who has a doomsday device and a vendetta against the Federation. It seems repetitive and a complete waste of the precious little Star Trek I am able to get in the current time.
Then TMP is a waste of time to since its the Changeling meets 2001.
Really, it all in the execution. I'll watch 10 movies with similar plot elements if they're well done.
When have Star Trek films ( or even Star Trek in general) been deep and substantial? Did I miss an installment? The films since TWOK have always been action oriented. What passes for deep in Trek couldn't drown an ant. They've always been more about feeling than thinking, too. It might be time for Trek fans to stop deluding themselves.
Even the most superficial of Star Trek movies (Nemesis) has some philosophy to it. In the case of the above movie it's about Nature Vs. Nurture. TWOK and FC both have shades of Moby Dick and the nature of revenge albeit told from different perspectives. They manage to put those elements in the movie while telling an entertaining story for the most part. The same IMHO can not be said of Star Trek XI it's all about explosions and lens flares.
I'd say Generations was the most superficial Star Trek movie before the Abrams reboot. Both movies have no real themes or content to speak of. They're just.... eerily empty.
I'd rather watch Insurrection than either. It's a complete mess but it has some ideas in it at least.
I'd rather watch Insurrection than either. It's a complete mess but it has some ideas in it at least.
Then you probably weren't paying attention.When have Star Trek films ( or even Star Trek in general) been deep and substantial? Did I miss an installment? The films since TWOK have always been action oriented. What passes for deep in Trek couldn't drown an ant. They've always been more about feeling than thinking, too. It might be time for Trek fans to stop deluding themselves.
Even the most superficial of Star Trek movies (Nemesis) has some philosophy to it. In the case of the above movie it's about Nature Vs. Nurture. TWOK and FC both have shades of Moby Dick and the nature of revenge albeit told from different perspectives. They manage to put those elements in the movie while telling an entertaining story for the most part. The same IMHO can not be said of Star Trek XI it's all about explosions and lens flares.
Yeah man, you thought all that lens flare was a patronising way of keeping the audience distracted by the shiny things waved in front of them so they wouldn't notice the lack of plot or substance?
It really alluded to Nikolai Karamzin's theory of a conservative Russia.
It really alluded to Nikolai Karamzin's theory of a conservative Russia.
The plot and substance was there. You'll find it if you watch and listen. I think you might be the one easily distracted by shiny things, if you missed it.
Like I said, Star Trek isn't all that deep. But if thinking that liking Star Trek makes you "intellectual" helps you make it through life, go right ahead.
Frankly I think it extends beyond the whole Trek/Wars argument entirely.
Abrams currently has a good working relationship with Paramount, which he's had since Mission Impossible 3. Cloverfield, Super 8? Paramount.
Making Star Trek films is only part of that relationship, although it's the one tentpole franchise he's attached to directing so it's not a small part.
When have Star Trek films ( or even Star Trek in general) been deep and substantial? Did I miss an installment? The films since TWOK have always been action oriented. What passes for deep in Trek couldn't drown an ant. They've always been more about feeling than thinking, too. It might be time for Trek fans to stop deluding themselves.
Khan has more substance to it than JJ Trek, despite the action. If you fail to see the gradations, then you have a pretty binary way of looking at films. You don't need to have My Dinner with Andre for a movie to have some depth to it.
Almost every Trek film was approached, to a greater or lesser degree, as if it was going to be the capstone in the Trek franchise. As such, they tried to make sure that it hit every button (humor, pathos, action, philosophy). So there may be an A plot or theme but there is also a B theme or even a C theme.
This is certainly true of Khan. At a superficial level, the movie is an excuse to construct an over-the-top villain in which to hang action set-pieces. But at a deeper level, you have the character arc of Kirk getting older and facing mortality. It is basically a TMP do-over where Kirk starts out an Admiral and reassumes command, but this time with all the character interactions done right.
As someone entering into mid-life myself, I find the themes Kirk wrestles with in Khan to be increasingly relevant and thought-provoking. Kirk's line "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life" is the deeper theme of the movie, which then plays out to its conclusion with Spock's sacrifice. "The needs of the many..." line is nice, but I find Spock's line "I never took...the Kobayashi Maru test. What do you think of my solution?" to be the more poignant. It is contrived, yes, but so satisfying.
Khan is an excellent example of classic Hollywood filmmaking where everything is there for a reason and the questions that it raises all get answered by the end of it.
It is really an excellently written movie.
The problem with popcorn flicks is that they are basically porn. They dazzle the senses, which is fine, but there's nothing else there. JJ Trek pays lipservice to Trek's themes. Even the flashback scenes of Spock being badgered as a kid. They just don't seem sincere or at all integral to the plot. JJ is all about spectacle, not character, and he paints-by-numbers out of the superhero playbook, right down to establishing Kirk's moses-like special origin. It makes for big box-office but it is not what Trek was ever supposed to be.
their pure zealots. Also I feel the ST universe has a greater scope for story telling while the SW universe feels bloated and weighed down by the god awful expanded universe.
The new Godzilla movie is being directed by a big fan. I really don't think being afan should automatically exclude a person.
When have Star Trek films ( or even Star Trek in general) been deep and substantial? Did I miss an installment? The films since TWOK have always been action oriented. What passes for deep in Trek couldn't drown an ant. They've always been more about feeling than thinking, too. It might be time for Trek fans to stop deluding themselves.
Khan has more substance to it than JJ Trek, despite the action. If you fail to see the gradations, then you have a pretty binary way of looking at films. You don't need to have My Dinner with Andre for a movie to have some depth to it.
Really? I've got old Best of Trek books from the 80's, calling Wrath of Khan a shallow Star Wars rip-off. And look how the fans of today see it...
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I wouldn't want the same guy doing Star Wars and Star Trek anyways. Too much good talent out there to bring them both under one creative voice.
Doctor Who is the exception to the rule. But even then, RTD made sure he had a non-fan as an executive producer who had veto authority, Julie Gardner. Interestingly enough, some of the more fanwanky things done during RTD's era (like seeing Gallifrey or a montage of all the Doctors) were actually Gardner's idea.
Moffat on the other hand has made Doctor Who less accessable to non-fans. Hell, he's even made it a bit too confusing for fans.
Well, I worry Abrams and his hombres might be trying too hard to make STID like The Dark Knight and in the end will result in a subpar imitation. The Dark Knight was trying to be its own movie, not imitate anything.
Depends on the circumstances. While having a fan in charge doesn't always result in disaster, most disasters are a result of a fan in charge.
From the never gonna happen department, but still good news just the same.
This guy's already raped the hell out of the other half of my childhood as it is.
This guy's already raped the hell out of the other half of my childhood as it is.
Some people really beat the "wagon train to the stars" line into the ground to the point where they hate Deep Space Nine because it wasn't about showing up at a random planet, telling the people there to "be more like us," and then leaving without having to deal with the consequences or ever seeing them again.
- Status
Similar threads
