But this is a different Jim Kirk. His life was turned upside down by Nero killing his father on the day of his birth and his mother left him behind with a dodgy uncle whilst she stayed in starfleet. This Jim Kirk is also younger than the one in TOS and less experienced. It is a fresh and different interpretation instead of same old IMHO. I did not want someone to come in and do their best Shatner impression.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
But this is a different Jim Kirk. His life was turned upside down by Nero killing his father on the day of his birth and his mother left him behind with a dodgy uncle whilst she stayed in starfleet. This Jim Kirk is also younger than the one in TOS and less experienced. It is a fresh and different interpretation instead of same old IMHO. I did not want someone to come in and do their best Shatner impression.
Then why fret over the movie at all? Clearly its premise and production style don't appeal to you. That is certainly your right and no one should tell you you are wrong not to like the current way Trek is being made. If it bothered me as much as it seems to bother you, I would make a very simple choice--not watch the movie. And another simple choice--not get all worked up about it. It's only a movie. And there are many other movies, books, TV programmes, albums, concerts, plays and so on, out there to entertain us. Take advantage of those and enjoy rather than getting overly worked up about this particular movie.
Since the topic is wavering, anyway (WHERE ARE THOSE SPOILERS, PEOPLE?!), there were some great stories in all Trek series, but exactly what were the episodes of TOS (or TNG) that actually "made one think" or were cerebral? The ones that transcended even a great episode of any other weekly drama or action-adventure show?
I've watched TOS until I can quote lines of dialogue by heart. Friends and I dissected episodes of TNG and later DS9 every Monday morning over coffee all through grad school (we were an exciting lot). I gave VOY a chance but left the ship after two years, and I was aboard the NX-1 a while too, before making my excuses and leaving. As far as any episodes coming back to me that truly met the high standards the mythology sets, I got nothing.
I'm not trying to provoke an argument or set people up to flame their tastes, but honestly, what were the episodes that were not just good strories, but were cerebral and thought provoking? What's the list?
I've watched TOS until I can quote lines of dialogue by heart. Friends and I dissected episodes of TNG and later DS9 every Monday morning over coffee all through grad school (we were an exciting lot). I gave VOY a chance but left the ship after two years, and I was aboard the NX-1 a while too, before making my excuses and leaving. As far as any episodes coming back to me that truly met the high standards the mythology sets, I got nothing.
I'm not trying to provoke an argument or set people up to flame their tastes, but honestly, what were the episodes that were not just good strories, but were cerebral and thought provoking? What's the list?
Last edited:
I think William Shatner would recognize that he, himself, was a "corporate pretty boy" of the 1960s, who got the job on "Star Trek" because the wife of the show's previous "corporate pretty boy", Jeffrey Hunter, wanted him to try his luck as a motion picture star instead of a TV star.
That kinda infers there's no message to debate in the JJ films. To me, the 2009 film challenges us to ponder nurture vs nature (with Kirk), and this theme is certainly revisited in STiD. A Kirk who grows up without the influence of a strong father figure, and then how he starts to change under the mentorship of Pike. (Starts to change.)
Similarly, we have a Spock who has not spent 18 years not talking to his father, and taps into a different aspect of his half human, half Vulcan makeup, presumably rejecting the Vulcan girl he was bonded with in favour of an Earth woman.
McCoy of both timelines suffered a painful divorce. It'll be interesting to see if he faces new challenges in the next film.
There is plenty to discuss; it's not all 'splosions at all. I guess studying the differences in the two timelines is similar to the message of "Mirror, Mirror", and perhaps "The Enemy Within". Do changed circumstances change our personalities, our opportunities, our fates? How do we balance the facets of our personality, those little devils and angels sitting on our shoulders, influencing how we react in situations?
Last edited:
Exactly so.
Maybe not cerebral, but I found both Code of Honor and Angel One thought-provoking. But the thoughts that they provoked can't be shared on a board where children may be reading.
It always cracks me up that some of the most ardent fans have latched onto the one word in the English language that almost kept Star Trek off the air in the first place.
Come on, chant with me: "Cereeeebraaaal, cereeeebraaaal, cereeeebraaaal ... "
Now, back to the spoilers.
Come on, chant with me: "Cereeeebraaaal, cereeeebraaaal, cereeeebraaaal ... "
Now, back to the spoilers.
First, I'm thrilled to hear you had a good ride during the movie, Therin, it actually makes me confident a lot of us are going to like it.
Second, I agree that good Trek episodes did address interesting themes from time to time, to be sure. It was an action-adventure show that assumed it had an intelligent, thinking audience. That was part of its staying power. The thing is, all good stories have a theme (that's the only thing I remember from a short stories course I took in college).
I found the following column very descriptive of Trek as a franchise. The movie reviewer for The Washington Post, Ann Hornaday, recently wrote about why "middlebrow" doesn't have to be bad. She was writing in the context of what makes a movie likeable. She contrasted middlebrow to highbrow and lowbrow.
The parts that I think best apply to Trek as a franchise are the following quotes:
Trek is exactly this. Accessible and intelligent without pretense. Themes are interesting without being too overwhelming or provocative. Trek is middlebrow. And that's just fine.
Here's the link to Hornaday's entire column:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...38643789_1_upstream-color-oblivion-two-movies
Even terrible Trek episodes can make you think. "Threshold" (VOY), "Plato's Stepchildren" (TOS), "Shades of Grey" (TNG), "Move Along Home" (DS9)...
Yeah, they can make you think "Why do I still watch this?"
I think there's probably more to say on the topic than simply reducing it to "good stories" versus "some type of cerebral, thought-provoking thing that obviously never existed."
Star Trek can tell a variety of different types of stories in what basically amounts to a fun, pulp sci-fi format. I think it's a little unusual among the big pop culture franchises in that it doesn't rely as heavily on a "hero/villain, good guy/bad guy" approach.
It does have that, of course, but a lot of Trek stories draw pretty heavily on other types of structures, such as: exploring the unknown, heroes vs. environment, heroes versus their own demons, heroes' ideals versus some internal or external threat, etc.
I think, a lot of the time, when fans talk about Trek's "cerebral" or "thought-provoking" side, part of what they mean is something like: I enjoy these other types of stories, partly because I can engage with them intellectually a bit more, while still having a good time.
It's not so simple as: "entertainment" versus "something more serious, which Star Trek has never been." Entertainment varies a lot in terms of quality, and not just on a technical level. Often it *is* more fun when entertainment can be engaged with intellectually, at least to a degree.
I'd rather watch The Avengers than Transformers 3, and one reason is: The Avengers is a huge blockbuster that is written and filmed in such a way that I don't have to turn my brain off to enjoy it. It's not insulting my intelligence and assaulting my brain at every turn. There is a difference, but it's not "entertainment" versus "serious philosophical business."
I've enjoyed Trek over the years because it has generally been entertainment I can enjoy for a few different reasons, and one of them is: often, I can leave my brain on. It's possible for entertainment to be entertaining and also play around with some interesting ideas. A lot of the best entertainment actually does, in one way or another.
Anyway, looking forward to this movie whatever it may be
It may just have been a busy time, but I'm afraid I don't remember that. Was this something you said in this forum?
(emphasis mine)
Let's try to keep it on addressing the ideas or opinions being expressed (even if you think those may be a bit out there) and not take any unnecessary pokes at the person expressing them. Within reason, everyone should be allowed room to say what they think about a given topic.
I think there's probably more to say on the topic than simply reducing it to "good stories" versus "some type of cerebral, thought-provoking thing that obviously never existed."
Star Trek can tell a variety of different types of stories in what basically amounts to a fun, pulp sci-fi format. I think it's a little unusual among the big pop culture franchises in that it doesn't rely as heavily on a "hero/villain, good guy/bad guy" approach.
It does have that, of course, but a lot of Trek stories draw pretty heavily on other types of structures, such as: exploring the unknown, heroes vs. environment, heroes versus their own demons, heroes' ideals versus some internal or external threat, etc.
I think, a lot of the time, when fans talk about Trek's "cerebral" or "thought-provoking" side, part of what they mean is something like: I enjoy these other types of stories, partly because I can engage with them intellectually a bit more, while still having a good time.
It's not so simple as: "entertainment" versus "something more serious, which Star Trek has never been." Entertainment varies a lot in terms of quality, and not just on a technical level. Often it *is* more fun when entertainment can be engaged with intellectually, at least to a degree.
I'd rather watch The Avengers than Transformers 3, and one reason is: The Avengers is a huge blockbuster that is written and filmed in such a way that I don't have to turn my brain off to enjoy it. It's not insulting my intelligence and assaulting my brain at every turn. There is a difference, but it's not "entertainment" versus "serious philosophical business."
I've enjoyed Trek over the years because it has generally been entertainment I can enjoy for a few different reasons, and one of them is: often, I can leave my brain on. It's possible for entertainment to be entertaining and also play around with some interesting ideas. A lot of the best entertainment actually does, in one way or another.
Anyway, looking forward to this movie whatever it may be
Agreed. Trek doesn't make you check your brain at the door, that alone separates it from a lot of blockbusters. I just don't know why the need is often felt to elevate it to pretentious heights that it was never intended to reach, or worse, hold it to that standard as if it were supposed to reach for it.
Trek is like a good Beatles song you can enjoy for decades, and not like a mindless bubble gum pop song that you listen to a lot for a few weeks, forget in six months, then wonder why you even liked it when you hear it years later. But that distinction doesn't make Trek on par with Beethoven any more than the Beatles are. And of course, just like Trek wants to put out a product that makes money, the Beatles and Beethoven were trying to make music that would sell, too.
Last edited:
Fans tend to go overboard, and discussions on the internet tend to get polarized very quickly. Probably some combination of those things.
It's true that a lot of Trek has been made in the television format, where the aims and requirements are different, and it's easier for Trek to be about one thing this week, and something else the next.
For now, we seem to be getting an attempt at "blockbuster Trek." So, that means an emphasis on action and excitement. Nothing wrong with that.
This is exactly the way I see it. People start saying things like 'cerebral' to describe things that are simply a matter of preference that may be more subconscious, and go to great lengths to rationalize it. I've even seen a guy who did so with the movie Nemesis, and he actually did a decent job of it. The movie is still rubbish though.
No doubt. Having said that, I think that every franchise like this, that appeals to people over long periods of time, must have certain characteristics, or represent some type of fantasy fulfillment, that people connect with.
With Trek, I think it's partly the cerebral side that draws people in. I mean, Spock and Data are among the most beloved characters in the franchise, right?
So... I dunno. Rejecting the idea that being a bit "cerebral" at times is part of what Trek is about, or part of its appeal, strikes me as a little silly. I think that's obviously part of its appeal.
Is it that they're "cerebral" or that their outsiders?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
