We are those of us who felt let down by the prequels. I never claimed everyone who saw the originals disliked the prequels. And there were things I liked. But over all, they just didn't earn the same love.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
We are those of us who felt let down by the prequels. I never claimed everyone who saw the originals disliked the prequels. And there were things I liked. But over all, they just didn't earn the same love.
Sigh.
If there was nothing to think about I wouldn't have posted 125 times in this thread.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
People have ALWAYS though JEDI was godawful, because it was and is.
It's just that the prequels suck worse, except maybe 5 minutes or so of SITH.
Still hasn't been a decent SW movie since EMPIRE IMO. Gary Kurtz is what brought balance to the Lucas, and w/o him it has been a lesser thing.
This movie is so explicitly political and anti-current American military policy that, having seen it twice now, I'm shocked that Paramount gave the go-ahead on the script. It's more daring in that respect than anything Star Trek has presented in nearly forty-five years.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Plenty are posting about missed opportunities in the film, so there's apparently a lot to think about; it just is not about what the filmmakers did, but failed to do.
I posted earlier that Alcatraz must be the stand in for GITMO.
Kirk refusing to follow orders to stand off and fire torpedoes at Harrison, because he believed that Harrison deserved a trial, was precisely him "making decisions based on philosophical concerns", as well as him engaging with and being "motivated by a higher order set of concerns, not simply personal and selfish ones like we regular mortals."
This.
I've wanted to post about some of that but I don't want to get embroiled in the shitstorm that will ensue.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
If SF-as-allegory is even a fraction as potent now as it was apparently for Serling and others decades back, then they'd've been better off going much further, rather than just paying lip service to present concerns over US excesses and failings, which is a safe and trendy thing to do, especially for international markets that already think of us in this way.
A really serious and massive false flag op like flying a starship into a downtown crash in order to generate support for attacking somebody not actually responsible for the incident would have really knocked the stars off the UFP banner (and it probably would have fallen more in lines with what I've read from Orci on occasion in terms of his own views.)
trevanian, reading this forum for years I don't think as a non-american that is even remotely "safe and trendy" to pay lip service or discuss these matters.
I think Section 31 could provide a lot of opportunities to write bravely about government. I also think I don't care if Star Trek ever bothers to ramp it up to that because I don't watch Star Trek to think about US politics.
I think Section 31 could provide a lot of opportunities to write bravely about government. I also think I don't care if Star Trek ever bothers to ramp it up to that because I don't watch Star Trek to think about US politics.
It's not - don't let anyone mislead you. It sort of was, when Dubya was still in office. Now, we nominate Zero Dark Thirty for Oscars.
Calling simple minded stuff like ST 6 "allegory" and pretending that it was thoughtful or observant is what seems to pass for "cerebral" where Star Trek is concerned. I'm not sure that there's ever been much in Trek that would challenge anyone more mature than a bright adolescent, but the original series was produced in a politically turbulent time and if the politics of the show were simple at least they were a little bit out in front of what we were accustomed to seeing in prime time. That hasn't been true for decades, and there's certainly nothing in the modern Trek tv shows that wasn't pretty well pre-chewed and considered mainstream "family safe" programming before Paramount would let it out the door. The producers learned to self-censor.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
PRIVATE LITTLE WAR does come up more than occasionally on the TOS board, and it isn't because of the curvy chick, it is because of the parallels with what was going on in the world - that, and the fact that it has an ending that resonates because it actually advocates what could be perceived as an utterly subversive action.
But that's not for you - so much for TREK as allegory. Guess they better stick with safe subjects like saving the whales.
Or how about taking race relations, taking a black man and a white man, split them both in half, and put them back together to make hay out of race riots.
A lot of the political commentary comes from history as well. And that being the case, and history is repeated, it remains topical in multiple environments. Using sociology, as they did in TNG, allows for an exploration of general concepts that can be applied to several different societies, times in history. Just look at DS9 and its treatise on oppression, terrorism (pre-September 11th), and religion.
I like to have that layer to Star Trek, and I was surprised after '09 that JJ-Trek tried that. I thought he thought it was "too high-brow." I just don't think it was done well. But an attempt was made and they should be applauded for trying to make a movie that is more than just entertaining, but makes us think.
It simply will be watched more times by the general public because it has that layer than it would be to just be entertaining. The best art does this. And on occasion, it sparks a national conversation.
It was done a hell of a lot better than painting two guys half-white and half-black, that much is certain.
The guys making these movies now sure don't have anything to fear from comparison to most of oldTrek.
You're a bit obnoxious here trevanian. I never said it wasn't for me, I said if they never go there I won't mind. I like trek for a lot of reasons, it doesn't have to be all things to me.
The only thing Gary Kurtz did was cause ESB to go overbudget, just like he would do with The Dark Crystal and Return to Oz. You read comments from the people involved in ESB and they didn't know what Kurtz actually did on the set.
As for the political stuff, by Into Darkness's logic, killing bin Laden should never have been allowed to have happened. Thankfully the filmmakers aren't in charge of such things.
Last edited:
Truly, a substantial contribution. "Facts are stupid things."
And in a democracy that's a fair point for discussion - but not one you'll see being brought up in many summer blockbusters.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
