State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
By other Asses or other Bad Asses?
My GNP index is off the scale. I might be a Sheldon.
Well TMP actually is one of the higher grossing Trek movies, so it was a financial success. I suspect that has to do with the Trek name more than the movie itself. It wasn't regarded that fondly, hence the drastic departure in tone with The Wrath of Khan.
But Khan444 is right, none of them focused on exploration and philosophy was often thinner than their episodes. Ironically enough, I felt The Wrath of Khan was one of the philosophically strongest movies, and yet it was also the most action-packed.
In terms of giving me more to think about, in my opinion, STiD beats The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. This is just my opinion, however.
Probably why I rarely rewatch the movies. I would argue TMP does. IV is not exploration per se, but a sci-fi concept (the probe) and dealing with the unknown rather than a kewl-bad-guy; TFF was venturing out and dealing with a mystery even if it was executed weirdly; INS had a mustache-stretching bad guy, but an interesting premise and a moral dilemma.
Also, even if it were "nothing new," I don't think that makes it ok.
At least with me.
I'm just hard-pressed why -- even if you like big effects-y, smash-mouth, ephemeral blockbuster movies -- you would give STID more than like a B-. Or why you would take issue with those who can't love it. It just seems that flawed to me.
(And I love TWOK by the way -- I'm not opposed to action.)
This seems to be news to virtually every canon Trek publication and source, Memory Alpha included, all of which state landing ability as a special trait of Intrepid- and Nova-class ships. I suppose there will be a reason they don't count either?
Nevertheless I'll give you this much: I overstated in saying that starships could not enter atmosphere, as they can for brief periods of time, and I'll give you that the "explicit" references I alleged in canon are on the whole more implicit... probably because nobody foresaw having to actually explain why starships couldn't hang out on the bottom of oceans.
None of that, however, remotely begins to rescue the undersea sequence. And I daresay I still find your treatment of "canon" rather selective.
I'm not expecting the opinion of science to be "canon." Just for it to be relevant to something that actually aspires to be science fiction. My contention is that the Abramsverse Trek does not so aspire, because it's effectively interchangeable popcorn cinema and not science fiction. And if you don't find the opinions of scientists on scientific subjects relevant, then I'm sorry to say that it's hard to take stuff like this:
... all that seriously. It's precisely the kind of over-convenient and undercooked technobabble he was warning you about, and he's correct that it's a big part of what weighed down and eventually did in TNG-era Trek.
There are actually multiple even worse problems with that opening sequence, like the idea of "freezing" a volcano with a "cold-fusion" bomb. I do not think "cold-fusion" means what the writers think it means...
Basically, when you find yourself having to explain away severe problems like this, you are in the position of defending Bad Writing. If you enjoyed the film despite this, that's your business, it's not my function to lecture you about what you should and shouldn't like. But people should not be trying to say -- as was my initial point -- that these are just the gripes of a few over-obsessive fanboys, because they aren't. Whether you're able to squint past them or not, things like this really are just major, major script flaws, and you don't have to be an obsessive fanboy to see that.
In the interests of leavening this with a little positivity, I'll give Abrams this much: he at least understood that it might be a good idea if Trek films did have action and tried to be visually thrilling. Not everything Trek Used To Do was nearer-my-God-to-thee, and it was particularly problematic that the weight of established style and sentimentality eventually strangled pre-Abrams-Trek's ability to perceive what thrilling action could look like even when it tried. A kick in the pants and a stylistic shake-up was overdue.
It's just a shame from my standpoint that he jettisoned intelligence and coherency in favour of that criterion. It lost him a lot of credibility that he didn't have to lose, and I've seen that Abrams is capable of doing thrilling action, intelligence and character development all in the same frame. That he chose not to do so with his Star Trek efforts seems like a waste of a great opportunity and an amazing cast, but hey, that's me.
There are no "canon" publications. There are official publications that interpretation "canon". And their interpretations are just... interpretations.
A public wiki, editable by anyone who registers for a Log-in.
As is yours.
And your proof?
Forgive me if I don't find "I know you are but what am I" a particularly persuasive debating gambit, sorry man.
Um, it's the point of everything I've said up until now. I'm not going to repeat it all, if you can't see my point, you can't. That's okay.
There are no canon Trek publications or sources. Canon is determined by the copyright holders and their appointed caretakers. Its not my rule. Its the rule of the people who own Star Trek. Send a letter to CBS if you don't like it.
That's how Canon works. It unknown till is known. As of the latest film a Starship can hang out at the bottom of the ocean. Though is not recommended, especially by Chief Engineers.
Again, its not my "treatment", its CBS's and before that it was Paramount's. As fans we don't get a say in what's canon. It not in our purview.
If we were discussing real life science I'd listen to a scientist, but were discussing a show that has always played fast and loose with science and makes stuff up. Trek only aspires to science when it fits the plot. It's not alone in that when it comes to filmed science fiction. Its not hard SF. Most SF films are "popcorn cinema". They are not mutually exclusive.
Which why I like TOS and NuTrek better. There's very little technobabble. Things happen and we figure there's a reason why without needing to hear any babble about it. We are free to speculate on the why but we don't need the characters to tell us.
Then you should concentrate on those rather than the ship being underwater.
Sorry, but the ship under the ocean is not bad writing or a flaw. Because in that case we are dealing with the unknown. We have no idea what the technological limits of the Enterprise are. There are no manuals or specs we can refer to. We can't assume that just because we haven't seen the ship do something it can't so that thing. Given the level of technology demonstrated in past series and films its not out of the question the ship could submerge in an ocean.
So, I'd go with the cold-fusion thing next time you want to discuss bad science in Star Trek films.
Its what fans do. We've been rationalizing writing decisions in Trek and just plain making stuff up to explain it for nearly 50 years. This did not start in 2009.
Are you sure about that? The summaries of the POTT treatment all refer to Kirk being "subjected to an electrochemical shock to his brain which brings on erratic behavior culminating in his commandeering a shuttle craft toward an invisible planet. He vanishes without a trace and Spock orders the Enterprise home."
McQuarrie did some saucer separation drawings, but he admitted that a number of of drawings for the project were blue sky pieces because they were working without a script (hence the asteroid starbase, etc.).
Last edited:
None of us have a hope of persuading you into liking the movie. But you have been as selective as we have been. Your refuting of the Enterprise being able to enter the atmosphere being just one point.
I'm sure that one version of a movie proposal concerned the softlanding of the saucer, and the passage of time, yes. If not "Planet of the Titans", then one of the many other proposals on the table.
I seem to recall the idea of a saucer crash being mentioned for one of the proposals, but it wasn't POTT.
Its what fans do. We've been rationalizing writing decisions in Trek and just plain making stuff up to explain it for nearly 50 years. This did not start in 2009.
Star Trek science has never been compatible with real science and just now deciding to complain about it seems like someone just has an ax to grind.
I've watched the Enterprise swim through protoplasm for God sakes and coming out the other end no worse for wear. So I'm not too concerned about it surviving in and ocean or atmosphere.
I'd rank it either third of fourth, behind WOK, The Undiscovered Country, and MAYBE The Search for Spock.
Do you mean in terms of giving you more to think about? I agree with your list, and I realized I forgot to add The Motion Picture in the former list.
