5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise

[Rahul]

Paradise City said there was "garbage in some episodes" (With which he, frankly, is completely right), but that this doesn't excuse the garbage of Into Darkness.

I disagree with him on this, for the same reason I disagree with you. It's a style of storytelling that is unique to TOS and absent from the rest of the franchise. Mainly this is because 1960s television tropes depended a lot more on traditional theatrical elements than their 1980s/90s counterparts. That is, TOS was produced like a filmed stage play; TNG was produced like a telenovel.

I appreciate the theatrical elements from TOS, especially the limited and focussed style of exposition. That is, a character is defined more by his actions and his emotions than by his words.

"Conscience of the King" is one of the best examples of this, possibly deliberately. Kodos' back story is ultimately a simple one, and even the plot of the episode is pretty linear and not overly complex. But as with Marcus, the story isn't really about who Kodos is on the inside. It's about what he represents to Kirk and Riley, and what he represents the audience.

I dare say, if there's anything wrong with Admiral Marcus' characterization, it probably has more to do with Peter Weller's acting.

What the hell are you even talking about? If I say there's "garbage" in some episode of TOS, I mean shit like "And the children shall lead" or "Spock's Brain".

Hell, TOS is my absolute favourite of all the Trek series. But in 78 episodes, there will be some rotten ones under them.

 

[Rahul]

@suarezguy and @O_kav:
One of the writers of the two JJmovies, Roberto Orci, once publicly admitted being a "9/11 truther".

With that knowledge, some of the allegories/plot points in Into Darkness have a little bit of a bitter aftertaste.

In fact, he was the most outspoken one from the new team, and there are quite some strange and honestly stupid outbursts of him on the internet. Someone with more time and willingness at hand can maybe search and post some of them...?

 

[BillJ]

@suarezguy and @O_kav:
One of the writers of the two JJmovies, Roberto Orci, once publicly admitted being a "9/11 truther".

With that knowledge, some of the allegories/plot points in Into Darkness have a little bit of a bitter aftertaste.

Why? It still asked good questions about who we are in the face of adversity. Why should it matter where the questions came from?

 

[Kor]

Regarding the points brought up in the article... If you want truly innovative science fiction, then you have to mostly ignore TV and movies, and read books instead.

The argument that one version of Trek is "more sci-fi" is moot. As much as we like Star Trek, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that any of it is some kind of cutting-edge, innovative, "heady science fiction." Not even close.

Kor

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Paradise City said there was "garbage in some episodes" (With which he, frankly, is completely right), but that this doesn't excuse the garbage of Into Darkness.

I disagree with him on this, for the same reason I disagree with you. It's a style of storytelling that is unique to TOS and absent from the rest of the franchise. Mainly this is because 1960s television tropes depended a lot more on traditional theatrical elements than their 1980s/90s counterparts. That is, TOS was produced like a filmed stage play; TNG was produced like a telenovel.

I appreciate the theatrical elements from TOS, especially the limited and focussed style of exposition. That is, a character is defined more by his actions and his emotions than by his words.

"Conscience of the King" is one of the best examples of this, possibly deliberately. Kodos' back story is ultimately a simple one, and even the plot of the episode is pretty linear and not overly complex. But as with Marcus, the story isn't really about who Kodos is on the inside. It's about what he represents to Kirk and Riley, and what he represents the audience.

I dare say, if there's anything wrong with Admiral Marcus' characterization, it probably has more to do with Peter Weller's acting.

What the hell are you even talking about? If I say there's "garbage" in some episode of TOS, I mean shit like "And the children shall lead" or "Spock's Brain".

Yes, I know what you mean. And to answer your question, I am the hell suggesting that you should spend more time watching live action theater.

Hell, TOS is my absolute favourite of all the Trek series. But in 78 episodes, there will be some rotten ones under them.

There are episodes I found less entertaining than others, and episodes that had some downright cheesy and unrealistic moments. My point is that these are not actually the same things.

"And the Children Shall Lead" was a very clever and well thought out episode; it was also really BORING.

"Spock's Brain" was also clever, with an interesting premise and a pretty fascinating (if very rushed) conclusion; unfortunately, the unintentional silliness of that episode is difficult to get past.

Those same themes and concepts would work just fine with better execution and a bigger budget. And that's basially what STID is: It's a modernization and a mashup of "Omega Glory" with "Space Seed" and a dash of "Errand of Mercy." The OVERALL theme being an examination of U.S. military policy, the illogic of preemption and the need to act in pursuit of justice rather than Vengeance (USS Vengeance. Get it?) It has its own problems with the execution -- continuity issues, plot holes, and Pine totally blowing that "more than one year ago" line in his closing speech -- but the themes and characterizations weren't all that different from a typical (or even an excellent) TOS episode.

Regarding the points brought up in the article... If you want truly innovative science fiction, then you have to mostly ignore TV and movies, and read books instead.

The argument that one version of Trek is "more sci-fi" is moot. As much as we like Star Trek, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that any of it is some kind of cutting-edge, innovative, "heady science fiction." Not even close.

Kor

[/thread]

 

[Kemaiku]

"You know, 79 episodes, about 30 good ones?"
-Futurama

 

[BillJ]

"You know, 79 episodes, about 30 good ones?"
-Futurama

+1

 

[Paradise City]

Every incarnation of Trek has plenty of garbage. From TOS to Voyager and so on.

Plenty of gems shine through too and that's why I'm on here. As well as witnessing some strong actors doing their thing.

As far as what I want with cinema, I want strong protagonists. It takes two to tangle and if there's two (or more but be careful) protagonists you've got the basis for a strong film. A strong protagonist isn't an occult science to create; it just needs a little bit of creative dialogue. And I didn't get that sufficiently with this film. Solid heroes generally but the villains didn't met my minimum threshold. The film limped around in creative terms because of it and clumsily flipping the big TWOK scene and shoving it in there as this film's climatic scene did NOT help my mood when I was watching it in the cinema. Particularly as Kirk revived 5 minutes later with that magic blood of his.

All the resources are there to create a powerful film that wasn't present in the 60s, when writing TV was an art form in its infancy, studio had a nasty knack towards micromanagement, technology was agricultural and the budget was shoestring. I forgive TV back then in a way that I wouldn't forgive if they served the same stuff up to me today.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As far as what I want with cinema, I want strong protagonists. It takes two to tangle and if there's two (or more but be careful) protagonists you've got the basis for a strong film.

I thought the protagonists were more than strong in this one, with the possible exception of Carol Marcus (but she's more of an ancillary character than anything else).

Although I continue to be disappointed with Keenser not getting any lines. Why would you cast Deep Roy in a supporting role and not give him anything to say? That's just silly.

Solid heroes generally but the villains didn't met my minimum threshold.

Well villains aren't protagonists (by definition) and this is the wrong genre to expect a brooding, slow-paced battle of wits.

And Marcus' "inner self" just isn't what the story is about. He's a modern-day Ronald Tracey in a modernized TOS story.

All the resources are there to create a powerful film that wasn't present in the 60s, when writing TV was an art form in its infancy, studio had a nasty knack towards micromanagement, technology was agricultural and the budget was shoestring. I forgive TV back then in a way that I wouldn't forgive if they served the same stuff up to me today.

I don't see what there is to "forgive" of what they produced in the 60s. The screen writers used style and elements from live action theater and that influenced the way TOS was styled. STID did much the same thing, but with 40 years of cinematic stylization superimposed on top of it. It wasn't until the mid 80s and early 90s that TV productions started emulating written works rather than performed ones; scifi got deeper into this than most genres because of the many attempts to adapt novels into films (2001, Farenheight 451, Andromeda Strain, etc) so the traditional middle step of adapting the story's format and themes for performance sometimes got skipped.

This is, IMO, the thing that makes Voyager so painful to watch. Try to imagine any given Voyager episode performed live on stage; the point where you can imagine half the audience falling asleep or checking their watches is the point where the episode goes off the rails.

 

[Paradise City]

You continuously and tediously misrepresent me with various stawmen. I didn't say I required a slow paced battle of wits. Not that plenty of Star Trek doesn't have that now that you bring it up.

 

[thumbtack]

The argument that one version of Trek is "more sci-fi" is moot. As much as we like Star Trek, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that any of it is some kind of cutting-edge, innovative, "heady science fiction." Not even close.

Kor

Star Trek is dreadful science fiction. But it works quite well as space fantasy, as demonstrated by many fans who prefer the minutiae of Star Trek over Star Trek itself.

 

[M'Sharak]

That point could have been made just as well without the crack which follows the comma.

 

[Yminale]

Regarding the points brought up in the article... If you want truly innovative science fiction, then you have to mostly ignore TV and movies, and read books instead.

Theodore Sturgeon's law applies to ALL MEDIA (you know 99% of all works are crap). I've read some great books and I've read Hugo and Nebula winning works that are just crap. "Ant-man" is one of the best Sci-fi movies ever and "Avengers: Age of Ultron" is so stupid it's fun. To me "innovative" is a meaningless term. All works are ultimately derivatives of something else.

 

[Paradise City]

The argument that one version of Trek is "more sci-fi" is moot. As much as we like Star Trek, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that any of it is some kind of cutting-edge, innovative, "heady science fiction." Not even close.

Kor

Star Trek is dreadful science fiction. But it works quite well as space fantasy, as demonstrated by many fans who prefer the minutiae of Star Trek over Star Trek itself.

Star Trek is science fiction, not science fact. By that term, shouldn't it be by definition inauthentic and speculative? I actually don't understand your objection.

If you're going to run with an era 5 centuries into the future you're gonna have to bluff it on alot of technology and science.

 

[Overgeeked]

Regarding the points brought up in the article... If you want truly innovative science fiction, then you have to mostly ignore TV and movies, and read books instead.

The argument that one version of Trek is "more sci-fi" is moot. As much as we like Star Trek, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that any of it is some kind of cutting-edge, innovative, "heady science fiction." Not even close.

Kor

That's not the argument though, is it?

It's not a loud, clear-throated cry that Star Trek is heady science fiction of the highest order. Rather, it's just that--comparatively--certain series, and certain episodes present more science fiction ideas than others.

The fact that none of the series are as cutting edge as the best SF novels or short stories is irrelevant. Always has been. But that fact doesn't prevent the honest comparison between the series.

Similarly, it would be stupid to argue that you can't compare the varying levels and styles of drama presented in the series because none of them are fucking Shakespeare.

 

[VOODOOXI]

Couldn't agree more with the author when the said the following.

"it doesn't take a Medusan to know where this series is headed, now that it's been placed in the hands of a Fast & Furious director and peppered with a steady stream of totally relevant '90s hip hop. Let's be clear: In NO way does the Star Trek Beyond trailer resemble a Star Trek film"

 

[Mudd]

Sorry, he's wrong. Looks like a great Star Trek film.

 

[fireproof78]

It looks like a fun film thus far. Also, I do not understand the insistence on treating Lin like a one trick pony and that he is only known for the Fast and Furious films when he has a longer career than that. So, he may just be qualified to do more that those types of movies.

But, I look forward to more than the teaser too

 

[Squiggy]

Couldn't agree more with the author when the said the following.

"it doesn't take a Medusan to know where this series is headed, now that it's been placed in the hands of a Fast & Furious director and peppered with a steady stream of totally relevant '90s hip hop. Let's be clear: In NO way does the Star Trek Beyond trailer resemble a Star Trek film"

Remember when The Voyager Home featured some punk music and a plug for Michelob?

 

[CorporalClegg]

I bet any decent YouTube editor could easily splice together scenes from TMP-NEM that looked eerily similar to the STB trailer.