5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek was an action franchise from the second pilot episode onward. To suggest (and believe) otherwise is to completely ignore what Roddenberry said in his prospectus for the show back in 1964/'65.

The first pilot featured a big fricking laser blasting at a mountain, Pike fighting a couple of ugly aliens, Pike threatening to blow someone's head off and a green dancing girl. So I think Action adventure was there from day one

I think he means "The Next Generation" rather than the original, which was an action-adventure show in space.

.

Star Trek was an action franchise from the second pilot episode onward. To suggest (and believe) otherwise is to completely ignore what Roddenberry said in his prospectus for the show back in 1964/'65.

No. It was a show about human psychology and contemporary social issues disguised as an action-adventure show in space.

Salient points about what TOS was about:

I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame-
work. We must reach out, hold and entertain
a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we
simply don't stay on the air.

IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter-
weave in it any statement to be made about man,
society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some-
thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do
on any other show. We don't need essays, how-
ever brilliant.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Salient points about what TOS was about:

I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame-
work. We must reach out, hold and entertain
a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we
simply don't stay on the air.

IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter-
weave in it any statement to be made about man,
society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some-
thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do
on any other show. We don't need essays, how-
ever brilliant.

Exactly, as I said. The action wasn't the point in itself, it was the vehicle by which the point was gotten to in an entertaining fashion.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But the "action" wasn't a disguise. It was as much a part off the show as anything else.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

It was not the substantial part, not what made the stories worthwhile or distinct.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

It was not the substantial part, not what made the stories worthwhile.

But can't we say the same thing about a lot of shows and movies that are non-Trek, but combine action and morals with a cool storyline(e.g. Alien and Aliens, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Matrix)?

If a movie is nothing but action, people are going to know. Of course, there are those who like nothing but action. ("Ah, it's a popcorn film!") Of course, there are those films which try to be more but fail...like Prometheus, written by Damon Lindelof. *shiver*

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Sure, why not? I'm not putting anything else down, I'm just saying it's a mistake to think that action is primarily what made Star Trek the show that it was. It might have been the bait, but it wasn't the hook.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sure, why not? I'm not putting anything else down, I'm just saying it's a mistake to think that action is what made Star Trek what it was. It might have been the bait, but it wasn't the hook.

Depends on the fish...er fan. For example, there are fans who are gaga over Trek Tech. They eat, breath and sleep the stuff. They don't care about action or philosophy they just like gadgets.

 

[martok2112]

Sure, why not? I'm not putting anything else down, I'm just saying it's a mistake to think that action is what made Star Trek what it was. It might have been the bait, but it wasn't the hook.

Depends on the fish...er fan. For example, there are fans who are gaga over Trek Tech. They eat, breath and sleep the stuff. They don't care about action or philosophy they just like gadgets.

Exactly!

I've (and many others) always said that Star Trek means many things to many different people.

Some folks like the drama, some the commentary, some the humor, some the action, some the tech stuff. Some folks embrace all aspects. Others embrace a custom package of certain aspects, while eschewing others. Others still may only focus on one aspect.

 

[Mudd]

It was not the substantial part, not what made the stories worthwhile or distinct.

"Substantial part?"

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Hmmm, for me at least, I thought one of the most memorable aspects of TOS were the choreographed fights, the fights so choreographed you knew the moves that the villains and Kirk were going to do in various episodes....lol

 

[eyeresist]

Fights in TOS were really a kind of ballet. In a good way.

 

[Amaris]

I'm sorry, but as said before a while ago:

TMP-Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt. A little bit of Pew! Pew! in the wormhole asteroid scene.

TWOK-Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!

TSFS-GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk’s son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!

TVH-They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.

TFF Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!

TUC-Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!

GEN-Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!

FC-BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!

INS-Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!

NEM-Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

I love that people still use my summaries!

AXANAR (upcoming fan film in 2016)-Federation and Klingon Empire at war. Blasted Federation colonial cities. Tons of space battles. I DO NOT FEAR THE KLINGON EMPIRE! Another metric fuckton of Pew! Pew! (and this movie is what Star Trek Beyond's being compared to as well by fans that hate the Abrams movies due to Pew! Pew!!)

Star Trek was an action franchise from the second pilot episode onward with some elements of complexity thrown in. To suggest (and believe) otherwise is to completely ignore what Roddenberry said in his prospectus for the show back in 1964/'65.

No moral complexity or social commentary like the old shows, you say? Into Darkness having a discussion on drone usage (long range torpedoes and beaming) terrorism (/Harrison/Khan doing his bombing in London, attacking top Starfleet brass in Frisco, attacking the Klingons on Kronos in Ketha Province) disproportionate retribution (Section 31 doing black ops to cause a war with the Klingon Empire, having Harrison/Khan build a dreadnought-class ship to fight the Klingons with) and blowback from said retribution/preparations (said dreadnought crashing into the middle of Frisco) wasn't enough for you? That's the kind of social commentary that Star Trek did in the past, and did in this movie-were you even paying attention?

Indeed. What I love about the movies is that if you went in to see a slambang action film, you got it! If you went in to see our favorite characters young and vibrant again, you got it! If you went in to see our characters sneak in a moral or ethical message to the audience, you got it! It's all there if one is willing to look, and in some cases, there's no need to look, it's right there and presented for all to see.

 

[Trekkin]

Hasn't nearly every piece of fiction every created conveyed a'message' or a moral?

I mean, the Saw series has social critique. HR Puffenstuff, Transformers, and Lost In Space hammered in messages. Twilight has a moral to its...'story'. TOS would have been notable if it didn't.

 

[Mudd]

Exactly so. Most episodes of Gunsmoke had morals for God's sake. No one puffs them up, though.

 

[Squiggy]

Maybe people are pissed because nuTrek doesn't beat you about the face and neck with obvious social commentary about racism, hippies, or things that were relevant in the 60s.

 

[Franklin]

Sure, why not? I'm not putting anything else down, I'm just saying it's a mistake to think that action is what made Star Trek what it was. It might have been the bait, but it wasn't the hook.

Depends on the fish...er fan. For example, there are fans who are gaga over Trek Tech. They eat, breath and sleep the stuff. They don't care about action or philosophy they just like gadgets.

Exactly!

I've (and many others) always said that Star Trek means many things to many different people.

Some folks like the drama, some the commentary, some the humor, some the action, some the tech stuff. Some folks embrace all aspects. Others embrace a custom package of certain aspects, while eschewing others. Others still may only focus on one aspect.

It couldn't have entertained for fifty years if it wasn't enjoyable on several dimensions. The arguments are most often over which dimensions were most important and which best define Trek.

To be honest, I've never thought of TOS as anything other than a high-quality TV show that was no different or any more special in intelligent stories, interesting characters, or tackling moral or social issues than any other high-quality prime time show if its day (or any other day, for that matter). Especially like Gunsmoke.

Exactly so. Most episodes of Gunsmoke had morals for God's sake. No one puffs them up, though.

Gunsmoke dealt with a wider range of social issues and did so more openly than TOS did, for crying out loud.

 

[eyeresist]

Gunsmoke dealt with a wider range of social issues and did so more openly than TOS did, for crying out loud.

Examples, please!

 

[Franklin]

Gunsmoke dealt with a wider range of social issues and did so more openly than TOS did, for crying out loud.

Examples, please!

I don't recall episode names like I can in TOS, but over its long run, "Gunsmoke" had episodes that delved into issues like racism, religious freedom and tolerance, the role of law enforcement (violence in society), what "family" means, and even had an episode on mental disability and acceptance.

Try this link for a general analysis of the show:

http://www.museum.tv/eotv/gunsmoke.htm

As the article points out, Dodge City was a community of characters well known to the audience, and the formula for many stories was to introduce an outsider into the community around whom the conflict would revolve. The main characters would deal with the conflict as best they could (aiding or thwarting the outsider -- whatever was called for). As the article points out, the show didn't always seek clear-cut answers to the problems. The main characters could also change and grow from some of the experiences.

In a way, years later, DS9 was "Gunsmoke" set in space.

 

[eyeresist]

Thanks, Franklin.

 

[Mudd]

Gunsmoke was probably a better reference for TOS than Wagon Train - GR referred to it a number of times with respect to the characters, setting and style. Trek started out borrowing nore from TV westerns than from any other genre or formula.