A safe place for those among us...

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sorry, I don't equate financial success with artistic success.

Neither do I; but it is nice when both happen, as they did in Star Trek... [/QUOTE]

Sorry, I equate success with the audience to - watch this - success with the audience.

This "artistic/financial success" dichotomy is a red herring, a bit of vapid snobbery intended to deprivilege the opinions and tastes of the vast majority of people. The dodge is neither new nor effective.

 

[theenglish]

^^^I disagree with that as well. If that were the case Titanic should be one of the best movies of all time. The truth is that it is a fun movie, but not a memorable or lasting one. It is a summer-action blockbuster and, aside from the surface features and character names, is not really a Trek movie.

 

[Amaris]

^^^I disagree with that as well. If that were the case Titanic should be one of the best movies of all time. The truth is that it is a fun movie, but not a memorable or lasting one. It is a summer-action blockbuster and, aside from the surface features and character names, is not really a Trek movie.

Ah, but it is. You don't have to like it, but it is a Star Trek movie, both officially and in spirit.


J.

 

[Kelthaz]

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes, and other science facts,
Repeat to yourself, "It's just a show. I should really just re-lax."
- MST3K Theme

Words to live by. I've never cared about consistency on minor details that few people even notice let alone care about.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The truth is that it is a fun movie, but not a memorable or lasting one.

That is not "the truth."

That is an opinion.

There is a difference between the two.

Is Titanic "one of the best movies of all time?" Beats me, but it's certainly a better film than most that have had the words Star Trek in their titles - and that is not unconnected with the fact that so many more people enjoyed them. Your willingness to suggest as a given that Titanic's success was undeserved on some level is another example of your own biases - not a "fact" or a "truth."

 

[Greg Cox]

Weighing in here.

Let's not be confused. Artistic success and commercial success are very different things. History is full of wonderful, acclaimed, classic films that, for whatever reasons, failed at the box office. And many poor or mediocre films have managed to make plenty of money, despite having little to recommend them.

Good movies fail sometimes. Bad movies succeed. And that's not elitist snobbery; that just the way show biz works sometimes. You win some, you lose some.

But just as box office success doesn't always equal artistic merit, that doesn't mean that it can be discounted either. And just because something is popular doesn't mean it can't be good either.

STAR TREK is attracting both positive reviews and large audiences. That doesn't prove it's better than, say,THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, but it does suggest that most viewers aren't too worried about minor continuity glitches.

 

[theenglish]

The general audience does not care about Trek continuity, that is true. But, "in my opinion", the fact that this particular movie caters to the masses is a serious flaw. Gone is any sense of awe, grandeur, or even intelligence or witty science fiction that characterizes Trek. Even continuity aside, this is far far from a Trek film in spirit.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Artistic success and commercial success are very different things. History is full of wonderful, acclaimed, classic films that, for whatever reasons, failed at the box office. And many poor or mediocre films have managed to make plenty of money, despite having little to recommend them.

Sure.

But when that which is quantifiable isn't on one's side, always invoke "artistic merit." Ninety-nine percent of the time it's synonymous with "stuff that I like," but for that very reason it's hard to challenge.

No one has produced a compelling argument that Star Trek is in any way "artistically" inferior to any previous Trek movie. They just assert it.

...that this particular movie caters to the masses is a serious flaw.

Why? The masses are more demanding and discerning than Trek fans, in many ways - they insist upon being entertained for their money, as opposed to grading any movie with the words "Star Trek" in the title on an automatic curve as hard-core fans do.

...this is far far from a Trek film in spirit.

Nope, it's a quintessential Trek movie and quite possibly the best ever - it has little strong competition for the title.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

By that standard, no one has ever provided a compelling argument on this board regarding anything having to do with taste. Ever.

For example, in the course of my work moonlighting as a college "instructor," I've had cause to read The Bridges of Madison County and The Handmaid's Tale. I could tell you why the latter book is immeassurably superior to the former and I could frame it in arguments that would be shockingly close to those I would make for why I prefer TMP, say, to this movie (sigh, which I enjoyed and saw 3 times--I'm getting sick of the disclaimer) or even TWoK. If you disagree, it won't matter. The arguments would not be compelling.

I had the same problem when I was in college and trying to tell a friend of mine at the movie theatre where I worked summers why Shakespeare was superior to Marvel Comics. He wasn't compelled, either.

 

[Vicki]

Count me in.

These are believable younger versions of the charactors I've cared about for 43 years, and it's set in a reasonably recognizable Star Fleet, so I'm very happy with the movie.

I don't give a flying fuck about when nuChekov was born, or water pipes in engineering and what the phasers look like. Nero blew a hole in the timeline, and that and ENT's timeline whack-a-mole covers just about any changes Abrams wanted to make.

I'm flexible when it comes to canon

 

[flemm]

Why? The masses are more demanding and discerning than Trek fans, in many ways - they insist upon being entertained for their money, as opposed to grading any movie with the words "Star Trek" in the title on an automatic curve as hard-core fans do.

The reaction of a least some hardcore fans to the current film would seem to undermine this line of thinking. At the very least we would have to postulate that some hardcore fans are being intentionally quixotic: waiting to see if the movie is popular and then rushing to condemn it if it is, whereas they would have graded the movie on a curve if it had been unpopular to prove that they have more esoteric taste than the masses.

Eh, I think the reality is simpler than that. I like the current movie, but certainly it is a film that tries very, very hard to appeal to as many people as possible, and in fact probably goes a bit overboard in that direction. As such it feels insipid to some.

Time is the best test of artistic merit, so we should probably have this conversation again in a decade, and then in twenty years and so on

Frankly I think the sequel will absolutely blow this movie out of the water, partly because the producers can relax a bit now, knowing they have an audience.

 

[Borgminister]

Frankly I think the sequel will absolutely blow this movie out of the water, partly because the producers can relax a bit now, knowing they have an audience.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Vicki]

Thus "Happy Days" was trimmed of Chuck; Martin the Saurian Visitor got a twin brother, Phillip, with the same rubber face as Martin in "V: The Series"; Khan knows Chekov; Ferengis got less animalistic; and bumpy-headed Trills of TNG, who couldn't go through transporters, got spots instead in DS9.

These are just evolutionary changes to the story, with the exception of Khan knowing Chekov which was a mistake. In nearly every case it serves the plot and story development in a positive way; they were conscious decisions to do so.

The mistakes in Star Trek could easily have been fixed quite simply. A simple line mentioning that Spock had served with Pike aboard the Enterprise for 12 years, showing the Enterprise undergoing a refit in Space rather than having it just being constructed as Kirk enters the academy, designing different insignia for members of Starfleet who do not serve aboard the Enterprise.

STXI is a reboot dated long before Spock Prime reported to the Enterprise to serve with Pike Prime. STXI is not the past of TOS. It's the future of the day the Kelvin blew up. Events post-Kelvin didn't and won't happen the same way they did in TOS.

For better or worse, the immediate past history of TOS, and the specific plots & events of TOS itself, have pretty much been butterflied. The TOS charactors have not and that's really all I cared about.

Your objection to different insignia for members of Star Fleet decades after the Kelvin blew up, leads me to think that you wouldn't have accepted ~any~ STXI that conflicted with TOS.

 

[Kirk1980]

Canon? Who cares about canon? XI was dumb goofy fun.

It was not smart, it was not thought-provoking. I turned my brain off and approached it as any of the other emminently disposable (read: not going to watch more than once) summer entertainment out there. I haven't watched Transformers again. I probably won't watch this one again.

And that is ON ITS OWN MERIT. I disconnected it from the relative canonicity of all things Trek as much as I could.

It's about as lasting as Armageddon, in my estimation and in my thoughts, and if that gets the money in to continue the Star Trek franchise, that's fine.

Doesn't mean I have to think it was a great movie. I don't.

But whoever wants to think it's great...more than welcome to it. Just don't try to tell me my opinions have no merit because you think it's amazing.

 

[pookha]

^^^I disagree with that as well. If that were the case Titanic should be one of the best movies of all time. The truth is that it is a fun movie, but not a memorable or lasting one. It is a summer-action blockbuster and, aside from the surface features and character names, is not really a Trek movie.

ah but that is your viewpoint.
to a lot of fans and a lot of critics the opposite is true .

and it is so much more a trek movie considering at it's very heart
is the concept of an idealistic future because people of vast differences
can work together for a greater good.

oh..

Once a writer or a group of writers creates a fictional universe, you need to live by the rules of that universe. People here keep referring to visual effects as canon, which they are not, but if you want to write a story within an existing universe you need to follow the established rules/facts of that universe.

well then be prepared to toss out some episodes of tos.


at least the movie gives a reason why some things are different.
and i like the concept of the alternate reality because now the writers are free to bring in and use a large bit of canon if they chose to.
but now the characters fates are a little more open.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Gone is any sense of awe, grandeur, or even intelligence or witty science fiction that characterizes Trek.

We must have seen different films. I was awed. I saw grandeur. I enjoyed science fiction both intelligent (made me think) and witty (made me laugh)!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The reaction of a least some hardcore fans to the current film would seem to undermine this line of thinking.

There are always a few - their numbers are negligable, just as they have been for just about every Trek movie. Even the bombs that fans complain about, like Nemesis, sell millions of tickets opening week - just about entirely, in that case, from hard-core fans.

 

[flemm]

There are always a few - their numbers are negligable, just as they have been for just about every Trek movie. Even the bombs that fans complain about, like Nemesis, sell millions of tickets opening week - just about entirely, in that case, from hard-core fans.

The idea that Star Trek fans are more likely to go see a new Trek movie than others seems plausible enough. Almost by definition it must be true. But does that make them less discerning? I don't think most Trek fans had any difficulty recognizing that Nemesis was a poor film.

Also, I don't think the average movie goer is careful to consult multiple reviews to be sure that he gets maximum value for his entertainment dollar. Big releases generally do pretty well opening weekend regardless because people are just drawn to whatever is new and willing to try it out. So I don't think we need to credit the average movie-goer with some discernment that would be unavailable to the average Trek fan.

I understand that your point was that there is no reason necessarily to disparage popular reaction to a movie like this, which is valid. But it is not the end all and be all either. I can understand a certain frustration with the formulaic aspects of this movie, though not to the point of claiming "it is not Star Trek." That's a self-defeating argument anyway.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Gone is any sense of awe, grandeur, or even intelligence or witty science fiction that characterizes Trek.

We must have seen different films. I was awed. I saw grandeur. I enjoyed science fiction both intelligent (made me think) and witty (made me laugh)!

I'm with you.

 

[RandyS]

... who don't give a rotten rat's ass about canon.

Who here, along with myself, didn't care what color the phaser beams were? Who didn't care out of which port a torpedo was launched? He's not supposed to have that thingyjig? Well, I don't care.

Are there any of us left who just want to see a good TV show or a good movie?

Is there anyone else out there who were just hoping for well written dialog, a good story, interesting characters and good execution?

Can Trek fans no longer just be carried away with the film, or must you all spend the 2:07 counting widgets, then bitching about each one for hours?

Although I enjoy the continuity of Star Trek movies and shows my observation is that some people are treating canon as if it were sacred scripture.

Agreed.