A TOS (only) fan's reaction

[Brutal Strudel]

V'Ger
In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, a Voyager space probe gets sucked into a black hole and survives (GAAAAH), and is discovered by denizens of a machine planet who think the logical thing to do is to take a bus-size machine with the processing power of a couple of Speak and Spells and upgrade it to a spaceship the size of small moon, wrap that in an energy field the size of a solar system, and then send it merrily on its way. This is like you assisting a brain-damaged raccoon trapped on a suburban traffic island by giving him Ecuador.

He's being kind (okay, actually, he's going for the laugh) - giving the raccoon Ecuador at least makes a kind of simplistic linear sense (it gets the raccoon off that traffic island, right); what the denizens of the machine planet are asserted to have done does not.

And, again, all of this pooh-bah and foolishness is in service of "dramatizing" (ahem) the profoundly important "message" that Emotions Are Good.

Why wonder that no one but Trekkies were impressed by this thing? Reflect instead upon how desperate we were for Trek to continue that Trekkies lept so eagerly to get at the Kool-Aid. Compared to that, minimizing the logical failins of the Abrams movie doesn't even constitute a short hop - and in exchange, this time we get some competent entertainment.

Why wouldn't they? One of the interesting things about TMP is that is that it actually seems intent on imagining an alien way of seeing the universe, a way that doesn't make much sense to us but, when stripped of human arrogance and judgmentalism, does. Given a planet of machinery that has outlived its creators and is not in any way bound by humanoid concepts of cost/benefit (which are outgrowths of a pleasure/pain paradigm that long predate mammals, let alone primates), why not outfit a data-gathering wayfarer with better equipment to do just that and send it on its way? A machine intelligence could easily evolve along an idea of optimization-of-purpose just as an animal intelligence evolves along an idea of optimization-of-comfort. If that's too much hand waving for you, try this: the machines had nothing better to do. The racoon analogy is one of those analogies that reveal only the intellectual shortcomings of the person making the argument.

(I haven't read Scazi's fiction but I've read a few of his columns--having nothing to do with Trek--and I was not impressed. Nor am I impressed by your reductive dismissal of the themes in TMP. Look, I can do it too: Citizen Kane--"Ambition is Bad!", Hamlet--"Sucks to Lose Your Dad" or "Revenge is Hard.")

If you want your Star Trek to be little more than Tom Corbett or Rocky Jones, that's all well and good, but I'll thank you to stop sneering at us (Kool-Aid indeed) who do not. Really, it's unbecoming.

 

[trevanian]

for Trek, I was hoping for something closer to The Wrath of Khan rather than the most recent Lost in Space flick...

ST XI is nothing like that "Lost in Space" movie.

Yeah, LiS was buoyed somewhat above the mediocrity line by really nice miniature work and the soothing tones of Bob May.

 

[trevanian]

Star Trek has been given a new life. Deal with it.

And fuck you too along with the horse you rode in on.

See how pointless that was?

I sure don't see the point, but it earns you a flaming warning, anyway. Comments to PM.

He's responding to a condescending, dismissive snipe, the kind of thing you'd jump all over if it were coming from somebody with a dissenting view on TheAbramsThing.

BTW, you haven't responded to the PM I was required to send you before going to MA over your other crap from last week. How long do I have to wait, or should I just open the MA thread in the interim?

 

[Blue_Trek]

Why wonder that no one but Trekkies were impressed by this thing? Reflect instead upon how desperate we were for Trek to continue that Trekkies lept so eagerly to get at the Kool-Aid.

I almost drank the Kool-Aid too, but then on the way home on a cold winter night in 79 I discussed the move with my friends, and the conversation went sort of like this.

Me:"Was it just me or did that movie really suck?"

They answer "No, it did suck"

Then we went on to discuss why we disliked it. We were all Trek fans too.

It is what it is, if you loved TMP great, but please don't pretend it knocked it out of the park as a success. It was like a bunt that got the runner on base, and that's about it.

Don't get me wrong 09 Trek didn't knock it out of the park either, for that to happen it really needs to pick up it's international numbers.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, you know...I really enjoy ST:TMP. I have a copy of it in every version I know of - the original theatrical release in LaserDisc, a VHS of the ABC "special extended edition" with the visible studio ceiling and walls around Shatner as he hangs on wires in the pre-Trumbull EVA suit, the "Director's Edition" on DVD.

But I'm a Trekkie. It's still a mediocre movie.

It was like a bunt that got the runner on base, and that's about it.

Good way to put it.

If you want your Star Trek to be little more than Tom Corbett or Rocky Jones, that's all well and good, but I'll thank you to stop sneering at us (Kool-Aid indeed) who do not.

Oh, I'd like most things - including Star Trek - to be more than Rocky Jones (although Tom Corbett was a more inventive, if not sophisticated, TV series than ST:TMP was a movie). That doesn't mean that I have to go along to get along and pretend that ST:TMP is, narratively, in some substantial way. And rather than "reductive," I (and Scalzi, whether you're "impressed with him" or not) just lavished more attention to analyzing several of the movie's silly plot points than there's any internal evidence that the writers of the film did.

It's got some pretty striking visual design, most of which is badly used in static compositions. But that's not enough to make it a particularly good film, much less a great one.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

It is what is, if you loved TMP great, but please don't pretend it knocked it out of the park as a success. It was like a bunt that got the runner on base, and that's about it.

Don't get me wrong 09 Trek didn't knock it out of the park either, for that to happen it really needs to pick up it's international numbers.

I do not pretend it knocked anything out of the park--my posts almost always acknowledge its flaws of pacing and post-production, look at my first post on the subject of TMP in this thread. I simply hold that TMP comes closest to giving me what I ideally want out Trek of any of the movies, with TWoK a very close second. Trek XI is a fun lark but I do not take it seriously at all and still I like it better than all the rest.

Indeed, look at the the three movies I like best: an all-but-fatally flawed but intellectually ambitious film, followed by a competently made telemovie followed by the silver screen equivalent of a Gold Key comic or Peter Pan story record. And then the rest, which range from "meh" to "feh." Taken as a whole, Trek films just aren't that great.

 

[Jax]

I dunno how any TOS fan can call the movie dumb when TOS is one of the most cheesiest shows ever which oozes dumb stuff. Also Spock banging Uhrua (we don't know there having sex) yet the 60's show gives us Kirk banging every chick he meets.

At the end of the day its a reboot mixed with a Reimaging and the producers avoid saying this stuff not to hurt Trek fan's feelings.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Um, okay. Next!

 

[DevilEyes]

nowhere in TOS can you see any sort of relationship and barely any interaction between Scotty and Uhura, whose 'relationship' (if one can call it so) in ST V really came out of nowhere.

I guess the early Bantam writers saw something in TOS (maybe during those moments when everybody else is off the ship, leaving Uhura and Scott on the bridge) that you didn't, since an extended Scotty/Uhura clinch was in one of the first Haldeman ST novels.

I really admire them for seeing those moments that were were never actually on screen. Maybe they had a special vision beyond that of ordinary humans.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Dennis, couldn't you have put that last bit in a new post rather than edit it into an old one that it was quite likely I'd miss? Or was that the idea?

Speaking of EDITS: I see we're in the "is not," "is too" phase of the discussion so I'd rather just go read some Alan Moore. G'night.

 

[M'Sharak]

And fuck you too along with the horse you rode in on.

See how pointless that was?

I sure don't see the point, but it earns you a flaming warning, anyway. --->Comments to PM.<---

He's responding to a condescending, dismissive snipe, the kind of thing you'd jump all over if it were coming from somebody with a dissenting view on TheAbramsThing.

(emphasis added, as you seem to have overlooked it the first time)

BTW, you haven't responded to the PM I was required to send you before going to MA over your other crap from last week. How long do I have to wait, or should I just open the MA thread in the interim?

Oh, you were serious, and that wasn't just the customary insult, dressed in a nicer suit? Watch your inbox.

Aaaand back to the originally-scheduled topic...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Dennis, couldn't you have put that last bit in a new post rather than edit it into an old one that it was quite likely I'd miss? Or was that the idea?

No - first, I'm not used to people reading and responding to my posts quickly enough for my editing to usually matter. And second - or first, I guess (now I'm confused) I tend to reread and revise my posts quite a bit. Often I reread the post I'm responding to and something more occurs to me.

I'm not really into the particular kind of "gotcha" that you're suggesting there - not outside of TNZ, anyway.

I'm particularly fond of Tom Corbett, but mainly got to know it as a kid through the series of Grossett & Dunlap juveniles rather than the TV series. G&D used to publish all of those series - Nancy Drew, The Hardy Boys, Bobbsey Twins, and I think Tom Swift. You can't tell me Tom and Astro and Roger and those guys aren't as cool as Captain Kirk any more than I'd try to convince the TOS Onlies that Picard would beat the Toupeed One in a fist fight.

 

[lilsmartass]

I enoyed Star Trek: 2009 immensly. Loved it. Saw it...oooo 5 or 6 times, and I thought it was cool that a lot of it was an inversion of TWoK and that Spock got to do the Space, the final frontier bit

But

I agree that it is a big dumb summer movie. It is good at being what it is but it suffers from the same condition as most if not all new sci fi. Better aliens, better explosion, realistic looking spaceships and futeristic tech do not necessarily make better science fiction. Plot and character are more important than SFX and few people appreciate that anymore. I was also largely confused by the whole Spock/Uhura thing. Where did it come from? In TOS you could make a reasonable argument for Scotty/Uhura. I could, I suppose, see my way to Kirk/Uhura (protocol and necessity of command non-with standing) but Spock and Uhura seemd to come out of nowhere.

Not that again!

You know, that makes it seem like you've never actually watched TOS, only the movies. Or you confuse TOS with ST V: The Final Frontier, which would be very disturbing, considering how abysmal the latter was.

Otherwise, you'd know that, in fact, you can make a reasonable argument for Spock/Uhura in TOS; Kirk/Uhura, so-so; but nowhere in TOS can you see any sort of relationship and barely any interaction between Scotty and Uhura, whose 'relationship' (if one can call it so) in ST V really came out of nowhere.

In ST:V Scotty gets a line about no sleeping with Uhura because she is high on Vulcan telepathy or whatever it's spposed t be about. However, they get some banter in TOS by dint of being the left over characters. Kirk/Spock/McCoy get to stand by the command chair being important and having the plot revolve around them, Sulu/Chekov are at the front driving the ship so Scotty and Uhura have to talk to each other. Although on reflection Sulu/Uhura are the most flirty with each other, particularly in the mirror universe. lol

 

[startrekrcks]

Stop bashing the movie why do people have issues with the movie.

 

[M'Sharak]

Stop bashing the movie why do people have issues with the movie.

People will have different opinions about any given thing, and always have. They may also have opinions about the movie which may not agree with your own, and that's perfectly OK. Those differences of opinion are what keep discussion forums like this one active.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Dennis, couldn't you have put that last bit in a new post rather than edit it into an old one that it was quite likely I'd miss? Or was that the idea?

No - first, I'm not used to people reading and responding to my posts quickly enough for my editing to usually matter. And second - or first, I guess (now I'm confused) I tend to reread and revise my posts quite a bit. Often I reread the post I'm responding to and something more occurs to me.

I'm not really into the particular kind of "gotcha" that you're suggesting there - not outside of TNZ, anyway.

Yeah, that was kind of a cheap shot on my part--sorry about that.

 

[DevilEyes]

I enoyed Star Trek: 2009 immensly. Loved it. Saw it...oooo 5 or 6 times, and I thought it was cool that a lot of it was an inversion of TWoK and that Spock got to do the Space, the final frontier bit

But

I agree that it is a big dumb summer movie. It is good at being what it is but it suffers from the same condition as most if not all new sci fi. Better aliens, better explosion, realistic looking spaceships and futeristic tech do not necessarily make better science fiction. Plot and character are more important than SFX and few people appreciate that anymore. I was also largely confused by the whole Spock/Uhura thing. Where did it come from? In TOS you could make a reasonable argument for Scotty/Uhura. I could, I suppose, see my way to Kirk/Uhura (protocol and necessity of command non-with standing) but Spock and Uhura seemd to come out of nowhere.

Not that again!

You know, that makes it seem like you've never actually watched TOS, only the movies. Or you confuse TOS with ST V: The Final Frontier, which would be very disturbing, considering how abysmal the latter was.

Otherwise, you'd know that, in fact, you can make a reasonable argument for Spock/Uhura in TOS; Kirk/Uhura, so-so; but nowhere in TOS can you see any sort of relationship and barely any interaction between Scotty and Uhura, whose 'relationship' (if one can call it so) in ST V really came out of nowhere.

In ST:V Scotty gets a line about no sleeping with Uhura because she is high on Vulcan telepathy or whatever it's spposed t be about. However, they get some banter in TOS by dint of being the left over characters. Kirk/Spock/McCoy get to stand by the command chair being important and having the plot revolve around them, Sulu/Chekov are at the front driving the ship so Scotty and Uhura have to talk to each other. Although on reflection Sulu/Uhura are the most flirty with each other, particularly in the mirror universe. lol

Uhura and Scotty never showed any kind of romantic, sexual or any other sort of interest in each other in TOS. Uhura was very flirty (out of her own will) with Spock. She was not flirty with Sulu - he had a crush on her, but it was one-sided. She didn't care for it in "The Naked Time", and she couldn't stand Mirror Sulu. The only flirting she did with MU Sulu was when she had to distract him, before punching him out.

 

[startrekrcks]

I think people have strict views on what Star Trek is then it is difficult to accept things into that view ah well I love the movie and that's all I have to say on the matter

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Oh, I'd like most things - including Star Trek - to be more than Rocky Jones (although Tom Corbett was a more inventive, if not sophisticated, TV series than ST:TMP was a movie). That doesn't mean that I have to go along to get along and pretend that ST:TMP is, narratively, in some substantial way. And rather than "reductive," I (and Scalzi, whether you're "impressed with him" or not) just lavished more attention to analyzing several of the movie's silly plot points than there's any internal evidence that the writers of the film did.

Read my post again. You dismissed TMP's themes (I'm done with the plot point discussion; you're straining at a gnat in defense of a movie where a cadet is promoted straight to captain--of the fleet's newest, finest ship, no less ) in an insulting, three word phrase. That's reductive and it can be done with anything, from shit to Shakespeare. It doesn't prove your point, nor is it particularly clever. Rather, it just shows a fundamental lack of respect for those who do not share your opinion on a rather trivial matter.

Look, I hate TFF but there are many posters around here--posters I respect--who love it. I can tell them why I don't share their opinion but I cannot tell them they are deluded or are fooling themselves for liking it. I can only say "I disagree" and tell them why.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Good for you, A beaker full of death.

And once again, and unsurprisingly, the usual "Well, Trek has ALWAYS SUCKED!" defense of the weaknesses of the new movie.. which begs two questions.

1) Why are you even HERE?

2) Why would it make sense to have the words "Star Trek" on the movie if it was so god awful in the first place?

I have already answered those questions in the very post you have quoted; evidently, you have glossed over them in distraction. I will answer them again, only once:

1) Star Trek has been quite entertaining and I love it.
2) Because the movie has been Star Trek at it's core: it doesn't try to be too intelligent, simply entertaining. And that is something it does very well; that cannot be refuted.

But if you want intelligent science fiction, it would be best to leave Star Trek (and all other sci-fi on the screen) for what it is, and go read some of the classics.

oh, I quite agree. I don't pretend TOS reached the heights of literary SciFi, only that it was well grounded in it and aspired toward it.

I agree. And at times, it succeeded in providing a more intelligent bit of scifi then at other times. But the most important part of Star Trek has always been it's entertainment value, not it's intelligence. While intelligent plot lines might help, those are not the sole reason something's entertaining or not. And given how many series and movies have been made, it has entertained people quite well, like the new movie.