An Interesting Take on the JJ Abrams Films

[Franklin]

I laughed. Also, I thought that Kirk's one-liner after landing hard from the transporter was a more tropish.

Both of which are my favorite moments in the trailer.

Also, given the nature of trailers, those scenes might not even end up in the final film.

I didn't have a problem with either scene because they each seemed so in character. Sometimes Pine utters lines and I can just picture Shatner saying it as Kirk and saying it pretty much the same way. Kirk's one-liner after the transport was exactly one of those moments. Kirk was good at off-hand one-liners like that. I think it becomes cliché or a trope only when it's relied upon too much. We'd have to see more of the movie to know if it's full of things like that.

 

[Trekkin]

So I ask again, what exactly is/was supposed to be so unique about Star Trek outside of the zany space adventure with ray guns, sexy aliens, and cool looking space ships?

Star Trek's true contribution to society: Shatner memes.

 

[fireproof78]

I didn't have a problem with either scene because they each seemed so in character. Sometimes Pine utters lines and I can just picture Shatner saying it as Kirk and saying it pretty much the same way. Kirk's one-liner after the transport was exactly one of those moments. Kirk was good at off-hand one-liners like that. I think it becomes cliché or a trope only when it's relied upon too much. We'd have to see more of the movie to know if it's full of things like that.

I loved the scene, and it is one of my favorites. It plays on the physics of the transporter previously established in the film, and gives Kirk a great moment.

But, I agree, completely, that we need to see the film first to make final determinations. Again, trailers are not films.

(cue "The More You Know" music)

 

[Franklin]

That statement assumes those who are complaining actually enjoy formulaic, derivative, dumbed down action-comedies that are not named Trek. A lot of us were drawn to Star Trek because it offered something not commonly found in tv/film.

Like fizzbin! The beauty of TOS was its ability to be sometimes comedic, sometimes farsical, and sometimes damn good drama. Any series that gives us "A Piece of the Action", tribbles, Trelane, "Balance of Terror", and "Errand of Mercy" while not compromising the characters is a strong and versatile storytelling platform. And that certainly isn't common.

 

[suarezguy]

What exactly was so special and unique about Star Trek?

I don't know about necessarily unique but I think there was a lot that was special in the original series and spin-offs that was either a lot less prevalent or less well-done in the Abrams movies.

1.) Star Trek was socially progressive.
Well this has been debated ad nauseam and more or less proven to be fairly inaccurate. While, TOS did present an ideal social setting, it certainly wasn't as progressive as a lot of people seem to think it was. There's been a lot of revisionism and rosy glasses syndrome when it comes to this aspect. And by the mid 70s, (when the show actually became popular) it was almost old-fashioned in many ways.

The Berman-era stuff really wasn't socially progressive at all. Its "better future" conceit was naïve, puerile sentiment at best.

Well it primarily was entertainment and so it was definitely not radical but I think it was also definitely liberal and even progressive. I think even the mixed, conflicted views with regards to war the original had in "A Taste of Armageddon", "Errand of Mercy" and "A Private Little War" were pretty progressive for network television in the '60s (sure there was some anti-anti-Communist films and TTZ of the same period but that doesn't mean it's not a fairly controversial/progressive view). The original also considered overpopulation and backed birth control just a few years after it became nationally legal. That Spock never really lost his his belief that Vulcan ways were best ("The Cloud Minders" flirting aside) and yet was generally professional and respectful and intrigued with humanity and became close friends with Kirk and even somewhat McCoy is a strong point for diversity.
The reboot movies, on the other hand, have Spock becoming humanlike and favoring revenge pretty often and Kirk tending to be contemptuous of Spock's perspectives and only rejecting a rather caricaturish version of a warmonger.

2.) Star Trek was cerebral and provocative.
Not really. Nothing Trek has ever presented hadn't already been discussed in a high school philosophy class. Most of the ideals overly simplistic and condescending in tone (As if they were made solely of making the viewer believe the show was smarter than it really was.) The "Needs of the many" BS is the perfect example At best, it's just a dumbed-down facsimile of Benthamism utility. At worst, it's fallacious nonsense--and therefore not logical at all.

I think the shows are highly provocative, whether someone with godlike or hyper-advanced abilities will become evil, how much forgiveness can be or should be given to an adolescent with godlike powers, how much of a dark side do people have and what would they be like without it; "Space Seed" (after pointing out the dangers of "supermen") ends with one of Khan's followers refusing to support him completely but then going along with him into exile (and Khan admiring her) and Kirk's view, although it is pretty underdeveloped, that Khan could do a lot of good in a unique environment.
The spin-offs have the characters refusing to end a drug addiction, Janeway eliminating one of her crewmembers to restore crewmembers who can't directly speak for themselves, Worf refusing to save an enemy's life, debates about how quickly former enemies can and should become friendly, how much privacy to maintain in light of a possible or true threat, characters getting brainwashed. In general there's tension between individual rights and collective utility.
The reboot films present one caricaturish villain to reject but tend to follow his attitude, be merciless to really bad villains, otherwise. "The Wounded" wasn't one of Trek's best installments but it was much better and more thought-provoking than ID with the villain being fanatical and yet the threat he was for preemption against very likely real and Picard recognizing it as real and believing both that Maxwell had no right to commit his violence and that the probability of the threat being real shouldn't be ignored or whitewashed.

in comparison by some of the TV around today, Star Trek (in any form) looks pretty silly.

I don't think most of TV today has heroes condemning genetic engineering, declaring that man might not be meant for paradise is or being tolerant of suicide.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know. I understood both Maxwell's perspective ("the Wounded") as well as Admiral Marcus'.

The more interesting facet to STID is the fact that Marcus appears as a surrogate father to replace Pike and then becomes more of a dark mirror for what Kirk could become. Marcus doesn't care about the rules, and follows though only as a matter of it serving his greater goal.

The interesting part of STID is what Kirk and Spock could become. That's why it engages me.

 

[FarStrider]

If I remember correctly, I believe that the Salt Vampire was actually cut from ST09. . . article on Salt Vampire

~FS

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well it primarily was entertainment and so it was definitely not radical but I think it was also definitely liberal and even progressive. I think even the mixed, conflicted views with regards to war the original had in "A Taste of Armageddon", "Errand of Mercy" and "A Private Little War" were pretty progressive for network television in the '60s (sure there was some anti-anti-Communist films and TTZ of the same period but that doesn't mean it's not a fairly controversial/progressive view). The original also considered overpopulation and backed birth control just a few years after it became nationally legal. That Spock never really lost his his belief that Vulcan ways were best ("The Cloud Minders" flirting aside) and yet was generally professional and respectful and intrigued with humanity and became close friends with Kirk and even somewhat McCoy is a strong point for diversity.

But then we got TNG, whose handling of racial issues and interpersonal diversity was absolutely atrocious. The show even accidentally parodied itself with the debacle that was "Suddenly Human," wherein Picard's attitude towards Jono largely reflects Worf's, Data's and Geordi's attitudes towards their own identity.

TOS at least had going for it the fact that racial diversity was something they managed to achieve even if it didn't always work perfectly. TNG swung the opposite direction: everyone is searching for conformity to some imaginary rigorous standard of what makes a "true human" or "true Klingon" or "true Vulcan" or whatever. ST09 and STID show us Spock and to some extent even Kirk recoiling from that attitude; Spock isn't wringing his hands trying to learn how to be a "true Vulcan," he's trying to find a place in the world that accepts him for who and what he really is.

The reboot movies, on the other hand, have Spock becoming humanlike and favoring revenge pretty often and Kirk tending to be contemptuous of Spock's perspectives and only rejecting a rather caricaturish version of a warmonger.

Incorrect: the reboot movies have Spock standing astride of the cultural and historical gap between Vulcan and Human cultures, being rejected by Vulcans because of his human side and being alienated from humans because of his Vulcan side. The core of his character is the struggle to balance those two otherwise incompatible backgrounds and arrive at an identity that he can call his own. This is a refreshing change from, say, Worf or Data who spend all of their time letting someone else spoonfeed them varying definitions of "normal" for them to try and conform to.

And Kirk was never "contemptuous" of Spock's perspectives. He failed to UNDERSTAND them, to be sure, but he treated Spock with more respect in the reboot movies than McCoy ever did in TOS.

I think the shows are highly provocative, whether someone with godlike or hyper-advanced abilities will become evil, how much forgiveness can be or should be given to an adolescent with godlike powers, how much of a dark side do people have and what would they be like without it; "Space Seed" (after pointing out the dangers of "supermen") ends with one of Khan's followers refusing to support him completely but then going along with him into exile (and Khan admiring her) and Kirk's view, although it is pretty underdeveloped, that Khan could do a lot of good in a unique environment.
The spin-offs have the characters refusing to end a drug addiction, Janeway eliminating one of her crewmembers to restore crewmembers who can't directly speak for themselves, Worf refusing to save an enemy's life, debates about how quickly former enemies can and should become friendly, how much privacy to maintain in light of a possible or true threat, characters getting brainwashed. In general there's tension between individual rights and collective utility.

To be sure: the show TRIES to be provocative, and sometimes it succeeds. But in most such cases it instead accomplishes only a manner of smug pretentiousness; "Tuvix" is the best example of this by far, glossing one entire half of what should be a complex moral debate and defaulting to "hit the reset button." Most of those issues are handled in simplistic, comic-book ways with a veneer of sophistication that isn't always or even usually warranted for the way it's being handled.

Admiral Marcus was no more a caricature than Admiral Nechayev in TNG/DS9, and Nero doesn't come off much better than Kivas Fajo or even Lore for that matter. Story elements don't need to be dressed up in sophistication if they can serve their purpose just as well without it; this is why we don't really understand Lore's basic motivation (other than being evil) and don't know anything about Fajo except that he's a kleptomaniac and a sociopath. Neither of them would even be worth knowing about if it wasn't for their relationship with Data.