Any other TOSers give up post-Abrams?
- Thread starter jayrath
- Start date
You know, I could go on forever about what I didn't like about this film, but the item mentioned above is a particular sore point.
- that Pine (I refuse to call him Kirk) gets lucky is immediately rewarded with the big prize when he has no true experience and seasoning behind him. Mind you this is also quite true with some in professional sports who have a good season and then later soon fall flat. This sort of thinking really departs from Roddenberry's "believability factor" sensibility in TOS, the sense that while it's all fiction it should have a sense of credibility to it that allows folks to suspend disbelief more easily. Guess Abrams never understood that part of TOS.
- also didn't like how the entire group were together from the beginning.
In my high school class, I used the cadet-to-captain thing as an example of how, in the most fantastic stories where we are suspending our disbelief for a million impossible things, the mishandling of certain mundane details can pull you right out. (We were reading "Rip Van Winkle" and I pointed out how it was easier to swallow Rip sleeping for twenty years than it was to swallow that his dog was still alive, skulking about half-starved, when he returned to town.)
We're not post-Abrams yet. Post-Berman, yes. A minor quibble, perhaps, but I'm picky like that.
And besides, longterm fans of any franchise disliking the latest installment isn't something new, it's something universal - I find myself at home even when reading about geeks concerning franchises I barely now, because sooner or later there will be the young fans who hate the new installment, the older fans who hate the things the young fans hate, the resident God Thing with a uniquely idiosyncratic viewpoint on the whole franchise, and so on.
Whippersnappers is relative. Most of them - like me - would have grown up on TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, that confectionary of Trek shows. Therefore even if we are a decade or two younger than the original TOS fans this is still some newfalutin programming to us (I did like the new Star Trek, mind.) Our relationship then isn't enormously different from TOS fans regarding the new shows.
And besides, longterm fans of any franchise disliking the latest installment isn't something new, it's something universal - I find myself at home even when reading about geeks concerning franchises I barely now, because sooner or later there will be the young fans who hate the new installment, the older fans who hate the things the young fans hate, the resident God Thing with a uniquely idiosyncratic viewpoint on the whole franchise, and so on.
Han and Lando weren't inexperienced noobs who got lucky one day, and the Rebellion is a bit of a rag-tag bunch who can't afford to be too picky. Big fat honking difference.
Also, Star Trek isn't Star Wars--at least, it wasn't before Abrams took over.
Now we're just waiting for Pike to present young Kirk with his father's lightsaber....
Geez! I thought he already had and that's where some of the lense-flares came from!
Must've been distracted by the Green Girl Factor...
I watched original run Star Trek on NBC in the late 60s when I was in high school, and it still remains the best Trek of them all. Abrams movie was a really great science fiction movie, but failed as a Star Trek movie. I like the movie just like a lot of other scifi movies, but as Star Trek, nope. I own a copy and have seen it three times, it's good. Just not Star Trek is all.
I said this in here before, and I'll repeat it now. The difference between TOS and all the rest is that TOS was trying to be a 60 minute TV drama that used it's science fiction background as a tool to tell stores. All the rest of Trek, including the original cast movies, all were trying to BE this nebulous thing called Star Trek rather than to just tell a good story.
From the interviews I've read Abrams is going to try to go back to the original idea of Star Trek in the next movie. Good for him if he does, I'll be waiting to see if he can accomplish that.
Spider, I have to disagree that Abram's movie was good SF. No, not by a long shot, I think it failed that, too.
If this film had been something original and its own thing, almost like a spoof I suppose, like Galaxy Quest had been then I would look at it differently. But in using TOS as a starting point I have to apply a different standard in assessing it. And where many people see familiar references as tips-of-the-hat to TOS I see them as perpetuating cliches and making fun of TOS.
Case in point: the popular notion among the the general public that Kirk always got to make it with the green alien chicks.
In TOS the only green chick he ever got near was Marta in "Whom Gods Destroy" and she was a loon that Kirk was trying to keep from killing him. The only other green chick was Vina as an Orion slave girl in "The Menagerie" and she was after Pike, not Kirk. And yet this spawned a cliched perception that it happened all the time. Well Abrams couldn't resist and made sure he got it in his movie. That one bit alone (among many) was the solid evidence that this was really a send-up of TOS even if they vehemently deny it or don't even recognize it for what it is.
This is what gets me. With each successive film including TMP and TWoK the idea of what Star Trek is began to slip away from TOS. That isn't always necessarily a bad thing because other things could be incorporated or expanded upon that made the Trek universe richer. But I'd say that after the first two films Trek started to drift increasingly bit by bit. by the time we get to latter seasons of TNG, DS9 and into VOY and ENT and the TNG films Trek had been so diluted into a shadow of its former self. And yet what it had become was now perceived by many as the norm and as if it had really always been this way.
And so was it so surprising that many fans (myself included) were highly cynical that they could regain the sensibilities and ideas of TOS in a rebooted film? And we were (regrettably) correct. None of us expected it to look (aesthetically) like the TOS we knew, we didn't even expect it to play out and feel exactly the same, but we hoped something from TOS could resonate in the film. Sadly, not a damned thing did. All they reused were familiar names and references and then threw away one of the biggest strengths of TOS at its best, its general approach to storytelling.
In frame after frame, scene after scene, the same alarm kept going off in my head: This makes no fucking sense whatsoever!
You can get away with a few WTF moments if the rest holds up and you tell a good story in a compelling way. TMP and TWoK are good examples. But if your entire film is a never ending series of WTF moments then you've really screwed the pooch.
And so Abrams promises to get back to the real TOS in the next installment. Yeah, sure, good luck with that. I thought this was supposed to be getting back to TOS. As far as I'm concerned he's already messed it up and he's stuck with the bed he's made. Now he's got to lay in it.
I'm sorry if what I say next offends, but it's true. Lots of people don't have much in the way of imagination. It's been true throughout history. They see what is in front of them and can barely imagine anything different. Hence they think that Abrams had to make the movie as he did--what else could have been done? But there are always those who can see something different clearly in their imagination and can see what can be where others cannot. In a broad sense Abrams' work is a series of sight gags or sight references thrown at you at breakneck speed. The hyperactive pace blurs the fact that the story is just a patchwork convenience to hang meaningless actions and visuals on. But the moment you start to scrutinize it you really start to see what a mess it is.
Of course lots of people grown and roll their eyes and complain that you're thinking too much about it, just enjoy it. Well even TOS' worst episodes stood up to some scrutiny because of the kind of story they were trying to tell and the generally consistent universe the events took place in. Even TWoK, a film I have enormous issues with, works because of the strengths of the actors' performances among a few other things. I can accept TWoK as an alternate continuity Trek, but it still feels very much like some of TOS' better episodes. There are quite few WTF moments in TWoK, but there's enough good stuff and the general approach to its compelling story is well thought out and well told.
When it really comes down to it I think Abrams was the wrong choice for this project. But he was the hot director of the moment and he said the right things to the right people and he got the job. Then he got the green light to go ahead and show he hadn't a clue about the subject matter he was working with was really about. And if he had a clue then he just contemptuously threw it away to do what he wanted.
If this film had been something original and its own thing, almost like a spoof I suppose, like Galaxy Quest had been then I would look at it differently. But in using TOS as a starting point I have to apply a different standard in assessing it. And where many people see familiar references as tips-of-the-hat to TOS I see them as perpetuating cliches and making fun of TOS.
Case in point: the popular notion among the the general public that Kirk always got to make it with the green alien chicks.
In TOS the only green chick he ever got near was Marta in "Whom Gods Destroy" and she was a loon that Kirk was trying to keep from killing him. The only other green chick was Vina as an Orion slave girl in "The Menagerie" and she was after Pike, not Kirk. And yet this spawned a cliched perception that it happened all the time. Well Abrams couldn't resist and made sure he got it in his movie. That one bit alone (among many) was the solid evidence that this was really a send-up of TOS even if they vehemently deny it or don't even recognize it for what it is.This is what gets me. With each successive film including TMP and TWoK the idea of what Star Trek is began to slip away from TOS. That isn't always necessarily a bad thing because other things could be incorporated or expanded upon that made the Trek universe richer. But I'd say that after the first two films Trek started to drift increasingly bit by bit. by the time we get to latter seasons of TNG, DS9 and into VOY and ENT and the TNG films Trek had been so diluted into a shadow of its former self. And yet what it had become was now perceived by many as the norm and as if it had really always been this way.
And so was it so surprising that many fans (myself included) were highly cynical that they could regain the sensibilities and ideas of TOS in a rebooted film? And we were (regrettably) correct. None of us expected it to look (aesthetically) like the TOS we knew, we didn't even expect it to play out and feel exactly the same, but we hoped something from TOS could resonate in the film. Sadly, not a damned thing did. All they reused were familiar names and references and then threw away one of the biggest strengths of TOS at its best, its general approach to storytelling.
In frame after frame, scene after scene, the same alarm kept going off in my head: This makes no fucking sense whatsoever!
You can get away with a few WTF moments if the rest holds up and you tell a good story in a compelling way. TMP and TWoK are good examples. But if your entire film is a never ending series of WTF moments then you've really screwed the pooch.
And so Abrams promises to get back to the real TOS in the next installment. Yeah, sure, good luck with that. I thought this was supposed to be getting back to TOS. As far as I'm concerned he's already messed it up and he's stuck with the bed he's made. Now he's got to lay in it.
I'm sorry if what I say next offends, but it's true. Lots of people don't have much in the way of imagination. It's been true throughout history. They see what is in front of them and can barely imagine anything different. Hence they think that Abrams had to make the movie as he did--what else could have been done? But there are always those who can see something different clearly in their imagination and can see what can be where others cannot. In a broad sense Abrams' work is a series of sight gags or sight references thrown at you at breakneck speed. The hyperactive pace blurs the fact that the story is just a patchwork convenience to hang meaningless actions and visuals on. But the moment you start to scrutinize it you really start to see what a mess it is.
Of course lots of people grown and roll their eyes and complain that you're thinking too much about it, just enjoy it. Well even TOS' worst episodes stood up to some scrutiny because of the kind of story they were trying to tell and the generally consistent universe the events took place in. Even TWoK, a film I have enormous issues with, works because of the strengths of the actors' performances among a few other things. I can accept TWoK as an alternate continuity Trek, but it still feels very much like some of TOS' better episodes. There are quite few WTF moments in TWoK, but there's enough good stuff and the general approach to its compelling story is well thought out and well told.
When it really comes down to it I think Abrams was the wrong choice for this project. But he was the hot director of the moment and he said the right things to the right people and he got the job. Then he got the green light to go ahead and show he hadn't a clue about the subject matter he was working with was really about. And if he had a clue then he just contemptuously threw it away to do what he wanted.
Last edited:
Well, to be honest, if you want good science fiction you need to buy a book or the latest copy of Analog or Asimov magazines. Hollywood rarely does good science fiction, so I have two standards when dealing with science fiction. My threshold for Hollywood is much lower, and anything that entertains me is good. I gave up putting much thought into anything Hollywood does. Hell, even District 9 was just an over blown Outer Limits episode, but enjoyable none the less.
First off, forget it's Star Trek per se. What would be a good or worthwhile story idea? Now put it into the Trek universe and how can we explore that idea or tell that story in the Trek universe?
What is a good story and how can we tell it well? And we have to at least try to make it make some sense and at least seem credible even within the context of our fictional universe.
Trek isn't the only one guilty of this, lots of properties do it: wouldn't it be cool if we do this and this and that and blow audiences minds. And we'll cobble something together story wise to give it some semblance of structure.
Two pertinent questions in telling a story: why and how. Why does this and that happen? How does this and that happen? And is it at least passably reasonable and credible? The majority of TOS strived for a reasonable sense of credibility to its stories and ideas.
In Abrams' film (and many others) the answer is: Who cares, people will think it's cool!
TOS also had a distinctive approach visually. Mind you, I don't think that's a deal breaker if it isn't given a nod, but it would have been nice.
What is a good story and how can we tell it well? And we have to at least try to make it make some sense and at least seem credible even within the context of our fictional universe.
Trek isn't the only one guilty of this, lots of properties do it: wouldn't it be cool if we do this and this and that and blow audiences minds. And we'll cobble something together story wise to give it some semblance of structure.
Two pertinent questions in telling a story: why and how. Why does this and that happen? How does this and that happen? And is it at least passably reasonable and credible? The majority of TOS strived for a reasonable sense of credibility to its stories and ideas.
In Abrams' film (and many others) the answer is: Who cares, people will think it's cool!
TOS also had a distinctive approach visually. Mind you, I don't think that's a deal breaker if it isn't given a nod, but it would have been nice.
A valid approach.
Yes, this is good too.
I don't the writers did this in ST09. They had the idea and then added the "mind blow" aspects.
I think "majority" would be a stretch in the credibility department for TOS ( and a lot of TV shows and movies).
I would disagree. The whys and hows are pretty clear in ST09.
You'd have to clarify this. Are you taking set design? Costumes? The way a shot is framed or lit? Blocking?
^^ I meant how the show was filmed as opposed to set and costume design. Mind you I think TOS' aesthetic could have been respected more even though updated for contemporary standards. In light of what we got in the Abrams' film I wish they had gone that route, but I think that's one of the least of the film's failings.
I think one of us is gonna have to break down the plot of this turkey and point out, in no uncertain terms, why it doesn't work.
Yes you are because all I'm getting is vague, broad and unfocused comments that don't really mean anything. If there is a particular aproach to storytelling in TOS, say exactly what that is and then contrast it to the movie. If TOS resonates in a specific way, saywhat that is. Then explain how the movie failed to duplicate this.
Similar threads
- Locked
