They are both very similar movies. With captain's being played because of their past relationships.
Chris Pine's comments that modern movies can't be cerebral... what about Interstellar? The Martian?
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
They are both very similar movies. With captain's being played because of their past relationships.
His observation was simply pointing out TUC was no less encumbered than STiD when it comes to what you called '"meaningful" political allegories' and "an utterly confusing and nonsensical plot" (each of which involves some type of conspiracy). I was agreeing with him (though I would have gone further and argued STiD's plot was neither confusing nor nonsensical--but I've no time for lengthy posts at the moment). The "cinematic masterpiece" was just shorthand as a general rebuttal to those who think the "prime" movies are much better made films than the new ones.
And Kirk is "forced" into a situation in City on the Edge of Forever. It's a story, not a philosophical roundtable discussion.
And none of these shows, as groundbreaking as they were, would even be remembered these days if not for IMDB.
The Undiscovered Country is my favorite Star Trek movie - as it is for quite a few people - and I will defend it to the hilt; even if it's message is a sermon - isn't some of the most influential literature of our civilization just a sermon or epistle or polemic? A group of reactionaries in the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire decide they cannot live with the world that would emerge from peace between the two; they fear the social changes that will occur - how it may destroy their cherished cultures - and ironically work to the same ends, in trying to defeat the peace.
Depends on who you ask. Some folks predate IMDB.
"Cerebral" is a difficult word to use to describe a work of fiction. Cerebral can imply intelligence, snobbery, esoteric material, tedious attention to detail or a host of other positive or negative elements.
Well, I am a hard sci-fi fan - and, if you would like to know my perspective - I have never once dismissed Star Trek's value to the science fiction genre - I see it as an endlessly interesting source of stories - and it directly inspired me into reading hard sci-fi.
I don't know whether people really believe Star Trek was simple, or whether people are underestimating it, and thus thinking "nah, they can't possibly have been that clever in the 60s" - it's hard to tell. Look at 'Where No Man Has Gone Before', with it's exploration of whether a human is still a human, a friend is still a friend, after gaining the powers of a god - if people underestimate the intelligence of 60s screenwriters, they could be forgiven for thinking Kirk's/Spock's lines about "that is not your friend / he is not Gary Mitchell" are throwaway lines, maybe just a justification for the death of Mitchell - but they actually could be deeper explorations of concepts of object/essence (existential philosophy), and the nature of power (does the exposure of a normal healthy personality to the power of a god, change the fundamental essence of that being, beyond recognition, even without any moral failing on the part of the individual - i.e. is exposure to ultimate power a problem in itself?) No philosophical concept is unworthy of exploration in my books.
Another example would be 'The Cage', and the exploration by Pike and the Talosians, of what part of the personality wants what is actually best for a human - which is most appealing; their id, their ego, or their superego (in Freudian terms) - or none of those - whether fulfilling them in a simulation is as satisfying to the psyche as the reality, and if not, why not? Pike is being tempted with a married existence, which the Talosians have plucked from his recent musings with the ship's surgeon as to the source of his growing sense of dissatisfaction, and then when this fails, they switch from superego to id, and hit him with the full force of a libidinous and megalomaniac fantasy, in the form of existence as an Orion slaver prince - that part of a healthy mind which desires control, domination, carnal pleasure, without any thought for the emotional needs of others, or the greater society. It's only simplistic if you dismiss these themes as worthless, or too prosaic - I don't think we should. It also has a deeply ambiguous ending, because for all Pike's rejection of the constructed reality of the Talosians, for how it fails to satisfy the psyche - Veena actually chooses it over her real existence, as a happy illusion in place of her horrifically deformed and painful reality - there is no absolutist conclusion favoring Pike's interpretation of the value of reality.
In my experience, people look at something with a certain philosophical outlook - it colors their perception - and this can literally render something meaningful meaningless, depending on whether the concept's contained in a work of fiction align - this is why people continually discover and re-discover different works of drama and literature over time - their outlook is re-aligning with the themes of a given story. You won't believe the amount of fantasy fans I have known who become enamored with dark fantasy and George R R Martin, only to rediscover the value and complexity of Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings was never simplistic to begin with; their approach to it just changed. I am not saying dark fantasy is without value either! Just different value! Star Trek, to me, is such a timeless work as Tolkien - but people need to be open to see it; or they will look for elements that disappoint, and inevitably find something.
Earlier in the thread people noted that many great dramas explored drug addiction before Star Trek - the suggestion being that an issue of immediate social and emotional importance, which is surrounded by prejudice, and strong opinions, is a worthier topic than traditional Star Trek fare (metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, the implications of technology, of science, cultural commentary, exploration of the mind, etc). I disagree. I don't think, as many do, that Battlestar Galactica, is necessarily more important than The Next Generation, just because it featured ethnic prejudice, deeply flawed characters, suicide bombing, and religious zealotry, and The Next Generation featured a functional society - in fact, some of the best works are those that dare to present a functional vision, in order to stimulate the imaginations of the readers - often they are the ones banned for being 'radical' or 'extreme'. People still endlessly analyze Shakespeare, despite thousands of dramas having covered the same ground - the reason being that just because something has been said elsewhere does not make it's fresh exploration any less interesting.
I must say I tired of people wanting Star Trek to be just one thing: "Smart" or "meaningful" or "fun."
It can be a lot of different things, and seeing as Trek is present in multiple branches of media: Film, books, comics, and soon television of a sort, there is room for each of those branches to portray different elements of Trek at different times.
It can be a lot of different things, and seeing as Trek is present in multiple branches of media: Film, books, comics, and soon television of a sort, there is room for each of those branches to portray different elements of Trek at different times.
Well, I am a hard sci-fi fan - and, if you would like to know my perspective - I have never once dismissed Star Trek's value to the science fiction genre - I see it as an endlessly interesting source of stories - and it directly inspired me into reading hard sci-fi.
I don't know whether people really believe Star Trek was simple, or whether people are underestimating it, and thus thinking "nah, they can't possibly have been that clever in the 60s" - it's hard to tell. Look at 'Where No Man Has Gone Before', with it's exploration of whether a human is still a human, a friend is still a friend, after gaining the powers of a god - if people underestimate the intelligence of 60s screenwriters, they could be forgiven for thinking Kirk's/Spock's lines about "that is not your friend / he is not Gary Mitchell" are throwaway lines, maybe just a justification for the death of Mitchell - but they actually could be deeper explorations of concepts of object/essence (existential philosophy), and the nature of power (does the exposure of a normal healthy personality to the power of a god, change the fundamental essence of that being, beyond recognition, even without any moral failing on the part of the individual - i.e. is exposure to ultimate power a problem in itself?) No philosophical concept is unworthy of exploration in my books.
Another example would be 'The Cage', and the exploration by Pike and the Talosians, of what part of the personality wants what is actually best for a human - which is most appealing; their id, their ego, or their superego (in Freudian terms) - or none of those - whether fulfilling them in a simulation is as satisfying to the psyche as the reality, and if not, why not? Pike is being tempted with a married existence, which the Talosians have plucked from his recent musings with the ship's surgeon as to the source of his growing sense of dissatisfaction, and then when this fails, they switch from superego to id, and hit him with the full force of a libidinous and megalomaniac fantasy, in the form of existence as an Orion slaver prince - that part of a healthy mind which desires control, domination, carnal pleasure, without any thought for the emotional needs of others, or the greater society. It's only simplistic if you dismiss these themes as worthless, or too prosaic - I don't think we should. It also has a deeply ambiguous ending, because for all Pike's rejection of the constructed reality of the Talosians, for how it fails to satisfy the psyche - Veena actually chooses it over her real existence, as a happy illusion in place of her horrifically deformed and painful reality - there is no absolutist conclusion favoring Pike's interpretation of the value of reality.
In my experience, people look at something with a certain philosophical outlook - it colors their perception - and this can literally render something meaningful meaningless, depending on whether the concept's contained in a work of fiction align - this is why people continually discover and re-discover different works of drama and literature over time - their outlook is re-aligning with the themes of a given story. You won't believe the amount of fantasy fans I have known who become enamored with dark fantasy and George R R Martin, only to rediscover the value and complexity of Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings was never simplistic to begin with; their approach to it just changed. I am not saying dark fantasy is without value either! Just different value! Star Trek, to me, is such a timeless work as Tolkien - but people need to be open to see it; or they will look for elements that disappoint, and inevitably find something.
Earlier in the thread people noted that many great dramas explored drug addiction before Star Trek - the suggestion being that an issue of immediate social and emotional importance, which is surrounded by prejudice, and strong opinions, is a worthier topic than traditional Star Trek fare (metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, the implications of technology, of science, cultural commentary, exploration of the mind, etc). I disagree. I don't think, as many do, that Battlestar Galactica, is necessarily more important than The Next Generation, just because it featured ethnic prejudice, deeply flawed characters, suicide bombing, and religious zealotry, and The Next Generation featured a functional society - in fact, some of the best works are those that dare to present a functional vision, in order to stimulate the imaginations of the readers - often they are the ones banned for being 'radical' or 'extreme'. People still endlessly analyze Shakespeare, despite thousands of dramas having covered the same ground - the reason being that just because something has been said elsewhere does not make it's fresh exploration any less interesting.
Which is some great cherry picking, grabbing the creme of the crop.
There's lots of very bad, very dumb Star Trek out there as well. Which is why I average it out. It is intelligent, but not as intelligent as many people portray it as.
Correct. Star Trek is a giant body of work, with all the greatness and terribleness that entails.
Trying to force a single filter on that giant body of work is impossible.
@BillJ - I would argue that picking the two pilot episodes is not cherry picking, as they are a mission statement - I would also argue that "average out" isn't how this works - something good isn't brought low by the addition of something lesser - rather it still exists in it's entirety.
@Jedi_Master & others - it has been noted that some people want Star Trek to be one particular thing - or want it to somehow be "less popular" - this is certainly an opinion I have seen before, but I think it's worth noting for the record that nobody in this thread is arguing for the limitation of Trek, but rather it's expansion. We can have both - it isn't a case of choice - we can have action packed and cerebral - popular and deep - I have never believed that intelligent things are not capable of being hugely successful.
@Jedi_Master & others - it has been noted that some people want Star Trek to be one particular thing - or want it to somehow be "less popular" - this is certainly an opinion I have seen before, but I think it's worth noting for the record that nobody in this thread is arguing for the limitation of Trek, but rather it's expansion. We can have both - it isn't a case of choice - we can have action packed and cerebral - popular and deep - I have never believed that intelligent things are not capable of being hugely successful.
Large "tent-pole" franchise films do not have the luxury of being just "smart" or "cerebral."
The Martian was helped by the star power of Damon, Gravity was helped along by the fact it was a blast to see in 3-D and BOTH were attacked by some individuals for containing scientific irregularities or blatant impossibilities.
The Martian was helped by the star power of Damon, Gravity was helped along by the fact it was a blast to see in 3-D and BOTH were attacked by some individuals for containing scientific irregularities or blatant impossibilities.
Of course, you're not every fan. There is probably a wide range of opinions by hard SF fans about Trek. IIRC, several SF authors were dismissive of Star Trek when it first came out. I'm sure some have changed their minds, but others still look down on it. Science professionals have a similar range of opinion. I like Hard SF myself and like you Star Trek introduced me to the genre. But it's not hard SF.
No one is, I think, is calling it simple or thinking the 60s weren't full of clever writers with clever ideas That something different than it being cerebral. The 60's was a time of all sorts of ideas and Star Trek like many shows of the era explored those ideas. Sometimes it did a bad job. Other times it find the right story and the right tone. it was a mixed bag like most shows. There were shows that handled topical issues better. That doesn't mean Star Trek was bad or simple.
Last edited:
Well the first one was rejected. So Mission: Failed. The second was what got the show on the air. More of a proof of concept than a mission statement.
