Chris Pine's comments that modern movies can't be cerebral... what about Interstellar? The Martian?

[M'Sharak]

I know what people are trying to say - but I still don't agree with this kind of thing, and I see it as revisionism for the sake of revisionism when some Gizmodo blog argues Star Trek was "never intelligent to begin with", or something of that sort.

I'm really not sure you want to be crying "revisionism for the sake of revisionism," while at the same time dragging out this canard:

It's still a show, which, while often thrillingly action-based, had it's original pilot (The Cage) rejected for being "too cerebral".

I know the "too cerebral" story is so familiar to everyone that it is frequently recited as if Holy Scripture, but come on.

 

[Isolinear]

Star Trek, always cerebral? Brain and brain, what is brain?

A movie can be entertaining and thought provoking at the same time. However, nuTrek thinks entertainment = non-stop action and camera movement. It basicially suffers from a severe case of ADHD.

 

[BillJ]

However, nuTrek thinks entertainment = non-stop action and camera movement.

I just don't see it. People keep saying this, but there are plenty of non-action scenes in the Abrams films.

 

[Isolinear]

There are plenty of non-action scenes in the Abrams films.

Sure, probably about as many as there were action scenes in all six original movies combined.

 

[Kemaiku]

I just don't see it. People keep saying this, but there are plenty of non-action scenes in the Abrams films.

I guess some people just have short attention spans, and only watched the loud scenes.

 

[Harvey]

And none of these shows, as groundbreaking as they were, would even be remembered these days if not for IMDB.

This is true, but I'm not sure how it is relevant to my point.

Understanding Star Trek in the proper context of the history of American television in the sixties , and evaluating what shows from that era have endured in American pop culture are two entirely different things.

I know what people are trying to say - but I still don't agree with this kind of thing, and I see it as revisionism for the sake of revisionism when some Gizmodo blog argues Star Trek was "never intelligent to begin with", or something of that sort.

It was not my intention to dismiss Star Trek as being a dumb show; I simply wanted to point out that far too often its legacy is considered in a vacuum.

 

[johnjm22]

I just don't see it. People keep saying this, but there are plenty of non-action scenes in the Abrams films.

It's not "non-stop action" literally. But these movies are very fast paced with lot and lots of action. I would say the primary genre of the new films is action.

 

[The Wormhole]

but let's not pretend the "prime" movies were anything approaching cinematic masterpieces.

I don't pretend the Prime Movies are cinematic masterpieces, I truly believe they are.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I'm sure there'll be those that will disagree, but movies can be entertaining, action-oriented, deep w/o being boring to be considered 'cerebral' (e.g. "Pan's Labyrinth," "The Matrix," "Ex Machina").

I do agree with Chris Pine, though. Unless you're a director/writer/producer who has clout (or the money to produce your own film)....you're at the whim of the studios to appeal to the masses with slim attention spans who need everything laid out for them.

 

[BillJ]

....you're at the whim of the studios to appeal to the masses with slim attention spans who need everything laid out for them.

One of the biggest complaints I've seen about the Abrams films is that everything isn't laid out for the audience. People need to make up their minds on what they actually want.

 

[The Wormhole]

People need to make up their minds on what they actually want.

See, that's what the Prime Universe movies had going for them, everyone agreed about them. Everyone feels TWOK is cinematic art, and everyone feels Nemesis is a crime against filmmaking. Everyone agrees TMP is boring, and everyone agrees TVH is funny.

 

[CassandraSaturn]

that's pretty specific to certain tastes of Audience who watches these movies. each has different taste for that. like any of us. we just agree with what that suits our tastes.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm really not sure you want to be crying "revisionism for the sake of revisionism," while at the same time dragging out this canard:



I know the "too cerebral" story is so familiar to everyone that it is frequently recited as if Holy Scripture, but come on.

Also "cerebral" may not mean what it often cited as meaning. One description I have read is that "too cerebral" wasn't that it was too smart for the audiences, but that the studio executives were concerned that the audience could not connect with the characters in any meaningful way.

As for Star Trek, it is multiple different things, even in the films. TMP is 2001 while TWOK is far more action/adventure swashbuckling. TVH is a comedy, and TUC a political escapade/action/adventure. Which one of these doesn't fit in to the Star Trek mold?

The pilots of Star Trek, for all their supposed philosophizing, also had plenty of action too. It's a mix that fits the 60s mold, but the characters make the difference, not the moralizing. As much as I enjoy reading scientific facts and studying astronomical phenomenon, I don't need hardcore scientific accuracy in my science fiction.

 

[Nerys Myk]

See, that's what the Prime Universe movies had going for them, everyone agreed about them. Everyone feels TWOK is cinematic art, and everyone feels Nemesis is a crime against filmmaking. Everyone agrees TMP is boring, and everyone agrees TVH is funny.

Brilliant

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's not "non-stop action" literally. But these movies are very fast paced with lot and lots of action. I would say the primary genre of the new films is action.

So was TOS and the films it spawned in their day.

 

[JWPlatt]

See, that's what the Prime Universe movies had going for them, everyone agreed about them. Everyone feels TWOK is cinematic art, and everyone feels Nemesis is a crime against filmmaking. Everyone agrees TMP is boring, and everyone agrees TVH is funny.

That's a lot of "everyones." There's just no way that such an extreme generalization is true, especially around here. And everyone but you agrees with me.

 

[SpaceLama]

I think some people are making really good points and I'm glad to see people treating this topic as an earnest discussion.

But there is also a lot of assumption about what others think and believe....

....that kind of thing (putting words in people's mouths) can quikly degenerate into a flame war. For example, although I agree firmly with the original post, I do not "dislike" the new movies at all. Likewise, I do not want Trek to be "unpopular" or "boring" in the slightest. I want "action"! I don't think anyone has argued for Trek to abandon action; rather, like the OP said, we would be interested to see the two combined in a ratio more similar to say 'Interstellar' (by all means an action-packed movie).... ....what would the results be? I like to experiment!

 

[SpaceLama]

Basically these arguments boil down to "I don't want STAR TREK to appeal to a broad, mass audience,"

I must say I tired of people wanting Star Trek to be just one thing: "Smart" or "meaningful" or "fun."

Star Trek isn't allowed to be fun and popular. It must be solemn and dignified like an art museum or the opera.

This is the kind of thing which can raise people's ire. Nobody ever said they want Star Trek to be "one thing" (except maybe somone who said they would rather it be fun first, and thoughtful later; something we can all agree on anyway). Nobody ever said they don't want Star Trek to be of "broad, mass appeal". Nobody ever said they want Star Trek to be anything but "fun and popular".

I recon you can do a cerebral movie that is also as action packed as a Star Wars movie. Maybe something like Gravity isnt the best example, but The Matrix might be a better one; or Interstellar with it's dramatic dangers from both planet and man; or even 2001 itself, which had a gripping game of survival against HAL-9000. You can have your Balance of Terror action, and 2001: A Space Odyssey ideas, all roled into one.

As an aside, I would say Master and Commander is the best Star Trek film that wasn't a Star Trek film :-)

 

[Trekkin]

Brilliant

I admit, he almost had me going up until that point.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Star Trek isn't allowed to be fun and popular. It must be solemn and dignified like an art museum or the opera.

Kor

In my perfect future... Boxed sets of Star Trek films will be offered as "gifts" during PBS pledge drives.