Re: Come on people - am I the only fan who can't drink Abrams' Cool Ai
This ended up being rather longer than I'd expected. Apologies in advance.
I think that when I first came home from the film I was in a state of Trek-shock. I thought that TPTB were literally saying, "TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY never happened!" I have done some reading, especially Orci's interview over at Trekmovie.com, and now it seems that that is not what they were trying to do (somebody correct me here if I am wrong), but it is still hard for me to accept that we have likely seen the last of that timeline (which I have been watching, reading, and thinking about for DECADES).
Insurrection and (especially)
Nemesis killed that timeline stone dead anyway (and were, IMO, far more insulting than this movie). It wasn't going to come back. This movie has given us a new timeline to play in while leaving the original completely intact and untouched. The "old" is preserved and the "new" gives us another way to look at these characters. To each their own, of course, but I'm okay with that.
This is what I've been thinking a lot recently. A lot of people seem to think that every single episode of TOS was brimming with social commentary. By my rough reckoning, episodes like "A Private Little War" are far outnumbered by stuff like "The Naked Time" and "Specter of the Gun".
Good Star Trek comes in many flavors, both the moralizing and fluffier varieties. Star Trek falls somewhere in between those two extremes and is really more concerned with themes of friendship and destiny than it is about making some particular grand statement about humanity.
Really, a statement like that is out of place in an origin story anyway. You want to say something about the characters first so you have a good foundation to do other stuff later.
QFT. TOS wasn't a succession of deep and meaningful morality plays designed to make the audience think. Yes, some episodes did that. Most of them were about a group of people encountering various forms of weirdness in outer space and dealing with it. Most of them were fun and entertaining. The retrofit (so to speak) of TOS as some sort of flawless masterpiece created by a genius visionary who wanted everyone who saw his TV show to think about the issues of the day (or something equally grandiose) is amusing, but it isn't reality.
Exactly. The way some fans are talking, you'd think that TOS was a weekly symposium on politics, sociology, current events, and the Prime Directive. Silly me, I remember lizard-men, salt vampires, green-skinned woman, Harry Mudd, and god-like aliens messing with humanity . . . you know, the fun stuff.
That's the show I remember, too.
People are free to disagree, of course, but can we please put a stake through the idea that people that like the new movie aren't "real" Star Trek fans? I think that's what provoking a lot of the hostility.
Agreed. People are taking such absolute positions here, dictating who is and isn't a "real" fan as though they speak with complete authority. It's tedious and unnecessary. Like or dislike the movie as much as you like but is the unpleasantness and personal sniping - to say nothing of this ludicrous "Kool-Aid" crap - at all necessary?
And yet you posted about it on blogs, and you're here with those of us who have, making a statement that has no basis in any kind of experience. Whether you like it or not, it's hard to take you seriously when you haven't even seen the film and are yet prepared to bash the hell out of it.
As usual, the slightest criticism is seen as 'bashing the hell' out of something. But, feel free to stake out your turf and defend it, like any fanatic is prone to do. [...]
I'll see it, but I'm not contributing to high first weekend numbers, and fighting all the mindless fans who
like what Trek has turned into.
-RAnthony
Here's a good example. Calling people who like the movie "fanatics" and "mindless". You speak of Roddenberry's "established work" with such authority. Shouldn't you try living up to the ideals it contains?
Yea, the plot is awful. No where as good as a group of near cave men taking over a starship and Spock dying....but not really dying as he comes back to life and then they go back and save the whales to stop a probe that will destroy earth (for the second time) and then Spock's brother (!) shows up and easily steals the Enterprise and then the Klingon's moon explodes and drunk Klingons are saved by the Ent crew reading books and then Kirk and Picard with the chance to come back in time anywhere come back at the most assinine moment possible and then they chase the Borg, who only ever send one ship, back in time and then they rebel against starfleet although not really because it was their duty to stop a crime and then Picard's clone that looks and acts nothing like him attacks the Federation. Yup, JJ's story really pales against that.
Doesn't it?
Moral understories are overrated and not as important to "good Star Trek" as people seem to think, especially in the films -- for example, what was TWoK's moral message? What about FC?
I wouldn't call them "moral stories" per se, but there were important themes to both:
TWoK - Facing Death
First Contact - Vengence (ala Melville).
It's hard to accomplish that kind of story telling when a third of your movie, at least, requires character introduction and establishing relationships. It was a bit light in this one, but I hope for more in future iterations. [...]
IMO, It's an artificial limiting factor of your own enjoyment of Trek to require a homily or deeply entrenched moral theme every time it appears - especially in what amounts to an entry-level reintroduction of the entire franchise. A television show, by virtue of the medium, is more able to do that than a movie like this ever could have. However, if the next one doesn't improve in terms of character development and theme, I will probably start to be concerned.
Baby steps.
Couldn't agree more with this post.
I'm happy with the movie - very happy, in fact - but I hope to see it built upon in future rather than serving as a template.
...If my opinions are in the minority here, then I would suggest that Trek fandom is well and truly dead.
Gene Roddenberry defined Star Trek. Anything that does not do justice to his established work doesn't deserve to carry that name.
Gene Roddenberry - along with some very talented people - created a TV show. He didn't invent the wheel or cure cancer or put man on the moon. He created a
TV show. His "established work" is at best thought-provoking and insightful, but very often it was indeed "Wagon Train in the stars". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but neither was every one of those 79 episodes some sort of masterpiece. Is it really important to "do justice" to "Spock's Brain" or "And the Children Shall Lead" or "The Way to Eden"?
I'm not sure you comprehend or you are confused. This topic is for fans like me who don't drink the Kool Aid and who don't blindly buy in to it.
Again with the "Kool-Aid" talk, as though anyone who liked the movie didn't arrive at that conclusion on their own but is simply following lemmings over the cliff. Is it so difficult to accept that people liked the movie because they found things in it that appealed to them? Not simply to "fit in" or anything equally puerile?
I completely agree, mate. I hated it, im insulted by it, and im with you all the wayu. Unfortunately all the real trekkies seem to missing presumed dead. Perhaps they were on vulcan, along with everything i once loved about star trek.
"Real" Trekkies? Like the ones in this thread (and others) referring to "Kool-Aid" and calling people who liked the movie "fanatics" and "mindless"? I can't say I'd care to be numbered among people expressing that sort of elitist attitude toward people who like a
movie based on a
TV show. So I'm okay with not being a "real" Trekkie if that kind of behaviour is what I'd have to exhibit to be included.
