Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

[wulfio]

People are not dumb. People have taste. The era doesn't demand that movies are mindless popcorn flicks. That's just something film hipsters say.

Personally, I don't think the Abrams films are mindless popcorn flicks. But that's neither here nor there.

I think you're transposing what you want from a movie onto general audiences. It's been proven that, sometimes, people go to movies to just watch things blow-up and have a good time. You seem to completely disregard the escapism part of the movie going experience. For most people, Star Trek isn't a way of life, it is a way to escape the real world for a few hours.

Actually, I'm not transposing anything. If you read the discussion, you would understand that people are saying a cerebral trek flick could never, and would never be successful in this era. And that the contemporary audience doesn't have the ability to appreciate a cerebral trek flick in the 2010's. Basically that the trek films are as they are, because they could not be anything else.

And then you would also understand that my argument is if it's done well, you can absolutely make a cerebral, slower paced film, and it be successful.

This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with star trek tng or nutrek. It's about the conceptual ideas of what a film is allowed to be in this era vs. era's past, and how mediums affect the finished product.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think you guys are giving directors and the audience, far too little credit.

If you give each give berman and abrams 200 mill, give them the script to STID, and strict guidelines scene by scene, those will be 2 entirely different movies.

But who's going to do that (give them the 200 mil) now?

Nobody. You're saying they're different because it's 2010. I'm saying they're different because it's the artistic direction. and then you argued with me...

Try reading the rest of my post because it deals with stylistic decisions as well.

Nobody, exactly. We agree on that.

Berman got hired to produce and story four Trek films back in the day. He won't have that opportunity again, because people have moved on from the sort of entertainment he can make. Which means that anybody who today made the same artistic choices he would, would yield similar results of non-success.

Where we might have agreement is that more than one style might work in each era. But I never said that only one style could work at each given time. I never said it was necessary for the films in the present era to be the very nuTrek films we've gotten (successful though they are). Never said that. Other films made today might have been reasonably successful, too. All I said is that change is inevitable, and that what worked decades ago won't work today.

If you read the discussion, you would understand that people are saying a cerebral trek flick could never, and would never be successful in this era. And that the contemporary audience doesn't have the ability to appreciate a cerebral trek flick in the 2010's. Basically that the trek films are as they are, because they could not be anything else.

No, if you think I said that (whatever "cerebral" means), you're putting words in my mouth.

 

[wulfio]

I'm conceptualizing here, nothing to do with specific names or properties, you can't get side tracked on examples. They're used to highlight my point since regular adjectives aren't working.

Seems we agree mostly.

Someone said contemporary trek couldn't be slow paced and cerebral, and that it had to be like Abrams trek.

 

[BillJ]

I never said it was necessary for the films in the present era to be the very nuTrek films we've gotten (successful though they are).

I think it actually was necessary for Star Trek (2009) to be exactly the film we got. It needed to be brash and bold with larger-than-life characters. It needed to be those things. It needed to be accessible to general audiences. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Star Trek was a tarnished brand with no real future when Abrams pulled it out of mothballs.

It had to escape the "perfect humans sitting around a table talking gibberish to solve a problem" stigma the franchise had gained during the Berman years.

 

[wulfio]

So you're saying people are too stupid to enjoy a movie that makes them think?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Someone said contemporary trek couldn't be slow paced and cerebral, and that it had to be like Abrams trek.

I never said that specifically that.

I never said it was necessary for the films in the present era to be the very nuTrek films we've gotten (successful though they are).

I think it actually was necessary for Star Trek (2009) to be exactly the film we got. It needed to be brash and bold with larger-than-life characters. It needed to be those things. It needed to be accessible to general audiences. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Star Trek was a tarnished brand with no real future when Abrams pulled it out of mothballs.

It had to escape the "perfect humans sitting around a table talking gibberish to solve a problem" stigma the franchise had gained during the Berman years.

That may be, but reasoning that out was a step further than I actually went, is what I'm saying. I did say that there was a sweet spot. Clearly, nuTrek was aiming for that. Whether they hit it is, well, up for discussion I suppose.

 

[BillJ]

So you're saying people are too stupid to enjoy a movie that makes them think?

One, I don't have the same negative feelings towards the Abrams films that you do. Two, Star Trek was never this incredibly intelligent franchise you seem to think it is. Many of us starting watching before we started going to school. It can't be that intelligent if pre-schoolers can grasp much of it. TNG premiered when I was sixteen. Once again, it didn't throw anything at me I couldn't understand. What Star Trek gave me was a life long love of Science Fiction. When I revisit Star Trek, I revisit it to see those big brash characters I grew up with.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is my favorite of the Star Trek movies. Do I think that general audiences would be satisfied with a similar film today? No. Why would I? General audiences weren't satisfied it thirty-five years ago.

Not everything work for everyone. But disparaging a film because it doesn't live up to your personal standards is non-sense. There's lots of stuff out there to watch, simply find something more to your taste.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Avatar probably made a lot of people think.

 

[BillJ]

Avatar probably made a lot of people think.

It made more than a billion dollars and is an incredibly simple story. It made me think two things: "how long is this thing?" and "what is the big deal?" It was primarily Dances with Wolves in space. I don't think it was anymore intelligent than the Abrams films. Just slower and more plodding.

But a heck of a lot of people love those films. Which is great. I don't have a need to go and criticize those films non-stop because they don't work for me. This is probably the first time I've even thought about Avatar since I commented on the film after seeing it several years ago.

 

[VST]

So you're saying people are too stupid to enjoy a movie that makes them think?

This really really isn't about that at all. It's about pure money making mathematics.

No studio in this day and age would allow Berman/Braga to make an Insurrection or a Generations (probably not even a Nemesis given how that tried to be a generic action flick and gained the lowest Trek movie coin ever). We just don't live in that world anymore. The studio ultimately gets the say. If Abrams had come in and said 'okay, I want to make The Conscience of the King into a two hour movie', they'd have laughed, slapped him upside the head, and told him to add some space battles, action heroics & explosions or 'we're replacing you with Zack Snyder'.

It's naive to think we live in a world where artistic freedom outweighs profit margins, especially in such a lucrative franchise such as Star Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"? Something more like "The Cage"? Or TMP? Or TNG? Or DS9?

Are we talking more hard science? More politics? More "utopian" inspiration or more moral ambiguity? Deeper, more complicated characterization or chewier time-travel paradoxes? Morality plays? Thinly-disguised allegories about current events?

I'm not being facetious here, but I suspect we're talking past each other to some degree, and that if you asked ten different fans what "cerebral" meant to them, you would get at least eight different answers . . ..

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Avatar probably made a lot of people think.

It made more than a billion dollars and is an incredibly simple story. It made me think two things: "how long is this thing?" and "what is the big deal?" It was primarily Dances with Wolves in space. I don't think it was anymore intelligent than the Abrams films. Just slower and more plodding.

It reminded me of a Stargate SG-1 episode only the humans being bigger dicks and there not being a diplomatic solution in the end.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"? Something more like "The Cage"? Or TMP? Or TNG? Or DS9?

Are we talking more hard science? More politics? More "utopian" inspiration or more moral ambiguity? Deeper, more complicated characterization or chewier time-travel paradoxes? Morality plays? Thinly-disguised allegories about current events?

I'm not being facetious here, but I suspect we're talking past each other to some degree, and that if you asked ten different fans what "cerebral" meant to them, you would get at least eight different answers . . ..

It occurs to me that one of the oft-repeated legends about "The Cage" is that it was rejected for being "too cerebral". From Wiki's article on "The Cage":

NBC reportedly called the pilot "too cerebral," "too intellectual," and "too slow" with "not enough action."[2]
[...]
2. ^ Shatner, William (2008). Up Till Now: The Autobiography. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. p. 119. ISBN 0-312-37265-5.

Maybe that's how this word is getting injected into the conversation about Star Trek.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"? Something more like "The Cage"? Or TMP? Or TNG? Or DS9?

Are we talking more hard science? More politics? More "utopian" inspiration or more moral ambiguity? Deeper, more complicated characterization or chewier time-travel paradoxes? Morality plays? Thinly-disguised allegories about current events?

I'm not being facetious here, but I suspect we're talking past each other to some degree, and that if you asked ten different fans what "cerebral" meant to them, you would get at least eight different answers . . ..

It occurs to me that one of the oft-repeated legends about "The Cage" is that it was rejected for being "too cerebral". From Wiki's article on "The Cage":

NBC reportedly called the pilot "too cerebral," "too intellectual," and "too slow" with "not enough action."[2]
[...]
2. ^ Shatner, William (2008). Up Till Now: The Autobiography. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. p. 119. ISBN 0-312-37265-5.

Maybe that's how this word is getting injected into the conversation about Star Trek.

I read somewhere that it actually had to do with "The Cage" being too expensive and not wanting to pay the amount needed to make it per episode.

 

[VST]

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"? Something more like "The Cage"? Or TMP? Or TNG? Or DS9?

Are we talking more hard science? More politics? More "utopian" inspiration or more moral ambiguity? Deeper, more complicated characterization or chewier time-travel paradoxes? Morality plays? Thinly-disguised allegories about current events?

I'm not being facetious here, but I suspect we're talking past each other to some degree, and that if you asked ten different fans what "cerebral" meant to them, you would get at least eight different answers . . ..

You're probably right about the many different answers to that one, because Trek seems to be different things to different people.

Watching TOS lately has made me see how it's one big myth that Trek was always a very scientific, careful, issue-heavy show. Originally it was a big, colourful romp that just happened to have shows that touched on 'ideas'. It's only TNG that brought in more of the science & established technobabble, and I sense quite a lot of people think Trek 'cerebral' in those terms. DS9 eschewed a great deal of that and flew whereas VOY drowned in it, so it applies in different ways.

Personally the best Trek is a show that's telling a compelling character story, because that'll always leave you with an issue to contemplate alongside.

 

[Gov Kodos]

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"? Something more like "The Cage"? Or TMP? Or TNG? Or DS9?

Spock's Brain

Are we talking more hard science? More politics? More "utopian" inspiration or more moral ambiguity? Deeper, more complicated characterization or chewier time-travel paradoxes? Morality plays? Thinly-disguised allegories about current events?

Comedy, the general audience seemed to like TVH the most of all the films, and SB could be just as good or better. Keep the fun, don't go down the rabbit hole of 'Cerebral'. This show had the occasional thoughtful episode, so did the Bionic Man and Happy Days, but it was mostly a fun space opera.

I'm not being facetious here, but I suspect we're talking past each other to some degree, and that if you asked ten different fans what "cerebral" meant to them, you would get at least eight different answers . . ..

Corruption from absolute power

Kirk whinnies and prances like a horse

Fans aghast

Star Trek

 

[drt]

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"? Something more like "The Cage"? Or TMP? Or TNG? Or DS9?

Are we talking more hard science? More politics? More "utopian" inspiration or more moral ambiguity? Deeper, more complicated characterization or chewier time-travel paradoxes? Morality plays? Thinly-disguised allegories about current events?

I'm not being facetious here, but I suspect we're talking past each other to some degree, and that if you asked ten different fans what "cerebral" meant to them, you would get at least eight different answers . . ..

It occurs to me that one of the oft-repeated legends about "The Cage" is that it was rejected for being "too cerebral". From Wiki's article on "The Cage":

NBC reportedly called the pilot "too cerebral," "too intellectual," and "too slow" with "not enough action."[2]
[...]
2. ^ Shatner, William (2008). Up Till Now: The Autobiography. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. p. 119. ISBN 0-312-37265-5.

Maybe that's how this word is getting injected into the conversation about Star Trek.

I read somewhere that it actually had to do with "The Cage" being too expensive and not wanting to pay the amount needed to make it per episode.

Anymore, I consider the "too cerebral" to be guru-era Rodenberry trying to defend why his initial concept wasn't heralded as pure genius.

As there isn't a huge amount of difference in the level of action - I think one could argue there was even more in "The Cage" - the most notable difference was probably in the timing of WNMHGB having the fight be the episode's climax. And I'd say the "cerebral" science-fiction food-for-thought in both was about equal as well...

 

[wulfio]

Avatar probably made a lot of people think.

Now I loved avatar. It was total eye candy and an amazing 3D experience. But the only thing it could possibly make you think of is how many movies this ripped off.

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"?

Full Definition of CEREBRAL

1
a : of or relating to the brain or the intellect
b : of, relating to, affecting, or being the cerebrum

2
a : appealing to intellectual appreciation <cerebral drama>
b : primarily intellectual in nature <a cerebral society>

 

[BillJ]

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"?

Full Definition of CEREBRAL

1
a : of or relating to the brain or the intellect
b : of, relating to, affecting, or being the cerebrum

2
a : appealing to intellectual appreciation <cerebral drama>
b : primarily intellectual in nature <a cerebral society>

Being a novelist and editor, I'm sure Greg Cox is well aware of the definition of cerebral. What he is trying to narrow down is what exactly is it that fans are wanting. And he is correct, if you asked ten fans, you would get eight different answers.

 

[Gov Kodos]

So, I'm curious: What do people mean when they say they want something more "cerebral"?

Full Definition of CEREBRAL

1
a : of or relating to the brain or the intellect
b : of, relating to, affecting, or being the cerebrum

2
a : appealing to intellectual appreciation <cerebral drama>
b : primarily intellectual in nature <a cerebral society>

Being a novelist and editor, I'm sure Greg Cox is well aware of the definition of cerebral. What he is trying to narrow down is what exactly is it that fans are wanting. And he is correct, if you asked ten fans, you would get eight different answers.

At least that many.