I've been binging on TOS the last couple of days and, to me at least, it is subjectively feels more like nuTrek than anything that came between 1987 and 2005.
For people who don't like the reboots
- Thread starter indycar
- Start date
I think a lot of the dislikers, like me, had very mixed reactions to 09 and then did really dislike ID. For me the problem is both films somewhat misportrayed some of the characters and the sequel had excessive action and bombastic tone and a worse story.
It's interesting and a little perplexing that after The Final Frontier was heavily criticized for having forced humor in an otherwise serious story (that instead came off as half-hearted), Insurrection did the same thing and seemed to get very similar criticism and overall reception.
Last edited:
You ask ten different people, you probably get ten different answers on what's right or wrong with the Abrams films.
I loved the characters, loved the excessive action and the bombastic tone.
The Abrams films make me feel like a kid again sitting in front of the family's 25" (big screen) color TV.
Folks look at Kirk in nuTrek and think he's immature and out of control, but I'd say he is too intelligent and full of himself rather than simply immature. One factor in that is no father figure he respects. However, is that so very different from prime Kirk? In TOS, while he followed rules, he had no qualms subverting them like getting a friend to ditch the Koridion players in Conscience of the King. He had no problem flaunting authority brazenly given the chance like Barris in Trouble with Tribbles. One might postulate while he had a stronger family past to keep him on the right track and be something of a stack of books with legs in his youth but that as he got higher in command and status reaching the admiralty in the films he had little or no more controls on his hubris and becomes very devil-may-care much like nuKirk at the outset of the JJ films.
Kirk is a man prone to displaying extreme confidence to the point of hubris. He is aware of that as he intimates to McCoy in Balance of Terror, but he very rarely has that confidence truly challenged or rattled until TWOK and TSFS. Getting Spock back he goes on from high to high. NuTrek does a better job of taking some of that wind out of his sails than TOS or the prime movies ever did.
Kirk is a man prone to displaying extreme confidence to the point of hubris. He is aware of that as he intimates to McCoy in Balance of Terror, but he very rarely has that confidence truly challenged or rattled until TWOK and TSFS. Getting Spock back he goes on from high to high. NuTrek does a better job of taking some of that wind out of his sails than TOS or the prime movies ever did.
Last edited:
I don't go to the movies to mourn death.
You don't need to now, they've cured it.
Well, they were able to save one person who had just passed before the brain had degraded.
We've brought people back from clinical death after much longer periods of time in real life. Khan's blood was genetically engineered to carry biological improvements that repair cells, in this case the radiation damaged ones.
After that (and 2 weeks in a coma) they revived him.
After that (and 2 weeks in a coma) they revived him.
Yeah. In a world where a person can traverse great distances in the blink of an eye, travel 1000s of times faster than light, and create any item out of thin air, the resurrection blood just isn't that big of a deal.
Yeah, McCoy states that he was only "mostly dead".
I guess I disagree. It was a series with action, but a "rock 'em, sock 'em action series" seems a over-simplified characterization that leaves out a lot of material. Star Trek was more a science fiction take on the "adult Western," (not surprisingly as Roddenberry had worked a lot on Have Gun Will Travel) attempting to add grown-up dramatic themes to what had previously been more of a juvenile genre. Just as most Gunsmokes had a scene with Matt beating up or shooting someone, so did many TOS episodes have the stunt doubles mixing it up hand-to-hand. But it was usually just one part of an episode that was mostly drama, or comical, or a mystery etc.
I've watched TOS for 40 years and have a pretty good idea of what it was like. I don't claim the new movies aren't "close enough," but I certainly don't feel that 79 hours of TOS "averages out" to two (or four) hours of action sequence after action sequence. Nor did the original movies really capture the whole feeling, nor would I expect them to, either. I understand why the choice was made to make the type of movie that they were, but ST09 or STID are no more a pure distillation of the essence of TOS than TMP is.
There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead...... Now mostly dead is still slightly alive....
Now, all dead, well, with all dead, there's usually only one thing that you can do. Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
But how can somebody be brought back from the dead if there isn't even a damaged 21st-century deep-space mapping satellite hovering around him and nattering about errors? We have to stay realistic!
The death of a significant character should have dramatic, lasting repercussions. That's what I expect from cinema. If you want to reverse it, there should be a helluva lot of heavy lifting to be done. In the TOS films, Kirk loses his career, his ship, his son. With this film they pop some ingredients into a food blender, and after a couple of minutes, come up with a "cure to death" right, then on the spot! and there, viola, Kirk is looking dazed from his hospital bed and all is cool! With Quinto doing his best Shat "Kahn" yelling impression, this was a badly executed attempt to give a tip of the hat to the TWOK scenes. My objection is on dramatic grounds here, not on the grounds of "in-universe plausibility/implausibility". I saw these scenes and they were very hokey. It was live action cartoons.
I'm a victim of looking at the original films to a degree. But I don't believe you should escape actually being stone dead in the manner that was portrayed in that film.
I'm a victim of looking at the original films to a degree. But I don't believe you should escape actually being stone dead in the manner that was portrayed in that film.
Kirk lost nothing getting Spock back except for a son he barely knew anything about.
Yup, just like when they killed Spock and already knew they were going to turn that around in the next movie.
Or uploading Data to B-4.
Or the time Scotty died and was "fixed" a few minutes later by Nomad.
Or making the audience sit through thinking McCoy was fatally ill then 'klolno fxed bai' by the Oracle's database just short of the end of the episode with no explanation.
Or Kirk being suffocated then revived in Amok Time by McCoy.
Etc
He's traumatised by the death of his son as we see in TUC. He's clearly traumatised by the loss of his ship. I think you're struggling here.
Similar threads
