I think the TNG films had some pretty thoughtful content awkwardly combined with some pretty mindless action and FC aside got worse as they went along but even the original cast films were uneven so yeah, it makes sense that Trek works a lot better on television, you can certainly have more focus on characters, more developed stories (individually and overall) and less attention on action-conflict.
Forbes: Paramount Has Canceled 'Star Trek 4,' And Disney's 'Star Wars' Is To Blame
- Thread starter Doc Mugatu
- Start date
- Status
I think the TNG films had some pretty thoughtful content awkwardly combined with some pretty mindless action and FC aside got worse as they went along but even the original cast films were uneven so yeah, it makes sense that Trek works a lot better on television, you can certainly have more focus on characters, more developed stories (individually and overall) and less attention on action-conflict.
yes can imagine something like that Avengers type movie that was going to happen after Nemesis but a Netflix crossover event as Marvel & DC on tv have done.. maybe thats when Shatner will finally pop up as 90y old Kirk
Star Trek TOS was originally not accepted with Pike as the captain as I think NBC said it was too cerebral. Meant it was for smart people LOL. I would have to agree with all of you who say even the original films were more tuned as an action movies. The jj movies were definitely action only non thought provoking, with the exception of the first one because you had to think about what changed. JJ didn't do enough to set the change properly though but I give him an A for effort.
Into Darkess was Trek's most blatant allegory since TOS (a commentary on the use of drone weapons, damning US drone warefare). ST'09 was a coming out allegory for Spock (culminating in the transporter room scene where he tells his father he feels his emotions and cannot control them). I am amazed Trekkies manage to miss these.
I'm not. ST 09 and Into Darkness gets written off as "dumb action movies" and any commentary is flat out ignored and denied because of the changes.
Both films delve significantly in to the psychology of Spock and Kirk and their growth and development, as well as offer up a commentary regarding a father's influence upon personal development. But that's ignored.
Star Trek, as is the case with anything else that comes from Kingdom of Hollywood, only moves forward if it makes a profit or if those who produce it believe there will be profit to be made from it if they continue with it or if they dust it off and revive it if it has been sitting on the shelf for a while.
I don't feel that TPTB do enough homework. They latch onto a current trend, such as the action-adventure film, but they fail to take into consideration that they need balance, especially with a property like Star Trek. Plenty of the fan base, and even general audience members who go to theaters to see sci-fi films, want something with more depth and substance than the pew-pew.
This has also been a problem with Trek novels. You can't take a generic, same-old, same-old action story, stick an overlay of Star Trek details onto it, and expect it to be respected by Trek fans who are looking for something thought-provoking and engaging. Mack Bolan and Star Trek are not going to mix well.
A Star Trek film can have a wide appeal, if it is well-written and if it has that balance. The action fans can get enough of what they're looking for most, but the sci-fi fans can get a high level of what they're seeking, too. It all comes down to how everything is blended together.
If you don't have the skilled writers necessary to achieve the balance and make the blending work correctly, you will not end up with a successful product. You may end up pleasing only one side....or neither, especially if the consensus of opinion is that what you have created never knew what it really wanted to be.
At this moment in time, I don't feel that the studios in Hollywood are hiring enough truly imaginative writers. There's too much recycling and trudging down the same old paths.
They can't reach an agreement with Pine and Hemsworth? Move on. Never feel locked in to something. The possibilities are endless.
We never got to see what happened after 'Turnabout Intruder'. Kirk was a person who had been split in half by the transporter, had lost Edith, had lost Sam and Aurelan, had mind-melded with Spock, had gone through all kinds of traumas, and had then had his personality forcibly transposed into Janice Lester's body. When you add it all up, there was a hell of a lot. What if Kirk simply needed a break for a while and a couple of weeks of shore leave were not enough to recharge his batteries?
What if they brought someone else in to captain the Enterprise for a while? Being that it's the Kelvin timeline, they could bring in Will Decker. With a strong story and a skilled actor, it could work very well.
It seems to me that the studios get themselves stuck in ruts and their tunnel vision doesn't allow them to see the way out....
I don't feel that TPTB do enough homework. They latch onto a current trend, such as the action-adventure film, but they fail to take into consideration that they need balance, especially with a property like Star Trek. Plenty of the fan base, and even general audience members who go to theaters to see sci-fi films, want something with more depth and substance than the pew-pew.
This has also been a problem with Trek novels. You can't take a generic, same-old, same-old action story, stick an overlay of Star Trek details onto it, and expect it to be respected by Trek fans who are looking for something thought-provoking and engaging. Mack Bolan and Star Trek are not going to mix well.
A Star Trek film can have a wide appeal, if it is well-written and if it has that balance. The action fans can get enough of what they're looking for most, but the sci-fi fans can get a high level of what they're seeking, too. It all comes down to how everything is blended together.
If you don't have the skilled writers necessary to achieve the balance and make the blending work correctly, you will not end up with a successful product. You may end up pleasing only one side....or neither, especially if the consensus of opinion is that what you have created never knew what it really wanted to be.
At this moment in time, I don't feel that the studios in Hollywood are hiring enough truly imaginative writers. There's too much recycling and trudging down the same old paths.
They can't reach an agreement with Pine and Hemsworth? Move on. Never feel locked in to something. The possibilities are endless.
We never got to see what happened after 'Turnabout Intruder'. Kirk was a person who had been split in half by the transporter, had lost Edith, had lost Sam and Aurelan, had mind-melded with Spock, had gone through all kinds of traumas, and had then had his personality forcibly transposed into Janice Lester's body. When you add it all up, there was a hell of a lot. What if Kirk simply needed a break for a while and a couple of weeks of shore leave were not enough to recharge his batteries?
What if they brought someone else in to captain the Enterprise for a while? Being that it's the Kelvin timeline, they could bring in Will Decker. With a strong story and a skilled actor, it could work very well.
It seems to me that the studios get themselves stuck in ruts and their tunnel vision doesn't allow them to see the way out....
Welcome to Hollywood.
Paramount and Jar-Jar Abrams just squeegeed all that was unique and magical in Star Trek (especially The Original Series) and ultimately turned it into a farce. For that I curse them with the evil eye.
Smiley-face or no, this is a very childish and silly thing to say that very much detracts from any argument you might make. Making a sophomoric pun about a person's name is a low blow. Come on, man.
Then don't dignify it with a response. I've been referring to Abrams as Jar-Jar for years. It is my pet name for him that also serves a valid therapeutic purpose. I got a note from my online doctor in Paraguay and everything saying it is medicinal.
Btw, anyone know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
That you've been engaging in that particular species of playground name-calling for years fails to make it any less silly, you know. It's not against the rules, per se, but it's not going to do anything at all in the way of lending credence to whatever position you might be taking.
Still not helping. Perhaps a return to the topic would be a better id— ... oh. Mendelson piece in Forbes, right. Sorry. Once you've read a few of those, you pretty much know that another is likely to hit all the same notes again in more or less the same order.It is my pet name for him that also serves a valid therapeutic purpose. I got a note from my online doctor in Paraguay and everything saying it is medicinal.
Btw, anyone know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
But it's either find something to talk about on that topic which hasn't already been covered or hang it up and move on to a new thread, I'm afraid.
Your call.
Abrams has not complained about it, therefore, why should you? If he renders a complaint then I shall immediately apologize and refrain from future use of "Jar-Jar" in connection with Abrams.
It is also not against the rules for a reason. No "per se" about it.
If the threshold to void a position is that low then I fail to see how anyone's position is afforded any measure of credence.
I and most everyone else had moved on. It is you and your cohort who opted to bring back a month's old post in order to stage a fit of mock outrage. Considering the vitriol that has been posted on this forum without action, some by those who are now attempting to bully me over this non-issue, clearly reveals my invocation of "Jar Jar Abrams" to express a negative sentiment as being extremely mild.
Also, it would not be incorrect to point out that one should not engage in a debate under the badge of moderator. You should use a second account that does not designate your status lest some could interpret it as a passive-aggressive attempt to bully. A "moderator" account should only be used when performing official duties. Just saying. Your call. LLAP.
- Status
