Hate for the new Trek and the Future of Trek

[The Wormhole]

but there is definitely a strong line of social commentary built within it.

Everyone always says this, but I really don't see it. Trek XI is an action/adventure origin story with no social commentary to speak of. While STID pays lip service to themes of terrorism and post-9/11 fear mongering, it doesn't really have anything profound or meaningful to say on the subject.

Granted, the social commentary aspect of Star Trek as a whole is often overstated, and to be honest TOS and TNG could get a little heavy-handed with the issues they dealt with.

 

[fireproof78]

Everyone always says this, but I really don't see it. Trek XI is an action/adventure origin story with no social commentary to speak of. While STID pays lip service to themes of terrorism and post-9/11 fear mongering, it doesn't really have anything profound or meaningful to say on the subject.

Granted, the social commentary aspect of Star Trek as a whole is often overstated, and to be honest TOS and TNG could get a little heavy-handed with the issues they dealt with.

As I said, mileage will vary. I personally took a very strong pro-father commentary from ST09, as the larger implication is that Kirk would not become Captain Kirk without the impact of his father, in Prime, and without Pike in Abrams films.

I also think that Nero serves as a dark mirror for what Spock could become and Marcus serves as a dark mirror for Kirk. At the beginning of STID, Kirk attempts to cover up his Nibiru mission, and report is as a success, in a similar way that Marcus is trying to cover up, and kill, any loose ends. Kirk has a choice to accept responsibility for his actions, and the truth, or play along with Marcus.

That might be me, but I see a lot in there.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

TOS was very much a show based in the 60s, in terms of tone and format, with the differences coming from the casting. It was pitched as an action/adventure show, with some social commentary, as science fiction often does.

21st century filmmaking tends to be much faster paced, with an emphasis on action. And, that is certainly present within the Abrams films, but there is definitely a strong line of social commentary built within it.

As for TOS elements there is a video on it but I'll break it down real quick:

-Sarek's speech to young Spock regarding the nature of Vulcan emotion from the Animated Series, as well as the teasing by Vulcan youngsters.
-Spock and Uhura flirting in one episode.
-McCoy's comment of "Little suffering is good for the soul."
-Red shirt on the landing party.
-Kirk goading Spock in to an emotional outburst.

I could go on, and the video shows different clips side by side to illustrate further. But, my larger point is, that Abrams Trek is true to the spirit of TOS, not later Star Trek. It focuses on the action and adventure of space, and weaves social commentary around that.

People's experience obviously will vary, but I think it works very well.

Yes, but I do not like the fast paced. And the TAS episode was "Yesteryear".

@PhaserLightShow

 

[BillJ]

Yes, but I do not like the fast paced.

But many of us have no issue with fast paced stories.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

But many of us have no issue with fast paced stories.

And... (How does that affect me?)

@PhaserLightShow

 

[JWPlatt]

Fast pace implies action and quick edits with the range of scene lengths at a minimum. Character development is done on the run. Some people would like the characters to have a real conversation for character development instead of talking at each other when the action dominates and distracts. And for a visual medium, it gives you time to absorb and comprehend the visual landscape.

I'd also like to see a movie that isn't predictable when it does "Save the Cat!" beat for beat.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, but I do not like the fast paced. And the TAS episode was "Yesteryear".

@PhaserLightShow

I'm not saying you have to like it. That isn't my point. My point is, that Abrams and his team used building blocks established in TOS and built upon them in a contemporary film setting.

And, thank you for the episode title

 

[The Wormhole]

But many of us have no issue with fast paced stories.

In all seriousness, Abrams does make the pacing in his movies too fast. In fact, "the pace was too fast" was a complaint people I know in RL made about TFA. Knowing they hadn't seen either Abrams Trek movie I just laughed at them and said "that's how Abrams makes movies."

 

[BillJ]

In all seriousness, Abrams does make the pacing in his movies too fast. In fact, "the pace was too fast" was a complaint people I know in RL made about TFA. Knowing they hadn't seen either Abrams Trek movie I just laughed at them and said "that's how Abrams makes movies."

I like The Force Awakens, but I thought it was a bit slow in spots. I like my movies up tempo.

 

[The Wormhole]

Hey, I prefer fast pace over slow pace, for sure. But damn, the Abrams movies are really fast. Trek XI really put the petal to the metal. We, get like a minute of an establishing of the Kelvin and a bridge scene, than Nero's ship shows up and it's just explosions right away

 

[Trekkin]

I actually thought it came to a dead stop in parts (Rey just going about her day for 5 minutes, nearly 10-15 minutes at Maz's prior to Rey finding the lightsaber, Rey and Kylo's loooong conversation before they start force tricking each other , and the Leia/Han reunion, etc.)

I didn't really have a problem with that, because I liked those character moments. But they always come to mind whenever I heard somone (not necassarily here) saying the movie was breakneck. I certainly wouldn't have called it any 'faster' than ANH.

Some of my favourite moments in '09 were jut Spock's conversations with his parents, Kirk's nd Uhura's banter at the bar, and Pike's subsequent speech to Kirk. It's not 10 minutes staring at the viewscreen and theorising on the nature of life (Please God, never again), but they do break up the pace.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

I'm not saying you have to like it. That isn't my point. My point is, that Abrams and his team used building blocks established in TOS and built upon them in a contemporary film setting.

And, thank you for the episode title

But why did Abrams not simply make another slower-paced Star Trek TOW based movie? Why something that moved too fast? (In my opinion)
And you are very welcome.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[PhaserLightShow]

"Roddenberry's Vision!!!"

What about it?

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Mudd]

But why did Abrams not simply make another slower-paced Star Trek TOW based movie? Why something that moved too fast? (In my opinion)

Because they make movies as a business, to earn money from people who buy tickets, instead of pissing it away.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Because they make movies as a business, to earn money from people who buy tickets, instead of pissing it away.

And how would a character driven movie (such as TWok or TSFS) "piss away" money? Star Trek I - VI did fine, especially TWoK (Star Trek II)!

@PhaserLightShow

 

[JWPlatt]

Time to count the scenes and time each one to compare ANH, TFA, ST, and STID.

 

[JWPlatt]

And how would a character driven movie (such as TWok or TSFS) "piss away" money? Star Trek I - VI did fine, especially TWoK (Star Trek II)!

Look at the numbers (revenues or tickets sold) between your examples and Abrams' movies to understand business decisions.

 

[fireproof78]

But why did Abrams not simply make another slower-paced Star Trek TOW based movie? Why something that moved too fast? (In my opinion)
And you are very welcome.

@PhaserLightShow

As I said, he was using a contemporary film making style to bring TOS building blocks to a 21st century audience. For me, the fact that my dad, who grew up with TOS, and my wife, who can't stand science fiction, both enjoy the movies is one of the draws for me.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Look at the numbers (revenues or tickets sold) between your examples and Abrams' movies to understand business decisions.

Between The Wrath of Khan and which Abrams movie?
Into Darkness or Star Trek?

@PhaserLightShow

 

[JWPlatt]

Yes. And the rest. I'm not exactly defending it. But if all you care about is business and not so much the intangibles of art, it makes sense.