How has this movie changed Classic Trek history...?

[number6]

The one thing people should give this film credit for, is the renewed interest in the original show and a renewed appreciation for the calibre of storytelling that was possible in the 60s. That is an era of storytelling that is long gone for several reasons, the least of which is the overall cynicism of our modern society as a whole. I think this new franchise has a unique opportunity to bring back some of that idealism that followed TOS and made it endure these many years.

And ultimately, that's what I'm complaining about. Not that it's "not TOS" (your point is correct... this is NOT the original show, it's an entirely unrelated "universe"... and I tend to agree that the Old Spock" we see here isn't really the Spock from the "timeline" we grew up with... just another "alternative universe" variation).

The problems I have is with this film are several.

First, off, there are huge plot deficiencies... ones which make "Nemesis" make wonderful sense by comparison.

I disagree and I find most of the "plot holes" certain hardcore fans point out are simply nit pics because the writers chose to do something that they didn't like. That is certainly a valid complaint as there are many of those, but that doesn't make them plot holes.

Second, there are the "changes just to be different." Set, prop, and costume design changes that don't add anything to the presentation, but are just different to be different (sloppiness, ignorance, or intent? Hard to tell) could be dealt with... if the "core elements" were really there.

Again, we have a different artistic team and they are going to tinker with the look of their show, just like Bob Wise did with the uniforms in TMP, Nick Meyer did in TWOK, and so on. Each show had it's own production designer and changed things how they saw fit. This production team kept certain things loose and the nature of the altered reality gave them liscense to do so, as is their choice.

But really... that's not the biggest issue.

The things that I love about Star Trek aren't the arrowhead symbol, or the general shape of the ship, or the names of the people standing around saying lines, or the colors of the shirts.

But you need to realise that these are the biggest stumbling blocks with the hardcore dissenters. I, too, am disappointed not to finally see the original 1701 in all her glory on the big screen at long last. How many threads were there about the nacelles, the color of Kirk's eyes (which btw were HAZEL not brown!!), the design of the bridge, the ship being built on Earth (which was never established in the first place) and so on???

MISSING those things would be greatly annoying, but you could have gotten every bit of that 100% "right" and still ended up with a stinker of a movie, if the "heart" isn't there. And that's what most of us who didn't care for the movie are really talking about.

But the heart is totally there. You see the friendship developing between Kirk and McCoy, between Kirk and Spock... You see Kirk rising above being a "genius repeat offender" with Daddy issues and becomeing a Starfleet graduate in three years.. You had moments of genuine humour akin to the original series, the cavalier sense of adventure, etc.. It's all there if you're willing to look for it. You are not.

If the characters don't "feel the same," the appeal of the original isn't there. These characters didn't "feel the same" to me.

you have to realise these characters are also a good 10 years younger than they were in the series. A lot of elements are similar, but there is room for them to develop into what we're used to. We're seeing this crew as the proto-characters of those we know so well, and in this case, I think they nailed these elements pretty well, given the pace of the film, which even I thought was a little quick.

This Kirk wasn't someone who was a cocky overachiever with deservedly cocky attitude... he was just someone with a bad attitude. This Spock wasn't a noble soul... he was a vicious, vindictive, and dishonorable man. Some of that you may justify by "his planet was just blown up" but way too much of that happened prior to the destruction of Vulcan.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.. Kirk was played exactly as I thought he should be. Spock was played with a very Nimoyesque internal conflict between his vulcan heritage and being made to feel ashamed for his human side, which gives Nimoy's Spock even more gravitas when viewing TOS after this film..

Urban's McCoy was good, but he wasn't really used to any end... he was just there to "channel Kelley" but the storyline didn't really need him. Imagine if McCoy hadn't been in the film at all... what central parts of the story would have been lost?

McCoy was the first friend Kirk made in Starfleet, and it was McCoy who got Kirk aboard the Enterprise in the first place.. I would say he was pretty crucial to the plot. It wouldn't have made any sense for anyone else to get Kirk abord the way McCoy did.. No one would have had the vested interest..

Same for Sulu or Chekov... they were there because someone thought that "having all the old familiar names" present counted more than having the ones that were there presented as being the same characters. Get the bad Russian accent right, and that's supposed to count for more than the deeper character traits of Kirk and Spock? Not for me.

Sulu and Chekov rarely had any character development in the original series.. For the most part they were there to say "aye sir," and "deflector shields down to 60%." They always got their "moments" in the films and that was certainly the case here.

That's what, ultimately, led me to dislike this movie as much as I did. I grant, it's an entertaining movie on the same level as, say, "Transformers," or "The Phantom Menace," or any of the other movies that have lots of big flashy action and broad characterizations without much depth.

In saying this you are making an indictment on the tastes and intelligence of those who liked the film. Those of us who found the very substance you refuse to see didn't simply enjoy the film because we light flashy bright things and cool explosions. Personally I find that kind of attitude condescending and insulting.

See, this is why I didn't like this movie. I WANTED to like it...

No you didn't. You've been bashing this film since it was announced..

but the more I saw, even before it came out, the more I realized that Abrams and his team didn't "get it."

That we can agree on. And you've certainly been more than vocal about it at every opportunity.

They captured just enough of Trek to make it "look like" the Star Trek we remember... sort of... but it's missing it's "soul."

Scroll up and read my opinion. And I am also a lifelong hardcore TOSser, just like you..only not really..

It's a changeling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling

No that was TMP.

 

[Warped9]

People like repeating the notion that Warped9 hates everything post TOS.

Let's get this straight: I don't hate everything post TOS. There are aspects and episodes of TNG and DS9 I've liked. There are parts of films I've liked. But I haven't liked things post TOS in entirety or consistently. There's a distinction there for anyone who cares to see it.

That said, so what if I actually didn't like anything post TMP (which is more correct rather than post TOS)? That's my business and there would be nothing wrong with it.

But what I suspect is that some are uncomfortable with the idea that I dismiss most Trek after TMP, and that I'm not shy to express it. Somehow they construe that as a put down of what they like and in extent a put down of them for what they like. If this is true in any way then all I can say is that they're reading something in my words that I'm not actually saying. And if so then that's their issue and not mine.

But let me clarify for yet another time: I'm not dismissing nuTrek for not being TOS per se--it's a reboot after all. I dismiss it because I think it's poorly conceived and poorly executed on every level. It's not just a bad Trek film, it's also a bad as a film in its own right. The fact that it's a Trek film badly spun off a generally, deservingly well respected TV series will draw inevitable comparisons.

Some like to point out that TOS could be silly, and that's true, but generally TOS isn't remembered that way. The sillier aspects usually aren't foremost in most folk's recollections of TOS. The really sad part (for the defenders) is to say that nuTrek isn't any sillier than TOS at its silliest. I'd argue that TOS at it's silliest was still better than nuTrek, but still why would you want a major film to cater to the lowest denominator? If you really want to pay homage to a property like TOS wouldn't you aim for something higher?

This can only lead me to deduce that Abrams and company either don't and never have understood the substance of Star Trek's broad appeal or they do get it and deliberately ignored it to dumb the film down as they saw fit. Either way it's poor judgment on their part for like some others have already said upthread I doubt this film will have any legs. The buzz is already dying down beyond the supporters on sites like this. Before long ST09 will likely be just another box office figure in the books.

Now if that view offends anyone who happens to like the film, well, there's nothing I can do about that. It will be what it will be. Besides, even if many others do dislike the film that in no way inhibits your liking of it. Unless you're easily swayed by others' opinions.

 

[number6]

People like repeating the notion that Warped9 hates everything post TOS.

Has it occured to you that people have come to that conclusion because:

Your signature line starts by stating: "STAR TREK: 1964-1979??"

or the fact that you have said exactly the same thing about every incarnation of Star Trek in every forum..

Simply replace JJ Abrams with, Rick Berman, Nick Meyer, Harve Bennett, Fred Freidberger, and you have a typical Warped9 rant.

There is no way you'll ever convince anyone of your open minded willingness to objectively critique anything Trek as long as your signature lines tells the internet community otherwise.

You can make that argument until you're blue in the face, and you know that there isn't a single sould here who would believe you for a nanosecond. Seriously, who do you think you're trying to fool here?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

In saying this you are making an indictment on the tastes and intelligence of those who liked the film. Those of us who found the very substance you refuse to see didn't simply enjoy the film because we light flashy bright things and cool explosions. Personally I find that kind of attitude condescending and insulting.

So, stating what I didn't like is condescending? No, sorry, doesn't work.

Those who state that they don't care for 2001 aren't insulting those who do, are they? Those who say that it's an incomprehensible mess (and I'm not one of those, FYI) aren't insulting those who see what the point of the various bits was intended to be, are they?

If stating opposing positions can be taken as an "inferred offense," what you're really doing is stating that "any disagreement must be prohibited." Which may be where our society is heading, Orwell be damned, but it's not acceptable, is it?

You were able to mine depth from this movie that others dont' see... good for you. Stating that anyone who doesn't see what you're stating that you seem to see is somehow "assaulting" you is disingenuous at best.

No you didn't. You've been bashing this film since it was announced..

That is a lie. Whether it's a lie based upon having rewritten your own memories or whether its an intentional deception doesn't matter.

I have been clear on what I wanted to see about this movie, but the first criticism I ever gave for this film was when I discovered that they were going to have "the whole crew." My next criticism was when I discovered that they were going to the hackneyed "time travel" trick. My first MAJOR criticism was when they showed the ship for the first time. I had a minor concern re: Simon Pegg as Scotty but was clear that I was more concerned with the portrayal than the physical resemblence. I was very critical of the set design. I was reasonably happy with the costume design (as seen prior to the movie itself, I mean) with the sole caviot that I think that the "chevrons in the fabric" was just innane. I hate the prop design, but that's really trivial since you barely ever seen any of the props on-screen.

I was overwhelming positive about the choice of Quinto, and of how his makeup and "vulcan costume" appeared. I was overwhelmingly positive about the casting of Urban. I was slightly critical of the "second banana" casting, mainly because I would have preferred that none of them were there in the first place for a "Kirk/Spock/McCoy origin story." I have no problem with Pine being cast as Kirk, though I would have preferred someone a bit closer in appearance to Shatner. (I think I would have made Hemmsworth Jim Kirk, not George Kirk, had I been running the production.)

I've been very clear, from day one, that the "set dressing" was less important than getting the characters right. And that most of what I knew, before the movie was released, was about "set dressing." I stated, repeatedly, that if the core storytelling was outstanding, nobody would care if the details were off a little bit.

Are you going to pretend that ANY of what I just said isn't true? Shall we go back and read some very old postings (assuming that they haven't all been "pruned") and confirm or deny my statements from above?

And once again, I'm here, saying that the thing that bugged me most was that the characters weren't "the same characters" (which, for the record once more, isn't the same as "played by the same actors) as far as I'm concerned.

And you throw out that bombshell.

That we can agree on. And you've certainly been more than vocal about it at every opportunity.

I've been vocal about what my hopes for this film were, all along. I've been clear what my concerns were when they came up. And none of what I've been worried about was proven wrong, as far as I'm concerned, and very few of my hopes were met. (Urban, Quinto and yes, Pegg were positive hopes which were met, FYI).

That this movie ultimately did fail to meet my expectations... that it failed on the very levels which I feared it COULD fail on if the makers "didn't get" what made the original WORK... that's not something I'm HAPPY about.

They captured just enough of Trek to make it "look like" the Star Trek we remember... sort of... but it's missing it's "soul."

Scroll up and read my opinion. And I am also a lifelong hardcore TOSser, just like you..only not really..

Well, it's odd that we seem to not get along, when we seem to share so many similar tastes. (I'm a HUGE "Prisoner" fan, for instance.)

It's a changeling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling

No that was TMP.

No, TMP was Joan Rivers post-plastic-surgery.

 

[number6]

I'll let you fix your quotes before I respond to whatever it is you think that was.

 

[Warped9]

People like repeating the notion that Warped9 hates everything post TOS.

Has it occured to you that people have come to that conclusion because:

Your signature line starts by stating: "STAR TREK: 1964-1979??"

or the fact that you have said exactly the same thing about every incarnation of Star Trek in every forum..

Simply replace JJ Abrams with, Rick Berman, Nick Meyer, Harve Bennett, Fred Freidberger, and you have a typical Warped9 rant.

There is no way you'll ever convince anyone of your open minded willingness to objectively critique anything Trek as long as your signature lines tells the internet community otherwise.

You can make that argument until you're blue in the face, and you know that there isn't a single sould here who would believe you for a nanosecond. Seriously, who do you think you're trying to fool here?

Well, there's no pleasing some. I agree with Cary L. Brown that the general mindset seems to be that any dissenting viewpoints cannot be tolerated because it must mean such dissent is also an offense against those who are in favour of whatever is being debated.

Too bad for them because that won't shut me up no matter how much they'd like such. It just affirms my suspicion that they're the ones with the problem and that somehow it really bugs them that I can easily dismiss what they like.

And I've never worried about having to convince anyone of anything. I just state what I think and let them get unhinged about it to their heart's content.

 

[Kelso]

"Shore Leave."

Apparently he didn't see that one.

Neither did I. In the one I saw, it was Yeoman Barrows who gave him the backrub.

 

[number6]

"Shore Leave."

Apparently he didn't see that one.

Neither did I. In the one I saw, it was Yeoman Barrows who gave him the backrub.

But Kirk thought it was Spock, in a way that implied that Spock did this on a regular basis.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

"Shore Leave."

Apparently he didn't see that one.

Neither did I. In the one I saw, it was Yeoman Barrows who gave him the backrub.

Amazing how the memory can become what we want it to be, not what really happened, isn't it? This clip (relative to what was said about it earlier) makes that remarkably clear, doesn't it?

Thanks for posting that.

 

[number6]

Doesn't change the manner or intent of your posting habits, Cary L. Brown, assuming that's really your name.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Spock wasn't giving the massage, the yeoman was. Kirk only thought it wqas Spock.

Weird scene, either way.

 

[number6]

And I've never worried about having to convince anyone of anything. I just state what I think and let them get unhinged about it to their heart's content.

Or you both go crying to the moderators about how utterly unfair everyone treats you.

 

[Mallory]

Looks like no one wants to pay attention to the moderators around here today. Bonz has issued infractions and both of us told you guys to knock off the personal stuff. Consequently, this thread is closed.