I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

[Gepard]

Five years? How Green Was My Valley beat out Citizen Kane for the Best Picture Oscar in 1941.

How Green was My Valley is still a better picture than Star Trek.

 

[Ovation]

Five years? How Green Was My Valley beat out Citizen Kane for the Best Picture Oscar in 1941.

How Green was My Valley is still a better picture than Star Trek.

Not to me it isn't. It doesn't entertain me remotely as much and, for me, how well I'm entertained--with very few exceptions for specific subject matter--is the most important criterion when I decide, for myself, what is or is not a "good movie". When I discuss a film in a professional capacity, I apply different criteria. But when it comes to my personal entertainment, I don't want to always resemble my work.

And whether or not How Green Is My Valley (I made a mistake with the title in my original post) is better than Star Trek, it AIN'T better than Citizen Kane (either subjectively or objectively speaking).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

Beyond that, "good movie" is, for the vast majority of people, a purely subjective label. It may frustrate "serious film lovers" (I used to be far more irritated by that notion years ago), but it's the way it is. No one has to justify why they like a movie if they don't want to. (and the reverse is true as well)

Absolutely Right™.

God knows, any sf fan who had a yen to could have told you in the 1970s why Star Trek itself is lousy science fiction (and many were eager to) and certainly there are a thousand reasons why it's never been good television - if one doesn't like it.

Five years? How Green Was My Valley beat out Citizen Kane for the Best Picture Oscar in 1941.

How Green was My Valley is still a better picture than Star Trek.

Not to me it isn't.

Which is all that matters, in the end.

 

[Gepard]

God knows, any sf fan who had a yen to could have told you in the 1970s why Star Trek itself is lousy science fiction (and many were eager to) and certainly there are a thousand reasons why it's never been good television - if one doesn't like it.

That may be part of the problem--as I've gotten older, I've lost patience with many of the conceits and stupidities that come with the territory known as "Star Trek," and the movie didn't dump enough of them to be satisfying.

Well, that and the writers don't %$##ing know how to work with themes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

That may be part of the problem--as I've gotten older, I've lost patience with many of the conceits and stupidities that come with the territory known as "Star Trek..."

Well then, there's no reason that you should like a Star Trek movie.

 

[Gepard]

Well then, there's no reason that you should like a Star Trek movie.

I still like the Nick Meyer ones a lot, so it can't be just that. Yeah, there's a ton of problems with them that jump out now that didn't when I was a kid, but they're still sold stuff. So the new one is doing something different in a bad way.

Of course, I've articulated my unease with the new movie multiple times already, so if anyone is really interested in hearing me yammer on about it more, they can reread the thread.

 

[TheGodBen]

You're essentially restating my point. Be critical of the way it's done, if you feel the need, but don't begrudge the decision to introduce characters to the audience just because you, as an individual (referring to GodBen's post, not you), are already familiar with them.

Ah. Well, I don't think GodBen is intending to say they shouldn't have bothered to introduce the characters--I think the point is that, since he's already familiar with them, he didn't get anything enjoyable out of those introductions; and since that's pretty much all the film has going for it, he didn't like it. Which takes us back to what I said: why can't a movie have character introductions, a good story and string plotting? Is it too much to ask, especialyl when 90% of the people who've seen it rave about how good it is? (Have the standards for a good movie shifted in the last five years?)

Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

Imagine going to a party at a friend's house, and while his parties haven't been great over the last few years you've heard about a lot of cool stuff he has planned. You hear there is going to be great food, there is going to be a band, there is some fun party games planned... it sounds great and you allow yourself to get excited about it. But when you arrive at the party the host spends most of the time introducing you to friends you already know very well, and you're not allowed to chat with them because they are busy being introduced to other people. The food is bad, the music ends up being a crappy CD from a band you don't like, and the only game being played is "find the saltine".

It doesn't make for a very memorable night.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

Well then, there's no reason that you should like a Star Trek movie.

I still like the Nick Meyer ones a lot, so it can't be just that. Yeah, there's a ton of problems with them that jump out now that didn't when I was a kid, but they're still sold stuff. So the new one is doing something different in a bad way.

Or at least in a way that you don't like.

I can only bear one of Meyer's Trek films (the first one, obviously). The second is pretentious while being simple-minded, plodding, badly plotted and just fucking annoying on many levels - it's never surprised me that his major career as a director petered out pretty much within a decade of petering in.

 

[Ovation]

God knows, any sf fan who had a yen to could have told you in the 1970s why Star Trek itself is lousy science fiction (and many were eager to) and certainly there are a thousand reasons why it's never been good television - if one doesn't like it.

That may be part of the problem--as I've gotten older, I've lost patience with many of the conceits and stupidities that come with the territory known as "Star Trek," and the movie didn't dump enough of them to be satisfying.

It's the opposite for me. As I've gotten older, I've come be less concerned with details that would have bothered me to no end in superfluous things like pop culture entertainment. I need the energy to focus on work and my kids. I don't have enough left to get worked up over something that, if I don't get worked up over it, provides me with fun entertainment. To each his own.

 

[Ward Fowler]

it's never surprised me that his major career as a director petered out pretty much within a decade of petering in.

EWWW. That fills my head with nasty images of Meyer that I just don't want.

 

[Cryogenic]

But I've been told a few times, and I've encountered others who've been told, that we really shouldn't complaining and that we should just shut our minds off and be entertained. If I want mindless entertainment, I'll watch "Iron Chef."

Yes, well said. There is a kind of fascistic mindset on the Internet that often rears its head in the form of ugly declarations and imperatives like, "Be greatful for what you have!" or "Shut up, it's just a movie!" or "Go read a book!" or some other equally contemptible non-sequitir. Clearly, politeness and intelligence are as sparse today as ever.

God knows, any sf fan who had a yen to could have told you in the 1970s why Star Trek itself is lousy science fiction (and many were eager to) and certainly there are a thousand reasons why it's never been good television - if one doesn't like it.

That may be part of the problem--as I've gotten older, I've lost patience with many of the conceits and stupidities that come with the territory known as "Star Trek,"

So have I. For many, I think it's a natural part of growing up. The rest either don't grow up or are, I guess, somehow able to continue looking upon something as "entertainment", maintaining a myopic view that suits them. Or maybe they're actually being more grown up and holistic about things. I don't know. I can only go on a combination of what I think and feel. While I can recognise faults and failures in previous Star Trek movies, they are still able to engender good feelings, by and large, so I retain affection and admiration for them. This latest one fails, for me, on all fronts, and I have little else but disdain for it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

...I think it's a natural part of growing up. The rest either don't grow up or are, I guess, somehow able to continue looking upon something as "entertainment", maintaining a myopic view that suits them. Or maybe they're actually being more grown up and holistic about things.

Or maybe neither.

That said, given the tendency of so many critics to suggest that those of us who like the movie just aren't measuring up in some regard ("the rest...don't grow up"), I think I'll counter-balance and go with the latter - "more grown-up and holistic." I think I'll just amend it to "more relaxed and less attached."

 

[startrekwatcher]

I still think the biggest problem with the film is that it throws too many story ideas into the mix rather than concentrating on only one or two and develop them in a worthwhile manner.

It tries to be an origins story of Kirk and Spock. It tries to be a Starfleet Academy story. It tries to be about the maiden voyage of the Enterprise crew. It tries to be a story about a Romulan from the future that come back to destroy Federation worlds. It tries to be about the animosity between Amb Spock and Nero. It tries to be a story about the destruction of Vulcan. etc etc.

That was far too much to tackle in 2 hours. None of them were as satisfying as they might have been on their own or trimmed down to one or two to be the focus of the film.

 

[stonester1]

That said, given the tendency of so many critics to suggest that those of us who like the movie just aren't measuring up in some regard ("the rest...don't grow up"), I think I'll counter-balance and go with the latter - "more grown-up and holistic." I think I'll just amend it to "more relaxed and less attached."

Word.

 

[Overgeeked]

But I've been told a few times, and I've encountered others who've been told, that we really shouldn't complaining and that we should just shut our minds off and be entertained. If I want mindless entertainment, I'll watch "Iron Chef."

Yes, well said. There is a kind of fascistic mindset on the Internet that often rears its head in the form of ugly declarations and imperatives like, "Be greatful for what you have!" or "Shut up, it's just a movie!" or "Go read a book!" or some other equally contemptible non-sequitir. Clearly, politeness and intelligence are as sparse today as ever.

I think those sentiments have some ring of truth though. In a two-hour film, there's only so much depth of character development and plot you can squeeze in. On the scale of depth, from least to most, you have your average comic book, flash fiction, TV episode, movie, novella, and novel. I love them all, but there really is only so much you can do within the time and space provided by the form. Yes, a really bad novel can be less deep than a really good movie, but the above are the averages. If you really want a solid, deeply enthralling delve into characters, setting, and plot, you're not going to find that at the movies. If that's somehow interpreted as an elitist thing to say, then so be it. Fine, I'm an elitist, but it's still true.

All that said, there should never be a squash of a criticism of a film by telling someone to go read a book. That's just stupid. Films are open to the same critique as novels.

God knows, any sf fan who had a yen to could have told you in the 1970s why Star Trek itself is lousy science fiction (and many were eager to) and certainly there are a thousand reasons why it's never been good television - if one doesn't like it.

That may be part of the problem--as I've gotten older, I've lost patience with many of the conceits and stupidities that come with the territory known as "Star Trek,"

That's where those admonitions to "go read a book" come in. I don't know how objectively true it is, but I've heard that TV SF is roughly a decade behind the printed fiction. That sounds about right to me. If you want really deep thought-provoking SF, looking for it on the tube or screen is a mistake.

So have I. For many, I think it's a natural part of growing up. The rest either don't grow up or are, I guess, somehow able to continue looking upon something as "entertainment", maintaining a myopic view that suits them. Or maybe they're actually being more grown up and holistic about things. I don't know. I can only go on a combination of what I think and feel. While I can recognise faults and failures in previous Star Trek movies, they are still able to engender good feelings, by and large, so I retain affection and admiration for them. This latest one fails, for me, on all fronts, and I have little else but disdain for it.

I didn't like this film. I thought it was hollow and soulless. I read a lot of SF novels and even the stuff written in the 50s is more thought-provoking than TOS. Hell, the stuff from the 30s was more thought-provoking than TOS, or this movie. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Aesop's Fables episodes (that was me Ovation was referring to, thanks O), and I was really hoping for something like that here. I was disappointed. I don't care about canon. Don't care about the nit-picky stuff most other uber-fans do.

But, as a writer (comics, screen, fiction) and editor I couldn't help myself from cringing every few minutes as another plot hole jumped out and latched on to my tuchus. Don't care about the size of the ship, the cast, whatever. The best lines are cribbed from other eps / movies, the plot was filled with holes, the acting was good. It was a great reset (alternate reality, gj). But it was still poorly written. And really, that's saying a lot coming from me. I like Starship Troopers and Basket Case. Go google that last one. I won't taint the forum by posting a link.

All that said, I've grown to love the Vulcan situation. That's some meaty territory for writing. I just hope they find better writers to explore it. (Yes, I'm hinting at me.)

 

[Gepard]

That's where those admonitions to "go read a book" come in. I don't know how objectively true it is, but I've heard that TV SF is roughly a decade behind the printed fiction. That sounds about right to me. If you want really deep thought-provoking SF, looking for it on the tube or screen is a mistake.

More than a decade. There's SF novels from further back than that that beat the pants off of the majority of filmed sci-fi.

Anyway, I'm not asking for deeply thought-provoking. Just minimally competent in all areas of storytelling.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I enjoyed it. I want to see it again..

Such irony!

 

[Orac Zen]

Roddenberry's track record with the truth and modesty leave much to be desired. I don't think we should spend much time considering how he would feel about this movie, that shouldn't play any part in what you and I think about this movie as a movie.

[...] but in some ways Roddenberry has become a heroic figure with a "vision" when the truth is that he was a television producer earning a living.

I haven't found myself in agreement with much you've said about the movie, but I couldn't agree more with these remarks. The near-deification of Roddenberry among some sections of fandom has reached absurd heights. He was a bloke who, along with a lot of very talented people, made a TV show that some people liked. Realistically, that's all there was to it.

As I noted in my exchanges with Overgeeked, I have not denied that Trek tried to present messages, nor that it attempted to "make you think". What I do object to, and what the evidence does not support, is the notion that Trek's PRIMARY purpose was "to make you think". If that were true, there are quite a number of episodes that would not have made "the cut". I also reject the notion that is either implied or directly stated, by many here and elsewhere, that Trek was nearly as sophisticated and intellectually challenging as it has come to be portrayed in hindsight. One of the common complaints of people who did not like the movie is that it is not "real Star Trek". Implicit or explicit in that complaint is the notion that "real Star Trek" was something more important than "mere entertainment". That notion rests on a "flawed nostalgia" that has, over the years, exaggerated both the sophistication of Trek and the importance of "lessons"--helped in no small part by a self-serving revisionism on the part of Roddenberry.

It's not that Trek had no messages or did not make one think at all. It's that Trek's messages, when present, were not all that revolutionary and it did not require much strenuous thinking to understand them. And Trek also presented stories that were primarily "fun" rather than "morality plays". So to dismiss the new film on the grounds that it cannot be "real Trek" for its apparent lack of a "message" is disingenuous.

I couldn't agree more with these remarks, either. Nor can I add to them in any meaningful way.

Wagon Train to the Stars" he never sold the show as something more than entertainment and you can find all this stuff by googling about it, not listening to the Fans who cuddle up in corners with the Roddenberry statuettes in the dark corners of their abodes thinking he was the greatest writer ever.

Gene had A LOT of help creating some of the greater Stories of Trek Dorothy Fontana would like to have a word with the people who keep saying Gene wrote most of the "Intellectual" Episodes of Star Trek, because quite frankly She penned alot of great stuff.

I have to agree on the Roddenberry part. There seems to be a tendency to build him up as some sort of messiah figure, leading the way to some glorious future. He was not the perfect writer/creator that many claim, in fact i think some of his ideas for future Trek films are worse than the drivel currently in the cinema- Spock travelling back in time to kill JFK anyone? i'd rather stick with Darth Nero.

The fact that such glorifying of Roddenberry usually completely ignores the fantastic work of Fontana and others is even more of a shame.

Again, complete agreement.

Five years? How Green Was My Valley beat out Citizen Kane for the Best Picture Oscar in 1941.

How Green was My Valley is still a better picture than Star Trek.

Eh, to each their own. I know which two of the three I'd rather watch...and the Welles picture ain't one of them.

But I've been told a few times, and I've encountered others who've been told, that we really shouldn't complaining and that we should just shut our minds off and be entertained. If I want mindless entertainment, I'll watch "Iron Chef."

Yes, well said. There is a kind of fascistic mindset on the Internet that often rears its head in the form of ugly declarations and imperatives like, "Be greatful for what you have!" or "Shut up, it's just a movie!" or "Go read a book!" or some other equally contemptible non-sequitir. Clearly, politeness and intelligence are as sparse today as ever.

Ironic, considering the number of posts I've read in this forum by those who disliked the movie, claiming that if only people who did like it would just think they'd end up loathing it too. Not much politeness or intelligence in that stance, either.

 

[Jeyl]

This wasn't a good Star Trek movie for me because everyone who had the rank of captain were far more interesting, likable and better characters than Kirk was. And that's a shame because when his story starts, the story doesn't really care if Kirk is a good man or not since all it wants to do is get him to the status quo of being the Captain of the Enterprise. No apologies, no tolerance, no respect and no concept of experience or appreciation.

Why does everyone think that Kirk being an arrogant, sexual harrasing douche bag are what makes him the best captain? The story didn't even give his character any flaws. I don't understand why people like this character at all. And the worst part? Everyone and their mother says that this is what made the old Kirk so good. Oh ya, never mind that the original Kirk understood the mistakes he made in the line of duty, offered compassion to his enemies rather then shooting them while they're down, risks his entire career to help his friends, confronts and acknowledges his insubordinate actions rather than try to defend them and respect those who aren't him.

 

[Butters]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

...

Why does everyone think that Kirk being an arrogant, sexual harrasing douche bag are what makes him the best captain?

Woah. Kirk sexually harrassed someone? Who?

If you're refering to kirk trying his luck with uhura in the bar scene then you've got the wrong end of a very long stick. Trying to get laid by attempting to charm young ladies in social evironments with the assistance of alcohol is a perfectly normal and healthy activity. Also, if you'll note, Uhura was enjoying the attention.