I like STID. Is that wrong?

[YARN]

While I don't think of TOS as 'Citizen Cane' material I don't think its as unsophisticated and meaningless as you make out. As others have pointed out its not going to have fans 50 years later if its all explosions and action/adventure.

I mean there are a lot of modern shows full of 'splosions' and a lot more pretty people that I could like better.

I think this is a good point. The trap of "either/or" is one we should resist. One necessary (but not sufficient) quality of Star Trek is that it should be entertaining, but there is more to it, isn't there?

 

[BigJake]

Post-facto axe-grinding with Bermaga never gets old, hey?

And it was the TNG movies that ultimately tanked the franchise.

Well, it was certainly NEM, but that'll happen when you half-ass a movie, release it against three blockbuster franchises simultaneously and don't market it.

And it was an ill-conceived, poorly-done TNG cameo that hailed the death of its television presence.

ENT really had "A Night in Sickbay" to blame for its death (a blow from which it never recovered, that was certainly the point where I checked out during its run), crap though TATV certainly was.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It was the fun, not the sophistication.

You seem rather too desperate to deny that it might have been the combination and that mystifies me.

Because it WASN'T the combination. Mainly because TOS wasn't that sophisticated. Even "Conscience of the King" wasn't particularly well-written, just very well ACTED.

I suppose it depends on what strictures you're speaking under, but relatively speaking it quite plainly was.

Relative to WHAT? TOS aired at a time when most science fiction was ANIMATED and targeted at juveniles anyway (hence it was immediately followed by TAS, which was likewise targeted at younger viewers). Its most serious competitor was Doctor Who, which wasn't airing in the U.S. at the time. You're setting the bar absurdly low if "Lost in Space" and "Flash Gordon" are the gold standard of science fiction in the 1960s, especially when you consider that both "Planet of the Apes" and "2001: a Space Odyssey" both came out less than a year after TOS was cancelled.

And all of which went ENTIRELY over the heads of everyone who saw Star Trek for the very first time and hasn't spent most of their adult life learning how those stories actually took shape.

What a completely bizarre thing this is to say. The average restaurant-goer doesn't know how his pizza is cooked, that has nothing at all to do with whether the ingredients influence its popularity.

And yet it's not the list of ingredients that draws customers, it's the taste of the pizza. You can use the freshest vegetables in the world and the highest quality cheese and sauce and you'll still loose customers if your pizza tastes like death. OTOH, a surprisingly delicious pizza made with dollar-store cheese and sauce you got from Costco will draw customers like crazy.

Most people (other than hipsters) don't adopt a product because they like its ingredients. They adopt a product because they like the PRODUCT. That's why people were drawn to Star Trek: because they liked the SHOW. When we all grew up and found out what went into making the show, the depth and the messaging and the imagery we gained a renewed appreciation for what it was really all about; if we hadn't gotten drawn into the show in the first place, through the sheer thrill of its stories and the entertainment of watching Kirk, Spock and McCoy zap sneaky aliens on strange new worlds with their phasers and their cool starship, NONE of that would have mattered, because nobody would have bothered to dig any deeper.

That, more than anything, is why there was so much interest in the TOS-based technical manuals and fan materials in those early days, because people had been drawn in and they wanted to no more. That is also the reason why the "Voyager Technical Manual" never made it to bookshelves anywhere: because for all its sophistication and scientific pretense Voyager sucked as a TV SHOW, and nobody cares about the inside story.

 

[BigJake]

Because it WASN'T the combination . . . it's the taste of the pizza. . . Most people (other than hipsters) don't adopt a product because they like its ingredients [etc]

Straightening out the sheer amount of confusion in that post is beyond the parameters of this thread. Have a nice evening.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Post-facto axe-grinding with Bermaga never gets old, hey?

And it was the TNG movies that ultimately tanked the franchise.

Well, it was certainly NEM, but that'll happen when you half-ass a movie, release it against three blockbuster franchises simultaneously and don't market it.

Fair point.

OTOH, it seems like Nemesis could have failed just as dramatically on its own merits. As much as I enjoyed the big space battle at the end, the REST of the movie was barely watchable.

It is a very interesting premise, of course, to meet a clone of yourself, raised in different circumstances, a lifetime of pain and deprivation, and discover what kind of person you would have become if your life had been different. But as we've already established, the DELIVERY is what matters, and Nemesis' delivery was absolutely horrendous.

Food for thought: the overwhelming majority of dialog related to (or coming FROM) Shinzon was squandered on establishing his overly-complicated and highly implausible origin story. We never actually learned anything about him AS A PERSON except that he wanted to conquer the Federation (why?) and he liked to telepathically rape women (WTF? Why?!).

And it was an ill-conceived, poorly-done TNG cameo that hailed the death of its television presence.

ENT really had "A Night in Sickbay" to blame for its death (a blow from which it never recovered, that was certainly the point where I checked out during its run), crap though TATV certainly was.

C'mon, "A Night in Sickbay" wasn't THAT bad.

I mean, you couldn't pay me to ever watch it again, but it wasn't NEARLY as bad as "Code of Honor."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Because it WASN'T the combination . . . it's the taste of the pizza. . . Most people (other than hipsters) don't adopt a product because they like its ingredients [etc]

Straightening out the sheer amount of confusion in that post...

What confusion? It's a known fact that quality of ingredients has no bearing on people's consumption choices, only their perception of the product. Hence nobody in Britain noticed they had been eating horse meat until six months later when somebody actually tested the meet.

This is as true for television as it is for anything else. Just because Star Trek is highly entertaining does NOT mean it is the result of superior production values, superior writing, or even superior vision. That quality is independent of others: it is highly entertaining.

 

[YARN]

Because it WASN'T the combination . . . it's the taste of the pizza. . . Most people (other than hipsters) don't adopt a product because they like its ingredients [etc]

Straightening out the sheer amount of confusion in that post...

What confusion? It's a known fact that quality of ingredients has no bearing on people's consumption choices, only their perception of the product. Hence nobody in Britain noticed they had been eating horse meat until six months later when somebody actually tested the meet.

This is as true for television as it is for anything else. Just because Star Trek is highly entertaining does NOT mean it is the result of superior production values, superior writing, or even superior vision. That quality is independent of others: it is highly entertaining.

The suggestion that the taste of pizza has nothing to do with it's ingredients is hard to accept. Taste does have something to do with the combination of ingredients, right?

I agree that expectation effects are significant. However, stating that "the quality of ingredients has no bearing on people's consumption choices" overstates the power of these effects IMO. I'd say that the expectation of "high quality" or just a particular quality can produce a strong negative reaction when the experience does not match the expectation. EX: I open the fridge and take a sip of tea and then spit it out, believing it has somehow turned rancid and sour. A moment's investigation, however, reveals that I was drinking perfectly good lemonade. The wrong expectation primed a negative reaction. EX: Someone builds up a film to be really super great and you go in to see it with very high expectations, only to be disappointed with what was actually an OK movie.

You have a good point, I think, but it seems perilously close to whole-hog relativism, IMO. If quality is truly nothing more than what we expect, then we can't really say that there is anything worth commenting about with regard to any artwork.

 

[Commishsleer]

As others have pointed out its not going to have fans 50 years later if its all explosions and action/adventure.

You sure about that?

Let me put that another way: I work with a lot of kids, and I know quite a few toddlers who know "The Enterprise" when they see it. Of course, they can't always tell them apart; the TOS and 2009 versions look similar to a lot of five-year-olds, but most of them know it's the Enterprise and they know Captain Kirk is in charge of it.

On the other hand, I haven't met anyone under the age of 17 who has any idea what this thing is. They recognized it as something out of Star Trek, but most of them ask me the same question: "What version of the Enterprise is that?"[/QUOTE]

I was talking about TOS still having fans after 50 years. Not Star Trek in general. It would have more recent fans. I'm not a fan because of the explosions honestly. Original BSG and Space 1999 had a lot more splosions and I'm not as big a fan of those series. But maybe I'm an atypical fan.

And I don't know what that ship is. And I've been a fan of Star Trek for years. Maybe not a 'true' fan though

Anyway its the TNG fans who contend its the sophisticated and meaningful Star Trek.

And it was the TNG movies that ultimately tanked the franchise. And it was an ill-conceived, poorly-done TNG cameo that hailed the death of its television presence.

If only they'd made a DS9 movie...

TNG I have to admit was the most successful Star Trek series in its original run.
I don't know why they cancelled it.
Maybe if they stuck to series and not entered the movie world Star Trek would still be a going TV concern.

Not my favourite StarTrek series though and not responsible for ENT's demise. Though I suppose the TNG intrusion just rubbed salt into the wounds of cancellation.

A DS9 movie. Huh. Didn't the series end with the last episode? You can't undo that.

 

[Sindatur]

While it's certainly true that SciFi was viewed as Childish, especially in the 1960s and earlier,Twilight Zone and TOS did appeal to adults and were known as adult show. They were separated from the rest of the pack, such as Lost In Space, Land of The Giants, etc, that were seen as Kiddie shows

 

[BillJ]

Look at it this way: Suppose you went home to your wife and although she looked the same, she said things and and acted in ways that were contrary to what you valued about her as a person. Would you be able to ignore that and just be happy that she was still fun to be with? I.e. If a movie contradicts something I see as important to the character of ST, how can I be entertained by the result?

I think that if you're comparing Star Trek to a spouse, you may be taking it a bit too seriously. But, we're all constantly changing, there isn't one of us that is the same exact person we were twenty-years ago.

My wife isn't the same exact person she was twenty-plus years ago when I married her. But after I had medical tests yesterday, the thing I needed most was for her to be "fun". We ended up at midnight, watching TV, eating lemon cake from KFC and laughing and having fun.

Star Trek, to me, is an escape from reality not a substitute. I watch it because I don't want to be reminded of the shitty world that is just outside my door. I grew up watching Kirk slay god-like beings, fighting a guy in a giant lizard suit, fighting a giant single-cell organism. Punching the bad guy, saving the universe and getting the girl.

I find the Abrams characters incredibly like the characters that I grew up loving.

 

[Vger23]

Look at it this way: Suppose you went home to your wife and although she looked the same, she said things and and acted in ways that were contrary to what you valued about her as a person. Would you be able to ignore that and just be happy that she was still fun to be with? I.e. If a movie contradicts something I see as important to the character of ST, how can I be entertained by the result?

I think that if you're comparing Star Trek to a spouse, you may be taking it a bit too seriously. But, we're all constantly changing, there isn't one of us that is the same exact person we were twenty-years ago.

My wife isn't the same exact person she was twenty-plus years ago when I married her. But after I had medical tests yesterday, the thing I needed most was for her to be "fun". We ended up at midnight, watching TV, eating lemon cake from KFC and laughing and having fun.

Star Trek, to me, is an escape from reality not a substitute. I watch it because I don't want to be reminded of the shitty world that is just outside my door. I grew up watching Kirk slay god-like beings, fighting a guy in a giant lizard suit, fighting a giant single-cell organism. Punching the bad guy, saving the universe and getting the girl.

I find the Abrams characters incredibly like the characters that I grew up loving.

Look at it this way: Suppose you went home to your wife and although she looked the same, she said things and and acted in ways that were contrary to what you valued about her as a person. Would you be able to ignore that and just be happy that she was still fun to be with? I.e. If a movie contradicts something I see as important to the character of ST, how can I be entertained by the result?

I think that if you're comparing Star Trek to a spouse, you may be taking it a bit too seriously. But, we're all constantly changing, there isn't one of us that is the same exact person we were twenty-years ago.

My wife isn't the same exact person she was twenty-plus years ago when I married her. But after I had medical tests yesterday, the thing I needed most was for her to be "fun". We ended up at midnight, watching TV, eating lemon cake from KFC and laughing and having fun.

Star Trek, to me, is an escape from reality not a substitute. I watch it because I don't want to be reminded of the shitty world that is just outside my door. I grew up watching Kirk slay god-like beings, fighting a guy in a giant lizard suit, fighting a giant single-cell organism. Punching the bad guy, saving the universe and getting the girl.

I find the Abrams characters incredibly like the character that I grew up loving.

Boom

You said almost word-for-word what I was going to say.

The issue here though is at there ARE people who would compare their devotion and emotional attachment with Star Trek to that of a spouse. Thats where all of these fundamental break-downs and disagreements take place. You can't argue with people in that frame of mind, because the lens through which they view things is different. It's like tying to convince them that the sky is red.

What people fail to recognize who are in this position is that their personal desires and preferences cannot be met any longer. The expectations are too high. Times have changed, and with it the people in the next generations (no pun) and their values and what appeals to them. You can't continue to make Star Trek the way it was made 40 or even 20 years ago. It simply can't be done. Not and have any kind of viability for the future anyway.

But, there are some people who are so serious and so distraught that they'd rather see the franchise slowly die than see it evolve and change. They tie massive amounts of their own identity to what happens with Star Trek (hence the spouse comparison which flummoxes people like us), so any change that doesn't appeal to them and the agents of that change become Franchise Enemy #1. To heck with the future- they want Trek in a bottle, forever preserved their way. They'll argue to the death on these points, but the "battle" is really already over. The overwhelming response to the new vision of the franchise is clear.

These guerrilla tactics are all folks have left to continue the hope that someday it will be back to lectures about the prime directive, spatial anomalies, conference evaluations to figure out how to avoid firing torpedoes at Romulans, and pretentious ham-handed lessons about how superior humanity has become.

I've made it sound kind of harsh...but the pint I'm trying to make is that the people who have the visceral emotional reaction to JJTrek are typically these people. And if you are not cut from that same cloth, it's hard to understand their viewpoint, which is very real and passionate in their universe.

To answer the original question- there is nothing wrong with liking STID. I've been a fan for 35 years, and I enjoyed the film thoroughly. Was it as near to my heart as many of the others? No...nothing can replace the actors, characters, and settings I grew up with. But, I loved it for what it was and I came away TRULY entertained...which is all I ever ask Star Trek to do for me.

Once you star asking and expecting more from Star Trek, you're setting yourself up for more disappointment and anger than you should.

Cuz it ain't gunna happen!

 

[Noname Given]

That why I laugh when some fans try to claim (about TOS) -- "Star Trek was NEVER about action/adventure; and was ALWAYS 'socially relevant...'; as that ISN'T true. There's plenty of episodes where 'action/adventure' is the drux of the story <-- And nothing wrong with that (IMO).

Can you perhaps link to someone making that claim about TOS? Because it seems more like folklore than anything someone actually wrote to me.

Just look at any post cancellation interview by Gene Roddenberry; or any of the documentaries that include interviews of fans; and all you see/hear is how "socially relevant" or "always tackling social issues" is said.

BTW MUCH of what GR has claimed (that he pitched the idea of a multi-racial crew or that they didn't like the "Number One" character because it was a female) has been shown as BS. There was a memo from the top brass to all producers who had shows on NBC stating that studies showed more minorities were watching TV and advertisers wanted to tap that (Hell, please find me a minority in GR's original pilot "The Cage" as THAT was his real 'pitch' to NBC.) As for "Number One"; the studio was FINE with the character, they just asked GR to recast as they didn't want the Executive Producer's girlfriend in a main role for practical reasons - namely what if the show became a hit, but the pair split? <-- Would make for a volatile production environment.

BTW - I love TOS. IMO for me it's still the BEST series in what has become 'the franchise' - and yes, it like everything else was never perfect; but I take the good, the bad, and the ridiculous as part of the whole entertaining package - and I love it for what it actually is, and not what GR (and some more modern fans who take some entertainment TOO seriously) likes to claim it is.

Well, in my experience, there seem to have been far more frequent attempts to down play or even ignore the ethical side of TOS than there have been attempts to over emphasis it. On the other hand I can't recall ever having seen anyone claim it has no action adventure elements. That would indeed be laughable.

Oh come on - whenever there's any talk of 'Star Trek' in the media, they always bring up how 'socially relevant' ; and usually talk about 'the first inter-racial kiss' (from "Plato's Stepchildren") although they always take the kiss out of context in that it really wasn't a plot point for the actual story being told; and in context, Kirk and Uhura are FORCED to kiss by the Platonians.

That why I feel 'Star Trek' (2009) and 'Star Trek Into Darkness' are a good, fun, and entertaining update/modernization of old school TOS because both films DID do a good job of incorporating everything that made the original TOS enjoyable for me over the years.

Since I get the feeling you are more of the action adventure persuasion, I can understand why you feel like that. But since I also value the message of hope for the future (etc) implicit in much of TOS, I would regard ST09 as "anti-Trek" (despite the healing hands of time ). STiD however is, relatively speaking, a massive improvement in that department, in my view

What? Just because I mention that Star Trek was as much 'action/adventure' as it was 'social commentary' I'm watching it just for the 'action/adventure'? Wow. I liked Star Trek (1966-69) as a whole. I liked the fact that it posited the human race didn't blow itself up, and that race/creed was not an issue in the 23rd century - and did like many of the episodes that did include social commentary (both the veiled and the more 'in your face' approach many of those episode like "Let This Your last Battlefield.) As for the other effect Star trek had on my life it spurred interest in Computers (and at by the time I started college in 1981, full Computer programming Degree programs were fairly new as before they only had degrees related to Computer Engineering and Hardware.) So, sorry, but I was into many more aspects of Star Trek than just action/adventure, but I guess since I like both Abram's outings you feel the need to pigeonhole me to find a reason I like them, since you consider the 2009 film 'Anti-Trek'.

 

[Noname Given]

Post-facto axe-grinding with Bermaga never gets old, hey?

And it was the TNG movies that ultimately tanked the franchise.

Well, it was certainly NEM, but that'll happen when you half-ass a movie, release it against three blockbuster franchises simultaneously and don't market it.

And here we have the old "Nemesis tanked at the Box Office because it was released around the same time as a Lord of the Rings film.." - except that Nemesis ALSO made less on it's opening weekend than the Jennifer Lopez comedy film "Maid in Manhattan" <-- So, I actually think that says more about the state of the Star Trek film franchise at that time and NEM in particular. YMMV. (Oh, and it was as well marketed as previous TNG films; and there were members of the Cast stating pre-release how 'well/exciting the film turned out, and we're ready to do one more...' . They were also very excited how the script was done by John Logan (who was one of the writers on well received 'Gladiator' (2000) film - so, honestly, pre-release, they were claiming the film was firing on all cylinders.

Quite a change from the cast reaction AFTER the film bombed, stating how much Stuart Baird (the director) didn't get 'Star Trek', etc. Then there was Brent Spiner commenting on how he assisted Logan in coming up with scenes 'over the phone' (in particular, the ridiculous scene where Picard and Data fly the Scorpion Fighter down the internal corridors of the Scimitar and out a picture window) because Logan would write characters into situations, and needed help figuring how to get them out.

Sorry, by IMO - NEM's failure wasn't due to release timing and marketing. All but the most hardcore Star Trek fans (read anyone who saw it more than once in theatres) saw (or heard and decided to pass) the film for what it was. A poorly written and badly executed TNG episode.

 

[Sindatur]

Eh...First Interracial Kiss on Television is BS, too.

I love Lucy is from the 1950s, and Ricky and Lucy kissed all the time

In June 1964 a British Soap featured an Interracial Kiss

Also, almost a year prior to Plato's Stepchildren, On December 11, 1967, Sammy Davis Jr kissed a Nancy Sinatra on a Variety show Movin' With Nancy.

So, in order to make it true, you have to change it to "First Kiss between a White and Black on an American Scripted Television Show.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Eh...First Interracial Kiss on Television is BS, too.

I love Lucy is from the 1950s, and Ricky and Lucy kissed all the time

In June 1964 a British Soap featured an Interracial Kiss

Also, almost a year prior to Plato's Stepchildren, On December 11, 1967, Sammy Davis Jr kissed a Nancy Sinatra on a Variety show Movin' With Nancy.

So, in order to make it true, you have to change it to "First Kiss between a White and Black on an American Scripted Television Show.

Also, Robert Culp and France Nuyen kissed about a year prior on I Spy and there was interracial kissing between Jim West and an Asian woman on Wild Wild West.

 

[urbandefault]

...

Star Trek, to me, is an escape from reality not a substitute. I watch it because I don't want to be reminded of the shitty world that is just outside my door. I grew up watching Kirk slay god-like beings, fighting a guy in a giant lizard suit, fighting a giant single-cell organism. Punching the bad guy, saving the universe and getting the girl.

I find the Abrams characters incredibly like the characters that I grew up loving.

Seconded.

 

[Sindatur]

Eh...First Interracial Kiss on Television is BS, too.

I love Lucy is from the 1950s, and Ricky and Lucy kissed all the time

In June 1964 a British Soap featured an Interracial Kiss

Also, almost a year prior to Plato's Stepchildren, On December 11, 1967, Sammy Davis Jr kissed a Nancy Sinatra on a Variety show Movin' With Nancy.

So, in order to make it true, you have to change it to "First Kiss between a White and Black on an American Scripted Television Show.

Also, Robert Culp and France Nuyen kissed about a year prior on I Spy and there was interracial kissing between Jim West and an Asian woman on Wild Wild West.

I thought I recalled a White Man and Asian Woman, but, couldn't quite come up with the details, thanks.

 

[Smellmet]

thirded

 

[Mudd]

Fourth'd.

 

[Mudd]

Look at it this way: Suppose you went home to your wife and although she looked the same, she said things and and acted in ways that were contrary to what you valued about her as a person. Would you be able to ignore that and just be happy that she was still fun to be with? I.e. If a movie contradicts something I see as important to the character of ST, how can I be entertained by the result?

Seriously? This is ridiculous.

There is no meaningful point of comparison between the two situations. The analogy is incompetent and foolish.

These are goddamn movies and tv shows we're talking about.