Char Aznable
Lieutenant Commander
I guarantee you XI will hold up better than any of the other Trek, "movies," from the last decade or so. Then again, I'm not psychic as you apparently are.
"I like the new movie better..."
- Thread starter darkshadow0001
- Start date
I guarantee you XI will hold up better than any of the other Trek, "movies," from the last decade or so. Then again, I'm not psychic as you apparently are.
That's happening already...
Warped9 never said that.
So you can't guarantee that Trek XI will hold up.
The merchandise certainly is.
YARN
Fleet Captain
And some people preferred the musical stylings of the Spice Girls to the Beetles (the former sold more records than the latter, after all).
If you prefer the new film to the old one, that is simply your preference. I cannot legislate your preferences anymore than you can legislate mine.
On the other hand, if you want to make as objective a case as you can to quality according to agreed upon standards of evaluation, I think that TWoK > Nu Trek can be made a fairly strong case.
If you prefer the new film to the old one, that is simply your preference. I cannot legislate your preferences anymore than you can legislate mine.
On the other hand, if you want to make as objective a case as you can to quality according to agreed upon standards of evaluation, I think that TWoK > Nu Trek can be made a fairly strong case.
Well, I don't know, I was born in 1980 and I just don't care about effects, I don't care about costuming so much. I pay attention to what the characters SAY in my sci-fi movies. Sci-fi used to be considered THE genre for nerds b/c it made some attempt at an exploration of science and it also had some of the most philosophical writings since the genre came to be.
It was only with the advent of Star Warsian SFX where the best sci-fi started to become about who had the best SFX. Writing legends wrote for classic Trek and that helped carry over into the themes which were presented in their movies. Growing old, how to end hostilities with an ancient enemy, prejudice, etc. These all USED to be the province of sci-fi.
Give me a theme in ST09 which was touched upon in anything more than a glancing superficial way you didn't see coming a mile away.
To be sure, the eyes loved the 'splosions and junk but...the ears didn't hear much of any substance.
It was only with the advent of Star Warsian SFX where the best sci-fi started to become about who had the best SFX. Writing legends wrote for classic Trek and that helped carry over into the themes which were presented in their movies. Growing old, how to end hostilities with an ancient enemy, prejudice, etc. These all USED to be the province of sci-fi.
Give me a theme in ST09 which was touched upon in anything more than a glancing superficial way you didn't see coming a mile away.
To be sure, the eyes loved the 'splosions and junk but...the ears didn't hear much of any substance.
Okay, has any other Trekkers here shown any of their friends older Star Trek movies and they ended up saying something in the lines of "I liked the new movie better?" (Of course, if they saw the movie)
Oh, absolutely - that's rather the point of the movie, after all, and the filmmakers have succeeded at it.
No one I've spoken to other than Trek fans who've seen Trek at all doesn't think the new movie is better than other stuff they've seen - except for a few people who watched TNG. That's got less to do with what TNG is like versus other Trek, IMAO, than it does with the fact that so many people watched TNG who were not otherwise Trek fans - and like TOS for some of us, there's a special childhood or family fondness for it. TNG ain't quite John Hughes or '80s MTV, but seems to have strong associations for some of the same cohort.
No, because there's no such thing as an "objective case" regarding art and you can't agree upon standards except with like-minded people. You can convince yourself that you're making a "fairly strong case," and that's all.
No, it works better for you if you think of it that way. You ought to try avoiding use of the second person unless it's actually appropriate.
It works better for me if I think of it as "a movie that normal people really liked."
Oh no, but it helps if a movie isn't dominated by hammy performances, chock full of inside references, slow or self-important. That hits a lot of the older Trek movies like scattershot, unfortunately. They were primarily for aficianados, which was fine while enough other folks were still curious or entertained enough by Trek to put them into the black. Those days are long gone.
Not really. GQ was an affectionate spoof of Star Trek and Trek fandom. St 2009 was an affection tribute to Star Trek along with an update take on it. And felt more like a film instead of a 2 part tv episode like nearly all previous Trek movies.
A lot of it has to do with the scale of the story and the filming techniques used in making it. When looking at a franchise like Star Trek, you have to be able to ask yourself, "Why is this story worthy of being made into a movie and not just another episode?" I think Insurrection is a perfect example. The story really isn't all that bad, and it would have made a good 2-parter during the show's run, but was it really worth taking it to the big screen? What were the stakes? How did it affect our heroes?
YARN
Fleet Captain
Matters are not as desperate as you suggest.
Disagreement about any issue, requires certain agreements about other issues. We have to see, to some extent, the world the same way, to even disagree in the first place - otherwise people would not even understand one another.
The fact that we have voluntarily arrived at the same thread on the same BBoard out of all of the wide world of the internet is a sign that we have some things in common already.
If we were to slow down and earnestly discuss what we like about movies in general, what we like a about Trek, and so on. We would find plenty of common ground.
Now in such a discussion we would have to be careful to parse reasons why subjectively prefer one film over the other, as opposed to our objective standards on interpreting and evaluating it.
You've heard the phrase "guilty pleasure" before, right? It is an expression which involves an admission that our subjective preferences and objective standards do not agree. Moreover, it involves an admission that we can objectively devalue/select against a film we subjectively prefer.
After mapping out our common ground we could explore the case for either side. The more direct route is to make a case directly centered on appealing to an agreed upon evaluative standard. Indirectly (since evaluations turn on interpretations), we might argue for an interpretation of the film which sets it under a particular evaluation which allows us to make a objective distinction between the two.
Now here is the hard part. Such an exercise requires good will and intellectual honesty. It requires both parties to be willing to listen and to be willing to be persuaded. But it can be done.
Well said. I was born in 1982. And I don't give a damn about SFX. I can enjoy TOS just as much as I can STXI. I like all Star Trek series.
When I think of STXI, I am reminded of Q's Shakespearian line in 'Hide and Q': 'It is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. I mean, I enjoyed the film. But it most certainly was not a deep film, by any means. Like yourself, I want to hear great dialogue, to be presented with interesting sci fi concepts. STXI was an entertaining action film, but it didn't give much to the mind, just the eye. It is not my favourite ST movie. I think Trek actually works better as a TV show than as movies, to be honest.
How about acceptance of self? For those paying attention, it was Spock's story in STXI.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Spock stood up to the Vulcan Science Academy as a teenager.
Spock didn't stand up to his girlfriend at the Academy.
Spock gave in to Kirk at the end.
Spock gave in to Spock Prime and went back to serve under Kirk.
What acceptance was there? The acceptance that once he actually got into a position of power and responsibility that he'd lose his backbone?
Spock didn't stand up to his girlfriend at the Academy.
Spock gave in to Kirk at the end.
Spock gave in to Spock Prime and went back to serve under Kirk.
What acceptance was there? The acceptance that once he actually got into a position of power and responsibility that he'd lose his backbone?
I agree.
That's always been Spock's story but it was overshadowed by other elements of Trek XI. TMP handled that story element better in my view, even if that movie was weaker in some other aspects.
XI was a very fun film updated for newer, younger, and wider audience, many with a shorter attention span, while paying homage to elements of the original. They did a pretty good job overall but when telling an origin story they were limited as to how much time they could ascribe to the other elements. I think it's unfair to blame them for that given what they were trying to achieve.
I'd have been happy if they'd left out some characters and saved them for XII to make more room, especially the younger supporting characters (Batman doesn't need Robin in his origin movie) but just as many others would have objected. I was miffed that Janice was bumped to make space for others but as long as she's coming along at some point, which I'm sure she is, that's fine.
There were a few plot elements that I wish they'd tweaked but that criticism can be laid against any Trek movie.
There is space for 'intelligent sci fi' in the 21st century; I'm not sure that there is space for intelligent sci fi if you want a successful blockbuster. I thought that Serenity trod the line perfectly but how successful was Serenity compared to Trek in spite of being a better film?
