Is a Galaxy-Quest type movie the best way to restart Star Trek?

[Captain Brylcream]

The way the movie was written and made it was certainly a fun, don't take it seriously type of movie. I don't necessarily have a problem with that but I wonder if we want Star Trek going forward to be basically a version of Galaxy-Quest or Star Wars. Not quite as outlandish but certainly not serious sci-fi at all.

Imagine that this movie was called "Star Quest" and all the characters were renamed such as Dirk, Spom, etc. If that were done then you'd simply see this as a mostly silly, dumb and entertaining movie and just ignore all sorts of plot holes and things that don't make sense. You'd see Jero as some one dimensional villain and Mulcan being destroyed as just a big cartoonish event rather than a major tragic event that it is should have been.

One person wrote a very scathing criticism of the movie:
http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/
and I kind of know where he is coming from.

It was made to be a movie that appealed to everyone from children to regular movie goers with lots of fast paced action where you just sit back and watch all the visuals go by. But it was NOT made to appeal to people that wanted a mostly serious tightly and well written sci-fi flick.

Lots of scenes and events were clearly gratuitous or non-sensical. (Magical red matter? People carrying swords? Amazing coincidence of meeting Spock, Cadet to captain promotion, etc etc). Lots of things were thrown in as plot devices without attention or care to detail. (So Scotty can beam people anywhere even on moving ships far away, why do we need starships then?)

It's not that Star Trek (2009) wasn't entertaining or enjoyable. But there's just too much silliness and non-sense in it to take it seriously as a real sci-fi film. And now that they've established this tone for the Abrams vision of Star Trek, I just don't see how they could really made good future sequels that are well written sci-fi stories rather than more silliness and ridiculousness.

I agree with the comments at:http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/

i have read all the comments since it was create and they are all valid.

This not star trek at all it is just a mindless action hollywood flick.

I urge everyone to visit http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/ and view all the comments not just by the author but by the visitors who agreedy this is not Star Trek at all.


JJ Abrams has killed Star Trek.

http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/

I weep and so should you.

Who, in the good name of Bill Shatner's girdle, are you to tell me when to weep.

Abrams has not killed Star Trek, I was completely against this film when I heard the plotlines, I loved the TOS crew and series and was even more raging that they replaced them, and now I've gone and watched this film 4 times now, and love it.

I like the humour, the effects, the score and the acting. The casting was perfect and sanctamonius preaching from the captain's chair happily missing. The sets were superb and the film captured what the sets and the writing could have been like had the original series not been filmed in the '60s.

It's not some screwball comedy set in space, and I believe it was a serious and tight well written science fiction film. Why in gods name do Sci-Fi films always have to be like Sunshine or the tripe fest that is Solaris to be taken seriously critically.

 

[neozeks]

Why, oh why is it neccessary to denigrate earlier Trek just to propel this one?

That "why do you hate Star Trek?" card (because that is what you did there, though you were at least careful enough to word it differently) is one too often played by those who are not being entirely honest about their reasons for posting here. Try not to be too eager to play it yourself, eh?

No, that's not what I'm aiming for.
Listen, I'll repeat to what I was responding:

Yes. Heaven forbid people want to be entertained. The horror!

And heaven forbid us wanting entertainment and something for our brain to chew on at the same time...

Since Trek hasn't ever given us that before, I don't know why you were expecting one now.

So, the guy said (maybe he didn't mean it, I understood it wrong) Trek hasn't given us both entertainment and something more serious before. Since I do consider Trek something a bit more than just a fun adventure in space (maybe i'm wrong, but then let's discuss it) I did consider it unfair to earlier Trek. So it's not a blanket statement, I'm responding to a specific statement by someone else.

I believe it was a serious and tight well written science fiction film. Why in gods name do Sci-Fi films always have to be like Sunshine or the tripe fest that is Solaris to be taken seriously critically.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the serious and tight well written part. But, come to think of it, what's exactly Sci-Fi in this story? I don't mean on the surface, like it's set in space and we have spaceships and phasers and stuff (SW has that, and you can't really call it Sci-Fi), but in the meat of the story, in it's themes?

 

[Peter the Younger]

But, come to think of it, what's exactly Sci-Fi in this story? I don't mean on the surface, like it's set in space and we have spaceships and phasers and stuff (SW has that, and you can't really call it Sci-Fi), but in the meat of the story, in it's themes?

Time travel. It provides the basic thematic "hook" of the film: do the circumstances of our lives dictate who we are, or can we choose our own destiny? In that sense, it's more of a sci-fi film than TWOK. The sci-fi element - time travel - is far more central to the plot of ST XI than the Genesis device is to TWOK. Genesis reflects the death and rebirth story they had already established, but in terms of the story, any superweapon would perform the same function. But the time travel is integral to the themes of ST XI, the question of Kirk and Spock's destinies wouldn't work without it.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Poor JJ. All things he is supposed to have killed, among other abominable crimes he's supposed to have commited.... I've lost track of 'em all.

 

[Vance]

Yeah, because the only people who might have issues with the film are newbies or sock-puppets, right?

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Who're you talking to? I hope it's not me, because I was only responding to the guy above who said "JJ Abrams has killed Star Trek".

 

[number6]

But, come to think of it, what's exactly Sci-Fi in this story? I don't mean on the surface, like it's set in space and we have spaceships and phasers and stuff (SW has that, and you can't really call it Sci-Fi), but in the meat of the story, in it's themes?

Time travel. It provides the basic thematic "hook" of the film: do the circumstances of our lives dictate who we are, or can we choose our own destiny? In that sense, it's more of a sci-fi film than TWOK. The sci-fi element - time travel - is far more central to the plot of ST XI than the Genesis device is to TWOK. Genesis reflects the death and rebirth story they had already established, but in terms of the story, any superweapon would perform the same function. But the time travel is integral to the themes of ST XI, the question of Kirk and Spock's destinies wouldn't work without it.

Even with TOS, the actual "sci-fi" of the episode is the McGuffin. GR used sci-fi as a setting to tell stories, not the other way around. The theme of this film is how the power of Kirk and Spock's friendship is important to who these people are and how much they need each other to balance their character traits. TOS was NEVER about hard sci-fi. It was about telling stories about humanity with a sci-fi backdrop.

 

[Sector 7]

Trek is NOTHING like Galaxy Quest.

Galaxy Quest is one of my favorite Star Trek movies.

 

[polyharmonic]

What about City on the Edge of Forever, Wrath of Kahn? And why do we always have to talk only about TOS? What about Inner Light? I, Hugh? Duet? In the Pale Moonlight? Cogenitor? Perhaps it was seldom like that, but those were it's best moments. I doubt it would have survived this long had it not had it's more serious elements.

Exactly. There's no question that in the whole library of TV episodes and movies, there are much worse. It's certainly not worse than TMP, Generations, TFF but certainly not better than TWOK, TVH, TUC, FC. And the story/plot is not IMO as good as some of the best from TOS, DS9, TNG, as noted above. There certainly have been more moving, dramatic, better written plots and stories than what we got here. Maybe those are far and few in between but I don't see what's wrong with comparing ST09 to the best of ST rather than to the mediocre or worse of ST.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Galaxy Quest was well-written. It was meant to be a loving spoof, but it was definitely not poorly written drivel. It was a good movie. Star Wars was a good movie (Episode 1? not so much).

Are you angry about plot holes or tone? Because you're switching complaints here. I thought you were comparing nuTrek to the more lighthearted feel of SW/GQ and the tongue-in-cheek nature of some of the jokes, not complaining about the holes in the plot. (Which, btw, Galaxy Quest and Star Wars don't have more in common with each other than each does with Star Trek. Trek was "serious" scifi, SW was space opera, and GQ was parody.)

I never claimed that Galaxy-Quest was poorly written or a bad movie. It was actually a great movie. But it worked because you knew going in that it was a comedy and meant to be a comedy primarily and its plot and events were in line with that movie. It never tried to be truly serious and was never intended as such.

ST09 seem to be trying to accomplish and be too many things at the same thing. It has lots of contrived goofy funny moments and things that seem silly. But it isn't trying to be a comedy. It has a psychotic planet destroying villain who killed BILLIONS of people (and tries to be somewhat dramatic and serious) but never gave such an event the treatment it deserved. Instead it felt the same as those cartoon show destruction that you don't take too seriously.

As neozeks said in another thread: If they wanted a light movie, they shouldn't have destroyed Vulcan. If they wanted to destroy Vulcan they should have given it the gravitas it deserved.

By having both and not really treating Vulcan's destruction with any kind of sufficient seriousness, they just made the movie have this overall "silliness" feel to it. All I saw was Uhura offering Spock "anything" to comfort him, a moment that felt more silly than truly somber.

I mean for most of the audience, they laughed at the goofiness and the slapstick and shrugged their shoulders when Vulcan, planet of billions was destroyed. That set the tone (to me) that Abrams is aiming mostly for light fun slapstick type movie and is making no effort to make it serious at all.

I think most of the issue is simply that the movie is flawed as a film because its tone is all over the board - Spock's story is rather serious and emotionally weighty, even tragic, while Kirk's is primarily a jaunty, rebel-without-a-cause romp. To then see Kirk rewarded and Spock become his second on command feels very false because it does not follow from the story itself. No matter how many apologia posts people want to make, Kirk's story is weak because his character has no arc. He starts the movie reckless and in the end he doesn't project leadership so much as that same recklessness. And this is rewarded at the end of the movie not because he saved the planet, but because the one thing the movie was working hardest to do was to get everyone in place by the last two minutes. So it contrived a lot in order to pull that off. These contrivances (cleverly labeled Kirk's "intuition" by one poster upstream) are what make the story feel light - not light-hearted, just ... fluffy.

Not that I have anything against fluff. ST09 is entertaining, but forgettable. I suppose it's an improvement. After all, Trek for the last fifteen years has been unentertaining and forgettable.

 

[Nebula1400]

I disagree with the entire premise of the post. It was nowhere NEAR as silly as you are painting it.

Just not true.

Agreed.

 

[polyharmonic]

Even with TOS, the actual "sci-fi" of the episode is the McGuffin. GR used sci-fi as a setting to tell stories, not the other way around. The theme of this film is how the power of Kirk and Spock's friendship is important to who these people are and how much they need each other to balance their character traits. TOS was NEVER about hard sci-fi. It was about telling stories about humanity with a sci-fi backdrop.

That's fine.

But did this movie tell the story of "how the power of Kirk and Spock's friendship is important to who these people are and how much they need each other to balance their character traits"? New Spock and New Kirk have pretty much no relationship, even Kirk said so to Spock Prime in the cave. I don't see how this film gave the story any adequate treatment.

Is ST09 "telling stories about humanity with a sci-fi backdrop"? Why story was that?

 

[Gepard]

I think most of the issue is simply that the movie is flawed as a film because its tone is all over the board - Spock's story is rather serious and emotionally weighty, even tragic, while Kirk's is primarily a jaunty, rebel-without-a-cause romp. To then see Kirk rewarded and Spock become his second on command feels very false because it does not follow from the story itself. No matter how many apologia posts people want to make, Kirk's story is weak because his character has no arc. He starts the movie reckless and in the end he doesn't project leadership so much as that same recklessness. And this is rewarded at the end of the movie not because he saved the planet, but because the one thing the movie was working hardest to do was to get everyone in place by the last two minutes. So it contrived a lot in order to pull that off. These contrivances (cleverly labeled Kirk's "intuition" by one poster upstream) are what make the story feel light - not light-hearted, just ... fluffy.

Not that I have anything against fluff. ST09 is entertaining, but forgettable. I suppose it's an improvement. After all, Trek for the last fifteen years has been unentertaining and forgettable.

Excellently put all around. By which I mean...QFT.

 

[number6]

Even with TOS, the actual "sci-fi" of the episode is the McGuffin. GR used sci-fi as a setting to tell stories, not the other way around. The theme of this film is how the power of Kirk and Spock's friendship is important to who these people are and how much they need each other to balance their character traits. TOS was NEVER about hard sci-fi. It was about telling stories about humanity with a sci-fi backdrop.

That's fine.

But did this movie tell the story of "how the power of Kirk and Spock's friendship is important to who these people are and how much they need each other to balance their character traits"? New Spock and New Kirk have pretty much no relationship, even Kirk said so to Spock Prime in the cave. I don't see how this film gave the story any adequate treatment.

Is ST09 "telling stories about humanity with a sci-fi backdrop"? Why story was that?

I explained what that story was and that's what I saw on the screen. Apparently you would like to believe that you saw a different film. That's your choice. The people who seemed to enjoy this film seem to have seen the same film I enjoyed.

Whatever dude.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You do know that Galaxy Quest is based loosely on a Star Trek short story, written by Joan Winston.

Have the GQ people ever said that, or is it an assumption based on similarities?

 

[number6]

You do know that Galaxy Quest is based loosely on a Star Trek short story, written by Joan Winston.

Have the GQ people ever said that, or is it an assumption based on similarities?

You know, honestly I am not sure anymore. I do remember reading it somewhere. I certainly thought that when I saw it for the first time.

Now that Winston is deceased we may never really know.

 

[polyharmonic]

I think most of the issue is simply that the movie is flawed as a film because its tone is all over the board - Spock's story is rather serious and emotionally weighty, even tragic, while Kirk's is primarily a jaunty, rebel-without-a-cause romp. To then see Kirk rewarded and Spock become his second on command feels very false because it does not follow from the story itself. No matter how many apologia posts people want to make, Kirk's story is weak because his character has no arc. He starts the movie reckless and in the end he doesn't project leadership so much as that same recklessness. And this is rewarded at the end of the movie not because he saved the planet, but because the one thing the movie was working hardest to do was to get everyone in place by the last two minutes. So it contrived a lot in order to pull that off. These contrivances (cleverly labeled Kirk's "intuition" by one poster upstream) are what make the story feel light - not light-hearted, just ... fluffy.

You've summed up in this post very well exactly how I feel better than I ever could. They had a great chance here to introduce Kirk and Spock (the main characters), their coming of age and their growing frienship in a convincing moving way. This is something that's never been done before. But they didn't do that. Kirk starts the movie as a reckless child and I see nothing that convinced me he became this great leader at the end that merited being captain.

Not that I have anything against fluff. ST09 is entertaining, but forgettable. I suppose it's an improvement. After all, Trek for the last fifteen years has been unentertaining and forgettable.

Trek has had its (few) moments of being entertaining and memorable too. But this is not one of them. Entertaining maybe as fluff and semi-comedy but not as anything moving or dramatic or thoughtful.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

One person wrote a very scathing criticism of the movie:
http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/

So he's the one.

The worst real review I've read was Ebert's, who just said it was space opera, and the science was baseless. So it really wasn't that bad a review.

 

[Gepard]

So it really wasn't that bad a review.

He gave the film a thumbs-down, which seems kind of bad to me.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Didn't even know he still did that. I just read the review. 2 and 1/2 stars.