Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time

[Pauln6]

It's not an argument just a matter of record. Personally I do like to feel hope for the future.

But you know the outcome of the war. You know that Burnham it's on a road to some kind of redemption, even if it's looking like a bumpy journey. They released the alien bug, Tilly is irrepressibly hopeful, they fought to protect alien allies, etc.

The show is no darker than TNG's borg episodes, or DS9 during its Dominion War. I think people are comparing the show to its predecessors with rose tinted spectacles. There may have been a higher proportion of hopeful episodes in those shows overall but probably because they didn't open during a war. If Discovery sees off the war, it has plenty of other places to go.

The Orville is fun but it does feel quite preachy with a USA-centric political spin. It is a welcome throwback with a modern comedic twist but I've become disappointed quite quickly at how the sexual dynamics have devolved into the traditional two male characters for every female character formula. Discovery is at least pushing the envelope in a number of ways. They're both fun in their own niche.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Quite a lot of articles recently have been arguing that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a greatly overlooked film, perhaps on par with other classics of hard science fiction. TrekBBS's Christopher has been an advocate of it, and wrote the sequel novel Ex Machina. After Star Trek: Continues ended last week with a perfect tie-in between TOS and TMP, I gave it a re-watch, and approaching it with the right mindset, found a lot of value.

• Star Trek: The Motion Picture | Criminally Underrated
• Why Star Trek: The Motion Picture is Secretly a Great Film
• Looking back at Star Trek: The Motion Picture
• Why STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is an Underrated Masterpiece

This is perhaps the most Roddenberry-like of all the Star Trek films, so again, when people say with absolute confidence or certainty that Gene's approach was wrong, I must point out that this opinion is not shared by everyone, and may lie in what expectations and philosophical opinions the viewer brings to the table. Even among critics, the film finds ardent defenders, and works of ambition like The Motion Picture get re-examined and re-appraised, with renewed philosophical interest sometimes only long after the fact.

It also fits surprisingly well with Discovery's aesthetic.

 

[Pauln6]

Quite a lot of articles recently have been arguing that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a greatly overlooked film, perhaps on par with other classics of hard science fiction. TrekBBS's Christopher has been an advocate of it, and wrote the sequel novel Ex Machina. After Star Trek: Continues ended last week with a perfect tie-in between TOS and TMP, I gave it a re-watch, and approaching it with the right mindset, found a lot of value.

• Star Trek: The Motion Picture | Criminally Underrated
• Why Star Trek: The Motion Picture is Secretly a Great Film
• Looking back at Star Trek: The Motion Picture
• Why STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is an Underrated Masterpiece

This is perhaps the most Roddenberry-like of all the Star Trek films, so again, when people say with absolute confidence or certainty that Gene's approach was wrong, I must point out that this opinion is not shared by everyone, and may lie in what expectations and philosophical opinions the viewer brings to the table. Even among critics, the film finds ardent defenders, and works of ambition like The Motion Picture get re-examined and re-appraised, with renewed philosophical interest sometimes only long after the fact.

It also fits surprisingly well with Discovery's aesthetic.

I love TMP, even the uniforms. I would probably just want to see an extra line of 'character' dialogue for each of the supporting cast, possibly a scene with all the supporting cast chatting off duty to strengthen the friendship ties, a scene featuring Rand in the second half, Chapel as chief xenobiologist rather than an unnecessary second md, and an excursion of a landing party consisting of more than just the three leads to explore more of vger.

But otherwise, the ship looks amazing, the crew are professional, and they don't have to kill their way to a conclusion. Love it.

 

[ichab]

Quite a lot of articles recently have been arguing that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a greatly overlooked film, perhaps on par with other classics of hard science fiction. TrekBBS's Christopher has been an advocate of it, and wrote the sequel novel Ex Machina. After Star Trek: Continues ended last week with a perfect tie-in between TOS and TMP, I gave it a re-watch, and approaching it with the right mindset, found a lot of value.

• Star Trek: The Motion Picture | Criminally Underrated
• Why Star Trek: The Motion Picture is Secretly a Great Film
• Looking back at Star Trek: The Motion Picture
• Why STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is an Underrated Masterpiece

This is perhaps the most Roddenberry-like of all the Star Trek films, so again, when people say with absolute confidence or certainty that Gene's approach was wrong, I must point out that this opinion is not shared by everyone, and may lie in what expectations and philosophical opinions the viewer brings to the table. Even among critics, the film finds ardent defenders, and works of ambition like The Motion Picture get re-examined and re-appraised, with renewed philosophical interest sometimes only long after the fact.

It also fits surprisingly well with Discovery's aesthetic.

To each his own. IMO it was an overly long borefest of a story that should have been kept as a future T.V episode. Even some of the lesser sequels are at least watchable thanks to character moments or interesting plot points. The music is really good, the score did a good job of adding some tension to the mysterious cloud and the visuals were top notch. It's just too bad that it was all done for a weak script written by someone who forgot or didn't understand why his show was popular in the first place. Hint, it had nothing to do with visuals.

 

[cultcross]

Quite a lot of articles recently have been arguing that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a greatly overlooked film, perhaps on par with other classics of hard science fiction.

An ambitious platform for certain.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

@ichab - Blade Runner took decades to be recognized as a classic. It has what some people consider a relatively simple story. It's acclaimed sequel does also. Both are full of detail that convey far more meaning than just their script. 2001: A Space Odyssey is glacial compared to some films, but considered one of the finest pieces of cinema made.

Japanese cinema in general sets a seemingly slower pace, which people adjust to, and accept as stylistic choice rather than inferior. All these films can all hold modern audiences in rapt attention - depending on the audience. Why? Because one's per-second measurement of interesting developments, depends on what you are looking for to begin with - often, what you were not paying attention to, you are blind to - a philosophy different to the one someone holds can pass a viewer unnoticed. I have certainly experienced this - like a cultural cipher, the different mindset primes you to enjoy a film to different degrees. Also some movies are not meant to be easy watching, capable of immediate repeat viewing, but are no less valid for it - 2001 is far less easy than say The Terminator, but meritful. Movie buffs find more and more to see as they re-watch a film, and so are never bored.

 

[Pauln6]

To each his own. IMO it was an overly long borefest of a story that should have been kept as a future T.V episode. Even some of the lesser sequels are at least watchable thanks to character moments or interesting plot points. The music is really good, the score did a good job of adding some tension to the mysterious cloud and the visuals were top notch. It's just too bad that it was all done for a weak script written by someone who forgot or didn't understand why his show was popular in the first place. Hint, it had nothing to do with visuals.

It's not a weak script per se but the script needed not to be re-written on the fly. The divided views also show that you have to find the right balance between high concept and bubblegum. Compare to the reboots which are fun roller-coaster rides with incredibly dumb plots and massive logic/plot holes.

If you look at the team dynamic and camaraderie when the crew steals the Enterprise is STIII, I would have loved to see more shades of that in TMP rather just just ping pong between Kirk, Decker, and Spock. Plus a landing party exploring while Decker pumped Ilia for information on the ship could have added some action elements that were otherwise missing.

I do hope the supporting cast, including, 'random communications guy', get a fraction more characterisation as Discovery develops along with a CMO and chief engineer so that the potential team dynamic has more breadth.

 

[ichab]

@ichab - Blade Runner took decades to be recognized as a classic. It has what some people consider a relatively simple story. It's acclaimed sequel does also. Both are full of detail that convey far more meaning than just their script.

Oh please. TMP is not anywhere near the same league as Blade Runner. Blade Runner had an interesting story which still moved along despite it's slow pacing.

2001: A Space Odyssey is glacial compared to some films, but considered one of the finest pieces of cinema made.

So is the Godfather.

Most of my favourite movies have a slower pace than films of today. The difference is they had a better and more interesting story than TMP.

If you like it enjoy. Just understand that criticism of it has nothing to do with hate for slow paced movies

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

@ichab - Are you so sure?

People said the same about Blade Runner that you say about The Motion Picture; that other films had a better and more interesting story, other films had better characterization, or script. They couldn't see the value of Blade Runner until much later. I dunno about you, but knowing this fact, that would give me pause to consider if I were making a hasty judgement. At best, when other people find merit in something that I can't, I can say that I personally didn't enjoy it, but should allow for the possibility that I just didn't see what they were seeing.

Initial reactions among film critics were mixed. Some wrote that the plot took a back seat to the film's special effects, and did not fit the studio's marketing as an action/adventure movie. Others acclaimed its complexity and predicted it would stand the test of time. ... Sheila Benson from the Los Angeles Times called it "Blade Crawler" ... Roger Ebert praised the visuals of both the original and the Director's Cut versions and recommended it for that reason; however, he found the human story clichéd and a little thin. He later added The Final Cut to his "Great Movies" list. ... On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, Blade Runner holds an approval rating of 90% based on 106 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Misunderstood when it first hit theaters, the influence of Ridley Scott's mysterious, neo-noir Blade Runner has deepened with time. A visually remarkable, achingly human sci-fi masterpiece."​

That is what I often find on this forum in general. I've tried to point it out to our more outspoken members. That what they call an unrealistic philosophy might only seem unrealistic, because they hold to a different view of what is possible, and are closed to the possibility that it was either right, or if not, at least equally valid. TrekBBS has some members with very certain and forceful opinions on things like Gene Roddenberry's legacy, the value of different shows compared to one another, etc. You can find people in this thread who utterly disavow the so called "Roddenberry vision", in addition to some forum members who proclaim TNG as trash, and exalt DS9. But when even something like Blade Runner can take decades for the critical consensus to catch up with, how are people so sure that they arn't missing the point? "Roddenberry visision" (in reality a not entirely his), might bear out more than people think.

 

[ichab]

@ichab - Are you so sure?

People said the same about Blade Runner that you say about The Motion Picture; that other films had a better and more interesting story, other films had better characterization, or script. They couldn't see the value of Blade Runner until much later. I dunno about you, but knowing this fact, that would give me pause to consider if I were making a hasty judgement.

I've seen it multiple times. Theres nothing "hasty" about my judgement. And no, other people's opinion isn't going to change what I think of a movie that I've seen with my own two eyes. People like Avatar and I don't. People hate BvS and I love it. To each his own.

At best, when other people find merit in something that I can't, I can say that I personally didn't enjoy it, but should allow for the possibility that I just didn't see what they were seeing.

I rewatch movies all the time and yes I've changed my opinion before. TMP just isn't one of them. Far as critics go I tend to ignore them because a lot of what they find to be great I tend to find as garbage.

. You can find people in this thread who utterly disavow the so called "Roddenberry vision", in addition to some forum members who proclaim TNG as trash, and exalt DS9. But when even something like Blade Runner can take decades for the critical consensus to catch up with, how are people so sure that they arn't missing the point?

Because most of the people here have seen these episodes hundreds of times and at that point are pretty secure in their opinions.Plus I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that someone "missed the point" when they don't like the same movie or show as you.

Most Trek fans like me who actually saw these movies when they were released have a similar view: TMP was not very good and the franchise was put back on track with TWOK. TWOK was better in pretty much every way: story, characterization, the antagonist, costuming etc.. Even all these years later I still find it far superior. I can rewatch it any time and still enjoy it despite knowing every bit of dialogue. I can't say the same for TMP. It's just a bad film and no amount of rewatching or outside opinions is going to change that

 

[cultcross]

I dunno about you, but knowing this fact, that would give me pause to consider if I were making a hasty judgement

Hasty? It's been 38 years

 

[BillJ]

Plus, Charlie being taken away, Edith ending up on a slab, Zarabeth all lonely, Miramanee and her child dead. TOS had its fair share of darkness.

But it was contrasted with lots of fun and adventure, and a sense that people wanted to be there doing what they are doing. There is no contrast with Discovery which makes it the weakest entry by far in the franchise.

Star Trek's greatest strength has been that it is a platform to do pretty much anything. Discovery, for some reason, decided to discard that particular piece of the format. Instead deciding to do what pretty much every other sci-fi show does, grimdark future.

 

[cultcross]

I don't think Discovery is doing all 'grimdark' at all. At least half the episodes have had some kind of element of a sense of wonder and/or hope, from the mycelium network itself, to the freeing the tardigrade, to the discovery of the Pahvans and the philosophy of peaceful cooperation they espouse. It shows humans as flawed and multi layered more than the TNG era usually did, sure, but they aren't petty, bickering soap opera characters, they're engaged in real conflict about real issues and problems they face, and approaching them from different angles. They have different takes on Starfleet's principles but they demonstrate self sacrifice, heroism, tolerance, love, and mutual respect. Even the so-say 'villainous' Captain put his life on the line without a second thought to save others. The show also has a vein of comedy woven in which is not only uplifting to the mood but, unusually for Star Trek, is actually funny. It features heavy topics like war, torture, sexual assault, but most are not new to Star Trek and I actually prefer my Trek to tackle difficult topics without flinching. I don't get 'grimdark' from the show.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

@ichab - The English language isn't always easy to convey what you mean - I think we all have watched Star Trek many times. 'Hasty' here was my way of saying, if other people can be wrong about Blade Runner - we ourselves can conceivably be wrong making such final statements as "it's an overly long borefest" - or "oh please ... [other films] had a better, more interesting story" - or "it's just a bad film and no amount of rewatching or outside opinions is going to change that". Your words, not mine.

I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that someone "missed the point" when they don't like the same movie or show as you.

It's not intended as an attack, it was meant constructively, but I can understand why people might see it as such, and I can't help that. I can only present my opinion for your consideration - it's your choice whether you want to see it as an arrogant man talking down to you - or a peer trying to give you their perspective in earnest, without contempt toward a fellow Trekkie.

The actual point I'm making is that for people who de-emphasise "Roddenberry's vision" - that the merits of the philosophy or series in question might lie in where one chooses to place their emphasis - and the alternative emphasis placed on liking Gene's philosophy might be just as valid as their own - what people read into that I can't help, I intend it to mean we are all potentially just as "right" - it's a rebuttal to the negativity, not a piece of counter-negativity toward their chosen tastes.

In recent years I read a highly recommended book called 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' that is doing the rounds - coming with recommendations such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg - the book basically re-affirmed the idea of progress rooted in the enlightenment - such concepts as violence not being a constant - a view which some people on this forum have trashed as being a relic of 60s progressiveness - but which a noted professor presents with hundreds of citations as being actually well attested by historical evidence. This would mean that a Trekkie with the view that "Roddenberry's vision was a utopian pipe dream", would see something that sees violent prejudice as extending into the far technological future, as being far deeper and more resonant, than a show that presented a progressive view of history. The differing view of reality primes you like a cipher to decode different messages from different works of fiction. A show full of historical optimism would seem void of content, like a barren waste, to some primed to examine only the human condition in permanent corruption.

You see, when I watched The Motion Picture the other day, some of the things I hadn't picked up on in my previous dozen viewings, or had forgotten, struck me anew. So I'm only speaking as a Trekkie, when talking about how one can find new meaning after tons of viewings, when looking through a new lens - I'm not measuring dicks.

 

[Pauln6]

Well other Trek shows had comedic characters for sure but Voyager and Enterprise were weaker shows because they did not embrace the dark more. Year of Hell for a whole season - yes please. It's hard to compare to TOS because it was trailblazing but it had a lot of dross in with its genius and its treatment of its female crew was appalling even for the sixties.

I've yet to watch an episode of Discovery that was weak, even if I disapprove of too much magical technology (which TOS villains had in Spades btw). I can't say that about the other entries in the franchise, although DS9 was fairly consistently good, I admit, that was also probably the previous benchmark for dark trek with a lot of intriguing non Federation characters.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

@cultcross - Although hasty is perhaps a wrong choice of words for a 38 year old film, I'm kinda thinking of how in Blade Runner's case, it took from 1982 until the 2000s before the film became accepted as being a cultural pillar - partly due to the release of later cuts perhaps.

I don't think Discovery is doing all 'grimdark' at all. At least half the episodes have had some kind of element of a sense of wonder and/or hope, from the mycelium network itself, to the freeing the tardigrade, to the discovery of the Pahvans and the philosophy of peaceful cooperation they espouse. It shows humans as flawed and multi layered more than the TNG era usually did, sure, but they aren't petty, bickering soap opera characters, they're engaged in real conflict about real issues and problems they face, and approaching them from different angles. They have different takes on Starfleet's principles but they demonstrate self sacrifice, heroism, tolerance, love, and mutual respect. Even the so-say 'villainous' Captain put his life on the line without a second thought to save others. The show also has a vein of comedy woven in which is not only uplifting to the mood but, unusually for Star Trek, is actually funny. It features heavy topics like war, torture, sexual assault, but most are not new to Star Trek and I actually prefer my Trek to tackle difficult topics without flinching. I don't get 'grimdark' from the show.

I agree! So far, I haven't actually seen Discovery as being "grimdark" as such, but rather being, as people said before the show came out, more of a flawed Federation, with character issues, than the TNG era of people largely being comfortable with themselves and their beliefs. If I am unsure about anything, it isn't so much that Discovery is "grimdark", but that I am still uncertain about it's underlying message. Will it ultimately turn out to have been a season-long or series-long morality play about violence begetting more violence? I would like it to become a cathartic re-affirmation of Star Trek's ideals, but am unsure that is the intent.

Personally I would like to also see the inspirational Orville style of Trek once again, but Discovery may just be trying something different for now.

 

[ichab]

@ichab - The English language isn't always easy to convey what you mean - I think we all have watched Star Trek many times. 'Hasty' here was my way of saying, if other people can be wrong about Blade Runner - we ourselves can conceivably be wrong making such final statements as "oh please ... [other films] had a better, more interesting story" - or "it's just a bad film and no amount of rewatching or outside opinions is going to change that". Your words, not mine.

1.) You were the one who used Blade Runner as a comparison. So I thought it was right to point out that while their pacing might be similar, Blade Runner had a lot of what TMP lacked. It seemed like you were trying to say that the reason I didn't like it was because of the movies style or pacing which just isn't true.

2.) I'm not going to keep rewatching a movie that I don't like. Sorry. I gave it multiple viewings for the past twenty years. I'm done .

The actual point I'm making is that for people who de-emphasise "Roddenberry's vision" - that the merits of the philosophy or series in question might lie in where one chooses to place their emphasis - and the alternative emphasis placed on liking Gene's philosophy might be just as valid as their own - what people read into that I can't help, I intend it to mean we are all potentially just as "right" - it's a rebuttal to the negativity,..

There is no right or wrong when it comes to opinion on art. It's all subjective.

In recent years I read a highly recommended book called 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' that is doing the rounds - coming with recommendations such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg - the book basically re-affirmed the idea of progress rooted in the enlightenment - such concepts as violence not being a constant - a view which some people on this forum have trashed as being a relic of 60s progressiveness - but which a noted professor presents with hundreds of citations as being actually well attested by historical evidence. This would mean that a Trekkie with the view that "Roddenberry's vision was a utopian pipe dream", would see something that sees violent prejudice as extending into the far technological future, as being far deeper and more resonant, than a show that presented a progressive view of history. The differing view of reality primes you like a cipher to decode different messages from different works of fiction. A show full of historical optimism would seem void of content, like a barren waste, to some primed to examine only the human condition in permanent corruption.

Not true. I can enjoy an optimistic film just as easily as I can enjoy one that's dark and gritty. It all lies with how well it is executed.

You see, when I watched The Motion Picture the other day, some of the things I hadn't picked up on in my previous dozen viewings, or had forgotten, struck me anew. So I'm only speaking as a Trekkie, when talking about how one can find new meaning after tons of viewings, when looking through a new lens - I'm not measuring dicks.

So enjoy it.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

But it was contrasted with lots of fun and adventure, and a sense that people wanted to be there doing what they are doing. There is no contrast with Discovery which makes it the weakest entry by far in the franchise.

I agree - I would like to see more of that - I think that aspect of Trek is important.

In a way Discovery seems closer in tone to The Motion Picture, in being a momentary(?) experiment with a more somber and slow burn exploration of humanity. But I guess it is early days yet - consider how much TNG changed over it's entire run - I live with hope that Discovery may make dramatic shifts - we are 9 episodes in, so we might yet see them re-introduce elements of heartfelt social commentary, frivolity, and grand vision, especially in light of The Orville.

 

[ichab]

@cultcross - Although hasty is perhaps a wrong choice of words for a 38 year old film, I'm kinda thinking of how in Blade Runner's case, it took from 1982 until the 2000s before the film became accepted as being a cultural pillar

This is simply not true. Blade Runner didn't do well at the box office but did so well in video rental and sales that a directors cut was released in 1991. In 1993 it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". So it was accepted long before the 2000s

 

[Vger23]

I don't think Discovery is doing all 'grimdark' at all. At least half the episodes have had some kind of element of a sense of wonder and/or hope, from the mycelium network itself, to the freeing the tardigrade, to the discovery of the Pahvans and the philosophy of peaceful cooperation they espouse. It shows humans as flawed and multi layered more than the TNG era usually did, sure, but they aren't petty, bickering soap opera characters, they're engaged in real conflict about real issues and problems they face, and approaching them from different angles. They have different takes on Starfleet's principles but they demonstrate self sacrifice, heroism, tolerance, love, and mutual respect. Even the so-say 'villainous' Captain put his life on the line without a second thought to save others. The show also has a vein of comedy woven in which is not only uplifting to the mood but, unusually for Star Trek, is actually funny. It features heavy topics like war, torture, sexual assault, but most are not new to Star Trek and I actually prefer my Trek to tackle difficult topics without flinching. I don't get 'grimdark' from the show.

I agree 100%. Just because there are difficult times, moody sets and imperfect characters doesn't mean it is grimdark. NuBSG, Blade Runner, Alien franchise, Mad Max, The Leftovers, etc are grimdark.

Star Trek Discovery is far from it. FAR from it. You've articulated it well.

I agree - I would like to see more of that - I think that aspect of Trek is important.

In a way Discovery seems closer in tone to The Motion Picture, in being a momentary(?) experiment with a more somber and stately exploration of humanity. But I guess it is early days yet - consider how much TNG changed over it's entire run - I live with hope that Discovery may make dramatic shifts - we are 9 episodes in, so we might yet see them re-introduce elements of heartfelt social commentary, frivolity, and grand vision, especially in light of The Orville.

If I were to compare DSC to a film, I'd say it most closely resembles TWOK. It's a little grittier, a little more violent/realistic given the circumstances, more serious and moody, but still with that sci fi ethics backdrop (spore drive/tardigrade vs Genesis) and the winking and nodding of classic character relationships.

I'd actually go so far as to say it has MORE classic Trek elements than TWOK does.