Shatner's 'Trial Run'
- Thread starter Procutus
- Start date
3D master wrote a critique on the new movie, where he critiqued on every thing he saw in the movie to the point it was nearly unreadable (in my opinion) and in which he will place each one of his opinions as facts. If you do not agree with his facts, then you simple-minded who only like flashy lights.
Count me in! Da flashy lights, da!
^We wuz confused by pwetty lights.
I don't much care for the pretty lights. I think the movie's ship design was highly flawed. I think the plot is frustratingly full of logic holes. I'm not blind to its flaws. But I still enjoy the movie. The cast works. The characters work. The emotions work. The directorial style is fresh and effective. And as a Trek fan, I think anything that renews the popularity of ST with mass audiences and makes it feel like an active franchise with a future is a good thing.
^Flawed how? Other then the size, the brewery and a window on the bridge, wasn't it pretty much the same as ever?
I just don't care for the design. It's an aesthetic judgment, and I'm not the sort of person who confuses my personal tastes with absolute truth. Nor am I interested in quibbling over the minutiae of the film in a thread that's supposed to be about a book. I'm just pointing out that I like the film as a whole despite having problems with parts of it, in order to refute the claims of some people that fans of the movie are blind to its flaws or unwilling to hear criticisms of it.
Bingo. The movie has issues, big issues, but when all is said and done, it's a fun movie.
The guy who did the 70 minute destruction of Phantom Menace warmed up on the TNG movies. They all have crappy plots. That just seems to be the way ST movies are made I guess. I don't think the new movies plot was any more stupid than any TNG movie and it was a hell of a lot more fun.
"Flawed" implies some element that doesn't make sense, doesn't work or somesuch. You wanted "Ugly".
How does the film's quality have anything to do with continuity? Star Trek's quality continuity has been terrible. Hit and miss for over 40 years!
How does the film's quality have anything to do with continuity? Star Trek's quality continuity has been terrible. Hit and miss for over 40 years!
No, I don't want "ugly"; that would be an overstatement. I just don't think the proportions of the secondary hull and nacelles work well or mesh well with the primary hull. I think that fits your definition of "flawed." I also find the upsizing unnecessary, I think the bridge is too excessively lit to be a plausible work environment (the glare off the screens must be awful) or a particularly aesthetic one (I saw a photo of the bridge without all those lights turned on and it looked much better), and I lament that they didn't have the budget to realize the really nice engine room concept designs published in ST Magazine. I don't actively hate anything about the design, I just don't love it.
But as you say, quality and continuity are two different things. I don't think that my aesthetic disagreements with the design choices have anything to do with continuity issues, since it's an alternate history and the design decisions could easily have been made by different people in response to different circumstances.
And the movie isn't about the ship, it's about the people aboard it. That's where its greatest strengths lie, and that's why it works as a movie and as a story despite its imperfections.
But as you say, quality and continuity are two different things. I don't think that my aesthetic disagreements with the design choices have anything to do with continuity issues, since it's an alternate history and the design decisions could easily have been made by different people in response to different circumstances.
And the movie isn't about the ship, it's about the people aboard it. That's where its greatest strengths lie, and that's why it works as a movie and as a story despite its imperfections.
I do not really like the new Enterprise, but I really didn't like NX Enterprise at first, but it grew on me. Who knows?
The ''True Fans'' who keep touting that their skewed logic are forgetting one thing, Star Trek is a fun and entertaining show. This movie was fun and very entertaining. I enjoyed both showings at the Theatres, and multiple showings on Blu-Ray, why? Because I enjoyed watching my favorite franchise. On my first showing, I didn't care that the nuEnterprise was different or the characters were not exactly like TOS crew in fact I enjoyed this crew more because they felt that I as a human can relate to them. I didn't want to see a group of people to whom I can never stand next to because they are all demi-gods in their profession.
The ''True Fans'' who keep touting that their skewed logic are forgetting one thing, Star Trek is a fun and entertaining show. This movie was fun and very entertaining. I enjoyed both showings at the Theatres, and multiple showings on Blu-Ray, why? Because I enjoyed watching my favorite franchise. On my first showing, I didn't care that the nuEnterprise was different or the characters were not exactly like TOS crew in fact I enjoyed this crew more because they felt that I as a human can relate to them. I didn't want to see a group of people to whom I can never stand next to because they are all demi-gods in their profession.
By "doesn't work" I meant more in a mechanical than aesthetic sense - like if they'd put the nacelles on the saucer but made it clear that engineering was in the secondary hull, or kept all those big shuttles and the giant brewery but maintained the smaller ship size (that would have annoyed the hell out of me)
It seems I got confused and thought I was in the continuity thread for a few seconds back there.
It seems I got confused and thought I was in the continuity thread for a few seconds back there.
And, for better or worse (which is purely a matter of opinion, of course), this is what I've found to be the most significant change in the overall Star Trek culture (among both the creators and fans). Where, back in the days of TOS, the fans rallied behind a show where people were better. It wasn't Utopian, as someone in another thread accused, but it did feature strong, multi-dimensional characters of the future who demonstrated, if only in fiction, that people could improve... could rise above the Cold War and the arms race, segregation and all the other problems that were such a major part of the culture of that time, and could be peaceful and compassionate and understanding.
These days, it doesn't seem that those are qualities that the greater viewing public looks for in their heroes. And that doesn't mean that such people don't respect those qualities in real life, it's just the we don't seem to want them in our mass media anymore. From 24 to The Dark Knight to Star Trek, a lot of the runaway hits of today are, well... gritty.
And there's nothing objectively wrong with that. It's a point of personal appeal, and I've seen a number of gritty things that I've liked, but in general, for myself, I prefer my heroes to be heroic. That was the main reason I didn't like the movie, and since this is a Lit thread, I'll mention in passing that it was also why Vanguard didn't appeal to me. Those just are my optimal type of characters. Call me a traditionalist, call me old-fashioned, I don't mind.
But I do understand that that's a personal stylistic choice and I can't claim someone is "wrong" for liking the movie because they don't share my view. I also understand that had I appreciated the characters more, I think it's quite likely that I would've been able to suspend my disbelief toward a lot of the plot holes that bothered me. It's all just a matter of perspective.
But then, back on the subject of Collision Course, the same principal is true. I didn't like the idea of CC (I say idea since I haven't read it) because, as I've said, I like the concept of Kirk and Spock not meeting until he's Captain of the Enterprise, and I hate the "small-world syndrome" of Enterprise being the ship that they use to save the day, as if there's some magical force drawing them all together. And I don't like how the books about young Kirk always seem to represent him as being just as brilliant as he was in adulthood. Where's the room for growth? (Of course, that supposition may be found mistaken when I read the book, but that's the impression I have.)
But those are all just personal stylistic choices; they may affect my enjoyment of the material, but that's no reason to say that someone else is wrong if they do like it. They just have a different perspective. All artistic perspectives should be equally valid, because art/beauty is purely subjective.
I'm reminded of a complaint John Byrne voiced once about the current crop of writers in comics, that they can't imagine a character being more noble than themselves, and thus fail at competently writing superheroes. I think that's what we've got here, which explains JJ's comments about how he couldn't get into Star Trek as a kid, because it was all talky and he couldn't relate to the characters. This bunch just can't figure out how someone can be a hero without some ulterior motive lurking in the background. It also shows that JJ didn't really pay attention when he got into Star Wars, because amidst all the flashy FX and fast action, there's a ton of stuff about what makes someone a hero (George Lucas studied Joseph Campbell very closely; JJ probably thinks Campbell is the guy who sang "Rhinestone Cowboy").
Back to Shatner's book (and a "Happy Birthday" to the Shatman while I'm at it), it does set up, in a slightly ham-fisted way, Kirk's own "hero's journey", putting him on the path to become the dashing starship captain we all know.
As for the disconnect regarding when Kirk first met Spock, CC is a good enough, and engaging enough, story that I never even noticed the discrepancy (and the only one I haven't read was "Ashes of Eden").
I suppose that's all it boils down to. If the story is good enough, allowances will be made. If it sucks, there aren't enough No-Prizes in the galaxy to make up for it.
Back to Shatner's book (and a "Happy Birthday" to the Shatman while I'm at it), it does set up, in a slightly ham-fisted way, Kirk's own "hero's journey", putting him on the path to become the dashing starship captain we all know.
As for the disconnect regarding when Kirk first met Spock, CC is a good enough, and engaging enough, story that I never even noticed the discrepancy (and the only one I haven't read was "Ashes of Eden").
I suppose that's all it boils down to. If the story is good enough, allowances will be made. If it sucks, there aren't enough No-Prizes in the galaxy to make up for it.
I like that; I'll have to remember it. It's particularly meaningful to me because I feel about the same regarding most current comicbooks as I do about STXI.
It's actually not a discrepancy, because the canon never states when Kirk and Spock met. That means that the decision is left up to the imagination of the viewer, and I decided that within my personal continuity, based on the data I had, I thought it made more sense (stylistically, if nothing else), if Kirk and Spock met later in life. So you really didn't fail to notice anything, the "disconnect" is just of my own personal opinion about the way the world should be.
Exactly. I think that's about the same thing that Christopher was saying. The only place you disagree then, is what qualifies as "good enough."
I think a part of the reasoning is that a lot of people find such an approach too simplistic. For myself, I don't deny that I think humankind can improve, certainly. But I don't think we'll ever be perfect, nor do I think we should be.
And I think our entertainment these days reflects that. We want to see our heroes struggling for perfection, trying to be that ideal, because it makes them more relatable. And the more like us they seem, the more we like them, because hey - if they can do it, why can't we?
And I think our entertainment these days reflects that. We want to see our heroes struggling for perfection, trying to be that ideal, because it makes them more relatable. And the more like us they seem, the more we like them, because hey - if they can do it, why can't we?
