So just to be clear, TOS was all about the fight scenes.
Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Yeah, I think they were. All of them, except for The Motion Picture. Even the TNG films were action-adventure.
I'll give you the TNG films. It's why I think they largely sucked.
Nope. But neither are the Abrams films. People mistake making a movie for today's audiences with somehow abandoning the tenets of the Holy Church of the Rod.
Trust me. The way some people talk, at least when comparing the new movies to the old show, you'd think that TOS never indulged in cheap thrills and excitement and was a purely "cerebral" exercise in Deep Thinking . . . .
It's hard to ignore the double standard sometimes. "Damn you, NuTrek! TOS never resorted to gratuitous action and violence!"
Come again?
More importantly, one needs to remember that Star Trek is supposed be fun and exciting as well as high-minded. Which is something that TOS never forgot . . . and the new movies seem to have remembered.
There's nothing wrong with certain elements dominating a film or an episode. Still, the story of ST09 wasn't lost in explosions and fistfights.
People watched it for many things. There are tech fans, fight fans, character fans, SFX fans. "Fandom is legion we contain many" or if you prefer "In my father's house there are many mansions". I've changed why I watched over the years. As a kid it was the pew pew guns, cool monsters and fights. As teen it was the "lesson". In my twenties it was about the mythology. As a middle aged man it is about the writing, acting and nuts and bolts of production. Yeah, I've been watching for 49 year and I was never "wrong" about why I watched neither is anyone else. Okay, maybe the ones who watch it for camp and cheese.
The fight scenes were key elements in every episode. Not always brief or throw away. They could be played for laughs like in Tribbles or even "Shore Leave" or be serious smack downs like in "Space Seed". But they were important to the plots or the conclusion, even if the point was "I will not fight!".
TWOK, TSFS, TFF and TUC were clearly action films. With the usual amount of explosions and fisticuffs. TVH is a fish out of water comedy and even it has an action sequence or two
No. I specifically said that TOS was more than just an action-adventure show, but that action was a big part of it as well. Despite any revisionist history to the contrary.
What I was pointing out was that there's sometimes a degree of selective amnesia involved when comparing TOS to the new movies. The TOS I grew up on had plenty of monsters and action and excitement, as well as cool, mind-blowing sci-fi concepts, social allegories, etc.
The fact that TOS was made for television gave it a certain identity. It was born on television and played out on television. The limitations of budget, resources and a one hour format served to give it a recognizable identity. If it had been born in feature films (like Star Wars) and ran its course in that medium then it would have played out differently. But that's not how it happened.
As such people can have an expectation of what Star Trek is simply because of how it was done. So if you change the approach to the subject matter it's completely fair for people to see a change in identity.
GR developed an idea for television with recognition of its limitations. He fashioned his idea for exacty that circumstance which went a long way to molding how people would perceive. Yes, it had an action-adventure element that GR had pitched and NBC continued to push GR for, but a core element of TOS was it was intended to be more than just action-adventure and offer drama and allegory on a more adult level than what else was generally being offered in that genre and for quite a few years to come. And overall that is exactly how it played out.
Now along comes JJ and he revamps the whole thing into the very adolescent style of fare that GR sought to step away from. He makes it into something styled right at the attention challenged audience who can't sit still for anything unless it's loud, flashy and moves like a roller coaster. And not a bit of it makes a lick of sense.
Did JJ seek to make Trek more like Star Wars? Yes, and he has actually said so openly for anyone to see.
People can recite all day long that TOS had such and such and such like JJtrek, but they're not making their case because they are ignoring the fact that it's how TOS dealt with those elements dictated greatly by the fact it was a television production.
And if Trek did or ever does return to television it would do well to return much more closely to its original identity of more adult level drama and adventure than the popcorn filler style of current films that would most likely be unsustainable on television.
As such people can have an expectation of what Star Trek is simply because of how it was done. So if you change the approach to the subject matter it's completely fair for people to see a change in identity.
GR developed an idea for television with recognition of its limitations. He fashioned his idea for exacty that circumstance which went a long way to molding how people would perceive. Yes, it had an action-adventure element that GR had pitched and NBC continued to push GR for, but a core element of TOS was it was intended to be more than just action-adventure and offer drama and allegory on a more adult level than what else was generally being offered in that genre and for quite a few years to come. And overall that is exactly how it played out.
Now along comes JJ and he revamps the whole thing into the very adolescent style of fare that GR sought to step away from. He makes it into something styled right at the attention challenged audience who can't sit still for anything unless it's loud, flashy and moves like a roller coaster. And not a bit of it makes a lick of sense.
Did JJ seek to make Trek more like Star Wars? Yes, and he has actually said so openly for anyone to see.
People can recite all day long that TOS had such and such and such like JJtrek, but they're not making their case because they are ignoring the fact that it's how TOS dealt with those elements dictated greatly by the fact it was a television production.
And if Trek did or ever does return to television it would do well to return much more closely to its original identity of more adult level drama and adventure than the popcorn filler style of current films that would most likely be unsustainable on television.
it is what it is. That others also might find it appealing nonetheless doesn't change what it is.
And, yes, Nicholas Meyer did something similar with TWOK, but it's a matter of degree. TWOk has issues, but it's rocket science compared to JJtrek.
On other hand, you can argue that the latter-day shows had already gotten too far away from classic TOS, albeit perhaps in the opposite direction. Even before the new movies were a gleam in anybody's eyes, I was arguing that modern-day TREK was in danger of forgetting that Trek was supposed to be fun. Frankly, VOYAGER could have used a bit more space monsters and action.
Maybe it was just me, but at times it felt like the later shows thought that Trek was above cheap thrills and excitement. To my mind, Star Trek needed to get back in touch with its scrappy, pulpy space-opera roots before it got too refined and dignified and ponderous. At the very least, the new movies seemed to have restored to Trek some of TOS's zest and swashbuckling spirit.
Has the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction? That's a judgment call.
(And Khan remains the best Trek movie ever, so I would argue that Meyer knew exactly what was he doing, and made all the right calls.)
Maybe it was just me, but at times it felt like the later shows thought that Trek was above cheap thrills and excitement. To my mind, Star Trek needed to get back in touch with its scrappy, pulpy space-opera roots before it got too refined and dignified and ponderous. At the very least, the new movies seemed to have restored to Trek some of TOS's zest and swashbuckling spirit.
Has the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction? That's a judgment call.
(And Khan remains the best Trek movie ever, so I would argue that Meyer knew exactly what was he doing, and made all the right calls.)
Last edited:
Nope. Criticize the film but don't make generalizations about the audience. They usually where you cross the line.
Not really. The only difference is the SFX technology.
Oh, yes. Because a Genesis device the size of my cubical at work being able to create an entire Class-M planet is so much more "scientific" than red matter.
A
Amaris
Guest
No it isn't.
Sure it does.
No it isn't. YOU may feel that way, but your opinion doesn't constitute fact, regardless of how you present it.
Well TNG did follow TOS with a similar approach to storytelling even though it developed its own identity. And the same with DS9. One could say that shows like Babylon 5 and Stargate did so as well.
The common thread is that they were all produced for televisions with its inherent restrictions that contibuted to the identity each show developed.
It isnit that SF in the style o TOS and TNG cannot be done for film--in example I offer a film like Intetstellar. But the identy of Trek in film has changed and thus certain expectations. And Nerys Myk is right that it goes all the way back to TWOK--that's where it began.
I don't have to present it as fact. I'm stating my opinion. The fact that you're offended by it doesn't bother me a whit.
I did say it has issues.
Movie Trek has a different set of standards and expectations than TV Trek. Its that simple. When Trek returns to TV I'm sure it won't be like any of the films. It will be a product of television and based on what works on TV. Just as TOS took it's cues from adult Westerns, TV Trek will take its cues from what ever is working on TV. Today that would be GAme of Thrones, the Walking Dead, Mad Men and Breaking Bad. (For better or worse) Tomorrow? Who knows? What it won't be is a note for note copy of TOS or TNG+
A
Amaris
Guest
I'm not offended, I'm just pointing out that presenting it as indisputable fact does not make it so. It is what it is.
Similar threads
