A
Amaris
Guest
That's what they are for you. I found plenty of subtext to enjoy aside from the action.Well...because thats what they are.but I don't know why the reboots get treated like mindless action
Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
That's what they are for you. I found plenty of subtext to enjoy aside from the action.Well...because thats what they are.but I don't know why the reboots get treated like mindless action
+1
Well...because thats what they are.but I don't know why the reboots get treated like mindless action
But, I don't see that.
I mean, just in Trek 09 alone is a strong commentary about the importance of father figures, the dual nature of logic versus emotion, as well as the reaching for one's potential.
ID is not quite as strong, but offers interesting social commentary on contemporary issues, as well as continuing Kirk's arc from the first film
It may not be that to everyone, but that doesn't negate that it's there.
Well...because thats what they are.but I don't know why the reboots get treated like mindless action
I think mindless isn't really the best word. Illogical is more like it, like there's a mind, but it's crazy and does whatever damn thing it feels like and logic be damned to hell.
No.
Yeah, both have what they need in ample quantities, but dictated by neither in particular.
If Star Wars as a whole (as far as the OT goes) didn't have a compelling story, then Vader revealing himself to be Luke's dad wouldn't be such an iconic moment in cinema, really. That's a scene that doesn't require millions in special effects for impact.
Admittidly I don't know much about Star Wars but I know that scene beats most in Trek for emotional impact on a generation. That had people needing therapy, Trek was putting people to sleep on reruns at the time.
You're in danger of being driven off-point.
Isolinear's initial comment (in response to mine) was that Star Wars was more action-oriented than Star Trek. He didn't imply that the former didn't have a "compelling story" or that it couldn't make an "emotional impact".
I suggested that the new film (2009) was, essentially, Star Wars with a Star Trek themed overcoat.
Everything from the plot (a simple farm boy destined for greatness), the sound design, the weaponry (hell, the intense continuous energy beam of a phaser is one of the most iconic images in all of Star Trek and has been forsaken), particular scenes (compare and contrast the bar-scene with the cantina scene) and, most telling of all (that JJ Abrams admitted not being a fan of Star Trek and, instead, being a fan of Star Wars), all testify to this.
...
If I could comment more generally, I'd like to pick up the comparisons being made to "bad episodes". Obviously, whenever someone makes the argument that the new film "isn't good Star Trek" or "has astounding flaws in narrative coherence", they'll receive criticism to the effect of: "Well, I could point to tonnes of bad episodes and I'm sure you'd cut them some slack".
The trouble is, a massive distinction has to be made. The new film is, basically, a redefinition going forward. If it's bad (which it is), then we're in trouble.
What's worse is that its creators are trying to tell us that one (the Star Trek I love) and the other (this new thing, that I detest) are connected. That's the whole point of the silly black-hole time-travel nonsense; to let us know that their poor writing talent is an indiscriminating killer.
The uniforms and the location of Delta Vega, just as two examples, don't make any sense but I'd be willing to indulge them because they have no bearing on the Old Show.
The supernova and Red Matter, however, are an example of the Reboot directly, and negatively, affecting the Old/Prime continuity.
...
I've re-read the second half of my post a few time now: I apologise if it's unclear, I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts on the matter.
Classic rock. Teetotal.
Awesome! and get out.
I'll drink with you! I can drink to almost any kind of music.
To paraphrase Carol Marus, Jim Kirk was many things but he was never a farm boy ( in either reality) AltKirk is closer to Han Solo than Luke Skywalker. A cocky loudmouth in and of trouble with the law. The man from humble beginnings, destined for greatness is hardly unique to Star Wars and it's as old as Moses, the Greek myths and Jesus. (probably older). Kirk's Iowa origin is from STIV. While I'm sure as director, Abrams had some influence on the script's development, the original script was in place before Abrams decided to direct. Orci and Kurtzman were the driving force behind the script and project.Cromwell said:
Is it? In nearly 50 years of watching Star Trek, I've never thought so.
Bar scenes are also an old storytelling trope. Especially a barfight. Which Star Wars didn't really have. The fight in Tribbles is closer to the bar scene in 09 than the cantina scene from Star Wars.
I think all he said was he liked Star Wars better. Not unusual for a man his age.
The reaction to TMP is what set Star Trek on film to a "Star Wars" path. And that began with TWOK, not ST09. The choice of a villain like Khan is surely a reaction to Darth Vader. And that has become the Trek "gold standard". Action pieces and explosions aren't exactly unheard of in the post TMP films.
It sure as heck isn't synonymous with Trek. The continuous energy beam existed in sci-fi before Trek. Even if Trek didn't come around, sci-fi would still have it. So "iconic" doesn't quite fit here. Trek only had energy beams because everyone else did, essentially.
There were times in TOS when phasers were depicted as pulses. An away team would use pulses on a crowd, or even the Enterprise itself would fire pulse phasers, once having them detonate at certain distances (well, because photon torpedoes weren't invented yet, but it still counts).
That's weird, because while I see the superficial similarities, I am a huge fan of the Trek reboot but Star Wars has always left me cold. I really connected with the Trek characters, whereas I never cared what happened to Luke Skywalker and Han Solo.
I did not suggest that it was unique to Star Wars, I simply used the similarities as evidence.
Well, it's all personal opinion but it certainly is to me. It's one of the clearest things that pops into my head when I try to think about the show as a generalised concept.
It's this scene from "Devil in the Dark", in particular that I consider iconic.
This could be confirmation bias, because of everything else I dislike about the film, but I can't shake the feeling every time I watch it.
Yes and, considering where he's gone, it's easy to believe that he just lacked the passion for the source material that one really should have.
Again, this film wasn't just another film or episode, it was a clear redefinition; do it right or don't do it at all.
This is, again, not really tackling the issue. This film isn't just the next in the series it's an attempt to reboot the entire franchise.
Wasn't that forsaken in The Wrath of Khan?
Wasn't basic logic forsaken in "Threshold"?
Similar threads
