The problem with TMP wasn't that it was hard to follow, the problem was that it was boring. It just didn't have enough substance to make the film compelling viewing to most people.
Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!!
- Thread starter StarTrek1701
- Start date
- Status
Not it wasn't TOS was way more of an action adventure sci-fi series.
Absolutely Right(TM).
Very few TOS episodes were as lifeless as TMP, and none were as plodding.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
Come on...
No way.
No way.
Another thing about modern movies that, I believe, went against the kind of story telling that I saw in earlier films and in the episodes was the structure of the films. In the past decade, mainstream films have evolved to becoming more like video games. Play Call of Duty: Black Ops II or Halo 4, and you might understand what I am saying.
Games are divided into levels. Exposition for these levels was kept at a minimum. Character motivation and background are ancillary to the storytelling which emphasized large scale threats and action set-pieces which move the plot forward. There weren't many games produced nowadays that will delve into philosophical or metaphysical themes for these require time to develop throughout the game. The last game I played that delved into a philosophy - Ayn Rand's Objectivism - was Bioshock, a game from 2007.
So, for next year, there will be a video game for the New Star Trek which will connect the first film with the second. Then, there will be a film which will probably run like a live-action video game.
Personally, I like some of the films from the past, but then again, I grew up in another time when there wasn't the type of synergy that wasn't prevalent today where video games act as promotions for the films. I interpret what Hollywood was doing with this film was that the people involved believe that fans who will buy a video game will expect to see a film that was like a video game.
There won't be another Star Trek IV or Insurrection, which delved into philosophical questions or took the time to develop the stories in between action set-pieces.
I think what was happening in the past decade, and will accelerate in the future, was that films were competing against video games for the attention of the coveted teen and young adult demographic. This happened before, in the 1950's, when films were competing against TV, and had to adapt.
Games are divided into levels. Exposition for these levels was kept at a minimum. Character motivation and background are ancillary to the storytelling which emphasized large scale threats and action set-pieces which move the plot forward. There weren't many games produced nowadays that will delve into philosophical or metaphysical themes for these require time to develop throughout the game. The last game I played that delved into a philosophy - Ayn Rand's Objectivism - was Bioshock, a game from 2007.
So, for next year, there will be a video game for the New Star Trek which will connect the first film with the second. Then, there will be a film which will probably run like a live-action video game.
Personally, I like some of the films from the past, but then again, I grew up in another time when there wasn't the type of synergy that wasn't prevalent today where video games act as promotions for the films. I interpret what Hollywood was doing with this film was that the people involved believe that fans who will buy a video game will expect to see a film that was like a video game.
There won't be another Star Trek IV or Insurrection, which delved into philosophical questions or took the time to develop the stories in between action set-pieces.
I think what was happening in the past decade, and will accelerate in the future, was that films were competing against video games for the attention of the coveted teen and young adult demographic. This happened before, in the 1950's, when films were competing against TV, and had to adapt.
Sure, there's an audience for "artsy SciFi", however, it's small, so, the budget would have to also be.
If JJ quits after XII, maybe Duncan Jones can take over. Enjoyable but high concept sci fi is what he does best.
But despite a cult following and a definite critical success, Zowie Bowies movies weren't exactly box office hits.
A shame, but a sad truth.
STTMP treated AI seriously, TOS did not, another huge difference. Fundamental view change.
RAMA
Sure, there's an audience, but it's not as big as the audience for Transformers, which despite having a reputation for being total crap still manages to rule the box office.
Honestly, when it comes to TMP it's too long and boring. I'm not saying I need constant action to stay entertained, but how long can one really be entertained by constant reaction shots to funky colours and "BWONG" noises?
I've only managed to watch TMP twice. Paint drying.
Stinky would have torn you a new one, back in the day, for such blasphemy. 
I like TMP well enough--but when it comes to Trek and Bond, nostalgia for how they were introduced to me in childhood ("in the before time"--AKA the early 70s) trumps my more critical approach to viewing TV and movies, so my fondness for TMP should not be read as a blanket endorsement of the film as classic cinema.
I like TMP well enough--but when it comes to Trek and Bond, nostalgia for how they were introduced to me in childhood ("in the before time"--AKA the early 70s) trumps my more critical approach to viewing TV and movies, so my fondness for TMP should not be read as a blanket endorsement of the film as classic cinema.
I'm not saying TMP is a perfect film. I agree its pacing is too slow. It needs a heck of a lot better editing than even the Director's Edition provided, for a start. But TMP was a film that at least tried to be about "high concept" science fiction ideas. Even if it failed, or only partially succeeded, it did try. And many of the other Trek films tried, to one degree or another, even while improving the pacing and adding more action/adventure elements.
My point, though, is that a major studio wouldn't make such a film today. Those that do get made are the rare exception, not the rule. Heck, TWOK, which is considered the classic of the Trek films, would be considered too slow by today's standards. Sure, there are a couple of great battles, but those are separated by lots of character development and some very talky scenes.
Even pure action movies have changed. I think back to James Cameron's Aliens. An action movie through and through, but what happens for the first 60 minutes action-wise? Absolutely nothing. The film takes the time to gradually build the tension, ratcheting it up bit by bit by bit. Which makes it all the more effective when the action takes off and the last half of the film is nonstop. But today, we need a big 'splosion within the first five minutes, or the film is plodding.
My point, though, is that a major studio wouldn't make such a film today. Those that do get made are the rare exception, not the rule. Heck, TWOK, which is considered the classic of the Trek films, would be considered too slow by today's standards. Sure, there are a couple of great battles, but those are separated by lots of character development and some very talky scenes.
Even pure action movies have changed. I think back to James Cameron's Aliens. An action movie through and through, but what happens for the first 60 minutes action-wise? Absolutely nothing. The film takes the time to gradually build the tension, ratcheting it up bit by bit by bit. Which makes it all the more effective when the action takes off and the last half of the film is nonstop. But today, we need a big 'splosion within the first five minutes, or the film is plodding.
Stinky would have torn you a new one, back in the day, for such blasphemy.
I'm waiting for Therin to send me my Ushaan invitation.
Maybe I was looking at this the wrong way, maybe they won't do TMP again, but V'Ger will show up sometime in the future. Come on, a massive living machine? A gold mine. And not every artsy movie was a blockbuster, true. But the studios must love them because why else would they make them?
But I think that our biggest crime in this entire discussion is that we're looking at what Trek should be based on the past. Indeed we're looking at what the entertainment business should be based on the past instead of asking, "What can we do now?"
We're trying to put something in a box where a box simply shouldn't exist, and that hampers our thinking and really destroys the entire purpose of storytelling.
The remake of Battlestar Galactica was a radical departure of the show back in the seventies. It was deeper, more dramatic, and yes, more action-y, and that was that remake. If Ronald D. Moore can do it, if JJ Abrams can do it, what's stopping the future of film-making from being a wild departure from what we consider normal or "good"?
We cannot limit what Trek can be because to do so would limit what art in itself can be, and that utterly defeats the purpose.
But I think that our biggest crime in this entire discussion is that we're looking at what Trek should be based on the past. Indeed we're looking at what the entertainment business should be based on the past instead of asking, "What can we do now?"
We're trying to put something in a box where a box simply shouldn't exist, and that hampers our thinking and really destroys the entire purpose of storytelling.
The remake of Battlestar Galactica was a radical departure of the show back in the seventies. It was deeper, more dramatic, and yes, more action-y, and that was that remake. If Ronald D. Moore can do it, if JJ Abrams can do it, what's stopping the future of film-making from being a wild departure from what we consider normal or "good"?
We cannot limit what Trek can be because to do so would limit what art in itself can be, and that utterly defeats the purpose.
OH GOD I hope not, let's have people villains with relatable motives and backstories.
Maybe I'm just crazy then.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
Agreed, bring on the Starfleet Cabal.
- Status
Similar threads
