STiD, Kirk and the Abrams Team

[Maurice]

Gene Rodenberry was a visionary,

MLK was a visionary. Roddenberry used an easily palatable tag-line to help peddle his wares and started to believe his own rhetoric late in his life.

This.

Double this. In fact...THAT!

 

[Amaris]

MLK was a visionary. Roddenberry used an easily palatable tag-line to help peddle his wares and started to believe his own rhetoric late in his life.

This.

Double this. In fact...THAT!

All of these!

On a serious note, though, I do agree with Khan444 that Gene had some good ideas. Still, his best contribution, IMO, is the Star Trek franchise. It was a good idea that hit at the right time, and worked because the casting was right (on the second try), and the writing was solid. That's what made it all work.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Didn't a lot of Star Trek's concepts that remain popular to now come from Gene Coon? He's responsible for Klingons, the Federation and the Prime Directive.

 

[Amaris]

Didn't a lot of Star Trek's concepts that remain popular to now come from Gene Coon? He's responsible for Klingons, the Federation and the Prime Directive.

Probably. Gene tended to surround himself with excellent people.

 

[Devon]

When pressed, about the only thing you'll be able to get out of someone harping on "Gene Roddenberry's Vision" and the reason they think Gene is god-like is because he 'dreamed of a future where man overcame their obstacles and all got along.' Hell, that's the hope of any message board moderator!

 

[Ln X]

Also for what it's worth, I think that STID dealt with ideas that we should explain and was a lot more critical of our civilization than any other Trek movie or show has ever been. Usually they paint a guy white and black then use it as an example of how wrong and silly racism is and how Earth doesn't do that anymore. STID took the high and mighty Federation and showed them doing terrible things for the greater good.

We needed that because we see ourselves as the heroes, not the silly primitive aliens with funny foreheads. But we're doing some terrible things and we ignore it because we want to see ourselves as the heroes instead of the country that sends drones to kill people and wind up killing a lot of innocent people. That's not who we're supposed to be and we need to stop.

I'm glad STID took the DS9 route, for me that is one of its few redeeming features. But DS9 has chartered the oh-not-so-perfect Federation fifteen years ago and did a far better job. Heck in DS9 the Federation almost had a civil war, DS9 introduced us to Section 31 and let's not forget the episode In the Pale Moonlight.

 

[Hober Mallow]

You think we've had it tough here? You should read what Trek fans are saying on other sites:

[snipped]

... and much more.

Anybody agree?

If you want to debate those points, why don't you join those other boards and debate them? Why post them here? This just seems like an attempt to start another thread of fan-rage.

 

[Devon]

I'm glad STID took the DS9 route, for me that is one of its few redeeming features. But DS9 has chartered the oh-not-so-perfect Federation fifteen years ago and did a far better job. Heck in DS9 the Federation almost had a civil war, DS9 introduced us to Section 31 and let's not forget the episode In the Pale Moonlight.

Of course a lot of that was fleshed out over 5 seasons.

 

[Opus]

You think we've had it tough here? You should read what Trek fans are saying on other sites:

[snipped]

... and much more.

Anybody agree?

If you want to debate those points, why don't you join those other boards and debate them? Why post them here? This just seems like an attempt to start another thread of fan-rage.

Sorry I haven't been on the board in a while. Life and stuff...

I would join if I could. It's read only unless you are a personal member. Ack! But I figured I'd share here and get opinions. It's interesting the similarity of angst, no?

Now on to catching up on the thread.

 

[Ovation]

The similarity of complaints between the ones in the OP directed at the Abrams films and complaints delivered at an earlier era of Trek on film...tasks me.

 

[DonIago]

Mmm. Everything that was old is new again...

 

[Opus]

The similarity of complaints between the ones in the OP directed at the Abrams films and complaints delivered at an earlier era of Trek on film...tasks me.

I shall say this to you sir, and also because it's my favorite quote:

"Khanned Ham!"

 

[Opus]

Didn't a lot of Star Trek's concepts that remain popular to now come from Gene Coon? He's responsible for Klingons, the Federation and the Prime Directive.

Probably. Gene tended to surround himself with excellent people.

I'm reading the Solow and Justman Trek book.

I think Solow surrounded Gene with excellent people.

Gene was good at taking others ideas and making them his own.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I am not into an ideology. I do have my criticisms of STiD. I would say the last one, 2009, lacked the "morality plays" angle of most of Star Trek. It was just a fun introduction to the cast. This movie attempted to tackle contemporary political problems in the 21st century, the defining moments of US policy that were overlooked during Enterprise.

The opinions that I have revolve around actual elements of the film. Kirk doesn't seem like a capable commander in this timeline. He lacks the requisite training and he doesn't grow in this movie, he just does the same thing he did in the last one. This movie showed everyone responding to being wronged by seeking revenge. Some little speech at the end doesn't make it a theme. This movie is about what not to do when someone wrongs you. If you want a moral of the story, that's not a particularly strong one.

The movie has some very poor performances. I am thinking of Robocop himself. He sounds like a villain the moment we see him. He has some very good points to make and the delivery makes me reject it out-of-hand.

It's an action flick. I don't like action flicks. I like Star Trek to make me think, not make me feel like I'm at a fireworks display. I like the "boring" characters because they were professionals in their jobs. You saw Spock and Kirk start to respect one-another after they had been through enough life-or-death situations. You saw Picard rely on his crew to get things done. It wasn't about the interpersonal relationships that are full of gossip and back-stabbing. It wasn't a soap opera in space. It was about the decisions, life and death decisions, that a Captain has to make. It was about competent people who could do the job, and it was a job. So I reject the notion that Star Trek had little conflict. Just put yourself in Captain Kirk's shoes next time you watch an episode. You'll be a little sweaty thinking about the problem. That's conflict.

Was Gene Roddenberry perfect? No. Was he a genius who came up with every great idea Star Trek ever offered? No. But this idea that we need to throw out Gene's concepts of the future because it's bad drama needs to end. There was plenty of drama while Gene was alive.

I think Star Trek Into Darkness is simply an okay movie. Not bad, not good. I have my reasons for both. But most of it is based on subjective opinions and not hard facts.

 

[BillJ]

I am not into an ideology. I do have my criticisms of STiD. I would say the last one, 2009, lacked the "morality plays" angle of most of Star Trek. It was just a fun introduction to the cast. This movie attempted to tackle contemporary political problems in the 21st century, the defining moments of US policy that were overlooked during Enterprise.

The opinions that I have revolve around actual elements of the film. Kirk doesn't seem like a capable commander in this timeline. He lacks the requisite training and he doesn't grow in this movie, he just does the same thing he did in the last one. This movie showed everyone responding to being wronged by seeking revenge. Some little speech at the end doesn't make it a theme. This movie is about what not to do when someone wrongs you. If you want a moral of the story, that's not a particularly strong one.

We simply saw very different movies.

 

[Opus]

Well, here's the reveal:

I lied.

These aren't quotes about STiD. I didn't copy them from some message board of enraged Star Trek fans about STiD. Nope.

I couldn't join in on their conversation. Not without a flying Delorean and a Mr. Fusion at least.

But they are quotes from Star Trek fans. About a Star Trek movie. It was a movie that came out 31 years ago. Here's the link: Interstat

Here are some of the quotes, now unaltered and for your approval:

I feel constrained to tell you that Kirk's character was severely distorted in TWOK. Even I, who liked the movie, can be objectively aware of that. His actions in the movie are perfect examples of characterization rape. The screenplay was written by a man who had to be sat down to watch Star Trek and had never watched it before. Harve Bennett is NOT a fan of star Trek. His professed love of the concept has always struck me as hypocrisy- He knows beans about James T. Kirk or how Kirk would act. Kirk's actions are not his own fault, so don't accuse him, please. Look, it's a sad fact of life that from now on the 'public' Star Trek is Harve Bennett's show. He, in all his vast, omnipotent, well-meaning ignorance will do whatever the hell he wants to do with it and Kirk. And—maybe to our regret—Spock. I don't know. I've noticed that in the first flush of the movie we almost all (except for [Barbara G], of course!) loved it. I mean, it was Trek wasn't it? Real, live, Panavision—and above all it moved, had energy, some nice moments. And I can't say that I hated it. But the more we all sit and think about it, the more we stew. And like any meat in a stew, the movie begins to fall apart. I for one am beginning to see that all the holes (Kirk not noticing Spock's absence from the bridge being my own personal unfavorite. One scene, in which somebody says, "Oh, Spock went down to help Scotty," would have helped immensely) and misinterpretations of character are symptoms not just of expediency but of ignorance. But worse, an ignorance that doesn't think it needs edification. An arrogant ignorance.... I must say one last thing, though. I don't think it's sensible to expect the makers of public Star Trek to live up to what's going on inside every one of our heads. None of us agree on what real Trek is either, too often, do we?

One of its basic flaws is the use of obvious simplicity and the lack of sophisticated subtlety. This is especially apparent in the verbalization throughout TWOK. One example of this is "The many, the few, the one...." Words with deep meaning? Are they symbolic or WHAT? And even in actions/ such as the giving of gifts...the glasses, the book. Tale of Two Cities, we find symbolic gestures. This really bothers me. Why? Because something so obvious, takes not a brain to decipher. It merely provides simplicity by defining with a definite answer/explanation, therefore taking away the ability to reason, analyze, and make choices. It turns aside from the logical progression of fitting together the pieces of a mental puzzle, turning away from the deep understanding of each separate part to understand the whole. And it destroys the natural curiosity innate in all beings who wish to explore the ideas opened by a hint and their mental growth established by individual interpretation. Anotherwards, subtlety opens the mind with ideas rather than closing it with definite structures. It entails the use of the viewers mentality to question WHY and for the viewer to decide in detail, just what is really meant by actions and words. Roddenberry did not always do it well in the past. Remember "The Omega Glory"? But at least he TRIED. It was his baby and he worked hard at making ST the best it could be, taking into consideration the budget he was allowed and the audience's most probable reaction to newly sprouted liberal ideas. Many concepts seem outdated now, but for back then they were very progressive. TWOK was created for the money. ..big bucks and for the mass audience at large, and this is fine to a degree. But it neglected the most important factor...Roddenberry' s ideology.

I agree with [Ruth B] (I#62) when she says that everything that appears on the screen is "fact". Sure, there were a lot of glaring mistakes in ST II, I'll be the first to admit it, but the episodes had their faults too, some even worse than ST II's. Do we consign these to an alternate universe too, or label them as non-Trek? If we start doing that, then there must be some basis for judgment, and who would be the one to make that decision? Where would Trek begin and non-Trek end? Is AND THE CHILDREN SHALL LEAD or WHOM GODS DESTROY (two frequently criticized episodes) non-Trek? I feel ST:TWOK was superior to either of these two and yet the movie is called non-Trek. What does that make the episodes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with the theory of what's Trek and what isn't, based on flaws and mistakes (which are inevitable). I guess my question is, if ST:TWOK wasn't Trek, what was it?

I was responding to [Susan S's] exegesis of Kirk's flaws as a leader (I#60). She went on and on about his failures in leadership until I couldn't stand it anymore. Not that her analysis was wrong; she was right about the Kirk in the film. It's just that I don't agree that that Kirk was Kirk. All I'm saying is look for a source of characterization before you set about maligning a character some of us might like a little, for pete's sake. Don't just accept what somebody says is truth, as truth. Just because somebody says something is so doesn't make it. Antonioni showed us that years ago. All the leadership stuff aside, I cannot accept the notion that Kirk does not notice and question Spock's absence from the bridge when there are only however many minutes till destruction. No concept of gratitude says I've got to. I think that is out of character for him. I also happen to think that the writers were insensitive onthispoint. Not wrong. Not criminals. Just insensitive. I think a fan would be sensitive to a point like that.

What's really not played up in the film is a clear-cut message. What did we learn, what did the characters learn? I don't mean all this aging-death-youth vs. experience-rejuvenation stuff. That's all irritatingly muddled in the film; none of it clearly-carved enough to stand out as the main thrust of the picture. The message is passive, it just lies there waiting to be picked up. I sort of miss the old "Lesson of the Week" air about the old show. Kirk's speeches. Remember how persuasive they were? Where's that in 'The Wrath of Khan'? The viewpoint. That's what I miss. Knowing that these were knowledgable writers (some really good people wrote for the show) and directors whose names recurred episode to episode, and somebody somewhere was saying, 'This is what we're about. We stand for this.' A liberal-Romantic view. There's something so right-wing about TWOK, anti-romance.

I am still perturbed about the STMovie II. I had hoped for something to revive my enthusiasm; instead it has done just the opposite. I am surprised at how many people say that I shouldn't be upset about Spock's demise because he will certainly be back for the next movie. Where now is all that reality that the producers said we must face up to in a movie by seeing Spock die? People aren't taking it seriously anyway, for they are indeed realists and know Nimoy will come back. In protest of the unnecessary death of a favorite character and of the obvious commercialism of Paramount (they did this to guarantee that we'd see both movies) I refuse to accept this movie in my ST universe. Besides, what if Nimoy does change his mind and not bring Spock back? If Spock were dead and not to return that would end my interest in Trek, so I'd just as well forget this movie until I see how the next one turns out.

No, I do not owe Harve Bennett an apology. I paid money for his product, giving me the right to state my opinion of what I purchased.

And here are two favorites:

I got the feeling that I'm the only one who truely enjoyed the film. It's an exciting and entertaining movie. Kind of like seeing old friends.

And a needed voice of reason through the vitriol. Vitriol from the truTrekFans. And their HATE of Harve Bennett. And his terrible new movie blockbuster - The Wrath of Khan:

Thank you so much for putting into words what has been on my mind since the release of TWOK. I feel that
 fandom is more than spoiled. We are blind? blind to what STAR TREK really is. As Harlan Ellison once pointed out, we have taken a form of entertainment, a TV show, and made it more important than it was ever intended to be. We have raised it to the level or perfection. Each one of us has put so much of ourselves into our view of the STAR TREK universe that anything that does not agree with the view is immediately dismissed as bad Trek. Poor Gene Roddenberry, in producing ST:TMP he had to feed the needs of thousands of fans who had been dreaming and fantasizing their own individual STAR TREK universes for ten years. There was no way he could have pleased us all. Harve Bennett was in no better a position than Roddenberry. Bad press plagued him from the start. Now that TWOK is out some fans are upset because it did not live up to their own interpretations of STAR TREK. They accuse it of being a cheap movie made with no other purpose than to make a quick buck. Yes, TWOK was made to make money, so was ST:TMP, and so was the original STAR TREK series. We must keep in mind that that is all STAR TREK is, a form of entertainment, is long as we keep this in mind, and stop making more out of it than it really is, we will enjoy TWOK and the movies that will follow it.... I have been so disappointed at the back-biting and the narrow-mindedness of most fans I see in INTERSTAT. Fandom as a whole seems to have lost the fun and the friendliness I enjoyed so much when I was active in it five years ago. It seems to have lost the qualities that it loves so much in the series. If we cannot be open-minded to one another, how can we expect a future seen in STAR TREK? How can we criticize TWOK for its lack of ideology, when we are so cruel to each other? I am thankful to you for allowing me to express my opinion. INTERSTAT is a very important zine for just that reason.

Anything sound... familiar?

 

[Nerys Myk]

All this has happened before.....

Oops, wrong franchise.

 

[Opus]

Someone page Richard Hatch.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Fandom hasn't changed one bit.

 

[M'Sharak]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.