An interesting little debate has popped up late in the thread! Let's consolidate...
But that has no rational basis
of course it does.
Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.
Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.
what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
you and I are here, aren't we? not on some board for ID4 or Armageddon? I know I'm here. been here a while now.
seriously, are you that dense that you don't get what I am (by now) hollerin' atcha?
do I need to get a megaphone?
Indranee, what I hear you hollerin' here is that you're not even trying to be objective. You have a soft spot for it because it's labeled "Star Trek," and are therefore willing to credit the film with the attributes of the best of past Trek even when it doesn't actually demonstrate them. You're admitting to a double-standard.
Of course, it's probably safe to say all of us posting here have a soft spot for Trek. That's what got me into the theater. But that's as much of a benefit of the doubt as I was willing to extend. After that, the movie had to prove itself on its own merits... just like any past movie (or episode, or series) has had to do. More so, in fact, since it took such pains to
set itself apart from any Trek that has gone before.
And without the benefit of any holdover affection for past versions of these characters and concepts, taken on its own and assessed critically, it just doesn't hold up.
In all fairness, though, I will admit that some of us, myself included, may have been not extra generous but instead extra critical precisely
because it was Trek, and we can't completely avoid comparing it to affectionate memories of what had come before.
ID4 and
Armageddon are merely bad (but fun!) movies that stand on their own. This, however, is a bad movie that's
also bad Star Trek. It's hard to avoid a greater sense of disappointment there.
Star Trek the series does everything you suggested. Star Trek this latest movie does not and that is the problem that many of us have with it.
oh, so you're telling me Man Trap did the same thing as Amok Time? that Spock's Brain did the same thing as COTEOF? that ATCSL did the same thing as Balance of Terror?
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.
Premise: John is a good man. He is good because he is caring and insightful. I like John because he is caring and insightful
John becomes abusive and ignorant
Conclusion: I like John because John is a good man?
See the lapse? The predicate good is contingent upon the predicates caring and insightful. Without the predicates caring and insightful we loose good, and the conclusion must be you DO NOT like John because he is NOT a good man. To attribute characteristics that an object was previously endowed with which it does not currently possess is illogical.
Dkehler and Feofilakt, I'm with you here (notwithstanding whatever credentials Ovation may possess, BTW). It seems clear to me that people
are attributing to this film positive qualities that they associate with Trek in general, despite little evidence of those qualities in this film itself. Your analogy here, Feo, is particularly apt.
And no, it's not logical. But sadly, one of the (few) thematic messages in this film (coming from Spock, yet!) seems to be "go with what feels good, not what makes logical sense." That seems to me to undermine a lot of what Trek at its best always stood for... but it's an attitude a lot of fans have cheerfully adopted about this movie.
Indranee, I think what we're "trying to tell you" here is that "Spock's Brain" and other low points were not emblematic of the positive qualities we associate with Trek, and neither is this film. That kind of material is not what built the fan base. There were bad episodes; this is a bad movie. It's perfectly fair to say so.
oh okay. I'm eating, watching MSNBC/TNG/the WH Congressional stuff/talking on the phone and posting. figures I got confused.
yes, Trek is philosophical. yes, we agree.
my point is that you can't hold this movie to the standards of the best Trek eps just as you cannot hold the worst trek eps responsible for bringing down the overall quality of Trek. the fact that Trek brings a certain aura of undeniable depth cannot stipulate that ALL Trek be that way. just as Spock's Brain was part of All-Trek (and a guilty pleasure in itself, at least for me), so is this movie.
the best part of this movie is the fact that it promises newer Trek of quality that we BOTH want. and, hopefully, now that this movie has been deemed a general success, we shall get that which we both want.
Ok, I understand now.
whew.
Yeah, I do hope the next Trek movie has some depth to it, but I remain pessimistic.
JJ Abrams' track record is not stellar in this regard, and we must all remain aware that he is neither an intellectual or an artist. He is, above all else, a businessman and possesses a certain cunning as a result, but the things he produces/directs/writes will always be surfacey and appeal to the lowest common denominator. I have less respect for this guy than I do blokes like Spielburg, who at least put some soul into their films.
Let's just hope the next movie is appealing visually -and- has more substance
I'm not sure you do get my point.
my point is that you cannot judge THIS movie via Trek that has gone before. it's a new incarnation and deserves to be judged on its own merits. the fact is that JJ -- artist or not -- has infused this particular incarnation of Trek with a verve and style that begs to be recognized (and much to my delight -- it has, at that). whether that fits with these "times" just as TOS fit with ITS times is possibly the main determinant in its longevity...
my point is all of you who are judging this movie based on your idea of what Trek should or should not be should take a deep breath and contemplate each and every one of those 79 episodes and the movies. Trek is by no means the yardstick of excellence.
but it is, to most of us, precious. let's not ignore that. none of are objective where Trek is concerned.
I don't see this movie promising future Trek of better quality. I agree that Abrams is about business first and foremost (never mind Paramount!), and at any rate his creative sensibilities were never a good match for Trek from the outset, by his own admission. What I foresee is more lowest-common-denominator stuff like this, with the "Star Trek" name on it but no "Star Trek" spirit in it.
(And I don't really think that's what "fits with the times." If it were, that would be a very depressing statement about our culture.)
Indranee, your statement here at the end seems at odds with where you started out... since your whole point was that you
weren't judging this movie strictly on its own merits, because as a Trek fan you were predisposed to view it favorably. I think its critics
have been assessing it on its own merits... and that seems to annoy a lot of its fans.
I'd love to be pleasantly surprised by future films, but I don't expect it. For the time being, I expect the only place to find new Trek material of the kind I actually value will be in the novels.
---
As for this...
lawman said:
Blue_Trek said:
At the end of the movie, you really do want to see the next adventure this particular group will encounter as they go to warp. And that is what makes this movie the best success, you want to see the sequel.
I really don't. Honestly. My enthusiasm for seeing what these writers and director will do next is pretty much nonexistent.
Now that is what separates the fan base, either your living off the past for your fandom, or your looking at the present and the future.
We are the Neo-Trek fans, Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated
Do you
really want to be analogizing yourself to the Borg, and this film's critics to free-thinking human beings?... That doesn't exactly paint an appealing picture of the "future" you want.
BTW...
When it comes to Kirk's promotion, I say just embrace the mythos. Kirk's quick rise is the stuff of legend.
Not
this quick. He always had several years of history ascending through the ranks. Leapfrogging all of that isn't the legend, it's a retcon. (IMHO a very implausible one.)
