The Thing That Worries Me The Most About Trek 11

[slappy]

I realized recently what worries me the most about the new Trek. I'm over the new cast. I'm over the prequel or pseudo-prequel stuff. What I want to see is the message.

Trek never hit people over the head (at least TOS didnt) with preachiness, but it always was socially and politically relevant, even risky in it's day.

I would like to know that Abrams is ready to inject some real intelligence into the work and not just try and please the brass.

 

[Dale]

Frankly I expect flash over substance and an effort to tell a good plot-driven story more than an effort to tell a moral one. It'll be driven by the characters and an exploration of the characters and not by any attempt to convey a message. I don't think a good moral would be a bad thing and I agree that a moral is an important part of the TOS formula most eps, but I'm not expecting one from JJ. He seems to me more a "wow factor" kind of guy.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I'm not worried at all. The further away this movie stays from conveying "a message" the better.

People don't go to the movies to be given a lesson they go to be entertained, if this becomes a soapbox its failed. Oh I have little doubt there will be a "message" of friendship which ok but no highhorses please.

I would like to know that Abrams is ready to inject some real intelligence

I've no doubt it will be intelligent, but intelligent and becoming a "message movie" aren't one in the same thing.

Sharr

 

[AdmiralGarak]

Sharr Khan said:
People don't go to the movies to be given a lesson they go to be entertained, if this becomes a soapbox its failed.

Really? Star Trek IV, with its unsubtle Save the Whales message, couldn't remotely be considered a failure. Nor could Star Trek II and its "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" message.

 

[Sharr Khan]

AdmiralGarak said:

Sharr Khan said:
People don't go to the movies to be given a lesson they go to be entertained, if this becomes a soapbox its failed.

Really? Star Trek IV, with its unsubtle Save the Whales message, couldn't remotely be considered a failure. Nor could Star Trek II and its "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" message.

Star Trek IV is the only ToS "Message Movie" which highly dates it in many regards. I concede it wasn't failure, but then it didn't nearly come the level of TNG in preachiness since the bond between the characters was at the forefront and not the message itself.

Your second point falls closer to the bond of the characters - I hardly think "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" was the working message of "the Wrath of Khan", there were more subtle things going on there about aging and command - and again when Spock brought that up it was about Kirk and his *friendship* with him first and foremost.

Don't make the movie a soapbox that's all I ask. I don't want to look back the movie a decade later and say: "Hey they're commenting on (whatever is the current cause de jur) it needs to be entertaining in its own right and not "good" for whatever cause it might think to push.

Agian a movie can have intelligence & a meaning without being a "message movie" - but all of that should organically come out of the characters and their actions.

Sharr

 

[Dale]

I think if the moralizing is about the human experience in general and not a commentary on modern-day politics it can have a message and still be highly entertaining.

But as I said, I don't expect it.

 

[Proximity_Phaser]

Trek XI is going to be about the 2008 elections.

(Ducks)

 

[Nerys Myk]

TOS didnt hit you overr the head with a message? Er.."Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"? Come on TOS was never too subltle about the message of each episode. At times Kirk would even provide a nice summation.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Nerys Myk said:
TOS didnt hit you overr the head with a message? Er.."Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"? Come on TOS was never too subltle about the message of each episode. At times Kirk would even provide a nice summation.

Compared to the TNG yes it was very subtle - "Your last battlefield" being a sore thumb amongst. Only a handful of ToS eps were ever so direct, some I'm hard pressed to place a message at the forfront. "Space Seed" is a man out of his time episode, not a comment on genetic engineering the message is thin at best. "Balance of Terror" a WWII submarine story and all that entails but no hidden message. "Mirror mirror" ah maybe one man can make a change, but that was buried sofar down and tacked on it was mostly about seeing a darkside to our standard crew. "The Man Trap" salt vampires are bad for your health. Though I grant both pilots had an intelligence and a message to a degree they were way more subtle about it then most of later day trek.

Here again invest the characters with heart so that we care about them, give them a heroic quest and comes out of that leave it open for the audience to decide just don't talk down to them.

I think if the moralizing is about the human experience in general and not a commentary on modern-day politics it can have a message and still be highly entertaining.

If someone feels the need to moralize then yes it should be general (or they should have chosen a different job besides movie making) - if its lacking I won't be dismayed since the only agenda Trek would worry about is being entertaining, that is after all why it exists.

Sharr

 

[Nerys Myk]

Not every TOS had an anvil to the head message. Some times it was just a sledgehammer. The message in "Balance of Terror" was bigoty and prejudice are bad and even the enemy is "human". The whole Stiles vs Spock thing. When Stiles is saved by Spock, he learns not to judge by the color of one's skin or the point of their ears. Then we have the Romulan Commanders last words "No, that is not our way. I regret that we meet in this way. You and I are of a kind. In a different reality, I could have called you friend."

As for "Mirror, Mirror" as you said it's just a commentary on the nature of evil and how one man might change the course of history. Or as Kirk says to the Mirror-Spock "In every revolution,there's one man with a vision."

 

[Proximity_Phaser]

I don't mind a message, as long as it isn't delivered in that smarmy, smug way that makes me want to hit the messenger.

 

[Outpost4]

There is nothing in JJ Abrams past that indicates he's a "message movie" kind of guy. If anything, he's a character driven action kind of guy. Perfect for Trek.

Yes, some of the best episodes of TOS were morality plays. None of the movies were that. Only ST5 came close. I do not expect a sequel to that film.

 

[Franklin]

slappy said:
I realized recently what worries me the most about the new Trek. I'm over the new cast. I'm over the prequel or pseudo-prequel stuff. What I want to see is the message.

Trek never hit people over the head (at least TOS didnt) with preachiness, but it always was socially and politically relevant, even risky in it's day.

I would like to know that Abrams is ready to inject some real intelligence into the work and not just try and please the brass.

I'm not so sure how risky TOS was. I'm of the camp that that point was played up "post hoc" by Roddenberry himself especially. Over time, people started to believe it.
Certainly shows like "All in the Family" and "M*A*S*H", which shortly followed TOS onto the air were far more risky (and deliberately so). Even "Laugh In" during TOS's time was riskier than TOS.

That said, what separated TOS from bubble gum sci-fi of its period (like "Lost in Space" or "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea") was that it was done intelligently and through largely believable characters with whom one could identify.

And franky, there was never anything subtle about the moral of any TOS story. The last TOS movie, TUC, clubs one over the head with its message.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Absolutely Right (TM) about TUC.

ST:TWOK was no more "politically and socially relevant" than any other action and/or skiffy hit film in the Summer of 1982 - possibly less so than a film like "Blade Runner" - and it turned out to be popular with trekkies. So I don't think they have much to worry about in that regard.

 

[xortex]

ST can certainly afford to be more risky and make more bold metaphysical and philosophical statements about the awesome complexity of life, the universe, God and man and how it is all connected. I for one think aliens exist in another dimension made real somehow and not that this is especially a good thing either.

 

[Corran Horn]

The thing that worries me is that the general public may consider Star Trek too 'geeky' and that may lead them to avoid seeing the film. I remember when Statner narrated the Star Trek theme at some awards show a few years ago the crowd started laughing as soon as the music started. That didn't help my view of what people think about Trek.

Somehow, films like Spider-man and X-men aren't considered as 'nerdy' as Trek, which just astounds me.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The last thing that a movie needs to do is take itself too seriously. By that, I mean that if this film's makers were to decide to beat us over the head with overt politicizing, they'd turn off a major segment of the viewing population (regardless of which political perspective they promoted).

Trek was at its most effective when it told compelling stories that had some subtle parallels to real-world events but were not DIRECTLY tied to anything.

Someone could watch "A Private Little War" and, regardless of how they felt about Vietnam, still enjoy the show. They could also choose to read in their own perspective (regardless of whether they were pro- or anti-involvement) and see a nuanced and unoffensive presentation of at least SOME of their own viewpoint.

And that's one of the MOST political TOS Trek episodes.

I'm all for this film having a few sociopolitical subtexts, as long as it's not something like "Wow, isn't the world so much better after they killed off all the Democrats back in 2025" or so forth... AND so long as the subtexts are the PURPOSE of the story.

Again, it all comes down to telling a gripping story with interesting, compelling characters. If you can do that, you can do the subtle sociopolitical stuff and it can work. If you don't do that, the sociopolitical stuff will be just another turn-off to a major segment of the viewing market.

From what I know of this production, I don't expect to see any overt moralizing about the real 2007-ish world.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I'm not so sure how risky TOS was. I'm of the camp that that point was played up "post hoc" by Roddenberry himself especially. Over time, people started to believe it.
Certainly shows like "All in the Family" and "M*A*S*H", which shortly followed TOS onto the air were far more risky (and deliberately so). Even "Laugh In" during TOS's time was riskier than TOS.

Ok, so how come I can get the message and recognize them as messages without haveing ever listened to people tell me that there's a message? I agree that they aren't konking people over the head, but most episodes have an element of "morality" or "philosophy" that the story is ultimately about.

Not that Trek is absolutely unique in that way -- most scifi does the same. I think that's what interests me about the entire genre -- it's about ideas. Character and story matters, but it's not *just* that.

 

[Franklin]

BalthierTheGreat said:

I'm not so sure how risky TOS was. I'm of the camp that that point was played up "post hoc" by Roddenberry himself especially. Over time, people started to believe it.
Certainly shows like "All in the Family" and "M*A*S*H", which shortly followed TOS onto the air were far more risky (and deliberately so). Even "Laugh In" during TOS's time was riskier than TOS.

Ok, so how come I can get the message and recognize them as messages without haveing ever listened to people tell me that there's a message? I agree that they aren't konking people over the head, but most episodes have an element of "morality" or "philosophy" that the story is ultimately about.

Not that Trek is absolutely unique in that way -- most scifi does the same. I think that's what interests me about the entire genre -- it's about ideas. Character and story matters, but it's not *just* that.

Yes, there was a message in some TOS episdoes. But, they were more or less plays on timeless themes which sometimes alluded in an abstract or vague way to current 1960s events. The messages weren't all that controversial, either. They hardly pushed an envelope.

That's actually part of the reason why TOS still has an appeal, today. It's not dated by being too topical.

 

[Ubik]

Yes, there certainly nothing topical about space hippies.


Anyway, everything that J. J. Abrams has produced lately (Lost and Mission Impossible 3) has been highly intelligent, in both thematic complexity and depth of character, not to mention crazy-ass excitement, tension, and suspense. All sounds like the very best of the TOS movies (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, etc). I got no worries here.