I thought both of the Abrams films were just as "smart" as any other Star Trek produced. It just wasn't as "in your face" about it.
Too cerebral
- Thread starter A beaker full of death
- Start date
I thought both of the Abrams films were just as "smart" as any other Star Trek produced. It just wasn't as "in your face" about it.
Cross posting what I've said on Reddit and the nuTrek forum.
A lot of folks are having a knee-jerk reaction to the first line in Pine's quote without considering the context. What he's saying is that if you were to do anything cerebral, ask tough questions, you have to hide it in the guise of a summer blockbuster. To which, by and large, is true for tentpole movies like STAR TREK.
Movies like MOON aren't tentpole movies and can be a bit more cerebral and daring.
STAR TREK, however, is a blockbuster franchise now — something that it's always been trying to be since TMP and TWOK.
And STAR TREK has always hid cerebral in the guise of action-adventure. That's what TOS was all about. To be frank, the cerebral-ness of Trek has always been exaggerated. Trekkies see the show through rose-colored VISORs. TOS was on par with other contemporary dramas that were also tackling tough issues, such as drug addiction, abortion, etc. It's just that TOS is more remembered than say something like THE DEFENDERS.
A lot of folks are having a knee-jerk reaction to the first line in Pine's quote without considering the context. What he's saying is that if you were to do anything cerebral, ask tough questions, you have to hide it in the guise of a summer blockbuster. To which, by and large, is true for tentpole movies like STAR TREK.
Movies like MOON aren't tentpole movies and can be a bit more cerebral and daring.
STAR TREK, however, is a blockbuster franchise now — something that it's always been trying to be since TMP and TWOK.
And STAR TREK has always hid cerebral in the guise of action-adventure. That's what TOS was all about. To be frank, the cerebral-ness of Trek has always been exaggerated. Trekkies see the show through rose-colored VISORs. TOS was on par with other contemporary dramas that were also tackling tough issues, such as drug addiction, abortion, etc. It's just that TOS is more remembered than say something like THE DEFENDERS.
Last edited:
Cerebral is a loaded term. What should really be discussed is the difference between substance and fluff. Are the characters engaging (intellectually and emotionally)? Do I care about what they are doing on screen (both the journey and the destination/consequences)? And do I feel like I'm part of the story (that is, do the film makers respect their audience)? Too many of these movies are little more than fireworks shows or roller coaster rides.
A good (recent) example would be to compare Captain America 3 with Batman v Superman.
Cap 3 hit all of the substance points. And even though they didn't need to (because of the previous films) they still kept the characters engaging (it helped that these were the same guys who did Cap 2). There were some nice action pieces that were fun, but that isn't why I'd watch the movie over and over again... the characters and what happens to them is the strongest part of the movie for me.
BvS cheated on character development/engagement by assigning familiar names to actors on the screen. The film makers are attempting to skip important steps with the characters and haven't earned my caring about them. Even worse, the film makers didn't care about the characters (or the audience) as much as the individual action sequences. It seems as though those action sequences were planned out first and at the last minute a story was put together to get the characters from one sequence to the next.
The new Trek films want to be Star Wars. Further, the film makers (like in BvS) have slapped the names of characters onto actors and assumed we (the audience) will transfer our previous connections onto them. Honestly, the new Trek films only really needed Kirk, Spock, Uhura and Pike (and maybe Scott) to work. Those are the only characters given any substance, and jettisoning the others would have given more time to grow the ones that mattered.
Heck, they destroy the Enterprise in this new film... do I care? No. I have no connection to it, it has only been around for a short time, so it hasn't earned that connection. I really felt the loss of the Enterprise in the Search for Spock because there was the original series before the movies. I felt the loss of the Enterprise D (a design I didn't care for originally) in Generations because it had seven seasons of episodes behind it. But the new Enterprise hasn't earned that type of emotional connection, so it was a wasted plot device.
I made no connection to Superman in Man of Steel, and his character wasn't grown in BvS, so I didn't really care when he died. I was invested in the characters of Iron Man and Captain America, so the death of their friendship mattered to me. You don't need multiple movies to get an audience invested in characters if they are well written, so I have some hope for the new Trek movie, but I think (based on the destruction of the Enterprise) they are assuming we already have a connection that they haven't quite earned.
That is what I mean by substance and fluff. I liked Interstellar and The Martian, I didn't really care for Gravity because it felt like BvS (stringing us along between colossal destruction events) with a character that wasn't that engaging.
The best of Trek made it to the screen by accident because it was a television series. Putting up 24 episodes each year for three years meant the good stuff could slipped through. Three movies in seven years means only the most marketable stories will make it to screen... the lowest common denominator of story lines. This is why I've always felt like Trek shouldn't be a movie franchise.
A good (recent) example would be to compare Captain America 3 with Batman v Superman.
Cap 3 hit all of the substance points. And even though they didn't need to (because of the previous films) they still kept the characters engaging (it helped that these were the same guys who did Cap 2). There were some nice action pieces that were fun, but that isn't why I'd watch the movie over and over again... the characters and what happens to them is the strongest part of the movie for me.
BvS cheated on character development/engagement by assigning familiar names to actors on the screen. The film makers are attempting to skip important steps with the characters and haven't earned my caring about them. Even worse, the film makers didn't care about the characters (or the audience) as much as the individual action sequences. It seems as though those action sequences were planned out first and at the last minute a story was put together to get the characters from one sequence to the next.
The new Trek films want to be Star Wars. Further, the film makers (like in BvS) have slapped the names of characters onto actors and assumed we (the audience) will transfer our previous connections onto them. Honestly, the new Trek films only really needed Kirk, Spock, Uhura and Pike (and maybe Scott) to work. Those are the only characters given any substance, and jettisoning the others would have given more time to grow the ones that mattered.
Heck, they destroy the Enterprise in this new film... do I care? No. I have no connection to it, it has only been around for a short time, so it hasn't earned that connection. I really felt the loss of the Enterprise in the Search for Spock because there was the original series before the movies. I felt the loss of the Enterprise D (a design I didn't care for originally) in Generations because it had seven seasons of episodes behind it. But the new Enterprise hasn't earned that type of emotional connection, so it was a wasted plot device.
I made no connection to Superman in Man of Steel, and his character wasn't grown in BvS, so I didn't really care when he died. I was invested in the characters of Iron Man and Captain America, so the death of their friendship mattered to me. You don't need multiple movies to get an audience invested in characters if they are well written, so I have some hope for the new Trek movie, but I think (based on the destruction of the Enterprise) they are assuming we already have a connection that they haven't quite earned.
That is what I mean by substance and fluff. I liked Interstellar and The Martian, I didn't really care for Gravity because it felt like BvS (stringing us along between colossal destruction events) with a character that wasn't that engaging.
The best of Trek made it to the screen by accident because it was a television series. Putting up 24 episodes each year for three years meant the good stuff could slipped through. Three movies in seven years means only the most marketable stories will make it to screen... the lowest common denominator of story lines. This is why I've always felt like Trek shouldn't be a movie franchise.
I couldn't even tell you what the last two Captain America films were about and I saw both recently.
About? The last two were about 2:20 long.I couldn't even tell you what the last two Captain America films were about and I saw both recently.
Doesn't it?
I don't know because Captain America doesn't have nearly the history for me as Star Trek. I never read Captain America comics (or Iron Man, or the Avengers) growing up, so I have no reference. I did read Spider-Man, Batman, and some Superman, and those film series have been as hit and miss as the Trek film series.
Nolan did an amazing job with Batman for three films, but at the time it was a franchise the studio had all but abandon. Batman Begins had two sequels because the studio had low expectations to begin with, but Superman Returns did almost the same at the box office and was shelved again for not meeting expectations. So yeah, good films can happen when studios let them be made.
Again, I don't know about Captain America because I don't know if better stories exist somewhere else. I know that his first three films (two in 1979, one in 1990) were awful, so the character is batting .500 (if we don't count the Avengers films).
I know that the DC's television universe revolving around Arrow is significantly better than DC's cinematic universe so far. So yeah, as a general trend (rather than the black-n-white, concrete statement you were attempting to read it as) I'd say it holds up pretty well.
It is possible to make a good quality film series, but the deck is stacked against it, specially if the studios have high expectations. The MCU was started with B/C list heros from Marvel... I had read comic books for years and knew nothing about Iron Man or Thor, and (as I said) Captain America had three previous films that were awful. The fact that Captain America: The First Avenger was a good film was pleasant surprise.
The other way of looking at it is that films should only be made when you have a compelling story to tell. I loved The Incredibles, but Bird has said that there isn't going to be a sequel until he has a story worth telling. Maybe Star Trek, Star Wars, Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan, Marvel and DC should operate that way... if you don't have a compelling story, hold off on making a film.
Honestly, I don't hold out much hope for Star Trek as a TV series today either. Most series are based on season long story arcs which goes against good stories slipping in. Not a black-n-white statement (any more than the quoted one above), so please don't read it that way.
That's why some factions in Hollywood resisted talkies at first, because silents were more universal for foreign markets and all you had to do to localize was replace the intertitle cards.
Now, PMFBD*, but is it actually confirmed that NBC rejected "The Cage" for being too cerebral?
Meaning, it's not some urban legend that turned out to be false, like the bit about Number One being written out due to Roddenberry supposedly getting letters that complained about "who does she think SHE is?" (Or the thing about Pravda complaining that there was no Russian on the ship, thus begetting Chekov)
* Pardon Me For Being Dense
Meaning, it's not some urban legend that turned out to be false, like the bit about Number One being written out due to Roddenberry supposedly getting letters that complained about "who does she think SHE is?" (Or the thing about Pravda complaining that there was no Russian on the ship, thus begetting Chekov)
* Pardon Me For Being Dense
It's covered in the Solow/Justman book. IIRC, "cerebral" was just code for sexy.
I think that scene was grossly sexist even for the times.
I thought both of the Abrams films were just as "smart" as any other Star Trek produced. It just wasn't as "in your face" about it.
I'm sorry... there's something subtle in nuTrek?
Well if he ain't one, he sure plays one in the Trek movies.
Must be, as you missed it.
So did Shatner in TOS and the original films. Except for that brief second Kirk was into "that long haired" stuff.
Of course, being actors, playing what they aren't is the job. Confusing the actor with the role is a rookie mistake.
Similar threads
