• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Too cerebral

A beaker full of death

Vice Admiral
Admiral
Mods, I put this here because I'm more interested in what the following says about TOS than about nuTrek.

From http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/06/17/chris-pine-says-star-trek-cant-be-cerebral-in-2016/

I'm impressed than Pine knows enough about Star Trek to know the basis of the rejection of the original pilot.
In any event...

Chris Pine Says ‘Star Trek’ Can’t be ‘Cerebral’ in 2016
To “Star Trek Beyond” lead Chris Pine, “Star Trek” is a franchise that can’t be executed “cerebrally” in this day and age...
“You can’t make a cerebral Star Trek in 2016. It just wouldn’t work in today’s marketplace. You can hide things in there – Star Trek Into Darkness has crazy, really demanding questions and themes, but you have to hide it under the guise of wham-bam explosions and planets blowing up. It’s very, very tricky. The question that our movie poses is “Does the Federation mean anything?” And in a world where everybody’s trying to kill one another all of the time, that’s an important thing. Is working together important? Should we all go our separate ways? Does being united against something mean anything?”

I have to say his facile idea of what constitutes profound subtext rather cements his status as the football jock recruited to imitate Captain Kirk.
Thoughts?
 
I was thinking something similar last night.

"Children today are too smart to fall for subtextual allegories and metaphors on TV that are trying to program good-thinking."

Although, the writers only have to be a little smarter than most of their audience.

Been true for thousands of years. :)
 
Mods, I put this here because I'm more interested in what the following says about TOS than about nuTrek.

From http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/06/17/chris-pine-says-star-trek-cant-be-cerebral-in-2016/

I'm impressed than Pine knows enough about Star Trek to know the basis of the rejection of the original pilot.
In any event...



I have to say his facile idea of what constitutes profound subtext rather cements his status as the football jock recruited to imitate Captain Kirk.
Thoughts?
He is absolutely right. The only Trek film that took a crack at cerebral was The Motion Picture, and it was generally panned as a Star Trek outing. The more popular films, TWOK, TVH, and FC, are action oriented adventures (and in TVH a lot of comedy as well). Hell, TWOK and FC are wildly popular among Trek fans, and they're full of explosions, guns, and space battles. What messages are in them are generally hidden below the surface, not to get in the way of the action. So yes, he's absolutely right.
 
What action was there in Star Trek 4?
Not much but it replaced action with comedy, it wasn't cerebral, it was a lighthearted movie that featured Scottie talking into a mouse, a wild chase through a hospital with a gurney, the crew generally acting like fish out of water ... the ecological themes were there but they took a backseat to "You guys like italian?".
 
Mods, I put this here because I'm more interested in what the following says about TOS than about nuTrek.

From http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/06/17/chris-pine-says-star-trek-cant-be-cerebral-in-2016/

I'm impressed than Pine knows enough about Star Trek to know the basis of the rejection of the original pilot.
In any event...



I have to say his facile idea of what constitutes profound subtext rather cements his status as the football jock recruited to imitate Captain Kirk.
Thoughts?
Compared to the lazy, warmed over "topicality" of STIV and STVI, STID is pretty profound. The new movies also have more character growth for the "jock" Kirk..but echoes the Tv show as well.

TOS: Way to Eden:

Bridge

(Many of the crew are moving to the beat)
SCOTT: At least we know where they are and what they're doing. I don't know why a young mind has to be an undisciplined one. They're troublemakers.
KIRK: I used to get into a little trouble when I was that age, Scotty. Didn't you?



RAMA
 
You mean me?

Orci: "We’re trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what’s going on today as possible. So that’s one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today."

Pegg: "I think it's a very current film, and it reflects certain things that are going on in our own heads at the moment; this idea that our enemy might be walking among us, not necessarily on the other side of an ocean, you know.[...]?"

Cumberbatch: "It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era,” he said. And then there’s the message that appears on screen right before the credits: “This film is dedicated to our post-9/11 veterans."
 
I have to say his facile idea of what constitutes profound subtext rather cements his status as the football jock recruited to imitate Captain Kirk.
Thoughts?

That he has a far better grasp of today's marketplace and audience desires than you do. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is my favorite Star Trek movie, I'm not dumb enough to believe audiences would embrace it in 2016.

Also, the Star Trek movie franchise was an action franchise long before Abrams and Pine showed up.

As far as Pine goes, doesn't sound like a "football jock"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Pine

Pine graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 2002, with a bachelor's degree in English.[7][8] He was an exchange student at the University of Leeds in England for one year.[9] After graduating, Pine studied at the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco.[5]
 
The phrase "too cerebral" has been repeated a lot over the years particularly by GR in explaining why NBC rejected "The Cage." But I have never found "The Cage" to be any more cerebral than any of the TOS episodes that followed or any of the vaunted "more adult and nuanced" TNG episodes produced two decades later.

What was the big difference between "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before?" Yes, WNMHGB had a bit more action, but the biggest differences were in execution and casting. WNMHGB was more dynamic in overall execution. And the casting--exemplified by William Shatner (and the rest)--was also far more dynamic and engaging than that of "The Cage." But no way was "The Cage" more cerebral than WNMHGB.

TOS quickly found its groove: a balanced mix of adventure/drama with exploring ideas. Yes, sometimes it could be blunt, but that was offset by being entertaining.

It could well be that NBC didn't even actually say the first pilot was "too cerebral." They might have said something closer to, "It's good, Gene. It's smart and pretty polished for a television production. But it's lacking something. Some of the cast don't have any spark and it feels dry and laid back at times. It needs more."

The objections to "The Cage" could very well have been quite similar to criticisms of TMP a decade later. TMP wasn't any more cerebral than anything TOS had tackled before. But TMP lacked a similar dynamic that "The Cage" had lacked. A number of things went into how "The Cage" and TMP came out the way they did, but essentially some things went missing in translation from idea to execution.


Definitions and expectations have also changed to some extent over the past fifty years. TOS had a good dose of action to it, but it's a snooze compared to the Transformers style that passes for action today.
 
You mean me?

Orci: "We’re trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what’s going on today as possible. So that’s one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today."

Pegg: "I think it's a very current film, and it reflects certain things that are going on in our own heads at the moment; this idea that our enemy might be walking among us, not necessarily on the other side of an ocean, you know.[...]?"

Cumberbatch: "It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era,” he said. And then there’s the message that appears on screen right before the credits: “This film is dedicated to our post-9/11 veterans."
Well that's inaccurate?

(Reality)

A billionaire asshole knocked down two buildings and damaged the Pentagon. The US Government used that as an excuse to attack unrelated targets destabilizing 15 percent of human living space for the last 15 years and counting.

(movie)

An immortal superman bombs London to convene Starfleet's captains, to almost assassinate said captains, so that they will follow him to Q'onoS with super weapons to destroy Q'onoS, that also happen to be Sleeper Stasis Pods for even more immortal supermen, so that the first immortal Superman can steal the missiles stasis coffins from the Admiral organizing a Coup to take over the Federation and exterminate all dangerous aliens, like the Klingons for instance who have probably forgotten about Earth on purpose for mutating them all into Klingon human hybrids.... Seriously, why is Earth still a thing?

The Klingons hadn't done anything.

The Federation hadn't done anything, and all Marcus had done was build a Dreadnought he had plans to use at some-point to take over the galaxy later when the time was right, which right then, it most certainly was not.

Even if you claim that Admiral Marcus is Vice President Cheney in the wake of 911, that's still a history lesson about 2001 and 2002 and not about the fact that we are still dealing with the ramifications of all those lies they told, still now.

(I never go into the movies forum, usually. Sorry.)

All Marcus had to do to win right at the beginning after London, was exterminate his Superman hostages, and take the Dreadnought to Q'onoS to raise the world Khan was standing on.

All Khan had to do was tell a reporter about the Section 31 black budget building secret Federation warships, and Marcus was fucked. Or really, rather than waiting in Klingon space, he should have been on Enterprise as soon as those missiles, his family was loaded on board as cargo, and vented everyone else into space, which is something you can do when you have a transwarp transporter, and the ability to kidnap any one's children.

Kirk didn't have enough true information fast enough, so he probably did the best he could following bad orders from idiots and liars... Oh? That sounds familiar.

Never mind.
 
I'm impressed than Pine knows enough about Star Trek to know the basis of the rejection of the original pilot.
In any event...

But nothing in there really has anything to do with why the original pilot was rejected as according to Solow this was part of the reason

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

They could totally do that today.
 
Maybe he's simply refering to the movies and the constraints of time, what they can reasonably expect any audience to sit through at one time. I doubt he's commenting on the new series coming up, if he knows anything about it's production at all to be able to.

Trying to be cerebral in a movie is always a harder task, especially in a more and more competitive market.
 
I have always objected to the idea that it's an either/or proposition: your film can be action oriented and entertaining or smart, but not both.

Bullshit.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top