Trek after Nemesis?

[JB2005]

I don't know if I would say racist, but very arrogant.

An arrogance brought about by the belief that they are superior to other races...

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's a fun movie yes, but it's not exactly brilliant storytelling.

This is exactly what I meant. When you take it for what it is - a competently done action-packed, high-budget, fx-loaded joy-ride - it's actually quite good. What it is not, however, is a proper Trek movie.

There isn't really an underlying theme of human nature or social change or anything like that. They kind of play with the whole living up to one's destiny thing, but that's hardly a Trek-specific phenomenon.

Nonsense. Did you miss Spock's story arc? His lifelong struggle with his emotions and eventual self-acceptance? That's pure Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

It's a fun movie yes, but it's not exactly brilliant storytelling.

This is exactly what I meant. When you take it for what it is - a competently done action-packed, high-budget, fx-loaded joy-ride - it's actually quite good. What it is not, however, is a proper Trek movie.

There isn't really an underlying theme of human nature or social change or anything like that. They kind of play with the whole living up to one's destiny thing, but that's hardly a Trek-specific phenomenon.

Nonsense. Did you miss Spock's story arc? His lifelong struggle with his emotions and eventual self-acceptance? That's pure Star Trek.

A journey that we watched over thirty years encompassing 80 episodes and multiple films condensed down to a two-hour film. My biggest problem with the film was it felt like a Cliff Notes version of Star Trek.

 

[The Dominion]

My biggest problem with the film was it felt like a Cliff Notes version of Star Trek.

Me too, it was basically a tribute. Not that that's a bad thing, or not understandable given what it was.

 

[Broccoli]

It's a fun movie yes, but it's not exactly brilliant storytelling.

This is exactly what I meant. When you take it for what it is - a competently done action-packed, high-budget, fx-loaded joy-ride - it's actually quite good. What it is not, however, is a proper Trek movie.

There isn't really an underlying theme of human nature or social change or anything like that. They kind of play with the whole living up to one's destiny thing, but that's hardly a Trek-specific phenomenon.

When it comes down to it, Abrams took Trek in a completely different direction. It's far more mainstream than any other Trek has been before it. And that's fine, as long as you acknowledge it for what it is.

It is no more mainstream now than it was before. Sure, he might have amped up the action, but the ideas of human nature that you attribute to Trek in your post are all over the film particularly with Spock's emotional journey.

But, then, at least we have you to explain to us what is and isn't a "proper" Trek movie.

In fact it took a few steps backwards from other Trek movies:

No.

Vulcans are out and out racists.

Didn't Enterprise explore this?

Spock is encouraged to embrace his emotions instead of seeking logic and emotional control.

Something Amanda encouraged when she appeared in TOS, and Spock eventually came to embracing by the time of the movies. Sure, the development was quickened in the film, but also consider that Amanda died, a catalyst for Spock accepting his emotions much earlier than before.

Humans value controlling their emotions to the extent that if you are upset in anyway, you are considered emotionally compromised and must loose your command when someone won't give you any respect and will just needle you until you get mad and lose your anger.

You are simplifying the situation greatly, but as presented in the film, it sounds a lot like Picard in First Contact.

 

[Dan_theNerd]

It is no more mainstream now than it was before.

Debatable. Here's some facts...

1. The cast for previous Trek have been relatively unknown, whereas Abram's Trek had big name cameos and starring roles.
2. The budget for Abrams Trek was 150 million. That's more than movies 1-6 combined.
3. Abrams was director. Kind of a big name to attach as director of a Trek movie...

...but the ideas of human nature that you attribute to Trek in your post are all over the film particularly with Spock's emotional journey.

Gee wiz, wasn't that already done in Star Trek TMP, The Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country? Come to think of it, isn't that the overriding theme of Spock's character throughout all the TOS movies?

But, then, at least we have you to explain to us what is and isn't a "proper" Trek movie.

I'll admit that "proper" wasn't a very good word for it. Better be more precise; "Imitation", "rip-off", "unoriginal" and finally, "cliche-ridden, barely an excuse to attach the name 'Star Trek'"

 

[Therin of Andor]

Better be more precise; "Imitation", "rip-off", "unoriginal" and finally, "cliche-ridden, barely an excuse to attach the name 'Star Trek'"

I prefer "fond homage", "nostalgic", "exciting" and "much better than Voyager". Hehehehe.

And I'm a fan of ST since TAS and TMP.

 

[Broccoli]

It is no more mainstream now than it was before.

Debatable. Here's some facts...

1. The cast for previous Trek have been relatively unknown, whereas Abram's Trek had big name cameos and starring roles.
2. The budget for Abrams Trek was 150 million. That's more than movies 1-6 combined.
3. Abrams was director. Kind of a big name to attach as director of a Trek movie...

The cast for previous TOS films were about as well known as the cast for the recent movie.

Regardless of these facts, none of them shoot down my point that all of the Trek films were made for mainstream audiences.

...but the ideas of human nature that you attribute to Trek in your post are all over the film particularly with Spock's emotional journey.

Gee wiz, wasn't that already done in Star Trek TMP, The Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country? Come to think of it, isn't that the overriding theme of Spock's character throughout all the TOS movies?

It's the overriding theme of Spock. Why wouldn't they include it?

 

[Vulagr]

Vulcans have been racist from the get-go.

Not really, no. Especially not to the point of calling his human mother a hindrance to Spock's career.

Bigotry? perhaps but bigotry and prejudism are not the exact same thing as racism.

And in Enterprise, their concern was not entirely bigoted. Humans do have many unsavory qualities, especially after having a nuclear war not too long ago.

Remember, Archer did threaten to knock one on their ass.

Why should humans be allowed into space with violent tendencies like that?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Better be more precise; "Imitation", "rip-off", "unoriginal" and finally, "cliche-ridden, barely an excuse to attach the name 'Star Trek'"

Also, better and more true to the original TV series than most Trek movies have been.

 

[The Dominion]

I was temped to say that.

 

[Dan_theNerd]

I prefer "fond homage", "nostalgic", "exciting" and "much better than Voyager". Hehehehe.

Actually, I'd agree with everything you said there. Except maybe being better than Voyager. But I won't get into that now...

Regardless of these facts, none of them shoot down my point that all of the Trek films were made for mainstream audiences.

I'll concede on whether Abrams Trek or other Trek movies are mainstream or not. Little bit lacking on evidence.

It's the overriding theme of Spock. Why wouldn't they include it?

Honestly, I enjoyed the film's portrayal of Spock's inner struggle. But I was arguing more to its merits as original and creative thematic material. Kinda regret it now...

But now that I think about it, perhaps I've been looking at this the wrong way. I suppose if one truly accepts that Abrams' Trek was more of an homage or retelling, nearly anything goes.

I suppose my real problem with Abrams Trek is that it doesn't have the same "feel" to it. I know this sounds anti-rational, and because of that I can't back it up with hard facts, but it doesn't have the same depth for me that other Star Trek does. It also "feels" mainstream and loaded with cliches. But like I said, I don't really have a ton of evidence at the moment, so I guess I'll back down for now.

 

[22 Stars]

Dan, I'm afraid you are a bit off base thinking the new film had 'stars' in leading roles... These actors weren't new to acting but VERY few people knew (or still know the names) Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin. "The guy" from Shaun of the Dead and "the guy" from Harold and Kumar hardly count as household names, lol

The film was a success despite them being well known, it succeeded because it gave audiences what they wanted AND these young actors hit the nail on the head with their portrayals of iconic characters. Not one had a great misstep and that is a huge testimony to them. Many like Pine have/will become famous BECAUSE they did a perfect job.

 

[22 Stars]

Back OT, I too would love to see an animated version of Countdown and the other tie in properties, to give the TNG era actors something to perform and the fans one last time to hear/see them in action.

 

[JB2005]

Dan, I'm afraid you are a bit off base thinking the new film had 'stars' in leading roles... These actors weren't new to acting but VERY few people knew (or still know the names) Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin. "The guy" from Sean of the Dead and "the guy" from Harold and Kumar hardly count as household names, lol

The film was a success despite them being well known, it succeeded because it gave audiences what they wanted AND these young actors hit the nail on the head with their portrayals of iconic characters. Not one hat a great misstep and that is a huge testimony to them. Many like Pine have/will become famous BECAUSE they did a perfect job.

Just gonna say that in England, between Hot Fuzz, Doctor Who, Shaun of the Dead, Run Fatboy Run and a few other things, Simon Pegg's a household name...

 

[22 Stars]

^ no doubt in the UK, i hear ya.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'll concede on whether Abrams Trek or other Trek movies are mainstream or not. Little bit lacking on evidence.

Where have all the Star Trek movies premiered? Big old art deco one-screen theatres, later the biggest screens in suburban cineplexes and now Imax cinemas. Certainly not poky little arthouse venues.

Therefore: mainstream.

I suppose my real problem with Abrams Trek is that it doesn't have the same "feel" to it.

To you. Many of my friends who'd turned their backs on Trek due to DS9, VOY and ENT were with me on opening night, cheering that JJ had managed to recapture that good ol' TOS feel.

 

[Relayer1]

Many of my friends who'd turned their backs on Trek due to DS9, VOY and ENT were with me on opening night, cheering that JJ had managed to recapture that good ol' TOS feel.

I must say that I am amazed that DS9 is included in your 'reasons my friends switched off' list - DS9 was imho the absolute peak of Trek, taking storytelling, plotting and characterisation to levels that I never expected to see from the franchise. JJ's movie was fun but fluff.

However, I do admit that any new Trek on TV is likely to be spun off from the JJverse, and there's nothing wrong with that - indeed, I am really looking forward to the new movie and would rejoice in a spin off TV show.

I have, however, long harbored a desire for a continuation of the TNG / DS9 / Voyager threads, perhaps in a TV miniseries. The fanboy in me would have loved a 'teaser' or pre title segment of Kirk and Co. either during the TOS (clips and CGI) or Movie era (more likely) discovering something that has ramifications in the move TNG era. This would be followed by several episodes featuring cast from the other franchises moving the state of the Trekverse on from where we last saw it.

More than unlikely now though I admit...

 

[CoveTom]

It's all personal taste, but how anyone can think that ST09 captures the "feel" of TOS is beyond me.

But, then again, I'm someone who actually enjoys the slower-paced, more talky Trek episodes than the action packed ones. I'd rather have the characters sitting around a conference table discussing a difficult ethical and moral dilemma than fighting a big action sequence battle any day. I suppose that makes me odd. Then again, if I want to see a big, action-packed battle sequence, I think those that we saw on DS9 are far and away better than those we saw on ST09.

So sue me. *shrug*

 

[Therin of Andor]

I must say that I am amazed that DS9 is included in your 'reasons my friends switched off' list - DS9 was imho the absolute peak of Trek.

They didn't give it a chance. They saw "Emissary" and hated it.

For myself, I ploughed on with DS9, but only started to really enjoy it with "Blood Oath", the unanticipated return of three TOS Klingon characters, and Terry Farrell finally getting a handle on Dax.