That thinking goes back to the TMP novelization, where Roddenberry wrote we had only seen dramatic recreations of TOS.
What are your thoughts about seeing the prime universe again?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
That thinking goes back to the TMP novelization, where Roddenberry wrote we had only seen dramatic recreations of TOS.
Which is a BS criticism since every director of every Trek film has tried to "make it his own." Wise brought an Andromeda Strain approach to the material. Meyer went "nautical but nice." Nimoy made the more socially conscious Trek he wanted with TVH. Shatner tried to make it gritty with rumble and tumble (T.J. Hooker in space). Abrams put a little STAR WARS into STAR TREK (which it needed, imnsho.)
The new films are dumbed down action versions of the originals. What more is there to understand?
A
Amaris
Guest
That they are not that at all, at least to me.
The original TOS films were all about as deep as a puddle of piss. They only tried to keep up the pretense, either because of marketing or actual sloppy in-film exposition.
Abrams just ditched the pretense.
Moreover, each of the three nuFilms proffers its own brand of thematic whimsy and dramatic bite that all the TOS films labored for but never really achieved because they were so bogged down in conceit. TUC is probably the worst offender of this.
Abrams just ditched the pretense.
Moreover, each of the three nuFilms proffers its own brand of thematic whimsy and dramatic bite that all the TOS films labored for but never really achieved because they were so bogged down in conceit. TUC is probably the worst offender of this.
If I may jump in here against my better judgment.
Trek movies are mostly action films, almost without exception. The three most beloved Trek movies (WoK, TUC, and FC) are heaviest on the action content. They do have deeper things to say if the viewer chooses to go digging for it, but one can view them as fun popcorn films too. So that's my first point: the idea that Trek films of old were these Kubrick-esque art films is just silly. They are summer blockbusters.
Second point: the new Trek films (more so STID and Beyond) actually DO have a deeper subtext as well, with interesting things to say beyond the trappings of action movies, if a viewer wants to watch them on that level. Whether or not you agree with that subtext or think it's well done is a different matter, but I think it's disingenuous to say the Kelvin Timeline is devoid of that subtext entirely or that the creators made no attempt at saying something meaningful with those movies. I can go into that subtext, but probably best not to go back and forth about it.
Trek movies are mostly action films, almost without exception. The three most beloved Trek movies (WoK, TUC, and FC) are heaviest on the action content. They do have deeper things to say if the viewer chooses to go digging for it, but one can view them as fun popcorn films too. So that's my first point: the idea that Trek films of old were these Kubrick-esque art films is just silly. They are summer blockbusters.
Second point: the new Trek films (more so STID and Beyond) actually DO have a deeper subtext as well, with interesting things to say beyond the trappings of action movies, if a viewer wants to watch them on that level. Whether or not you agree with that subtext or think it's well done is a different matter, but I think it's disingenuous to say the Kelvin Timeline is devoid of that subtext entirely or that the creators made no attempt at saying something meaningful with those movies. I can go into that subtext, but probably best not to go back and forth about it.
Beyond is the only Star Trek film ever released in the summer (~June 21st to ~September 22nd). Expanding to include all the late Spring films (May & June - 2, 3, 5, and the other Kelvin films), that still covers less than half of all Trek films.
Every other Star Trek film has been released in late November or early December.
The Motion Picture, I believe, was the only real attempt to make a Kubrick-esque (2001-esque to be precise) film, mostly as a counterpoint to Star Wars action style.
Okay so maybe not literally summer blockbusters, but still, their tone and content definitely have that feel.
TMP is the most cerebral of the film series. I think it's underrated, but it wasn't too well received when it came out and most people place it rather low in their Trek film ranking (The Motionless Picture, etc). TFF isn't action-y either, and was very poorly received. The TVH is a fan favorite, and more of a fish out of water comedy, so I'd count that as probably the only well-received non-action Trek film. In any case, the biggest and most revered Trek films are sci-fi action blockbusters.
WB2's assessment of the nuMovies that they suffer from ADD, as compared to TOS and Prime entries, is probably more related to the density of action content, pacing, and fast-cut editing than anything else, such as message and meaning. Such comments are aimed at the kind of modern viewer who can't stand to be exposed to their own thoughts for more than 15 seconds without looking down at their mobile device to escape their lonely existence.
There are a lot of young Trekkies who would resent this kind of dismissive generalization of their attention span or desire to see thoughtful content in their mass media. I mean, I'm 28, I probably fall into this generalization too, and I think it's totally off-base and condescending.
What kind of viewer is that, I'm curious? Do I know them?
Also, ADD is an incorrect term now, as the American Psychiatric Association has classified it in to multiple sub-types, rather than one comprehensive diagnosis.
I'm not sure, but that's the image ADD comments and the mobile culture conjure up to me.
Invoking the DSM to correct a generalized post is rather pedantic - even for me. It's clear the point was understood. It's like correcting grammar.
Last edited:
If we're not sure exactly who we're talking about, maybe we should refrain from talking about them.
Um, no, especially if it is a gross misrepresentation of a medical diagnosis.
The JJ films appeals to the short attention span people because they like the FX fix and aren't interested in much of a plot or character development. The JJ films are clogged with FX grafted over lazy writing .i.e NuSpock parodying OldKirk with the Kahn yell. (I do think the Pegg one is better because the relationships have finally become more significant)
The TOS bores the short attention span people because the films go at a normal movie pace - at least after TMP. And no, they aren't "cerebral", lol, but they are emotionally intense as our our heroes are tested in some profound and significant ways. They are immense people who have developed decades of services behind them.
The TOS bores the short attention span people because the films go at a normal movie pace - at least after TMP. And no, they aren't "cerebral", lol, but they are emotionally intense as our our heroes are tested in some profound and significant ways. They are immense people who have developed decades of services behind them.
I'm not delivering a lecture to the APA. I'm posting to readers of a Star Trek forum. LOL.
