Yeah, but it was originally water before he transformed it...
What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?
- Thread starter treklover
- Start date
We're in the odd position of having a movie on our hands that normally would've been justly trashed by critics left and right, if it didn't have "Star Trek" as the title. Usually, it's just the opposite.
It had its moments, but I didn't get hooked on it as a kid because it was "smart" or "intellectual". I got hooked because it was fun and entertaining. The same reason I liked the movie.
There were a lot of subtleties that I think the average person might miss, because of the myriad of distractions in the movie. Seeing it multiple times may help make this clearer.
I was thinking this afternoon about the mixed messages Spock gets from his father early in the film. First, his father tells him that "emotions run deep in us, deeper in some ways than in humans." But when Spock asks why Sarek married "a human," Sarek immediately ducks the question altogether - he doesn't acknowledge that he has emotions to deal with, and Spock gets no example to follow and is given no opening to seek further guidance.
And of course what Spock desperately wants to hear there is that his mother is esteemed and cherished, because the subtext of this very awkward and hesitant conversation is that Spock ain't tellin' what those kids said that set him off.
Utter nonsense. ST movies often followed a similar pattern and critics were not always kind...then they simply got tired of it. The new movie genuinely offered something new, something clever and entertaining and they took note...if it had not been everything it was, they would have taken sheer delight in trashing it, and the mantra of "ST is dead" would have echoed for many years to come...and that's the real story.
RAMA
Same here. I didn't turn it on to get a science or morality lesson. I was looking to be entertained. If I "learned" something it was mostly by accident.
Though it and other shows did send me to the encyclopedia, dictionary and library quite often, but I was a curious kid. Once there I learned that Science wasn't always Trek strong suite. If this movie peaks some kid's interest in black holes ( as wonky as Trek black holes are) and this kid goes on to be a teacher or scientist, then all its bad science ( and bad science of past Treks) can be forgiven. If not, I hope the kid had a good time at the show.
Remark in general:
It's very easy to say the new movie is dumb, isn't it? Anybody who disagrees will immediately find themselves getting the "oh, you thought it wasn't dumb? perhaps you aren't as intelligent then" argument. So, because people don't want to look unintelligent, they simply say the movie was dumb, so they can feel better.
It's very easy to say the new movie is dumb, isn't it? Anybody who disagrees will immediately find themselves getting the "oh, you thought it wasn't dumb? perhaps you aren't as intelligent then" argument. So, because people don't want to look unintelligent, they simply say the movie was dumb, so they can feel better.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
No, we call the movie dumb because it is dumb. I've touched upon several very bad things above, but that's just the beginning. Go into the Trek XI forum, and find my full review of the movie, you get about 85% of all the reasons why this movie is badly written and dumb. 100% is pretty much impossible because a. there are so many things wrong with it, many of them get obscured by the other sheer amount of idiocies, and b. the already rather ridiculously long review would have gotten at least twice as long.
Well, of course, however, "We choose to go to the moon and the other things that are worth doing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Last edited:
I don't remember hardly any of that...
Yay! I'm halfway to erasing this film from my memory!
Pretty soon it'll just be another bad dream I once had, like Nemesis.
You'll get no argument there. I still can't get over it: I liked the movie, had a great time all 3 times I saw it and yet I find myself still sympathizing more with the people who hated this film than those who loved it. I just don't get it.
I'm sure creating the film was hard work and to those involved worth doing. It doesn't have the look of something dashed together on the quick and cheap. Folks seem to think its worth watching too.
You'll get no argument there. I still can't get over it: I liked the movie, had a great time all 3 times I saw it and yet I find myself still sympathizing more with the people who hated this film than those who loved it. I just don't get it.
Yeah, you can sympathize with those who didn't get the film they wanted.
Maybe next time. Though I doubt that film will ever get made, because that "Star Trek" never existed. (Not a reference to alternate timelines.
)
I'm sure creating the film was hard work and to those involved worth doing. It doesn't have the look of something dashed together on the quick and cheap. Folks seem to think its worth watching too.
You'll get no argument there. I still can't get over it: I liked the movie, had a great time all 3 times I saw it and yet I find myself still sympathizing more with the people who hated this film than those who loved it. I just don't get it.
Yeah, you can sympathize with those who didn't get the film they wanted.
Maybe next time. Though I doubt that film will ever get made, because that "Star Trek" never existed. (Not a reference to alternate timelines.
A-ha! This is why I sympathize with those who hate this movie: ultimately, I agree with them in the substance of their argument but not the effect. Yes, this movie is dumber than all but the worst episodes of TOS; yes, this movie does assassinate Kirk's essential character in order to bring him in line with the 21st Century entitled pretty boy brat archetype (and yes, I know this noxious archetype has been around for ages--thing is, Kirk was never an exemplar of it); yes on a thousand other points. The only thing that puts me in your camp rather than theirs is that none of that bugged me enough to keep me from having a good time. That's it. What's more, none of the strenuous defenses of this film convince me that it is any smarter than it is or, conversely, that the best episodes of TOS were any dumber than they were. Revisionism is revisionism and my tolerance for it ends in the theatre, with the deliberately hokey fake planets that accompany the original Sandy Courage theme. Ooooh, how kitschy!
One more thing: a lot of work went into making TMP, a movie I like and you've savaged. Why should I give a pass to the writers of Transformers 1 & 2 and the creator of Felicity if I shouldn't give that same pass to the creator of Star Trek and the director of The Day the Earth Stood Still?
I don't feel a lot of vulnerability on that score relative to the folks who suggest as much.
I don't feel a lot of vulnerability on that score relative to the folks who suggest as much.
Awww, Christ...
And the pissing continues.
On the dumbness scale it probably somewhere in the middle ( for me) As for "bad boy Kirk" I think the genesis of that take is in TWOK and it seems to the version that the public knows best.I'm sure creating the film was hard work and to those involved worth doing. It doesn't have the look of something dashed together on the quick and cheap. Folks seem to think its worth watching too.You'll get no argument there. I still can't get over it: I liked the movie, had a great time all 3 times I saw it and yet I find myself still sympathizing more with the people who hated this film than those who loved it. I just don't get it.
Yeah, you can sympathize with those who didn't get the film they wanted.
Maybe next time. Though I doubt that film will ever get made, because that "Star Trek" never existed. (Not a reference to alternate timelines.
A-ha! This is why I sympathize with those who hate this movie: ultimately, I agree with them in the substance of their argument but not the effect. Yes, this movie is dumber than all but the worst episodes of TOS; yes, this movie does assassinate Kirk's essential character in order to bring him in line with the 21st Century entitled pretty boy brat archetype (and yes, I know this noxious archetype has been around for ages--thing is, Kirk was never an exemplar of it); yes on a thousand other points. The only thing that puts me in your camp rather than theirs is that none of that bugged me enough to keep me from having a good time. That's it. What's more, none of the strenuous defenses of this film convince me that it is any smarter than it is or, conversely, that the best episodes of TOS were any dumber than they were. Revisionism is revisionism and my tolerance for it ends in the theatre, with the deliberately hokey fake planets that accompany the original Sandy Courage theme. Ooooh, how kitschy!
One more thing: a lot of work went into making TMP, a movie I like and you've savaged. Why should I give a pass to the writers of Transformers 1 & 2 and the creator of Felicity if I shouldn't give that same pass to the creator of Star Trek and the director of The Day the Earth Stood Still?
I dont recall asking you (or anyone) to give it a pass. Especially based on the past work of the creators. I happen to love the look of TMP (refit E: best Enterprise ever). I'm sure the guys putting that film together worked their asses off. I just think the script need another go. Made a little tighter and the characters closer to what I knew from TOS. I would never use that JFK quote to try and say something negative about the film and filmmakers involved. Because I don't think it fits. Comparing the making of any film (be it Trek or anything else) to what went into putting a man on the Moon just doesn't work.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Kirk was never "bad boy kirk" in TWOK.
He was portayed as more of a rule-breaker--and from an earlier age--than TOS would have had us imagine him to be. The Kobayashi-Maru, Carol's comment about him never being a Boy Scout and his flouting of regulations--with tragic results--feed into that overall impression.
Oh, I see--I was at a loss as to what you meant by that and so I misinterpretted. As far as that goes, I agree with you; indeed, I think Orci & Kurtzman worked very hard on the story and script and--from what I've read and heard (I refuse to waste the hours to gather first-hand info)--they achieved a script much smarter than the stuff they gave Michael Bay. I also agree that TMP's script could have used more work, though I like the fact that Kirk and Spock are so far from their TOS selves for much of the film, it made them seem more human to me but that's another discussion entirely.
Agreed [with 3D Master]. TWOK Kirk wasn't a bad boy at all, he was a stubborn intellectual.
* He was "never a Boy Scout," but that doesn't make him a "bad boy." To me, it suggests a certain individuality, disdain for group think and doctrine, and lack of interest in merit badges. (No offense to Scouts.) When he knew Carol Marcus as a cadet and young officer, he was probably the first to find a way around the Starfleet way of doing things, maybe didn't fit in at the officer's mess, and shunned the "careerist" mindset that's more concerned about evaluations than effectiveness.
* As a trainee, he didn't cheat on the Kobayashi Maru because he wanted to beat it. He cheated because he rejected the idea of an unwinnable scenario. I interpreted his cheating as an act of protest, intended to draw attention to what he believed to be wasteful, perhaps harmful training.
* His inattention to detail during his first encounter with Khan is simply the result of several decades of intellectual stubborness. By this point in his career he felt that he had learned all he needed, and that his own instincts were superior to the Starfleet system.
Kirk was imperfect in TWOK, but I can see him realistically developing from the "stack of books with legs" at the Academy.
* He was "never a Boy Scout," but that doesn't make him a "bad boy." To me, it suggests a certain individuality, disdain for group think and doctrine, and lack of interest in merit badges. (No offense to Scouts.) When he knew Carol Marcus as a cadet and young officer, he was probably the first to find a way around the Starfleet way of doing things, maybe didn't fit in at the officer's mess, and shunned the "careerist" mindset that's more concerned about evaluations than effectiveness.
* As a trainee, he didn't cheat on the Kobayashi Maru because he wanted to beat it. He cheated because he rejected the idea of an unwinnable scenario. I interpreted his cheating as an act of protest, intended to draw attention to what he believed to be wasteful, perhaps harmful training.
* His inattention to detail during his first encounter with Khan is simply the result of several decades of intellectual stubborness. By this point in his career he felt that he had learned all he needed, and that his own instincts were superior to the Starfleet system.
Kirk was imperfect in TWOK, but I can see him realistically developing from the "stack of books with legs" at the Academy.
I don't feel a lot of vulnerability on that score relative to the folks who suggest as much.
Dennis, don't get personal. Talk about the damned movie, not the fans. *grr*
"Boy Scout" is usually code for a good boy. Superman is called "The Big Blue Boy Scout" because he's a straight arrow who follows the rules, calls his mom every night and helps old ladies cross the street.
If Kirk was what you describe, he was a "bad boy", a rebel, someone swimming against the stream
Perhaps, but it is presented with a somewhat gleeful glint in Kirks eye and followed up by the phrase "I don't like to lose."
Not sure how that ties into Kirk being a "bad boy"
Similar threads
