Kaferian apples and oranges.
What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?
- Thread starter treklover
- Start date
If you wish it to be that, then it is. Otherwise, not at all.
As you wish, then.
(Christ, that was easy.)
(Christ, that was easy.)
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Personally I liked it. Though not without its flaws, I thought it was an improvement across the board from the last several films and I can't wait to see the next one.
But I'm not going to go around give anyone shit for not liking it. What people prefer is their own business and it's not like its affecting me any. IDIC can mean more than just a merchandising item for Lincoln Enterprises.
But I'm not going to go around give anyone shit for not liking it. What people prefer is their own business and it's not like its affecting me any. IDIC can mean more than just a merchandising item for Lincoln Enterprises.
That's not what he meant.
Jeez, what is it with the regulars lately? I haven't seen this much crankiness since I had three daughters living at home with cycles synced.
I don't know, it kind of sounded that way to me, too.
Jeez, what is it with the regulars lately? I haven't seen this much crankiness since I had three daughters living at home with cycles synced.
Theaters showing Trek XI lace their popcorn with estrogen and progesterone.
You heard it here first.
A
Amaris
Guest
I don't know, it kind of sounded that way to me, too.
Jeez, what is it with the regulars lately? I haven't seen this much crankiness since I had three daughters living at home with cycles synced.
Theaters showing Trek XI lace their popcorn with estrogen and progesterone.
You heard it here first.
That is the only rational explanation.
That and John Woo.
J.
We are all "pretending," or none of us are.
Logical conclusions in this kind of discussion proceed from chosen premises, not necessary ones. Star Trek, as fiction and as a "social phenomenon," is chock full of details and signifiers that point in different directions and are in contradiction with one another. Consciously or unconsciously we adopt that part of the material that appeals to us and deprivilege those aspects of it that don't. One can choose to see it through any number of lenses, and the material itself doesn't demand that one evaluate it in a particular way.
My estimation of dkazaz's commentary happens to be different from aridas's. I read dkazaz as a too-familiar example of rationalized generation removed from the writer's naive aesthetic response. Aridas writes about what he felt and experienced when he tried to watch the movie. dkazaz's comments are less interesting than that; I read them as cant and not particularly well-observed.
Star Trek is only history or (pseudo-history), as distinct from fantasy or mythology, if that's the way one chooses to play the game.
Really, the biggest difference between something like the Arthurian legends and Star Trek and is that the former have persisted and evolved for many centuries and the latter is less than fifty years old. Unless one has a scholarly interest, most people who know them are unreflective and certainly untroubled by the extent to which the stories of Arthur or Robin Hood - or for that matter, Romeo and Juliet - have become unmoored from the original historical/social contexts in which they arose. Star Trek is becoming similarly abstract from its origins - if it persists for any substantial length of time it must - and people with some attachment to it who've watched it evolve do notice, and we get to decide how to respond to that.
Logical conclusions in this kind of discussion proceed from chosen premises, not necessary ones. Star Trek, as fiction and as a "social phenomenon," is chock full of details and signifiers that point in different directions and are in contradiction with one another. Consciously or unconsciously we adopt that part of the material that appeals to us and deprivilege those aspects of it that don't. One can choose to see it through any number of lenses, and the material itself doesn't demand that one evaluate it in a particular way.
My estimation of dkazaz's commentary happens to be different from aridas's. I read dkazaz as a too-familiar example of rationalized generation removed from the writer's naive aesthetic response. Aridas writes about what he felt and experienced when he tried to watch the movie. dkazaz's comments are less interesting than that; I read them as cant and not particularly well-observed.
Star Trek is only history or (pseudo-history), as distinct from fantasy or mythology, if that's the way one chooses to play the game.
Really, the biggest difference between something like the Arthurian legends and Star Trek and is that the former have persisted and evolved for many centuries and the latter is less than fifty years old. Unless one has a scholarly interest, most people who know them are unreflective and certainly untroubled by the extent to which the stories of Arthur or Robin Hood - or for that matter, Romeo and Juliet - have become unmoored from the original historical/social contexts in which they arose. Star Trek is becoming similarly abstract from its origins - if it persists for any substantial length of time it must - and people with some attachment to it who've watched it evolve do notice, and we get to decide how to respond to that.
Last edited:
As do we all--and we will disagree, not because we are pretending something is better than it is (sez who?) but because different trekkies are fans of different Treks. I still can't grasp your lack of love for "Journey to Babel," for example, but I can respect it. And I can respect the thought that goes into a post like that. Thanks.
Thank you.
I think I usually rate "Journey" as better than average - a "B," say - just not as first rate. And that has more to do than anything else with what kind of stories one prefers as an individual viewer or reader. I don't love Fontana's stories as much as some do because they tend, IMAO, to boil down to domestic and romantic melodrama with fairly cliche character moves. The four or five second-year episodes that I always think of as excellent all have some fairly strong science fiction or fantasy aspect to the core premise, and "Journey" doesn't.
I like "This Side Of Paradise" a great deal more than "Journey", but in that case she inherited a pretty strong science fiction element from Jerry Sohl's "Way Of The Spores" draft - "Journey" is a little bit of a put-up mystery and a lot of weepy family melodrama (IMAO). Her proclivity for that kind of story shows up again during her time on TNG, in stuff like "Too Short A Season."
Again, I understand that a lot of folks find something really authentic and interesting in the Spock family dilemma particularly as it's dramatized in this episode - and the casting is hard to beat. I just don't agree strongly enough to consider it excellent.
I think I usually rate "Journey" as better than average - a "B," say - just not as first rate. And that has more to do than anything else with what kind of stories one prefers as an individual viewer or reader. I don't love Fontana's stories as much as some do because they tend, IMAO, to boil down to domestic and romantic melodrama with fairly cliche character moves. The four or five second-year episodes that I always think of as excellent all have some fairly strong science fiction or fantasy aspect to the core premise, and "Journey" doesn't.
I like "This Side Of Paradise" a great deal more than "Journey", but in that case she inherited a pretty strong science fiction element from Jerry Sohl's "Way Of The Spores" draft - "Journey" is a little bit of a put-up mystery and a lot of weepy family melodrama (IMAO). Her proclivity for that kind of story shows up again during her time on TNG, in stuff like "Too Short A Season."
Again, I understand that a lot of folks find something really authentic and interesting in the Spock family dilemma particularly as it's dramatized in this episode - and the casting is hard to beat. I just don't agree strongly enough to consider it excellent.
There's also the political dimension, plus sub-plots hich allow Kirk and McCoy both to shine within their spheres. To me, it's the most perfectly balanced TOS episode but not necessarily the most perfect. A most definite "A" for me.
But I get where you're coming from.
But I get where you're coming from.
Big TOS fan, i enjoyed TNG and DS9 also and the later half of ENT, but over all i loved TOS, watch 2-3 episodes a week still and love them just finished watching The Ultimate Computer (one of my favorite episodes actully) and this movie left me feeling empty inside, it was like watching Star Wars to me, lots of good special effects, plenty of over the top acting, and lots of strange going ons.
But overall this movie just failed to impress me in any way, what lessons does it imply, I dont see a great good appearing in the universe, I don't see an enlightened humanity, I see a gaggle of people just as petty as we are today.
The Villian is the worst ever.
Khan - You stranded me and left me on a dead world now I want my revenge (makes sense)
Kruge - Your human and you threaten the Klingon Empire (makes sense)
Sybok - I'm loony and looking for god (makes sense)
Chang - Your changing the Empire I grew up in and I dont want peace (makes sense)
I can go on and I'll list one last villian here from what is considered the worst trek film
Schzion - I'm your clone but they forgot to finish me, I have to kill you to get my missing peices and then to secure my reman future (makes sense)
now we get Nero
I supported you knowing it may not work, I know I have a life span that would let me save my people in the future, I even know killing the federation now prevents an early warning to save my family in the future and the event still happens, but i want to kill the federation and watch Romulus burn anyway
Come on, the worst villian in Star Trek.
But overall this movie just failed to impress me in any way, what lessons does it imply, I dont see a great good appearing in the universe, I don't see an enlightened humanity, I see a gaggle of people just as petty as we are today.
The Villian is the worst ever.
Khan - You stranded me and left me on a dead world now I want my revenge (makes sense)
Kruge - Your human and you threaten the Klingon Empire (makes sense)
Sybok - I'm loony and looking for god (makes sense)
Chang - Your changing the Empire I grew up in and I dont want peace (makes sense)
I can go on and I'll list one last villian here from what is considered the worst trek film
Schzion - I'm your clone but they forgot to finish me, I have to kill you to get my missing peices and then to secure my reman future (makes sense)
now we get Nero
I supported you knowing it may not work, I know I have a life span that would let me save my people in the future, I even know killing the federation now prevents an early warning to save my family in the future and the event still happens, but i want to kill the federation and watch Romulus burn anyway
Come on, the worst villian in Star Trek.
Lazarus is the worst villain in all of Trek.
Come on - "Knowing that another 'me' exists has driven me mad, so much so that I'll see the destruction of several universes to put an end to him."
Uh...yeah.
Come on - "Knowing that another 'me' exists has driven me mad, so much so that I'll see the destruction of several universes to put an end to him."
Uh...yeah.
I thought that dude became more super-powerful every time he whacked another Li?
This is pretty simple. I'm amazed people can't see this.
He felt betrayed by Spock. He blamed Spock for the death of his wife and child.
If someone betrays you and causes the death of your wife and child, what would you do?
Nero would attack that person and the Federation. And then, after time passes, he would prevent the destruction of Romulus with the Red Matter.
Why is that hard to see?
You think Nero attacking the Federation would prevent him from later on using the Red Matter to stop the destruction of Romulus? I think you've got your own plot hole, there.
Nero didn't plan to lose. He planned making OldSpock watch as he destroyed Vulcan, then the Federation.
And then he would do whatever he wished until the supernova threatened Romulus. One drop of the Red Matter would solve that problem.
How is that not obvious?
Joe, shaking head
He felt betrayed by Spock. He blamed Spock for the death of his wife and child.
If someone betrays you and causes the death of your wife and child, what would you do?
Nero would attack that person and the Federation. And then, after time passes, he would prevent the destruction of Romulus with the Red Matter.
Why is that hard to see?
You think Nero attacking the Federation would prevent him from later on using the Red Matter to stop the destruction of Romulus? I think you've got your own plot hole, there.
Nero didn't plan to lose. He planned making OldSpock watch as he destroyed Vulcan, then the Federation.
And then he would do whatever he wished until the supernova threatened Romulus. One drop of the Red Matter would solve that problem.
How is that not obvious?
Joe, shaking head
Similar threads
