Who said that?
What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?
- Thread starter treklover
- Start date
Who said that?
I'm deeply saddened that I've let you down... one less voice to say "I hate nuTrek!!" Maybe you ought to relax a little... these are TWO different versions of Star Trek. The original is still prized and cherished... nothing has been taken away. Please... will you just relax and enjoy the ride? Sheesh.
"Development" means you get to know the characters better at the end than when they first walked in. THAT is development. The one you're talking about is character "GROWTH". And you can't do that in a 2 hour movie... you need a series for that.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that this move is perfect. It is not--there are plenty of weak spots. You have mentioned a few. But that does not overshadow the main thrust of the movie. It was fun. And despite the far reachings, I really think the sequel has a chance at being even better.
Which film do you think Warped9 was refering to?
One thing Mallory and I have always loved about this forum is that we rarely have to warn people. Until recently.
I've always been proud of that. It means that mostly people act like adults, not like the retards the frequent so much of the internet.
Yet this week, both of us had to give warnings. I hadn't done one is so long I had forgotten how to do it!
Now - the problem we are seeing is obvious in this thread. It is a LACK OF RESPECT. And before anyone says, "Well Mommy, he started it," I'll say two things: 1) I don't give a fuck who started it, and 2) I'm ending it.
Just in a page and a half, I pulled the following that I found problematic. I'm sure there are lots more in the thread. You'll note that I didn't add names to the quotes. That is on purpose. You see, I don't SEE names when I mod. I see POSTS. Which means I (or Mal) don't "gun" for certain people as some seem to believe.
Problem posts:
*
The problem here is two-fold: 1) lack of respect and 2) getting personal which translates to insulting someone else.
I've found so often that when one gets personal, that it gets ugly. Have ANY of you forgotten that Star Trek (and Star Trek XI as I call the movie) are MAKE-BELIEVE PRETEND THINGS!? There IS no Kirk! There IS no Spock! There IS no Enterprise - whether built in San Francisco, Iowa or Timbuctu.
It's all make-believe. So you are getting angry over this WHY?
It needs to end. As I said, I don't care who started it. If someone says something you don't like, if you can't deal with it, DON'T POST A RESPONSE. How hard is that? Truly? I have to do it all the time. It gets real easy with practice. Just. Walk. Away. If someone keeps persisting in being a dick, when no one responds, it's crystal clear to the mods where the problem is. If you respond to a "bad post," YOU become part of the problem.
I am dealing with a kid who has Swine Flu (in my house.) I do NOT need to have to referee people who are intolerant of other viewpoints. I am stressed enough.
Like the movie or not, there is room for all of our opinions. There are people on this BBS who feel very differently about the movie than I do. Does that mean their viewpoints are less valid than mine? No. Does it mean that they are wrong and I am right? No. It simply means they either liked the movie more than I did, or hated it more than I did. At the end of the day, it means NOTHING because it's just a damned movie!
The personal stuff stops now. No longer will "He started it!" or "You always pick on the group with which I agree" be valid reasons (as if they ever were.) I'm sure I can speak for Mallory too when I say that neither of us gives a tinker's dam (as mods) if you love the movie or hate it, anymore than we care if you prefer Kirk to Spock, Chapel to Uhura.
This is the TOS discussion forum. Not a fighting ring. Neither of us like to warn but if this continues, we will warn. I will, after this post. Bear that in mind. And don't give me the passive-aggressive "Well, I'm LEAVING! You're unfair!"-type post. You know what? I've run this board for years. I hear that from aggrieved posters all of the time. I don't cater to that type of thing. If you want to leave, don't let the door hit you where the Lord split you. Go. However, if you elect to stay and not stalk off in a huff, post like an adult, not a petulant brat.
To the 95% to whom this doesn't apply, thank you. I appreciate you guys and have always loved that this has been a well-behaved forum 'til recently. To the other 5%, you're on notice. Shut it or you'll get warned, and as you know, I'm the court of last appeal so your chances of it being overturned are nil.
So this is your notice, for those who continue to act up. Can't say I didn't warn you.
I've always been proud of that. It means that mostly people act like adults, not like the retards the frequent so much of the internet.
Yet this week, both of us had to give warnings. I hadn't done one is so long I had forgotten how to do it!
Now - the problem we are seeing is obvious in this thread. It is a LACK OF RESPECT. And before anyone says, "Well Mommy, he started it," I'll say two things: 1) I don't give a fuck who started it, and 2) I'm ending it.
Just in a page and a half, I pulled the following that I found problematic. I'm sure there are lots more in the thread. You'll note that I didn't add names to the quotes. That is on purpose. You see, I don't SEE names when I mod. I see POSTS. Which means I (or Mal) don't "gun" for certain people as some seem to believe.
Problem posts:
*
The problem here is two-fold: 1) lack of respect and 2) getting personal which translates to insulting someone else.
I've found so often that when one gets personal, that it gets ugly. Have ANY of you forgotten that Star Trek (and Star Trek XI as I call the movie) are MAKE-BELIEVE PRETEND THINGS!? There IS no Kirk! There IS no Spock! There IS no Enterprise - whether built in San Francisco, Iowa or Timbuctu.
It's all make-believe. So you are getting angry over this WHY?
It needs to end. As I said, I don't care who started it. If someone says something you don't like, if you can't deal with it, DON'T POST A RESPONSE. How hard is that? Truly? I have to do it all the time. It gets real easy with practice. Just. Walk. Away. If someone keeps persisting in being a dick, when no one responds, it's crystal clear to the mods where the problem is. If you respond to a "bad post," YOU become part of the problem.
I am dealing with a kid who has Swine Flu (in my house.) I do NOT need to have to referee people who are intolerant of other viewpoints. I am stressed enough.
Like the movie or not, there is room for all of our opinions. There are people on this BBS who feel very differently about the movie than I do. Does that mean their viewpoints are less valid than mine? No. Does it mean that they are wrong and I am right? No. It simply means they either liked the movie more than I did, or hated it more than I did. At the end of the day, it means NOTHING because it's just a damned movie!
The personal stuff stops now. No longer will "He started it!" or "You always pick on the group with which I agree" be valid reasons (as if they ever were.) I'm sure I can speak for Mallory too when I say that neither of us gives a tinker's dam (as mods) if you love the movie or hate it, anymore than we care if you prefer Kirk to Spock, Chapel to Uhura.
This is the TOS discussion forum. Not a fighting ring. Neither of us like to warn but if this continues, we will warn. I will, after this post. Bear that in mind. And don't give me the passive-aggressive "Well, I'm LEAVING! You're unfair!"-type post. You know what? I've run this board for years. I hear that from aggrieved posters all of the time. I don't cater to that type of thing. If you want to leave, don't let the door hit you where the Lord split you. Go. However, if you elect to stay and not stalk off in a huff, post like an adult, not a petulant brat.
To the 95% to whom this doesn't apply, thank you. I appreciate you guys and have always loved that this has been a well-behaved forum 'til recently. To the other 5%, you're on notice. Shut it or you'll get warned, and as you know, I'm the court of last appeal so your chances of it being overturned are nil.
So this is your notice, for those who continue to act up. Can't say I didn't warn you.
Well, yes and no. The distinction you're making is a good one, though.
If you're telling a story which is self-contained then you want to take the characters through their arcs whether it's a two-hour movie or a fifteen-minute radio play. The problem is with characters who will by design remain somewhat static in their relationships and behavior because they're going to occupy certain places in a multi-part or very lengthy story for a number of episodes.
Kirk, Spock and McCoy developed quite a bit in three years, but even given 70-odd episodes they grew very little.
In this movie, Spock does go through a process of recognizing and overcoming some of his blindness to his own emotional nature - he's in denial about how deep his emotional attachments are and the degree to which they and his human pride motivate him. Kirk's casual stance in flouting authority really gets under his skin because you can't just do that - you have to rebel covertly so that you can deny it to the Vulcan Science Council (and probably to yourself).
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Yeah, uh, character development IS character growth. Besides which, we DID NOT get to know the characters better. We didn't get to know anything about Kirk that isn't cliche-ridden bad boy a-hole, and Spock the poor abused boy and... well... nothing. He goes a bit on about liking logic, but he seems to be doing nothing but illogical things, like doing his student without any developing of why what so ever.However, growth happens in movie after movie after movie; horrifyingly, I can names scores and scores and scores of COMEDIES that have character "growth"/development. Characters start out in one place, there's lots of comedy and by they end they've learned a lesson and have grown. It's very simplistic and cliche character "growth", but it's there. So if comedies can do it, why can't a serious movie? Well, serious movies can, just not Star Trek because it is badly written.
It wasn't fun. It was way too badly written to be fun.
Yeah, that's why it flopped so dismally.
I have yet to see anyone posit that a film can't be smart and fun at the same time.
^^ And yet that's what this film was. Even a lot of people who've said they thought it was fun have also acknowledged it being dumb.
A lot of people around here (as well as folks I work with) keep saying, "Yeah, but they were going for a new audience." It always comes across as an excuse to say they made it silly or no one wpould be interested.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Abrams wanted to change the nature of Star Trek and dumb it down. He succeeded. It is what it is.
The other argument that TOS did silly things. Yes, it did. But TOS isn't generally remembered for what it did wrong. Far more often it's remembered for what it did right. And it did more good stuff than bad. So in that respect the film is not respecting the original subject matter because it's only going for the level of TOS' lesser efforts, and it can't even match those.
"Spock's Brain." Flawed execution? Definitely. But there's a genuinely good science fiction story idea at the heart of the episode, and contrary to popular myth I strongly suspect the story was never really meant to be camp humour at all for the simple reason that TOS handled humour better than any of the spinoffs. And if they had wanted a humorous episode I'm dead certain they could have pulled it off simply because of earlier examples as precedent. "Spock's Brain" at its core is consistent with the kind of stories TOS often did well and it's light years smarter than Trek XI.
A lot of people around here (as well as folks I work with) keep saying, "Yeah, but they were going for a new audience." It always comes across as an excuse to say they made it silly or no one wpould be interested.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Abrams wanted to change the nature of Star Trek and dumb it down. He succeeded. It is what it is.
The other argument that TOS did silly things. Yes, it did. But TOS isn't generally remembered for what it did wrong. Far more often it's remembered for what it did right. And it did more good stuff than bad. So in that respect the film is not respecting the original subject matter because it's only going for the level of TOS' lesser efforts, and it can't even match those.
"Spock's Brain." Flawed execution? Definitely. But there's a genuinely good science fiction story idea at the heart of the episode, and contrary to popular myth I strongly suspect the story was never really meant to be camp humour at all for the simple reason that TOS handled humour better than any of the spinoffs. And if they had wanted a humorous episode I'm dead certain they could have pulled it off simply because of earlier examples as precedent. "Spock's Brain" at its core is consistent with the kind of stories TOS often did well and it's light years smarter than Trek XI.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Bringing up comedy is a good point; in an excellent comedy-drama like MIDNIGHT RUN, you have CREDIBLE development in the lead, in that the events of the film finally allow him to accept what he has lost in his personal life and move on. But that is after points are hinted at, established, discussed, put into conflict that ties into the main focus of the movie, and ultimately, serve as a huge turning point in the story's resolution. And they didn't need to pull an artificially happy ending for the protagonist, like his wife leaves the dirty cop and comes to live with him, because THAT kind of happy ending -- like many tales where the hero gets the medal and/or the promotion in addition to winning the day -- would undercut the credibility of the story.
Now I'm suggesting any TREK movie, or most any SF movie, is as well-written or -acted as MIDNIGHT RUN (I still have to pinch myself that the Breslin guy directed it, I hate his stuff), but it does show that you can do a fun show that doesn't often stretch credibility too far and still have moving and significant character stuff go on that doesn't verge on the arbitrary or the absurd or deux ex machina.
Excellent analysis, Dennis.
Like me. And I still maintain that it is easier to be fun and dumb than fun and smart and that a movie's chance to rake in dough fall off precipitously once the movie proceeds north of the lower middle-brow.
Transformers 2 just had a record opening. Jesus wept.
I'm not out to be "right" on this, just make clear what my observations were. Disputing my opinion is fine, but as long as it is properly understood. I'll tip my hat and admit I didn't explain myself as well as I could have, especially what I meant by distinguishing between "development" and "growth." So, let me elaborate:
By "development" I meant a gradual exposure of the character's personality traits. By "growth" I meant as the character's full nature is revealed, which is a combination of the character going through a multitude of situations and the actor becoming more intimate and fluent with the persona. The latter is rarely achieved in a movie, but much more possible in a series. And although TOS was inefficient at showing character growth, there was definitely some of it. That's what formed our perceptions and opinions of the main characters, what is being inaccurately used as a yardstick against the nuTrek characters. Their "development" wasn't perfect... I would have liked to have seen much more of it, in place of special effects. I'd rate it a B-, given the constraints of the screenplay's timing.
Now, about the movie being fun... For what it covered (story and execution), it *was* fun. It was NOT an intellectual exercise with a deep message behind it, as most TOS episodes were. If that's what some people are caught up on, remember you're trying to compare a movie to a series. Think about the TOS movies... the Wrath of Khan was very popular... was it an intellectual exercise? No. It was a simple premise--bad guy that Kirk dumped off on a planet is psychotically mad at Kirk for not keeping tabs on him after the orbit shift of Ceti Alpha V devastating the planet's environment. By pure serendipity, he is able to hijack a Federation vessel to track down Kirk and kill him. A vengeance scenario. And I think it is undeniable that there were tons of holes in that whole story.
So yes, if there were folks who wanted to see ST:XI to look more like a TOS episode story, they're not going to have fun with it.
By "development" I meant a gradual exposure of the character's personality traits. By "growth" I meant as the character's full nature is revealed, which is a combination of the character going through a multitude of situations and the actor becoming more intimate and fluent with the persona. The latter is rarely achieved in a movie, but much more possible in a series. And although TOS was inefficient at showing character growth, there was definitely some of it. That's what formed our perceptions and opinions of the main characters, what is being inaccurately used as a yardstick against the nuTrek characters. Their "development" wasn't perfect... I would have liked to have seen much more of it, in place of special effects. I'd rate it a B-, given the constraints of the screenplay's timing.
Now, about the movie being fun... For what it covered (story and execution), it *was* fun. It was NOT an intellectual exercise with a deep message behind it, as most TOS episodes were. If that's what some people are caught up on, remember you're trying to compare a movie to a series. Think about the TOS movies... the Wrath of Khan was very popular... was it an intellectual exercise? No. It was a simple premise--bad guy that Kirk dumped off on a planet is psychotically mad at Kirk for not keeping tabs on him after the orbit shift of Ceti Alpha V devastating the planet's environment. By pure serendipity, he is able to hijack a Federation vessel to track down Kirk and kill him. A vengeance scenario. And I think it is undeniable that there were tons of holes in that whole story.
So yes, if there were folks who wanted to see ST:XI to look more like a TOS episode story, they're not going to have fun with it.
Thanks, Dennis. I think you do a better job of communicating what I wanted to say. And citing the specific examples really helps. Spock's coming to grips with and working with his Vulcan legacy to suppress emotion and Kirk's realization of how to rebel effectively. 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.
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'd be afraid seeing it multiple times might cause epilepsy.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
What growth!? There isn't any growth. The characters at the end, are exactly the same as in the beginning. Kirk is still the same arrogant, disrespectful bastard, Spock is still the same logic-driven guy - who isn't doing anything logical; and the rest, are really just along for the ride.
It was NOT fun. A fun movie would need to be coherent and have a well-built structure. A fun movie would not have you look at the screen with dropped jaw at the sheer incompetency and horror of a movie, and give you the urge to smash your head into the nearest wall in the attempt to screw up your short term memory so you don't have to remember the sheer horror of what you just watched.
And no, STII, does NOT have tons of holes in the story. It only has one or two, in fact, the ones you mentioned - and that's it. And here's the rub; these small, and they are small, and only plot holes, GET THE STORY GOING. You are allowed a few flubs, IF it gets the story going, or keeps it going. It would have been better if you could have written it without any plotholes at all, but a very few tiny ones that get the story going can be overlooked.
STXI, however, had 14, count them, 14 plotholes and idiocies, in JUST ONE 4 MINUTE SCENE. It would have been horrible enough if they were the only 14 plotholes in the entire movie (quite frankly 14 plotholes in an entire movie is way too much), but it goes on, and on, scene after scene, plothole after plothole after plothole, after idiocy after idiocy after contrivances after coincidences. And on top of that, you could cut the scene out of the movie - and you'd have the same movie; it does nothing for the plot.
Which scene am I talking about; Kirk trying to warn the bridge crew the Narada is at Vulcan. Quick shortened list of problems and idiocies that are in this scene: Uhura is reduced to an in dereliction of duty idiot (not sending the message of the Narada destroyed 47 Klingons up to Starfleet command), the Vulcans are reduced to complete idots sending "we have detected Earthquakes" instead of sending "there's this giant ass ship that just destroyed our militia fleet and is now drilling a hole into our planet", the whole bridge crew and Kirk are reduced to illogical buffoons, Sulu is made to look like a complete idiot unable to perform the one task he's trained most of all to do, the brand new flagship of Starfleet has no subspace/FTL sensor-less the very sensors it needs to get anywhere safely at warp speeds, a communications Lieutenant is made to look like an even bigger idiot wondering whether he can differentiate Vulcan from Romulan when there are NO transmissiosns AT ALL, and there are many, many more things.
And what was it for? Nothing. The concept of the scene is warning the bridge crew that Vulcan is under attack and they're heading for the attacker. Yet, when he succeeds, and they drop out of warp, they are at Vulcan and at the Narada anyway, making the entire scene useles. Worse, Nero then chooses not to destroy them, because he wants young Spock to watch just like old Spock.
So, if Enterprise had flown wide-eyed into "the trap", we would have the exact same result, the same movie. All those plotholes and idiocies, for absolutely nothing. In fact, if Sulu wasn't reduced to an idiot and the Enterprise arrived properly along with the fleet, Nero would have disabled the Enterprise, and the crew would have been forced to watch the Narada destroy the rest of the fleet without getting a scratch on it driving home just how hopeless the situation is; it would have been a fantastic spacebattle and a fantastic dramatic scene. The movie would have been better - MUCH better.
By contrast, look at STII. It's basic plot maybe light, but what's done with it, and how everything else is treated. The character-growth of Kirk's son going from hating his father and Starfleet to grudging respect. The revelation Kirk has a son and the mother wouldn't allow him contact. The whole theme of the no-win scenario, and Spock's solution. And on and on. And every scene, and every character interaction and drama piece is allowed the proper amount of time and pacing to develop and come to fruition. This movie has multiple layers - it's a masterpiece.
STXI is just unfunny juvenile jokes stringing along SFX piece after SFX piece. There are hardly any, if any at all, character moments and drama, and if they're there, they're either overshadowed by the multiple plotholes that allowed them to happen, muffled away and diminished by an intruding dumb joke, or not dealt with all. How Spock went from logical person that would only look at a woman if his mind was compromised to starting a relationship with one of his students which could fill a 3 hour movie alone - not dealt with, it's just poof, they're together. Spock's mom dying - how she got to the High Council in the first place as she was only just on the balcony of her home, the Vulcan High Council that chose to go to a place where they can't be communicated with, Spock choosing to take a leisure stroll through the park, as Checkov has enough time to interact with Kirk and Sulu for several minutes, run to the transporter room, and beam Kirk and Sulu aboard before Spock finally arrives in the transporter room. And on and on and on. Only four scenes work; everything else is riddled with emptiness, plotholes, idiocies, and contrivances. And there's no depth, no multiple layers, nothing.
STXI - I've never seen a movie this utterly horrible. Never in my entire life have I seen something this bad with his many plotholes and idiocies in this many scenes. And it has got nothing to do with it not being like a TOS episode, the fact that it has got nothing that makes it resemble any good Star Trek story or movie only COMPOUNDS the problem. This movie, even if it didn't carry the name Star Trek, is bad, and horribly written, all on its own. As a Star Trek movie - it's worse, it's FAR worse.
Last edited:
Cheapskate.
He had soda too.
Similar threads
