What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[J.T.B.]

Sorry to be so late to reply, I was on vacation last week.

I wish there was more time for character development, but there wasn't time. After all, was there any in ST:TMP? Maybe a touch on Spock, but that was it. ST:XI had more character development.

Seriously? TMP is very much a character-development-driven movie, more than any other Trek movie except maybe TWOK. Kirk and Spock are troubled, unhappy characters because they have disconnected part of themselves. Spock accepts his human side and his friendship with Kirk. Kirk decides he can't be an administrator in the Starfleet bureaucracy and belongs "out there." V'Ger is an analogy for their characters' dilemmas. The scene between Spock and Kirk in sickbay after the spacewalk is the key scene in the movie, and in many ways the key scene for the rest of the TOS-cast movies. Spock never acts like the prickly, conflicted outsider after that.

--Justin

 

[Spider]

Excellent scifi movie, not so good though as a Star Trek movie though.

 

[Chrisisall]

Excellent scifi movie, not so good though as a Star Trek movie though.

Funny, I thought it was just okay as a sci-fi movie, but VERY good as a Star Trek one.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

As a sci-fi movie, it rocked. As an SF movie, however, it was pretty lame. I know I'm being an elitist here but fuck it. I'm driving an hour into Philly on Thursday to see Moon, which will probably be a rather good SF movie. I'd never waste a minute of my time on stuff like Transformers.

EDIT: Star Trek was, at its best, a transitional property, neither fully sci-fi nor fully SF. This new movie is forsquare sci-fi but it is very good sci-fi.

And here we are back at the intersection of "it was dumb" and "no dumber than TOS always was" again. Sorry.

 

[Chrisisall]

As a sci-fi movie, it rocked. As an SF movie, however, it was pretty lame.

I'm afraid I'm unclear as to the difference here. Is "SF" a diifferent genre?

 

[Nerys Myk]

SF is "serious stuff". Sci-fi, not so much. Sorta like Trekker and Trekkie

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Yeah, but there are no trekkers.

To make it short, SF movies tend to be more about ideas and sci-fi more about fun.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Truthfully, I use the terms interchangeably. I can speak of 2001:A Space Odyssey as Sci-fi and Independence day as SF, depending on which term pops in to my brain. Sorta like calling San Francisco: SanFran, SF , The City or (gasp) even Frisco. It's all the same really.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Not for me--I find it helps to keep them separate (and 2001 and ID4 are the two movies that come to mind for me, too) just for such occasions as this.

 

[Warped9]

I've taken to interpreting the use of "sci-fi" as derogative even though I know most people don't mean it that way. I know one guy who uses the term and I don't take him to task because I know that's just how he's expressing himself.

But if I'm writing about the subject then I will intentionally use "sci-fi" in connection with conventional less-than-impressive work as opposed to SF or scienc fiction in connection with work that makes an honest effort to be at least competent.

Lost In Space and Land Of The Giants and Time Tunnel are sci-fi in my book. TOS is SF or science fiction. And, yes, the lines can be rather blurry.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Trek fans!

We can create an argument, where none has previously existed.

Sci-fi and SF!

Sheesh!

 

[Anticitizen]

Maybe we can take a page from the book of the former Sci-Fi Channel and start calling the lighter/weaker stuff SyFy...

 

[trevanian]

Maybe we can take a page from the book of the former Sci-Fi Channel and start calling the lighter/weaker stuff SyFy...

that's good, AND in keeping with Ellison ... I remember he differentiated 'science fiction' from 'scifi' by doing a phonetical pronunciation of the latter as Skiffy, which sounds appropriately diminutive.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Wasn't he a promoter of "speculative fiction"?

 

[Forbin]

That's what he called his own stuff, yes.

 

[Gary7]

Maybe we can take a page from the book of the former Sci-Fi Channel and start calling the lighter/weaker stuff SyFy...

I know... that sickens me. It's like "texting lingo". Idiot-trendy. It's the end of that channel anyway... BSG is done. Anything else that is good is about to run the course. What's left? More reruns?

 

[plynch]

"Speculative fiction" is whence "SF" derives. It is not a category created by Trekkies. In addition to science fiction that is plausible, SF includes "literary" fantasy (i.e. NOT the latest Tolkein-derived trilogy at WalMart) too. I THINK I remember reading (in the Mag of Fantasy and Science Fiction, believe it or not), that this category ("SF") was invented to include "real" writers who sometimes write fantastical works. That way, "literary" writers would not have to be insulted by being called fantasy writers.

It sounds elitist or insulting, but they might have a point if you consider that Bradbury and Sturgeon would be considered two of the great writers of the 20th c. rather than merely great science fiction writers, had such a gray category existed for them. Just a thought.

I still use the term "sci-fi" for all science fiction. I know it dates me and makes me sound less serious; but I know I know the difference between dross and gold.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

And that's just it--Harlan would have us toss "sci-fi" away as insulting but I say let's keep it; it's a useful term.

And btw, it is no absolute measure of quality. The Empire Strikes Back is sci-fi, Soderbergh's Solaris is SF. Empire is the better movie.

 

[Forbin]

Oh, I think Empire could be better classified as action-adventure/fantasy than sci fi. It's just an action flick with mystical overtones. Spaceships and such are the trappings of sci fi, but there's no science to speak of in Star Wars, and The Force is pure magical fantasy.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Where does the term "space opera" come in, then?