Uh, Brutal, TOS's ratings were actually middling to good throughout it's original run - and, of course, it was legendary once it was in syndication. The only reason it's considered 'lower rung' now is because it's been played pretty much non-stop in some capacity for forty years running. Not even shows like the Twilight Zone can quite make that claim.
Good point.
I'm tired of hearing the old "smart SF doesn't sell." More nonsense. We're not talking about diamond hard SF. We're talking about giving your story and elements of it a sense of credibility.
Set aside all the periphral elements I dislike. Look at the Kirk arc in this film since he's a central element of the story. This interpretation of Kirk has little to nothing but a smarmy, smartass attitude and no self-discipline. He later stows away aboard a ship where he has no standing and no position. After Pike acts outraged he then enlists the stowaway's help. Throughout the entire thing this Kirk never demonstrates any evidence of ability to command and lead and displays no substance to show why others should respect and follow him. And by the end of the story he gets command by an organization that apparently doesn't have very demanding standards.They give command to a hotshot neophyte who hasn't done anything of substance to show he's earned the prize of one of Starfleet's best ships within a
very few span of years..
That's all up on the screen and none of it bears any resemblance to a believable scenario. The only reason this Kirk gets his captaincy is because that's where Abrams wanted the story to end up despite the fact that nothing in the preceeding two hours logically supports that conclusion. It's all nonsensical. And to make it all worse this portrayal of Kirk isn't likable. He's all swagger and smartass without one iota of roguish charm. He's I punk I wanted to kick from pretty much the onset. It isn't easy to cheer for a hero who shows little evidence of likability. It's made all the more worse by a portrayal that is essentially one dimensional with next to no nuance. Give us a different interpretation, yes, but give us something of substance. Instead of that approach why not
show us a Kirk learning and earning his way?
Show us someone developing the abilities and scars of leadership over the years--that's credible. Instead they portray an over-the-top caricarture of Kirk rather than a nuanced believable one.
Abrams has gone the route of an adolescent fantasy where the kid believes if he's macho and heroic enough he'll get to lay the girl, or in this case win command of the
Enterprise.
This story is also about nothing but trying to force-fit two characters into a "destiny." Quinto's Spock has next to no range while Nimoy was adept at telegraphing so much through eyes and facial expression. But the whole point of this story is to get two cardboard cutouts together.
Now add back all the other things I disliked and you have a film that fails my definition of good
Star Trek. Dismiss me as a regressive purist if you like, but you're making a TOS era film then I'm going to judge it by the show that established and defined that era. And even if you prefer a different series or film version of Trek you cannot deny that TOS is the genuine article.
But what really burns my ass is what happens when you elect to take a dissenting position. I'm not the only one, but anyone around here who is the minority positon of not accepting something TPTB proffer gets roasted and jeered for having an opposing viewpoint.
Everyone takes something different from a show based on their likes and dislikes. If your Trek doesn't take itself seriously than that's the Trek that'll make you happy. But if your Trek does strive for a good measure of credibility then that's what you'll look for. And the fact is TOS often made an effort to convey a sense of credibility in ideas, in chracterization and often in story.
This film doesn't make any such effort.
