Why did they bother...

[Ovation]

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

A theory I share. It would seem the only venue that would satisfy them would be a TV series that would have room and time to explore some of the themes that are necessarily given short shrift in a 2 hour movie once every 3-4 years.

 

[Sindatur]

Its the Spock that was created after 79 episodes of TOS and maybe TAS and maybe some movies. At that stage it was Nimoy Spock.

Well, this is often a generational thing. As I've mentioned before, I was appalled to discover, decades ago, that my youngest brother thought that Roger Moore was the "real" James Bond. I was horrified at first (everybody knew that Connery was the one true Bond), but then I realized it made perfect sense from his perspective. My brother, who was seventeen years younger than me, had grown up on Moore just like I had grown up on Connery.

Trust me on this, ten years from now there will be an entire generation for whom Pine and Quinto are the "real" Kirk and Spock. That's just the way it works.

Heck, not long ago, people were horrified at idea of Universal remaking the "classic" Brendan Fraser version of THE MUMMY, which was, of course, at least the third remake of the 1932 Karloff version.

Hopefully the next generation will think of Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock because that means that Star Trek is still going strong.

I agree its a generational thing. My kids have never heard of
John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind.

Heh, I remember going to into a Hollywood Video, back in the late 1990s and asking for Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte and got a very strange look, and the kid at the counter was only about 10 years younger than me. I can't imagine what knowledge someone in their mid-20s no longer has of Classics 15 years later.

 

[Ovation]

If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie.

That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here...

To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

This notion seems to be a relatively recent development, however, and certainly doesn't reflect the way most filmmakers in the history of the art have approached their craft. An engaged imagination has typically been a huge and important part of the experience of watching a movie.

Very reminiscent of the attitude I see among my students. Once I could simply assign a topic for research and expect the students to go the library and do the legwork--with no grumbling, save from a small minority (there's always at least one lazy student in a class). Now, though, if students don't get all the assigned readings pre-packaged as pdf files taken from the relevant journals and a detailed list of suggested sources to consult (in other words--all the legwork done for them), I get a lot of complaints (including, on occasion, some fairly nasty comments about how unfair I am because I'm not accounting for how "busy" their lives are). While I've not entirely given in, I do provide a list of suggested sources (with the caveat that they need to find x number of others on their own--x depends on the scope of the assignment--cuts down on a lot of gibberish, in the end).

It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

A theory I share. It would seem the only venue that would satisfy them would be a TV series that would have room and time to explore some of the themes that are necessarily given short shrift in a 2 hour movie once every 3-4 years.

This strikes me as generalizing the critics of the movies in order to delegitimize those critics. I think you'll find enough exceptions and qualification to these generalizations to make them pointless.

 

[YARN]

That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here...

To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

This notion seems to be a relatively recent development, however, and certainly doesn't reflect the way most filmmakers in the history of the art have approached their craft. An engaged imagination has typically been a huge and important part of the experience of watching a movie.

Very reminiscent of the attitude I see among my students. Once I could simply assign a topic for research and expect the students to go the library and do the legwork--with no grumbling, save from a small minority (there's always at least one lazy student in a class). Now, though, if students don't get all the assigned readings pre-packaged as pdf files taken from the relevant journals and a detailed list of suggested sources to consult (in other words--all the legwork done for them), I get a lot of complaints (including, on occasion, some fairly nasty comments about how unfair I am because I'm not accounting for how "busy" their lives are). While I've not entirely given in, I do provide a list of suggested sources (with the caveat that they need to find x number of others on their own--x depends on the scope of the assignment--cuts down on a lot of gibberish, in the end).

It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.

I think that this is a fair point. I would rather put things together for myself rather than have the film over-explain everything. When the plot stops so that the exposition character can tell everyone what's going on it's patronizing and ejects me from the reality of the film.

I think you would agree, however, that if there is such a thing as over-explaining that there is also such a thing as under-explaining. What either amounts to is a debatable question, but I think we can agree, in principle, that a film should not ask the viewer to have to imagine too much.

 

[Belz...]

This strikes me as generalizing the critics of the movies in order to delegitimize those critics. I think you'll find enough exceptions and qualification to these generalizations to make them pointless.

Not that I agree with the statement you replied to, but saying "mostly" isn't a generalisation. It simply means that most (read: over 50%) of the set of X is composed of items with the feature A. He didn't say "bah, they're just a bunch of TNG fans with no appreciation for true Trek."

 

[thumbtack]

they're just a bunch of TNG fans with no appreciation for true Trek

TNG fans don't appear to appreciate much of anything, including TNG.

Unless you feel that "about 20% of them are still quite watchable" qualifies as an enthusiastic endorsement of the show.

 

[Ovation]

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

A theory I share. It would seem the only venue that would satisfy them would be a TV series that would have room and time to explore some of the themes that are necessarily given short shrift in a 2 hour movie once every 3-4 years.

This strikes me as generalizing the critics of the movies in order to delegitimize those critics. I think you'll find enough exceptions and qualification to these generalizations to make them pointless.

I don't think so. Of course, every generalization is subject to exceptions (something I warn my students of rather frequently) but generalizations can still be made with sufficient data points AND they can help discern broad patterns. As this is not a dedicated research site for statistical analyses of audience preferences broken down by demographics and viewing experiences, this theory is (as already conceded) more of an interesting hypothesis (if we must, in a casual setting, be so precise). And like all hypotheses, it could be wrong--even spectacularly so. But I'd set a small wager on the hypothesis being correct to sufficient degree as to be a viable generalization (subject to the usual caveats of such things).

To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

This notion seems to be a relatively recent development, however, and certainly doesn't reflect the way most filmmakers in the history of the art have approached their craft. An engaged imagination has typically been a huge and important part of the experience of watching a movie.

Very reminiscent of the attitude I see among my students. Once I could simply assign a topic for research and expect the students to go the library and do the legwork--with no grumbling, save from a small minority (there's always at least one lazy student in a class). Now, though, if students don't get all the assigned readings pre-packaged as pdf files taken from the relevant journals and a detailed list of suggested sources to consult (in other words--all the legwork done for them), I get a lot of complaints (including, on occasion, some fairly nasty comments about how unfair I am because I'm not accounting for how "busy" their lives are). While I've not entirely given in, I do provide a list of suggested sources (with the caveat that they need to find x number of others on their own--x depends on the scope of the assignment--cuts down on a lot of gibberish, in the end).

It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.

I think that this is a fair point. I would rather put things together for myself rather than have the film over-explain everything. When the plot stops so that the exposition character can tell everyone what's going on it's patronizing and ejects me from the reality of the film.

I think you would agree, however, that if there is such a thing as over-explaining that there is also such a thing as under-explaining. What either amounts to is a debatable question, but I think we can agree, in principle, that a film should not ask the viewer to have to imagine too much.

That's fair. The transition point from too much to too little is highly dependent on the film type, though. A Terrence Malick film frequently offers what most movie viewers would consider far too little exposition--but if you are a fan of Malick's work (as I am), you are willing to live with that as, by now, such an absence of exposition is an expected element of the viewing experience. On the other hand, I fully expect a Tarantino movie to have as much dialogue as twice the collected works of Malick and would be disappointed otherwise.

First and foremost, I want movies to entertain me (there are a few exceptions, some of which I make use of in my work, but they are not numerous). If they make me think (in a good way), so much the better--but it's not a requirement. I also don't require that my entertainment necessarily conform to some checklist of items by the committee for the promotion of the "way things out to be". Again, if it's there (and makes sense within the context of the film) so much the better. And most important to me, about any work of art (commercial or otherwise)--I want something that first satisfies the artist's desires. I don't want something made "for the fans", unless that is what the artist wants to do. All art should be the product of what the artist wants. I have the right to like it or not, but I have no right to expect satisfaction on my terms. As I have a wide palette of what I find entertaining, I'm rarely frustrated by any art (if I don't like it, I leave, stop watching, listening, etc.). And even when I am frustrated, I don't usually spend much time telling others they should be too (well, except with The Blair Witch Project--that is something no sentient being should suffer ).

 

[Belz...]

they're just a bunch of TNG fans with no appreciation for true Trek

TNG fans don't appear to appreciate much of anything, including TNG.

I would appreciate if you quoted me in a way that didn't make it appear as though I said something I didn't say. I was clearly quoting a hypothetical person saying something that wasn't said.

Unless you feel that "about 20% of them are still quite watchable" qualifies as an enthusiastic endorsement of the show.

Is that an actual quote ?

 

[marksound]

Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte

That movie came out when I was about 4 years old. I think my parents saw it at the drive-in with us kids "asleep" in the back. What I saw freaked me out and I've never tried to watch it since. The theme song still gives me the willies.

It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.

Agreed.

Then again, I'm not a critic. Just a fan.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Quinto is Spock now, and Pine is Kirk. When they aren't any more, two other actors will be.

For a time, in the 70s, Roddenberry and Paramount were thinking it would be Paul Newman and Robert Redford, with Walter Koenig as Chekov's father!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Did I miss anybody?

Casting a Puerto-Rican/Haitian actress as Nyota Uhura.

They could have at least had Pine do a Shatner imitation.

No. Just. No.

Any thoughts?

Keep trying. You'll get there eventually.

 

[Kevman7987]

Quinto is Spock now, and Pine is Kirk. When they aren't any more, two other actors will be.

For a time, in the 70s, Roddenberry and Paramount were thinking it would be Paul Newman and Robert Redford, with Walter Koenig as Chekov's father!

The TOS crew is now sci-fi James Bonds; the characters are timeless in that they are not connected to any one actor (though we'll always have our Sean Connery/favorites).

 

[sj4iy]

Did I miss anybody?

Casting a Puerto-Rican/Haitian actress as Nyota Uhura.

They could have at least had Pine do a Shatner imitation.

No. Just. No.

Any thoughts?

Keep trying. You'll get there eventually.

Oh god, I laughed so hard at the one where Kirk "changed bodies" with a woman. It was so horrible.

 

[Belz...]

No. Just. No.

Yeah. Only Shatner can pull that off.

 

[Set Harth]

The TOS crew is now sci-fi James Bonds; the characters are timeless in that they are not connected to any one actor (though we'll always have our Sean Connery/favorites).

So the current ones are the Roger Moores of Star Trek?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Basically.

After all, Roger Moore was the one who gave us some of the more outlandish-yet-amusing 007 storylines. Who else, after all, could have pulled off an infantry battle in orbit?

The good news is, at the pace we're going, the Daniel Craig generation of Trek actors will be able to film ENTIRELY on location .

 

[Set Harth]

I don't care, because I will be dead.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

But I've noticed that people want the original stories, NOT the original actors, and that they are miffed that the characters were put in an alternate universe.

Not at all. I'm perfectly fine with new stories. In fact, I want new stories - not retreads with the serial numbers filed off.

It's not even about the fact that they used Khan as the antagonist, although I admit that I did a reverse headdesk into my seat's headrest when Khan revealed who he was.

Had they shown me Marcus having Khan do his bidding and seen Khan's mounting frustration, he would have been a much more interesting and sympathetic character. Orci and Kurtzman broke the first rule of writing: "Show, don't tell." More story, and less idiotic action (not "less action" - less "idiotic action"), and STID would have been a much better movie.

I would even have been willing to lose the opening sequence on Nibiru - which I loved - to give more time to the backstory of why Khan is so pissed off at Marcus. Instead, we got Spock trying to beat up Khan while riding on top of a flying car. Ooo. And the laws of physics getting thrown out the airlock.

If anything, this movie was a blatant attempt to tell a story that had been told before, only with the identities of the characters swapped around a bit.

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

I love space opera, and The Final Frontier is probably my least favourite of all the Trek films - though I see what Shatner was trying to do. I just don't think he quite got there. (Then again, I'm one of those old-school fans - I'm 45 years old, and discovered TOS in syndication around 1980.)

It's possible to combine them. With another couple of drafts, Nemesis could have been a brilliant movie, with its nature-versus-nurture theme and some "good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure". STID could have been in my top three Trek movies - but I was so pissed off at its shortcomings that I didn't even realize until later that there was a current-day political allegory in there screaming to be let out. (My favourite Trek film is The Undiscovered Country, because it's an unashamed political allegory.)

 

[newtontomato539]

I agree. They should have spent 3 hours on a flashback.

Various scenes they should have shown us, but were jerks:

1. Khan's mom is puffing. Khan pops out covered in slime. Using cgi eyelids and lips. he turns to the camera, winks and says, "I will have my vengeance!"

2. Khan is on the toilet reading the newspaper. Joachim knocks on the door. "My Khan, no one likes us. :sob:" Khan: "Damn! Ready the Botany Bay."

3. The Botany Bay lifts off. Khan: "Did anyone pack my porn?" :crickets: "Come on people!"

and so forth.