In any other organization, she would have been stripped of rank and sent to prison.
At Dunder Mifflin she'd have been promoted to the Albany Branch Manager position? Or at least not demoted. You could start a fire there, bag someone's head with a rabid bat, or punch a hole through the wall with very little consequence.
I don't mean to offend people about the special effects. I just think the update is nice. I have always thought Star Trek is cool, now it looks even better!
I get the whole substance over special effects. That's how I am with old video games. I always say to my friends, "remember when video games were awesome and you didn't care about the graphics". So I can appreciate those who feel the same about the new Trek movies.
On the other hand, I knew ahead of time that there wouldn't be as much substance in the new Trek movies. That's just how big budget special effect movies are made today. I tampered my expecations and loved the movie because of it. It still had enough Trek in it for me to be okay with it.
If you don't like the new movies, why go? You aren't going to find the substance you seek. Enjoy the old shows and movies for that. I still play my old video games from time to time.
Edit: I just want to see Star Trek live on. Sadly, my teenaged nephew didn't even want to go see the movie, so he stayed home. I would like to see Star Trek passed on to the next generation(no pun intended, for real).
Abrahms didn't ruin Star trek, our culture did. That's why there has been such a different take on this film, extremes on both ends.
[abridged quote for space's sake]
Honestly, I blame the character of T'pol for all this, lol.
TL;DR
the movie is only bad or good, depending on the context of perception in which you view it. From my context, it sucked. Bad. it was like watching "zero-calorie" Trek, which I supoose is all the rage these days.
Signed,
Grandpa Lored2death
You make a fair argument. The new Star Trek films are for a much broader audience, and may not speak on the same intellectual level as the films used to, such as Sacrifice, Life and Death, the Cold War/Chernobyl Incident, or other modern day political surfaces, but that simply doesn't sell anymore. Filmmakers don't make movies that don't stand a chance to make money. That's just how studios survive.
The result is an action movie with a Star Trek hat on. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't do much to tickle your brain box. Thankfully, a full library of Star Trek: The Next Generation is on DVD to tease your thinking muscles.
Star Trek has become what it needs to be in order for a new audience to come in. Let's face it; Trek fans have become very jaded about the franchise and incredibly hard to please. Everyone who has tried in the last ten years has had their efforts spit back in their faces. Think of Enterprise, Star Trek Legacy, and even this game. The reception has been one of struggling fans and a lot of angry Trekkies.
The only viable solution is to seek out new fans and new directions. To boldly go where no Star Trek property has gone bef--- okay, I'm sorry for that one.
But the point is, (and here's your damnable TL;DR), Star Trek has two ways to go; either to change with the times and leave the stubborn, inflexible, impossible-to-please fanboys behind, or to stagnate and simply die off. Paramount made a good choice in trying something new. The formula is successful, if not completely in tune with the so-called "vision" of Star Trek.
At Dunder Mifflin she'd have been promoted to the Albany Branch Manager position? Or at least not demoted. You could start a fire there, bag someone's head with a rabid bat, or punch a hole through the wall with very little consequence.
I had to actually look up what Dunder Mifflin is; I don't watch The Office (I won't discuss my reasoning). But I seriously doubt that's even close to a fair comparison. If you're just trying to be funny, the joke was entirely lost on me (like the show itself).
I don't buy that. Spock could have commanded the ship. So could any number of other officers. Starfleet suffered huge losses at Wolf 359 and in the Dominion war too. They weren't tossing cadets into the Captain's seat because of them.
At Dunder Mifflin she'd have been promoted to the Albany Branch Manager position? Or at least not demoted. You could start a fire there, bag someone's head with a rabid bat, or punch a hole through the wall with very little consequence.
You make a fair argument. The new Star Trek films are for a much broader audience, and may not speak on the same intellectual level as the films used to, such as Sacrifice, Life and Death, the Cold War/Chernobyl Incident, or other modern day political surfaces, but that simply doesn't sell anymore. Filmmakers don't make movies that don't stand a chance to make money. That's just how studios survive.
The result is an action movie with a Star Trek hat on. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't do much to tickle your brain box. Thankfully, a full library of Star Trek: The Next Generation is on DVD to tease your thinking muscles.
Star Trek has become what it needs to be in order for a new audience to come in. Let's face it; Trek fans have become very jaded about the franchise and incredibly hard to please. Everyone who has tried in the last ten years has had their efforts spit back in their faces. Think of Enterprise, Star Trek Legacy, and even this game. The reception has been one of struggling fans and a lot of angry Trekkies.
The only viable solution is to seek out new fans and new directions. To boldly go where no Star Trek property has gone bef--- okay, I'm sorry for that one.
But the point is, (and here's your damnable TL;DR), Star Trek has two ways to go; either to change with the times and leave the stubborn, inflexible, impossible-to-please fanboys behind, or to stagnate and simply die off. Paramount made a good choice in trying something new. The formula is successful, if not completely in tune with the so-called "vision" of Star Trek.
.
Well said. That's what I was truly trying to get at.
Also, after years of being considered nerdy for being a Trekkie, it's nice to have a couple of movies that people think are cool. LOL.
Well said. That's what I was truly trying to get at.
I like what you had to say as well. It made me think of just what these new Trek movies can do. They can act almost as gateways. New audiences who thought Star Trek was too nerdy for them, now going into theatres to see it, and coming out wowed. That's your in; the foot in the door to be exposed to what Star Trek stands for.
In fact, my girlfriend (I sense "imaginary" jokes incoming) didn't care for Trek until we saw JJ's 2009 film. It gave me a chance to sneak in a few episodes of Deep Space Nine while we were... shall we say, herbally inclined. She is now a fan of that series. Not a bad start.
Abrahms didn't ruin Star trek, our culture did. That's why there has been such a different take on this film, extremes on both ends.
The movie, for younger generations, is everything it could have been and needed to be. It was fast-paced, it had a basic, current political context (drone strikes) and Alice Eve in undies. A younger friend of mine who went to see it with me and is a self-proclaimed "Trekkie", LOVED it. He loved the throw-back jokes, the whole re-boot to "keep Trek alive" idea is strong in that one, I assure you. And I don't doubt him.
I on the other hand, have a different recollection of Trek, because I'm older and lived when trek was addressing different social ideas. The Cold Wars was going on strong during Trek VI. The infamous Trek 2 is now recalled for Khan when the reality was it was the first time we got to saw a real Trek fight in space with the tech of the day. Khan was just a great tool used for the bigger story arc which is what the whole movie was premised on: sacrifice. That's what I missed in Darkness. An underlying "hrmm" moment.
It was just simplified, in-you-face dilemmas that might speak to a summer movie-goer but not necessarily to me as a fan. I won't go into the 7 massive plot holes that made the movie too convenient. The worst part for me is how Spock was developed in writing. the acting was outstanding but what they've done is made Spock like everyone else but with pointy ears. I get he lost Vulcan. I get he's half-human. The thing is, now, other than the tone of voice and ears, Spock is now an average human with all those frailties and emotions. Yes, Vulcans always have those emotions but the suppression is what makes them inherently interesting. I didn't like Spock laughing in the TOS pilot and i'm not digging him doing so in the future. He's now a Data re-hash, striving to be more human in some sense rather then trying to stay away from emotions. Honestly, I blame the character of T'pol for all this, lol.
TL;DR
the movie is only bad or good, depending on the context of perception in which you view it. From my context, it sucked. Bad. it was like watching "zero-calorie" Trek, which I supoose is all the rage these days.
Signed,
Grandpa Lored2death
I think you make some great points and I definitely appreciate your perspective.
I do, though, think we're unfairly putting Abrams' two films up against a compilation of 40 years of Star Trek.
I saw each one of the TOS movies in theaters, and I can tell you that in my experience, neither me nor any of those I went with came out of those movies thinking about some greater cultural theme. We came out feeling like we'd just had an adventure (some better than others).
Yes, ST 6 was a clear allegory for the Cold War, but other than that, I don't think any of the TOS movies had a larger "philosophy to action ratio" than these movies did.
Star Trek 2 was about sacrifice, yes, but it really spent very little time exploring it. Very few minutes of screen time were used to address it. Not much more than the screen time used to address the themes of sacrifice, terrorism, human rights (even for criminals), and learning humility in this new movie. It was about even, IMO.
Into Darkness definitely spent more time on it than ST 3 and 5. And ST 4 was about as shallow as you can get. It slammed the "Save the whales" message down the viewers' throats and wrapped it in a movie that was so much a comedy it was almost of parody of the characters (I loved it, believe it or not; just making a point here).
As far as Star Trek movies, I think these new ones fall right in the middle. Behind Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, but ahead of 3,4, and 5... both in terms of fun and depth.
We have to remember that when we're talking about the depth of characters here, we're comparing the 5 hours that Abrams had to the 40 years that the others had. He wasn't continuing the development of these characters... he was tasked with introducing them - from scratch - to a new audience.
If you put the Abrams films up against any other Trek film individually, Abrams holds up pretty well.
It's definitely not the best Trek, but it's definitely not the worst. And it certainly (IMO) doesn't deserve the claim that it has ruined Trek.
You make a fair argument. The new Star Trek films are for a much broader audience, and may not speak on the same intellectual level as the films used to, such as Sacrifice, Life and Death, the Cold War/Chernobyl Incident, or other modern day political surfaces, but that simply doesn't sell anymore. Filmmakers don't make movies that don't stand a chance to make money. That's just how studios survive.
The result is an action movie with a Star Trek hat on. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't do much to tickle your brain box. Thankfully, a full library of Star Trek: The Next Generation is on DVD to tease your thinking muscles.
Star Trek has become what it needs to be in order for a new audience to come in.
Maybe you hit on what I was really thinking: that Star Trek is changing to be what it needs to be to have an audience. I would prefer, and I think the creator himself would've agreed, that people came to the messages of Trek instead of it being milk-toasted to get people to come to church.
It feels too much of evangelizing to me and once they get inside, there's really nothing going on.
The movie has its points such as the CGI and acting but the story is just soooo bad once you get home and think about it. It's like the movie is better if you *don't* think about it and that philosophy seems rampant in our culture and why I made the claim that I did.... that this movie is more the product of our culture than anything else.
Maybe you hit on what I was really thinking: that Star Trek is changing to be what it needs to be to have an audience. I would prefer, and I think the creator himself would've agreed, that people came to the messages of Trek instead of it being milk-toasted to get people to come to church.
It feels too much of evangelizing to me and once they get inside, there's really nothing going on.
The movie has its points such as the CGI and acting but the story is just soooo bad once you get home and think about it. It's like the movie is better if you *don't* think about it and that philosophy seems rampant in our culture and why I made the claim that I did.... that this movie is more the product of our culture than anything else.
And that makes me a little sad.
Also well said. I can understand the way you feel about the "getting people to come to church" and then having nothing to show for it. I hope after "going to church" people keep seeking the "Star Trek" way. Lol. Hopefully they will watch the old shows and movies and find that they are as cool as we think they are.
Maybe you hit on what I was really thinking: that Star Trek is changing to be what it needs to be to have an audience. I would prefer, and I think the creator himself would've agreed, that people came to the messages of Trek instead of it being milk-toasted to get people to come to church.
It feels too much of evangelizing to me and once they get inside, there's really nothing going on.
The movie has its points such as the CGI and acting but the story is just soooo bad once you get home and think about it. It's like the movie is better if you *don't* think about it and that philosophy seems rampant in our culture and why I made the claim that I did.... that this movie is more the product of our culture than anything else.
And that makes me a little sad.
I think I have to disagree with the end of your statements there. It's not very much like the director selling the franchise on the laurels of an action film. The true fans who finally get to stop feeling like nerds and outcasts and move up to, at the very least, the hipster category. The fans are the ones who get the chance to open up their friends to the franchise with this new opening. The old 60s show just can't be taken seriously by young audiences now.
As for lacking story, I gotta say I don't agree with that either. It was said earlier that you don't tend to walk out of a Star Trek film feeling like you just watched something groundbreaking and intellectual. You walk out feeling like you just had an adventure. Each film has tried (well, some tried) to push the envelope of special effects. Star Trek II certainly did, and it definitely helped make the film that much more successful. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was far more in tune with Roddenberry's Star Trek than its sequel - and yet movie-goers in general, and Trekkies specifically, always say that The Wrath of Khan was the better film.
If you see past the dazzle, the action, and the lens flares (which are in curiously fewer numbers in Star Trek into Darkness), you will see a real story there. A careful set-up to the plot leads characters through an experience that reshapes how they view the chain of command. Kirk is subjected to the true burdens of captaincy, and Spock's Vulcan half is tested to its breaking point.
Was the action over-the-top? Yes. Did it overshadow the underlying story elements? Yes. It can be hard to pick up on subtleties when your retinas are full of laser beams and giant explosions. No one can be blamed for missing the fine details, especially if they're not actively looking for them.
I dont think its as innovative as it could be. It seems to directed to a type of audience, tweaked for populist appeal. Its not really what ST was about - that its remebered for. If you are going to go for that type of character development route British TV sifi of the last few years is far more innovative.
Also, I think we (i.e. old coots like me) sometimes don't give young people enough credit.
I saw a Facebook post this week where a bunch of folks (mostly young) were discussing the new movie and they had a very in-depth and long debate about whether or not Kirk had the right to kill Harrison. One side was saying he was following orders and Harrison had to be stopped by any means while the other side was saying Kirk had a moral obligation to disobey orders and bring Harrison in for a trial.
Now, no matter what side of that debate you're on, I think the debates itself shows 2 things:
1. Kids aren't as shallow as we think
2. This movie did - on some level - make them go "hmmmm."
Also, I think we (i.e. old coots like me) sometimes don't give young people enough credit.
I saw a Facebook post this week where a bunch of folks (mostly young) were discussing the new movie and they had a very in-depth and long debate about whether or not Kirk had the right to kill Harrison. One side was saying he was following orders and Harrison had to be stopped by any means while the other side was saying Kirk had a moral obligation to disobey orders and bring Harrison in for a trial.
Now, no matter what side of that debate you're on, I think the debates itself shows 2 things:
1. Kids aren't as shallow as we think
2. This movie did - on some level - make them go "hmmmm."
You just made my day. I could only speak from personal experience seeing this movie with a couple other people. We all seemed to have no trouble seeing past the flashy exterior. The questions of whether Kirk did the right thing, in a lot of situations, can be raised to strengthen the case that a story was in fact present and fully developed.
I had to actually look up what Dunder Mifflin is; I don't watch The Office (I won't discuss my reasoning). But I seriously doubt that's even close to a fair comparison.
Ah, if you had seen the episodes in particular that I referenced (especially the Dwight fire safety one since he does get called to corporate for almost burning down the building and killlng everyone in it), or really just generally you know most of what Michael Scott did for the first four seasons, you'd see it's a very apt comparison.
You just made my day. I could only speak from personal experience seeing this movie with a couple other people. We all seemed to have no trouble seeing past the flashy exterior. The questions of whether Kirk did the right thing, in a lot of situations, can be raised to strengthen the case that a story was in fact present and fully developed.
And with proof that a story is indeed present, and the movies are making people think, at least on some levels... I believe the claims that JJ ruined the franchise certainly lose a little steam
He made an entirely different ST, for sure, but that doesn't automatically make it terrible (or great). I for one, think it's good in it's own way, and think it's great that it revitalized ST for a new audience, who otherwise wouldn't have even looked at the older versions
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I don't know what all the hate is for. I really don't. I Having said that, I have gripes. Precisely 3 gripes.
1. Harrison beams from Earth to the Klingon Homeworld without the aid of a starship. Had to really try to suspend disbelief - but I managed to.
.
Scotty said that he (Harrison) used a teleportation device that used Scotty's formula, the one he said could beam grapefruits and presidents' dogs from planet to planet and onto a starship traveling at warp speed.
Scotty said that he (Harrison) used a teleportation device that used Scotty's formula, the one he said could beam grapefruits and presidents' dogs from planet to planet and onto a starship traveling at warp speed.
Yeah, that actually added to the story for me. It certainly didn't take away from it.
They could have just as easily had Harrison take a starship, but by using that warp tech, it showed that the warp equation from the first movie actually had an impact on the galaxy. By using that particular tech, they basically moved it from a plot device to an actual part of the new continuity.
Yeah, that actually added to the story for me. It certainly didn't take away from it.
They could have just as easily had Harrison take a starship, but by using that warp tech, it showed that the warp equation from the first movie actually had an impact on the galaxy. By using that particular tech, they basically moved it from a plot device to an actual part of the new continuity.
Yes, and that's what I like about this. It does have a Star Trek feel, always a land of new inventions.
And, just as TOS communicators were the predecessors of the Cell Phone, we could also see those floating gurneys (stretchers) in the future
Edit: I just want to see Star Trek live on. Sadly, my teenaged nephew didn't even want to go see the movie, so he stayed home. I would like to see Star Trek passed on to the next generation(no pun intended, for real).
Then buy the non-JJ films on DVD or get on Netflix and watch the episodes. Show him real, properly written Trek.
No offense, you are entitled to your opinion, but I just can't get on board with supporting films that butcher the franchise so badly that they ignore the heart and soul of what Trek is. Some of the best Trek had no action what-so-ever. Trek is a drama that uses any action, if present, as framed by the story, not as the story itself.
You won't get an argument from me about some of Trek's tech being first worked in for cost saving measures (like transporters in TOS) or whatever, but at least they tried to actually work in 'work arounds' (like, again with transporters, Heisenberg compensators to counteract the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that states you can either know where and atom is at a given moment or what it is doing, not both).
Abrams could have easily created brand new characters for his alt-Enterprise or explored the pre-Kirk era under Pike or April. Hell, the ship was in service for 40 years before going down on Genesis, plenty of story never seen on-screen. There are entire books dedicated to those 'Lost Years'. If he wanted 'young Spock', he could have based on the unused pilot where MBR was First Officer and Spock was Science Officer.
I've no objection to calling JJA's films action films, but I won't be calling them Trek fmovies. No offense to the guy, am a big fan of 'Forever Young', 'Armageddon', 'Fringe', 'Person Of Interest', 'Alcatraz', and 'Revolution', but I just don't feel he did Trek justice. I would have much rather seen Spiner's 'Enterprise era Earth-Romulan War trilogy' they turned down for Abrams films instead.
You aren't supposed to walk out of seeing a Trek film going 'ooh, those were some epic explosions man'. You are supposed to walk out discussing things like how the story had relevance to the real world (TOS's "The Omega Glory" is a great one to make you stop and think, while still keeping the action junkies hooked). TOS's 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield' is also a great episode for using Trek canon to frame a real world issue.
Another example of a Trek framed action instead of JJ's action framed imitation of Trek is TWOK. Its been mentioned in this thread TWOK was 'about sacrifice', but it was so much more. It was also about standing at the edge and looking into the abyss while you face certain death. Kirk's answer was to go out swinging and slug Death in the face. Why I figure things, they went in after Khan figuring they weren't coming out again, at least not alive. There's a reason the Kobyashi Maru test was referenced so heavily, even to the point of one of Saavik's tries at it being the very opening scene......TWOK was about a no win scenario.
TMP was originally the pilot for the unaired Phase II sequel Trek series starring a refit Enterprise with Decker in the big chair. Phase II was scrapped, so they reworked the pilot into a full movie and recycled other episode scripts into TNG. Yet it still came across as one of the best Treks, even with out shoot 'em up space battles. TMP was about the infamous questions any parents of small children should know about: "Why?" and "Who am I?" Those were the questions V'Ger was forced to face. The immortal questions of "Is this all there is to me?" and "Can I be greater?" are also posed from V'Ger's perspective.
TFF is vastly under-rated. Probably because, again, it didn't have 'epic shoot 'em up space battles'. The infamous line of '"Why does God need a starship?" speaks volumes. We know that entity, whatever it is (books have given one answer), was able to influence Sybok into finding a way to bring him said ship (two if you count the Bird of Prey). It explored cults and the dangers of 'drinking the koolade' (so to speak). It was a story of redemption with characters forced to face past regrets (and Sybok's self-sacrifice in the end).
Long story short, a story doesn't need action in order to be a smash hit. I can think of several big ones that are cult classics that had no action at all.
Star Wars was conceived along the lines of 'good versus evil'. Trek, however, was a morality tale inspired by westerns, Horatio Hornblower, and 'Gulliver's Travels'. Let us not forget the original title was going to be 'Wagon Train To The Stars', after all (thankfully, they changed it to the less of a mouthful Star Trek, lol).
I grew up on Trek. I enjoyed watching episodes live with my dad everytime a new one aired. Now, I'm one of the first to call Trek out on its failings, even if its due to a cultural difference. TOS was filmed and aired in the 60s. While the aesop remains viable, the framing story has become somewhat....campy due to real world cultural changes. For something done in the 70s, TAS stands up pretty well.
TNG is from the late 80s to early 90s, a time of extreme political upheaval in the world (with the end of the Cold War and all). TNG, especially the episodes written for it and not recycled from Phase II, was about peace and resonated with people in a time when all these little wars were all over the globe (Gulf War I for example).
DS9 aired in mid to late 90s, a time when the world was starting to settle back down. It was a time when the world as we know it today was only starting to be born - and DS9 reflected that with pushing the boundaries of the unknown and seeing what was on the other side (in canon known as the Gamma Quadrant).
Voyager pushed farther with the 'lost in space on the other side of the galaxy' bit which gave the characters a setting where they could push their moral and ethical boundaries on how far they would be willing to go in order to get home while still staying true to who they were.
Enterprise takes Voyager to a new level. Exploring the unknown, returning to Trek's roots of facing the undiscovered and learning about it. The Xindi arc wasn't the only place the NX-01's crew were forced to face themselves in the mirror. Plenty of episodes where characters had to make choices they could best live with in impossible situations. Then you have the whole fact that they are, pretty much, making it all up as they go along. This is before all the guidebooks were written. And, before all you haters out there go 'Enterprise was too advanced for pre-TOS', I point you in the direction of a little thing called a movie known as 'First Contact'. It is entirely plausible to note Enterprise as an alternate timeline caused by the fallout from the temporal incursion in that film (and Zef didn't seem like the type to keep his mouth shut to me). So, thanks to a temporal event, we get an alternate timeline....however, one that was, IMHO, better done than JJ's attempt.
Lol, I could keep on typing, but I'll stop for now. Give you a chance to get through this wall of text first.
I think the one thing this thread proves is that Star Trek is different things for different people.
No matter what the "original vision" was, no matter what Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to be, the fact is, Star Trek is different things for different people.
Some people love the exploration and adventure of Star Trek. Some people love the campy action of TOS. Some people love the moral questions Trek raises. Some people love the tech elements of Trek.
For me (and this is just my very humble opinion), the heart and soul of Star Trek can be summed up with one word: Friendship.
The friendships and relationships are why I loved TOS and the original movies. The friendships and relationships are why I liked TNG. The friendships are why I am one of the few people who loved Enterprise. The lack of well developed relationships is also why I disliked Voyager.
And for me (again, this is purely my opinion), the new movies are doing a very good job of developing the friendships and relationships of the cast. That's why this new one still feels like Star Trek to me. I fully admit there are some jarring differences between these movies and its predecessors (especially TNG), but when I watch these movies, I believe the friendships being developed... and that makes it feel like Star Trek.
@ mrshadowphoenix: Kudos to you for writing this all up. I actually bookmarked your posting for future reference
Although I have to slightly disagree with your opinion on "Enterprise" but it just shows how different the same thing can be seen by different people. While I agree with you that Enterprise might very well be placed in an alternate timeline (actually there is little that speaks AGAINST that) and had a very good potential for original stories I find it very unfortunate that the creators haven't developed much of said original stories but instead relied on assets well known to the franchise in order not to scare of the fans but creating lots of canonical issues while doing so. I think this neglected the chance they had to revive the premise of the great unknown, although I really liked the concept. And of course, the latter part of the series fell victim to real-world events becoming a pretty bland, militarized post 9/11 "propaganda" series.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
@ mrshadowphoenix: Kudos to you for writing this all up. I actually bookmarked your posting for future reference
Lol, am surprised by that. Wasn't expecting to be that good or anything, just kept writing whatever popped into my head as I typed. So, thanks.
Although I have to slightly disagree with your opinion on "Enterprise" but it just shows how different the same thing can be seen by different people. While I agree with you that Enterprise might very well be placed in an alternate timeline (actually there is little that speaks AGAINST that) and had a very good potential for original stories I find it very unfortunate that the creators haven't developed much of said original stories but instead relied on assets well known to the franchise in order not to scare of the fans but creating lots of canonical issues while doing so. I think this neglected the chance they had to revive the premise of the great unknown, although I really liked the concept. And of course, the latter part of the series fell victim to real-world events becoming a pretty bland, militarized post 9/11 "propaganda" series.
Well, back in that era in canon, Earth Starfleet was the military branch. As I recall, that was before they were merged with the United Earth Space Probe Agency, which was the exploration branch of the time.
As for the 9/11 to Xindi arc equivilant, I say: Why not? After all, that arc is the show's best for pushing the characters to the edge and over it. Who can forget Archer's infamous 'interrogation via airlock' scene? That arc pushed all the characters in how far they would be willing to take things and how much of how true to who and what they were they were willing to compromise themselves. TOS dealt with the Cold War, with the Federation as the USA and the Klingons as the USSR, as that was when it was set. So what's wrong with Enterprise being relevant to modern events?
Terrorism is nothing new to be depicted in Trek. So neither ITD or Enterprise can pull the 'did it first' card. Episodes as far back as TOS dealt with such groups. In some ways, TWOK can also be described as dealing with it as well.
As for the original topic of this thread: JJ-trek vs Gene-Trek (and, yes, the capitalization is intentional, lol). Scruffy's got a point in how the characters and their relationships play a big role in making Trek what it is, but I disagree on how JJA tried to present it: comes off as both them trying to make them just meeting for the first time as well as having known each other for decades at the same time. To me, that just doesn't come across as anything other than bad. The Starfleet Academy Book about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy meeting each other as Cadets was better not only showing the beginnings of the famous relationships the three would have in TOS and the films, but also showing how they had just met and those relationships having only just started. The book also managed to show how the three just clicked and, instead of writing a first encounter as if they had been lifelong friends from the start, it was able to foreshadow things to come that, as I read it....well, the old stand-by of 'start of a beautiful friendship' came across in that book with how Spock, Kirk, and McCoy even preferring to not be around one another at the start of the book except forced together by events outside their control. Sorry if I'm being cryptic, I don't want to spoil the book for any who want to read it and haven't yet.
Scruffy's got a point in how the characters and their relationships play a big role in making Trek what it is, but I disagree on how JJA tried to present it: comes off as both them trying to make them just meeting for the first time as well as having known each other for decades at the same time. To me, that just doesn't come across as anything other than bad.
Where exactly did you get the impression that these characters had decades of experience bundled into a few meetings?
That's the last impression I got...
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
No offense, you are entitled to your opinion, but I just can't get on board with supporting films that butcher the franchise so badly that they ignore the heart and soul of what Trek is.
There's plenty of pre 2009 Trek that does that - pretty much every TNG movie, for example, Voyager and Enterprise.
Now, I'm one of the first to call Trek out on its failings...
Voyager pushed farther with the 'lost in space on the other side of the galaxy' bit which gave the characters a setting where they could push their moral and ethical boundaries on how far they would be willing to go in order to get home while still staying true to who they were.
Enterprise takes Voyager to a new level. Exploring the unknown, returning to Trek's roots of facing the undiscovered and learning about it. The Xindi arc wasn't the only place the NX-01's crew were forced to face themselves in the mirror. Plenty of episodes where characters had to make choices they could best live with in impossible situations. Then you have the whole fact that they are, pretty much, making it all up as they go along. This is before all the guidebooks were written. And, before all you haters out there go 'Enterprise was too advanced for pre-TOS', I point you in the direction of a little thing called a movie known as 'First Contact'. It is entirely plausible to note Enterprise as an alternate timeline caused by the fallout from the temporal incursion in that film (and Zef didn't seem like the type to keep his mouth shut to me). So, thanks to a temporal event, we get an alternate timeline....however, one that was, IMHO, better done than JJ's attempt.
Voyager blew it. It had a great opportunity to take elements that succeeded in DS9 - story arcs, conflict between the crew and character development/progression - and transfer them to a starship-based show. Instead, it mostly became an alien of the week series with very little tension or discomfort portrayed amongst the crew since, aside from being able to get home, they were living in relative comfort. Good thing 7 was brought in to distract people from all that...
Enterprise? Good God, it was horrendous. Alien of the week, retcons, a rather boring set of characters, decon underwear scenes, a race of Sponge Bob Square Pants people, a.k.a. the Suliban, Pregnant Trip Tucker, Archer getting beat up, who's that guy flying the ship anyways? I sure as hell wouldn't want to share an adventure with any of them. Oddly enough, the most well written character - Shran - wasn't even a regular cast member. Oh yeah, and alien TRIBBLE = lol.
And do I even need to go into the many shortcomings and WTF is this TRIBBLE moments in TNG film history? Troi mine r4pe scene, Data being an azz-clown, or phallic symbol joke, and impervious to bullets (even though an arrow can lodge itself in him) Kirk dying in a stupid and pointless manner, the destruction of the Enterprise D, Rambo Picard, etc. etc.
Enterprise and Nemesis helped END production of Star Trek for several reasons. The primary reason was both being Epic FAIL
There's plenty of pre 2009 Trek that does that - pretty much every TNG movie, for example, Voyager and Enterprise.
Voyager blew it. It had a great opportunity to take elements that succeeded in DS9 - story arcs, conflict between the crew and character development/progression - and transfer them to a starship-based show. Instead, it mostly became an alien of the week series with very little tension or discomfort portrayed amongst the crew since, aside from being able to get home, they were living in relative comfort. Good thing 7 was brought in to distract people from all that...
Enterprise? Good God, it was horrendous. Alien of the week, retcons, a rather boring set of characters, decon underwear scenes, a race of Sponge Bob Square Pants people, a.k.a. the Suliban, Pregnant Trip Tucker, Archer getting beat up, who's that guy flying the ship anyways? I sure as hell wouldn't want to share an adventure with any of them. Oddly enough, the most well written character - Shran - wasn't even a regular cast member. Oh yeah, and alien TRIBBLE = lol.
And do I even need to go into the many shortcomings and WTF is this TRIBBLE moments in TNG film history? Troi mine r4pe scene, Data being an azz-clown, or phallic symbol joke, and impervious to bullets (even though an arrow can lodge itself in him) Kirk dying in a stupid and pointless manner, the destruction of the Enterprise D, Rambo Picard, etc. etc.
Enterprise and Nemesis helped END production of Star Trek for several reasons. The primary reason was both being Epic FAIL
Bullets would probably also lodge themselves in Data - it's just that he won't take any significant damage. :P
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
I consider myself an avid Trek fan. I thought the movie was good. I didn't realize the villian was Khan until McCoy and Marcus had opened the torpedo tube. So kudos to the writers there, good job. Ithought some of the role reversals from Wrath Of Khan toward the end of the movie were kind of lame. But I realize this is where they were paying homage to TOS. At least I hope they were paying homage and not being lazy.
The actors playing Spock and Bones do an awesome job!!!!!!
What's with the Enterprise being under water? Completely lame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, anyway, JJ didn't ruin Trek; because this is a whole new timeline. Completely diff from The original trek.
What's with the Enterprise being under water? Completely lame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lame? Seriously?
How does anyone find that lame? They've got inertial dampeners, structural integrity fields, force fields and all that techno stuff that handles space... for underwater, they just need to compensate appropriately.
I imagine shields and force fields could easily handle the cubic pressure and weight of water.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
There's plenty of pre 2009 Trek that does that - pretty much every TNG movie, for example, Voyager and Enterprise.
I'm not here to try to change your opinion. I'm only here to state mine. As such, I have to disagree with you heavily on this. Voyager, Enterprise, and the TNG films stayed true to what made Trek....well, Trek while still staying relevant.
For example, Generations touched on obsession and, in a way, addiction. Soran was 'hooked' on the Nexus and was going out of his way and doing everything he could to make it back inside no matter the consequences and collateral damage. Compared that to any real world drug addict. It also touched on a major fear of everyone, death and the inevitable process of growing old.
Voyager blew it. It had a great opportunity to take elements that succeeded in DS9 - story arcs, conflict between the crew and character development/progression - and transfer them to a starship-based show. Instead, it mostly became an alien of the week series with very little tension or discomfort portrayed amongst the crew since, aside from being able to get home, they were living in relative comfort. Good thing 7 was brought in to distract people from all that...
So Voyager wasn't a 'epic, giant pew pew space battle' ever episode. That's not what the show was about in the first place. This was, in a sense, a Trek-ized and modernized version of Lost In Space, a 'space family Robinson' show. Yes, the writers took some....liberties about not keeping terminology consistant with other series or within the show itself, but, again, that wasn't what Voyager was about. Voyager was, like all real Trek, a drama series. The never knew if they were going to make it home in their lifetimes, let alone at all. As such, they were forced to make due with what they had and could trade for while still exploring what .....in the context of a drama series.
Enterprise? Good God, it was horrendous. Alien of the week, retcons, a rather boring set of characters, decon underwear scenes, a race of Sponge Bob Square Pants people, a.k.a. the Suliban, Pregnant Trip Tucker, Archer getting beat up, who's that guy flying the ship anyways? I sure as hell wouldn't want to share an adventure with any of them. Oddly enough, the most well written character - Shran - wasn't even a regular cast member. Oh yeah, and alien TRIBBLE = lol.
Trek has always been a mix of arc and episodic in nature.
Enterprise was canceled early, so I hear, due to meddling from 'upper management'. Probably because they already at JJ-verse in the works as a way of taking a good series and turning into the latest of the usual B-movie cash farmers. Shran was supposed to join the crew of the NX-01 in the 5th season.
And you are going to have to be more specific about what you mean about 'retcons'. Is this the nonsense about 'its too advanced for pre-TOS era' thing again? Read the previous posts I made as well as responses to them. You must have missed where the topic of Enterprise being an alternate timeline caused by the temporal incursion of First Contact was discussed.
And it would get very boring if the characters were perfect. Again, never what Trek was about. Enterprise was about an Earth ship crewed primarily by humans with a Vulcan and Phlox along as well (with Shran supposed to come aboard, as mentioned, in the planned Season 5 before it was killed off).
Archer not winning every fight? Actually a very good call, no one has a 'perfect' win-loss record in a fist fight.
Non-human alien reproductive systems? So what? Not like I'm a xenophobe or a prude.
Non-white crew members? [Sarcasm]Ooh, the scandal.[/Sarcasm] Seriously, though, what did you have against Travis Mayweather? Skin color? The fact he was born and raised 'on the road' aboard a freighter ship? You can't even be bothered to remember his name as the NX-01's helm officer.
As for the Na'kuhl, they weren't TRIBBLE. They just used the TRIBBLE and their world conquest compaign to further their own goals. They backed Axis because the motivations, morals, and ethics of the Allies were the more antagonist to their own.
No offense, but did you even watch the series? Or are you just spouting off stuff you heard via word of mouth?
Of all the Trek's, Enterprise's crew was written as the most.....human. Namely because the censors were no longer as strict prudes as they used to be censoring everything.
And do I even need to go into the many shortcomings and WTF is this TRIBBLE moments in TNG film history? Troi mine r4pe scene, Data being an azz-clown, or phallic symbol joke, and impervious to bullets (even though an arrow can lodge itself in him) Kirk dying in a stupid and pointless manner, the destruction of the Enterprise D, Rambo Picard, etc. etc.
*Facepalms.*
Are you just trolling here or what? You reference character building scenes for one.
So Picard lost his cool in First Contact for a while. Go talk to military vets about a little thing known as PTSD and then watch the movie again.
As for Data and the bullets....they had to be removed later. He is made of metal, more or less, after all. If she had aimed for his head, then things would have been more problematic. Forget which episode specifically it was, but it has been referenced, on-screen, that, among other things, duranium (aka, the same stuff they build starship hulls out of) was used in his construction.
And so they gave the 'Big D' a death scene in Generations, big deal. Fans of the original 1701 were probably just as outraged about the similar scene in STIII. You can't expect someone to win every battle, especially when the other guys cheat. The old girl went down fighting and, if you follow canon, know the saucer was recovered, refit, and attached to a new stardrive section for Admiral Riker's ship as of All Good Things era. It was a drama film, they had to give scenes with emotional impact into the script, so we got Kirk's 'double' deaths and the last stand of the 1701-D.
Enterprise and Nemesis helped END production of Star Trek for several reasons. The primary reason was both being Epic FAIL
Again, you are entitled to your own opinion. I just happen to heavily disagree. They killed Enterprise to amp up anticipation for JJA's film(s) so they could make more money. Nemesis, while no TWOK, was a great drama film. So you don't like drama franchises, go watch something that never was drama from day 1 in the 60s then instead.
How does anyone find that lame? They've got inertial dampeners, structural integrity fields, force fields and all that techno stuff that handles space... for underwater, they just need to compensate appropriately.
I imagine shields and force fields could easily handle the cubic pressure and weight of water.
I have to disagree with you on that. Ships capable of sub-surface operations are designed very different from starships. It isn't just about depth and pressure, its a completely different enviroment. As TAS shows us, they had to have specially designed shuttles with specially designed hulls and equipment. At the speeds a starship travels, hitting the surface of the water would be like driving a car at speed into a brick wall. Water is an amazing substance, the faster you travel into it, the stronger and more powerful the resistance becomes.
By not only watching the film and reading what has been posted on all 45 pages of this thread.
I have to disagree with you on that. Ships capable of sub-surface operations are designed very different from starships. It isn't just about depth and pressure, its a completely different enviroment. As TAS shows us, they had to have specially designed shuttles with specially designed hulls and equipment. At the speeds a starship travels, hitting the surface of the water would be like driving a car at speed into a brick wall. Water is an amazing substance, the faster you travel into it, the stronger and more powerful the resistance becomes.
Well, I'll say that this thread isn't the only opinion on that particular debate.
I know that Into Darkness takes place 6 months after the 2009 movie, but they worked well, and didn't have that decades of experience vibe. Why? Because they were still clearly getting used to each other's particular quirks, like Kirk with Spock's logic, and Spock with his relationship regarding Uhura
If they really had that decades of experience, they'd work together flawlessly... which wasn't nearly the case.
And regarding the water, who said the Enterprise entered the water at high speed? We only saw them already in the water, hiding from the natives, and probably slipped in quietly/slowly during the night. Later they exited, and while they did exit a bit fast, I still think their shields/structural integrity fields/force fields and stuff could still easily handle all that: this is the 23rd century, so they can do a lot more than we can understand
That's what I think
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Well, I'll say that this thread isn't the only opinion on that particular debate.
I know that Into Darkness takes place 6 months after the 2009, but they worked well, and didn't have that decades of experience vibe. Why? Because they were still clearly getting used to each other's particular quirks, like Kirk with Spock's logic, and Spock with his relationship regarding Uhura
If they really had that decades of experience, they'd work together flawlessly... which wasn't nearly the case.
Again, I cite the SFA book starring Kirk, McCoy, and Spock about their first mission together as Cadets at various stages in their time at the Academy. Before you keep going, all I suggest is you read the book and compare how that writer treated that situation to how JJ did in his film. If you want, I can dig up the exact name of the book.
And regarding the water, who said the Enterprise entered the water at high speed? We only saw them in the water, hiding from the natives, and probably slipped in quietly/slowly during the night. Later they exited, and while they did exit a bit fast, I still think their shields/structural integrity fields/force fields and stuff could still easily handle all that: this is the 23rd century, so they can do a lot more than we can understand
That's what I think
There is also the issue of a little thing called escape velocity. The closer to the core you are of a planet, the higher it'll be.
Also, starships aren't designed to be aerodynamic or hydrodynamic. Part of Voyager's landing sequence was adjusting shields/force fields for a 'fake' aerodynamic shape. Also, they had to use tech to keep the unbalanced ship from nose planting while sitting there on the landing struts since they were behind the center of balance for the hull.
There's a good reason things like modern day subs are shaped the way they are, no offense.
I'm not here to try to change your opinion. I'm only here to state mine. As such, I have to disagree with you heavily on this. Voyager, Enterprise, and the TNG films stayed true to what made Trek....well, Trek while still staying relevant.
I like Voyager well enough. But seriously? Threshold.
JJ Abrams' Star Trek, both of them, beat that kind of episode six ways to Tuesday. And Voyager has its fair share of klunkers along those same lines as that episode.
It's a fun series. But it has warts. Rose colored glasses may obscure those warts, but it's on Netflix Instant, give it a watch. And remember.
Comments
At Dunder Mifflin she'd have been promoted to the Albany Branch Manager position? Or at least not demoted. You could start a fire there, bag someone's head with a rabid bat, or punch a hole through the wall with very little consequence.
I get the whole substance over special effects. That's how I am with old video games. I always say to my friends, "remember when video games were awesome and you didn't care about the graphics". So I can appreciate those who feel the same about the new Trek movies.
On the other hand, I knew ahead of time that there wouldn't be as much substance in the new Trek movies. That's just how big budget special effect movies are made today. I tampered my expecations and loved the movie because of it. It still had enough Trek in it for me to be okay with it.
If you don't like the new movies, why go? You aren't going to find the substance you seek. Enjoy the old shows and movies for that. I still play my old video games from time to time.
Edit: I just want to see Star Trek live on. Sadly, my teenaged nephew didn't even want to go see the movie, so he stayed home.
You make a fair argument. The new Star Trek films are for a much broader audience, and may not speak on the same intellectual level as the films used to, such as Sacrifice, Life and Death, the Cold War/Chernobyl Incident, or other modern day political surfaces, but that simply doesn't sell anymore. Filmmakers don't make movies that don't stand a chance to make money. That's just how studios survive.
The result is an action movie with a Star Trek hat on. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't do much to tickle your brain box. Thankfully, a full library of Star Trek: The Next Generation is on DVD to tease your thinking muscles.
Star Trek has become what it needs to be in order for a new audience to come in. Let's face it; Trek fans have become very jaded about the franchise and incredibly hard to please. Everyone who has tried in the last ten years has had their efforts spit back in their faces. Think of Enterprise, Star Trek Legacy, and even this game. The reception has been one of struggling fans and a lot of angry Trekkies.
The only viable solution is to seek out new fans and new directions. To boldly go where no Star Trek property has gone bef--- okay, I'm sorry for that one.
But the point is, (and here's your damnable TL;DR), Star Trek has two ways to go; either to change with the times and leave the stubborn, inflexible, impossible-to-please fanboys behind, or to stagnate and simply die off. Paramount made a good choice in trying something new. The formula is successful, if not completely in tune with the so-called "vision" of Star Trek.
I had to actually look up what Dunder Mifflin is; I don't watch The Office (I won't discuss my reasoning). But I seriously doubt that's even close to a fair comparison. If you're just trying to be funny, the joke was entirely lost on me (like the show itself).
Well said. That's what I was truly trying to get at.
Also, after years of being considered nerdy for being a Trekkie, it's nice to have a couple of movies that people think are cool. LOL.
I like what you had to say as well. It made me think of just what these new Trek movies can do. They can act almost as gateways. New audiences who thought Star Trek was too nerdy for them, now going into theatres to see it, and coming out wowed. That's your in; the foot in the door to be exposed to what Star Trek stands for.
In fact, my girlfriend (I sense "imaginary" jokes incoming) didn't care for Trek until we saw JJ's 2009 film. It gave me a chance to sneak in a few episodes of Deep Space Nine while we were... shall we say, herbally inclined. She is now a fan of that series. Not a bad start.
I think you make some great points and I definitely appreciate your perspective.
I do, though, think we're unfairly putting Abrams' two films up against a compilation of 40 years of Star Trek.
I saw each one of the TOS movies in theaters, and I can tell you that in my experience, neither me nor any of those I went with came out of those movies thinking about some greater cultural theme. We came out feeling like we'd just had an adventure (some better than others).
Yes, ST 6 was a clear allegory for the Cold War, but other than that, I don't think any of the TOS movies had a larger "philosophy to action ratio" than these movies did.
Star Trek 2 was about sacrifice, yes, but it really spent very little time exploring it. Very few minutes of screen time were used to address it. Not much more than the screen time used to address the themes of sacrifice, terrorism, human rights (even for criminals), and learning humility in this new movie. It was about even, IMO.
Into Darkness definitely spent more time on it than ST 3 and 5. And ST 4 was about as shallow as you can get. It slammed the "Save the whales" message down the viewers' throats and wrapped it in a movie that was so much a comedy it was almost of parody of the characters (I loved it, believe it or not; just making a point here).
As far as Star Trek movies, I think these new ones fall right in the middle. Behind Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, but ahead of 3,4, and 5... both in terms of fun and depth.
We have to remember that when we're talking about the depth of characters here, we're comparing the 5 hours that Abrams had to the 40 years that the others had. He wasn't continuing the development of these characters... he was tasked with introducing them - from scratch - to a new audience.
If you put the Abrams films up against any other Trek film individually, Abrams holds up pretty well.
It's definitely not the best Trek, but it's definitely not the worst. And it certainly (IMO) doesn't deserve the claim that it has ruined Trek.
Maybe you hit on what I was really thinking: that Star Trek is changing to be what it needs to be to have an audience. I would prefer, and I think the creator himself would've agreed, that people came to the messages of Trek instead of it being milk-toasted to get people to come to church.
It feels too much of evangelizing to me and once they get inside, there's really nothing going on.
The movie has its points such as the CGI and acting but the story is just soooo bad once you get home and think about it. It's like the movie is better if you *don't* think about it and that philosophy seems rampant in our culture and why I made the claim that I did.... that this movie is more the product of our culture than anything else.
And that makes me a little sad.
Also well said. I can understand the way you feel about the "getting people to come to church" and then having nothing to show for it. I hope after "going to church" people keep seeking the "Star Trek" way. Lol. Hopefully they will watch the old shows and movies and find that they are as cool as we think they are.
I think I have to disagree with the end of your statements there. It's not very much like the director selling the franchise on the laurels of an action film. The true fans who finally get to stop feeling like nerds and outcasts and move up to, at the very least, the hipster category. The fans are the ones who get the chance to open up their friends to the franchise with this new opening. The old 60s show just can't be taken seriously by young audiences now.
As for lacking story, I gotta say I don't agree with that either. It was said earlier that you don't tend to walk out of a Star Trek film feeling like you just watched something groundbreaking and intellectual. You walk out feeling like you just had an adventure. Each film has tried (well, some tried) to push the envelope of special effects. Star Trek II certainly did, and it definitely helped make the film that much more successful. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was far more in tune with Roddenberry's Star Trek than its sequel - and yet movie-goers in general, and Trekkies specifically, always say that The Wrath of Khan was the better film.
If you see past the dazzle, the action, and the lens flares (which are in curiously fewer numbers in Star Trek into Darkness), you will see a real story there. A careful set-up to the plot leads characters through an experience that reshapes how they view the chain of command. Kirk is subjected to the true burdens of captaincy, and Spock's Vulcan half is tested to its breaking point.
Was the action over-the-top? Yes. Did it overshadow the underlying story elements? Yes. It can be hard to pick up on subtleties when your retinas are full of laser beams and giant explosions. No one can be blamed for missing the fine details, especially if they're not actively looking for them.
I saw a Facebook post this week where a bunch of folks (mostly young) were discussing the new movie and they had a very in-depth and long debate about whether or not Kirk had the right to kill Harrison. One side was saying he was following orders and Harrison had to be stopped by any means while the other side was saying Kirk had a moral obligation to disobey orders and bring Harrison in for a trial.
Now, no matter what side of that debate you're on, I think the debates itself shows 2 things:
1. Kids aren't as shallow as we think
2. This movie did - on some level - make them go "hmmmm."
You just made my day. I could only speak from personal experience seeing this movie with a couple other people. We all seemed to have no trouble seeing past the flashy exterior. The questions of whether Kirk did the right thing, in a lot of situations, can be raised to strengthen the case that a story was in fact present and fully developed.
Ah, if you had seen the episodes in particular that I referenced (especially the Dwight fire safety one since he does get called to corporate for almost burning down the building and killlng everyone in it), or really just generally you know most of what Michael Scott did for the first four seasons, you'd see it's a very apt comparison.
As well as me being funny.
He made an entirely different ST, for sure, but that doesn't automatically make it terrible (or great). I for one, think it's good in it's own way, and think it's great that it revitalized ST for a new audience, who otherwise wouldn't have even looked at the older versions
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Scotty said that he (Harrison) used a teleportation device that used Scotty's formula, the one he said could beam grapefruits and presidents' dogs from planet to planet and onto a starship traveling at warp speed.
HIPPIES. HIPPIES EVERYWHERE.
Yeah, that actually added to the story for me. It certainly didn't take away from it.
They could have just as easily had Harrison take a starship, but by using that warp tech, it showed that the warp equation from the first movie actually had an impact on the galaxy. By using that particular tech, they basically moved it from a plot device to an actual part of the new continuity.
Yes, and that's what I like about this. It does have a Star Trek feel, always a land of new inventions.
And, just as TOS communicators were the predecessors of the Cell Phone, we could also see those floating gurneys (stretchers) in the future
HIPPIES. HIPPIES EVERYWHERE.
No offense, you are entitled to your opinion, but I just can't get on board with supporting films that butcher the franchise so badly that they ignore the heart and soul of what Trek is. Some of the best Trek had no action what-so-ever. Trek is a drama that uses any action, if present, as framed by the story, not as the story itself.
You won't get an argument from me about some of Trek's tech being first worked in for cost saving measures (like transporters in TOS) or whatever, but at least they tried to actually work in 'work arounds' (like, again with transporters, Heisenberg compensators to counteract the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that states you can either know where and atom is at a given moment or what it is doing, not both).
Abrams could have easily created brand new characters for his alt-Enterprise or explored the pre-Kirk era under Pike or April. Hell, the ship was in service for 40 years before going down on Genesis, plenty of story never seen on-screen. There are entire books dedicated to those 'Lost Years'. If he wanted 'young Spock', he could have based on the unused pilot where MBR was First Officer and Spock was Science Officer.
I've no objection to calling JJA's films action films, but I won't be calling them Trek fmovies. No offense to the guy, am a big fan of 'Forever Young', 'Armageddon', 'Fringe', 'Person Of Interest', 'Alcatraz', and 'Revolution', but I just don't feel he did Trek justice. I would have much rather seen Spiner's 'Enterprise era Earth-Romulan War trilogy' they turned down for Abrams films instead.
You aren't supposed to walk out of seeing a Trek film going 'ooh, those were some epic explosions man'. You are supposed to walk out discussing things like how the story had relevance to the real world (TOS's "The Omega Glory" is a great one to make you stop and think, while still keeping the action junkies hooked). TOS's 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield' is also a great episode for using Trek canon to frame a real world issue.
Another example of a Trek framed action instead of JJ's action framed imitation of Trek is TWOK. Its been mentioned in this thread TWOK was 'about sacrifice', but it was so much more. It was also about standing at the edge and looking into the abyss while you face certain death. Kirk's answer was to go out swinging and slug Death in the face. Why I figure things, they went in after Khan figuring they weren't coming out again, at least not alive. There's a reason the Kobyashi Maru test was referenced so heavily, even to the point of one of Saavik's tries at it being the very opening scene......TWOK was about a no win scenario.
TMP was originally the pilot for the unaired Phase II sequel Trek series starring a refit Enterprise with Decker in the big chair. Phase II was scrapped, so they reworked the pilot into a full movie and recycled other episode scripts into TNG. Yet it still came across as one of the best Treks, even with out shoot 'em up space battles. TMP was about the infamous questions any parents of small children should know about: "Why?" and "Who am I?" Those were the questions V'Ger was forced to face. The immortal questions of "Is this all there is to me?" and "Can I be greater?" are also posed from V'Ger's perspective.
TFF is vastly under-rated. Probably because, again, it didn't have 'epic shoot 'em up space battles'. The infamous line of '"Why does God need a starship?" speaks volumes. We know that entity, whatever it is (books have given one answer), was able to influence Sybok into finding a way to bring him said ship (two if you count the Bird of Prey). It explored cults and the dangers of 'drinking the koolade' (so to speak). It was a story of redemption with characters forced to face past regrets (and Sybok's self-sacrifice in the end).
Long story short, a story doesn't need action in order to be a smash hit. I can think of several big ones that are cult classics that had no action at all.
Star Wars was conceived along the lines of 'good versus evil'. Trek, however, was a morality tale inspired by westerns, Horatio Hornblower, and 'Gulliver's Travels'. Let us not forget the original title was going to be 'Wagon Train To The Stars', after all (thankfully, they changed it to the less of a mouthful Star Trek, lol).
I grew up on Trek. I enjoyed watching episodes live with my dad everytime a new one aired. Now, I'm one of the first to call Trek out on its failings, even if its due to a cultural difference. TOS was filmed and aired in the 60s. While the aesop remains viable, the framing story has become somewhat....campy due to real world cultural changes. For something done in the 70s, TAS stands up pretty well.
TNG is from the late 80s to early 90s, a time of extreme political upheaval in the world (with the end of the Cold War and all). TNG, especially the episodes written for it and not recycled from Phase II, was about peace and resonated with people in a time when all these little wars were all over the globe (Gulf War I for example).
DS9 aired in mid to late 90s, a time when the world was starting to settle back down. It was a time when the world as we know it today was only starting to be born - and DS9 reflected that with pushing the boundaries of the unknown and seeing what was on the other side (in canon known as the Gamma Quadrant).
Voyager pushed farther with the 'lost in space on the other side of the galaxy' bit which gave the characters a setting where they could push their moral and ethical boundaries on how far they would be willing to go in order to get home while still staying true to who they were.
Enterprise takes Voyager to a new level. Exploring the unknown, returning to Trek's roots of facing the undiscovered and learning about it. The Xindi arc wasn't the only place the NX-01's crew were forced to face themselves in the mirror. Plenty of episodes where characters had to make choices they could best live with in impossible situations. Then you have the whole fact that they are, pretty much, making it all up as they go along. This is before all the guidebooks were written. And, before all you haters out there go 'Enterprise was too advanced for pre-TOS', I point you in the direction of a little thing called a movie known as 'First Contact'. It is entirely plausible to note Enterprise as an alternate timeline caused by the fallout from the temporal incursion in that film (and Zef didn't seem like the type to keep his mouth shut to me). So, thanks to a temporal event, we get an alternate timeline....however, one that was, IMHO, better done than JJ's attempt.
Lol, I could keep on typing, but I'll stop for now. Give you a chance to get through this wall of text first.
No matter what the "original vision" was, no matter what Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to be, the fact is, Star Trek is different things for different people.
Some people love the exploration and adventure of Star Trek. Some people love the campy action of TOS. Some people love the moral questions Trek raises. Some people love the tech elements of Trek.
For me (and this is just my very humble opinion), the heart and soul of Star Trek can be summed up with one word: Friendship.
The friendships and relationships are why I loved TOS and the original movies. The friendships and relationships are why I liked TNG. The friendships are why I am one of the few people who loved Enterprise. The lack of well developed relationships is also why I disliked Voyager.
And for me (again, this is purely my opinion), the new movies are doing a very good job of developing the friendships and relationships of the cast. That's why this new one still feels like Star Trek to me. I fully admit there are some jarring differences between these movies and its predecessors (especially TNG), but when I watch these movies, I believe the friendships being developed... and that makes it feel like Star Trek.
Although I have to slightly disagree with your opinion on "Enterprise" but it just shows how different the same thing can be seen by different people. While I agree with you that Enterprise might very well be placed in an alternate timeline (actually there is little that speaks AGAINST that) and had a very good potential for original stories I find it very unfortunate that the creators haven't developed much of said original stories but instead relied on assets well known to the franchise in order not to scare of the fans but creating lots of canonical issues while doing so. I think this neglected the chance they had to revive the premise of the great unknown, although I really liked the concept. And of course, the latter part of the series fell victim to real-world events becoming a pretty bland, militarized post 9/11 "propaganda" series.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
As for the 9/11 to Xindi arc equivilant, I say: Why not? After all, that arc is the show's best for pushing the characters to the edge and over it. Who can forget Archer's infamous 'interrogation via airlock' scene? That arc pushed all the characters in how far they would be willing to take things and how much of how true to who and what they were they were willing to compromise themselves. TOS dealt with the Cold War, with the Federation as the USA and the Klingons as the USSR, as that was when it was set. So what's wrong with Enterprise being relevant to modern events?
Terrorism is nothing new to be depicted in Trek. So neither ITD or Enterprise can pull the 'did it first' card. Episodes as far back as TOS dealt with such groups. In some ways, TWOK can also be described as dealing with it as well.
As for the original topic of this thread: JJ-trek vs Gene-Trek (and, yes, the capitalization is intentional, lol). Scruffy's got a point in how the characters and their relationships play a big role in making Trek what it is, but I disagree on how JJA tried to present it: comes off as both them trying to make them just meeting for the first time as well as having known each other for decades at the same time. To me, that just doesn't come across as anything other than bad. The Starfleet Academy Book about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy meeting each other as Cadets was better not only showing the beginnings of the famous relationships the three would have in TOS and the films, but also showing how they had just met and those relationships having only just started. The book also managed to show how the three just clicked and, instead of writing a first encounter as if they had been lifelong friends from the start, it was able to foreshadow things to come that, as I read it....well, the old stand-by of 'start of a beautiful friendship' came across in that book with how Spock, Kirk, and McCoy even preferring to not be around one another at the start of the book except forced together by events outside their control. Sorry if I'm being cryptic, I don't want to spoil the book for any who want to read it and haven't yet.
That's the last impression I got...
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Voyager blew it. It had a great opportunity to take elements that succeeded in DS9 - story arcs, conflict between the crew and character development/progression - and transfer them to a starship-based show. Instead, it mostly became an alien of the week series with very little tension or discomfort portrayed amongst the crew since, aside from being able to get home, they were living in relative comfort. Good thing 7 was brought in to distract people from all that...
Enterprise? Good God, it was horrendous. Alien of the week, retcons, a rather boring set of characters, decon underwear scenes, a race of Sponge Bob Square Pants people, a.k.a. the Suliban, Pregnant Trip Tucker, Archer getting beat up, who's that guy flying the ship anyways? I sure as hell wouldn't want to share an adventure with any of them. Oddly enough, the most well written character - Shran - wasn't even a regular cast member. Oh yeah, and alien TRIBBLE = lol.
And do I even need to go into the many shortcomings and WTF is this TRIBBLE moments in TNG film history? Troi mine r4pe scene, Data being an azz-clown, or phallic symbol joke, and impervious to bullets (even though an arrow can lodge itself in him) Kirk dying in a stupid and pointless manner, the destruction of the Enterprise D, Rambo Picard, etc. etc.
Enterprise and Nemesis helped END production of Star Trek for several reasons. The primary reason was both being Epic FAIL
Bullets would probably also lodge themselves in Data - it's just that he won't take any significant damage. :P
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
The actors playing Spock and Bones do an awesome job!!!!!!
What's with the Enterprise being under water? Completely lame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, anyway, JJ didn't ruin Trek; because this is a whole new timeline. Completely diff from The original trek.
How does anyone find that lame?
I imagine shields and force fields could easily handle the cubic pressure and weight of water.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
For example, Generations touched on obsession and, in a way, addiction. Soran was 'hooked' on the Nexus and was going out of his way and doing everything he could to make it back inside no matter the consequences and collateral damage. Compared that to any real world drug addict. It also touched on a major fear of everyone, death and the inevitable process of growing old. So Voyager wasn't a 'epic, giant pew pew space battle' ever episode. That's not what the show was about in the first place. This was, in a sense, a Trek-ized and modernized version of Lost In Space, a 'space family Robinson' show. Yes, the writers took some....liberties about not keeping terminology consistant with other series or within the show itself, but, again, that wasn't what Voyager was about. Voyager was, like all real Trek, a drama series. The never knew if they were going to make it home in their lifetimes, let alone at all. As such, they were forced to make due with what they had and could trade for while still exploring what .....in the context of a drama series. Trek has always been a mix of arc and episodic in nature.
Enterprise was canceled early, so I hear, due to meddling from 'upper management'. Probably because they already at JJ-verse in the works as a way of taking a good series and turning into the latest of the usual B-movie cash farmers. Shran was supposed to join the crew of the NX-01 in the 5th season.
And you are going to have to be more specific about what you mean about 'retcons'. Is this the nonsense about 'its too advanced for pre-TOS era' thing again? Read the previous posts I made as well as responses to them. You must have missed where the topic of Enterprise being an alternate timeline caused by the temporal incursion of First Contact was discussed.
And it would get very boring if the characters were perfect. Again, never what Trek was about. Enterprise was about an Earth ship crewed primarily by humans with a Vulcan and Phlox along as well (with Shran supposed to come aboard, as mentioned, in the planned Season 5 before it was killed off).
Archer not winning every fight? Actually a very good call, no one has a 'perfect' win-loss record in a fist fight.
Non-human alien reproductive systems? So what? Not like I'm a xenophobe or a prude.
Non-white crew members? [Sarcasm]Ooh, the scandal.[/Sarcasm] Seriously, though, what did you have against Travis Mayweather? Skin color? The fact he was born and raised 'on the road' aboard a freighter ship? You can't even be bothered to remember his name as the NX-01's helm officer.
As for the Na'kuhl, they weren't TRIBBLE. They just used the TRIBBLE and their world conquest compaign to further their own goals. They backed Axis because the motivations, morals, and ethics of the Allies were the more antagonist to their own.
No offense, but did you even watch the series? Or are you just spouting off stuff you heard via word of mouth?
Of all the Trek's, Enterprise's crew was written as the most.....human. Namely because the censors were no longer as strict prudes as they used to be censoring everything. *Facepalms.*
Are you just trolling here or what? You reference character building scenes for one.
So Picard lost his cool in First Contact for a while. Go talk to military vets about a little thing known as PTSD and then watch the movie again.
As for Data and the bullets....they had to be removed later. He is made of metal, more or less, after all. If she had aimed for his head, then things would have been more problematic. Forget which episode specifically it was, but it has been referenced, on-screen, that, among other things, duranium (aka, the same stuff they build starship hulls out of) was used in his construction.
And so they gave the 'Big D' a death scene in Generations, big deal. Fans of the original 1701 were probably just as outraged about the similar scene in STIII. You can't expect someone to win every battle, especially when the other guys cheat. The old girl went down fighting and, if you follow canon, know the saucer was recovered, refit, and attached to a new stardrive section for Admiral Riker's ship as of All Good Things era. It was a drama film, they had to give scenes with emotional impact into the script, so we got Kirk's 'double' deaths and the last stand of the 1701-D. Again, you are entitled to your own opinion. I just happen to heavily disagree. They killed Enterprise to amp up anticipation for JJA's film(s) so they could make more money. Nemesis, while no TWOK, was a great drama film. So you don't like drama franchises, go watch something that never was drama from day 1 in the 60s then instead. I have to disagree with you on that. Ships capable of sub-surface operations are designed very different from starships. It isn't just about depth and pressure, its a completely different enviroment. As TAS shows us, they had to have specially designed shuttles with specially designed hulls and equipment. At the speeds a starship travels, hitting the surface of the water would be like driving a car at speed into a brick wall. Water is an amazing substance, the faster you travel into it, the stronger and more powerful the resistance becomes.
I know that Into Darkness takes place 6 months after the 2009 movie, but they worked well, and didn't have that decades of experience vibe. Why? Because they were still clearly getting used to each other's particular quirks, like Kirk with Spock's logic, and Spock with his relationship regarding Uhura
If they really had that decades of experience, they'd work together flawlessly... which wasn't nearly the case.
And regarding the water, who said the Enterprise entered the water at high speed? We only saw them already in the water, hiding from the natives, and probably slipped in quietly/slowly during the night. Later they exited, and while they did exit a bit fast, I still think their shields/structural integrity fields/force fields and stuff could still easily handle all that: this is the 23rd century, so they can do a lot more than we can understand
That's what I think
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Also, starships aren't designed to be aerodynamic or hydrodynamic. Part of Voyager's landing sequence was adjusting shields/force fields for a 'fake' aerodynamic shape. Also, they had to use tech to keep the unbalanced ship from nose planting while sitting there on the landing struts since they were behind the center of balance for the hull.
There's a good reason things like modern day subs are shaped the way they are, no offense.
I like Voyager well enough. But seriously? Threshold.
JJ Abrams' Star Trek, both of them, beat that kind of episode six ways to Tuesday. And Voyager has its fair share of klunkers along those same lines as that episode.
It's a fun series. But it has warts. Rose colored glasses may obscure those warts, but it's on Netflix Instant, give it a watch. And remember.