Star Trek: Into Darkness Trailer

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That's funny because that's how you read to me heh heh.

Except for the fact that I acknowledge that TOS is good stuff. It's a bit "campy" in the visual effects at this point obviously, but the storylines, the themes, etc. are top-class. Hell, a lot of TNG plots were lifted somewhat or thematically lifted from TOS.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Then I'm terrible at being the grumpy old guy, because I have watched and own it all. Including TNG on Blu-ray up through season five. But as I've gotten older, I've found that I care less and less about the spinoffs. I got to "Ethics" on the season five set and I realized I just didn't much care about those characters anymore. I didn't care about Crusher's outrage, Worf's honor nor the Klingon non-sense that was always attached to any story about him.

And TNG did try to wash its hands of TOS, Roddenberry even claimed that much of TOS was apocryphal after TNG premiered. He tried to claim that TOS was just a historical dramatization in the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Roddenberry spent a good portion of his later years trying to distance himself from TOS.

Star Trek for me was and is action-adventure in a sci-fi setting and the spinoffs tried their best to distance themselves from that formula.

Well that's where it's different things to different folks. For me the action-adventure is secondary to the thought-provoking nature of the questions it asks along the way. Not to say I don't enjoy a good action-adventure show or episode at all (Ummm I actually liked some of Voyager's stuff surrounding the conflict with the Borg and 8472 on second-watching).

And look - I'm not trying to say TNG is the be-all and end-all and demand another TNG movie. In fact, to me it's the least-rewatchable of the series, since the significant discontinuity between episodes (Q. "how can a casual fan tell which season it is? A. What is Marina Sirtis wearing, is she making googly-eyes at Worf or Riker?) makes it EXTREMELY hard to invest in the characters on much more than surface level.

But I don't think the answer is to reboot things and turn it into "just another summer popcorn franchise." That's just my opinion though, and if they want to go that way that's fine, I would just REALLY like to see them do it with some originality instead of just "durrr...we're so clever we reused an old villan and then switched Kirk and Spock's places in one of the most iconic scenes in TOS...aren't we cool fanboyz!!!!"

Star Trek has always been (IMO) the "thinking man's scifi" to Star Wars' "action-adventure in space." And these new movies have no "thinking man's component" to them.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

But I don't think the answer is to reboot things and turn it into "just another summer popcorn franchise." That's just my opinion though, and if they want to go that way that's fine, I would just REALLY like to see them do it with some originality instead of just "durrr...we're so clever we reused an old villan and then switched Kirk and Spock's places in one of the most iconic scenes in TOS...aren't we cool fanboyz!!!!"

But part of rebooting is the ability to cherry-pick elements that do work from earlier iterations. For me, Khan has far more weight as a villain than John Harrison does. I also loved the inverted warp core death scene. For me, the first job of any entertainment is to entertain and the Abrams films do a fantastic job of it.

Star Trek has always been (IMO) the "thinking man's scifi" to Star Wars' "action-adventure in space." And these new movies have no "thinking man's component" to them.

I really think this has been hyped up over the years but is largely false and part of the problem with the spinoffs is they bought into the hype of Star Trek being somehow socially relevant at the expense of it being entertaining. The cast of "The Cage" (the first pilot) was completely white and Roddenberry changed it at the request of NBC, TNG neutered the only black regular character on the ship, none of the spinoffs have even acknowledged the existence of gay people (something that could one could understand in the 1960's but totally unacceptable from the 1980's on) and so on.

I'm pretty sure that people that are primarily literary sci-fi readers probably look down at Star Trek the same way you look down at Star Wars. Neither franchise is really "thinking man's sci-fi", comparatively speaking.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But part of rebooting is the ability to cherry-pick elements that do work from earlier iterations. For me, Khan has far more weight as a villain than John Harrison does. I also loved the inverted warp core death scene. For me, the first job of any entertainment is to entertain and the Abrams films do a fantastic job of it.



I really think this has been hyped up over the years but is largely false and part of the problem with the spinoffs is they bought into the hype of Star Trek being somehow socially relevant at the expense of it being entertaining. The cast of "The Cage" (the first pilot) was completely white and Roddenberry changed it at the request of NBC, TNG neutered the only black regular character on the ship, none of the spinoffs have even acknowledged the existence of gay people (something that could one could understand in the 1960's but totally unacceptable from the 1980's on) and so on.

I'm pretty sure that people that are primarily literary sci-fi readers probably look down at Star Trek the same way you look down at Star Wars. Neither franchise is really "thinking man's sci-fi", comparatively speaking.

Of course. I should have further clarified it as "the visual medium's thinking man's scifi".

Khan has a ton of weight as a villain - but I don't want them to cherry-pick things from the old universe in some sort of "fanboy homage." If they're going to reboot I'd rather they just tell new stories using the same characters and have the characters develop differently. Instead of making a mish-mash movie that displays next-to-no original thought or elements aside from "whatever will aid our quest for crazy action scenes" (such as the fight on the flying cars that looked straight out of Star Wars).

I think we just have to agree to disagree on whether there should be an intellectual component to it, or to what extent that plays a role. It's okay that we both like it for different reasons, even if that leads us to different conclusions. The tent is big enough.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think we just have to agree to disagree on whether there should be an intellectual component to it, or to what extent that plays a role. It's okay that we both like it for different reasons, even if that leads us to different conclusions. The tent is big enough.

It isn't that I don't like having an intellectual aspect (I think Trek's intellectual aspect has been overrated) to it, I just don't think the entertainment aspect should be sacrificed in the process.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It isn't that I don't like having an intellectual aspect (I think Trek's intellectual aspect has been overrated) to it, I just don't think the entertainment aspect should be sacrificed in the process.

Well sure, I don't think so either!

Puppies and unicorns for everyone!

I'm jealous. I wish I could enjoy the new films as much as you seem to, I really do. I just...can't.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm jealous. I wish I could enjoy the new films as much as you seem to, I really do. I just...can't.

Well, you seem to enjoy the spinoffs far more than I do. Seems like you're getting the better end of the deal as there's six-hundred hours of it compared to about a hundred of TOS and Abrams material total.