10 Ways Star Trek Just Isn’t Star Trek Anymore

[johnmiic]

Many of the points are spot-on.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-ways-star-trek-just-isnt-star-trek-anymore.php

[jwyblejr]

Something they forgot to mention in point #10,Kirk would never haven gotten his butt handed to him like he did in the bar fight in the first movie.

[Hedji]

Yup. Some excellent points. Into Darkness was to me, an unmitigated mess. I walked out of that far more disappointed than, say, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It's not the actors' faults... It's the script.

The biggest difference between Nu Trek and Old? Nu Trek is for a Post 9-11 audience. I swear, I could write a book on how 9-11 changed pop culture and film.

[Mego Magyar]

Great list, totally agree with all points. The characters have become caricatures of their former versions.

Maybe the new Trek looks pretty and exciting but it doesn't matter how much perfume you put on dog crap you still don't want to step in it.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I'm going to go counterpoint on this one. Yes, New Trek is different. And yes, I have some problems with it. But, I think if you go back and watch REAL Classic Trek (the original 79 episodes) you'll find elements from these new movies in those episodes. Elements that Next Gen onward abandoned.

Roddenberry really went pacifistic in his later years, and had huge problems with Bennet, Myer, Nimoy and Shatner carrying on the previously established "Starfleet is military" idea. His vision of the future was always idealistic, but he kind of took the human element out of it when he made everyone overly polite and rigid automatons in my opinion. You can see the seeds of this in ST: TMP, and it's firmly established in Next Gen, two projects he was in control of.

New Trek restores a bit of that rough and tumble cowboy diplomacy that was missing since Star Trek VI, in my opinion. Maybe it's because I never completely warmed to Next Gen and don't care much for any of the follow-ups, but to me, in many ways, the Abrams films recapture something that got lost along the way. They are far from perfect, but they are fun. I don't agree with the whole Spock/Uhura thing as I think it undermines and confuses the whole point of the Spock character, but beyond that, I enjoy these films.

Chris

[palitoy]

I think the Abrams films are closer to the original series than TNG.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yes. You said it much more succinctly, and far less rambling than I did, but I agree.

Chris

[madmarva]

I'm with Chris and Palitoy on this one.

With Abrams' Trek diverging into a different timeline than the original series, I see events occurring at an accelerated pace. Kirk is a captain more quickly, the crew comes together but in different ways than in the original timeline.

We see Spock and Uhura together at a younger more impetuous age than in the original. There was something between Spock and Uhura hinted at in the OS, but it was never really explained and kind of dropped.

For me to make their love affair work in Abrams' continuity, Spock hasn't yet mastered/denied his human emotions to the same degree as The Original Spock had when we met him in the OS, and likely won't because of the destruction of Vulcan. I figure he did OS Spock did some additional study on Vulcan on leaves and what not from Star Fleet that helped him w his emotions. Abrams' Spock leans more human than OS Spock, at least in this stage of the character's development. So that way I can accept the Uhura-Spock relationship without it undermining the characters.

What I liked in Nimoy's portrayal of Spock in the films is that he would teeter toward acting more human or more Vulcan, whichever was to his advantage. When he was younger in the TV series, he was clearly at war with himself in trying to deny the human side of his nature. He hadn't yet embraced being Both human and Vulcan, like he had later in life when he shows up in the first Abrams film to push the time line in a different direction.

I know all of that isn't actually on screen or may be contradicted to varying degrees by episodes or even the films, but it's how I've written between the lines in my imagination to make it sort of work. It's not really the actual continuity, just my personal version of it to try to make things work.

[HardyGirl]

Y'know, I didn't even see the first movie, (beyond those 16 clips someone posted online), and yet, I knew this wasn't Trek. Just based on those 16 scenes, (well really only 5, I couldn't get through the rest), I knew that you could stick any title on that movie, and have it be a Sci-Fi adventure, but not Star Trek. I immediately hated Chris Pine's Kirk. He was a jerk, plain and simple. Not an ounce of the characteristics the REAL Kirk had. Personally, I think the folks at Star Trek Continues would do great for reboot, for they have captured the true spirit of what is defined as Classic Star Trek.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I think part of the problem is, fans have built this world around the original Trek, with fan fiction, novels, comics, etc, and with Rodennberry's changing philosophy at the helm, that took the series away from what was actually put on film from 66-69. I never got into this aspect of Trek much, mostly just being into the TV series and movies. I think it made me less embracing of TNG's new philosophy, and made those other fans MORE excepting of same.

Madmarva, I do like how Nimoy gradually came to accept his human side in the films. His Spock by VI was a rather well-rounded character. He carried that characterization of Spock onto Spock-Prime in the Abrams films.

The Spock/Uhura thing does bother me. I think it would have been more effective to have Quinto's Spock be extremely Vulcan-like at first, with only a hint of an attraction to Uhura. Then when Vulcan is destroyed, Abrams could have explored that very neat idea that the Vulcans telepathic abilities all worked together to keep their emotions in check. This was explored in the TOS episode "All Our Yesterdays". Spock is sent back 5,000 years into a planet's past, and since Vulcans were lusty savages back then, he regresses to the same. Had Abrams tapped into this, I think it would have been, pardon the pun, fascinating to see a now confused and emotionally-overloaded Spock give in to his feelings for Uhura.

Chris

[palitoy]

^Yes. You said it much more succinctly, and far less rambling than I did, but I agree.

Chris

Nothing I could say hadn't been covered. I may be in the minority but TNG neutered what I liked about Trek.

Abram's first film brought that back for me, the second? Enh, it was entertaining but not as strong as the first.

I do admit to finding some sort of sick fascination at how passionate and outraged some people are over these movies, it's almost religion to some. They need to bash it at every turn and discredit it even in the face of facts, it's somehow hurt their soul and Abrams to them is a horrible monster. I saw it in Who fandom when the new series premiered, they couldn't ignore it, it HAD TO BE DESTROYED!

[Earth 2 Chris]

^I can't say a whole lot, since I've frothed at the mouth many times about The New 52. I think the difference between the two to me is, Trek really died with Kirk in Generations. To my mind, it had been gone since 1994. Oh, I enjoyed First Contact, a few episodes of DS9 and Voyager, but it wasn't Star Trek to me. So, I was much more open to a reboot than many other Trekkers who kept on Trekking with the latest series.

Chris

[palitoy]

^I can't say a whole lot, since I've frothed at the mouth many times about The New 52.

I guess so have I but I think it's ok to say something if you think something is terrible or you don't enjoy the direction. I personally just vote by not buying and that's the most harmful thing you can do.

What I was addressing more than anything, is the extremist need to stamp out any sort of positive discussion of said remake/reboot. To discredit any of it success, vilify it's makers/stars and paint it's fans as non believers It's just very interesting to me, it's like they're not invited to the party so they're going to set fire to the house. Not inclusive to Star Trek, it happens with EVERYTHING.

[Gorn Captain]

To me, the people making the new films are very competent, but they don't understand what makes ST tick.
They do not get it.
Most points have already been mentioned, but to me it is best illustrated with the death scene.
They take the most emotionally charged scene from the original movies, and turn it on its head, thinking "hey, what a great twist".
Yet they don't understand just why this scene touches Original Trek fans.
They also write it in an illogical way.
Example: New Kirk and Spock hardly know each other.
They haven't worked together all that long.
Face it, they don't even really like each other.

Yet, when the death scene happens, all of a sudden they are soul mates, devastated by this loss.
This makes no sense.
In fact, Spock's behaviour in both movies is mostly illogical. His scenes with Uhura are out of character.
Scotty has become the ship's comedian.

I feel that writer and director (usually competent professionals), have taken certain inherent characteristics of ST and done the opposite, just to "be different".
When it ain't broke, don't fix it, gentlemen.

In the end, these films are entertaining, but too far away from the original concept to be considered good Star Trek.

[Werewolf]

Other than the excessive lens flare, the first one was pretty good. The second one wasn't that good. Better than watching the V'ger cloud for three hours in STTMP but not nearly as good as Wrath of Khan.

BTW: I also liked Crystal Skull. I don't get the hate that one gets. No, it's not even close to the level of Raiders. But still fun.