10 Ways Star Trek Just Isn’t Star Trek Anymore

[MIB41]

I very much like the new movies because they focus on those elements from the original series that I liked the most. You have the great dialogue between the three core characters of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. They have a wide variety of morality-plays in each story without getting overly heavy-handed like it was in the TV spin-offs. Plus I like the fact this new series is not afraid to let the action take center stage. It's so nice to see Trek films that don't brow beat you with naive ideology about relations nor share that complete ineptitude of it's male characters to notice form fitting outfits amongst all the female officers. All of those spin-off shows had such a hysterically camp feel to them. I couldn't take any of them seriously after the original. This restores the backbone of why the original worked for me.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yeah, I know everyone laments the overuse of action in movies nowadays, but nearly every episode of Star Trek had Kirk in a bare-knuckle brawl, so it's not without precedent for sure.

Chris

[knight errant00]

^^ and I think you inadvertently hit it on the head there. The original Trek was first and foremost entertaining -- action, adventure, romance, mystery, scantily-clad hottie aliens, and fistfights -- yet still had thoughtful, imaginative stories that challenged you when you thought about them. Roddenberry gave up on the entertainment side to be "significant" as he got older, and it gave us a staid, bloodless Trek with interesting ideas, stories told well enough but lacking a certain zing as they traded in that pulpy fun edge for intellctual thoughtfulness and problens that could usually be solved by a last-minute burst of some kind of particles from the deflector array. I lked TNG, found it well acted and the stories generally mature and thought out, but they lacked the visceral qualuity the originaly usually had.

Abrams seems to have done the opposite of Roddenberry, thrown out the challenging thoughtfulness for currently trendy character types -- the rebellious young hotshot, the in-your-face-ethnic-female-who-don't-that-that-off-nobody -- and put them in a big SF action movie where a lot of the stuff looks like it came from Star Trek. They're entertaning and have the Bam! Pow! of the orginal, but lack the thoughtfulness.

Now that I type that, it almost seems TNG and Abrams-Trek are the resulting split of beaming TOS through the faulty "Enemy Within" transporter . . .

[Byrnes]

I love TOS. I hate everything else related to ST after it, that is until the re-boot. The casting is great the movies are fun and updated while keeping to the original style. I usually hate re-booted stuff but the new Star Trek is the best thing going today. At least something the movie industry is rehashing has a bright future.

[johnmiic]

I think the article makes many good points. While these films now have the budget and the vision to wow audiences the writing is really sub-par. There's no reason to re-write "all" the continuity. Just because they reset things in the first film these guys think they can just jettison anything that gets in the way of their story lines and their story lines are in no way better than the original Trek stories. That's really their excuse for re-setting everything. The writers have whined a lot that continuity chokes any chance of new stories. I think that's just a lame excuse to distract from lazy writing. I mean really you can't hire a few of the most die-hard fans to check continuity for you? If you think you have a story that might contradict something that was done before you can't hire someone to look it up and maybe incorporate what was done before? Use the re-boot to give you wiggle room but stop throwing out the old stuff because it's inconvenient. It's Star Trek-deal with it.

If they want to bring in a subtext about an impending Klingon/Federation war get to it and stop teasing. You have the big budget and the means to get into the meat and potatoes of a war film or a nearly averted war. They haven't even brought the Cold War flavor the original Trek had but these guys clearly don't know how to write such a story. This section 51 stuff would make a good film if it added any intrigue but they way they use it - it's pretty impotent. Maybe they should call up Nicholas Meyer again to save the franchise.

Even basic common sense is thrown to the wind. When Kirk is kicking the engine part back into place it's obvious, despite the weird camera angle, that the direction he's kicking in is totally useless. Scotty sneaks aboard the Dreadnaught because there's no security guarding it to prevent prying eyes from discovering it? I mean people wouldn't forgive that in any regular mainstream film so why is it no big deal in this one? These films make a good case against fans writing professionally when they can't get the basics down. These guys are being rewarded for making sub-par entertainment. Not unlike the Kirk character being rewarded for being a sub-par captain.

Will the next team which tackle a film see these mistakes as the new rules and just keep making an inferior product or will they go back to the original and say the original is the way to do it?

[palitoy]

Articles are nice and all but in the end, I don't care. A million voices told me "Forrest Gump" was going to change my life. I thought it was a schmaltzy piece of fart. I'm not wrong and neither are the people who liked it, it's preference, nothing more.

I think the new movies embody Trek (although I will surrender part 2 really falls apart) and others wish certain other elements were stronger, that's totally fair but there will never be a consensus on the issue.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yes, ultimately if you were entertained, and felt it was worth your time and money, they did their job. And if you are a Trek fan and felt just a hint of the rush Trek gave you when you first encountered it, then more the better. I felt both, myself.

Chris

[palitoy]

^Yes, ultimately if you were entertained, and felt it was worth your time and money, they did their job. And if you are a Trek fan and felt just a hint of the rush Trek gave you when you first encountered it, then more the better. I felt both, myself.

One of the most refreshing reviews of STID were the Mr.Plinkett guys. They savaged it but when asked if they're recommend the film, they said yes because it was a fun theater experience.

[Werewolf]

A million voices told me "Forrest Gump" was going to change my life. I thought it was a schmaltzy piece of fart.

I don't hate Forrest Gump or anything but I don't get the appeal either. It's like two plus hours of listening to Tom Hanks talk like he has a stuffed up nose .

[Earth 2 Chris]

^I like Gump, but I feel the same about other films that are "beyond reproach". Avatar was stunning, but I have no desire to ever watch it again.

Chris

[Werewolf]

^I like Gump, but I feel the same about other films that are "beyond reproach". Avatar was stunning, but I have no desire to ever watch it again.

I have no problem with Forest Gump. I don't think it's a bad movie, it's just not my thing and the stuffy nose voice grates on me after a bit.

Now, Avatar, I think is a legitimately bad, uncreative and derivative movie that people got caught up in the hype over the 3D CGI. Like you said, you saw it once and that was plenty. After the "Wow 3D Alien Smurfs" thing wears off, I think, people started to realize they've seen this exact same movie done many times before and done much better. As time passes I don't see the movie becoming a classic or being as respected or influential in the sci-fi/fantasy genre as Star Wars, Raiders, Blade Runner, Alien, Terminator, etc.

[Random Axe]

I liked the original series quite a bit, liked TNG after the first couple of seasons, absolutely loved DS9 and I love the newest films. The ability to tell interesting and entertaining tales in space is the bottom line. JJ's films are not meant to be exactly like TOS, and they are not. Through the events in the first ten minutes of the first film EVERY character, every planet in the Federation was altered from what we knew. The core remains, just a little bit different. JJ was able to retain the fun factor while establishing the new roles and personalities of legendary and established characters. That's a tall order there. Were his films perfect? Far from it. Did I thoroughly enjoy every minute? Absolutely. Nothing I write or say will change minds, but I am very appreciateive of Abrahms efforts in this.

[thunderbolt]

I very much like the new movies because they focus on those elements from the original series that I liked the most. You have the great dialogue between the three core characters of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. They have a wide variety of morality-plays in each story without getting overly heavy-handed like it was in the TV spin-offs. Plus I like the fact this new series is not afraid to let the action take center stage. It's so nice to see Trek films that don't brow beat you with naive ideology about relations nor share that complete ineptitude of it's male characters to notice form fitting outfits amongst all the female officers. All of those spin-off shows had such a hysterically camp feel to them. I couldn't take any of them seriously after the original. This restores the backbone of why the original worked for me.

agreed 100 percent. I for one am glad that they have junked the touchy feely politically correctness of Next Gen and Voyager. The two movies are their own world, not bogged down by the 40 plus years of continuity. Part of the reason I like Enterprise and probably the reason why it floundered on tv since the audience at that time was more into Voyager and Next Gen. DS9 managed to carve out its own place with the war storyline that dominated it for most of the run.

[Hedji]

They're better than TNG/Voyager/Enterprise/DS9, for sure.

I liked the first one alright. But that second film, Into Darkness... ugh. I soooo wanted to love it. I went in with a big smile that I could literally feel melting from my face as the film progressed. That was a hot mess.

Entertaining? No, no it wasn't. But I wished it were.

[Gorn Captain]

They're better than TNG/Voyager/Enterprise/DS9, for sure.

I liked the first one alright. But that second film, Into Darkness... ugh. I soooo wanted to love it. I went in with a big smile that I could literally feel melting from my face as the film progressed. That was a hot mess.

Entertaining? No, no it wasn't. But I wished it were.

So Into Darkness is a hot mess. Not entertaining.
But better than TNG/Voyager/Enterprise/DS9, for sure.

Wow, you must love those tv shows...