Exactly! Indefinable Trek essence! It can't be defined. It isn't fixed to one idea of what Trek should be. There is a tremendous amount of hyperbole surrounding the entire Trek franchise. The new films are no exception. Nothing more than action flicks in space? No, there was a lot more going on there. They just didn't strictly adhere to the minority's view of what Trek should be. Ironic, considering that Trek was often, but not always, a platform for reflecting contemporary events and issues. Into Darkness did that very well, reflecting attitudes regarding the exploitation of fear of a perceived foreign threat to justify preemptive military action.
I'd argue that if you have a position on what Trek should be, then you must be well acquainted with its history and all the TV series' that helped to define the Trek universe, therefore this inbuilt audience cannot be the a minority. However, if you want to market to a wider demographic, you go for the lowest common denominator without the burden of legacy expectations, so you produce something with shiny sets, space battles and superficial plots, which is what happened. It's this treatment that I fear may be reflected in the new series.
That's actually not what happened. They just happened to make 2 very good films that were very well received by critics and fans, many of whom identified themselves as original trekkers/trekkies. There is a very small minority who see TOS and the spinoffs through rose-colored glasses. They constantly refer to Roddenberry's vision of an optimistic view of the future based on hard science and exploration and blah, blah, blah ad nauseam when in fact, TOS was nothing more than a space western. The 80s flicks were, for the most part, revenge pictures with very little of Roddenberry's so-called vision in them. TNG had a little more of that optimistic view of hard science and exploration, but many of it's best known and well-received episodes would be, by your definition, filled with shiny sets, space battles and superficial plots. Example: The Best of Both Worlds. The Borg wants to destroy Starfleet and assimilate Earth. They kidnap Picard. They must rescue Picard and save Earth. They battle the bad guys with lots of phaser fire, rescue Picard, save Earth and destroy the Borg ship! Kaboom! Hooray! The Federation wins! I just took all of the tired old criticisms that the minority of Star Trek zealots threw at the Abrams directed films and turned them around on one of the most revered Star Trek episodes ever. See how easy it is to be hyperbolic? I know there's more to The Best of Both Worlds and TNG than that, but I can narrow the criticisms down to a few points and make it all look very shallow. Most of DS9 was a full-scale war with the Daminion. It was essentially a war series with a few standalone episodes thrown in here and there for good measure. Plenty of shiny sets and space battles in that one.
Wow, I can't possibly critique all those words, but I'll respond to one or two points. I've read enough reviews of the movies to know that there were plenty that were critical along the same lines as I have outlined. Furthermore, I don't hold TOS in high esteem as you seem to think (look up my previous posts on the subject), as I don't think it has aged well at all. The best thing about TOS is the character camaraderie between the principal actors rather than the plots (with some exceptions). I also never subscribed to Roddenberry's utopian vision - it's simply not realistic and I think Trek succeeded despite him, not because of him. Nevertheless, the series' define that certain Trek feel, as do the Prime universe movies (which often felt like extended TV episodes) and from which the new movies viscerally diverge. I remember thinking after seeing the reboot movies, this could be any scifi movie, it just didn't feel like a Trek movie. Anyway, that's just how I feel about it - enough said. I'm sure we'll have a liverly discussion once Jan-2017 rolls around!
Well at least we can be glad we live in a era when there is a wide choice of far superior TV to watch than the tired and exhausted Star Trek franchise! Rehash Trek!
If they rebooted this new Trek series like what was done with the 21st century version of Battlestar Galactica, I would watch it. I'll readily admit it took me a few episodes to get used to the new version of BG - a female Starbuck, the gritty dialog and "shaky camera" space shots among other aspects - but quickly realized it was much better (to me) than the '78 version i.e. more realistic, more relatable, and much more intense emotionally-speaking (though I don't remember the original series including the spiritual aspect the new BG included, but personally I liked it).
I feel it's been something of a waste to put together a well-cast new version of Star Trek's original crew, and then only make three movies with them over an eight year period. It's too bad they didn't reboot it as a tv show instead. They could probably have even gotten Pine and Quinto for it as they weren't famous at the time. Now that option of the original characters is off the table for the new TV show.
The new movies, were filmed, as if they were simply mindless action movies. They were light as if style was all that mattered. The dialog was often silly and inane as if they were in a non serious movie. Maybe there was something deeper, but to me as a almost 30 year old, it was mostly mindless loud sounds, flashy lighting, silly acting, and nothing really very memorable. As if a bunch of guys drank beers and said, "Let's take out the boring parts of star trek, where they talk and so on, and amp up the explosions and flashing lights, people running, jumping and weird camera angles and all that to 10.5 and see if we can keep those that like star trek, but at the same time, get people that want a mindless summer movie"
I,would disagree that they are generic action flicks. They are Star Wars flicks masquerading as a Star Trek flicks. Stylistically, they borrow from the space opera genre more than the Trek flicks (which imagined Trek as Captain Horatio Horn Blowr in outer space). Each director of the Trek films brought their own sensibility to each one interpreting them as they saw fit. Are they closer to generic action flicks The series? Sure but they do have some element of Trek in each just diminished or reinterpreted.
They simply seemed juvenile to me. While the older movies were far from perfect, they came off as seeming to be star trek, warts and all.
I wouldnt disagree. They certainly are more humorous and, yes, at times a bit juvenile but, having said that I think a lot of films have used humor in a similiar fashion not just Trek some of which are acclaimed films. The expectations of the Trek franchise are both damning and freeing in some ways--adult drama isn't frowned on but, again, they have to reach an audience other than Trek and for that the Abrams films were successful. I would also point out that's nothing new though to Trek films-- Star Trek IV, V and Vi had their moments as well. You're trying to appeal to a much broader audience with the films vs. the original series. A series can be supported by more hardcore fans but films require a much bigger, broader audience. I'd also point out that, while classic Trek or even ST:TNG and their spin offs had their moments of juvenile humor the difference was you had anywhere from 22-28 episodes that focused on other elements as well whereas a 2 hour movie compresses that experience .
Each generation seems to get their version of Trek filtered by whomever is at the helm--both good, bad, over earnest, juvenile humor,indifferent based on the stewart at the helm. I would give these folks a chance because the writer/producer here may have a different view of Trek that reflects less of Abrams and more of their own experience (he is a Trek fan). Let's not put it to death before its had a chance to crawl, stumble and walk--Paramount doing that with "Enterprise" hobbled the project early on. Let's hope that the corporate representative (who seem to have as much influence as the person chosen to stewart each Trek incarnation) appreciates what made Trek special and different from, say, Star Wars. The original ingredients are important to making sure this cake rises and doesn't fall but if we continue (and Paramount) continue to open the oven while its cooking, it's more likely to fall.
They were juvenile in many ways, but it was balanced with some very adult decisions. Example: Kirk is ordered by Admiral Marcus to blindly unload an arsenal of torpedoes at Khan on Kronos. Driven by his lust for revenge over the killing of Pike, Kirk unhesitatingly agrees. However, he is challenged by his peers, most notably Scotty who adamantly questions the morality of such a move. Scotty's principles force him to resign as chief engineer. Kirk has Khan's location in his sights, but his own sense of right and wrong forces him to disobey his orders. Despite his hatred of Khan and despite his orders, he makes the adult decision to take Khan into custody.
They need to make them more adult overall. Other sci-fi series have grown over the last 15 years. Star trek went backwards in some ways, and stayed the same in others. A bit of real humor is fine, but silly and childish is not fine. TV has evolved a lot. What was fine in 1965 or 1990 is no longer seen as great TV. I know we are talking movies, but it carries over somewhat.
It's certainly a trade off--Shatner could be hammy in both a good and bad way.imthink in the original series Nimoy, Kelley, Doohan, Takei and many of the guest stars (William Windom for example) were great --but Shatner as lead actor with Nimoy provided the center with the writers writing to their strengths for the most part and the directors likewise.
The new series is likely to be different from the Abrams films based on the fact that it will be a muli-episode series as opposed to a two hour film being released every three years or so. They want to pack as much stuff into that two hour film as possible to draw large audiences. A long running series, especially one airing on a paid streaming service, will have more room to grow.
Maybe, a bit more going on. They went for what the average non trek person's ideal of what Star Trek should be like.
They played to their audience as all films try to do.,that's why they were successful. The bottom line is that Trek, at its core, as always been character and issue driven on TV. It's tough to do that as well in films without coming off as pretentious. As good as the mystery was at the core of ST:TMP and its fidelity to the serious drama of Trek, there was no there there so to speak (to paraphrase Gertrude Stein) it was a rehash of a TV episode of the series (" The Changling") what worked well in the first film and later ones wasn't so much how original the story was but the fidelity to the character development. One could argue that ST:TWOK was backwards as well and it was an action adventure film but it was very successful. What made it stand out was the continued development of the characters. In point of fact some of the criticisms of the spin offs have been that they have been variations on what worked in 1965 and 1990.
It is ironic that, when They do try and refresh Trek and try something different, whomever did it is attacked by hardcore fans for trying to do something fresh (for Trek) and different to try and keep the series fresh, vibrant and relevant.
I did not care for most of the Trek movies. All has some decent points and some bad points. Most were mediocre to semi-good movies overall. None really elevated trek to the next level. The latest 2 movies, moved backwards even more, relative to how sci-fi has been moving in the last 10-15 years. They need to totally change what trek means, but in a positive, adult way.
Yes, this. My understanding is that Paramount only has control of the films, not the TV show rights, which belong to CBS. Therefore, since CBS owns the Trek tv universe, it might bode well if they choose to leverage off that heritage when producing the new series. While we know something of the producer picked, we don't yet have any information as to who will be tasked with the writing. If they get a writer or two from a previous series, that might help in providing some kind of guidance in the overall direction taken.
I think that Trek has been elevated to the top in terms of writing and execution with St:TNG and DS9. It began to falter with Voyager which seemed route much of the time (although in later seasons they did find their "voice" but it still felt been there done that) and the last two seasons of Enterprise. I think a radical rethink needs to be done. As much as those who hate Abrams Trek, it did radically rethink some elements which is why it injected much needed energy. That's why the premise behind Bryan Singer's Trek will the Federation falling apart and chaos generally reining sounded so promising. It promised to be messy and fascinating.
