nuTrek II

[Tricky]

My opinion on the movie is this:

As a pop corn action flick it was great.

As a Sci-Fi movie it was alright.

As a Star Trek movie it was horrible.

There it is! That's what I thought. Thank you!

Kalum, I think STWoK is a great movie, and Voyage home and Undiscovered Country are pretty good too. I know a lot of people that don't like Trek, but love First Contact (it's zombies...in SPACCCCEEEEE!)

But you do have a point; the deeper meanings of Trek, the philosophy, work better on the small screen. Just watched 'The Offspring"; no one would pay to watch a movie where Data builds an gynoid daughter. Even if she was played by Megan Fox. But that episode has so much that we love about ST: duty versus personal feelings; the nature of the human spirit; and over all, what it means to be human in the first place.
The sad thing is, if they made a new Trek series right now, there would be a push, a strong push at that, to place it in the new universe, and to make it "24 with phasers" or "Vampire Diaries with Klingons".

[Thakowsaizmu]

There it is! That's what I thought. Thank you!

Welcome

The sad thing is, if they made a new Trek series right now, there would be a push, a strong push at that, to place it in the new universe, and to make it "24 with phasers" or "Vampire Diaries with Klingons".

The Diary of 24 Klingons with Phasers? Sounds terrifying!

[Sarge]

The Star Trek I grew up with was set in an idealized future, a growing utopia where mankind was overcoming its worse aspects, and people strove to better themselves simply because they wanted to. In every single one of the series that followed, that was still the underlying assumption about that society. Of course there are many episodes featuring exceptions to the rule; stories without conflict just don't work, but it was always clear that they were exceptions and that the rule would prevail.

I have never felt that sense of a better future for humanity in either JJTrek movie. The characters and stories are no different from what we see here and now. Tech is more advanced, but the people are no different from any we see out on our own streets. JJ may be exciting and amusing, but he gives me no desire to escape into his universe. His movies do not have the depth to make a lasting impact on us as the original stories did.

[Tricky]

I've said it a few times here, I think: I know people who H-A-T-E ST because the future it portrays is "too good"; we've become so jaded by our real world that we can't even imagine that somehow we'd learn to turn our backs on our hate, our envy and greed, our baser natures, and become something better. It really says a lot about our culture. But give them all the trappings, lots of whiz-bang splotions and crack pot non-science, and they eat it up like it's candy.

A thought came to me today, and I guess voicing it here works as good as anywhere: At the beginning of the movie, why did they all risk violating the Prime Directive to save those aliens in the first place? I get that this volcano was going to do major damage to the ecosphere, possibly wiping out all life, but why get involved? They seem to have had no contact with the natives (Bones had a riding animal for them, so maybe they were hiding among them for a while), the natives didn't seem that spectacular, and the whole plan was flawed. I think back to all the previous Enterprise PD violations, and there seem to be reasons for taking that chance. Here, it's just another shoehorned in plot element: "Kirk doesn't care about the PD, he's a rebel and he's his own boss!!"

[AslanC]

For me it is not only a bad Star Trek film, it is a bad film that makes little to no sense and has the emotional maturity of high schoolers... but that is the basis of most modern Hollywood films. Le sigh...

[Kalum666]

Although I quite enjoyed the movie, I can't say I disagree with most of the bad things I read about it here.

Definetly agree with Tricky and Sarge.

We are all so jaded.

Star Trek is about an accomplished Utopia. It is about what is sad or doesn't make sense with our current life styles. It is also about the sacrifices to achieve it and also how fragile it is. Achieving such a degree of civilization doesn't mean you can't go back to barbaric practices.

Actually I see a similar problem with Superman. It is supposed to be an icon of positivism but people don't like that. They like Batman and now want Superman to be dark as well. When they see a character like Superman their reaction is rejection for "Mr Perfect/better than me" rather than than an inspiration.

On a related matter, I found the "vision" for of the future of places like London so dated and depressing: skycrapers, density, flying cars...

That looks like Blade Runner with a good cleaning staff. No humanity in nuTrek SF and LDN.

IRL Urban Design and Architecture have moved way beyond that. They are many interesting contemporary designer to draw inspiration from.





When I remember concept paintings for Alderaan, it makes me sad how unimaginative ILM (or those in charge) has been for Into Darkness.

[BouncyCaitian]

While I like a positive future as shown in ST:TOS, there were certain sections of TNG that really rubbed me the wrong way as many of the officers on the Enterprise-D came off as intolerably smug when speaking to people outside the Federation. It speaks of psychological immaturity if you have to advertise yourself and condescend to others when talking about your society (Picard was a big offender in this). Nothing will turn people off faster that having a smug jerk insulting the 'primitives'.

If they had downplayed it a bit, and perhaps mentioned some of advantages only as a passing comment or as more of a technical explanation than a message hammer, perhaps it would not have bugged me as much.

But I digress. Alt-Trek is more action oriented than the original and Starfleet was noted by Captian/Admiral Pike as being a 'peacekeeping' force and not a exploration force, So I truly fail to understand Scotty's comment about being 'explorers, not military'. Peacekeepers indicates armed forces, Scotty. Now I do understand his comments on the Torpedos, tho

Anyway, I liked the visuals for The Terran Cities as it looked futuristic while being recognizable. Also, did anyone notice the nod to 60's aesthetic in the pub scene with Scotty?

[Sarge]

While I like a positive future as shown in ST:TOS, there were certain sections of TNG that really rubbed me the wrong way as many of the officers on the Enterprise-D came off as intolerably smug when speaking to people outside the Federation. It speaks of psychological immaturity if you have to advertise yourself and condescend to others when talking about your society (Picard was a big offender in this). Nothing will turn people off faster that having a smug jerk insulting the 'primitives'.

If they had downplayed it a bit, and perhaps mentioned some of advantages only as a passing comment or as more of a technical explanation than a message hammer, perhaps it would not have bugged me as much.

Agreed 110%! The TNG episode Who Watches The Watchers makes my blood pressure spike when Picard is ranting about the primitive horrors of religion. Some writers need to learn that the subtle message that shows instead of tells is the one that changes people for the better. That's one reason I prefer TOS to TNG; those writers made the message more palatable. As for JJT, I don't think it tries to tell or show anything deep. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Kalum666, great pics. That's what Federation member worlds are supposed to look like.

[K.G. Carlson]

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I've been tossing this Shakespeare quote JJ's way since 2009. Glad to see I'm not the only one feeling that way.

[Kalum666]

Kalum666, great pics. That's what Federation member worlds are supposed to look like.

That's what is currently being built. I recommend to check for Bjarke Ingels Group.

They have amazing projects being built and that guy is so great at delivering visions.

Check his waste treatment / ski slope under construction in Denmark. His tower in New York seems quite nice too.

[C5]

The Star Trek I grew up with was set in an idealized future, a growing utopia where mankind was overcoming its worse aspects, and people strove to better themselves simply because they wanted to. In every single one of the series that followed, that was still the underlying assumption about that society. Of course there are many episodes featuring exceptions to the rule; stories without conflict just don't work, but it was always clear that they were exceptions and that the rule would prevail.

I have never felt that sense of a better future for humanity in either JJTrek movie. The characters and stories are no different from what we see here and now. Tech is more advanced, but the people are no different from any we see out on our own streets. JJ may be exciting and amusing, but he gives me no desire to escape into his universe. His movies do not have the depth to make a lasting impact on us as the original stories did.

I simply have nothing more to add to that. Thanks for voicing my precise thoughts on the subject, Sarge

For the record, I have not seen the movie. I simply checked the summary on Wikipedia to see whether the spoilers I had read were accurate. Maybe if I catch it someday on TV I may watch it, but this is not the kind of movie I will rush to theaters to see (whether it is labelled as Star Trek or not).

It is indeed quite sad that now things need to be dark and gritty with flawed and antagonistic and troubled characters to be judged worthy.

Oh well. Thankfully I can rely on Doctor Who for my supply of unorthodox science fiction

[The Tatterdemalion King]

It is indeed quite sad that now things need to be dark and gritty with flawed and antagonistic and troubled characters to be judged worthy.

Ironic, considering how brightly-lit and TOSsy they've said they want the new movies to be.

And doubly ironic, given how dark TOS really is in places—how many dead civilisations do they meet? How many colonies are wiped out of existence by some unknown threat that no one could've expected? How often is Kirk exposed as a brutish, simple human saved from savagery by only that final moment's reflection?

[AslanC]

Ironic, considering how brightly-lit and TOSsy they've said they want the new movies to be.

And doubly ironic, given how dark TOS really is in places—how many dead civilisations do they meet? How many colonies are wiped out of existence by some unknown threat that no one could've expected? How often is Kirk exposed as a brutish, simple human saved from savagery by only that final moment's reflection?

[Angry-Paramount-Executive] Shut him up! People might hear him and want good movies again! Shut him up now![/Angry-Paramount-Executive]

[Tricky]

In regards to the 'smugness ' of TNG: the Nitpickers guild had lots of fun with that in the two NG nitpickers guides. And if you think they were condescending to other races, they were WORSE about 20th century humans.

Forgot to post some other favorite digs at JJTrek:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WbJ-y6BWfUc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DiQ9piVgtWM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Enjoy!

[AslanC]

More spoiler filled assessment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeyLm-pLVm4

Enjoy!