"So, I was watching the Abrams "Star Trek"..." Topic

…and it seems like the Romulans took smallarms training from the Imperial Stormtroopers.

Since those were miners and not Romulan Navy, some lack of combat skills is to be expected.

Eveything is so clean in Star Trek, surely the future is just as dirty as the present?

The Federation stuff was clean, the Romulan miming crew were a fairly grungy lot

Eveything is so clean in Star Trek, surely the future is just as dirty as the present?

Well, maybe at Trek's tech level it ceases to matter, but for the near-future, slovenliness and living in outer space do not mix well. Life support systems have enough to struggle with – adding a lot of grime and particulates to the environment is a recipe for breakdowns or at least increased maintainance needs, especially in a zero-gee setting. I'd expect (for ex) a 22nd century asteroid miner to be a neat freak, not a slob. Niven's belters were certainly plausibly fastidious.

"So, I was watching the Abrams "Star Trek"…"

You have my sympathy, then.

Niven's belters were certainly plausibly fastidious.

Yep. If your suit seals aren't clean and clear, you're dead. Ditto hatches, electrical contacts, etc., etc.. A speck of dust or a spot of loose grease can kill you.

I'd also expect a lot of the mundane cleaning work to be carried out by robots or autonomous systems.

Abrams' Star Trek gets worse with repeated viewing and spending time thinking about it.

…and spending time thinking about it.

I find that "thinking" about most movies just spoils the fun.

I was fascinated by the uncanny similarity between starship engines and HVAC plants.
-Kle.

I find it difficult to regard this film with affection… I'm not a fan of re-interpretations generally, and in this case, it's either
a] the original timeline, with everything we've watched since the 60's, was obliterated, which is unacceptable to any long term viewer.

or

b] it's a new branching timeline, the original one is still running in parallel, in which case, why would I feel the need to invest in and care about the new one?

Alternative universe takes on Star Trek aren't new [the Mirror Universe] but there has to be something to intrigue you and hold your interest. The Abrams universe just seems like "Where Everyone Has Already Gone Before…"

No doubt I am just over-thinking things.

Parzival nails it again…

You have my sympathy, then.

I loved the Film. Best thing to happen to the series since TOS.

About time Trek returned to a Meritocracy as opposed to the Touchy-Feelie Barclay-coddling Hipster wagon it became.

The JJ movie had a bad script, a badly written villain and I thought was designed to get Kirk to go from doofus screw up to Captain of the Enterprise in 90 minutes. But I will credit it as being fast paced and the cast was enthusiastic and did as well as they could.

Have to agree with Only Warlock on this.

Then there was that problem with having paid Michael J Strazinsky to do a rewrite, then telling him you hate it. Then using it in your movie, getting sued, and having to do a rewrite of your own as you pay off Strazinsky to settle his clean your clock lawsuit.

"So, I was watching the Abrams "Star Trek".

There is your problem right there.

EDIT: Someone already said that further up-thread – but worth reiterating.

*Sigh*

For those who like the film, may I ask you one question: What was it about?

Great Star Trek has always been about something. It doesn't just entertain you, it asks you to think. You don't even have to agree with the viewpoint expressed by the story, but you do have to think about why you do or don't agree. A great Trek story— whether movie of television episode— says, "There is something in what we're saying that reflects the human experience— do you feel that? Do you agree, or not?"

That's not "touchy-feely," that's the quest for truth.

What about that movie had anything at all to do with a quest for truth? What about it made you think? Heck, aside from the adrenaline rush of over-the-top action and explosions, what about the movie made you feel?

Very little to nothing, that's what.

The movie had no intellect and it had no soul. It was just another action flick, with Star Trek slapped on as a label. It wasn't about anything at all.

And that's without getting into the utter unoriginality and downright stupidity of the plot.

Double plus sigh.

It was the first Trek movie since Wrath of Khan that I actually enjoyed.
For me, that was what counted.

Parzival nailed it right there. The pity is, the sequel looks even more non-Trek and it's another stop a baddie who has a powerful weapon and who wants to destroy the Federation story.

t was the first Trek movie since Wrath of Khan that I actually enjoyed.

Philistine! Speak not of those movies in the same breath!

Abram's Trek doesn't deserve to be listed in the same paragraph as The Wrath of Khan, much less paired beside it in a sentence.

The Wrath of Khan is so far above Abram's efforts, one might as well compare Shakespeare to, I dunno— pick a hack.

One has the sweep of epic, touching on themes of life, death and rebirth, and of course sacrifice and even the immortality of the soul. The other barely has any theme at all, aside from learning not to be a narcissist— well, not too much.

Consider the memorable lines from Wrath of Khan:
"Klingons don't take prisoners."
"Aren't you dead?"
"Gallivanting around the galaxy is a game for the young."
"He seems so… human." "Nobody's perfect, Mr. Saavik."
"Jim Kirk was many things, but he was never a Boy Scout."
"According to myth, God created the world in six days. But watch out! Now with Genesis, we can do it for you in six minutes!"
"Why you green-blooded, inhuman…"
"He stayed at his post when the trainees ran."
"Is the word given?" "The word is given."
"Of course not. We are one big, happy fleet."
"Still. Old. Friend. You keep trying to kill me, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target."
"Can I cook, or can't I?"
"I don't believe in the no-win scenario."
"You lied." "I exaggerated."
"She can still out run us and out gun us."
"Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik."
"His pattern displays two-dimensional thinking."
"He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round Perdition's flames before I give him up!" (quoting Moby Dick, modified.)
"From Hell's hot, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
"Remember."
"He'll die!" "He's dead already."
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
"I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution?"
"You have been, and always shall be, my friend."
"It is a far, far better thing that I do now than any I have ever done. It is a far, far better resting place that I go to, than any I have ever known." "What was that?" "Something Spock was trying to tell me. On my birthday."
"How we face death is at least as important as how we face life."
"Of all the souls that I have encountered in my travels, his was the most… human."
"How do you feel?" "Young. I feel… young!"
"As your teacher Mr. Spock used to say, 'I like to think there are always… possibilities.'"

Now, even if I misremember some of these, I still remember them.
I can't recall a single word from Abram's film. Can you?

"Trekkies pan the new Trek film, call it "fun", "Exciting""

- The Onion, and it certainly applies here.

The main character were all interesting and no overly preachy crude about the Prime Directive to be found.

I'll say this about JJ-Trek: It's not dull. It packs in a lot of action and rattles along at a good pace. But there's huge, huge flaws in the script and one scene sticks out as an example of bad scriptwriting. Kirk and Spock have been clashing (and Spock has been barely supressing his emotions thus stripping the character of a lot of dignity he once had) up until the point where Old Spock has travelled back in time, to a specific cave, in order to tell Kirk and Spock that they will be friends one day. So their friendship never grows out of the events that happen and it requires a future version of one of the characters to go back and tell himself he has to be main character's friend and move that plot point onwards.

…and don't get me started on Nero and Red Matter.

Okay, here's your challenge: Explain why the film was good? What makes it a stand out film? What dialogue was unique, inspiring, or particularly imaginative or skillful? What did the film make you think about? What was its theme? How did you connect with the film and its characters?

I'm not saying those questions don't have answers, nor am I saying the film didn't have "excitement." (It certainly had that. Spectacle, in spades.) But I've put forth points as to why I think it's inferior to other, much better films, and why at least one of those films is far superior to Abram's effort.

I'll even go so far as to agree that Abram's made an exciting action-filled blockbuster movie. But that's as far as it went, and frankly, I don't think it has anything about it that would render it timeless in any way. It is ultimately a very forgettable film with a predictable, sophomoric plot, and a theme that is utterly rice-paper thin. It also wasn't Star Trek, as it abandoned the themes and memes of the series, altering characters from both their established traits to their thematic purpose in the series.

That's part of the problem with Star Trek and why so few of the films are actually good films. It takes a deep feel and understanding for the source material, the characters and their interactions to create a good Star Trek film. But that's true of any film. The hardest thing to do is to capture characters that have already been established in the public's imagination, and then to present them in new ways that promote story and continue the underlying themes connected with those characters. (Which is why so few sequels are any good.) Secondly, writing for TV and writing for film are actually different disciplines. So you have the situation where a skilled television scriptwriter may not be able to translate the skills that make for a good 45-50 minute episode into a good two-plus hour long film. But if you bring in an experienced screenwriter, you may have someone who isn't familiar with the characters, or who can't capture the "feel" of the show despite their abilities with the film medium.

But my standard is that someone ought to at least try to understand and use the themes that are at the heart of Rodenberry's Trek… and that Abram's entirely failed to do.

Excellent examples, ubercommando. It's as if the writer pops in and says to Kirk, "but you're suppose to be friends!" and Kirk replies "Oh? Well gee, guess we'll be friends now. I'll be certain and tell him. Thanks!"

I wasn't a huge fan of the last movie, but I thought it was okay – not the worst. My favorate Trek shows were always action oriented (Ballance of Terror, The Doomsday Machine).

But TOS had some real stinkers too – Spock's Brain…Ug!

Best scene is the space dive--slice it out and insert in a better movie.

"There are eddies in the time stream." Well, grab your towel and wipe them clean.

"And this is his sofa, is it?"

It was the first Trek movie since Wrath of Khan that I actually enjoyed.
For me, that was what counted.

What Patrick said.

It's the second best Star Trek film which isn't saying that it's very good. Emo Spock caused me pain. The time line stuff etc. Oh, well.

> Okay, here's your challenge: Explain why the film was good?

Why? You would find any reasons invalid anyway…

But ok.

It was fast paced, exciting, with interesting characters.

As for Spock and Kirk, perhaps Kirk gave new Spock a second chance seeing the emotions old Spock showed him, gave him a whole new perspective on old pointy ears.

Love/hate it. Liked the Kirk and Spock characters but didn't really care for the ship. Lots of action makes a pretty fun movie to watch.

Okay, here's your challenge: Explain why the film was good?

Why? You would find any reasons invalid anyway…

Wow, that's presumptive. No, I would not. If one can provide valid reasons, I accept them. Doesn't mean I agree, or that I necessarily will think those reasons rise to the test of whether a film is a "good film" or not, or "good Star Trek," (which I think is an additional standard). But I won't consider them "invalid."

It was fast paced, exciting, with interesting characters.

Yes, it was all of those things. I think this claim is valid.

(Though, on the character issue, I personally found the villain boring and forgettable. Indeed, the only reason I happen to remember his name is because he was named after an (evil) Roman emperor (a decision which I found both incomprehensible and unoriginal). Of course, if they'd bothered to give him an original name, I probably wouldn't remember it.)

But I still think the film was "bad Star Trek," as I have stated. Or rather, "not really Star Trek," because it didn't honor the themes and ideas that Rodenberry envisioned in the original. NBC once famously thought that Star Trek (TOS) was "too cerebral." In contrast, Abram's Trek wasn't cerebral at all.

So, I haven't invalided your arguments, and wouldn't. I'm just interested in the discussion.

As for Spock and Kirk, perhaps Kirk gave new Spock a second chance seeing the emotions old Spock showed him, gave him a whole new perspective on old pointy ears.

An interesting point. I disagree; I think it happened too quickly, especially when you consider that (young) Spock had just marooned Kirk in a potentially life-threatening situation on a largely uninhabitable world. In a modern military, I'm guessing that would not only be against the code of military justice, it would border on criminal. (It probably *would* be criminal, involving kidnapping, imprisonment without tribunal, dereliction of duty (a commanding officer is responsible for the well-being of his crew— all his crew, even the insubordinate ones), and possibly attempted murder. If Kirk had died as a result of the marooning, it *would* have been murder. Kirk would know this, and Spock would know this, too. I just don't buy that one encounter with an old Vulcan who claims to be an alternate time-line version of Spock would convince Kirk to be buddy-buddy with the man who just literally put him on ice.

Okay, yes, I did put forth an argument as to why I think this particular point isn't valid. But you are certainly welcome to generate a counter-argument as to why my interpretation is incorrect.

"But my standard is that someone ought to at least try to understand and use the themes that are at the heart of Rodenberry's Trek… and that Abram's entirely failed to do."

But here is the problem, The Next Generation, DS9 and a host of others failed to follow on in the vein of Rodenberry's Trek. Their attempts at wishy washy watered down I feel your pain empathically UN peacekeeping were a total failure in my mind, especially combined with ridiculous gimmicks like Q. Kirk or McCoy would have jettisoned Crusher out an airlock or used him as a red shirt for cannon fodder. The only time the post original series efforts got close to original trek was when they brought in big bad guys to fight such as the Borg. Voyager recaptured some of that by exploring a new quadrant and having some real conflict, I'd even say Enterprise did a good job at times dealing with Rodenberry Trek issues. But after decades of moving away from Trek, Abrams didn't do any worse than TNG.

I liked it, and I am disappointed by all of you. 33 posts and no-one mentioned the hot Orion redhead cadet wearing not much…..For shame…

The Next Generation, DS9 and a host of others failed to follow on in the vein of Rodenberry's Trek.

Point of order, as TNG was Roddenberry to start with.

I will agree with you that when TNG was bad, it was very bad. But when it was good, it was excellent. Ditto for DS9 and Voyager. Enterprise came close, but kept failing.

No, TNG at its core initially wasn't up to TOS. Dianna was annoying, Riker was useless, and Wesley was… well, honestly, the only really decent episodes with Wesley began when he was old enough to put on the uniform (The First Duty is top notch, and finally cracks the "perfect cadet" veneer on Wesley). But Data remains a great character, and as the series explored Worf's past and his ties to the Klingon culture and internal politics, his character became more than just that initial shock of "there's a klingon in Starfleet?"
So exploration in general, and the exploration of humanity and what it means to be human remained integral to Star Trek, as it did in all of the series.

And that's the core of Trek. That's why Spock is logical and McCoy is emotional, and why Kirk must weigh those two approaches and meld them into one "human" solution. The other core is the question of "what's out there?"— the need and drive to explore, to discover the Universe, and in that discovery, to discover also what it means to be human.

"We shall not cease from exploration.
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started,
And know the place for the first time." — T.S. Eliot

*That's* the heart of Trek.

Even Berman occasionally got it. Abrams didn't.

I like Star Trek but have no desire to see the new film, just couldn't get past Sylar playing Spock.

>>>>>"Trekkies pan the new Trek film, call it "fun", "Exciting""

- The Onion, and it certainly applies here.<<<<<

"If I wanted to watch young, attractive people doing cool, exciting things, I'd go watch sports."

link

I was fascinated by the uncanny similarity between starship engines and HVAC plants.

At one point, I thought it was filmed in my building.

Nicely said Parzival….

Actually, the set was a brewery, which might explain some things…

There is no Trek except the true Trek.

Shatner is a jealous Kirk

Do not worship false Trek.

There: that's my argument in three lines :)

John T

PS "There is only one Jim Kirk. All the rest is a dispute over tribbles" Queen Elizabeth the First. Almost certainly…

Actually, the set was a brewery, which might explain some things…

Yegads, was that the stupidest version of a starship engine room ever filmed? Even the TOS engine room was more believable than that thing. Heck, the engine room of tramp steamer would have been more believable. One minute we see this terrific white and glass bridge, and the next we jump to a bunch of low-grade plumbing, in a space that's too big for the vessel it's supposed to be inside. Suddenly the Enterprise is a Tardis, and a Tardis that looks like it was put together by the Pipefitters' Local 223. You could even tell it had a CONCRETE FLOOR. In a STARSHIP. When those scenes started up, I actually wondered if Abrams had somehow run out of money for an effective set, and did the BSG thing. "Ooh, look— a big, wet, drippy factory with lots of pipes. That can be our engine room!"
Geez, at least spring for some painted plywood and a few neon lights behind frosted glass. :-P