By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast on 19 July 2016
Edit Thread
LivingMetal said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Dude, not cool. I don't like the new Star Trek movies so I need to get a life?

I know it's not 1966 anymore. It's 2016. In September it will be Trek's 50th anniversary and all we have to show for it is a complete bastardization of what made the series great in the first place. Yes, Roddenberry's conservatism hurt The Next Generation, and the show become much better after his departure. But what he created is magnificent: a bold, creative vision of the future rich in heady ideas about identity, multiculturalism, exploration, time travel, alien worlds and civilizations, and, most importantly, what it means to be human.

His legacy continued throughout the 80s and 90s and finally hit a dead end with Enterprise and Nemesis. The franchise was in need of a renaissance, yes, but what it got was a black eye. Abrams et al. transformed a contemplative series about science and big deas into an action movie about plot holes and lens flares. 

For the record, if Abrams had made good movies, I'd be willing to forgive his thorough dismantling of everything that defined Star Trek for over 40 years. But they're not good movies. They're populated by callow and unconvincing acting; contrivances and shaky logic; numbing and hollow special effects; and convoluted, murky storylines.

Here is the bottom line. It's a movie, and just a movie.  People watch movies for various of reasons.  I watch movies to briefly suspend reality, but that's just me. I'm not going to dictate to anyone why they should watch a movie as they shouldn't do the same to anyone else.  And if there is a "deeper meaning" in a movie, great!  No problem with that.  And some movies were made to have that deeper meaning.

The problem I have is idolization to the point where it blinds those from seeing something for what it is.  That doesn't mean Abrams' Star Trek films are good because that in itself is a subjective matter.  But I don't necessarily need that deeper philosophical "ummphh" in a Star Trek movie to make it enjoyable.  Some of the issues that Roddenberry tackled in the late 60's were legitiment issues that are still revelant today.  But what makes a lot more sense is that if the future (Star Trek) is suppose to be a time when we have "evolved" to the point that we have become a better people, then there would no point in presenting those issues because it would be a non-issue by then.  You see what I'm getting at?  So if someone wants to idolize Roddenberry to the point that they cannot see that Abrams' Star Trek is a fun (subjective) science fiction space romp, they don't have to see it, and that doesn't make it a bad movie.

I've recognized what Roddenberry has done, and I recognized what the Abrams' Star Trek films are.  I see them for what they are, and they are both good in my eyes in their own ways.  So if someone thinks that the Abrams' Star Trek are bad movies or it's just not their cup of tea, that's cool and should be respected.  But just because some of Roddenberry's element are not in a Star Trek movie and/or television series (as what has happened with TNG) doesn't make it wrong or bad.

Yes, and on that we agree. Just because something is different doesn't mean it's bad. Take a look at Alien and Aliens. James Cameron transformed a slow-burn sci-fi horror movie into a high-octane war movie. And both movies are great on their own merits.

My problem with the new Trek movies are that they move away from the legacy of the shows AND they're not very good. For me it's the worst possible outcome.