LivingMetal said:
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. |
I think what people fail to recognize with the Star Trek franchise (and I'm not pointing fingers here, just trying to add to the discussion) is the disconnect between the movie Star Treks and the TV show Star Treks. It was true earlier that Roddenberry was his own worst enemy (he refused to write certain kinds of stories that he said just wouldn't happen in the future, like certain types of character conflicts. I wish I had a source on this, but I think Rick Berman mentioned it in an interview) and without him, both the shows and the movies were affected.
But the point of a movie and the point of a TV show are far different, because as a medium, they're really distant cousins. An episode like TNG's Drumhead (my fave from the series) just wouldn't work in a movie, and there was a great youtube video that I can't find right now that discussed the stark differences between "TV Picard" and "Movie Picard." They were basically trying to turn him into a more action-oriented, shoot-first-ask-questions-later type of guy in the movies, compared to a much more stoic, contemplative captain in the TV shows. They're essentially two different characters trying to achieve two different things.
You can go all heady and idealistic on TV for 24 episodes, but a movie has much less time, and you need to keep viewers interested. All the movies tried to put action where it didn't belong well before JJ, so really, it's par for the course. If anything, compare apples to apples: JJ's Star Trek movies to the last 10 movies.
So as far as JJ destroying Star Trek's legacy over the past two films, he really didn't. He got the series popular enough to give us another TV show. And if you can put up with 2 hours of fun, engaging, action-oriented stories that are character-driven instead of science fiction-driven once every couple of years, if it gets us a more philosophical TV show, then it's a VERY small price to pay.
Now we just have to hope that the TV show pans out and isn't just some vapid BS.
