 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 12, 2015 - 5:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
To me, Star Trek revolves around the original crew (real and fictitious.) I never liked TNG, except for one of the first (if not the first) involving 'Q' branch. As soon as the bumpy heads (papier mache?) appeared that was it - I was off.
By the way, I've recently had the opportunity to see some of TOS in 16:9 instead of 4:3 with the revamped exterior effects shots of Enterprise (usually in orbit) and I just wish the hell they'd left it alone. I'm not sure what exactly singles out TOS. Maybe the fact it was shot on film and the way it was lit has something to do with it? Yes, the stories were the thing, yet they could be pretty bumpy too. As to where the series shone brighter I'd have to rewatch the entire thing from scratch to do the job properly. Even then, I'm guessing only a handful or two would pass muster. Now, what would be interesting is to pool resources and pick those stories apart to find out what it was that worked so well.
Edit: There was the Enterprise to Naziland story which I think was translated to one of the Time Tunnel episodes, when Doug got to play the type having been brainwashed, or something. That might not be one of the best ideas, but having that commonality hit on a supposedly populist idea at the time. Regardless of what anyone else thinks I've always lumped them together, as one - at least, that's how I remember them.
Not my choice of best 10, but someone's opinion nonetheless:
http://weminoredinfilm.com/2013/05/13/top-10-episodes-of-star-trek-the-original-series/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 12, 2015 - 7:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
I am all for Trek being reworked and modernized and changed.
The problem is JJ Abrams did all that in the wrong way. The man is a shit-steam heat idiot, through and through and, if anything, harmed the concept of continuing Trek by making it a soulless action flick with only the barest minimum of ideas and characters.
(To this day, if for nothing else, I cannot forgive these reboots for not even understanding how a simple coordinate system works. I mean, even in a lunkhead movie like Stargate got it right, but not in Into Darkness? Screw you, Orci.)
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that we're very post-modern now. The common audience member wants Batman to kick the crap out of fifty dudes in brutal hand to hand combat with shaky cam so they feel they're being taken seriously; sort of like how Polish avant-garde and twelve tone invaded the concert halls and remains the only "serious" way classical music works anymore. If it's not adult and disharmonious, it's childish and stupid and old. Sort of like how kids these days see Bruce Springsteen as "crappy old dad rock" against their insane noisecore, EDM bullshit.
We've also become bitter and self-aware as a species. A big part of it is the Internet, but also - paradoxically - what the Internet created. A friend cited the perfect example as Mystery Science Theater versus one of it's many spin-offs or children. MST was about laughing at a silly b-movie and enjoying it in good fun, while something like Red Letter Media or Rifftrax is about very angry people masturbating loudly into the empty void of YouTube to help stroke the egos of people who eat Family Sized bags of Doritos for breakfast and I imagine pull the wings off butterflies.
Star Trek, for all it's JFK era optimism, can't exist in the current culture. We're too fucking stupid now, too goddamn angry about everything. We're the kids who, when the batteries run dry, smash the toy out of spite.
I would like to see us "earn" Star Trek back but in a world with Tumblr social justice and James Bond screwing sex slaves and three or four people running the entire output of nerd fandom. No. Fuck it. We don't deserve it yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very fine article, Lukas. Brimming with insights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 12, 2015 - 10:14 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Heath
(Member)
|
Yes, interesting to read that.
My problem with Star Trek is... oh, if only I gave a damn about it after its last 1969 fling. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING - all of the movies, the new TV shows - feels like plasticy, artificial android versions of the original, and powered by buck-chasing nostalgia. Remember What Are Little Girls Made Of? I think Dr Corby had a sideline in creating android versions of old TV shows.
Aside from the originals, I have never sat through anything Star Trek related that hasn't induced a vague feeling of embarrassment. Like I'm being "played" and taken for a kid. It should have worked too because I love old Trek. But they just ain't fooling me.
Even now, when I see Kirk in the TV show I see Kirk. But when I see Kirk in the movies I see William Shatner. What the hell is going on here?
I could go on and on... bore everyone to death, including myself.
I will say one thing though. I read an opinion piece about old Trek on some guy's blog. He nailed something about Trek that hadn't consciously occurred to me. Citing episodes like Errand of Mercy, Obsession, Devil In The Dark, Wolf In The Fold, Man Trap etc, Star Trek is a goddamned horror show! That horror element shouldn't be underestimated, yet has been completely lost in all subsequent incarnations. Fact is, scary stuff is memorable for good psychological reasons, and I think it had more to do with the show's original success than many might admit to.
P.S. New Trek is geekily sexless. Zero sex appeal. Lukas says that sex in old Trek was merely implied. But it was a BIG implication, continuously made. Again, I have to say that such an element was more important than a lot of fans would like to admit.
Sex, violence, horror, and intelligence all under the saftey cloak of Science Fiction. That's Star Trek, and that's why no other show could touch it back in the day. The music was pretty good too.
Enough....... I gotta stop...... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citing episodes like Errand of Mercy, Obsession, Devil In The Dark, Wolf In The Fold, Man Trap etc, Star Trek is a goddamned horror show!
My first memory of Star Trek is from a network broadcast of "The Lights of Zetar." I was a little kid, and the scene where the woman's face turn colors and she makes horrible sounds, and then she dies, really scared me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 12, 2015 - 11:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Heath
(Member)
|
Citing episodes like Errand of Mercy, Obsession, Devil In The Dark, Wolf In The Fold, Man Trap etc, Star Trek is a goddamned horror show!
My first memory of Star Trek is from a network broadcast of "The Lights of Zetar." I was a little kid, and the scene where the woman's face turn colors and she makes horrible sounds, and then she dies, really scared me.
The BBC always censored that bit. So I grew up never having seen it fully. Then, only about 15 years ago, I saw that ep with the shot reinstated for the first time. I was NOT expecting it. Me, a full grown man, and that moment scared the shit out of me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 13, 2015 - 5:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CinemaScope
(Member)
|
I can't really be critical about Star Trek TOS. I was looking at & enjoying it in the sixties, alongside shows like; Batman, The Prisoner, Lost In Space, The Avengers & The Man From U.N.C.L.E. I just loved these shows unconditionally. The science isn't bad in Star Trek, it's non-existent. The whole universe seems to work on the 24 hour clock, speak English, planets are only a day or two's travel away from each other & have only have one government (& nearly always have breathable air & the right gravity), but who cares, it's an old (downright ancient) TV show. I also really enjoyed TNG (mind you, that's getting a bit old in the tooth these days), but the non-science faults did start to grate a bit, & Data always bugged me, he's supposed to be so intelligent, but doesn't understand hyperbole or sarcasm. I really enjoyed them at the time, & the repeats over the years, & I had the DVD box sets (& never watched them!), they're repeated all the time, but I don't have the patience (or time) to watch them anymore. As for the new films, I do find J.J. a bit Spielberg lite, & the actor playing Kirk is just so annoying, I saw the first & didn't bother with the second. Like, Batman, The Prisoner, Lost In Space, The Avengers & The Man From U.N.C.L.E, it's a sixties show & can be enjoyed as that.
Oh, & I enjoyed the article Lukas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The science isn't bad in Star Trek, it's non-existent.
That's a curious thing to say. During Star Trek's run we didn't have personal computers, hand held communication devices, robotic probes exploring our universe, fabrication machines. Now we do. That's just off the top of my head.
Yes, but at the same time, Star Trek presented us with warp drive, transporter beams, deflector shields, and artificial gravity (the last of which must also be the basis of tractor beams and inertial damping fields). There's no science in any of it. The transporter alone is screamingly impossible.
Also, the Vulcan Science Academy has determined that time travel is impossible. But try telling that to our writers. Both the existence of time travel, and (by STAR TREK IV) the cavalier way in which consequences are ignored, are at odds with hard science.
And there was Gary Mitchell, Charlie Evans, Trelane, and arguably Apollo pushing the limits of plausibility somewhat. Captain Garth's power to transform his appearance, including his clothes, is a tough sell.
Mental telepathy is routine on Star Trek, for Vulcans and even some humans (Miranda Jones), but in real life, careful science has never found it to occur. Nobody got James Randi's prize money, and he would have loved to pay it out as the price of discovering something amazing.
I love Star Trek, but it isn't a science show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 13, 2015 - 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
The essay is correct, the stupid part is right as well. I am always amused when people talk like they have no idea how to make it work again like it used to. It was never about pyrotechnics or space battles.
It needs lots of great writing, it is a very narrative talky idea thing, and much more TV show than movie. The movie thing was always about making Paramount some money, some of them were pretty good. But Star Trek always flourished and nurtured generations of kids and adults as years and years of episodic television, pick whichever Star Trek show you like.
Star Trek could have characters standing somewhere, anywhere, talking about life and death, purpose and new life, and family and loneliness and have characters sharing a meal or walk down a hallway together, or talking with your old friend by a fire, and make it completely interesting and effective. Even at one of it's lowest commercial points, Star Trek V, these guys sitting by a fire outside was charming and evocative of years of camaraderie and feelings.
Very little other commercial entertainment can touch that rather bizarre success-fulness out of such apparently mundane situations and talking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 13, 2015 - 10:20 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Matt S.
(Member)
|
The science isn't bad in Star Trek, it's non-existent.
That's a curious thing to say. During Star Trek's run we didn't have personal computers, hand held communication devices, robotic probes exploring our universe, fabrication machines. Now we do. That's just off the top of my head.
Yes, but at the same time, Star Trek presented us with warp drive, transporter beams, deflector shields, and artificial gravity (the last of which must also be the basis of tractor beams and inertial damping fields). There's no science in any of it. The transporter alone is screamingly impossible.
Also, the Vulcan Science Academy has determined that time travel is impossible. But try telling that to our writers. Both the existence of time travel, and (by STAR TREK IV) the cavalier way in which consequences are ignored, are at odds with hard science.
And there was Gary Mitchell, Charlie Evans, Trelane, and arguably Apollo pushing the limits of plausibility somewhat. Captain Garth's power to transform his appearance, including his clothes, is a tough sell.
Mental telepathy is routine on Star Trek, for Vulcans and even some humans (Miranda Jones), but in real life, careful science has never found it to occur. Nobody got James Randi's prize money, and he would have loved to pay it out as the price of discovering something amazing.
I love Star Trek, but it isn't a science show.
You do realize it's science FICTION, right??
I know I'm just being glib by saying that, but generally speaking I find rather useless to criticize the science in any science fiction. Of course it's all just made up hogwash. As long as the show's science and technology is internally consistent, which Star Trek is usually pretty good about, I'm just fine with it. The fancy gadgets and starships are just window dressing for the stories. The STORY is what counts, I think is was Lukas was saying.
By the way, I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing with anyone, really just agreeing with what's already been said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 13, 2015 - 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CinemaScope
(Member)
|
You do realize it's science FICTION, right??
I know I'm just being glib by saying that, but generally speaking I find rather useless to criticize the science in any science fiction. Of course it's all just made up hogwash. As long as the show's science and technology is internally consistent, which Star Trek is usually pretty good about, I'm just fine with it. The fancy gadgets and starships are just window dressing for the stories. The STORY is what counts, I think is was Lukas was saying.
By the way, I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing with anyone, really just agreeing with what's already been said.
Well I'd say more like science fantasy, but very enjoyable if you're in the mood. Some stories are really good, it's the unsubtle MESSAGE stories that drove me up the wall (esp TNG). But like I said, it's a thing of its time. I think I like the movies more than the TV episodes these days, that's both TOS & TNG, but not the latest stuff.
But all these series & films are more fun than the real thing.
The real thing - 5-4 people stuffed into a capsule about the size of the average lounge, no gravity, getting sicker by the day & bored stiff.
On screen - People swanning around in a cathedral sized spaceship, gravity & luxury...& aliens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 13, 2015 - 11:45 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
The science isn't bad in Star Trek, it's non-existent.
That's a curious thing to say. During Star Trek's run we didn't have personal computers, hand held communication devices, robotic probes exploring our universe, fabrication machines. Now we do. That's just off the top of my head.
Yes, but at the same time, Star Trek presented us with warp drive, transporter beams, deflector shields, and artificial gravity (the last of which must also be the basis of tractor beams and inertial damping fields). There's no science in any of it. The transporter alone is screamingly impossible.
Also, the Vulcan Science Academy has determined that time travel is impossible. But try telling that to our writers. Both the existence of time travel, and (by STAR TREK IV) the cavalier way in which consequences are ignored, are at odds with hard science.
And there was Gary Mitchell, Charlie Evans, Trelane, and arguably Apollo pushing the limits of plausibility somewhat. Captain Garth's power to transform his appearance, including his clothes, is a tough sell.
Mental telepathy is routine on Star Trek, for Vulcans and even some humans (Miranda Jones), but in real life, careful science has never found it to occur. Nobody got James Randi's prize money, and he would have loved to pay it out as the price of discovering something amazing.
I love Star Trek, but it isn't a science show.
It's a science fiction show, of course. You're correct to cite the transporter an example of implausibility; that particular item of Treknology is indeed truly, deeply and profoundly unlikely (though never say never, I guess...), and even if it could be made real it would bring up all sorts of questions and implications that variously are touched on either barely or not at all in any of the series' 700+ episodes and movies. And while the existence of alien life is a big open question, it's certainly wildly improbable, even in this whole vast universe, that there are numerous planetary populations of marginally-different humanoids, most of them at comparable levels of scientific and technological development.
But some things tantalize physicists with their potential. Sure, we won't have anything like a warp drive tomorrow, but is it truly impossible? Many, many working scientists think it might actually be a possibility. And many other technological and scientific concepts have been borne out. Computers and communications devices in particular have advanced so far in such a short time that at times the tech seen in Trek hardly seems advanced at all. And space itself is becoming better understood. When the original Star Trek first aired - and for a good quarter-century or so afterwards, so up until well into the run of The Next Generation and past the release of half the films - we didn't actually know of any planets outside our own solar system. Today, though, there are over 1,800 known, and more are being discovered all the time. When Trek first aired, the history of human activity in space held a tiny fraction of what it does now; since then, people have established space stations, sent numerous craft throughout the solar system and beyond, and walked on the moon.
The particular vision offered by Star Trek is fictional, certainly, and the real future will undoubtedly be quite different... as is also the case for 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Dune, and just about every other major science-fiction landmark. And, yes, some of what Star Trek offers we can already confidently say is just flat-out wrong. But that doesn't invalidate the whole enterprise, or everything else in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I respect enjoyed your essay. Full of insight without resorting to name calling or bashing.
I do so want to believe that it was not you who gave this fine essay the title that heads it on TrekMovie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
