Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 8:46 AM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

One of the major criticisms of the first reboot was that, (and this new movie) whether you liked it or hated it, a fair criticism was that it just wasn't Star Trek. I agree with that assessment, but when I ask myself "What do I mean by that?" I'm having a tough time coming up with a concrete explanation.

I do have some thoughts but before I go into those, I would be interested in other's opinions.

Why isn't Abrams Star Trek - Star Trek.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 8:55 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

It IS "Star Trek". Reimagined/reinvented/reinvigorated.

The "Star Trek" we all grew up with has grown stale, predictable and, frankly, the actors most closely associated with the series are all too old to continue in those roles.

What to do? What to do?

Allow the series to die. Or reinvent it.

If you are looking for the warm fuzzies you got with the old James Kirk or Jean-Luc Picard, then forget about it.

We now have a Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu for a new generation and a reborn "Star Trek"-verse.

It is the "now". And it's finally in the hands of a director who knows how to reinvent it and make it shine.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 9:09 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Did it 'have to be' made with a younger cast? Yes.
Did it have to be made Abrams way? No.

What is Abrams way that is not "Star Trek" like enough?
Chiefly these are action pictures, and they were not really action pictures before. So the markers of these actions pictures are;

The speed of the cuts and scenes.
Lens Flare
Bombast
Predominance of action set pieces and violence
Lack of cosmic themes


Each of the above things is fine in themselves, I do not mind the lens flare and some of these elements, but maybe it runs too much against the Star Trek aesthetic. If you put them all in one film I think it does run against what is "Star Trek". We could have Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan do a Star Trek, as a film they would be surely well crafted, but NOT "Star Trek".

The story of ID is both big and small since it really all comes back to earth, and even smaller, to San Francisco and the Enterprise crew. There is a lack of mystery too, even though the scope of the action is large and impressive, the scope of the threat/problem/question is not. It is one bad guy, and another badder guy. What is the motivation of John Harrison? The real root of revenge is not that clear, similar to what drove Nero in the first one. The fine details, or the depth of what drives them is pretty sketchy but filled in with violent actions instead.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 9:17 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

It IS "Star Trek". Reimagined/reinvented/reinvigorated.


Nope. Star Trek is about "ideas" not mindless wall to wall SFX. It's about exploring the human mind and human spirit, and sometimes human frailties. While many say WOK was just a "revenge" story, they couldn't be more wrong. It was about a man maturing spiritually and about the fascinating possibilities of science. (Terra Forming) Plus the positives and negatives of such power. Even TMP, while wall to wall SFX was about the "human (and Vulcan) condition". The reboot is "Star Wars" with the actors playing the signature roles in a parodying or characterizing way.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 9:20 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

It IS "Star Trek". Reimagined/reinvented/reinvigorated.


Nope. Star Trek is about "ideas" not mindless wall to wall SFX. It's about exploring the human mind and human spirit, and sometimes human frailties. While many say WOK was just a "revenge" story, they couldn't be more wrong. It was about a man maturing spiritually and about the fascinating possibilities of science. (Terra Forming) Plus the positives and negatives of such power. Even TMP, while wall to wall SFX was about the "human (and Vulcan) condition". The reboot is "Star Wars" with the actors playing the signature roles in a parodying or characterizing way.


Um, no. That Star Trek has been done. It's finished.

The Abrams Star Trek is the NEW Star Trek.

Get over it.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 9:21 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

For one thing the bad guy is terribly predictable and miscast and is suppose to harken back to Kahn with the personal connection and all, like most of the movie is to TWOK.

There is too much focus on action and almost none on story and even backstory.

What little is added of storyline is rehash from earlier Trek episodes/movies.

It has the characters we know and love and yet it barely scratches the surface of Trek.

It's overlit in a majority of scenes and lacks any vision.

Oh, and the director didn't even know Levar Burton's character was called Geordi Laforge.

It has a scene where Worf is drunk and Data is singing.

Ron Perlman was completely waisted as a secondary better villain and gets bitch slapped by Riker.

Need I go on?

wink

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 9:30 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Star Trek was about ideas. The "action" was the storytelling environment used to express those ideas.

Abrams' approach is the opposite. He made an action movie and if there happened to be an idea or two found in it, so much the better. And I hasten to add, any ideas his ST movies had were those ALREADY expressed in the old movies. He has done nothing original.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 9:41 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Um, no. That Star Trek has been done. It's finished.
The Abrams Star Trek is the NEW Star Trek.
Get over it.



Um, no.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 9:53 AM   
 By:   Accidental Genius   (Member)

It IS "Star Trek". Reimagined/reinvented/reinvigorated.

The "Star Trek" we all grew up with has grown stale, predictable and, frankly, the actors most closely associated with the series are all too old to continue in those roles.

What to do? What to do?

Allow the series to die. Or reinvent it.

If you are looking for the warm fuzzies you got with the old James Kirk or Jean-Luc Picard, then forget about it.

We now have a Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu for a new generation and a reborn "Star Trek"-verse.

It is the "now". And it's finally in the hands of a director who knows how to reinvent it and make it shine.


Did we actually see the same movie? The story, once iconic and in no way stale--in fact remains fresh to this day--Abrams chose to retread did not shine, was very stale and very predictable. Had he chosen to actually make a new story in that universe I would have agreed with you. The characters themselves are fresh, the story in this film was not. And I don't mean simply by virtue of re-telling an already known story. He didn't even choose to give it different depth or meaning.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 9:56 AM   
 By:   Accidental Genius   (Member)

For one thing the bad guy is terribly predictable and miscast and is suppose to harken back to Kahn with the personal connection and all, like most of the movie is to TWOK.

There is too much focus on action and almost none on story and even backstory.

What little is added of storyline is rehash from earlier Trek episodes/movies.

It has the characters we know and love and yet it barely scratches the surface of Trek.

It's overlit in a majority of scenes and lacks any vision.

Oh, and the director didn't even know Levar Burton's character was called Geordi Laforge.

It has a scene where Worf is drunk and Data is singing.

Ron Perlman was completely waisted as a secondary better villain and gets bitch slapped by Riker.

Need I go on?

wink


Francis, you may not be talking about the same movie we're all talking about. Care to clarify?

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 10:13 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)


Francis, you may not be talking about the same movie we're all talking about. Care to clarify?


Just trying to bring the point across that the movie before Abrams had little Trek about it as well.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:07 AM   
 By:   man_en_noir   (Member)



Um, no. That Star Trek has been done. It's finished.

The Abrams Star Trek is the NEW Star Trek.

Get over it.


Short and to the point, I suppose. Though I rather think you missed the point. Yes the Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek is ancient history. No one expects a '60s version of the series would succeed today.

The question is this. Is the Abrams Star Trek in any way faithful to the spirit of the original? A lot of us would say no. With many pointing to Abrams' take as more of a Star Wars film than a Star Trek one.

An updated version of Star Trek that had its roots in the original would have better served the franchise, while still being accepting to a 21st century audience.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:10 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)


Francis, you may not be talking about the same movie we're all talking about. Care to clarify?


Just trying to bring the point across that the movie before Abrams had little Trek about it as well.


Nemesis is much more Star Trek than Into Darkness, the pacing, the dialogue, the ideas, far far far more Star Trek than the Abrams. Nemesis was not a perfect picture, but it was essentially Star Trek through and through.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:12 AM   
 By:   Miles (MerM)   (Member)

I guess it means you view the painfully dated original series through some nostalgia filter.

Though I find that to be true of most long-running series, like Bond.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:13 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Um, no. That Star Trek has been done. It's finished.
The Abrams Star Trek is the NEW Star Trek.
Get over it.



Um, no.


Yes. The idea that the "NEW TREK" has to share nothing in common with OLD TREK, that is must have Abrams aesthetic is just totally wrong. There is another way, that might be somewhere between these two that would work just as well. Someone like Brad Bird could do some good things with Trek.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:31 AM   
 By:   Joe 1956   (Member)

Star Trek disappeared when Rick Berman began putting his greasy fingers all over it.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:41 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

It IS "Star Trek". Reimagined/reinvented/reinvigorated.


Nope. Star Trek is about "ideas" not mindless wall to wall SFX. It's about exploring the human mind and human spirit, and sometimes human frailties. While many say WOK was just a "revenge" story, they couldn't be more wrong. It was about a man maturing spiritually and about the fascinating possibilities of science. (Terra Forming) Plus the positives and negatives of such power. Even TMP, while wall to wall SFX was about the "human (and Vulcan) condition". The reboot is "Star Wars" with the actors playing the signature roles in a parodying or characterizing way.


Um, no. That Star Trek has been done. It's finished.

The Abrams Star Trek is the NEW Star Trek.

Get over it.


Don't you mean the Nu Star Trek? You get with it. razz

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 12:57 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)



For me, it's all that lens flare.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 1:02 PM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)



For me, it's all that lens flare.


Are they the parents of Tuvok?



 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 1:05 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)



Oh, no you di'n't!

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.