"STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013

[ChrisMC]

If you go through any of the series, more times than not, it's not a morality play. For every City on the Edge of Forever, we have a Spock's brain.

Agree completely. What did we learn from Sub Rosa, Shades of Grey, or the Way To Eden? ;)

[Bryancd]

Not sure I really agree with that Bryan.  I would say most of TOS had some type of morality play going on in the episode.  Same for much of the later Trek series too.  Much more so than most other TV series of the era - by far.  He certainly wasn't trying to make great money or do good business in the TOS days.  The show was always in danger of failing.  He could have pumped things up but I feel he tried to stay true to his vision for the series at the expense of ratings and making more money.

Ask Alxander Courages estate that and get back to me. ;)

[Bryancd]

Am I the only one who feels Gene is overly deified? Just a thought. TNG picked up greatly and improved after he was out of day to day. His vision many times interfered with storytelling, especially on TNG. It kept the characters somewhat stale.

No, you are not. By TNG, he had the $ and reputation to do a lot of what he considered his vision, but it wasn't compelling TV. Sure he was very much a visionary, but I do think this ideal of Trek is more based on the fans then The Man.

[Rico]

I've only been mainly talking TOS.  You can go round and round in this discussion, but without Gene (and in my view his vision), there would have been no Trek.  I don't deify him.  I simply appreciate what he did on TV back in the early 1960's.  To me, that was pretty damn impressive.

[Bryancd]

But he did screw Courage.

[Bryancd]

My point isn't to vilify Gene, it's just to challenge this preconception about what is Trek, which is being used by those critical of the new films to bash it. Not directed at you Dan, on other forums I frequent.

[ChrisMC]

My point isn't to vilify Gene, it's just to challenge this preconception about what is Trek, which is being used by those critical of the new films to bash it. Not directed at you Dan, on other forums I frequent.

Yeah, that's what I was reacting to. This weird view of what Trek "should" be really never was.

[Bryancd]

Well, to be fair we have all have our own ideal of what Trek is, and I have no argument with that. It's just a common refrain of the party line about what Trek has become marketed to be that I find a bit disingenuous. For sure it was a revolution in it's time and the post TOS shows looked to emulate that, but the films always looked to entertain.

[Dangelus]

My point isn't to vilify Gene, it's just to challenge this preconception about what is Trek, which is being used by those critical of the new films to bash it. Not directed at you Dan, on other forums I frequent.

That's cool,  and I've said before that I enjoy nuTrek as much as the next guy. Character wise they are doing interesting things. I just get the feeling of had very little in common with what came before it apart from the characters and basic concepts. They same can't be said for TOS to Enterprise which all feel like part of the same thing to me.

When it comes to Gene I appreciate it is his vision that has been built upon but it really came into its own once he didn't have total control and obviously once he had passed.

The new movies desperately attempt to cater for non trek fans by giving them elements and concepts that are simply not trek by definition. Like I said,  enjoyable movies but this is a marketing exercise and is all about the dollars and not the story these days I'm afraid...

[Bromptonboy]

I sometimes wonder if a studio really tried to produce an exquisite thoughtful Science Fiction movie - that really sticks to believable science - or things that don't stretch disbelieve too badly by extrapolating on what me might have in a few years - would it sell?  Could Kubrick have made 2001 these days? 

I like to think - but probably delude myself - that if someone really made something uncompromising for art's sake - that $'s would follow.

[ChrisMC]

Have you seen "Moon" with Sam Rockwell? Pretty hard sci-fi movie, made for a small budget. It's really awesome, but I don't know if "hard" sci-fi has appeal anymore to the general public. It will always have people who love it, but I couldn't get most people I know to watch 2001. I can watch it and soak it in, but I think it's too slow for non-genre fans.

[Rico]

I think the big thing that we have all pretty much said before is that the Trek films are much different than the various TV series have been.  But this isn't unique.  Look at other TV properties that they tried to turn in to film series.  Truthfully, Trek has made that transition better than anyone.  It's a very hard and tricky thing to do.  I'm sure we will get another Trek TV series at some point (after one more film is my current prediction).  Until then, we have the movies to enjoy for what they give us.

[Bromptonboy]

Have you seen "Moon" with Sam Rockwell? Pretty hard sci-fi movie, made for a small budget. It's really awesome, but I don't know if "hard" sci-fi has appeal anymore to the general public. It will always have people who love it, but I couldn't get most people I know to watch 2001. I can watch it and soak it in, but I think it's too slow for non-genre fans.

Haven't seen Moon - I'll have to check it out. 

I think with a good story - that a hard scifi movie would be great.  Some of Ben Bova's stuff for example - or Larry Niven.

[ChrisMC]

Have you seen "Moon" with Sam Rockwell? Pretty hard sci-fi movie, made for a small budget. It's really awesome, but I don't know if "hard" sci-fi has appeal anymore to the general public. It will always have people who love it, but I couldn't get most people I know to watch 2001. I can watch it and soak it in, but I think it's too slow for non-genre fans.

Haven't seen Moon - I'll have to check it out. 

I think with a good story - that a hard scifi movie would be great.  Some of Ben Bova's stuff for example - or Larry Niven.

I'd LOVE to see an Asteroid Wars movie, that was a fun series. I think MARS would be the obvious Ben Bova choice though. And for the weirder, heavier tip, I'd really enjoy an adaptation of Dan Simmons' Hyperion.

[Bryancd]

"Moon" was good and with a pretty decent real science portrayal of life on the moon except the gravity seems Earth like. But it was a bit dull. You know what had some decent science fact? "Firefly" and even a little BSG. At least they both made a real effort.