Star Trek: Into Darkness

Batutta said:
That's the story of Space Seed. Wrath of Khan is primarily concerned with Khan's revenge. I love Wrath of Khan, and definitely the balance of the space opera and the science fiction elements, which comes more from the Genesis device, is handled much better than in JJ Abrams Star Trek. But the sci-fi elements are more like McGuffins and subplots in both films. They aren't the primary concern.
Click to expand...

It's also the story of the Wrath of Khan, though Khan's motivation switches from ambition to revenge. Why? Because of the sci-fi concepts of what happened on Ceti Alpha V. (Note also how he compromised Terrel and Chekov.)

And, of course, he still has his ambition, which is why he wants Genesis.

It's not a MacGuffin - Khan being who he is, and WHY he is, is central to the plot.
 
I think it's a stretch but my ultimate point wasn't to slag Wrath of Khan as being inferior, or even poor Star Trek. I was pointing out that it kind of ruined the Star Trek film franchise because of its success. The majority of the subsequent films tried to compete with and copy its template, focusing on flamboyant villains out for some kind of revenge and relegating the science fiction further into the background, until we ended up with JJ's Star Trek. And I enjoyed JJ's Star Trek despite the many story problems I had with it. But the original series was science fiction, with the western shoot 'em up and military action elements as window dressing to make it palatable for the mainstream. Roddenberry even had to pitch it as Wagon Train to the stars. Wrath of Khan was a tipping point that started to shift that balance. Now it's become a militaristic, Star Wars style shoot'em up with sci-fi elements as window dressing. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
I was pointing out that it kind of ruined the Star Trek film franchise because of its success.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I do disagree with those who say STII is an example of the shoot 'em up, or that it's the only way they can go.

My preferred solution would be to stop making movies, as others mentioned above. But even when making movies, they can stay true to the concept and be successful (look at The Voyage Home; enormously successful, definitely sci-fi, true to the concept, and NO combat at all. Yes, time travel, but it was time travel before time travel was played out).

Too many of the movies are combat for the sake of combat. Abrams's movie was most definitely that, and obviously that's what's in store for the next, too, as well as basing the story around pretty much the only thing Abrams knows how to do. Abrams simply isn't the right guy for Star Trek.
 
Batutta said:
I define true science fiction as a story where the main problem is scientific in nature, and is solved primarily through scientific reasoning. Star Trek I was true science fiction in that sense. Much of the original series was as well. If it merely uses the tropes of science fiction as glitzy window dressing, it's something else. Again, done well, I can throughly enjoy that approach as well. But on the whole the Star Trek film series never was that true to the science fiction ambitions of the original series, or even a lot of the subsequent TV series. They were mostly shoot'em ups. And I understand why. For the budgets that is required to make these films, they need to appeal to a younger audience that isn't as interested in science, or socio-political allegory.
Click to expand...

That sort of like defining a 'western' as about 'horse culture in 19th Century America, centered around gunslingers, cattle men, farmers', rather than stories set in the 'West' of the US. So I consider 'No Country For Old Men"(2007) to be a 'Western', and look ma no horses, nor shoot out at high noon, nor other tropes of the 19th Century horse culture.

If 'true science fiction' has the limiting requirements you mention then "Love Potion #9"(1992) is a 'science fiction' film...

Brief log line:

Young girlfriendless boy scientist finds a 'love potion'. He and a young woman study the 'gypsy' formula and derive via scientific means, a method of reproducing such a potion... confused romance ensues...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
That sort of like defining a 'western' as about 'horse culture in 19th Century America, centered around gunslingers, cattle men, farmers', rather than stories set in the 'West' of the US. So I consider 'No Country For Old Men"(2007) to be a 'Western', and look ma no horses, nor shoot out at high noon, nor other tropes of the 19th Century horse culture.

If 'true science fiction' has the limiting requirements you mention then "Love Potion #9"(1992) is a 'science fiction' film...

Brief log line:

Young girlfriendless boy scientist finds a 'love potion'. He and a young woman study the 'gypsy' formula and derive via scientific means, a method of reproducing such a potion... confused romance ensues...
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that movie, but it very well may qualify as a true science fiction story. That doesn't mean it's a good one!...Anyway this will all break down into a tedious semantic argument, which wasn't really the point. The point was echoing what David said, that Star Trek was once about something else, and has turned into another thing which is often anti-thetical to what Star Trek originally meant to people, especially the hardcore fans.
 
David Jimerson said:
Abrams's movie was most definitely that, and obviously that's what's in store for the next, too, as well as basing the story around pretty much the only thing Abrams knows how to do. Abrams simply isn't the right guy for Star Trek.
Click to expand...

Soderbergh would probably be a better choice given Solaris. Regardless of what you think about that movie, I think the tone and style of it would be very suitable for a Star Trek film.
 
I dunno. Maybe. I think part of the problem is that movie stakes have to be high -- it can't be a small story. Having to save the whole universe (or the whole Federation, or even just "Planet Earth") every single time will get boring, no matter if it's packed with action or not.

TV probably is the best medium for the kind of storytelling it should be.
 
Batutta said:
I haven't seen that movie, but it very well may qualify as a true science fiction story. That doesn't mean it's a good one!...Anyway this will all break down into a tedious semantic argument, which wasn't really the point. The point was echoing what David said, that Star Trek was once about something else, and has turned into another thing which is often anti-thetical to what Star Trek originally meant to people, especially the hardcore fans.
Click to expand...

I obviously am not a devotee... but I am reminded of the difference between L. R. Hubbard and Heinlein. Both wrote sci-fi books, and in one case, developed a religious system. In the other case, Heinlein, he distanced himself from 'fans' who would have liked to have made his books the basis of some sort of religious expression. It is my belief that Heinlein always viewed his work as 'stories for entertainment', and if there were some good thoughts to be derived, so be it. But to make it a 'religious' system, and almost necessarily rigidification, Heinlein did not seem to go there.

In that regard, "Battle Field Earth"(2000) may be an example of what happens with 'hard core fans' maintain control. Perhaps the film would have been yet-another-alien-space-opera-odyssey, but I think in part it was 'so bad' because of the control the the desires of the 'fan base'.

In fact, most films from stories found in a religious system seem to have this problem, especially if the film makers attempt to satisfy the 'theological' requirements.

They end up on the 'fan' index librorum prohibitorum, if they do not conform to those expectations.

I've not had a problem with the "Star Trek"(2009) reboot, and do prefer it to many of the other films, because it is a 'movie' to me and does not feel like an extended TV show. This is based predominantly on production values as well as amount of dialog.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
In that regard, "Battle Field Earth"(2000) may be an example of what happens with 'hard core fans' maintain control. Perhaps the film would have been yet-another-alien-space-opera-odyssey, but I think in part it was 'so bad' because of the control the the desires of the 'fan base'.
Click to expand...

Really? Most every fan of the book I've seen comment on it said the opposite. One of the chief complaints was turning the Psychlos into Klingons.

Me, I didn't like the book at all, or the movie, so I didn't care, but that's what I heard the hardcore fans say.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I obviously am not a devotee... but I am reminded of the difference between L. R. Hubbard and Heinlein. Both wrote sci-fi books, and in one case, developed a religious system. In the other case, Heinlein, he distanced himself from 'fans' who would have liked to have made his books the basis of some sort of religious expression. It is my belief that Heinlein always viewed his work as 'stories for entertainment', and if there were some good thoughts to be derived, so be it. But to make it a 'religious' system, and almost necessarily rigidification, Heinlein did not seem to go there.

In that regard, "Battle Field Earth"(2000) may be an example of what happens with 'hard core fans' maintain control. Perhaps the film would have been yet-another-alien-space-opera-odyssey, but I think in part it was 'so bad' because of the control the the desires of the 'fan base'.

In fact, most films from stories found in a religious system seem to have this problem, especially if the film makers attempt to satisfy the 'theological' requirements.

They end up on the 'fan' index librorum prohibitorum, if they do not conform to those expectations.

I've not had a problem with the "Star Trek"(2009) reboot, and do prefer it to many of the other films, because it is a 'movie' to me and does not feel like an extended TV show. This is based predominantly on production values as well as amount of dialog.
Click to expand...

Hubbard's religious system did not develop out of the ideas in his science fiction books. He just invented it whole cloth. In fact, he created his religion because he couldn't make money from his books. And Trekkers, as ardent as many of them are, haven't created an organized religion out of Roddenberry's creation so I'm not sure where you are coming up with this argument. I am not a Trekker, but I'm probably as big a fan of Star Trek as you can be without actually being one. Especially after watching the entirety of the original series as I did a few years ago, I can totally understand why many fans are frustrated by the new incarnation. Ultimately I'm more of a movie fan, and I could appreciate much of what JJ Abrams brought to the series. Taken on its own terms, I thought the movie was fun but had some very sloppy storytelling going on.
 
mentatDUKE said:
Maybe we're romanticizing things a bit. I mean, what was so optimistic about the Borg?
Click to expand...

I think that's the wrong question. It's fine to have a villain; it's the underlying tone of the franchise as a whole which matters. If it was nothing but all Borg all the time, then yeah.

And the Borg, when done RIGHT, emphasizes the individual human spirit over the groupthink collective. Many interesting themes can be explored -- and were, until the Borg became kinda silly.

It was NOT done well in Star Trek: First Contact, where it was just blowing stuff up (and a bloodthirsty Picard literally murdering the helpless Borg Queen with his bare hands, but that's another discussion :)).
 
Batutta said:
...And Trekkers, as ardent as many of them are, haven't created an organized religion out of Roddenberry's creation so I'm not sure where you are coming up with this argument.
Click to expand...

Has to do with the 'orthodoxy' of the fans... Things change in entertainment... what appeals to one generation, may not be of interest in the least to a different generation...

You may infer that I too have watched the 'Star Trek' films (not TV shows or spinoffs...) in recent times, in fact just before seeing "Star Trek"(2009) in theaters... I definitely did not come away from the theater gnashing my teeth on how Abrams 'ruined' the franchise.

But then I'm not a 'fan', and definitely not an 'orthodox' one. So, for me either the film as it stands alone, entertains, or not.

In that 'generational gap' regard, I took my mother to see one of her 'favorite' performers of her youth... Rudy Vallee... (it was a while ago...). She was appalled at the show... he told 'off-color' jokes... I on the otherhand almost enjoyed the show...

She of course had been sheltered from that because of the Hays Code approved performances in his movies... this has to do with 'fan' expectations and being confronted with something quite different.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top