[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by Zardoz

You gotta admit it was at least better than Star Trek V!

Okay. I'll give you that one.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I might be wrong, but I have the strong impression that the writers and producers of ST09 are much into pop, not genuine sci-fi. I also believe that pretty much all of these people will produce the next Trek movie.
Furthermore the studio also wanted to make Trek cool, so I seriously doubt that they will change their mind after the success of ST09.

I have certain doubts about the long-run effects of FluffyTrek though, TOS and TNG inspired people. I wonder what impact pew-pew-Trek has upon kids who grow up with it ...

If most Star Trek films didn't have a pew-pew-pew phaser/starship battle/fist fight in them somewhere to satiate the action quotient (ever present in TOS anyway) then I would think that the term FluffyTrek could apply.

But I fail to see why we should kid ourselves that pew-pew-pew was never there and used heavily to move things along the way.

What we are bemoaning is a lack or allegory, metaphor or philosophy in the film.

Which is an absolutely valid point, but tempered by the fact that Star Trek was always a mainly action-adventure format show that sometimes dipped a little deeper into things.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Which was a large part of TOS as well - so there are plenty of elements which they got right.

Absolutely, I don't wanna deny the nice elements of this enjoyable movie.

"Where No Man Has Gone Before" is also quite enjoyable, but I still prefer to watch "The Cage".

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by Zardoz

You gotta admit it was at least better than Star Trek V!

It was better than V, yes. But WAY better than Insurrection for sure!

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by jtrek79

i disagree with everything u said

trek 11 has more substance more power more action more everything that all the 10 movies all together

Like what? More $hit blowing up and more stupid laughs, like Sulu not remembering to disengage the "parking brake", yet somehow making it to the flagship of the fleet is full of cadets? Would someone please explain to me why you would need to inertial dampen things OUTSIDE the ship when the entire purpose of an inertial dampener is to keep you, and everything else, INSIDE the ship from turning into paste on the walls due to high acceleration and deceleration. I forgot, that's too "nerdy" or "elitist" to think about

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Absolutely, I don't wanna deny the nice elements of this enjoyable movie.

"Where No Man Has Gone Before" is also quite enjoyable, but I still prefer to watch "The Cage".

Indeed, but it's the studio that demanded 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' just the same as the studio wanted Abrams for the film.

Creative intentions are all well and good, but there's a price to be paid sometimes when the studio paying for it all wants to make their investment back.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Thank you, but I believe I am having a difficult time expressing exactly what I am trying to communicate.

Let me put it this way... are you a Beatles fan? (I think you are). What would you say if a band bought the rights to the name "Beatles" and renamed themselves after the original band, then released an "all new" Beatles album "inspired" by the original?

Been done by many "tribute" bands over the decades. But I get what your saying.

There was a band called the "Yardbirds." When they split up, Jimmy Page owned the right to the name, he formed a new band originally called "The New Yardbirds" But, after chance encounter with Keith Moon, we knwo them better as Led Zepplein.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

If most Star Trek films didn't have a pew-pew-pew phaser/starship battle/fist fight in them somewhere to satiate the action quotient (ever present in TOS anyway) then I would think that the term FluffyTrek could apply.

But I fail to see why we should kid ourselves that pew-pew-pew was never there and used heavily to move things along the way.

What we are bemoaning is a lack or allegory, metaphor or philosophy in the film.

Which is an absolutely valid point, but tempered by the fact that Star Trek was always a mainly action-adventure format show that sometimes dipped a little deeper into things.

To me it's not the ingredients (I don't want them to to tackle more serious themes just because they think the audience demands it. They should do their thing such that at least a bit of authenticity is kept.), of course every Trek movie needs some action and I am the last one to explain about a great space battle, it's rather the spirit, the soul, the thingy between the lines. And I simply miss what I'd call the Trek spirit.

Think about movies like "District 9" or "Dark Knight", they probably feature more action (or horror in the case of D9) scenes than ST09 and yet they are about something.

Originally Posted by kevin

Indeed, but it's the studio that demanded 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' just the same as the studio wanted Abrams for the film.

Creative intentions are all well and good, but there's a price to be paid sometimes when the studio paying for it all wants to make their investment back.

Yep, I just wanted to point out that this conflict has been in Trek since the beginning and that ST09 is not an anomaly. We could add a number of silly. non-Trekish Trek episodes and movies to the list.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Like what? More $hit blowing up and more stupid laughs, like Sulu not remembering to disengage the "parking brake", yet somehow making it to the flagship of the fleet is full of cadets? Would someone please explain to me why you would need to inertial dampen things OUTSIDE the ship when the entire purpose of an inertial dampener is to keep you, and everything else, INSIDE the ship from turning into paste on the walls due to high acceleration and deceleration. I forgot, that's too "nerdy" or "elitist" to think about

Ok, the Parking Brake - how as a joke is that any dumber or more unfunny than Sulu AND Chekov getting lost in a forest in Star Trek V?

It's exactly the same kind of joke and as such will fail or pass depending on personal sense of humour.

And regarding the External Inertial dampner - if you care to read the thread on the subject some very interesting theories were put forward about what function it may have,

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

To me it's not the ingredients, of course every Trek movie needs some action and I am the last one to explain about a great space battle, it's rather the spirit, the soul, the thingy between the lines. And I simply miss what I'd call the Trek spirit.
Think about movies like "District 9" or "Dark Knight", they probably feature more action (or horror in the case of D9) scenes than ST09 and yet they are about something.

I haven't seen District 9 yet, and while Dark Knight is excellent it's a slightly different ball game to Star Trek.

There is no Star Trek film that approached TDK, past or present. It's beyond Star Trek's batting average.

For me, the spirit comes a bit more from the characters because other aspects of Roddenberry Trek I've never found plausible.

The characters here were mostly bang on and that's the real anchor for everything else.