[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by horatio

I don't see any scientific inspiration in the previous ten Trek movies. It might have inspired some people to read Melville, Shakespeare or learn Klingon, but that's hardly world-changing. Especially the latter is not.

As usual, Trek lives on TV. Movies are just the little extras, the 13th salary, the cream on the cappuccino.

I agree with this 100% I never expected much depth to a Trek movie, but at least they touched base on some moral and human issues. Some may think that is preachy, but I do not. What I find so sad is that TV Trek and it's "nerdiness" were treated like that plague and completely thrown out. Trek no longer lives on TV. I fear we will ONLY get fluffy movies that make big bucks at the box office. While I wish past Trek movies made more money at the theaters, I understand why they did not. Since Trek will live only on the bigscreen, then the inspiring aspects will be lost, in my opinion. That is what I find sad. I feel like Trek was the nerdy kid that had few friends, now it has bought new clothes and put down the books, carrying an iPod instead... while everyone (mostly) is cheering that it has more friends than before.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by kevin

When it's used to imply that no-one will be influenced by any new Trek.

In past trek, brains were considered an asset, not a detriment. The guy with the biggest phasers did not always win. Talking and reason often won the day. Debate regarding human aspects and nature often popped up. The engineer could be the hero. That is why I doubt NuTrek will inspire many young people to wonder about their own lives. To wonder what is possible or to peak their curiosity enough for them to crack open a book and study. Don't get me wrong, NuTrek CAN do more next time. What I have said is about this one movie only. I think it can apply to other Trek movies as well, but again... that is not really the argument and is merely a scapegoat... like when a child is caught doing something bad and attempts to lessen his guilt by pointing the finger and saying "but he did it too"

[horatio]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I agree with this 100% I never expected much depth to a Trek movie, but at least they touched base on some moral and human issues. Some may think that is preachy, but I do not. What I find so sad is that TV Trek and it's "nerdiness" were treated like that plague and completely thrown out. Trek no longer lives on TV. I fear we will ONLY get fluffy movies that make big bucks at the box office. While I wish past Trek movies made more money at the theaters, I understand why they did not. Since Trek will live only on the bigscreen, then the inspiring aspects will be lost, in my opinion. That is what I find sad. I feel like Trek was the nerdy kid that had few friends, now it has bought new clothes and put down the books, carrying an iPod instead... while everyone (mostly) is cheering that it has more friends than before.

Good things need time and I'd lay all my hopes on the next Trek series which will come sooner or later.
Pitty the last one got cancelled right when it started to become good, I am a sucker for Romulan war and foundation of the Federation stories.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by horatio

Good things need time and I'd lay all my hopes on the next Trek series which will come sooner or later.
Pitty the last one got cancelled right when it started to become good, I am a sucker for Romulan war and foundation of the Federation stories.

I hope we get another series. I was really pissed off when ENT was cancelled. It was getting very good. Even with all the complaints coming from Trek fans, I still think ENT would have been more successful had it been syndicated and not on that godforsaken piece of crap channel called UPN. Now I fear Trek will be stuck in blockbuster mode for quite some time, many years.

[NCC-73515]

Originally Posted by horatio

I don't see any scientific inspiration in the previous ten Trek movies. It might have inspired some people to read Melville, Shakespeare or learn Klingon, but that's hardly world-changing. Especially the latter is not.

Remember Genesis...

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I don't see any scientific inspiration in the previous ten Trek movies. It might have inspired some people to read Melville, Shakespeare or learn Klingon, but that's hardly world-changing. Especially the latter is not.

As usual, Trek lives on TV. Movies are just the little extras, the 13th salary, the cream on the cappuccino.

Personally, this is primarily how I view the film as well. They are all mainly action adventure films made to entertain.

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

In past trek, brains were considered an asset, not a detriment. The guy with the biggest phasers did not always win. Talking and reason often won the day. Debate regarding human aspects and nature often popped up. The engineer could be the hero. That is why I doubt NuTrek will inspire many young people to wonder about their own lives. To wonder what is possible or to peak their curiosity enough for them to crack open a book and study. Don't get me wrong, NuTrek CAN do more next time. What I have said is about this one movie only. I think it can apply to other Trek movies as well, but again... that is not really the argument and is merely a scapegoat... like when a child is caught doing something bad and attempts to lessen his guilt by pointing the finger and saying "but he did it too"

Brains may indeed be an asset, but it didn't stop Kirk being stupid in TOS at times nor did it prevent the writers having him take down the bad guy via fistfight on numerous times either. Or, manipulate a woman to the same end or resolution.

And you yourself have said the lack of substance wasn't a prime concern to you in other threads. If you are less concerned with the lack of substance in the film, to then get so upset that the film may not inspire anyone seems odd. The two would not be exclusive entirely.

Also, how do you (or I) know precisely what will serve as inspiration to someone?

Note that I'm not disagreeing that it could have had more meat on it. But then I'm also willing to hold off until the second film for the reason that this film was a re-introduction and establishment of the new timeline and set-up. Within that context and within the content of much of the previous films, it seems to me that much of what can found objectionable in this film can be applied to the others.

The previous films and their 'substance' (however one wants to define it, as IMO I don't find many after TSFS to truly be that substantial anyway) all were based around the continuing stories of the characters and environment. After it had all been established and the groundwork was long out of the way for the majority.

This is how development occurs.

Even in TOS, 'WNMHGB' does not lay out everything about the characters and the environment. It does not pack into it everything about Star Trek. Neither did 'The Cage'.

It's a fairly straightforward process. The first film is setting the rules (and yes, changing some in the process - to which reaction will vary) and then we can go deeper.

Which Abrams and Co have already stated is what they are looking at doing in the sequel. Whether whatever they decide to do ultimately works on that level is obviously far too early to tell, but in time it will become clearer and I think the second film will be a truer test of where this new incarnation is going to go than the first film, which was primarily a resetting of the basic parameters of the concept.

Originally Posted by horatio

Good things need time and I'd lay all my hopes on the next Trek series which will come sooner or later. Pitty the last one got cancelled right when it started to become good, I am a sucker for Romulan war and foundation of the Federation stories.

Indeed, you can't expect everything all at once. A new weekly series will eventually come and then we will see what it brings with it.

[Roysten]

Note that I'm not disagreeing that it could have had more meat on it. But then I'm also willing to hold off until the second film for the reason that this film was a re-introduction and establishment of the new timeline and set-up. Within that context and within the content of much of the previous films, it seems to me that much of what can found objectionable in this film can be applied to the others.

The previous films and their 'substance' (however one wants to define it, as IMO I don't find many after TSFS to truly be that substantial anyway) all were based around the continuing stories of the characters and environment. After it had all been established and the groundwork was long out of the way for the majority.

This is how development occurs.

Even in TOS, 'WNMHGB' does not lay out everything about the characters and the environment. It does not pack into it everything about Star Trek. Neither did 'The Cage'.

It's a fairly straightforward process. The first film is setting the rules (and yes, changing some in the process - to which reaction will vary) and then we can go deeper.

Which Abrams and Co have already stated is what they are looking at doing in the sequel. Whether whatever they decide to do ultimately works on that level is obviously far too early to tell, but in time it will become clearer and I think the second film will be a truer test of where this new incarnation is going to go than the first film, which was primarily a resetting of the basic parameters of the concept.

I think that's pretty fair, been quite an interesting debate to read. I agree that Trek has definitely inspired some people in their lives one way or another and no doubt has influenced the development of certain technologies to varying degrees.

But like many shows on the air, some inspire and some are just exciting action romps or fun comedies for a bit of light hearted watching like many of the funny DS9 standalones designed to breakup the serious war stories.

The new trek film IMO opinion was somewhat lacking in depth but like Kevin said is a development stage, with depth and substance hopefully following in the next film(s).

[kevin]

I had also (so far) resisted the urge to point out that in the film, the engineer does kinda save the day, since it was Scotty's idea to eject the warp core and detonate it to push the ship free. Which succeeded.

Granted, it's not rewriting Newtonian physics, but you have to start somewhere!

[Roysten]

Originally Posted by kevin

I had also (so far) resisted the urge to point out that in the film, the engineer does kinda save the day, since it was Scotty's idea to eject the warp core and detonate it to push the ship free. Which succeeded.

Granted, it's not rewriting Newtonian physics, but you have to start somewhere!

Argh that really annoyed me, was a massive trek cliche and that particular sequence was actually done better in INS.

Scotty did save the day though there, and it was nice to see everyone at one point or another during the film saving the day, Chekov on the Transporter, Sulu's sword swishing etc.

[MrQ1701]

I enjoyed Sulu's sword swishing... although I wouldn't really call it fencing!!