[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

Actually, there's only one "pew" in that shot. And technically, it's not "pew", it's more like "pyaoooowwwwww".



So...."pew, pew, pew" is misleading.

[Pauln6]

I wonder if they have to have 'Warning. The contents of this cup may be extremely hot' in various native languages on the coffee mugs that the yeomen serve on the bridge. It would be awful if Kirk scalded his junk when the ship suddenly lurches to the left and had to sue Starfleet using Spock Prime as his Prime witness to quantify all the stuff he would have done that he can no longer do....

[horatio]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

I think it's fallacious to assume that people who don't 'mind' the absence of social issues or serious sci-fi in the current ST (so far) don't care about or appreciate said elements, or are otherwise indifferent to them. Or that they care more about explosions or space opera instead.

Do I not have the option of loving the new movie, yet still being aloud claim that politics were what TNG and DS9 did best?

Sorry, I was imprecise. I meant politics more in terms of social background than actual political stories.
First Contact and Journey to Babel are two examples for an in-between of the above, i.e. the background is relatively dominant but the stories in themselves are not political.

I totally agree with what you implied though, Trek movies naturally lean more towards being space adventures than "classical sci-fi".

[kevin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

I think it's fallacious to assume that people who don't 'mind' the absence of social issues or serious sci-fi in the current ST (so far) don't care about or appreciate said elements, or are otherwise indifferent to them. Or that they care more about explosions or space opera instead.

Indeed.

[horatio]

So let me get this straight, you guys wanna convince me that not minding the absence of certain ingredients in one piece say nothing about your general preferences?
It says everything. We two have had dozens of discussions about whether Trek should be optimistic or realistic in general ... and that's why I b*tch about Starfleet cadets beating up farmboys or ex-wives taking the whole planet and why you do not.

Where is the issue? I get wet fanboy pants when there is a Prime Directive episode and you get wet fanboy pants when there are great character moments.

The only potentially controversial statement on my side is that I associate my and not your preferences with classical sci-fi. I simply don't view realistic sci-fi or people behaving like we do today as inherently sci-fi-ish or in other words, a sci-fi setting is necessary but not sufficient for sci-fi. Aliens and space ships don't suffice to make a sci-fi flick, an example being "Independence Day".

[kevin]

It seems to cause you more problems.

You seem to find it impossible that one could actually enjoy more than one aspect or type of sci-fi and more than one type of 'Trek'. Which is simply not the case. Or perhaps it's just other people having a perception of how Trek 'should', 'could' be or even 'is' that you have a problem with when it's in conflict with yours. Which also comes back to the general idea of what's 'missing'. Which, if anything, the many discussions here should assure you that many Star Trek fans have many different takes on. It's not a problem for me that I thoroughly enjoyed the 2009 film and am looking forward to the sequel, and that I also love TOS/TNG and DS9.

Yeah, I'm not big on VOY or ENT or several of the other films.

You can't seem to see how that's possible, or that's the impression I get. But there comes a point where that apparent conundrum for you is just not my responsibility to solve.

(A Prime Directive episode - great. When Star Trek can get consistent about the PD then give me a GOOD one and I'll get into it. Give me a bad one or a mediocre one and I won't be so inclined.)

I also may have perhaps a completely different view of 'what' sci-fi is and I'm happy to tell you that it can indeed include people who don't necessarily act all that differently from the way that we do, or in ways that we recognise. Even the TOS crew behaved in ways that we could relate to. That included booze and space hookers. That's my version of sci-fi and I imagine it works for me as well as yours does for you.

And I think you can have optimism AND realism in there.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by horatio

Sorry, I was imprecise. I meant politics more in terms of social background than actual political stories.
First Contact and Journey to Babel are two examples for an in-between of the above, i.e. the background is relatively dominant but the stories in themselves are not political.

I totally agree with what you implied though, Trek movies naturally lean more towards being space adventures than "classical sci-fi".

Ah, okay. I was thinking more in terms of politically-motivated storylines such as the ongoing Worf/Khitomer thread from TNG. Or of episodes in general dealing with contemporary social issues.

My 'impression' of the latter is oftentimes unfavorable, at least in the seasons following Roddenberry's passing. I would almost rather Berman and company had stuck political storylines and let that (indirectly) inform what the contemporary issues were (a la DS9's more memorable moments), rather than tackling them head-on. I also think PD stories seemed to lose their sense of relevance/consistency after Roddenberry was gone.

However now that you mention it (going back to social/political background), I think almost all the films after TMP at least give off the strong impression of these characters living in a political world. In II you have the Regulus One scientists acting skeptical about Starfleet aka 'the military'; in III and IV you have Starfleet trying to mop up in the aftermath of Genesis. TMP doesn't have a politically-charged background, but instead you get the shuffling business of Starfleet Headquarters on Earth followed by the cold vastness of space... it's more heavily sci-fi than any other ST film.

Whereas in ST09 distances seem almost nonexistent -especially if you (choose to) apply a literal interpretation of the mind-meld scene- and little is mentioned at all about galactic politics outside of the Romulan/Klingon empires being 'somewhere' out there plus the need for an 'armada' to keep the peace. Starfleet has 'kept the peace' for a hundred years; one torpedo each should do it. Though I think it's mostly just because everything in the movie moves so fast.

It's still hard for me to imagine more of the world not revealing itself in the sequels, if only because so much of it is inherited (Then again on ALL the ST series we still have planets with indigenous populations that somehow never seem to spread out more than a hundred square acres). If we get through two more movies without seeing more of a sci-fi/political backdrop, I can definitely see being disappointed.

(Ah, but could they still be good films? Iron Man wasn't X-men: First Class or The Dark Knight, but it's still a good film. Then again I'm still not 'up' on the X-Men. And I would rather Matthew Vaughn get to work on directing another Kick-@$$.)

[horatio]

The Meyer films are a good example for something that happens in the background, militarization. INS keeps the political issue too much in the background and in FC Picard says some lines which are dramatically necessary but feel weird because he speaks out what has mainly been the background in TNG.

I think what you criticize also falls into the last category, i.e. stuff that should be more in the background. It's not like allegorical stories haven't been blunt as well in TOS but it was always play and fun on the road, even in something like "Patterns of Force", and the "message" sometimes only came at the end, "The Savage Curtain" or again "Patterns of Force" being an example.

About the Prime Directive stories, I actually believe that they have become more refined over the years which is like the above a mere stylistic issue.
"The Apple" and "Dear Doctor" are about nearly the same, namely that destroying something that prevents a civilization from developing naturally is right and that helping a species that prevents another species from reaching its full potential is wrong, but the later episode is less crude and more focused on nuances. Whether this "pure PD episode" aspect is an asset or a liability is of course in the eyes of the beholder.



About Ironman, I actually view it as roughly equal to other superhero movies. Sure, it might not feature a Nolan script and execution but I take the playboyish rich fu*k who becomes a bit more responsible after he has seen the sh*t he has caused more seriously than the rich fu*k who wants to be a good guy like daddy has been
One could even cynically claim that characters like Spiderman or Batman are not good, they are just Norman Bates´s (I was about to type Batseses until I realized that this is Smeagol grammar) haunted by their paternal superego.

But of course the main strength of Ironman is that he saves the world while having a lot fun doing it. None of this "the responsibility weighs so heavily on my shoulders" stuff". That also made the old James Bond a pleasure to watch plus Jim Kirk. All that the new Kirk needs is a "jump over your own shadow" / "there are things larger than myself" moment. His playful side is already better than in the original version.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

It seems to cause you more problems.

You seem to find it impossible that one could actually enjoy more than one aspect or type of sci-fi and more than one type of 'Trek'. Which is simply not the case. Or perhaps it's just other people having a perception of how Trek 'should', 'could' be or even 'is' that you have a problem with when it's in conflict with yours. Which also comes back to the general idea of what's 'missing'. Which, if anything, the many discussions here should assure you that many Star Trek fans have many different takes on. It's not a problem for me that I thoroughly enjoyed the 2009 film and am looking forward to the sequel, and that I also love TOS/TNG and DS9.

Yeah, I'm not big on VOY or ENT or several of the other films.

You can't seem to see how that's possible, or that's the impression I get. But there comes a point where that apparent conundrum for you is just not my responsibility to solve.

Not at all. I find nothing wrong with your opinions which would be by the way pretty lunatic. I merely don't consider the stuff you like, people behaving more or less like today, more realistic or cynical stories and so on as quintessential sci-fi.
Dystopian or utopian sci-fi works precisely by not being realistic, it works by sharpening things. Realistic sci-fi only works well when it channels and repacks the very thing it intends to depict. One example that comes to mind is a computer game, Alpha Centauri. It's basic idea is that humans land on an alien planet with alien flora and fauna but the ideological conflicts, resource and territory conflicts and so on are the same as on Earth. If the setting were contemporary you wouldn't notice this idea, but as social stagnation is contrasted with a change of technology as well as the planet below your feet you notice it.

So in a certain way realistic sci-fi also works via sharpening. In my opinion sci-fi that lacks this quality is merely drama in space or in the future or wherever ... and to repeat myself, that doesn't mean it is bad or that I have an issue with folks who like it. I like Star Wars but I wouldn't call it sci-fi.

[chator]

Originally Posted by Pauln6

The new movie ignored the non-sexualised women who could have appeared (Number One, T'Pau) and used male characters in their place and showed far fewer women in high profile roles than the sixties version against a modern backdrop of sexual equality i.e. for TOS to include a few women as officers was avant garde; for NuTrek to include ONLY a few officers is behind the times - hence it is MORE sexist than TOS.

TNG was better but it stiill had strong sexist overtones. NuBSG and Farscape are the closest I've seen to non-sexist sci fi. Stargate is ok but as it's reflective of the real world military, it is as sexist as the modern military.

I'm glad you're willing to admit ST'09 is largely sexist, and far more sexist than TOS, while it should be the opposite. How was TNG sexist? Tasha Yar was the chief of security in the first season, Beverly Crusher was chief medical officer. I wouldn't call NuBSG non-sexist, I would call it pro-feminist. There's a difference. Sexism limits women to traditional female roles, Non-sexist humanism says women can be/do anything that a man can do, Feminism tries to turn females into men with vaginas and still call them females.