[kevin]

I guess one person's 'actual' could be someone else's 'pseudo' and vice versa. I think later TNG onwards era Trek was fairly loaded with pretensions at times though where TOS in it's day seemed to avoid that as much. But I'm sure other's would take umbrage at that feeling.

[samwiseb]

Um... yeah. Though TOS had its pretentious moments as well, particularly in latter seasons. Sometimes I even think just Shatner's presence as an actor makes things seem pretentious.

[kevin]

His acting has always been an acquired taste. I'm not sure I ever completely did. But yet it's hard to imagine almost anyone else in the role.

[horatio]

The correlation between all these reactionary, anti-intellectual arguments and the appreciation for STXI is obviously no coincidence.
I have been and always will be committed to the way Trek was setup in the very first story, The Cage.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

I do tend to believe there's a small percentage of spin in there BUT it was obvious last year that because of other things trying to meet the June 2012 date just couldn't happen if done anywhere close to properly. It's not like Paramount NOT to try and force a movie to be ready for a release date so I'm certainly getting the sense they were trying to be more careful with this one.

Star Trek as a series never quite burdened itself with a whole of plot sense or logic in it's life. Not really. Not if you want to pop the hood and really root around. But there are definitely episodes that went too far over the 'middle line' in the silly direction. Not many went in the other direction. It's pretty much middle or way over it and Abrams couldn't have invented dramatic license in Trek if he tried to.

It's only when we don't like the individual results (be they Nemesis or Abrams) that we trot out all the reasons why it's this and that (I know that because I DO it myself) and...........well, yawn.

I think you generally speak for most people who judge plots acceptable just by whether or not they were entertained. So I think the results influence you to that defense.

However whether or not it was enjoyed criticizing errors is always valid. The logical truth is most writers and producers of the Television age are not particularly concerned. But I know I've done a lot more research into this than say the average joe. And there has been many, many episodes of Trek that delve that go just a bit deeper than the average sci fi when they really didn't have to.

I've made that list before, here on this forum and it was just a small sample. The truth is, like many things in entertainment we enjoy things rather easily and don't look any deeper than the surface. We're rather superfluous as a society. That questions whether or not it's actually our fault or the writers and producers fault for the amount of pseudo science and pseudo logic in films today. One thing is certainly true is that one is feeding the other.

Then unconsciously when writers and producers DO take the time to lock down the logic of the plot or the science and results in a block buster we treat it rather obliviously attributing it to enjoyment individually rather than where the focus should be. That the mechanics were right, the logic worked and the story teller built the characters, suspense and drama using the skills that are taken for granted in his field.

Don't make me bust out James Cameron or Christopher Nolan.
They aren't just artist they put in extraordinary effort for story telling and logic in their films. They were block buster directors for a reason. Trek has done the same rather understated, way in it's own little corner.

[kevin]

I think it's quite correct that there are films and TV shows where you can watch and as a viewer you can instinctively tell that someone has put in the effort behind the scenes to invest it with something that seems to come across as being more plausible, yes.

I think Cameron and Nolan are amongst the examples of that.

I don't necessarily always think that films that I would say I 'like' all have acceptable plots. Whatever that means and I highly imagine you and I would have a totally different opinion on 'acceptable'. They don't.

The major thing with Trek is that it's run for much longer. It's not one director making one film every seven or twelve years who has the time, money and luxury to go and invent technologies specifically for his films and develop his stories and wait fifteen years to make his film. That's a rare luxury. At one point, Star Trek was essentially a film and TV production line with all the fatigue and problems that can be associated with what was also essentially thematic repetition as well.

And on that basis, I think it's also entirely applicable that at times watching Trek one could also feel that that effort you mention had slipped or been overlooked.

[Saquist]

It's definitely slipped and has been overlooked in Trek.

Abrams took a planet in one position and brought it from the frontier to Vulcan's front door just for dramatic effect. I'm pretty sure that's never, ever been done before. And he did it just for the drama. So rather auspiciously he's on your side. You'll be pleased by almost anything you get in this line of reasoning.

I won't.
It reduces Trek down to The Avengers. It was a fantastic film but it was fantasy and what I took from it had more to do with the telling of the story in a balanced way by far than anything else rooted in reality.

Reducing Trek to just this or Star Wars takes away that ...Boldly Going...part.
I think that's the soul of Trek.

[kevin]

You're bang on. I don't have a problem with the use of the name Delta Vega.

I think it's massively down on the scale of issues I might have with either his film OR anything else that I might want to list in the franchise.

[Saquist]

I won't see this film in theaters unless I get tremendously favorable reviews.
But my hope is that now that we know what Abrams is all about and that he's established in his story, he has the ship he wants, the hijinks he wants and the Star Wars overlap he wants he'll give me a little of what I want.

And what I want is to be a fan of Trek again...in the way I fondly remember it being even it wasn't all as it appear. I hope he gives me just something I can hang on to.

[kevin]

I'll be seeing it in cinemas. But if I don't like it - I will certainly say so.