ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

"Dumbing down"

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:49 am

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 11:57 am)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ¿By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ¿In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ¿

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ¿(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ¿On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ¿If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ¿The best ST films all have that.

No, Star Trek should be like 2001, for the sole reason that it is too important not to be like 2001.

Star Wars should be a pop-corn series (which it always was).

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:50 am

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 21 2009, 12:57 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ?By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ?In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ?

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ?(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ?On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ?If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ?The best ST films all have that.

To me the original series fit my definition of pop corn movie. It was exciting with good drama and special effects and characters I could relate to and a whole lot of fun to watch!

Star Trek as a whole has always had a light touch to it and was a fun series to watch. It never was a dark serious franchise to begin with. I think Nemesis tried to be that way and that was one of the reason it failed.

I will check out those other movies you mentioned, thanks for the recommendations.

A franchise needs not be dark in order to be serious. When I say "serious", I mean deep. A franchise can be deep and not dark at the same time. TOS and TNG are.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:55 am

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 12:48 pm)
Quote (WkdYngMan @ July 22 2009, 8:01 am)
This might be what you need personally. However, I'm not sure how many people are watching Star Trek with the intention of being preached to about the obvious. It's nice to have, but there are other and much better venues for that "in this context."

I somewhat agree.

You know, as a kid, I found the original ST, a space opera like TNG, to be tremendously inspiring with its flawed, conflicting, emotional characters (like us), which TNG generally didn't have, because of "Gene's" edict that they be perfect, although Worf was, according to Michael Pillar, the exception to the this rule. ¿The original show, imo, felt a bit more human than TNG did due to its conflicting, imperfect characters. ¿They didn't come across as being that much better than ourselves and, especially Kirk, were sometimes humbled. ¿The almost perfect TNG characters sometimes came across as being too pompous, and, on occaisionally smug. ¿They were rarely, if ever humbled from being arrogant, obsessed, or just suffering from human weaknesses. ¿That was a huge difference between ST and TNG, one that many of the TNG writers, especially Ron Moore and Ira Steven Beher, had a lot of problems with. ¿

Needless to say, I am not a big fan of Gene's edict. ¿However, without it, maybe TNG just wouldn't have been what it was. ¿Maybe it needed that to really differentiate itself from ST.

But, in any case, the original show, and, imo, this film, is every bit as good as TNG and the other spin-offs when it comes to ¿inspiring young people to go into the sciences and technology fields. ¿

And, in that regard, while they're certainly an inspiration for a lot of people, the shows and films in the franchise are obviously not real space programs. ¿They depict imaginary space ships, and often completely fake science (to the extent than many scientists have lambasted the franchise, especially TNG, for showing pseduo-science). ¿In contrast, space-programs actually exist and are focuses for real technology development. ¿I'd say that in that context, they're a least as important, if not moreso, than fictional sci-fi shows.

Can we please stop with the myth that TOS had flawed, conflicting and emotional characters? Just because McCoy and Spock had the occasional disagreement, that doesn't mean the characters were flawed, conflicting and emotional.

And TNG characters were the logical progression from today. If man is to evolve, then we should all strive to be civil like the TNG characters. TNG characters were not perfect, they were more subtle.

As for space programs, they are too complicated for inspiring the Average Joe. Shows like Star Trek can talk to the kids' hearts.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 9:01 am

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 1:27 pm)
Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ July 22 2009, 1:05 pm)
Quote (Mirrorgirl @ July 22 2009, 9:45 am)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 23 2009, 2:30 am)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 21 2009, 12:57 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ?By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ?In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ?

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ?(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ?On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ?If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ?The best ST films all have that.

To me the original series fit my definition of pop corn movie. It was exciting with good drama and special effects and characters I could relate to and a whole lot of fun to watch!

Star Trek as a whole has always had a light touch to it and was a fun series to watch. It never was a dark serious franchise to begin with. I think Nemesis tried to be that way and that was one of the reason it failed.

I will check out those other movies you mentioned, thanks for the recommendations.

I'd skip Solaris, ST, I didn't like that one. ?Maybe you would, being a psychologist. ? :laugh:

Moon is in theatres now. ?It's an indie-movie, but it looks great and Sam Rockwell does an amazing job in it. ?It's basically his show. ?It's clearly inspired by 2001.

Don't skip Solaris (the George Clooney one), it is a superb sic-fi psycholigical thriller IMO (we have it on DVD and watch it regularly, we also have the soundtrack which is hauntingly beautiful and hypnotic)

I love a good hardcore sci-fi movie like 2001 or Bladerunner or THX1138 or Gattaca, but I also love a good popcorn sic-fi like Ironman.

I don't know abut some people's inability to like more than one type of film (jeebus life would be boring if we only like one type of thing, can you imagine liking on All Bran for the rest of your life? )

And yes, since when has Star Trek been this sacrosanct bastion of pure, unadulated hardcore sci-fi? Never was, never will be.

Star Trek is FUN. And when it is isn't it doesn't work.

Oh, oops I didn't run that by my Agenda checker, I am an inferior dumb, dumb...der my brain hurts cos I like STXI

Just shows that people need to learn more about TREK.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, VAB.

It's my observation that the most vocal detractors of the new film all are huge TNG fans. ¿One of them hasn't even seen all the original episodes. ¿To be clear, I'm not saying that people who became fans of the franchise with TNG are like these few individuals. ¿There are only 5-6 of them here, but they make their presence known. ¿ ¿

The original show was a lot like this new film and that is obviously not like TNG. ¿It isn't what these people think of when they think of "Star Trek." ¿They're not really fans of "Star Trek," they're fans of "The Next Generation." ¿Some of that is due, as you said, to a real ignorance and/or appreciation of the original show, like Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, who didn't really understand it, know it, or like it. ¿Many hardcore TNG fans have never seen it, or seen very little of it, and often dismiss it as an anachronism (again like Rick Berman) and just a crude prototype of the perfect "Star Trek" that was "The Next Generation," (like DammitJim is fond of saying here). ¿I certainly don't subscribe to that belief. ¿I've seen both shows and I love them both, but, imo, other than sfx and production, I do not think TNG was superior to the original show at all. ¿There are things that GR threw away with TNG, like flawed, imperfect characters, and things he added, like a shrink on the bridge, that, imo, weren't good for the show. ¿In short, I don't think the TNG formula was better than the originals. ¿It was just different.

I think it's kind of been proven, with the success of the original cast films and now this one, that the style and characters of the original show are every bit as good as, if not better than those of TNG. ¿It's very satisfying to see that the success of ST XI has apparently caused some of these TNG, VOY, or even DS9 fans to take another look at the original show and try to see beyond the 60s era sets and cheaper production to the what was always great about it: ¿the characters and their interaction and a lot of the writing. ¿On the General ST board, for instance, the original characters are leading the current polling. ¿I don't remember that happening much at all. ¿

And then, of course, some of these more vocal fans feel betrayed about simply not having a final TNG film (and you know who I mean).

I don't give a dime about actual TNG. I don't mind if I do not see Picard and Data and Riker again. I do not care who is the hero. I just want Star Trek to be serious, deep, thoughtful. The only reason I bring up TNG all the time is because it was the more thoughtful series from all.

I wouldn't even mind a new Star Trek series with Kirk, Bones and Spock as the main heroes, as long as the focus was not on the heroes but on the actual sci-fi. TOS had some great sci-fi moments, it wasn't only about the characters, as you say.

Remember the Star Trek moto? "space, the final frontier...to boldly go where no one has gone before"...the last movie goes where everyone has gone before, i.e. a silly mindless adventure with big plot holes, errors and inconsistencies in it. I don't care if the hero is Kirk, Picard or Captain Smith.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 9:08 am

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 9:43 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 21 2009, 12:57 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ?By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ?In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ?

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ?(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ?On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ?If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ?The best ST films all have that.

To me the original series fit my definition of pop corn movie. It was exciting with good drama and special effects and characters I could relate to and a whole lot of fun to watch!

Star Trek as a whole has always had a light touch to it and was a fun series to watch. It never was a dark serious franchise to begin with. I think Nemesis tried to be that way and that was one of the reason it failed.

I totally agree, ST. ¿I just finished rewatching ST, and I have to say, I enjoyed just about every single episode (with a few exceptions). ¿The ones with over-the-top plots were carried by the charm of the flawed, human characters, which is something that Harve Bennett observed when he sat down to watch ST before writing TWOK. ¿That's the heart and soul of the show: ¿it's characters. ¿

The same is true for TNG. ¿When Michael Pillar came aboard as a producer in season 3 of TNG, he knew that they had to really begin to focus on the characters, even if they couldn't have any interpersonal conflicts between them as per GR's edict. ¿I've finished rewatching season 7 of TNG too, and I noticed something that was going on there and in the previous seasons as well. ¿Whenever the show was about the characters, whenever it had some good beats for them, it worked well. ¿Whenever it was simply about them solving one of Brannon Braga's stupid Twilight Zone anomalies, well, those episodes left me cold. ¿For example the last two episodes before the end of TNG were Emergence and the last one with Ensign Ro. ¿Emergence, about the Ent-D reproducing an artificial tinker-toy lifeform (yes it even looked stupid) did virtually nothing for me. ¿It was a standard Braga holodeck puzzle episode. ¿That's not good ST imo. ¿The other one, where Ro joined the Macquis, was just great. ¿It had some great human drama there. ¿I really liked that one. ¿

Which one was better scifi? ¿Probably Emergence. ¿Which one was the better episode in terms of characters and drama, the Ro episode. ¿

There were a lot of other episodes of TNG that were like Emergence. ¿Probably because TNG had more money to spend on the requisite production and sfx these sorts of episodes required (there was another stupid one where Data, Picard, Geordi, and Deanna, I think come back and the Enterprise is frozen in time. ¿That one didn't do much for me either).

The original show was constantly fighting its low budget, and, as Leonard Nimoy observed, they had to concentrate more on the character drama and humor. ¿I think in that respect, the original had its own style and strength that contributed to its longevity. ¿They just couldn't do the sorts of stories that TNG often did and, I think, it made the original show better in those other elements.

Quote

I will check out those other movies you mentioned, thanks for the recommendations.


Well, I was only going to recommend, Moon. ¿I didn't edit my post. ¿I think, as both a psychologist and sci-fi fan, you might like that one ST. ¿I'm sure you've seen 2001. ¿Gattaca is a cool movie, all about the impact of being able to genetically engineer perfect children on society.

Nice comparison.

I was stunned when I saw the episode "Emergence" for the first time. I liked it very much.

When I saw the episode "Preemptive Strike", it left me cold.

I liked very much all the strange mysteries Braga had put in front of us. Most of the character-driven episodes left me cold.

So I think it comes down to personal preference, after all. I think Star Trek should be split: the Twilight Zone-type Star Trek for us exploration-driven guys and the Santa Barbara-type Star Trek for the rest of the people.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 9:13 am

Quote (ServalanFan @ July 23 2009, 12:26 am)
Quote (axilmar1 @ July 22 2009, 10:55 am)
Quote (WkdYngMan @ July 22 2009, 10:35 am)
Quote (axilmar1 @ July 22 2009, 10:11 am)
A brainless movie just makes people dumber.

Definitely not. ?Remember, you supposedly saw the movie as well, so keep that in mind when making statements like this.

I am in the minority (educated enough to be able to tell that the movie is brainless).

Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment.

I have a Master's Degree.
I liked the movie.
Are you sure I am uneducated - maybe I just have bad taste in movies?

In Greek, there are two words for "education": "morfosi", which means "education" in English, i.e. when you have a diploma of some kind; and "paideia", which means that you are enlightened in the ways of mankind. It is possible to have "paideia" without having "morfosi" and vice versa.

When I said "educated enough to be able to tell that the movie is brainless", I mean in the sense of "paideia", not "morfosi". I have an MSc as well, and I have seen plenty of guys with several MScs and PHds that lacked any sort of "paideia". I have seen uneducated people without any diploma to have very good "paideia".

If you have any sort of "paideia", it is easy to see that this new movie is actually Hollywood trash.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 9:14 am

Quote (RedShirtGuyNumber1001 @ July 23 2009, 12:40 am)
Let me say this again. ¿This movie did not dumb down Star Trek. ¿If it was truely dumbed down. ¿This is exactly what we would have seen. ¿Beyonce would have played Uhura. ¿Kevin Neland would have played a perverted Spock claiming that his ears could be used as a sexual tool. ¿Chris Rock or Chris Tucker would have played Doctor McCoy and would have kept saying "that's whacked!" ¿Mike Meyers would have played Scotty (but looked like Austin Powers). ¿Last but not least, Captain Kirk would have been played by a bad comedian who would have really over exaggerated the famous Shatner Pauses. ¿See the movie National Lampoons Senior Trip for a reference.

There you go that is dumbed down. ¿This movie wasn't Catwoman with Halle Berry, or The Shadow with Alec Baldwin.

The movie you describe would be dumbed down as well, but much more than STXI. That doesn't not make STXI not dumbed down.

newKirk

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 387

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 11:45 am

The movie was "dumbed down" as compared with the other star trek movies, but it was not a "dumb" movie. I will give some credit where credit is due, I think the casting and the cast were wonderful. I believe the characterization of a  young rebellious kirk is quite within believability in the story they were trying to tell. There were a lot of moments where the characters interaction reminded me of TOS. There were homages to previous Trek films and canon. I thought Pike was the most interesting character, and Karl Urban's McCoy really was quite "De Kelley" like.. I don't mind the cast being too young, it added an energy to the movie. Overall, an entertaining movie, not the best Trek, but better than anyone expected for a reboot.. I am looking forward to the next one..

DarthRage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 289

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 11:47 am

"The movie was "dumbed down" as compared with the other star trek movies"

Examples please.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 12:02 pm

Quote (axilmar1 @ July 23 2009, 8:49 am)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 11:57 am)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ?By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ?In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ?

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ?(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ?On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ?If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ?The best ST films all have that.

No, Star Trek should be like 2001, for the sole reason that it is too important not to be like 2001.

Star Wars should be a pop-corn series (which it always was).

Please refrain from quoting or referencing my posts.

I have no wish to have any discourse whatsoever with you.

SpaceTherapist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6370

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 12:04 pm

Quote (axilmar1 @ July 22 2009, 9:50 am)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 21 2009, 12:57 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ?By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ?In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ?

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ?(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ?On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ?If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ?The best ST films all have that.

To me the original series fit my definition of pop corn movie. It was exciting with good drama and special effects and characters I could relate to and a whole lot of fun to watch!

Star Trek as a whole has always had a light touch to it and was a fun series to watch. It never was a dark serious franchise to begin with. I think Nemesis tried to be that way and that was one of the reason it failed.

I will check out those other movies you mentioned, thanks for the recommendations.

A franchise needs not be dark in order to be serious. When I say "serious", I mean deep. A franchise can be deep and not dark at the same time. TOS and TNG are.

I really enjoy reading about philosophy. Locke, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Sartre and so forth. I also am deep in psychological theories and am well knowledgeable on the various schools of therapy. I even love studying theology and all the worlds religions.

So comparatively speaking Star Trek isn't even in that league with these topics. Sure, Star Trek can be serious, but even popcorn movies like Close Encounters and ET can be serious, but I don't find them too deep, relatively speaking.

Star Trek, even for science fiction is light science fiction.

The bottom line for me is that Star Trek is fun entertainment.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 12:12 pm

Quote (ServalanFan @ July 23 2009, 12:26 am)
I have a Master's Degree.
I liked the movie.

I've got a PhD and an MS and I loved the movie.  

And I'd say I have pretty good taste in films.  I've been seeing lot of indies with my wife (like the recent Moon, Hotel Rwanda, The Reader, The Lives of Others, etc.).  And, heck, I had a roomie who was attending USC film school.  He exposed me to Woody Allen (who I still don't care for) and Coppola (Godfather, which I do like a lot) as well as other films (like Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ).  

I've seen lots of classic old films with my wife as well, including the classic Gentlemen's Agreement with Gregory Peck (an early drama dealing anti-semeticism), A Place in The Sun, Breakfast at Tiffany's, To Catch A Thief and North By Northwest (my wife loves Cary Grant), and a bunch of others.    

The old ones I really like are some of the John Wayne films like The Searchers, Rio Bravo, Hondo, etc.  And I love Errol Flynn's The Sea Hawk and Captain Blood.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 12:18 pm

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 23 2009, 12:04 pm)
Quote (axilmar1 @ July 22 2009, 9:50 am)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 21 2009, 12:57 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ?By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ?In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ?

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ?(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ?On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ?If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ?The best ST films all have that.

To me the original series fit my definition of pop corn movie. It was exciting with good drama and special effects and characters I could relate to and a whole lot of fun to watch!

Star Trek as a whole has always had a light touch to it and was a fun series to watch. It never was a dark serious franchise to begin with. I think Nemesis tried to be that way and that was one of the reason it failed.

I will check out those other movies you mentioned, thanks for the recommendations.

A franchise needs not be dark in order to be serious. When I say "serious", I mean deep. A franchise can be deep and not dark at the same time. TOS and TNG are.

I really enjoy reading about philosophy. Locke, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Sartre and so forth. I also am deep in psychological theories and am well knowledgeable on the various schools of therapy. I even love studying theology and all the worlds religions.

Wow! ¿That's deep stuff there ST!

I've never ever really gotten into philosophy. ¿I am interested in religions though. ¿It's something I really should read more about.

I've been trying to branch out my reading lately. ¿I've been looking for books where the prose is really good and that are outside of the typical sci-fi box I've been in. ¿In that regard, I've taken an interest in classic pulp fiction and have read Lovecraft, Burroughs (Tarzan and John Carter, and Howard (Conan). ¿I've also read 1984 (great, scary book). ¿Recently, I finished Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun and Book of the Short Sun series. ¿I cannot recommend them highly enough. ¿GW is regarded as one of the best writers in America, but, since he writes sci-fi/fantasy and his books are very challenging in their narrative structure, he is not as well known. ¿That guy can write!

You might like those. ¿GW is Catholic, I believe, so spirtuality and allegory are present in them.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 7:30 am

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 23 2009, 12:04 pm)
Quote (axilmar1 @ July 22 2009, 9:50 am)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 21 2009, 12:57 pm)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ?By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ?In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ?

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ?(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ?On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ?If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ?The best ST films all have that.

To me the original series fit my definition of pop corn movie. It was exciting with good drama and special effects and characters I could relate to and a whole lot of fun to watch!

Star Trek as a whole has always had a light touch to it and was a fun series to watch. It never was a dark serious franchise to begin with. I think Nemesis tried to be that way and that was one of the reason it failed.

I will check out those other movies you mentioned, thanks for the recommendations.

A franchise needs not be dark in order to be serious. When I say "serious", I mean deep. A franchise can be deep and not dark at the same time. TOS and TNG are.

I really enjoy reading about philosophy. Locke, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Sartre and so forth. I also am deep in psychological theories and am well knowledgeable on the various schools of therapy. I even love studying theology and all the worlds religions.

So comparatively speaking Star Trek isn't even in that league with these topics. Sure, Star Trek can be serious, but even popcorn movies like Close Encounters and ET can be serious, but I don't find them too deep, relatively speaking.

Star Trek, even for science fiction is light science fiction.

The bottom line for me is that Star Trek is fun entertainment.

There were many TNG (mainly) episodes, especially in early TNG, that dealt with a lot of issues in the best way a televised play can do. There were also many episodes in TOS and some episodes in DS9.

Star Trek is not as light as you think. It's just that a lot of time has passed since we had some serious Star Trek.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 7:32 am

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 23 2009, 12:02 pm)
Quote (axilmar1 @ July 23 2009, 8:49 am)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 11:57 am)
Quote (SpaceTherapist @ July 22 2009, 11:30 am)
What rule of law or statute says that Star Trek should not be pop-corn entertainment?

IMO, ST should be pop-corn entertainment. ?By that, I mean, the films should be fun and exciting and have good characters that the audience could relate too. ?In that regard, FC was definitely a pop-corn "action film," as director Jonathan Frakes said. ?

ST isn't, imo, supposed to be like 2001 or the new film Moon, or Solaris, Gattaca, etc. ?(SpaceTherapist and others who like psychological or hard sf films, you should check this one out, it's really good). ?On the bigscreen, it absolutely should be a fun pop-corn film. ?If you can put a bit of a message or analogy in there too, great, but, above all you should have a fun, action-filled, character-driven story. ?The best ST films all have that.

No, Star Trek should be like 2001, for the sole reason that it is too important not to be like 2001.

Star Wars should be a pop-corn series (which it always was).

Please refrain from quoting or referencing my posts.

I have no wish to have any discourse whatsoever with you.

I have every right to quote whoever I like. If you don't want to respond, then don't.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam, wissa

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum