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

Do you think that ST:XI has a TOS feel to it?


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23344

Report this Dec. 06 2009, 9:16 am

Quote (WilburWood @ Dec. 05 2009, 11:18 pm)
They're ALL good, but the guy who played McCoy NAILED it!!!! :cool:

True! Still, I wish they showed Nurse Chapel.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 289

Report this Jan. 16 2010, 7:56 am

Quote (SpockType @ Nov. 24 2009, 12:56 pm)
That film doesn't have a TOS feel to it. For instance, the Enterprise is far more advanced than in the original series. It also has a storyline not corrsponding to TOS. There's also more advanced technology, much like with the 'Enterprise' TV series.

Someone was saying it's more like a 25th century Enterprise.
Apparently this movie is set in an alternate universe, with them using some Romulan technology.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 289

Report this Jan. 16 2010, 7:57 am

Quote (SpockType @ Nov. 24 2009, 12:56 pm)
Chris Pine doesn't look anything like William Shatner of TOS time.

Someone was saying so what if he doesn't.
Oh well, I've been a Star Trek fan since the early 1970s.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1800

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 5:48 pm

Quote (IVHoltzman @ Dec. 01 2009, 10:03 am)
I guess I just got accustomed to seeing ST as sort of a morality play.[/quote]
Likewise. I don't like preaching, but I love lessons. Don't tell me how I ought to behave. Rather, teach me how to think outside of the box.

The biggest difference between TOS and TNG is that the crew swapped roles. In TOS, more often than not, the crew learned something. In TNG, more often than not, the crew preached something.

The difference kind of makes sense given the 80 years of advancement between the two settings. TOS's grasp of Federation Space was akin to the British Navy's grasp of the oceans in the 1700s: they were the biggest force in their own quadrant, but the French and the Spanish had fleets that could mount a significant threat, plus pirates and other unexplained ship disappearances were still quite common. TNG's grasp of Federation Space was more akin to the U.S. Navy today: ships just don't go missing, there's no such thing as a serious adversarial navy, and pirates will inescapably get their heads blown off.

That's the problem: a story isn't nearly so exciting when the guys you're rooting for are certain to win, know that they're certain to win, and have no opportunity to learn. That's why the first Borg episode was so startling in TNG: it was the first time that TNG faced an adversary as menacing as the TOS-era Klingons and Romulans. For the first time in years, the Federation had to re-learn how to be cunning.

Over in the v2.0-era, what did the crew of XI learn? Captain Pike v2.0 had exhaustively studied the first encounter with the Romulan mining ship, yet despite warnings ranging from twenty years ago to three minutes ago, he still decided to "pop" out of hyperspace exactly where the trap had so obviously been laid for him. People deciding stupidly is only supposed to happen in Republican presidencies. Not in Star Trek.

XI borrowed too heavily from the Ben Stiller genre: stupidly damaging things happen to the main characters and the audience is expected to laugh at their misfortune. That's entirely contrary to Roddenberry and, in the long run, it wastes allegiance. Put it this way: have you ever walked out of a Dumb&Dumber sort of movie admiring the characters, or dreaming of someday being like them? Of course not. And that's why such movies make it to at most two sequels before dying at the box office.

For all the guff Star Trek has gotten over the decades about being a financial disappointment, Trek has nonetheless managed to justify the budget for its next story over 700 times to date. Before the owners of Trek authorize any next script, they ought to seriously examine what has kept Trek viable for so long. Trek is the classic goose that lays golden eggs. No, it doesn't lay tons of golden eggs, but it does steadily produce if you treat it well. If you force it, though, you'll kill it. And, all things considered, if the current owners can't do well by Trek, I hope it dies on them quickly. XI is not the way Trek ought to be remembered.

This is a great post, and this is a great, reasonable thread.  
I had to watch the movie twice, the first time I turned it off during that scene in sickbay after McCoy smuggles Kirk on to the enterprise, I was incredably disappointed.  (speaking of dumb and dumber)
Later I turned it back on and watched the whole movie by telling mysellf over and over that it was not in any way shape or form connected with TOS.  I was able to appreciate it as a simple science fiction movie and even like parts of it.   McCoy was great, so were Chekov and Scotty.  Agree with other posters about Nero being one dimentional.  The only saving grace of the movie as a whole is it's an alternate reality.  It lacks the hopefull feeling of Trek, the teaching if you will, young Kirk is a crass action hero, not a heroic figure,  Uhura was sluty, not classy, and Spock was not a disciplined, thoughtful figure he was ruled by his passion.  
I have to wonder what Roddenberry would think.  
And this is just my opinon, not personally attacking anyone.


GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 27 2010, 7:01 pm

I do not like it much, but I like it more than when I first saw it. It took me three times, then I realized it was an alternate reality.

logical... mabye.

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