[Movies] the star trek dilemma

[Kalis]

Cumbersnatch? Was that intentional?

I believe it may have been.

I've known someone since school with the surname Cumberbatch, and we used to (and often still do) call him Cumbersnatch/Cuminhersnatch and lots of other 'hilarious' schoolboy nicknames. His name isn't Benedict, but his middle name is Richard...

[Mayhem]

well, i musst agree both on the new shit star trek is but on the other hand, there haven´t been much good movies that you actually can call good, so i´d say, this new shit happends to be the same shit since the last 20 years

what was i trying to say? aah yep, i like the new movies, but i never thought of star trek as anything more than just fun scifi series/movies anyway

i do have a much bigger problem with the bullshit back to the future slapped on it´s viewers -.-
lol we changed the past, damn i musst hurry or i´ll never exist, lol someone else changed the past and we´re like in a future that doesn´t exist anymore but we can totally go back to a past that we never existed and started timetravelling in, cool

[Reeve]

so, as i was talking to another guy about timetravel in the star trek universe

we came across some problems

trimetravel is nothing new to the star trek universe, kirk and his crew did it in star trek IV, without any problems to their own future which brings me to the point thinking that star trek plays in numerous paralell universes by now and the last 2 movies play in another universe than what the old spock comes from

what are your thoughts about this?

My thoughts are it can make for interesting plots.

[Kalis]

well, i musst agree both on the new shit star trek is but on the other hand, there haven´t been much good movies that you actually can call good, so i´d say, this new shit happends to be the same shit since the last 20 years

what was i trying to say? aah yep, i like the new movies, but i never thought of star trek as anything more than just fun scifi series/movies anyway

i do have a much bigger problem with the bullshit back to the future slapped on it´s viewers -.-
lol we changed the past, damn i musst hurry or i´ll never exist, lol someone else changed the past and we´re like in a future that doesn´t exist anymore but we can totally go back to a past that we never existed and started timetravelling in, cool

Back to the Future was a sci-fi action comedy for kids, it wasn't supposed to be realistic or make any sense.

Apart from the hoverboards, they're real.

[Reeve]

The two new films take place in an alternate timeline.

A much stupider, less interesting, appallingly crappier timeline.

The new movies are action movies, not the cerebral commentary on the human condition/social situations that the first two Star Trek series were about. They have no "The line must be drawn HERE! This far, no further!" moments, but they're still fun. And the newest one could arguably claim to be a commentary on the present day war on terror, drone strikes, and the moral duty of soldiers to be conscientious objectors. It isn't as cerebral as the older series, maybe, but it's still fun.

[Skroe]

The new movies are action movies, not the cerebral commentary on the human condition/social situations that the first two Star Trek series were about. They have no "The line must be drawn HERE! This far, no further!" moments, but they're still fun. And the newest one could arguably claim to be a commentary on the present day war on terror, drone strikes, and the moral duty of soldiers to be conscientious objectors. It isn't as cerebral as the older series, maybe, but it's still fun.

And this is precisely the problem.

There are plenty.... PLENTY of Sci-Fi franchises that are action and nothing but dumb fun. Star Trek is not that. It's been turned into something its not.

Here's a thought: the most of best episodes of every Star Trek series had almost nothing to do with "space" itself besides that being the medium the ship or crew had to get to in order to happen upon the drama-of-the-hour. The Inner Light was about an ancient "legacy" sattelite. All Good Things had anti-Time, but took place mostly on Earth and on the Enterprise in the time periods. In the Pale Moonlight was about compromising one's morality.

Star Trek is supposed to make you think. It's done space battles well (First Contact, Dominion War, Nemesis), but that's always been icing on the cake, and has never been the best part of it. Star Trek is first and foremost about people.

Which is why the new movie is so apallingly moronic. It's not really about people. It's about bridging a set of characters from action scenario to action scenario. It's Call of Duty: Space Edition with Lens Flares.

All I know is, the depth of JJ Abrams vision is this: bring back Khan, switch Spock and Kirk's position at the end of the story and make a killer massive Federation Warship whose bridge is scaled larger than the Enterprise E's entire saucer section... for some reason. The guy's a no talent hack. Alias was bad. MI3 was bad. Super 8 was just garbage. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

[Reeve]

And this is precisely the problem.

There are plenty.... PLENTY of Sci-Fi franchises that are action and nothing but dumb fun. Star Trek is not that. It's been turned into something its not.

Here's a thought: the most of best episodes of every Star Trek series had almost nothing to do with "space" itself besides that being the medium the ship or crew had to get to in order to happen upon the drama-of-the-hour. The Inner Light was about an ancient "legacy" sattelite. All Good Things had anti-Time, but took place mostly on Earth and on the Enterprise in the time periods. In the Pale Moonlight was about compromising one's morality.

Star Trek is supposed to make you think. It's done space battles well (First Contact, Dominion War, Nemesis), but that's always been icing on the cake, and has never been the best part of it. Star Trek is first and foremost about people.

Which is why the new movie is so apallingly moronic. It's not really about people. It's about bridging a set of characters from action scenario to action scenario. It's Call of Duty: Space Edition with Lens Flares.

All I know is, the depth of JJ Abrams vision is this: bring back Khan, switch Spock and Kirk's position at the end of the story and make a killer massive Federation Warship whose bridge is scaled larger than the Enterprise E's entire saucer section... for some reason. The guy's a no talent hack. Alias was bad. MI3 was bad. Super 8 was just garbage. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

Oh I totally agree. Inner Light, Tapestry, The Measure of a Man, Pen Pals, the Dauphin, etc. These are the things that made Star Trek great, not the big space battles and such. I'd prefer to see more than that stuff obviously, but if they aren't going to do that, I'll take some mindless fun over nothing at all.

[Klutzington]

Indeed, Star Trek isn't real time travel...however, Back to the Future is based on a true story.

So you can change your timeline, but people in photos disappear, or something like that.

I understand it now. Hail our new overlord. :3

[jsr0213]

In reality, time travel would probably work more similarly to the reboot than it ever did in the series, or previous movies.

Many worlds theory suggests a different version of reality may exist for every possible outcome to any given event. Think of Schrodinger's cat; in our reality, the cat is 'both alive and dead', until we open the box. Many worlds theory suggests that when you open the box, you may only see one outcome, but that doesn't mean the 2nd possible outcome didn't happen in a parallel reality.

In this model, time travel is meaningless; it is, for all intents and purposes, traveling to a parallel reality. This is because your very presence in this arbitrary point in the past changes something, and therefore creates a completely new chain of events, separate from the one you just left. Your own time line would not cease to exist, but you could never return there by simply traveling back to the future, because you would be traveling in to the future of this new time line.

As strange as this theory seems, it seems to eliminate all of those pesky paradoxes, like the grandfather paradox. You would only be killing your grandfather's doppelganger, and your actual grandfather's time line would continue on normally.

[Daerio]

Which is why the new movie is so apallingly moronic. It's not really about people. It's about bridging a set of characters from action scenario to action scenario. It's Call of Duty: Space Edition with Lens Flares.

All I know is, the depth of JJ Abrams vision is this: bring back Khan, switch Spock and Kirk's position at the end of the story and make a killer massive Federation Warship whose bridge is scaled larger than the Enterprise E's entire saucer section... for some reason. The guy's a no talent hack. Alias was bad. MI3 was bad. Super 8 was just garbage. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

I don't disagree with your original assessment that "Star Trek is about people" - but I do disagree that the new ST movies are just complete shit. One of my favorite parts is how well they've casted the roles of the crew. Karl Urban (that guy from Doom) plays a great Bones, imo. Zachary Quinto (that guy from Heroes) is a great Spock. That old guy also plays a good Spock. (that's a joke, btw) The dialog, acting, character interactions and mannerisms are plenty entertaining to me.

I saw Into Darkness in a theater that happened to have a lot of what I would call "Trekkies" (older people that definitely fit the appearance) - and any time there was any sort of reference to the original episodes (Khan, Tribbles, any joke about Vulcans) they enjoyed it immensely. So, I'm not sure all fans of the franchise would really agree with your assessment that the new movies "Just aren't good enough." I think fans are more happy that anybody is bothering to do Star Trek content any more, when it really is a dying niche audience. (even though I personally love it, and have since I was a kid)

[Darkrulerxxx]

Oh I totally agree. Inner Light, Tapestry, The Measure of a Man, Pen Pals, the Dauphin, etc. These are the things that made Star Trek great, not the big space battles and such. I'd prefer to see more than that stuff obviously, but if they aren't going to do that, I'll take some mindless fun over nothing at all.

i agree, while i love star trek to death (TNG ftw), the type of philosophy it held would not hold for the new generation of people; Its sad to say but Star trek would be dead in the water if it wasnt for Abrams revival of the series, and he did one hell of a job into creating it.

He still weaves in the old ideals of Star Trek ideology, but he also has to weave what the current masses want, and thats drama, action, fights, death, quirky love scenes....etc.

The new revivals are great, stop trying to view the recent movies in comparison with the series.

[Deleted]

And this is precisely the problem.

There are plenty.... PLENTY of Sci-Fi franchises that are action and nothing but dumb fun. Star Trek is not that. It's been turned into something its not.

Here's a thought: the most of best episodes of every Star Trek series had almost nothing to do with "space" itself besides that being the medium the ship or crew had to get to in order to happen upon the drama-of-the-hour. The Inner Light was about an ancient "legacy" sattelite. All Good Things had anti-Time, but took place mostly on Earth and on the Enterprise in the time periods. In the Pale Moonlight was about compromising one's morality.

Star Trek is supposed to make you think. It's done space battles well (First Contact, Dominion War, Nemesis), but that's always been icing on the cake, and has never been the best part of it. Star Trek is first and foremost about people.

Which is why the new movie is so apallingly moronic. It's not really about people. It's about bridging a set of characters from action scenario to action scenario. It's Call of Duty: Space Edition with Lens Flares.

All I know is, the depth of JJ Abrams vision is this: bring back Khan, switch Spock and Kirk's position at the end of the story and make a killer massive Federation Warship whose bridge is scaled larger than the Enterprise E's entire saucer section... for some reason. The guy's a no talent hack. Alias was bad. MI3 was bad. Super 8 was just garbage. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

What about Stargate. I felt like (SG1 at least) hit on aspects of morality AND included some good ol' fun in there; Col O'Neill fo life son.

[Darkrulerxxx]

All I know is, the depth of JJ Abrams vision is this: bring back Khan, switch Spock and Kirk's position at the end of the story and make a killer massive Federation Warship whose bridge is scaled larger than the Enterprise E's entire saucer section... for some reason. The guy's a no talent hack. Alias was bad. MI3 was bad. Super 8 was just garbage. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

MI3, Super 8, and both Star treks have done pretty well in critics and user reviews, while its your opinion he is of no worth, its pretty factual that he has done a great success with those movies, i'd keep the ranting down a bit so you wouldn't rile the masses with your over-zealous opinions about abrams.

[Endus]

so, as i was talking to another guy about timetravel in the star trek universe

we came across some problems

trimetravel is nothing new to the star trek universe, kirk and his crew did it in star trek IV, without any problems to their own future which brings me to the point thinking that star trek plays in numerous paralell universes by now and the last 2 movies play in another universe than what the old spock comes from

what are your thoughts about this?

In short; for the most part, time travel stories in Star Trek have been about trying to preserve the timeline; get things back to "normal". In the reboot, the Star Trek crew aren't the ones who traveled through time. They're bystanders. They tried, and failed, to prevent the travelers from their theoretical future from changing the present, and as a result the timeline will be diverted into a somewhat new path. This makes this basically different than most of the other time travel stories in the Trek universe, I think.

In theory, they COULD travel forward in time and stop Nero before he goes BACK in time, thereby preventing the timeline from changing, but remember; they have no reason to do this. For them, the timeline hasn't been shifted. It's THEIR timeline. From their perspective, it's the "right" one. Besides which; it's a cheap copout that lets whatever hack writes that story to hand-wave away the plot developments of the reboot films for no good reason.

The new movies are action movies, not the cerebral commentary on the human condition/social situations that the first two Star Trek series were about. They have no "The line must be drawn HERE! This far, no further!" moments, but they're still fun. And the newest one could arguably claim to be a commentary on the present day war on terror, drone strikes, and the moral duty of soldiers to be conscientious objectors. It isn't as cerebral as the older series, maybe, but it's still fun.

Trek has usually made social commentary, but I wouldn't call it "cerebral". It's popcorn science fiction, and always has been. Firefly, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica, these are all in the same class as Trek's various incarnations when it comes to being "cerebral".

Does Star Trek have some high points? Sure. With that number of episodes, there'd have to be. But then there's absolute steaming turds like ST: Voyager episode "Threshold". Star Trek has always strived to be cerebral, and it has always failed spectacularly as often as it has succeeded.

And seriously, the technobabble is beyond ridiculous. The number of times in TNG when Geordi tweaked the main deflector array to emit a Tachyon beam that would magically fix whatever spacial anomaly they were looking at, c'mon. That's just hand-waving with technobabble because you don't have a scientific basis for anything that's happening. Cerebral it is not.


I'm not saying it's worse than most; TV sci-fi is often the antithesis of cerebral. But people are treating the reboots as if they're some deviation from the norm for Trek, and they really aren't.

I'd dearly love a decent piece of actual hard SF on TV. Star Trek doesn't even pretend to be hard SF. It's almost as fantastical as Star Wars.



Edit: Also, the Prime Directive is one of the stupidest, most back-asswards concepts of supposedly "moral" ideology that I've ever seen expressed. It's godawful. That's why the crews only ever bring it up when they're going to break it; because, for something that's supposed to be the foundation of the ethics of their society, it's stupid and heinous and basically evil. So whenever it would stop the crew from doing what's right, they mention it, then ignore it. Or they make up an exception to it. Here's a tip; if your "Prime Directive" is so badly-conceived that there's dozens of exceptions and considerations, and even then your best crews outright ignore it regularly to do the right thing, your "Prime Directive" is terrible and should never have been instituted in the first place.

[Skroe]

Oh I totally agree. Inner Light, Tapestry, The Measure of a Man, Pen Pals, the Dauphin, etc. These are the things that made Star Trek great, not the big space battles and such. I'd prefer to see more than that stuff obviously, but if they aren't going to do that, I'll take some mindless fun over nothing at all.

Well I mean, I guess that is a bit of personal preference. Personally, I'm totally fine with a story, an idea, being done and moving on and it being abandoned. Constant revisiting leads to stagnation (hello, Voyager). And even these news movies, like I don't understand the praise for this crew of beautiful people, when the acting the the TNG films was superior. It really feels like people want it to be something more than it actually is. They want it to be awesome, revitalized 60's Star Trek, when its really a space action movie with star trek names.

If no more Star Trek were ever made, I'd honestly be okay with it. We have 700+ hours of a vision. Now if it were to be rebooted into something completely, unrecognizably different... just a completely different take on the fundamentals of the idea, I'd be all for it. BSG did that. I'm not saying do trek like BSG, but that removed from the original take of it. Instead we get this weird salami of movies which is all either fan service, faint echoes of the past, or bad writing, with no sincerity to it whatsoever. When Spock died in Wrath, it was tragic. When Kirk died in Into Darkness, I already knew JJ Abrams didn't have the guts to keep him dead more than 10 minutes. Instead, we got the Khan's blood, the antidote to all death.

When Star Trek is that cheap and thoughtless, I'd rather have no Star Trek. It's like StarGate. If they were to bring back the series, with its amazing casts that just fed off each other and filled with tounge-in-cheek charm, go crazy. But if they were going to kick it into some angst-filled parody of itself (looking at you Universe), no thanks, keep it dead.

[Prancing Minstrel]

MI3, Super 8, and both Star treks have done pretty well in critics and user reviews, while its your opinion he is of no worth, its pretty factual that he has done a great success with those movies, i'd keep the ranting down a bit so you wouldn't rile the masses with your over-zealous opinions about abrams.

I agree, these new films were meant to appeal to non-trekkies, myself included. I enjoyed them both a lot, my only previous experience with old-trek was a bizarre whale propaganda film from the 80's, if that's the 'gold standard', fuck it.

[Gheld]

I agree, these new films were meant to appeal to non-trekkies, myself included. I enjoyed them both a lot, my only previous experience with old-trek was a bizarre whale propaganda film from the 80's, if that's the 'gold standard', fuck it.

Star Trek 4 was just a pile of fan service

The gold standard would be Star Trek 2. And some of the TNG and Voyager 2 parters as far as TV goes.

Voyager was a real enigma that way. A lot of it sucked, but some of the 2 parters (Like Equinox) were just completely amazing

[Skroe]

Star Trek 4 was just a pile of fan service

The gold standard would be Star Trek 2. And some of the TNG and Voyager 2 parters as far as TV goes.

Voyager was a real enigma that way. A lot of it sucked, but some of the 2 parters (Like Equinox) were just completely amazing

Voyager's biggest problem was that it's writers were too afraid to go off the reservation. Equinox and Year of Hell should have been the tone of the entire show, and going throw Borg Space should have been a season-plus serialized arch THE defining event of a show, rather than a set up for a two-parter. It had a good finale though.

[Gheld]

Voyager's biggest problem was that it's writers were too afraid to go off the reservation. Equinox and Year of Hell should have been the tone of the entire show, and going throw Borg Space should have been a season-plus serialized arch THE defining event of a show, rather than a set up for a two-parter. It had a good finale though.

I found the finale too deus ex machina.

The episode I hate is False Profits, because it couldn't have possibly happened, because the Ferengi were lost in the Delta Quadrant less than 100 Light Years from the Gamma/Delta border, according to 3x08 TNG. So that episode destroyed a ton of canon.

[Gizmoe]

It's all wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, I try not to question things in these circumstances.