My Star Trek Rant

[the_gneech]

Because a few people have asked for me to explain my stance, here it is in a nutshell, c/o IM chat with graveyardgreg...

graveyardgreg: I agree with your journal except for one thing...
the_gneech: Hmmm?
graveyardgreg: I liked the new Star Trek movie. ;_;
the_gneech: I am afraid, that is something on which we will never agree. That movie was the last nail in the long, slowly-dying coffin of the once-awesome Star Trek franchise.
graveyardgreg: Sorry to break it to you, but Star Trek is alive and well now thanks to that movie. We shall have to agree to disagree. And I'm not sure if I agree to that! XD
the_gneech: It's not just a matter of "I didn't enjoy it." Thematically, philosophically, Star Trek as it exists now is pretty much the antithesis of what made it great originally.
graveyardgreg: Pray, do continue.
the_gneech: Star Trek was about scientists, explorers, nerds. In the show, Kirk was a giant nerd in college, regularly harassed by classmates for being a walking library and working hard. Not a snotty attitude who was handed everything on a silver platter for being the resident pretty boy.
graveyardgreg: Now, see, I never knew that. So that's why it didn't bother me.
the_gneech: Abrams' Star Trek was a stupid, plotless, explodey movie. Even the rubber science of the original Star Trek was -about- sceince.
graveyardgreg: So you don't like it because it was an action film. I can dig it.
the_gneech: It was an action film that made Kirk, one of my lifetime heroes, into an arrogant asshole.
the_gneech: In the show, Kirk was a man of action, but also knowledge and compassion.
the_gneech: Not just the resident alpha male.
graveyardgreg: Alright. Thanks for explaining your hate. You're sure to join the Dark Side anyway, but at least now I understand your motives before I have to fight you in front of the Emperor.
the_gneech: It's not hate of the suck. It's love of the once-great.

I think that pretty much covers it. I mean, there are other aspects, too-- for instance, the crew of the Enterprise were certainly experts in their field, but there weren't Superhuman Wunderkinds by any stretch. The Enterprise was just one ship in a whole fleet of such experts. (They weren't even the flagship-- that was the Constitution.)

But my biggest gripe is the anti-intellectual, instant-gratification nature of Abrams' Trek. Original Star Trek's message: "Be smart, work hard, show compassion, and you will hopefully succeed. You may have to fight along the way, but it's a last resort." Current Star Trek's message: "You're due what you want, because you want it. Cheat if you have to. If that doesn't work, punch things."

Ugh.

-The Gneech

Comments

[canisrufus-uk.livejournal.com]

I certainly understand where you're coming from.

I don't HATE the new Star Trek movie, I came out of the theatre thinking it was a reasonable scifi action movie.... but that it wasn't Star Trek, it only works if you don't think of it as Trek, but as a generic scifi movie.

So... it's not a horrible film, but it's certainly not Star Trek.

[rowyn]

I did not hate the new Star Trek film. I did, for instance, love seeing Leonard Nimoy as Spock again. <3 And I thought that making a plot device of changing so much about the setting, and explaining why, was well-executed and did soothe some of the familiar-but-different aspects that would have grated on me otherwise. I never saw the original Kirk in quite your terms, either -- I would love to hear you talk more about Kirk, with examples from the episodes, because your take sounds much more awesome than mine. :)

I gotta say, though, that you have captured very well many of the things I hate about NewKirk, who was easily the most unappealing protagonist. Ugh. :P

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

In the episode "Shore Leave," Kirk's college time (and his nerdity therein) is a specific plot point. :) But it's mentioned elsewhere as well, as I recall. (It's been a long time since I watched it, so details have gotten fuzzy, but I have in my head that Gary Mitchell gives him grief for it in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" as well.)

As for the other aspects, I'd be happy to chat about 'em. :) Is there some specific thing you had in mind?

-TG

Kirk changed significantly in Season 3 of TOS

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

I preferred the thoughtful introspective Kirk from Shore Leave & Where No Man Has Gone Before, but, they stopped writing him that way a long time ago. That's why many people are going to be confused by the notion that Kirk was a thoughtful nerdy guy who liked "Long-haired" literature stuff.

That's why, in general, I like Seasons 1 & 2, and the Animated series, but the rest, I can do without.

Star Trek needs action. Abrams was like Decker in the Doomsday Machine. He had the right idea, but not powerful enough writers to do it. TNG and a lot of the newer stuff was long on dialog and discussion and debate over why they can't do anything. They need a more assertive hero like TOS-Kirk (rather than the old man Kirk of the movies.) But, they went too far.

We need a Kirk who's got the education to tangle with a troupe of Shakespeare actors, the intellectual power to argue a computer into self destruct mode, and the guts to ride the Constellation down the Doomsday Machine's Throat!

What the Abrams movie gave us was a petulant little boy.

[captain-slinky.livejournal.com]

It's just another "Alternate Universe/Timeline" story. The Mirror Mirror Universe is all about The Federation being The Terran Empire instead. The First Contact Universe is where The Borg are first spotted around Earth in 2063 and Time Travelers helped us get noticed by the Vulcans.

NuTrek is just another timeline where things suck more than they do in our "Trek Prime" Universe. In the NuTrek, we get to see the answer to the question "What if James Kirk hadn't been self-motivated? What if his Dad had died before he was born?" They stripped away all the passion for knowledge and exploration, and replaced it with entitlement and "Daddy Issues".

I accept it as an alternate timeline story that they've decided to follow instead of the "Prime" timeline. The main/only appeal is to try to back-puzzle out just how these characters changed SO MUCH from just a few simple twists in the timeline. The Federation held back the release of the NCC-1701, choosing to make it a flagship instead of releasing it to Captain Pike. Because of the delay, Spock stayed on at The Academy as an Assistant Teacher and, in turn, developed "feelings" for the human Ohura.

Scotty... I have no idea what's up with Scotty.

May I buy you a drink?

[keross.livejournal.com]

Saurian Brandy or Romulan Ale perhaps.

I also did not like the new Star Trek movie.

It was okay as a movie. And it did have a few cute moments. But it failed as Trek. The real passion was missing. (But the passion was leaving when TNG was still on.)

I for one would like to know how that time alteration managed to change Pavel's age. In Who Morns for Adonis, he says he is 21. 13 years Kirk's junior. Now he is what, 5 years younger? And don't get me started on the relationship between Uhura and Spock. It is totally Illogical.

[kamau-d-lyon.livejournal.com]

You and I have had some of this conversation before but I'll focus on what seemed to be the core of this post.

The Abrams' Star Trek was not Star Trek for me. It was a nice Sci Fi action film about something that looked like Star Trek in its hardware but not much else. The only reason I was it was the arm twisting of some friends. I can agree with you on the characters not having much in common with the original cast other then their names. The new movie moved even further away from one of my big beefs with TOS, the organization and operation of the ship. To even believe that someone like Kirk would take command and do what he did, let alone stay as captain is so far out as to totally shatter any suspension of disbelief I might be able to muster.

That is one of the main reasons I feel Next Gen is the high point in the Star Trek time line. I could believe a captain like Picard being in charge of a ship like Enterprise. I could believe key members of the crew having expertise in their areas and the mission, at least in the first couple of years, was one of exploration where they came up against things they couldn't fight and had to think their way out of.

Once we got to DS9 and later shows conflict and combat took over and I lost a lot of my interest. Even the last ST: NG movie left me unhappy with where things had gone.

So, over all, I can see where you're coming from and support that. The best either of us can do I believe it to remember our original Star Trek years with fond memories.

[invisiblewolf.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree with you a bit on Kirk...he could be an arrogant SOB at times and was a military commander first, nerd second (or maybe third, if you count his manly man sexuality as second). From reading your interchange with Greg and other comments, it sounds like you've romanticized classic Trek, at least a little bit.

As the show and movies evolved, the crew of the Enterprise wrote their legends in the deeds that they did. That's kind of what I'm seeing happening with this new lot. And I'm hoping that the second Star Trek movie of this crew shows some maturity and character growth. I think they kind of needed the first one to be more action-oriented because there was a lot riding on it. Of course, that also speaks to how movie-goers are today. It's similar to what happened to AD&D version 4.0, only not as horrible. ;-)

-Spiritwolf.

[dhlawrence.livejournal.com]

The plot didn't do much for me, and honestly neither did most of the players. I liked the actor they got for Bones; he was probably closest to the genuine article.

I did like their version of the Enterprise, even if the interior did look a lot like an Apple Store.

(Don't have a Star Trek icon; this is as close as I can get.)

[exatron.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on this. The Enterprise (NCC-1701, no bloody 'A', 'B', 'C', or 'D') crew became legendary because they were a great group of people who knew how to work well together, were experts in their fields, and were damn clever when they needed to be, not because they were destined for greatness.

JJ Abrams' Trek felt like it got a heaping does of Star Wars in it. A lot of that is probably because it's a reboot, so we see the characters as what they became, not who they are at this point in their lives. The time travel angle didn't help that feeling at all.

[radbaron.livejournal.com]

That great lacking of SCIENCE in a SCIENCE-fiction movie didn't help, either.

The "how it should have ended" version of ST:Abrams has a great scene. Turn off all the lens flare generators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ-y6BWfUc&feature=colike

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Also, Roddenberry's Starfleet was comprehensible as a military organization. Abrams' Starfleet is just a backdrop against which the Main Characters can be Awesome. (Or, more to the point, be what Abarams thinks of as Awesome).

[grifter-t-wolf.livejournal.com]

Well one argument one might interject is that the role of Kirk from the Original Series universe is much different than the role from the Star Trek reboot movie.

In this new timeline thanks to the intervention that destroyed the ship, Kirk never knew his father, was never inspired by him to go for Starfleet, he was instead raised by a controlling stepfather which caused him to rebel, hence his change in attitude. The inconsistencies between the Kirk we knew versus Abrams' version of him can really be put together from his father. All of the changes on Kirk's character can be partially explained by the butterfly effect.

As far as Spock's history went, I'm... not exactly sure where his overtly snobbish attitude came in, but his confidence did seem to resemble the more analytical original than I expected.

*kicks a foot over his knee and pushes his glasses up* "Now, Gneech. Tell me about your muzzah."

[kylet.livejournal.com]

Well, I feel your pain...it's how oldskool Transformers fans felt with the new movie series, although in our case they at least initially tossed longtime fans a few bones.

S'hard to know what to do about it when selling out means making mucho dinero... :-/

[hantamouse.livejournal.com]

How many Star Treks must burn and wither away before another great Babylon 5 is born from the ashes?

[anthony-lion.livejournal.com]

The last Star Drek movie lost me at a key point...

That big monstership was a mining vessel?
What the F! do you mine with a ship like that?

As for Kirks rebellious nature...
Who the H! let someone like that through psych profiling and into training, nevermind letting him near spacecraft?

[hossblacksilver.livejournal.com]

Well was a mining ship.

A mining ship upgraded with reverse engineered Borg technology. Though you have to admit, the drill laser was pretty effective.

[anthony-lion.livejournal.com]

Effective?

No...
A TETHERED system that still needs an operator at the drillhead?

What's wrong with remote operation?

[hossblacksilver.livejournal.com]

Well, I enjoyed it. But then again, after ST:V'ger and more so Enterprise, just about anything would have been an improvement.

Though I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm of the opinion that Star Trek pinnacled with the Genesis Trilogy (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock & The Voyage Home).