Star Trek

[taellosse]

I mentioned this obliquely just now in a comment to my last post, and thought I'd go into a bit more detail, in case my opinion might carry some weight with the handful that read this thing when it actually updates

Comments

[taellosse]

I'm a fan of Star Trek, but my basis is primarily in TNG. My parents were into the original, but, obviously, I only ever saw occasional re-runs, and it never grabbed me that strongly. I knew it well enough to appreciate the good bits of the 6 films they followed that crew, and to decry the places where they abused the franchise. But in the end, I have always held up TNG as the standard from which all Trek should be judged. Thus, DS9 was mostly pretty good, Voyager didn't particularly impress me, and Enterprise sucked. And only First Contact was a truly good movie, of the 4 that covered that franchise.

It took about 1.5 seasons to really get its feet under it, but TNG was pretty good about presenting thought-provoking stories, demonstrating character development, and raising questions about thorny social issues (a thing that has always been integral to Trek, and one that I think it overall did better than most of the succeeding shows).

I have in general preferred the movies associated with TOS over the actual show (with the exception of 5--that is a film that should have all copies rounded up and burned, and the original master should be fed to a wood chipper, THEN burned. 1 and 3 were mediocre, but 5 was a travesty), because they, as you say, injected some depth into a set of characters that were mostly pretty shallow. The only one that was especially compelling to me, even in the original show, was Spock, and he continues to get top billing in that area in the films as well.

So I guess in summary, I'm not nearly as emotionally attached to the TOS set as some. And I haven't held up Star Trek as the supreme example of science fiction programming since TNG went off the air, frankly, and would never suggest that TOS was anything but dated in its original incarnation.

I think the difference in our reactions can be ascribed to differing expectations. I had very few going in--it sounds like you'd put this one up on something of a pedestal. My sense from your points of contention is that you were looking for this movie to turn Star Trek into something akin to high art, and that's not something I've ever expected out of Star Trek. On rare occasions it can achieve it, but that is the exception rather than the rule. All I really want to get out of this is Star Trek that is watchable, since we haven't had such a thing in far too long.

[taellosse]

Heh. When I used the phrase "high art" I didn't mean it to be a synonym for "artsy," but okay. I more was trying to convey that I thought you were looking for the film to be deeply meaningful in some way.

But I get your point. I guess maybe the essential difference is you wanted this movie to be self-contained (as a movie traditionally would be, I'll grant), where I was happy to see it as a sort of series pilot.

I was pretty into DS9 for the first 3 years or so, but then lost the habit of seeing it. Saw an episode here and there after that, but nothing regularly. I understand it got a lot better after I stopped watching it reliably. I only ever saw the pilots of Voyager and Enterprise, and occasional isolated episodes. I only watched a handful of the ones from Voyager all the way through, and never saw another Enterprise episode to completion. But yeah, I saw just about every TNG episode ever made at least once (and am currently in the process of watching them in order from start to finish again, via DVD. We just started in on season 5). I've probably seen more than 2% of TOS, but it can't be more than 15%. I'd like to someday own the full set of TNG DVDs, but I doubt I'll buy any of the other ones currently available, except possibly DS9.