Ditto. DS9 had too much war and battle for my taste.
2 Likes
Again, DS9 was personally my favorite, because it did put much of the idealism of the federation to the test, instead of just assuming it, if that makes sense. Personally, I appreciated the overarching story telling and dealing with the geopolitical realities of liberalism. Plus, DS9 gave a view of the Federation from outside the federation, not just from the âenemyâ perspective either, but from the wary allies position (Bajorans and Ferengi especially). But it still came down on the side of the Roddenberry idealism being right, in terms of having the most to offer us in the future - a rational, equitable, post-scarcity society.
It was also the only Star Trek that dealt head on with racism in America, not as an allegory of both sides need to get over themselves, but head on as a form of social oppression faced by African Americans. Far Beyond the Stars is a great episode, set in the early 50s and it connects Siskos command with that history. Itâs the one I show my class each semester (along with the article about racism he experienced in his career that Delaney wrote in the 90s).
10 Likes
Given all the bad press Star Trek Into Darkness got, I was pleasantly surprised when I actually watched it. Sure, it couldâve been better, but it was a solid piece of work, and the meta-commentary on militarism was a nice bonus. Also, PETER WELLER 
DS9 left a bad taste in my mouth at the time, just in that it was part of the general re-militarization of American culture during the '90s. All the space opera that wasnât Star Wars had a bad case of Star Wars envy. It seems like that process has run its course now â EVERYTHING is dark and gritty and macho, and something like The Orville stands out for NOT doing that.
5 Likes
Fervently disagree. The plot was nonsensical, the characters never behaved anything like the people they had been established to be previously, the plot was littered with references to Wrath of Khan that didnât fit, they took one of the most heartbreaking moments in all of Trek and cheapened it by imitating it and then fixing it with a deus ex machina five minutes after it happened, they came across a freaking cure for death (in a way that also makes no sense) and didnât give any mention to it beyond using it in service to the plotâŚ
Itâs a hot mess of a Trek movie. Iâdâve enjoyed it as a popcorn action adventure B-movie, but it just wasnât Trek.
Dunno. They still defeated the bad guys through military conflict - firing missiles at the villain, causing his ship to crash, and then beating him nearly to death (only stopping so that they could retrieve the deus ex machina). Whatâs the commentary there? Militarism is only good when the good guys use it?
5 Likes
Well, as I said I didnât expect much going in.
The villains being inside Starfleet, trying to start a war on false pretenses, thatâs what I meant. But if you wanted it to be More Trek instead of Less Trek that would probably make it worse.
3 Likes
Eh, I didnât mind that so much. Theyâve done that in pretty much every Trek series, at least from TNG on, as well as The Undiscovered Country. As far as that goes, they should have given the viewers a chance to value the Federation for the good it does before showing the dark deeds done to sustain it, rather than just counting on assumed empathy to make us know who the good guys are. Thereâs pretty much no world-building in any of the three Kelvinverse movies to show who the Federation is and why it matters. And, given that itâs the introduction to Trek for a whole new generation, thatâs a glaring omission.
5 Likes
Ever listened to the directorâs commentary for the first Abrams film? Itâs the only time a commentary has turned me off an entire franchise (at least the Kelvinverse part of it) and a director. Abrams was quite up-front about wanting to achieve a Star Wars setup. The only positive things he has to say about the story are when it hits a major Joseph Campbell Hero with a Thousand Faces plot point.
He compliments Eric Bana on throwing himself into the villain role, then snarks about how heâs a bad guy in a space film. He talks about how Star Trek is based on old submarine adventure dramas (not wrong, but talk about missing the forest for the trees).
Basically, he has no respect for his audience, certainly no respect for what Star Trek has accomplished culturally, and shockingly little respect for filmmaking.
Whoever let him near Star Trek needs to be given a hard shake.
10 Likes
I donât really listen to commentaries unless I already feel a strong connection, and want to share that with the director, if that makes any sense.
So, stuff like Firefly, or Gargoyles, or Reboot. I might someday include The Princess Bride in that list, just to see if Goldman keeps up his tradition from the book of making behind-the-scenes stories up out of whole cloth.
Otherwise, I prefer to just watch the story.
But none of that surprises me. Among the many things that are keeping me away from the new Star Wars trilogy is the fact that Abrams is directing two of them.
4 Likes
14 Likes
Exactly.
I mean, I didnât like Star Trek at first either. In my defence, I remember the first time I saw it vividly, so something must have stuck. I was seven. It was a rerun of City on the Edge of Forever, and I tuned in just as Kirk was telling that ridiculous lie about how Spockâs ears were pointy because he was caught in a rice picker as a child.
I really hated it when adults lied and/or got in trouble in TV shows when I was a kid; I still squirm a bit now.
But then eventually I saw TNG and converted.
If someone never got as far as the conversion point, for a franchise which has a huge base of rabid fans, and an even huger base of people who donât do the fan thing but love Star Trek, then what the hell are they doing directing a Star Trek movie?
9 Likes
Do you mean âWhy did he choose to do it?â or âWhy was he chosen to do it?â
If the former, â$$$â seems to be the most likely answer.
If the latter⌠Probably the same answer, but going into a different bank account.
7 Likes
I really dislike the current era of Celebrity Sci-Fi Directors who have no clue.
9 Likes
Iâd go even further. $$$ plus a chance to kill the franchise and make even more room for Star Wars. There are a lot of Star Wars references in that directorâs commentary, even including an anecdote about consulting George Lucas.
And yes, itâs possible to like both â loads of people do. I guess why I keep going on about it is you donât often hear a director say plainly they took an established property and deliberately watered it down until it was at the same level as the adventure series from whence it evolved.
I got the DVD because I liked the character depictions, if not the plot. Now I know why the plot didnât appeal so much
5 Likes
âAh⌠ah⌠zaâSNYDER!â
âGesundheit.â
8 Likes
Excellent example.
5 Likes
I have seen nothing that this guy has had anything to do with. Sounds like I havenât missed anything.
That is, if youâre referring to one Zack Snyder. Never heard of him before this.
5 Likes
Watchmen wasnât bad.
6 Likes
6 Likes
I finally did. Admittedly it wasnât until the movie was being made and everyone (for certain values of âeveryoneâ) was coming down on one side or the other of âItâll be epicâ or âItâll be shitâ
It was one of those graphic novels Iâd seen in the bookstores forever but had never even skimmed.
I liked it.
4 Likes
Agreed â but itâs nearly shot for shot the comic version of the main plot.
1 Like