Seen any good films lately?

I hoped the winking icon would denote I was gently joshing you Mrs Figg.
And its not because you dont like what I like but because you seem to be dismissing it out of hand for some reason without giving it a fair hearing.
I disliked all but about 2 episodes of series one of DS9 and series 2 was not much better, had it not been for my experience with Next Gen I probably would have given up- I'm very glad I didn't or I would have missed some of the best tv sci fi ever written (and I'm including Who, all other ST, Battlestar and Firefly in that comparison to give an idea of how highly I regard the best of DS9) by some of TV's best scifi writers.
But really, give those episodes a watch then come back and say they suck- I doubt you wll be able to because they will engage you in some fashion, they are very well written and performed TV.

And the point of this discussion after all was my attempt to demonstrate that the empty frothiness of the reboot film was a million miles away from the depth and social/human commentary of the best of the tv series (any of the ST series that stands true for- but DS9 is the exemparly of it and therefore the one I choose to put up as a direct comparison).

well none of the Star Trek films are deep and meaningful, they all have vaguely quasi serious themes, the only one with a message as such was the one about the song of the Wales, its not the correct medium for any deep commentary on society, the tv series was better for that, both the original and NG. So its not true that the reboot was any more frothy than any of the previous films.

and I knew you were joshing me hence the

I disagree that the films are frothy like the reboot is. The degrees of sucess they have in conveying their messages varies and not all of them have a strong message, that is true.
But the motion picture is about creation and the releationship between creation and creator.
Khan is about growing old.
Search for Spock is a continuation of this theme and introduces dealing with loss to it.
Four is an enviromental message.
Five is about friendship and the bonds between friends and about what makes us who we are, the success and the pains.
Six is a parrallel to the ending of the cold war.
Generations is about dealing with death and loss.
First Contact doesn't have much of a message I admit beyond reaching for the stars is better than war.
Insurerrection is about perception and the morality of interference in others cultures, even for a perceived greater good.
Nemesis I really didn't like at all and I only saw once, so its message was lost on me!
Where the original films, mainly, at least tried to be about something the reboot has no underlining theme- no viewpoint it is making, no substantive commentary on life or society- and that is what ST is- without that it isn't really ST, its just a lot of explosions and spaceships zapping about.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Incidentally the last ep I put up there- 'In the Pale Moonlight' is probably the most controversial ST episode among the fans ever made.
On one side there are those who say it is a complete betrayal of Rodenberry's utopian future vision and on the other side those who think it is the pinnacle of ST tv. (I'm firmly in the latter half)
......... it sums up well what DS9 did better than any other ST.

Now you're really scaring me Petty! I've always believed that Gene Roddenberry's vision was central to the Star Trek universe, just as J R R Tolkien's vision is central to Middle Earth (we do agree on that at least, don't we?).

How can you possibly have good Star Trek that is a "complete betrayal" of the creator's vision???? Good science fiction sure, but good STAR TREK????

One of the Lady Washington volunteers was a personal friend of Gene's during the time he was developing Star Trek, and had a folder of letters from him over many years. I have a huge respect for the man.

I have a terrible feeling I need to find a hi speed connection and watch this abomination

I dont see it as a betrayal myself in any way. It still is Rodenberry's vision of a future humanity with ideals and beliefs of a better world and future- but what it does do is to put those ideals into a position of direct conflict.
To ask the question how far do Rodenberry's ideals take you, how far can you really adhere to them in the face of an aggressor who is going to be violent and hostile no matter what you do?
It also deals with how far should a person then go to accomplish something for the greater good? What cost, personal and otherwise is acceptable if any?
I don't think Rodenberry's vision is impaired by his own creation examining the limits of the beliefs and morality Rodenberry set out- indeed I think it proved one of the best ST episodes ever written.

I think I understand....
Sort of like exploring the question of what would happen if Gandalf ever met Sauron face to face in a grand battle of good and evil?
[ ]

No more like asking if nothing is evil in the begining explain orcs then?
Yes its fine to say they were corrupted, but what about at an individual level? It would be more like having the Fellowhip capture an orc and then that forcing the Fellowship to question exactly what their role really is, if that makes sense- it doesnt go against the original ideas or concepts but it is not afraid to question them either and see what the dramatic results of that would be.

OK....maybe.....but my expectations are at the bunny sled level, which is probably good.

If you can I'd recommend watching the eps I put up in order- as they progress from earliest (series2 ) to series 6 (In the Pale Moonlight).
Each reflects a different side to ST and DS9 in particular which is exactly what the reboot completely misses.
And if you are at bunnysled levels of expectation then I think you should be pleasently suprised.
The main difference between DS9 and other ST series is noone, not even the Starfleet characters are just black and white , everyone, and everything is shades of grey and ambiguity to some degree.
Bad guys can do good things, and under the right circumstances good guys can do bad things.

I think its obvious Petty from your list of previous films that the reboot was all about the developing friendship of the crew of the Enterprise, it was the first mission as an ensemble, it was all about setting up the various characters and their complex relaionships, it did not have to have a 'message' as such and that is because the whole point of the film was about Kirk meeting Spock and Bones and Uhuru and the others. It is very simply about the young crew getting to know one another. The whole Nero planet exploding thing is besides the point, the plot is secondary to the budding friendship between Kirk and Spock, that is the central theme, their friendship. Its very simple really, and thats why its a very good film.

But thats not ST Mrs Figg- the friendships, the devolpment of friendships were always there in all ST series- in and of itself its not enough to constituate the substance of a ST.
ST as conceived was a vechile for Rodenberry to make social commentary that he could not make in conventional TV (he wrote a cop show) because he could not get it passed the censors otherwise. They dismissed scifi as lightwieight and frivolous (like the reboot is) and thought it harmless (which the reboot is)- in this way Rodenberry got comments on racism, women in the workplace, slavery, war and the like into his tv shows under the radar of the networks who oblivously showed it.
All ST (even the terrible Enterprise) has in its own way maintained this fine and central tradtion- except the reboot which not only dumps it but whose director says they did so in order to make it more Star Wars and less Star Trek- thats the real betrayal of Rodenberry's vision right there.

totally disagree.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: They dismissed scifi as lightwieight and frivolous .... and thought it harmless...

I don't agree. A lot of the postwar scifi was pretty heavy political commentary (The Day the World Stood Still, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, etc.) Everybody knew that. Roddenberry's innovation was applying the tool to social issues such as civil rights, putting it on TV in everybody's livingroom, and always looking toward a better, more hopeful future. That's why ALL the movies are basically just after-the-fact fan fiction. That doesn't mean they can't be good movies from time to time, they just aren't a part of the vision.

Oh I agree David about scifi and its content- my point was the TV execs at the time didn't seem to know this. Rodenberry was getting stuff past them in this format they won't touch with a barge pole in his cop shows or anything else he pitched.
If the network at the time had cottoned on to the content and actually taken a closer look at it, it would have been pulled most likely.

I agree the films fail to continue the tradition- but not from not trying, possibly from trying to hard- but I would rather that than the reboot not bothering to try at all.

Where DS9 differs is it is not looking towards a better brighter more hopeful future- the previous two series already established that it woul dbe pointless to retread it like Voyager did. DS9 is about what happens when that viewpoint meets a completely opposing immovable one- what then?

totally disagree.- Mrs Figg

With what exactly?
That Rodenberry saw ST as a vechile to make the social comments he wanted to present is on record. That the network didn't know what they had is also on record. (Inside ST by Gene Rodenberry and Inside ST The Real Story).
That all the tv series has followed this tradition is also true (varying degress of success yes, but they tried).
And Abrahams is on record saying he wanted it less ST and more SW.
So not sure what it is you disagree with in that post.

The proofs in the pudding too- the film establishes relationships but thats it- its about nothing at all. There is no moral, no theme, no comment on some aspect of modern society. Nothing. Its empty therefore fundementally not ST.

I am not getting sucked into the Trekky black hole, no way! I disagree with all you say about the reboot, I like it and I am not going to change my views or justify them, once you start arguing the toss with Trek nuts its just going to escalate and I am tired and hot so I will just say I think its a very good film, there is nothing wrong with it, its not rocket science, ((or maybe it is ))) basically I just dont care all that much either way. sorry old bean!

I never argued its merits as an entertaining film- only that it was wasn't ST and was a betrayal of what ST is. For me, as a ST fan, thats enough reason to not like it.
You can say you like it or that you enjoy it that's fine- but if you say its proper ST I find that worrying- like someone thinking PJ's LotR's is the only and proper version. A horrible thought.

Stumbled on this- a favourite little scene at the bar from DS9 as two aliens discuss the Federation (or America depending how you want to see it).

It is Star Trek and its certainly not any betrayal, I find it worrying that you should equate my thinking it is ST with some weird PJ analogy, whats PJ got to do with anything. its a bit of an insult to the intelligence frankly.

The comparison was between an original artist work with a purpose and a frothy crowd pleasing reimagining that stomps all over the original.
A comparison with PJ, and especially on a Tolkien forum, seemed perfectly suitable to me.

The reboot is Star Trek in name, they have stolen, sort of, the characters from it, the ships and the setting- but the heart of it is completely absent- the message, the vision, the ideals and the purpose of it is completely absent. And that is what makes Star Trek, Star Trek. Without it its just a shiny eye-catching shell. And that in my view is a betrayal.

Snore all you like Mrs Figg doesn't change the facts.
It is a betrayal of all the battles Rodenberry fought, to get a program with substance on the first pilot was rejected as too celebral, of the fights he had to get an alien as First Officer (it was originally a woman but the studio's wouldn't let him away with that), or a female and black Bridge Officer, or to get the first interracial kiss on American TV and numerous other battles he fought to ensure his show held to his original ideals and that it presented certain values and aspirations. (A good example is after the first series aired he got a letter from a Russian saying how typical that this futuristic crew did not include a Russian despite them being the first to put a man in space- next series Rodenebrry wrote in Chekov, a patriotic Russian, and remember this was at the height of the Cold War fears).
If all that is taken away from it and the film going audience is left with just space ships zapping around and some snappy dialogue than all he fought for is lost. I can't think of a better use of the word betrayal than for describing that.

The truth is you choose to use the emoticon because you know there is no way to defend that film as upholding the ST legacy and so have nothing to say.

now I am bored and you are being a knob.

I rather felt you had already achieved that with your emoticn.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
If all that is taken away from it and the film going audience is left with just space ships zapping around and some snappy dialogue than all he fought for is lost. I can't think of a better use of the word betrayal than for describing that.

Interesting argument, but I just can't buy it. First, I reject the claim that all he fought for can be lost. The original series was a product of it's time and it served its purpose. Its messages of tolerance were extremely edgy at the time, and that it now seem boring proves that nothing has been lost.

TOS did indeed boldly go where no series had gone before, but at a certain point the fans took over, and for the most part they've been tamely following in the well-trodden path ever since. That's why I call all the movies fanfic. The reboot is no worse than than the rest, and better than many.

I suppose if you wanted you could make the argument that all the Kirk/Spock fan fiction is "boldly going" by expanding sexual tolerance, but that doesn't necessarily make it true to Roddenberry's vision, does it? I just don't see that it's possible to make new ST that meets your standards, and Roddenberry wasn't offended by fan fiction (I think he took it as a complement), so what's the problem?