Interstellar Affairs

You might love the new Star Trek—but not for the reasons you loved the old one

In 1966, the original Star Trek set out on its maiden voyage as a short-lived television show on NBC. Ratings for the series, which followed the crew of the starship Enterprise on a series of interplanetary adventures, were low and popular reaction was mostly nonplussed. At the time, science fiction had yet to penetrate the mainstream, and was still considered by many a shamefully juvenile pursuit. What was this strange production, with its rubbery reptilian villains and laborious technical jargon? Who would believe that a futuristic human society could exist without money or intraspecies war? And why all the weird outfits?

Only a handful of viewers really took to the show, but those who did were deeply devoted. So when the network tried to cancel it, they made their opinions known. Fan-driven letter writing campaigns kept it alive for three seasons before the show was canceled, leaving a mere 78 episodes behind. But in the 43 years since its debut, Star Trek has helped to create and define pop culture fandom, spawning, from those early letter-writing drives, an obsessive, multi-generational, global pop cultural movement that spawned an entire universe of spin-offs, movies, video games, and novels, as well as countless conventions and fan communities—one that still lives today.

Why would anyone love Star Trek? The acting was hammy. The stories were often contrived, metaphorically heavy-handed, and downright bizarre. The special effects looked cheap; the sets seemed to have been constructed from Styrofoam blocks and cardboard boxes. The fight scenes often appeared to have been specially choreographed for geriatric stuntmen. No, Star Trek's fans didn't love it for its stellar production values or high-end effects, nor for its subtle metaphors. They loved it because it was positive about the human condition, both curious and hopeful about the future, and genuinely concerned—if sometimes in the most gratingly obvious ways—about the state of world affairs, present and future. It was, in other words, a show with a grand vision that took big ideas seriously.

Now, with the release of the simply-titled Star Trek, a big-budget prequel featuring early incarnations of the original cast, TV superproducer J.J. Abrams, the brain behind mystery-box serials Lost and Alias, has given the aging franchise a major overhaul. This is more than a fresh coat of paint. It's a wholesale reinvention: new actors, new creative team, new scale, new sensibility, even a whole new timeline. There are similarities to the original—all the major characters are still around, personalities mostly intact, and the mid-century modern design ethos still reigns. But under Abrams's control, Star Trek has reversed course on all of its previous failings: the effects are as slick as the best summer blockbusters, the story moves at maximum warp, the humor is broad and rapid-fire, the action set pieces are often breathtaking, and the actors are young and attractive. Abrams has rebuilt the Enterprise and its crew from the ground up, this time as an energetic pop collage.

Thanks to a clever time travel conceit, Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman escape the franchise's mass of cumbersome continuity, a black hole in the screenwriting continuum that could've destroyed any attempt at a reboot. Freeing themselves from the narrative baggage of earlier incarnations, the creative team decided to start over with a brand new alternate universe in which Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest of the original cast still end up on the Enterprise in essentially the same roles.

Yet there are substantial departures, both in tone and character: McCoy (Karl Urban) remains the delightfully cranky sidekick, but he is no longer the voice of impassioned moral authority. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) are now adolescent rivals, competing for status and female attention. Spock's placidly wise demeanor has been replaced with a keen but condescending intelligence and far greater emotional turmoil.

It remains an open question whether fans of the original will accept any of these revisions. Surely no one will complain about the swift pace, the cutting-edge effects, the dramatically amped-up interstellar action—it's a marvelously taut film, almost certainly the most viscerally exciting Star Trek story ever. But how, for example, will Trek diehards take to the prominent inclusion of a Beastie Boys song on the soundtrack during a key early scene, or the transformation of Uhura into a sexually manipulative Aaron Sorkin-esque Ivy League striver?

All of which is to say that there are things to love in Abrams's Star Trek, yet very little of the original series' appeal remains. Rather than concern itself with politics, ethics, or social organization, Abrams's Star Trek focuses on familiar quests for individual self-discovery. Like so many successful comic-book movies, it's about adolescent heroes coming to terms with themselves and their pasts, struggling with friends, rivals, and enemies while searching for power and place in the world. Where the original was poorly fashioned and outwardly focused, this one is gorgeously designed and self-obsessed. It's personal rather than political, aesthetically pleasing at the expense of conceptual depth. Star Trek, then, is continuing its mission: boldly going where the franchise has never gone before, seeking out new fans and new pop culture relevance. But it may lead fans of the original into unfamiliar space, struggling to come to terms with a series that, for the first time in more than four decades, feels strangely alien.

Peter Suderman blogs at The American Scene.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The Onion had a great headline. Something to the effect of "Trekies complain that new film is exciting and enjoyable."

  • ||

  • ||

    I will be impressed if it is better than Star Trek VI, the gold standard in my opinion. Looking forward to it.

  • Warty||

    Sasha Grey would make a good vulcan. She's all angly and bitchy-looking.

  • Xeones||

    HEB, here's your 500-plus-comment post.

  • ||

    I don't know, X. I also assumed the geekdom of reasonoids would flow, yet we're 38 minutes from original posting and only 5, now 6 comments.

  • ||

    And am I the only one distrusting that SugarFree would get a link right, so his SFW tag can also not be trusted?

  • Warty||

    It's safe, Nick. This is not.

  • High Every Body||

    HEB, here's your 500-plus-comment post.

    Hey mister mind control, I thought that before clicking through!

  • ||

    When I first saw this new "Fast and Furious in Space" cartoon described as "edgy", I said to myself, "Aha! Sexually explicit in word and deed!" and when I saw that the MTV review approvingly referred to Captain Brat as a "p**sy hunter" I figured that was that.

    As always, the people who take something that has lasted for 40 years and try to "update" it for Generation ADHD, have taken a sledgehammer to a product they know nothing about.

    My reaction is essentially the same as I (and most of my adult friends) had when exiting that breathtakingly moronic movie they made of Starship Troopers: "Thank God [the author] is already dead, because this would have finished him off."

    Star Trek: The Next Generation was predicated on the Leftie idea that you could defeat an enemy by boring him to death. This thing apparently believes that its Five Year Mission is to beat people up and smash things, for no purpose other than to be the biggest [bleep] in the sandbox.

    No, thank you. When Generation Yne grows up enough to understand WHY we love the original Star Trek and are happy to preserve it in the Space Museum just the way it is, they will understand why "remakes" of something from an other era always sink like rocks.

    Keep it, kids.

  • ||

    So, Appleby, what if I happen to like Star Trek and fun, funny, action movies that are made well? Can I then appreciate a fun, funny, action version of Star Trek? If not, why not?

  • ||

    Trekkies are up in Arms


    "Yes is was exciting, but where was the heavy handed message about tolerance, where was the stiff acting, it just didn't feel like a Star Trek film to me"

    "if I wanted to see young attractive people, doing cool exciting things, I'd go watch sports"

  • Kyle Jordan||

    "Sasha Grey would make a good vulcan. She's all angly and bitchy-looking."

    + Fucking 1! Plus, she can do some very alien things with her asshole and throat so it's as though she were destined.

    And I'd also like to takt the time to assert the Universal Fact once again the The Next Generation makes the Original Series look like an utter piece of monkey shit that a retarded dwarf scribbled out after a seizure.

    The new flick looks fun though.

  • ||

    Appleby had more to say but then she saw some kids on her lawn.

    That rant reminded of the time Martin Landau flew into a rage at the premiere of the first Mission: Impossible movie because the red-carpet reporter didn't know anything about the original TV show - "Young people today have no sense of history!" Would you rather they save a whale again? It was a stupid tv show. Let it go.

  • ||

    I'm nervous about Star Trek. I look forward to the latest X-Files movie and was so horribly disappointed, I almost (almost, I said) cried. Perhaps I should have read the reviews and saved myself the heartbreak.

    I'm afraid Star Trek may disappoint me in the same way.

  • ||

    not look, looked.

    I looked forward to...

    ah, forget it

  • ||

    I reject the new film. If it proves to be the greatest science fiction/action film of the last twenty years, I'll watch it. But I don't think that will be the case. Meh.

    mantooth,

    If Mission: Impossible was just a stupid TV show, why use the name, the setting, and the characters (loosely) for the film? Why not call it Cruisin' Spies? That's because there was something to trade off of. How about doing something original instead of ripping off and crapping all over the previous work that you're standing on the gonads of?

  • Kyle Jordan||

    Bronwyn,

    Take a comic book approach to it. Just think of this new one as an alternate universe version. The original still exists. The new one doesn't have to have any bearing on those.

  • EJM||

    As always, the people who take something that has lasted for 40 years and try to "update" it for Generation ADHD, have taken a sledgehammer to a product they know nothing about.

    I'm still holding out hope that CBS will get it right with its under-development daytime revivals of Pyramid and LMAD (designed to fill Guiding Light's slot).

    (Full disclosure: Yes, that's me in the comments.)

  • ||

    I'm seeing it tonight, but I don't have high hopes.

  • ||

    I've always found Star Trek's vision of the future appealing.

    HG Wells warned that humanity would destroy itself through technological warfare if we don't adopt a single-world government.

    One wonder what libertarians in the future do with themselves once money is abolished.

  • ed||

    I don't care.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    "One wonder what libertarians in the future do with themselves once money is abolished."

    They'll be developing space and extraterrestrial philanthropy since the Earth will have finally gone bat shit insane once and for all. That is until a race of powerful aliens attack using they're Oorazu forms to conquer the planet and then sell it back to the highest bidder.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    I'll fight like hell for anybody's right to heap invidious praise upon the hump of this viscerally taut re-imagining. But we pass from sophistry to perversity when we describe one of the most beloved and frequently referenced fight scenes in American history as having "been specially choreographed for geriatric stuntmen."

  • Xeones||

    One wonder what libertarians in the future do with themselves once money is abolished.

    Um, same thing we do now: agitate for individual rights in the face of collectivist oppression. And should that be achieved: live and let live.

  • Craig||

    As a Trekkie for the past 30 years, I'm looking forward to the new movie, and won't be offended in the least if Abrams takes it in a few new directions. It's a relaunch, not a remake, after all.

    I've seen every Star Trek episode, some of them numerous times. I also watched every episode of the animated series and Voyager, and liked Enterprise for a while.

    I found The Next Generation to be incredibly boring though. Picard was okay (though not half the man Janeway was), and Data was interesting (albeit a pale substitute for Spock), but any crew with an annoying kid, an on-board psychologist, a soap opera actor for a first officer, and Whoopi Goldberg was doomed from the start. It did capture the gloominess and tedium of space travel, I suppose.

  • Brandon||

    I look forward to the latest X-Files movie and was so horribly disappointed, I almost (almost, I said) cried. Perhaps I should have read the reviews and saved myself the heartbreak.

    Watching the last 20 minutes of that movie in the theater was a truly bizarre and awful experience. If I hadn't dragged friends along (I apologized to them as we left), I might have walked out of the theater. The audience's disgust and derision was palpable. I was closer to laughing than crying. Just incredibly, unbelievably bad.

  • Craig||

    One wonder what libertarians in the future do with themselves once money is abolished.

    Real money will never be abolished. Once the Federation has everyone forced into the tyrannical "credits" system, real monetary exchange will spring up around the edges, trading in gold, or dilithium, or ammunition, or MREs, or something else of universal value. There will be plenty of opportunities for smugglers and entrepreneurs -- space is a big place, after all, one no central planners, no matter how sophisticated, will ever be able to control fully. Think Firefly.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    HG Wells warned that humanity would destroy itself through technological warfare if we don't adopt a single-world government.

    Seems like trying to adopt a one-world gov't is a good way to ensure Civil World War.

  • ||

    "TV superproducer J.J. Abrams, the brain behind mystery-box serials Lost and Alias"

    as a lost dork who's not a fan of anything else abrams does this offends me. he helped get the show made due to his clout but the show's 2 head writers are the masterminds behind "lost" not him who doesn't really have anything to do with the show other then directing the pilot and executive producing it. love lost don't care about alias or anything else he does.

  • ||

    "[W]hen money is abolished." Let's think about how authoritarian that remark is. Abolished by whom? If money is replaced by something else without any "abolishing", fine, but this implies government action of the most dictatorial sort.

    Besides, TOS had money, trade, rich people (guys who owned planets), etc. Only in the later series did the latent leftism turn into full-blown I-don't-know-whatism. Look at the Ferengi, who were a completely ridiculous parody of capitalists, which showed exactly what the show's creators thought of free markets.

  • Xeones||

    Seems like trying to adopt a one-world gov't is a good way to ensure Civil World War.

    Ah, but after that, with any luck, we get The Diamond Age. Post-scarcity nanotech society with voluntary citizenship in decentralized, non-geographically-constrained nations? Sign me up for the First Distributed Republic, yo.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    Damn X. That brought a tear to my eye. It's beautiful.

  • ||

    ProLib,

    What I was referring to was his "What are they teaching in schools nowadays" attitude he had to someone not remembering the details of a TV show.

    I should have known better than to make light of sci-fi on a libertarian site though...

  • ||

    The Federation is a socialist utopia. Technology provides for the physical needs of every citizen, so they are free to pursue personal and social advancement beyond the accumulation of wealth.

    Granted, it was quite fuzzy about the non-starfleet everyday life of citizens, and one wonders what incentives exist beyond the vague notions of duty and personal growth. It's clear though that Roddenberry felt his characters had matured beyond capitalism.

  • ||

    Its supposed to be a reimagining in line with canon because of the butterfly affect time travel their going with. Wonder if that conflicts with Star Trek IV's time travel. Only reference I remember was Scotty saying "How do we know he didn't invent the thing?" to McCoy regarding giving the molecular info re: transparent aluminum.

  • ||

    I saw it last night. It is an action movie. As such, it does an excellent job--the pacing is perfect; you are swept along the whole time. There are some physics FAILs and a few stupid moments, but they are minor.

    The people who cannot accept change (cough--ProL--cough) will complain about it, because it's different. It isn't Star Trek any more; it's a story that uses some characters we know and their backstories, and then makes its own way from there. I enjoyed it.

    ** SPOILERS **

    The story uses the time travel of the Romulan villian to change history, so in this new Star Trek "universe", Vulcan has been destroyed, Kirk's father killed, Spock's mother killed, and other changes. This allows Abrahms to have his own alternate Star Trek reality to play in and do whatever the hell he wants. I consider it to be quite a brilliant move, actually, because he can now ignore the canon--while being able to cherrypick from it all he wants. He has free reign in all sequels.

  • engineer||

    As SuperMegaUltraNerd, I'm not certain whether I Should be pleased or displeased with the Star Trek prequel

  • Zeb||

    NERDS!!!

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Ah, but after that, with any luck, we get The Diamond Age.

    I totally have that book (haven't read it yet). Neal Stephenson is great.

    non-starfleet everyday life of citizens

    Starfleet's just a kind of Space Navy, yo. The best parts of Star Trek kind of remind me of The Caine Mutiny or Das Boot.

  • engineer||

    "The Federation is a socialist utopia. Technology provides for the physical needs of every citizen, so they are free to pursue personal and social advancement beyond the accumulation of wealth.

    Granted, it was quite fuzzy about the non-starfleet everyday life of citizens, and one wonders what incentives exist beyond the vague notions of duty and personal growth. It's clear though that Roddenberry felt his characters had matured beyond capitalism."

    Indeed, I also wondered what people did outside of Starfleet. I always chalked it up to "It's a story. Suspend disbelief". Leave it to Tony to screw it up.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    "The story uses the time travel of the Romulan villian to change history, so in this new Star Trek "universe", Vulcan has been destroyed, Kirk's father killed, Spock's mother killed, and other changes. This allows Abrahms to have his own alternate Star Trek reality to play in and do whatever the hell he wants. I consider it to be quite a brilliant move, actually, because he can now ignore the canon--while being able to cherrypick from it all he wants. He has free reign in all sequels."

    I really like the sound of this now. Plus of course it allows a future writer to come along and use the time travel concept of Parallel Universes. Where traveling back in time actually takes you to another universe that is almost exactly like the one you left. Thus allowing the original to still exist.

  • engineer||

    "There are some physics FAILs and a few stupid moments, but they are minor."

    Plus, these were often ubiquitous features of
    the original series.

  • ||

    The Federation is a socialist utopia.

    No, the Federation is bad writing. It is supposed to be a post-scarcity society a la Iain Bank's The Culture, but that makes for boring plotlines, so the writers cram in idiotic stuff like gold-pressed latinum (AARRRGGHHH), rare books owned by captains, and other more realistic stuff.

    One of the reasons TOS is so much better than everything that followed is that the episodes were independent scifi teleplays, written by people like Harlan Ellison and Richard Matheson, who weren't concerned with the Federation or any of that bullshit--they cared about that particular story. Plus it had Joan Collins, so the rest can suck it.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    Plus, as a quick derail, I have to say thanks to Fluffy for posting a link to "Divided by Infinity". That was an awesome story.

  • ||

    Don't fall for the Federation propaganda. There is plenty of currency being exchanged, and value being stored and status levels being climbed. Their mantra of egalitarianism sells to the rubes whose planets are voting on joining or not, but just ask the Maquis what happens when you try to secede from the Federation. Of course, cheap replicator tech has dropped marginal prices of basic foodstuffs and clothing done to zero, but there are plenty of things left to be done for people who have more of a Ferengi outlook on life. I think the Federation does do a decent job of federalism with local control by local planets for local issues, but their heavy hand does get shown many times. And the Federation is a bureaucratic nightmare, in a world with food replicators, they still haven't managed to get rid of the Bureau of Agriculture.
    But plenty of exchange gets done in the form of gold-pressed latinum (atomic structure can't be replicated, so not counterfeiting) and Federation credits have a floating exchange rate to latinum. There is plenty in the Star Trek universe for a libertarian to love and hate, or love to hate.

    Just watch Deep Space Nine to see the on screen critics of Federation and Starfleet policy.

  • ||

    Shut the fuck up, Episiarch. Or should I say. . .Michael Bay.

  • Xeones||

    Or should I say. . .Michael Bay.

    Oh my God. It's on now.

  • ||

    Just give it a shot, ProL. You get to see Spock and Uhura make out. And watch Spock beat the ever living shit out of Kirk, but we saw that already in "Amok Time". Plus, Spock's mom is Wynona Ryder.

  • ||

    Oh my God. It's on now.

    It's so absurd it doesn't even faze me.

    Speaking of The AntiChri...I mean, Michael Bay, the second Transformers movie is coming. God, I hope it bombs. It won't, though. And G.I. Joe looks pretty much as stupid as one would expect.

  • ||

    There were some good moments throughout the franchise where the banality and even the authoritarian nature of the Federation utopia were challenged. But as much of a fan as I am, television-based scifi has gotten more sophisticated (or perhaps just more cynical) in terms of exploring the "human condition": BSG, Firefly.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    I grew up loving Transformers and hated the first movie because it was just piss poor. Not anything to do with "not getting it right" or bullshit like that. I'll be seeing the second one in order to see Megan Fox bent over on the bike on a big screen.

    And GI Joe actually looks kind of fun. Still though, give me Salvation and H2 for this summer.

  • ||

    Only one mention of DS9 and NO mention of Wrath of Khan?

    Shame on this forum, gentlemen. Shame and disgrace!

  • Naga Sadow||

    Now you hate GI Joe? For fucks sake, Epi, get a grip. You're anger towards Pro Libs's uptight views on Star Trek is causing you to say awful things. Things you can't take back. Things that would cause people to suspect you . . . may be . . . a . . . North Korean spy!

  • Naga Sadow||

    *reads Kyle Jordan's last post, nods with approval*

    You're all right, bro. You're all right.

  • ||

    Only one mention of DS9 and NO mention of Wrath of Khan?

    Actually, the new movie is loaded with Wrath of Khan references. It seems like Abrahms decided to base his characters off the character development in Wrath. It has the Kobayashi Maru, "I don't believe in a no win situation", "I have been, and always shall be, your friend", and a bunch of other Wrath references.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    doesn't really have anything to do with the show other then directing the pilot and executive producing it.

    Does anybody get sucked into a jet engine in Trek 11? I'm only a fan of J.J. Abrams shows where somebody gets sucked into a jet engine. Abrams should make the Capt. Sully biopic.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    "Actually, the new movie is loaded with Wrath of Khan references. It seems like Abrahms decided to base his characters off the character development in Wrath. It has the Kobayashi Maru, "I don't believe in a no win situation", "I have been, and always shall be, your friend", and a bunch of other Wrath references."

    Damn, now I really want to see this movie. Wrath of Khan and First Contact duke it out as my favorite Trek movies.

  • Naga Sadow||

    I'm sorry everyone but I have to do this now.

    KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!

  • ||

    "Wrath of Khan and First Contact duke it out as my favorite Trek movies."

    Kyle, that's because you're obviously a man with good taste.

  • ||

    A minor annoyance at Suderman's article. He implies ST was the first SciFi show to go 'mainstream'. Meaning what? People (yeah, including adults, not just kids) watched and enjoyed "The Twilight Zone", "Science Fiction Theater" and other science fiction shows long before Star Trek came along. Catch phrases from these shows seeped into everyday life. The doo-dee-doo-doo; doo-dee-doo-doo tune from The Twilight Zone still evokes a sense of something being spooky-weird.

    And by the way 'transparent aluminum' has been around for a long time. Its more common name is 'sapphire'.

    /Now keep that ball outta my yard.

  • ||

    Winona Rider is a plus. Does she steal anything?

    I'm not genetically opposed to a reboot, and I'm aware of the alternate time-line escape clause. All that said, I grew up on TOS and won't enjoy all of the mucking about with what I remember from that show. I'm really getting tired of the "reboot" phenomenon, anyway, especially considering how many great stories and universes from the genre remain untapped.

    I may watch it at some point, but it'd have to be brilliant for me to like it more than I'll be annoyed by it. For those who didn't grow up with the old show, just imagine Star Wars being retold and screwed up. Oh, wait. . . .

    Apropos of nothing, for no good reason, I watched the last five minutes of Highlander: Endgame last night. I liked the first film and was a middling fan of the series, but I'm pretty sure that Connor McLeod was the last immortal. But he gets killed in Endgame. Weird. They're supposedly rebooting this one, too, with Kevin McKidd. I thought he was great in Rome, and, at least, he's actually Scottish and not some sort of Belgian.

  • NoStar||

    The promise of Star Trek is based on the lie that an all powerful paternalist government doesn't have to be Orwellian. Belief in this promising lie has fueled American voting habits for many years.

    Notice the similarity between the short staccato delivery of William Shatner as Captain Kirk and of Barry Soweto as President Obama.

  • jg6||

    Epi, the "gold-presses latinum" thing was a retcon. They had painted themselves into a corner by having used the transporter to create things out of more-or-less raw materials. Your value standard must be something which couldn't just be made on the spot. That's why they were very careful never to give any details about what the stuff was.

    As far as the rest of it, I was an original fan from the first episode. I found DS9 to be a cheap, unwatchable knockoff of Babylon 5, saw few episodes of Voyager (not quite few enough), and consider myself fortunate to have been unable to watch Enterprise due to scheduling and technological barriers.

    I will probably go see the new film, but treat it like Starship Troopers -- BASED ON the concept, rather than part of the canon (the ROUGHNECKS series was actually much better than the movie).

    Likewise, I was a Battlestar Galactica fan, but have no interest in seeing the new series with the same name.

    As far as I'm concerned, "re-imagining" of favorite memories is about the same as "re-eating" yesterday's lunch. If you can't hold with the canon, knock off the serial numbers and call it something else. If that can't stand on its own, then maybe you should pass on it.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Pro Lib,

    Huh? They're remaking "Highlander"?

  • Kyle Jordan||

    They're remaking everything Naga. Nightmare on Elm Street too. It's never going to stop.

  • EJM||

    Plus it had Joan Collins...

    So did "Batman" and "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." (among others).

  • ||

    "Just think of this new one as an alternate universe version"

    heh so there's the evil alternate universe, and this is the sexy alternate universe.

  • NoStar||

    Plus it had Joan Collins...

    Who didn't "have" Joan?

  • Paul||

    Whelp, I never dug the old Star Trek much anyway-- too homoerotic-- so no love lost.

  • ||

    heh so there's the evil alternate universe, and this is the sexy alternate universe.

    So there's The Mirror Universe...and now The Mirrored Bedroom Ceiling Universe.

  • Warty||

    Likewise, I was a Battlestar Galactica fan, but have no interest in seeing the new series with the same name.

    You should watch all of it except the last half of the final season. IT ENDED WHEN THEY GOT TO THE DESTROYED EARTH.

  • Naga Sadow||

    But . . . why? I was watching "Highlander" just last night? Why despoil such greatness? The world no longer makes sense to me . . . (sigh).

    Well I'm gonna go read me some of that LoneWacko novel to cheer myself up. Link

  • Paul||

    No, thank you. When Generation Yne grows up enough to understand WHY we love the original Star Trek and are happy to preserve it in the Space Museum just the way it is,

    We know why you love the original star trek. Believe you me. That's why we knew it so desperately had to be remade.

    I mean, don't get me wrong. I grew up amongst the "old star trek guard". By all rights I should have been a Trekkie. But I wasn't. I don't know why. I love science fiction, I love hawte green half-nekkid alliens. There was just something so campy about the original star trek, something that... took itself too seriously. Something that lent itself to a certain pomposity that just couldn't be overloooked.

    they will understand why "remakes" of something from an other era always sink like rocks.

    Right, like Battlestar Galactica.

  • ||

    What I've always half-expected was a series or movie set entirely in the mirror universe. Not necessarily with analogue characters, though they could play a role or be central. Anyway, I thought they might go that direction given the number of times they've returned to the mirror universe trough.

    By the way, I really wish they'd dumped all of the time travel stories. It was okay on the old show, which was really just a bunch of little sort-of-related morality plays, but it got starkly annoying when time travel became a central story arc.

  • ||

    Likewise, I was a Battlestar Galactica fan, but have no interest in seeing the new series with the same name.

    Then you are depriving yourself of a massive pleasure. And I say this as a fan of the original series and watched it when it was on as a series on ABC.

    I can't even think of watching it now after seeing the "re-imagined" BSG. It just comes off as way too campy.

    My ratings:

    ST:TOS: There is no other. It is and always will be the best. It even works with the new SFX.
    ST:TNG: A snore-fest with some bright spots and yes First Contact kicks as much ass as II and VI did.
    ST:DS9: I liked it towards the end. Seasons 4-6 and some of 7 when it wasn't taking itself too seriously and they were blowing things up. (!)
    ST: Voyager: Star Trek more boring than TNG and an alien even more annoying than Wesley. Please die Kneelix, please die painfully and with great dismemberment.
    ST: Enterprise: I actually liked this and thought it had great promise for a couple more seasons. Jeffrey Combs A+ as an Andorian. Horrific opening credit music.

    So, if I can like, nay, love, BSG with a female Starbuck, I can give JJ a shot, MI not withstanding.

  • ||

    Howard the Duck has always been my gold standard for 'Movie that Fucked it's sci-fi/comic source'.

    BTW WTF was Peter Suderman added to the Reason Staff? I don't have anything against Reason having it's own movie reviewer. It's just that I don't see the 'free minds, free markets' connection in the past few reviews.

  • ||

    You should watch all of it except the last half of the final season. IT ENDED WHEN THEY GOT TO THE DESTROYED EARTH.

    You take that back! You take it back now!

    I thought the 2nd half of season 4 was much better. Darker = Gooder.

  • ||

    There's one bit of grating product placement near the beginning of the film that nevertheless made me smile, as I realized that it implicitly negated all of Roddenberry's post-capitalist propaganda from TNG on.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Whelp, I never dug the old Star Trek much anyway-- too homoerotic--

    Wha? The "English friendship" between Kirk and Spock is a feature, not a bug.

  • ||

    New BSG was good. Of course, the original was pretty cheesy, so a reboot offended me far less than it does with TOS.

    I always wonder about the sexual preferences of those who see guys being buddies on TV or in film as "homoerotic." With the exception of Top Gun, which was strictly a PSA for gayness.

  • ||

    ST:TOS: There is no other. It is and always will be the best. It even works with the new SFX.
    ST:TNG: A snore-fest with some bright spots and yes First Contact kicks as much ass as II and VI did.
    ST:DS9: I liked it towards the end. Seasons 4-6 and some of 7 when it wasn't taking itself too seriously and they were blowing things up. (!)
    ST: Voyager: Star Trek more boring than TNG and an alien even more annoying than Wesley. Please die Kneelix, please die painfully and with great dismemberment.
    ST: Enterprise: I actually liked this and thought it had great promise for a couple more seasons. Jeffrey Combs A+ as an Andorian. Horrific opening credit music.


    Excellent summary, except that Enterprise sucked monkey balls.

    The new movie has a reference to "Admiral Archer" and how Scotty proved a transporter theory by transporting Archer's stupid beagle to another planet. But I thought it was all a holodeck dream? OH NOES CANON

  • ||

    I thought the 2nd half of season 4 was much better. Darker = Gooder.

    JW,
    That's the most retarded thing anyone has said on this thread so far.

    I'd take out the entire last season.
    IT ENDED WHEN THEY DESTROYED CYLON RESURRECTION

  • Naga Sadow||

    I just saw a commercial for Star Trek. Was that the Shaun of the Dead dude?

  • ||

    JW,
    That's the most retarded thing anyone has said on this thread so far.


    No YOU are!

    No way. Mutiny, executing regular characters, wrestling with new alliances. Awesome.

    You're just angry becasue you feel small next to its greatness.

  • ||

    I'll say this about Enterprise: It could've been decent, and it did have occasional moments of goodness, especially in the last season. But it screwed up in too many ways to compete with the prior shows. I thought Voyager sucked, but I liked DS9 and TNG well enough.

    There's a place in the world for the agreeable optimism of Star Trek. I want to have that and the utter darkness of other universes, like BSG and Firefly.

  • Paul||

    That's the most retarded thing anyone has said on this thread so far.

    I'd take out the entire last season.
    IT ENDED WHEN THEY DESTROYED CYLON RESURRECTION


    *munching popcorn*

    Wow, it's Geeks Gone Wild! Pocket protectors flying, the aroma of clove cigarettes, pudgy physiques pressing against eachother in mortal combat...

  • ||

    Was that the Shaun of the Dead dude?

    Simon Pegg is Scotty, yes. And Sulu is Harold of Harold & Kumar. Spock is Zachary Quinto who plays Sylar on Heroes. McCoy is Karl Urban, who played Eomer in LOTR. Uhura is Zoe Saldana, and the bad guy is Eric Bana, who was Bruce Banner in Ang Lee's Hulk.

  • ||

    From what I've seen of the previews, I think they nailed Spock, Bones (Urban sounds great) and Scotty with the actors. The others, not so much.

  • ||

    Episiarch,

    Just curious--any Gary Mitchell references?

  • Paul||

    From what I've seen of the previews, I think they nailed Spock, Bones (Urban sounds great) and Scotty with the actors. The others, not so much.

    I dunno, Kirk has a little bit of the tasteful blonde highlights thing goin' on...

  • dhex||

    My reaction is essentially the same as I (and most of my adult friends) had when exiting that breathtakingly moronic movie they made of Starship Troopers:

    you poor bastard. that movie is flipping awesome.

  • oat willie||

    MST 3K

    that is all

  • Paul||

    MST 3K
    that is all


    I miss MST3K.

  • ||

    Paul,

    There's always Cinematic Titanic.

  • Paul||

    I knew a hard-core trekkie, once. I pointed him in the direction of a great British sci-fi comedy called Red Dwarf. He didn't like it. He was offended that they were making jokes out of the space-time continuum. He felt that was a subject one simply didn't make light of, especially in mixed company.

  • Paul||

    There's always Cinematic Titanic.

    Just read your link. Have to check it out.

  • kinnath||

    The best Star Trek movie was Galaxy Quest.

  • High Every Body||

    401 comments to go. I know you folks have it in you.

  • ||

    It is supposed to be a post-scarcity society a la Iain Bank's The Culture, but that makes for boring plotlines,

    Well, in lesser hands, perhaps, but I've read all the Culture books and never been bored.

  • ||

    The best Star Trek ever was the one they did on Saturday mornings with cats.

  • ||

    Just read Consider Phlebas. Decent, though I wasn't enthralled. What's next, Player of Games?

  • Paul||

    How about some meta-space-time-continuum irony: It's rumoured the movie Fanboys was destroyed by Fanboys.

  • ||

    It is supposed to be a post-scarcity society a la Iain Bank's The Culture, but that makes for boring plotlines,

    Well, in lesser hands, perhaps, but I've read all the Culture books and never been bored.


    I think the boring probably emerges in the difference between a handful of novels and 1000s of hours of TV and Film, and 100s of novels.

    I don't hate ST, but there is a reason they always good looking for trouble. Starfleet is something to do with all the people not content to live on a blandly terraformed world and stare at the walls all day.

  • EJM||

    401 comments to go. I know you folks have it in you.

    My hunch is that Mr. Bailey's (newer) religion-related post will reach 500 more easily.

  • Paul||

    The best Star Trek movie was Galaxy Quest.

    Win.

  • ||

    What's next, Player of Games?

    Yep. It's a simpler story, but a little more engrossing. And don't be surprised if you don't like Use Of Weapons, a lot of people don't. (The structure gets in the way of the story telling a bit.)

    The best Culture books are the ones that explore not the struggle to do things, but the fight against the temptation to do things.

  • ||

    Well, in lesser hands, perhaps, but I've read all the Culture books and never been bored.

    I love the Banks books. I was saying that Federation plotlines are boring. And even Banks has to always go outside The Culture using Special Circumstances to make interesting stories.

    Yes, ProL, Player of Games. It's really good.

  • High Every Body||

    My hunch is that Mr. Bailey's (newer) religion-related post will reach 500 more easily.

    Yea, it is up to 107 already.

    Without me looking, I will gess lots of "YEA religion is on its last legs!?

  • ||

    There's always Cinematic Titanic.

    Go with Riff Traxx instead . Far superior. Its the same guys that did MSTK3 when it was at its best.

    Just google it.

  • ||

    HEB,

    Nope. It's John saying that everyone wants to murder people but only God keeps them from doing it. I've abandoned the thread.

  • ||

    Episiarch et al.,

    Just reserved it at the library. I'm interested to learn more about the Culture. The first book operates more at its fringes, it seemed to me.

    SugarFree,

    Star Trek had to go back to the war trough more because its writing wasn't always very strong. There's plenty that can be done with a post-scarcity world.

    Star Trek very foolishly has rarely delved into the consequences of the kind of culture they've created. I thought the later series missed the boat in trying to reject the idea that people had really changed, because that's really interesting and kind of alien. TOS generally took seriously the idea that human culture was profoundly different than it is today and didn't try to make all of the characters overly accessible--which was a flaw of the later series, especially after TNG.

    I'm a Trek fan, but there's a big difference in quality between all of the Trek versions and the best science fiction.

  • High Every Body||

    SF,

    I finally took a peek. Maybe "a lot" was off, but a very early post was right there.

    Just checked out the LoneWacko blog. Nice! NOW GET BACK TO CHAPTER TWO!

  • ||

    That's all there is for now. I'm mostly just been reaping them out of the comment threads and reposting. I've only been writing a little here and there to smooth over the cracks. Browyn should be putting those chunks up in a Google Doc at some point so that everyone can add to it as they wish.

  • ||

    I'm a Trek fan, but there's a big difference in quality between all of the Trek versions and the best science fiction.

    ProL--That's a given. Star Trek's strength is that is accessible SF, with a very good foundation that, unfortunately, was later squandered by Rick Berman and Co.

    One could make the argument that the best SF is one that takes a mirror to current culture and builds a universe around it that happens to be out in space or underwater or 300 years in the future. I think BSG did that with great success as did TOS, which is one of the reasons it remains relevant today, IMO (the Frank Gorshin episode being the exception--even my kids thought it was moronic).

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    With the exception of Top Gun, which was strictly a PSA for gayness.

    Baritone Voice-over: Gayness. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

    Incidentally, I was watching part of Days of Thunder the other day and it seemed kind of homoerotic, too. Do I blame Tony Scott, Tom Cruise or both?

  • High Every Body||

    SF,

    I liked Naga's inadvertant confession that he is a middle-aged virgin too!

  • High Every Body||

    Do I blame Tony Scott, Tom Cruise or both?

    Could be just you, but I have not watched the whole thing yet.

  • ||

    Both, Art. Both.

    Domino has zero Cruise content and still manages to look like a Culture Club video.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    The best Star Trek movie was Galaxy Quest.

    True dat.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Could be just you, but I have not watched the whole thing yet.

    Watch the part where Cruise and Michael Rooker are racing rental cars and note the part immediately afterward where they are exiting the elevator together. Pretty sure you'll agree with me (and not merely due to the powers of suggestion!).

  • ||

    I do enjoy one feature of TOS that has been a staple of good science fiction for a while: Look at this totally unrelated culture doing this thing which is bad. How awful! How could anyone do anything like that? Hey, wait a second--are they talking about racism/Vietnam/etc.?

    Berman should burn in hell of drowning in shit. Well, perhaps "burn" is the wrong word. . . .

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Domino has zero Cruise content and still manages to look like a Culture Club video.

    :D I'm trying to figure out how many layers of irony Tony Scott puts into his homoerotic overtones. I wonder if he wants his audience to say "Ooh, I can't believe Tony put that gayness in there, what a cheeky monkey," or merely "hey, who put homoerotic tension in my action movie?"

  • ||

    Is there any chance that Cruise is heterosexual? I figure Kidman got fifty million for her acting role as Mrs. Cruise, then the travesty of it all made her cut out.

  • Death Star Versus Enterprise||

    http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/death-star-ente.html

  • High Every Body||

    DSVE,

    Nice! But I prefer Star Trek over Star Warz

  • ||

    PL,

    But the the difference is always in the complexity. By the time TOS was tackling racism by having two guys with opposite stripe make-up fight, literary SF had put out Dune, Man In The High Castle, The Stars My Destination, etc.

    SF TV and Film has always been the embarrassing little brother of literary SF, he brings a date home for dinner and SFTV farts and giggles all the way through dinner.

  • ChrisO||

    Going to see the new Star Trek is sort of like buying that reunion album by a band you really liked when you were twelve.

    Which means, of course, that I'm eager to see it. Growing up in the '70s, Star Trek was an important part of my after-school routine.

    Whenever I see the shows now, I'm still entertained by ST: TOS, albeit in a different way, but I cringe whenever I watch a TNG episode. It hasn't aged nearly as well.

  • ||

    ChrisO,

    Yeah, the first season is especially rough. I think the early CG animation really dates it badly. And it doesn't help that they had very one-dimensional characters to play.

    I think the best thing TNG had going for it is that it didn't try to follow TOS slavishly. I didn't recycle too many plots after the first season or so.

  • ||

    Do I blame Tony Scott, Tom Cruise or both?

    Tony's had three wives and he directed the completely not gay True Romance. So I don't know what's going on with the overtones in several of his films. Then again, True Romance was written by Tarantino, so it's kind of hard to gay that up.

    Is there any chance that Cruise is heterosexual?

    No.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Is there any chance that Cruise is heterosexual? I figure Kidman got fifty million for her acting role as Mrs. Cruise, then the travesty of it all made her cut out.

    If Cruise is straight, he would seem to have more psychological quirks than almost anyone's previously imagined. His behavior in his private life would then seem to have been completely erratic.

  • EJM||

    Death Star Versus Enterprise

    Unless it's the "Gannett Death Star" (best example here and here), it doesn't matter.

  • ||

    Gay or not, what Cruise did to poor Katie Holmes is a travesty.

  • ||

    SugarFree,

    No argument from me. The written stuff is vastly superior, by and large, to the stuff on screen. Still, just like I can eat inferior pizza and be reasonably content, I can enjoy the Trek experience, too. It has some good, classic S/F elements, even some that aren't entirely dumbed down.

  • ||

    Inferior pizza:

    One night--while very, very drunk--I looked up from a Little Caesar's slice I was inhaling and noted to my wife "It's not great, but it's good 'eatin' pizza.'"

    "Isn't all pizza 'eatin pizza?'"

    "No, I mean it's good garbage pizza."

    "So, you think it's garbage?"

    "Yeah, but good garbage."

    Shortly after, it is reported that I did a "shot" of garlic butter sauce and promptly passed out.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Gay or not, what Cruise did to poor Katie Holmes is a travesty.

    Holy shit! She looks like Elijah Wood!

  • ||

    SF TV and Film has always been the embarrassing little brother of literary SF, he brings a date home for dinner and SFTV farts and giggles all the way through dinner.

    Well, yeah, but the media is at least partly to blame. You can only cram so much into 42 minutes. And there's that pesky appealing to a mass audience thing.

    That and probably a good deal of SF would (and has) look pretty frikkin ridiculous if brought to the screen. It may sound really cool on paper....

  • ||

    SugarFree,

    It's a paradox. I'm a barbecue snob, too, and will cut the throat of barbecue heretics. That said, I actually like Arby's Beef 'n' Cheddar (with lots of Arby sauce and Horsey sauce), even though it is arguably neither beef nor cheddar, and, in any event, is bad barbecue. In fact, it isn't barbecue at all.

    A mystery!

  • ChrisO||

    SugarFree: Yeah, the first season is especially rough. I think the early CG animation really dates it badly. And it doesn't help that they had very one-dimensional characters to play.

    Yeah, for me it's the writing that dooms TNG. Obviously, TOS was silly in many ways, but the writers and actors managed to create some great characters that have become part of the culture. TNG gave us Wesley Crusher. On the other hand, TNG also gave us Deanna Troi's cleavage and the Borg, so it wasn't all bad.

    Most of DS9 aired during a time when I didn't watch much TV, but I liked some of what I did see. Voyager and Enterprise were both missed opportunities--great premises that devolved into pale imitations of TOS.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    That and probably a good deal of SF would (and has) look pretty frikkin ridiculous if brought to the screen. It may sound really cool on paper....

    But people like David Lynch can make it look cool. BTW, I'm trying to contact his people to see if he's interested in adapting Lonewacko: the Novel to screen.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Lonewacko's garmonbozia (pain and sorrow) should come in burrito format, Mr. Lynch.

  • ||

    Shortly after, it is reported that I did a "shot" of garlic butter sauce and promptly passed out.

    Awesome. At least it wasn't Domino's, because that shit isn't even edible when hammered.

    Yeah, for me it's the writing that dooms TNG.

    TNG was godawfully heavy-handed in its messages. It was about as subtle as an episode of The OC. That really turns me off. I don't want to be preached to, I want to be entertained. Fuck you, Picard, and the Prime Directive you rode in on.

  • ||

    My problem with TNG, exactly. It got more interesting when it became Star Trek: The Klingon Generation, though I got a little tired of that, too. I mean, wasn't Worf raised on Earth? Isn't he in Starfleet? He was all Klingon except when he wasn't. Bad writing around an interesting character.

  • ||

    The TNG bashing is interesting, but I guess it's not surprising since it was the most lefty of the series. In my opinion it was the golden age of Star Trek. Best writing, most thoughtful, and the most popular series in its initial run by far. I also loved DS9 and after rewatching the entire Voyager run, I must say it had its moments. Enterprise can suck my dick though. Fuck you very much Scott Bakula.

  • ||

    There are two words that describe why TNG had big problems: Whoopie and Goldberg. WTF, is she like an intergalactic janitor or something? Yeah, good source for advice, Jean-Luc.

    Fuck you very much Scott Bakula.

    Hey! I agree with Tony! Too bad Ziggy and Al didn't jump him out after the first episode.

  • ||

    Tony,

    I liked DS9 quite a bit. TNG had some good shows and decent story arcs, but it was inferior to the original, in my book.

    Episiarch,

    Without Wesley, Number One, and Whoopi, the show might've been quite good.

  • kinnath||

    I watched the original series as re-runs after school when I was growing up. Never watched any of the derivatives. Watched most of the movies at least once, but was never that impressed with any of them.

  • ||

    You know who should've been captain on Enterprise? Terence "Zod" Stamp.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    TOS is the shit. Are you kidding? Nothing against Patrick Stewart, but the original cast is unbeatable. They could ham it up with anybody. *Anybody*.

  • ||

    TOS was definitely the best. In part, I think that was because there was no mythology to slavishly adhere to, dodge, explain away, or ignore. And the characters were great. Only a few of the later series had even one seriously compelling character.

    I thought Patrick Stewart was great, and he brought a lot to the table. But he had to deal with some really bad scripts and a lot of deadweight in the other-characters department.

  • ||

    There are two words that describe why TNG had big problems: Whoopie and Goldberg. WTF, is she like an intergalactic janitor or something? Yeah, good source for advice, Jean-Luc.

    2 more: Rick and Berman.

    I'm going to be in the vast minority on Enterprise. The theme song was gayer than Liberace and the paper bag union had a hit out on Bakula for his abuse of their members, but there were some great characters on the show (Tripp, the Doc and T'Pau) and I enjoyed the good bit of pre-history they were bringing. The Andorians were terrific and the 3rd season with the big Zindi thing wasn't all that bad. It could have been more, but for the satanic, white-bread deadweight of Berman.

  • ||

    I never much cared for any of the Star Trek franchises (though Shatner remains a god regardless).

    But I need to see yet another CGI Summer Blockbuster Action Movie Extravaganza like I need a dose of the clap.

    I wish Westerns would make a comeback, not because I like Westerns all that much generally, but because they don't require seizure inducing CGI effects.

  • ||

    Anyone who doesn't like Shatner (other than those who had to work with him) doesn't belong on this planet.

    I didn't hate all of Enterprise, and I liked a few of the characters. Tripp was probably my favorite of the regulars. Which, of course, is why they killed him for no apparent reason. If the show had skipped the stupid Temporal Cold War and hadn't felt the need to revisit (and rewrite) things from the previous series so often, maybe it could've worked. Well, all that with Captain Stamp.

  • ||

    Oh, and you know what? Most of the holodeck stories on TNG were completely stupid. The only thing I liked was Murdock being a holodeck addict. And his having holodeck sex with a Troi illusion (off-stage). Now that's realistic.

    The idea that they'd have something that could kill you every other week on a starship is totally idiotic.

  • ||

    The TNG bashing is interesting, but I guess it's not surprising since it was the most lefty of the series....I must say it had its moments. Enterprise can suck my dick though. Fuck you very much Scott Bakula.

    And one of the overriding themes of Enterprise was how much it centered around a flipping big finger to the overlord Vulcans and to central authority in general.

    A coincidence that you hate it? I think not.

    I just saw that they have an "alternate universes" DVD of the various Trek franchises out. Yeah, it's stupid that they all have evil doppelgangers (blame the naivete of the audience that TOS was made for), but they're still some of my favs.

  • ||

    DS9 remains my 2nd-favorite Trek after TOS. I miss that show and its characters terribly. "Enterprise" became very good in its last couple of seasons, and ended too soon, imho.

    The "alternative universe" reboot is the tell-tale sign of yet another comic-book movie. DC Comics has used that mechanism to resolve "reboot" continuity discrepancies for decades -- so much so, that they several times had to flush away huge clogs of alternative characters and canon with a so-called "Crisis" miniseries. Something would start breaking down the barriers between the alternative universes, in which various incarnations of DC characters lived, and soon they would all be working together to find and fix the problem. Along the way, however, characters would change, die, or disappear. Also, after either all of the alternative universes had coalesced into one, or all the barriers between universes had been repaired, many changes to characters and their backstories would have occurred through blending. Voila: new, uncluttered "reboot" continuity -- for a while, at least.

    We're still a long way from needing to do all of that in Trek, of course, but with Abrams' maneuver, we're also that much closer. For those who wonder what a Trek "Crisis"-moment might be like, TNG gave us a preview in its "Parallels" episode from the final season.

  • ||

    Yes, that was another flaw in Enterprise--who, exactly, were those Vulcans? The idea that they got all "straightened out" recently by the time of TOS made no sense.

    What's sad is that Enterprise should've been good. It was a great to set it in the early years, before the Federation. But, of course, they wasted most of the yummy goodness on bad stories and really bad story arcs.

    I did like the Andorians. Jeffrey Combs did some nice work there. And, of course, he was good on DS9. Which was a good series because it had Hawk as a main character. Bitchin'.

  • The Scofflaws||

    He got a fine tan shirt with an emblem on the chest
    The interstellar girls all like him the best
    The Captain of the crew and he knows kung fu
    And he did Joan Collins in 1932.

    Really just an actor, a genius to boot
    But he never gets to fire when the enemy shoots
    So he ends each show looking neat and clean
    After staring down the mouth of a doomsday machine.

    I really like the one where he reads the constitution
    After ending all the fighting in the future revolutions.

  • ||

    Hey, I like that!

  • The Scofflawa||

    Found it!!

  • ||

    And one of the overriding themes of Enterprise was how much it centered around a flipping big finger to the overlord Vulcans and to central authority in general.

    A coincidence that you hate it? I think not.


    Actually I could never get far enough past Scott Bakula making a fool of himself to get interested in the thematic elements.

  • ||

    That's not fair... fools have personalities.

  • ||

    ProL, if you like that, you might like Spizz Energi's "Where's Captain Kirk".

  • Kolohe||

    I really don't understand the Guinan hate. She played the same role as the The Traveller but without all the pedo overtones.

    And of the episodes where they're travelling through dimensions, the one where she's the center of it was the second best version of that trope. (the one where Worf was at the center was the best)

  • ||

    Geez, for someone who writes for a mag called "Reason," Peter Suderman sure seems to lack much in the way of ability to do same.

    I mean, we have two opinions about the original Star Trek:

    (1) Suderman: cheap, uninteresting, sodden.

    (2) Millions of other folks, enough to keep a multimillion dollar follow-up running for FORTY-THREE years: awesome deathless stuff.

    You'd think someone devoted to the cause of rationality would say: Hmm, several million people over three generations think X is appealing, while I think it's not. That's sort of a lop-sided vote. Could it be I'm wrong?

    Heck no! Everyone else is wrong, and only I see the truth!

    This fool should work for the Obama Administration, with his delusions of omniscience, coupled with his impatience with the "failed policies (TV shows) of yesterday."

    Yep, that's right, son. All the previous generations -- they've been doing practically everything really stupidly right up until your generation passed puberty. Entertainment, the economy -- heck we've probably been fucking the wrong way all these millenia, too. Why don't you write a Wikipedia article, set us all straight?

  • ||

    OK, just got back from seeing it.

    What. A. Piece. Of. Vapid. Shit.

    I'm really overcome with how badly created this movie is. It's a shitty story and JJ Abrahms is an incompetent director. I was, literally, bored. There was no suspense, the action scenes were edited by a 10 year old with ADD and the design choices for sets and props were sub-moronic.

    And all of this hype over taking the Star Trek lore, bending it over and fucking it hard in the ass that Abrahms went on and one about? I must have missed it.

    **SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD***

    I can see the production meeting now, "OK, the bridge, it's going to look like an Apple store, only cooler! Slick, white surfaces EVERYWHERE and lens flare! We'll have ass loads of lens flare! I want monkeys in charge of the lens flare! Oh, and get this the engine room will look like the cross between an oil refinery and a brewery. I want valves and catwalks and big steel tanks and lots and lot of industrial steel everywhere, because that's what warp drive is: steam punk! And the phasers, I want them spit and chirp. The more pussified the better!"

    OK, Spock and Uhura have a thing going on. Aaaaaand? Sooooooo? WHAT WAS FUCKING THE POINT? And what's with the big, red happy fun ball of certain death? Anybody on the writing team ever think it might be helpful to actually provide even the most rudimentary of explanations as to what the fuck this stuff is and why they have it? Oooooooh, it's RED matter. Why didn't you say so?

    Oh and the bad guy's motive for destroying Vulcan? Spock was late! He was late arriving to save Romulus. He didn't have anything to do with it, he didn't cause it, but he was going to save it and didn't get there in time! So...yeah...so...I'm gonna...um...destroy YOUR planet now! Yeah! That'll show that pointy eared fuck to not step on the gas!

    What? If he was late to your dinner party and was bringing the wine you'd lay waste to the Cabernet region? Really?

    Oh and Simon Peg, let's make sure we saddle him with a little horned toad alien apprentice who never says anything, but whose hijinks of sitting on things will bring the house down! The kids will love him! And make sure you bring Simon in at almost the end of the movie so his quirky mirth will be a relief after we sucked all the joy and air out of the room.

    Yeah, this isn't your father's Star Trek alright. Your father's Star Trek wasn't written and directed by a pack of angry and incontinent baboons on a bender. Your father had better taste, intelligence and sense than to watch this shit.

  • ||

    See, Episiarch? That could've been your review.

  • jg6||

    "Your father had better taste, intelligence and sense than to watch this shit."

    You know, the thing I hate about these reviews is that nobody says what they actually think . . .

  • ||

    Nah, his wasn't an angry review.

    I want to stress that I can suspend shitloads of disbelief. I mean, I can watch Dr. Who and *enjoy* it, knowing it's all simplitic and nonsensical tripe written by babbling morons, but that's OK because it doesn't get in the way of the story, for what it is. It kinda glosses over your brain, it's so silly.

    But in Star Trek, I kept finding myself asking "Why is that there?" "What the fuck is that?" "WHY IS THERE ALL THAT STANDING WATER ON A SPACESHIP? The guy has about a thousand henchman standing around. None of them have a wet-vac?" "They waited 25 years for old Spock to arrive? DOING WHAT? It sure as shit wasn't house keeping." I just kept asking "Why?" throughout most of the film. If I had to sum up the movie in one word, that word would be: pointless.

    It did have good points: Pine did a very decent job as Kirk, but was hampered by the angry baboon writing team (WE GET IT. THE GUY LIKES PUSSY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE SKIRT-CHASING INTO A SYMPTOM ON THE OCD SPECTRUM.) Urban *was* quite good as McCoy; the part is his now. Simon Peg was excellent, for all of his 5 lines.

    Chekov's bit was "cute" and Bruce Greenwood, well, is Bruce Greenwood. The guy is good just showing up. Harold was weak as Sulu, (I think his facial features are too soft too) but I again, blame the simian writers and no one, NO ONE will ever be able to utter "oh my" and mean it. Uhura? Meh. I can't put my finger on why I wasn't impressed with her, because she had a LOT to do in the movie, but I wasn't sold.

    And JJ, there are just too many god damned people in this movie. The extras are EVERYWHERE; they're like rabbits. Jesus Christ on a cracker, you couldn't have saved some money on the union scale and hired better writers?

  • jg6||

    It's not TREK without Janice Rand:

    Our shapely, blond transporter chief
    can outlast any man

    And though she has her choice she makes the Captain when she can

    She made some slight adjustments
    that the Captain though were crude

    Now, every time he beams aboard
    he's standing in the nude!

  • jg6||

    Oh, well, if it really stinks, I have "To Serve All My Days" and "World Enough and Time" on the hard drive . . .

  • ed||

    Warren | May 8, 2009, 1:27pm | #

    I don't see the 'free minds, free markets' connection in the past few reviews.


    That slogan is vestigial, Warren. It could be removed without anyone noticing.

  • Mari Dupont||

    Thanks for the link (100 comments ago) to the hilarious Star Trek "fight" scene; those production values were on par with Plan 9 From Outerspace. I kept waiting for them to start kissing...

  • ||

    I would bet $1M US dollars that "JW" went into Star Trek bound and determined to HATE it; I've been arguing with pre-haters about this film for a few months now, and I could instantly recognize the telltale intellectual poverty of his/her "review."

    I've been a fan of classic Trek since I was a young child in the early 70s; and I was leery when I heard they were going to do a revamped version of the original (Enterpise's number-one problem was that was SO unnecessary), rather than moving forward.

    Turns out I needn't have worried. I LOVED this movie; it's now my favorite Trek film after Wrath of Khan. You don't have to be a Trek fan to enjoy this movie immensely, but there are lots of in-jokes and references you'll get if you are.

    Oh, and don't worry, "Appleby." Before too long, you'll be dead, and your entire maggot-ridden, rusted-out aesthetic will be (thankfully) dead with you.

  • ||

    I would bet $1M US dollars that "JW" went into Star Trek bound and determined to HATE it; I've been arguing with pre-haters about this film for a few months now, and I could instantly recognize the telltale intellectual poverty of his/her "review."

    I would bet bet that you're an idiot.

    IT'S A BADLY CRAFTED MOVIE. When you're able to parse that through your sluggish gray matter, come back and we'll talk.

  • ||

    bet bet? How the hell did that happen? .....stupid preview....

    You could go far in disproving my idiot theory by reading ALL of the posts, instead of reading the first couple and then zipping through to the end in the effort to find posts only that disagreed with your obviously well thought out position. Context matters, sweetie.

    As to the canon, I thought maybe he would out Kirk as gay or make Uhura a tranny or turn Vulcan into The Planet of Birthday Party Clowns or something so far out in left field that old-timers (who, in case you missed it, have sustained and fed this franchise for the past 43 years, but yeah, screw those losers) would have no choice but to get wadded up over. Fucking with the timeline isn't messing with "the canon," (to JJ) IT'S WHAT SCIENCE FICTION IS, YOU UNTALENTED TWAT!

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    I'm frankly a bit disappointed Abrams didn't work in a subplot where Sulu was having a secret romance with Chekov. Anyway, complete with a suggestion for the sequel, Constant Viewer weighs in here.

  • LarryA||

    Does anybody get sucked into a jet engine in Trek 11? I'm only a fan of J.J. Abrams shows where somebody gets sucked into a jet engine.

    Someone gets sucked into a jet exhaust. Close enough?

  • ||

    Saw it on Friday. I have to say I have mixed feelings. I liked pretty much everything but the plot. Star Trek has its moments of implausibility to be sure but there are limits. Villains should at least be motivated by something that makes sense. And what purpose does that tube of water Scotty gets beamed into serve?

  • ||

    The original Star Trek debuted when I was 17 and I never missed an episode. I consider my self a hard-core fan. I saw the new Star Trek this weekend and it's one of the best movie going experiences I've ever had. Wow! what a show!

  • ||

    I'm sure this thread is dead by now, but it occurred to me today that I was missing the obvious plot hole:

    If Nero was thrown back in time about a 100 years or so, maybe he could, oh, I don't know, maybe ALERT THE ROMULAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE BIG, FUCKING SUPERNOVA THAT'S GOING TO WASTE THEIR ENTIRE PLANET IN A 100 YEARS???

    Or, you know, manipulate the timeline to the Romulan Empire's advantage? Take the evidence to younger Spock so he can be on time henceforth? No, we'll just sit here and wait for bloody vengence for 25 years. We've got a big DVD collection of Romu-porn to keep us occupied, but no wet-vacs.

  • ||

    Fill the plot hole with this: Nero is fucking CRAZY! He's mentally and morally the direct descendant (or ancestor, as the case may be) of that other avenging Star Trek loony, Khan Noonian Singh. Just go with it...

    However, I also wonder what the Romulans did with themselves - or each other - for 25 years. They had the most powerful space craft in known space, they could have gone anywhere and done anything. What did they do? Twiddle their thumbs waiting for Spock to show up.

    Good question...

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement