DominicCobb said:
Tobar said:
DominicCobb said:
The other thing people forget is that they are MOVIES. With a TV show you have more time to explore those things.
Most Star Trek episodes are self-contained stories. They have about 45 minutes after commercials to tell a complete story and were easily capable of doing so. With a movie you have anywhere from 90 to 120 minutes to tell a story.
That excuse does not compute.
I'm not saying that you can't tell a philosophical story or whatever in a short amount of time. Just by nature of there being multiple episodes of TV show, you have far more time and chances to explore all those big ideas. With a movie, obviously there are movies that explore big ideas and what not (the film that my avatar comes from touches on a lot of those points, for example), but the thing is, when you have a MOVIE, it needs to be something big. There's a reason why people hate Insurrection. A MOVIE needs to be exciting so you have to dial in, and you can't necessarily focus on all of those ideas.
DominicCobb said:
What I always loved in the original Star Trek was the adventure and the character dynamics. As far as I can tell JJ's got that, so I am satisfied.
TOS had a charismatic captain that adamantly believed in what the Federation stood for and strived to follow its laws and edicts to the best of his ability. It had a half-Vulcan First Officer who quietly struggled with his humanity. Lastly, it had an honorable if ornery Chief Medical Officer who found joy in taking jabs at his green blooded friend.
JJ Trek has a reckless maverick with a complete disregard for the rules who skirts by on the seat of his pants. It has a pointy eared psychopath who regular pummels others when he loses control of his constant seething rage. Lastly it has an ornery Chief Medical Officer who doesn't get to do much.
JJ Trek just takes the pop culture stereotypes of the characters and turns up the dial.
Yes the characters are not exactly the same. That's kind of the point. They're permutations on the existing characters. Firstly we're seeing them in their early years, and secondly there are some huge differences between the timelines. I don't want to see the cast play the exact same characters, because those aren't there characters. (notice how each Bond is really a different character in many ways.)
Which brings us to McCoy, who is pretty much exactly the same as his TOS counterpart. This is where I'll concede, you're right, he doesn't get to do much, which annoys me because he's one of my favorites.
But they supplanted him with a monumentally more interesting Uhura than in the show so it wasn't just all the boys club (people like to talk about Star Trek's diversity, but please, female characters were never given anything to do on that show).
Really because in the show Uhura didn't reflect any stereotypes of woman or blacks of the time. She was the person who was called to take over any post on the bridge when someone was hurt, that means she knew how to do every job on the bridge, she had as many scenes as every other supporting character on the show, and she was clearly very well educated. Go back and watch some films and Tv shows from the 1960s and tell me how many female or black characters you can say that about.
In the new movies you does nothing that cry when things get hard. She only got her job by giving Spock blow jobs, and she interrupts life or death missions to butch at her boyfriend for not sharing his feelings more when he is from a race that never share their feelings.
Maybe I am just too simple minded but I know which version of this character I find more interesting and I like more.
Oh and again if the characters are not going to act like themselves then why give them the names of the classic characters? The answer I can come up with is to try and sell more action figures.
You have to give Gene Roddenbury credit, when he got tired of writing for Kirk and Spock he didn't reboot and then call two characters that where nothing like them Kirk and Spock, he had the guts to create all new characters and write for them and a lot of people(Including Lenord Nimoy)predicted that it wouldn't work but for all of his faults he at least had the guts not to play it so insanely safe.
Oh and you want to show the characters younger? That is okay but they still need to share the same basic character of their older counter parts and not just be young idiots who get people killed and have no sense of right or wrong if you want me to care about them. As i said there are way to see them grow into being heroes without making them into selfish jerks who have nothing in common. A character who was a huge inspiration for Kirk was Hornblower, read the C S Foster books that cover his early life if you want to see how to tell this type of story without wrecking the character, or watch the Tv show, or if you want a more recent example watch GOTG a movie that did much better at the box office then ITD.
Rebooting does not mean that you have to ignore what people like about a character, in fact it should mean getting back to those things. If you are not going to stick to the basics of what made a character that character then you are not really writing that character you are just writing a new character but sticking the name of a older better loved character on them to make a qucik buck.
Shatner is in his 80s and seen as something of an icon because his Kirk is so loved, I find it hard to believe the same will be true of Chris Pine fifty years from now. Star Trek is coasting on nolstolgia right now and I think we are reaching the limit where that will keep it going. Either they need new ideas and new character or they need to get back to the basics of why these characters are so loved in the first place.
