Topic: The Problems With Star Trek Movies

[Gamester]

Amen!

Star Trek has taken a serious nosedive starting with TNG. All the techno-babble BS is but one of the symptoms. I realize that this sort of thing appeals to some people (or TNG would have tanked after season 1) Personally (if I was somehow unclear) I think that pretty much everything Star Trek since TNG has been horrible and Gene Roddenberry WAS around to start that! I have seen all 10 movies, and ST 6 was the last really good one. Of the TNG movies, the only 2 that weren't thoroughly awful IMHO were First Contact (felt flat and contrived) and Nemesis (had long parts were the film just DRAGGED).  They REALLY need to work on character development and storylines. Personally I have had a hard time caring for most of the charcters in the later iterations of Star Trek. At the end of Nemesis, I wasn't sad, I was relived. It is this they need to correct. In short:

Problems with modern Trek:

1) Techno-Babble. We don't need episodes based on and around Techno-Babble.

2) Character Development. The characters in Trek often seem to feel flat or preachy. If I want to be preached at, I'll go to church or call my mother.

3) Plot Development. Much of modern Trek feels to lack focus or feel pointless. Also, See #1

4) The token combat sequence. This is the throw-the-fans-a-bone thing in modern Trek - when things get TOO boring, show a couple short fight sequences. Hence the immense popularity of TNG's Borg episodes.

 (It could be argued that Old Trek did the same thing, but for whatever reason, in Old Trek, combat felt TENSE)

This is all just my humble opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.

Gamester
 

[sjvessey]

Right, in the REAL world, what's the likelihood that all the senior officers on a starship would like each other?  Where are the arguments?  The petty back-stabbing?  The currying favour with the captain?  The office politics?  They never get depressed.  They never get annoyed.  They are never wrong.  They never cheat.  They never cover their own ass when they make a mistake, because they don't make mistakes.  How many people get killed and they just go to the mess hall and say "what's for dessert?"  When cops shoot people they have psychological counselling to get over the trauma.  How many people have Picard, Ryker and the rest done in over the years, and it doesn't seem to bother them at all.

For anyone over the age of 15, the whole thing is just flat and two dimensional.  The characters are too idealistic, and that's why they don't seem real.  They appear to have no personal motivation (or lives) whatsoever.

Sometimes I think that CGI effects are to blame for many things.  The last Bond film, for example, was ruined by them.  Go back to the 60s and you had to concentrate more on the people because the effects were awful and you couldn't possibly build a whole episode around them.

But then again, how much of your perception of those old TOS episodes is coloured by the fact that a) you were probably only 12 years old when you saw them the first time, and b) it was all fresh and new and different to anything that had gone before?


 

[sjvessey]

I mean, how likely is it that you go out into space and discover the Roman empire re-born except this time they have pointy ears?  Romulus and Remus?  The Praetor?  The Imperial Senate?  Please... they even seem to wear togas...
 

[Magnum357]

Hey, if your going to blaim anybody, blaim the writers of TOS that made the Romulans.  Don't know why they resemble Romans so much.  Maybe its just the Feds that label them "Romulans" because that is the closest thing that humans can relate the race too.  Ok, sort of a cheesy way to explain it, but I do like the Romulans.  

[ChamadaIV]

Quote:
Right, in the REAL world, what's the likelihood that all the senior officers on a starship would like each other?  Where are the arguments?  The petty back-stabbing?  The currying favour with the captain?  The office politics?  They never get depressed.  They never get annoyed.  They are never wrong.  They never cheat.  They never cover their own ass when they make a mistake, because they don't make mistakes.  How many people get killed and they just go to the mess hall and say "what's for dessert?"  When cops shoot people they have psychological counselling to get over the trauma.  How many people have Picard, Ryker and the rest done in over the years, and it doesn't seem to bother them at all.

You're right about pretty much everything above. It's strange, for example, how well everyone accepted those 15 deaths the Enterprise-D suffered during its first encounter with a Borg cutting beam from a Cube. Captain Picard got angry at Q, but that's about it. We could only assume they held a memorial after the episode ended.

If we're gonna make things more believable, we need to get Paramount and Aaron Spelling on the phone. I can see it now...

"Star Trek: Stardate 90210"  

or perhaps make it a daytime show for the ladies and call it "One Trek to Live" or "As the Star Turns"  

No, seriously, Trek could use technobabble. Why? Because its a way of illustrating advanced technology and knowledge of the theoretical future. Things like silicon microprocessors and fibre optic wire would be laughable to still have in the 23rd-24th centuries. I kinda like the idea of isolinear chips and subspace communication.   But I could do without the Jeffries tubes.   Trek is now bound to the hallmark of technotalk, but it should be slimmed down a bit, imo. Not be taken away entirely, again imo.

Before they dropped the Enterprise series on us, I had hoped they would take us back to school, Starfleet Academy that is. Plenty of opportunity for character development there. What better way to draw in the young crowd than offer them a little something they expect from shows like Dawson's Creek (sorry for mentioning such blasphemy, but bear with me) with the youthful teens discovering themselves and the world while still keeping it Star Trek? Meanwhile, throw in the adult interactions (like we see in Boston Public) to draw in the older audience. Thus, not only do you have the hardcore lot (if you keep the atmosphere vintage Trek) watching, but you also have a show the mainstream audiences can enjoy as well.

I also had hopes for them doing a show about Captain Sulu's adventures on the Excelsior after ST VI, but that doesn't look like it'll ever happen...  

So there's my ideas and BUMP for this thread.  




     

[sjvessey]

At the end of the day, Star Trek isn't serious, hard-hitting cutting edge drama.  It's nice, warm, formulistic, cozy and moralising.  Bad people don't really exist and phasers can be set on 'stun' so no-one gets hurt.  You'd almost think it was made by Disney.  If you lose your leg in an accident, don't worry, the kind old doctor will just grow you a new one.  Even when people are (shock, horror) killed, it's always in a very 'clean' way.  Energy weapons simply make people fall over.  They don't splatter bits of flesh and bone all over the walls.
 

[rmahannah]

       I was wondering what the general concensus is concerning Star Trek movies.  It is obvious the franchise is in trouble and will probably be forced underground by the constant unacceptance of the mainstream.  The general movie goer does not like to use much imagination anymore.  The birth of computer animation has ended the requirement for imagination at the movies.  Virtually anything can be created for us on screen now, which leaves our minds nothing to wonder about.  Interesting charaters, character develpment, and story writing has been replaced by special effects.  Star Trek is a thinking persons genre.  The general movie goer does not like to walk out of the theatre with questions unanswered, therefore spawning bad movie reviews.  I do not put a lot of stock in movie critics, however, the general movie goer does.  What is one of the main things that comes up in conversation when going to see a newly released movie?  "I heard it got good or bad reviews."  Now their minds have a set stage before they even walk into the theatre.  I do not know what the remedy for this is.  You could say better storylines, screenplays, character involvement and special effects would contribute to reviving the interests.  I am afraid the type of people who made Star Trek a success have long since vanished or lost interest because of th such poor press.  Now we have lost the last remaining actors due to the fact that the last movie did not gross a certain amount to warrant doing another one.  I myself thought Nemesis was a pretty good movie, and I will buy the DVD.  What could revive the franchise?  What could make the movies more appealing to the "general" movie goer?  Would these changes be accepted by the die hard Trek fan or just appaul him or her?  Open your minds and contribute to my thoughts...    

[Baker]

A simple visit from our local friendly borg will improve things somewhat or perhaps a simple rest from the genre will rejuvenate interest a couple of years down the track (though I hope this course is not taken because then I'll have to wait for the next film). Otherwise, another war series  on a larger scale involving massive space battles might draw some more people in.

[nx_adam_1701]

I agree, another series just might draw people in, now about the movies, I like 75% of them, some were just like arghhhh, but Im hoping maybe a DS9 movie, I would go for that

Adam Out

PS: TNG,there  is no hope for another movie but maybe a DS9, or Voyager can freshen things up

[Azrael]

I've yet to see Nemesis.

Alas, it didn't get a very long run in UK theatres.

I think there are a couple of things that are bringing down the Starfleet Franchise on the side of the films.

The first is, there's nothing more annoying than going to see a film, and walking out thinking, wow, that was really like a 2 part episode.  Unfortunately, I feel the bulk of TNG movies have fallen into that ilk.  So much so, that I can't even remember what Star Trek IX was even called.

The second is the dumbing down of Starship Combat in TNG itself.  The Original Series gave us Klingon Disruptors and Romulan Plasmas, but too many ship encounters were limitied to "Fire Phasers & Photon Torpedoes", no matter what race was involved.

DS9 recognised this, and through the Dominion War, was able to re-introduce some character to the combat sequences themselves, Klingons getting their Disruptors back & Feds having to "develop" the Quantum Torpedo in response to the Borg and the Dominion.

You want meaningful starship combat?  Star Trek II:  The Wrath of Khan set a standard that remains unmatched by anything TNG has yet to offer.

Ultimately, good writing and a terrific cast will take you much further than "revealing insight" into the myserious ways of the Borg or the Romulans, as Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home clearly demonstrates.

Regarldess, I'm grabbing a copy of Nemesis as soon as it comes out.

Azrael  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think the improved CGI and special effects weaken the movies (and shows).

WHAT? You say? DM is nutz. Bear with me....

Remember combat in TOS? Journey to Babel, Balance of Terror...
Few exterior ship shots (too expensive), more falling out of chairs, sparks flying, tension as something doesn't work "Phaser room, fire. Phaser room, FIRE!". Combat felt more like that in movies like Das Boot. You felt as if they really were in a tin-can in deep space. They used to call it drama, not action.

Now?
CGI ships buzzing around shooting CGI beams. Emphasis on the cool ships, less screen time inside the ships during combat.
Yawn.
There is no drama. You don't see the worry, fear, or stark terror that should be there during a life or death fight.
I am reduced to watching someones 3D work and noting to myself flaws in texturing....  

[jualdeaux]

I think I hae to disagree with you rmahannah on the topic of people not liking a thinking movie. Look at how The Matrix did. Sure there were a lot of action sequences and great special effects. There was also a lot of stuff that made a person think. An example could be the many biblical type references, or at least things that could be interpreted in that way. Shoot, my church did a couple Matrix themed services using scenes from that movie as illustrations of the current topic. Overall it was a cool movie that was different from the usual fare and was not dumbed down for the masses. Answer me this, how many people looked at the world a bit differently when they came out of the theatre for a bit? This is what ST needs to do to reclaim the position it once enjoyed. there are a couple of things that need to be done in order to do this. One, it needs to take some time off. There has been way too much ST in the last 20 years. People are just burn out. Let it lie fallow for a while and then come back with a great movie. The other thing that needs to happen is the people running it really have to pander to the more hardcore fans more. These are the ones that will se the movie a few times at least if it is good. They will also bring others with them. To do this however, they needs to focus on what most fans call canon or continuity. Currently, there is nothing safe from contradiction. How hard would it have been to make Enterprise conform to the history that has been told in the last 40 years instead of trashing all the mythology for the crap that they are currently shoveling? As a side note, the writers need to come up with original stories instead of rehashing movies done 10 years ago.

Sorry for the rant.

[Karnak]

Last, I bought the Collector's Edition of Star Trek III.  I was watching the movie and listening to Leonard Nimoy's commentaries.   A profound comment Spock made was  that then Parmount CEO Michael Eisner told him 3 words about what he wanted from Star Trek III.

"Make it theatrical"


I think, nowadays, the Paramount execs are satisfied with just a TV-style movie which is what most of the TNG films feel like.  Paramount is getting what it paid for I guess.

[sjvessey]

I think people need to gain some perspective here.  The Star Trek brand has supported five separate TV series (plus the cartoons), numerous comic strips and ten big screen movies over a period of around 40 years.  I can't think of anything else that can make the same claim.  Just think how poor most movie sequels are, even number II or III.  Your typical TV show runs for two or three seasons, each of which consists of maybe 8 episodes, before they run out of ideas and the show is scrapped.  Is it any wonder that after hundreds of episodes it's difficult for Star Trek to stay fresh and original?

I have to totally disagree with previous comments about the need to remain 'true' to the pseudo-history that has been built up.  Actually trying to stick too closely to that is probably one of the things holding the show back.  Because it severely limits what you can do, and hence limits the degree to which you can be fresh and original.  Trying to stick to so-called 'canon' is a recipe for re-hashing the same old plot ideas, by definition.

To succeed these days you have to appeal to a wide audience.  It's all about volume, whether that's in terms of TV ratings or box office takings.  Hard core trekkers are a very small minority in the population at large (sorry guys but you are) and a show or movie which doesn't appeal to a broader base is always going to be a commercial failure.

Finally, realise that TV shows don't grow with you.  Tastes change, people become more sophisticated.  A show you liked when you were a teenager probably wouldn't appeal to you now if you came at it cold.  The guys who write Star Trek now aren't writing it for people who liked Star Trek in the 1980s, they're writing it for people who are 15-20 years younger than you.  I used to watch TNG when it first came out and now if I happen to see one of those episodes they all look so contrived and stilted and unsophisticated.  It happens.  It's called growing up!
 

[rmahannah]

Jualdeaux,

         You're right!!  Matrix was an excellent thinking person's movie, but unfortunately those kind of movies are few and far between.  A.I., along with 2001: A Space Odyssey are two more examples of movies that had great special effects, required a great deal of thinking, and were not well received because of that...  

[Magnum357]

Ya, you guys are probably right.  People these days (mostly Americans like me) are probably getting dumber as we go into the 21st Century.  I mean, look at all the crap we have on TV in America!  Movies now are trying to copy stuff you see on TV like all these reality TV series or gameshows.  No imagination at all.

Any Si Fi show now (Star Trek, B5, Space:AB, etc.) that have any original thought or story just doesn't do well anymore because most of the focused money is on America's young audience.  Jeez, does that mean I'm getting old?

[Baker]

It doesn't have to be about special effects (though if they are poor then the show will suffer) but a new series would have to show more about the star trek universe that we haven't seen. THat's why I think DS9 was good, because we never saw what a war in their universe was like. Of course the action was rather limited to cgi effects but it would be good to know who is on whos side and why, why a war and how it affects everyone.

[Deviak]

I couldn't help but notice some comments that aren't really justified...everything else however, especially from DM and Jualdeux are on the spot. I can understand all the CGI ships flying around but no drama to them though..it'd be pretty congested to try to show crew reactions to each and every ship wouldn't it?. That's why WoK gripped us..cus it was just those 2. Nemeses. Their panic, their anger, their frustration, their relief. Drama. yep, I always wondered why it was WoK seemed the best movie to me. Thx fro that DM.

Now for special effects..cough..well..movies don't ALWAYS have to be about special effects..see you all are missing something..Most moviegoers look at something that they can identify with, even a little bit. Something that just might touch them. May I direct your attention to Training Day? no FX there..it also did have you thinking though..who was the ACTUAL bad guy..shoot..any wonder why DW won Best Actor. He played that part so well..He had me believing he wasn't corrupt at all..just misunderstood. , Of course you could say it was all the good guy parts he's played..true. His first part as a villain.

Then we have the critically acclaimed Monster's Ball. Heh..aint gonna say much about that movie. Speaks for itself. Something you all should realize..what's the appealing thing these days. Have you all noticed that more and more people seem to crowd towards the idea of MARTIAL ARTS. A good kick up will always draw some crowds. The Matrix is one. Don't say a movie with Steven Seagal..plz..yeesh..fed up of that guy :P. Jet Li in high acclaim now..then the critically acclaimed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. and for the "younger" audience..heck. That's why shows like DragonBall Z still has a following..shoot..teens right up to college students still watch some DragonBall..then there's Rouroni Kenshin and Yu-Yu Yakusho. *chuckle*.

Then there's the aspect of COMEDY. don't have to explain there do I?. So some of you should take that into account..and other things.  

[rmahannah]

I really do appreciate all of your comments.  Actually, the forum has matured quite a bit compared to a couple of years ago.  A post like this would have just been flamed and I would have been slandered and given a lot of unfounded reasons why I was wrong for what I thought.  I like shows and movies that make you think or just plain keep you involved.  I do not watch any mainstream sitcoms or shows, and haven't for quite a few years.  The intelligence level of these new shows are insulting!  The last shows I watched regularly were X Files, Millennium, and Babylon 5.  There have been quite a few movies that have been released recently that have been very good (i.e. Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets, Lord of the Rings: The Twin Towers)  I really think the writers for Star Trek need to go back to the roots (i.e. Gene Roddenberry) in order to revive the stories.  Although, as someone mentioned above, even if this is done, it just simply may not appeal to enough people to make a difference anymore....  Therefore the flame of Star Trek will be reduced to a barely glowing ember...  Make sure you have you DVD collections complete in case the whole world of Star trek becomes extinct!!      

[La'ra]

They need less techno-babble, more character and story.  Simple as that, as far as I'm concerned.