Star Trek and Idealism vs cynicism

[Micah Sweet]

The big problem is the average non Star Trek fan, or worse the Star Trek hater, takes a look at a couple episodes and will say "oh, ok, whatever it's just people fighting in space with ships and laser gun pew pew". So, as that is what they think Star Trek is: that is what they make.

Plus the average Star Trek hater can watch the top ten Star Trek episodes and just be like "BORING! Needs more Pew PEW!"


Very true. Most modern folks in charge are unwilling to take very much risk. They just want the 'free money of the sure thing'.

A couple years ago, super hero movies were not so hot. Then, really out of nowhere, some folks to a wild chance on a movie called Iron Man. And the MCU with that high money point of The Avengers. But it's not just 'super hero'. After all plenty have tossed up other super hero movies that have not done so great.

So unless your 'space movie/show' is based off one of the Star IP's, you will just get looked over.

I can't believe Iron Man is 17 years old in 2025. Now I feel old.

 

[Ryujin]

The big problem is the average non Star Trek fan, or worse the Star Trek hater, takes a look at a couple episodes and will say "oh, ok, whatever it's just people fighting in space with ships and laser gun pew pew". So, as that is what they think Star Trek is: that is what they make.

Plus the average Star Trek hater can watch the top ten Star Trek episodes and just be like "BORING! Needs more Pew PEW!"

I doubt that anyone, who isn't a fan, would have the patience for something like the TOS episode "Balance of Terror", these days. It was a masterpiece and, essentially, a World War II submarine cat and mouse battle.

Very true. Most modern folks in charge are unwilling to take very much risk. They just want the 'free money of the sure thing'.

A couple years ago, super hero movies were not so hot. Then, really out of nowhere, some folks to a wild chance on a movie called Iron Man. And the MCU with that high money point of The Avengers. But it's not just 'super hero'. After all plenty have tossed up other super hero movies that have not done so great.

So unless your 'space movie/show' is based off one of the Star IP's, you will just get looked over.

I think that the world might be ready for "Space 1999: The Next Generation." I need me a fix of Eagles.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The big problem is the average non Star Trek fan, or worse the Star Trek hater, takes a look at a couple episodes and will say "oh, ok, whatever it's just people fighting in space with ships and laser gun pew pew". So, as that is what they think Star Trek is: that is what they make.

Plus the average Star Trek hater can watch the top ten Star Trek episodes and just be like "BORING! Needs more Pew PEW!"

That just misses the heart of the show. What made Star Trek work was its ability to go slow. It isn't about the pew-pew-pew at all (it didn't even do pew-pew-pew well, which was just fine because that wasn't the thing that made it tick). It's action has been endlessly parodied for a reason. And when the action worked it was because you cared about the characters and the story:

 

[Ryujin]

That just misses the heart of the show. What made Star Trek work was its ability to go slow. It isn't about the pew-pew-pew at all (it didn't even do pew-pew-pew well, which was just fine because that wasn't the thing that made it tick). It's action has been endlessly parodied for a reason. And when the action worked it was because you cared about the characters and the story:

"Pew-Pew" costs money and they didn't really have a huge budget. That's also why they came up with an iconic piece of tech, the Transporter. They didn't have the budget for a Shuttlecraft until much later.

Pretty ironic, also, that they didn't run the real S1E1 ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") because studio execs didn't think that it was exciting enough to pull in early viewers, so they instead went for "The Man Trap", which also didn't have much pew-pew, but at least had a monster. And, as with pretty much all of TOS, a moral.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Pew-Pew" costs money and they didn't really have a huge budget. That's also why they came up with an iconic piece of tech, the Transporter. They didn't have the budget for a Shuttlecraft until much later.

Pretty ironic, also, that they didn't run the real S1E1 ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") because studio execs didn't think that it was exciting enough to pull in early viewers, so they instead went for "The Man Trap", which also didn't have much pew-pew, but at least had a monster. And, as with pretty much all of TOS, a moral.

All star trek really needs are wall to wall carpets and blinking lights

 

[Ryujin]

All star trek really needs are wall to wall carpets and blinking lights

I do really want to visit the Star Trek Original Series Tour in Ticonderoga, NY, at some point in the future.

 

[payn]

Im sad I missed Quark's when it was in Vegas.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And when the action worked it was because you cared about the characters and the story

Which isn't really something that's wrong for any other franchise or non-franchise piece of entertainment. That we care about what is being fought about is usually the key to making a memorable and widely succesful action movie. It doesn't always require much (he's a widower and they killed his dog, but he used to be an assassin!), but a lot of action scenes end up a mindless and soulless action spectacle that just goes on until they ran out of budget, instead of a good scene, because they forgot to tell an interesting story leading into the fight, and/or during the fight. (Which isn't to say that it's easy to get this right. It is an art).

 

[Ryujin]

Which isn't really something that's wrong for any other franchise or non-franchise piece of entertainment. That we care about what is being fought about is usually the key to making a memorable and widely succesful action movie. It doesn't always require much (he's a widower and they killed his dog, but he used to be an assassin!), but a lot of action scenes end up a mindless and soulless action spectacle that just goes on until they ran out of budget, instead of a good scene, because they forgot to tell an interesting story leading into the fight, and/or during the fight. (Which isn't to say that it's easy to get this right. It is an art).

"John Wick" is pretty much non stop action but it works because, as you said, they laid a little ground work. They also keep slowly revealing more details about that counter culture world along the way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which isn't really something that's wrong for any other franchise or non-franchise piece of entertainment. That we care about what is being fought about is usually the key to making a memorable and widely succesful action movie. It doesn't always require much (he's a widower and they killed his dog, but he used to be an assassin!), but a lot of action scenes end up a mindless and soulless action spectacle that just goes on until they ran out of budget, instead of a good scene, because they forgot to tell an interesting story leading into the fight, and/or during the fight. (Which isn't to say that it's easy to get this right. It is an art).

"John Wick" is pretty much non stop action but it works bcause, as you said, they laid a little ground work. They also keep slowly revealing more details about that counter culture world along the way.

There are plenty of movies where I am there purely for the action and have little concern for characters. For some franchises and some types of action movies, I am fine with glib exposition between action. Caring for the characters isn't a rule I would say every movie has to follow. So I am not saying every movie should do this or that less action is better (though caring for the characters is generally useful, in some films and series it simply isn't a priority, even if you care for them in a rough sketch kind of way). But with Star Trek the point is not the action. The action is more like an accidental quality in Star Trek. If it’s a John wick movie, I will judge it by very different standards. And John Wick is great. But making star trek into John wick, doesn’t make Star Trek better in my view (and by the same token, making John Wick more like Star Trek, doesn't make John Wick better)