“he”/“him” A Canadian Prairie Mennonite from the '70s & '80s, a Preacher’s Kid, slowly recovering from a hemorrhagic stroke. I am not — yet — in a 12-Step Program.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Trekking Further
Samantha Nelson's review of the new Star Trek video game further highlights the growing sum of disappointments that come with Abrams' "vision." Bonus: her byline ("Warp Drivel") has generated a cornucopia of Trek-based puns from her readers.
Quote: "Gene Roddenberry imagined a world based on hope, peaceful cooperation, and intellectual exploration, but now the Star Trek universe has become a setting for irrelevant violence."
I wonder if that tension has always been there in Star Trek. As a 9 year old boy, part of the appeal of the original Star Trek was that there were usually a couple of long fist fights in the episode. Especially keeping in mind that standards have changed, I think in its time Star Trek could have been considered as much an action show as anything else. (Arguably not quite as violent as today's television, but I think some of those elaborately choreographed staged fighting that was popular back in 1960s television took up more screen time than a lot of action sequences in action shows today.) A few of the original episodes seemed to be little more than an excuse for Kirk to get in pointless fights (Gamsters of Triskellion, for example.)) Of course it was always much more than just an action show....but at times it could be an action show as well.
That tension was always there, and the writers of TNG were frank about what a buttinsky Roddenberry could be every time they introduced so much as an argument to the script. So far as the movies go, there isn't a single one of them that doesn't rely completely on the "action" formula (aka, "Bad guy needs a thumping"), except for I and IV, perhaps. But Abrams shows no signs of concern about any of that -- there is no tension, for him.
2 comments:
Quote: "Gene Roddenberry imagined a world based on hope, peaceful cooperation, and intellectual exploration, but now the Star Trek universe has become a setting for irrelevant violence."
I wonder if that tension has always been there in Star Trek. As a 9 year old boy, part of the appeal of the original Star Trek was that there were usually a couple of long fist fights in the episode.
Especially keeping in mind that standards have changed, I think in its time Star Trek could have been considered as much an action show as anything else.
(Arguably not quite as violent as today's television, but I think some of those elaborately choreographed staged fighting that was popular back in 1960s television took up more screen time than a lot of action sequences in action shows today.) A few of the original episodes seemed to be little more than an excuse for Kirk to get in pointless fights (Gamsters of Triskellion, for example.))
Of course it was always much more than just an action show....but at times it could be an action show as well.
Keep talkin' like that and you'll be gettin' the zipper-boots, baby!
That tension was always there, and the writers of TNG were frank about what a buttinsky Roddenberry could be every time they introduced so much as an argument to the script. So far as the movies go, there isn't a single one of them that doesn't rely completely on the "action" formula (aka, "Bad guy needs a thumping"), except for I and IV, perhaps. But Abrams shows no signs of concern about any of that -- there is no tension, for him.
Post a Comment