On the subject of the series, yes they are imperfect. What isn’t? As a form of entertainment, though, give me any Star Trek over a whole lot of other TV shows.

Let the cheering commence.

“icon |ˈīˌkän| (noun) – idol, paragon, hero, heroine; celebrity, superstar, star; favorite, darling.”

By that definition, I would have to say that TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were/are ALL iconic each in their own way. To endlessly debate the issue of which was MORE iconic seems a pointless waste of time, because it is a debate based solely on opinion not facts.

Sean and Randall both make excellent points in their respective comments. Me, I tend to side more with Sean’s arguments. I’m old enough (barely, mind you, but still old enough) to remember watching at least the second and third years of TOS in its original runs and what I remember is that the show was popular – but that it did not truly reach “iconic” status among the masses until after it was cancelled and had been in syndication for a couple of years. TNG, on the other hand, for all its faults was immensely popular and drew excellent ratings from the get-go – partially because of nearly two decades’ worth of pent-up anticipation for new Trek adventures on TV, but also in part because it was (again, for all its faults) hands down better than just about anything that was being broadcast elsewhere on television at the time.

Each new series was greeted with some sense of anticipation but suffered from the age-old problem of overexposure and diminishing returns – we went from two decades of no new Trek on TV to several years of Trek everywhere we turned around. But each new series had its core fans who embraced the individual shows on their individual merits; I know a number of people who had never seen ANY version of Trek until “Enterprise” came along, watched it on the strength of Scott Bakula’s presence, and grew to love the series. Same with DS9 and Voyager (which is my least favorite of all the series – if you want “Trek’s” version of “Lost In Space,” there it is).

That said, I happen to be one of those illogical lifeforms who think that each new series (even Voyager and, yes, even the animated series) has brought worthwhile to the overall mythos. Debating the merits or lack thereof of each series may be a fun and interesting way to look at the differences between each series, but to say that any one was better or more iconic than the others is merely a statement of opinion. Not that I am criticizing Randall and Sean for expressing their opinions; I think it has been an interesting and thought-provoking exchange. But it’s still just opinion.

And the above has been nothing more than my opinion, offered with no intended offense towards anyone and hopefully accepted in the same spirit.

Peace,

John Small

What’s cool about Wil Wheaton, is that he’s very accessible and has some great stories about TNG.
Great interview!

Are there going to be any robots at all in this new movie?

Bring back Sonny!

I never said I thought “action movie” had negative connotations, or that I disagreed with pitching the trailer as an action movie.

I am just agreeing with Wil when he suggests that Trek films are not sci-fi action films. In my humble opinion, a sci-fi action film (or any action film) is a fairly simple genre of film where the focus of the film is basically on the action, with a story that supplements the action. But it might not be very interesting with all the action removed. Trek films, however, are much more than that.

That is only my own opinion of what the phrase “action movie” means to me. It has nothing to do with my feelings on the trailer, and it’s not something you can disagree with, because it’s really my own personal definition.

My only point is that I can completely see where Wil was coming from when he said that.

Granted. But my own personal opinion of what thus far has been the best “science fiction movie” of the Star Trek film series comes very close to that—TMP. Interestingly enough, it isn’t my favorite ST movie (although it is second on my list).

The bigger problem (and the source behind why the studios are less willing to go that route with Star Trek) is that, IMO, most people find that kind of epic film to be rather dull, and regardless of the passage of time, people in the business are aware of how it is generally regarded (despite my own more positive feeling about it).

Without the potential for the “monster” in ‘Alien’ to suddenly appear and attack, most are unwilling to pay good money to sit through that kind of thing.

But I think that your ceiling for realistic expectations from a Star Trek movie aren’t far off, if at all . The best “science fiction” we are likely ever to get from such a film would need to be within a veil of epic adventure and—action.

Personally, I don’t mind mixing peanut butter and chocolate, so it is a much less distressing prospect for me.

I agree with you. But the other thing we have to remember is that film demands certain things that are very different from what TV demands.

I remember back in my college days, when I was writing a thesis on film–I had this great book written by a guy named James Monaco called “American Film Now.” In that book, he talked about this scene from an early 60s film.. I can’t recall which one now… but anyway, it was this doctor, talking to his patient about certain medications or something like that. And how one med made you go bbbbbbrrrrrrippppp, right up the wall…. and the other one blapppp… down onto the floor, or some such thing.

And what Monaco said was, film is the brrrrippppp, the drug that we go to for excitement, and to be enthralled. We cushion and secret ourselves in a vast chamber of darkness, where the experience is dominating and controlling—you’re not supposed to talk or do anything except watch the screen and get drawn into the rush of the huge visual spectacle that’s in front of you and, in terms of sound, all around you. The film doesn’t stop for us, it demands our attention, and to keep it, it does all kinds of things–gets in our face with action, excitement, or wild emotions, or epic scenery, or whatever.

Whereas TV was the other drug, the one we zone out to. Even when TV is action-packed, it’s still just a little box in the corner and we can look away or do other things at our choosing. And mostly TV doesn’t try to excite or stimulate us–it’s there to dull us and think for us and put us into a kind of trance.

Maybe not fair to characterize TV thusly, but you know how film guys think of TV, traditionally. On the other hand, do any of us doubt it the truth in it?

But the flipside is that filmmakers feel they have to dazzle us and wow us with action action action. This isn’t always a bad thing. But the thing about it that should give us pause, is, it means we may never see a Star Trek film that ISN’T an “action film,” and I don’t mean simply “in part,” but as a whole–we may only ever get ST films that are somewhat empty “action pics.” (As compared to intellectually stimulating or emotionally stimulating). Why? Because Paramount sees ST as its franchise in answer to the Fox’s Star Wars franchise, and to other franchises, like Warner’s DC Comics franchise, and so on. And so ST films are viewed as product, and a particular kind of product. Of course, most films ARE made and viewed as product—but of course as we know, this is a particular brand of product—the kind that delivers comic-book like action, thrills and awe–with maybe a fun story, but nothing too deep.

But that’s it. Little else.

And that’s not always a bad thing—it worked in Wrath of Khan. It worked in “First Contact.” But as we all know, Star Trek was ALWAYS more than just action, thrills, and spectacle with a fun, but vapid story. It was about morality, and to some extent it stimulated the mind, the intellect. It often ventured into the creepy and eerie–even the horrific. But often in quiet, small ways. And really the best of Star Trek was like that.

But I find it highly unlikely we’ll ever get that from the films. They’ll always be bang-em-up shoot-em-up action pics–battles in space with villains and easy to peg storylines. Exciting and thrilling, sure. But not very deep. Not very thematic or mythic or stimulating in any sense but that in which a rollercoaster ride is stimulating.

It kind of worries me. Because the thing is, there’s a lot of things that could be done with Star Trek stories, on film. They could be epic, but not just in an “action” sense. They could be weird and eerie and thought provoking… even scary and bizarre… in short, they could be REAL science fiction in the way that Star Wars, for instance, was never REAL sci-fi.

But I doubt this will happen, because of the risk. Film execs will say, always, that the return on the investment is the most important consideration—and with good reason—can’t fault them for that. But that attitude also tends to force filmmakers to play it safe. And the safest bet for raking in the dough is spectacle, action, and a very simple storyline that’s easy to follow and is first and foremost fun. Again, nothing wrong with that–sometimes. But that isn’t ONLY what Star Trek is about. Sadly, however, I think that’s what it could end up *being.* That and only that.

It was “sci-fi action movie”, specifically, “sci-fi action movie, with Star Trek uniforms”.

“It denotes a film where action is the main objective. And that is what the new trailer denotes. But Trek films have never been like that.”

Did you mean “never marketed to a specific audience that way”? As Wheaton suggests, the trailer is not aimed at you and I, but at an audience that isn’t already invested in Star Trek or its characters.

As Wheaton contends, you and I (and him) are going to be there anyway. The trailer is meant to intice his (and my) kids to want to see it. Star Trek (TOS) was presented to me as a set of “adventure” stories in a sci-fi setting. Once it had me as a member of its audience (as a child), it was able to present to me more than just exciting fistfights and battles with alien monsters, etc.

Roddenberry pitched (to a conservative group of television execs) a “wagon train to the stars”. What they got were morality plays in a science fiction setting.

I don’t see the trailer as any different. Abrams is pitching (to a more mainstream audience, not already inclined to watch Star Trek) a sci-fi action movie. What the Trek fans within the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” (like Orci, Lindelof, and Kurtzman) have told us (established fans like themselves) is that the film won’t leave the message/vision behind, and will be much more than that.

Some will be able to enjoy Star Trek’s optimistic vision, alive and well, while others will watch for the “sci-fi action” and special effects only. Still others will enjoy both.

My point was that, even if STXI has much more to it than action (which I would expect), it is no less a “sci-fi action movie”, and there is nothing at all inherently negative about that.