• _NetNomad@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    it suprises me that this sentiment isn’t more common. i don’t hate the other movies, but they’re more movies with the Trek characters and world than they are Star Trek in a movie format. with it’s allegorical but ultimately hopeful story, VI really did feel like Star Trek proper, just with a bigger budget and longer runtime. The Motion Picture had the same spirit but loses points for just bolting 2001 and the Nomad probe episode together, and I’d like to think that Into Darkness could have been a modern-at-the-time Undiscovered Country if they didn’t spend the whole runtime failing to be a modern Wrath of Khan

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Yeah I think a story about an arms buildup and a defense industrial complex just doesn’t work well in a movie. In real life it’s about subtle influences on politics not “pew pew pew”, there’s not even any opportunities for passionate speeches. Just “maybe it’s bad to put so many resources towards building warships and once you have them you might be tempted to use them to justify the expenditure… someday.” In the real world it’s a trend over time, so how do you make a compelling story about that? If you deviate too much to make it more interesting it’s not accurate to the real world, and then it’s more like a fictional problem.