412 replies to this topic

[Peter T Chattaway]

*** SPOILER-Y THINGS *** (some of which are in the trailers, some of which are not; but I think most of this is in the first half-or-so of the movie)

Something that didn't really register with me until second viewing (because, like everything else in this film, it passes by so quick and is promptly forgotten):

It's bad enough that two entire planets are destroyed in this movie, albeit on separate timelines, especially given that both planets have a long "history" with Trek fans and are not mere story devices like Alderaan was in the original Star Wars.

But what about the Starfleet Academy graduating class? Like, aren't almost all of them killed offscreen? And yet nobody really addresses this or feels any fallout from this.

Like I say, I didn't really connect the dots until the second viewing. But here are the dots I think I caught:

-- Starfleet Academy gets a distress call from Vulcan, and all the cadets are hastily assigned to their ships and sent to Vulcan because the primary fleet is in the Laurentian system and therefore cannot get to Vulcan all that quickly. (BTW, we know that the journey from Earth to Vulcan takes at least four days, because that's what Scotty said in The Motion Picture -- which, incidentally, took place after the Enterprise's refit and therefore took place when the Enterprise was presumably faster than it is in the current movie. So all that "drilling" Nero did over Vulcan, between the original distress call and the Enterprise's arrival, must have taken four days at least. And yet, right up until moments before they arrive at the planet, Pike and his crew believe that Vulcan is merely experiencing natural seismic activity. Can it really be that no one on Vulcan figured out what was going on before the Enterprise got there?)

-- The cadets get to their ships, and all the ships jump to warp speed -- all but one, that is, since Sulu forgets to do one of the things you're supposed to do before you jump to warp speed. (It has something to do with starting or stopping the ship's external inertial dampeners, if memory serves.)

-- After a few minutes, Sulu figures out what he should have done, and the Enterprise finally jumps to warp speed.

-- The Enterprise then arrives at Vulcan a few minutes AFTER all the other ships ... and all the other ships have been destroyed. All the other ships have been blasted out of the sky by Nero and his men. They're nothing now but space wreckage that the Enterprise has to dodge. (And so, Uhura's green-skinned roommate, who smiled so excitedly before saying goodbye and going to her ship, is presumably just one of the many, many cadets who are now floating in the vacuum of space above the soon-to-be-black-holed Vulcan -- assuming their bodies haven't been incinerated or atomized or worse.)

-- And thus, when Vulcan is destroyed and Nero's ship jumps to warp speed, the Enterprise is all by itself, thus leaving Spock to decide that the only logical course of action, somehow, is to go to the Laurentian system (which, remember, is even FURTHER away from Vulcan than Earth) and have a "confab" (Kirk's word) with the primary fleet. (Did I say the primary fleet is further away from Vulcan than Earth is? Heck, they must be REEEEEEALLY far away if Spock can't have his "confab" with them over a subspace communications channel.)

The first time I saw this film, I never got the sense that the space wreckage above Vulcan was anything more than an obstacle course for the Enterprise to maneuver around. Yes, of course, I knew it represented lots of dead Starfleet crew, but on my first viewing, I actually forgot that those ships were full of dead CADETS (or Starfleet Academy graduates for whom the ink on their sheepskins was still wet, to be more precise). In other words, I forgot that the Enterprise crew should have been looking out the viewscreen and thinking, "Oh my god, what happened to all my classmates...?"

But the next time we see Starfleet Academy, what happens? Kirk gets a commendation for bravery (or something; it certainly isn't the commendation that he got for "original thinking" on the original timeline), and people cheer, and... no one says anything about the dead graduates. Nothing at all. People will be looking at the Class of 58's picture in the halls of Starfleet Academy for years and thinking, "My, how sad that virtually none of them lived to enjoy being actual Starfleet officers," but there is no trace of this grief anywhere in the film. No trace at all.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 13 May 2009 - 06:24 PM.

[Christian]

Peter, I rate your post 5 stars.

[M. Leary]

No kidding. That was probably some of the finest Chattaway type narrative analysis I have seen for a while.

[SDG]

Dittos.

[SDG]

And, really, the missing sense of loss and grief Peter identifies, both as regards the destruction of Vulcan and also the decimation of the Starfleet graduating class, is the sort of thing that previous Trek films (at least the better ones) did very well.

The Wrath of Khan was all about loss, grief and regret, preeminently the tragic loss of Spock, commmorated in a climactic funeral scene; and also Kirk's aging crisis ("Other people have birthdays, Jim, why are we treating yours like a funeral?"). But it went beyond that. There was Scotty's grief over his fallen nephew ("He stayed at his post ... when the trainees ran"), Khan's rage at the death of one of his men ("Yours... is... superior..."), etc.

The Search for Spock obviously undoes the chief tragedy from the previous film ... "But at what cost? Your ship. Your son." These losses are given their full weight, and are necessary counterpoint to the film's great victory, to keep it from feeling like happy-face wish fulfillment.

In fact, these sacrifices bleed into subsequent films, including The Voyage Home, the lightest and most comic of the popular "Trek" films, and not one where I would look for heavy themes. For instance, you have Saavik telling Kirk, "David died most bravely. He saved Spock. He saved us all. I thought you should know." And Spock's mother tells him that he lives because of the sacrifices of his friends, who regarded "the needs of the one" as more important than "the needs of the many."

Likewise, in The Undiscovered Country, Kirk's bitter words "I could never forgive [the Klingons] for the death of my son" come back to haunt him when he is put on trial by the Klingon empire. The destruction of the Klingon moon and the dire straits of the Klingon empire is cause for a complete rethinking of "Cold War" hostilities and compassion for former enemies, with a sense of existential regret over the fading away of familiar structures and poses ("How on earth can history get past people like me?").

Anyway, that's what I could think of off the top of my head, without having seen any of these films in a few years. But the points Peter has highlighted really do point to something significant missing here. In retrospect, not having yet seen it twice, the emotional significance of the destruction of Vulcan seems to me to lie principally in the death of Spock's mother and the plot point of Spock's emotionally compromised condition, as well as that comment toward the end about being an "endangered species." Not a lot of impact considering the scope of the event. And the other business ... well, since Peter just saw it again, I'll take his word for it that there's no grief at all.

[phlox]

I was prepared to love this movie and I did, mostly for its sheer exuberance and visual excitement, though the rebooted Kirk and Spock were the only characters I could really connect to the original crew. The intent to stay true to Trek's vision, came across mightily--the forming of bonds despite culture clashes, explorers relinquishing romance to join "a band of brothers" –to recall the term Roddenberry borrowed from Space Cadet.

My attachment to Star Trek has survived the chagrin of Shatner's buffoonery, the expose of Roddenberry's personal life in Susan Sackett's Inside Trek, and other disturbing revelations in books by Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Grace Lee Whitney, etc. The biggest obstacle in Trek for feminists to accept –as it was for Yvonne Fern, in her Last Conversation with Gene – is his belief that the virtues of manhood will carry us into the future, or rather those traditionally dubbed male. That position resonated in this film, but it didn't dilute the enthusiasm I felt for it and its creators. The latest movie demonstrates, as Roddenberry also said, that Trek succeeded because "it was not a star and costar series, but a family ensemble in which the continuing characters felt great affection for each other."

[morgan1098]

SPOILERS

Space epics like this don't really seem to leave a lot of room for grief in the face of mass destruction. Peter makes a good point about the cadets at the beginning of the film, but I think Spock's emotional reaction to the situation on Vulcan is actually fleshed out more than it would be in similar movies.

I'm thinking of Princess Leia's reaction to the destruction of Alderaan in Star Wars. We get a couple of pained reaction shots as the event takes place, but then she spends the rest of the movie being rather perky and upbeat. And no one really seems to mourn when the Death Star vaporizes several Rebel capital ships at the end of Return of the Jedi. Instead, they dance and sing with the Ewoks.

Edited by morgan1098, 14 May 2009 - 11:29 AM.

[Overstreet]

Morefield sees Star Trek, posts his thoughts.

Excerpt:

I find it to be the wrong cultural moment for the political self-congratulatory tone of our humanistic, Western federation valuing of life and even mercy towards our enemies. Spock is supposed to be the moral hero because he recognizes he has been "emotionally compromised" and thus relieves himself of command. Kirk offers mercy to the terrorist slayer of 6 billion life forms b/c that may be the only way to build a diplomatic bridge to the terrorists? Sure, he's happy when they say they'd rather die than submit, allowing us to simultaneously exercise genocidal vengeance yet still feel morally superior in, you know, a Christian sort of way. It's the sort of fantasy wish fulfillment of the sort I haven't seen since, well, Left Behind.

Edited by Overstreet, 14 May 2009 - 06:22 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Heh. Yeah, I REALLY want to see people pay more attention to this compassion-as-a-purely-tactical-ploy business. Anyone who calls this a Star Trek for the age of Obama really needs to take that into account.

And I'm wondering why Kirk needs to open fire in the first place. Doesn't the black hole kind of take care of everything? Or is this a form of mercy killing?

[BethR]

Morefield sees Star Trek, posts his thoughts.

Excerpt:

I find it to be the wrong cultural moment for the political self-congratulatory tone of our humanistic, Western federation valuing of life and even mercy towards our enemies. Spock is supposed to be the moral hero because he recognizes he has been "emotionally compromised" and thus relieves himself of command. Kirk offers mercy to the terrorist slayer of 6 billion life forms b/c that may be the only way to build a diplomatic bridge to the terrorists? Sure, he's happy when they say they'd rather die than submit, allowing us to simultaneously exercise genocidal vengeance yet still feel morally superior in, you know, a Christian sort of way. It's the sort of fantasy wish fulfillment of the sort I haven't seen since, well, Left Behind.

Wow. That was fast. I must also say that PTC is right about the unmourned (except, sort of, by both Spocks) mass carnage. The cast is fine, the acting good, but where can they go from here? I know I'll be sorry I asked that question. Overall it did seem the kind of movie that was mostly entertaining on first watch, but doesn't bear analysis well, like a lot of J.J. Abrams productions.

[Peter T Chattaway]

BethR wrote:
: The cast is fine, the acting good, but where can they go from here? I know I'll be sorry I asked that question.

Right now everyone seems to be talking about bringing back Khan. And a few different people (including the writers!) have proposed casting Javier Bardem. Because, of course, if a Mexican can play a Sikh, then surely a Spaniard can, too.

But I really, REALLY hope they don't spend the next few movies going over territory that has already been covered in all the other movies and TV shows. Why can't they boldly go where no man has gone before? (Side note: "No man" is more accurate than "no one", because "man" designates "human" whereas "one" can refer to ANY sentient species -- and obviously, if you go somewhere and encounter an alien race for the first time, it would still seem that "someONE" got to that planet before you. A whole LOT of "someones", in fact.)

(And if they DO bring back Khan, they'd better not forget that he's currently in that "sleeper ship" that left Earth in the 20th century. Yes, the 20th, not the 21st. So for continuity's sake, he'd have to be wearing the same clothes and the same hair that he had in 'Space Seed' -- NOT the awesomely wild get-up that he had in ST2:TWOK. He would, indeed, have to be the same CHARACTER that he was in 'Space Seed' -- arrogant and power-mad, but not insane with a lust for revenge like he was in ST2:TWOK. But what do you wanna bet that any movie that featured him now would take a whole lot of shortcuts to get to the insane-with-revenge bit? Y'know, kind of like how the current movie takes a whole lot of shortcuts to get Kirk from birth to the captain's chair -- and by the age of 25, no less?)

(Side note: Pike told Kirk he could be an officer in 4 years and captain his own ship in 8 -- as though this were a standard thing, and the Kirk of the original timeline had not risen in the ranks pretty quickly! But anyway. Pike says it will take 4 years, and Kirk cockily tells him he'll get there in 3. And he DOES get there in 3. But what about McCoy? Didn't he join Starfleet Academy at the same time as Kirk? How did HE graduate in 3 years? Are medical staff different somehow?) (I assume Uhura could have been a year into her training already by the time we first meet her.) (And if Spock is only one year older than Kirk -- and he is -- then exactly how young was he when he signed up for Starfleet Academy, graduated, and THEN became one of its top instructors?) (And if Chekov is 17 in this film and already serving on the bridge, does that mean he signed up for Starfleet when he was 13? Even Uhura was originally stationed somewhere else on the ship, at first.)

[Overstreet]

Let's learn some lessons from the Star Wars prequels, which brought back everybody audiences loved and proceeded to drain all cool out of them.

Leave. Khan. Alone.

[morgan1098]

Let's learn some lessons from the Star Wars prequels, which brought back everybody audiences loved and proceeded to drain all cool out of them.

Leave. Khan. Alone.

Abso-freaking-lutely.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Khan's 20th-century sleeper ship is, of course, just one of the many things out there that the Enterprise could re-encounter for the first time on this new timeline.

What about Kirk's older brother, George Samuel Kirk Jr.? Did he still get married and have a son, or did losing his father affect his life in some way?

What about Spock's older brother, Sybok? Now that the Vulcan race has been almost entirely wiped out, will Sybok still be as ostracized as he was before?

What about V'Ger? The "Doomsday Machine"? Nomad? The whale probe? The Greek god Apollo? To cite just the first five relics of Earth's past (or, in the case of the whale probe, an alien that is LOOKING for a species from Earth's past) that we know are out there (and, in a few cases at least, are actually heading straight for Earth as we speak).

Will the Organians impose another peace treaty on the Federation and the Klingons?

And if we turn to story elements that came up in non-TOS shows...

What about the Borg? (Those Borg who came back in time to the 21st century ended up sending a message to the other side of the galaxy in the 22nd century, thus causing the Borg to arrive in our space in the 24th century. I guess another generation can deal with that when it wants to.)

Where is Guinan as all this is going down? (We know that she is centuries old, having visited Mark Twain in the 19th century, and having been present, sort of, for the death of Kirk in the 23rd century.) Does she "sense" that the timeline has shifted? That there is now a duplicate universe with a duplicate Guinan (indeed, that SHE is the duplicate)?

[opus]

Where is Guinan as all this is going down? (We know that she is centuries old, having visited Mark Twain in the 19th century, and having been present, sort of, for the death of Kirk in the 23rd century.) Does she "sense" that the timeline has shifted? That there is now a duplicate universe with a duplicate Guinan (indeed, that SHE is the duplicate)?

Well, assuming she's around, and assuming the events in the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" would be any indication with regards to her temporal sensitivities, I would imagine that she would sense that something is different. But would she have any idea as to what she could or should do about it?

[Peter T Chattaway]

opus wrote:
: Well, assuming she's around, and assuming the events in the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" would be any indication with regards to her temporal sensitivities, I would imagine that she would sense that something is different.

Maybe. Maybe. But consider this: While I don't believe this was ever spelled out in the actual film version of Star Trek: Generations, the novelization and other sources have suggested that the REASON she could sense differences between the timelines was because she had been inside the Nexus, however briefly, during that incident which resulted in the "death" of Kirk. (It follows, then, that the Picard of the last three movies would have this ability too. Then again, maybe it doesn't; maybe it is some combination of species-specific inborn quality AND a trip to the Nexus that gives Guinan this ability.) However, in the CURRENT movie's timeline, that incident has not yet occurred, and indeed might never occur. So the Guinan of this timeline not only might not have this ability now, but might NEVER have it.

: But would she have any idea as to what she could or should do about it?

That is the other question, yeah. Because, unlike 'Yesterday's Enterprise' and First Contact and 'City on the Edge of Forever' and all those other stories which assumed that history would "change" if the timeline wasn't "fixed", we are now told that the current movies take place in a timeline that runs parallel to the original timeline but does not replace it. Therefore, there is nothing to "fix" here any more. (Even though a planet vital to the Federation has been destroyed.)

[Christian]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, because I don't care too much about this movie one way or the other. But for the record, I didn't think much of it. I've never cared for Star Trek and thought this film might turn me into a fan, as other films in the series had promised to do, or so I was told, multiple times. Maybe this would be the one!

No. Sitting in the theater, I don't think I was actively drawn into the film for one second. That doesn't mean it's terrible; I thought it was OK. But I was entirely outside the film while it unspooled, always aware that I was sitting in a theater, watching a movie. Just not drawn into the story in any way.

I realize it's no use fighting about this. I brought very little enthusiasm, or heck, even knowledge about the franchise, to this film. So no one has to take my views on the film seriously.

I'll just say that, cinematically, this film was surpringly boring. The big-screen space battles looked OK, although again, I found myself wondering if I was watching models or CGI during those scenes. But the film simply has no memorable compositions in it. It's all very ... TV. My favorite cinematic moment was James Kirk driving straight for a cliff/chasm -- reminiscent of Thelma and Louise, so it wasn't original. But it was kind of exciting, much more so than any other moment in the film, IMHO.

I think this is worth mentioning. The posts I've read here -- I haven't read all of them; sue me! -- and most of the reviews talk about how "breezy" the the film is, how it moves ("propulsive"), and that's all fine. I just found it visually quite flat.

I've seen my share of space operas. Most are bad, but some have been great. The hype surrounding this movie would lead a novice to believe that Star Trek is one of the great space operas of all time. It's not even close, for the reasons stated above. Maybe everyone disagrees. I don't know.

I conclude by linking to the post that spurred me to come here and add these thoughts -- the thing that bugged me most of all about this new film, somewhat unexpectedly. Daniel Larison, a fan of the franchise, sees a gaping hole in terms of any attempt to be meaningful. I was always bothered by ST's "messages," which struck me as man-centered, humanistic nonsense even as a child. I've met enough sophisticated folks who find the same aspect of the show inspiring to hold my tongue about that impression formed so many years ago. Maybe if I gave the series/movies a chance as an adult, I'd appreciate the messages I once found hokey and naive.

But this new film doesn't even try to go down that road. Larison writes:

The insufferably cerebral and moralistic elements of Star Trek have been bad enough to make even devoted fans wince many, many times, and if the acting often seemed weak it might have been because so few actors can credibly recite some of the drivel generations of actors have been forced to say over the decades. However, stripping Star Trek of those things isn’t to create a new, reimagined Star Trek, but simply to slap the old names on something entirely different and pretend that annihilation is the same as renovation. Of course, I have found almost every assumption that undergirds the old Star Trek universe utterly ridiculous and unrealistic even by sci-fi standards. It is indeed the meliorist’s and progressive’s dream come true, which is another way of saying that it is impossible. There is almost nothing in the franchise’s politics that I find attractive, and the regular sermonizing was at times very unpleasant. Yet I learned to like it not just in spite of its preachiness and precious political correctness, but also partly because those were constants one could rely on.

Even though these were the things from which the franchise had to keep redeeming itself, it would have been indistinguishable from every other action/adventure story set in space if it did not have them. ... Millions of people who grew up with the hokey, earnest and ridiculous Star Trek will miss it when it is permanently replaced by its “self-obsessed” namesake.

I would've thought so, but I've detected very little "missing" of this element in the new ST. People want young, beautiful actors who make them laugh; forget about the sermons! Like Larison, I missed that element in this film, and wish it has at least tried to be meaningful, rather than just "entertaining."

Edited by Christian, 15 May 2009 - 09:01 PM.

[Harris-Stone]

I've seen my share of space operas. Most are bad, but some have been great. The hype surrounding this movie would lead a novice to believe that Star Trek is one of the great space operas of all time. It's not even close, for the reasons stated above. Maybe everyone disagrees. I don't know.

We all have our own taste as to what engages our imagination and what fails to. I was quite taken with Tarkovsky's Stalker. A couple of friends, whose taste I deeply respect, thought it was overblown and senseless. Just out of curiousity Christian, what space operas have been "great" for you? If I haven't already seen them, I'd like to check them out.

[Christian]

I was thinking of well-known films like "The Empire Strikes Back," although now that I've named names, someone is no doubt going to come in here and explain why "space opera" means something very specific and doesn't apply to "Empire," or even to "Star Trek."

As for "Stalker," I'm with you completely. It's one of the great moviegoing experiences of my life, although I've read one critic who called it one of the most pompous, boring films ever made.

FWIW, Wikipedia appears to back me up, citing both Star Wars and Star Trek as examples of space operas.

Edited by Christian, 16 May 2009 - 08:10 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

For no reason in particular, I feel the need to note that, according to Memory Alpha, James T. Kirk was born in 2233 and became captain of the Enterprise in 2264, at the age of 31. If you added 25 years to his birthdate, and then another 129 years on top of that (just to cite the first two numbers that, for some reason, have come to the top of my head), you would have 2387.

Meanwhile, also according to Memory Alpha, Star Trek: Nemesis took place in 2379. And if you added eight years, you would have 2387.

Something else I noticed on second viewing: The characters still talk of "stardates", but the numbers they toss out are identical to the Earth-years on our current calendar.

I was actually confused by this the first time I saw the film. I didn't pay much attention to the four-digit stardates in the 23rd-century scenes, since the original series always used four-digit stardates. But when young Spock asks the computer on the Jellyfish (the Vulcan spaceship that old Spock brought back from the 24th century) when it was built: the computer replies 2387-point-something-or-other, and I wondered what had happened to the five-digit stardates used on The Next Generation (and in the comic-book that takes place in the 24th century, immediately before the current movie begins).

But it looks like the Vulcan ship was simply giving Spock the Earth-year of its construction. Even though it's, like, not an Earth-ship. (Then again, according to the comic-book, I believe the ship was built with help from Geordie LaForge, so we can always blame him.)

Christian wrote:
: I brought very little enthusiasm, or heck, even knowledge about the franchise, to this film. So no one has to take my views on the film seriously.

On the contrary, Christian, you are PRECISELY the kind of moviegoer the filmmakers were aiming for. So seriously take you, we shall.

: But the film simply has no memorable compositions in it. It's all very ... TV.

Heh. I don't know if we've linked to Jim Emerson's posts on this yet, but FWIW:

J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot movie gets some things right, beginning with fresh and appealing faces as the rookie Enterprise crew on the ship's maiden voyage. (John Cho as Sulu! Yeah!) But, damn, could this movie use a director. (I know, I said the same thing last summer about "TDK," and I meant it then, too.) Abrams began as a screenwriter ("Regarding Henry," "Forever Young," "Armageddon") and has become a one-man network television franchise as a series creator and producer ("Felicity," "Alias," "Lost"). But if you ever want to see what a movie directed by someone with the soul of a producer looks like, start with the works of Irvin Winkler ("Guilty By Suspicion") and then catch this one.

Don't get me wrong -- it's a fairly pleasurable if less-than-engaging trip, but Abrams has no idea of what to do with the camera other than to keep reminding you that it's always there, always screaming "Hey, look at me!," always obtrusively inserting itself between you and whatever it is you'd rather be looking at. I came away from this movie feeling frustrated, like I'd spent the whole time trying to peer over, under, or past a camera operator who was constantly standing in my way, blocking my view of the action. (See clip above. Actors: fun. Camerawork: annoying beyond all logic. However, there is a good reason Spock is so full of emotion in this scene -- and it's not just because he has a headache from that Costco lighting, which was on Kirk's dad's ship, too.)

Someone else (I forget who) remarked that it didn't seem like Abrams had directed the action scenes so much as given himself "coverage" of the action for the editing room, like a documentary filmmaker.

: My favorite cinematic moment was James Kirk driving straight for a cliff/chasm . . .

Speaking of which, there are at least THREE different scenes in this film in which Kirk finds himself hanging from a precipice by his fingernails. You could almost say it's the closest thing this movie has to a motif. But does the repetition of that image "mean" anything?

: Daniel Larison, a fan of the franchise, sees a gaping hole in terms of any attempt to be meaningful. . . . I would've thought so, but I've detected very little "missing" of this element in the new ST.

I think a few of us have "missed" it in earlier posts in this thread, at least. I do know that one of my first questions coming out of the theatre was, "Was this movie ABOUT anything? Did it have a THEME?" David Poland, also quoted earlier in this thread, used the term "Big Ideas", I believe, to describe what the old movies had, and said something like, "This movie doesn't have a single idea in its pretty little head."

: I was thinking of well-known films like "The Empire Strikes Back," although now that I've named names, someone is no doubt going to come in here and explain why "space opera" means something very specific and doesn't apply to "Empire," or even to "Star Trek."

As long as Darth Vader can stand on a mountaintop waving his lightsabre and singing "Kill the WEBELS, kill the WEBELS, kill the WEBBBBBB-ELS!", we're good.

: FWIW, Wikipedia appears to back me up, citing both Star Wars and Star Trek as examples of space operas.

I certainly think Star Trek can bleed into "space opera" sometimes, but based on the Wikipedia description (especially the bit about space opera being "large-scale"), I would tend to say Star Trek is closer to "science fiction" more often than not. The Enterprise wasn't all THAT big a vessel (it had a crew of 430 or so), and when it arrived at some new planet, the story that unfolded there was likely to be fairly small-scale (and sometimes they didn't even really take place in space; 'City on the Edge of Forever', for example, takes place almost entirely in the United States in the 1930s). And whatever romanticism the show may have had was often framed or even constrained by its intellectualism (or at least its efforts in that direction). Obviously, though, that's not a factor with this newest movie.