View Single Post
Old April 20 2013, 10:31 AM   #99
Danger Ace
Danger Ace's Avatar
Location: California
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
[I disagree.
And that's fine. I am open to discussing all facets of what I've said - without hostility of course.

I'd have liked to see you tie it more securely to Star Trek specifically, rather than simply alluding to it as "timely" and then changing the subject to something not actually addressed by the article at all.
Just because the article did not specifically say "Star Trek" within it? That strikes me as not a very sound argument as, again, the article, by my interpretation, spoke of the danger of films becoming unrelentlying superficial due to the suits chasing the dragon of mass appeal - which today translates to giving folks 90+ minutes of bombastic CGI action. These films and the ideology that drives them seem to come at the exprense of directors who are actually trying to say something.

Then I, in my extrapolation, put forth the opinion of how that mirrors my fears of Abrams shepherding of the Trek franchise.

I pause to note that I have clearly said it is my opinion. My opinion on this is in no small part rooted in fear and paranoia (meaning that I've acknowledge it is not 100% rational - but most fears aren't). So I have been honest and sincere in expressing my heartfelt thoughts on this matter.

That's nice, but again: what has it to do with Star Trek and this movie?
To restate:

The previews of "Star Trek Into Darkness" leads me to feel it will be yet another high-octane, almost non-stop blast of CGI'ed action in hopes of duplicating this franchises success from 2009 by giving us a very similar film.

Big Picture:

The basic fear expressed by Stone and others is that the studios chase of the mainstream blockbuster leads to a diminished diversity in filmmaking.

As it applies to "Star Trek:"

I fear that because this upcoming films seems to be a twin of the previous one that Abrams in looking to deliver a second blockbuster is diminishing the variety of stories that Trek will be allowed to tell by reducing it to one basic formula.

In doing that, Paramount will adopt his formula as an unalterable templete, and I would hate for that to happen as the franchise I have enjoyed since the beginning told a variety of stories in a variety of ways.

At this point, I fear J.J. Abrams has rebooted "Star Trek" minus the "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" - again, based on the previews of this film giving me the impression that it will be largely the same sort of spectacle of the 2009 film (which, btw, I loved, but would be saddened if that was all we got in Trek films from here on out).

You "extrapulated". Is that the same thing as "making up a load of bollocks with the intent to bait or provoke others" with passages such as these?(emphasis mine)
I plead guilty to it being just as much "a load of bullocks" as anyone else's opinion or postings in this forum.

That's borderline trolling right there, dear boy, and it ought to stop.
Someone putting forth something you (and perhaps everyone else) disagrees with is not "trolling" - not even close.

I have been open, honest and sincere in this discussion. I have been more than willing consider what you and others have to say. Even in this response I am without anger and intend no insult. Of course I would very much like to provocate thought but not ire.

Balderdash. You don't get to play the victim card - not with the list of cautions you've racked up in less than a month's membership.
So am I too understand your real objection to my post is due to reasons other than its content and without regard to its merits/demerits?

That is a bit dishonest and disengenous on your part then and an admission of committing ad hominem attacks on me - that is trolling (by you).

I will say this though:

Yes, I have made a few missteps though I have also been praised a time or two as well.

Having said that, I have clearly been forthright and upstanding in my discussions here.

What substance? Propping up a link and a near-meaningless quote at the top before veering off into a muddle of taunts, clichés and empty phraseology which everyone here has heard dozens of times before? That's not substance, and it got as much focus as it merited.
Again, you appear to be attacking my post for reasons of vendetta rather than as part of a sincere desire to discuss.

I think it is evident that even if my fears turn out to be justified that some here have expressed they do not see it as a problem -They would unabashedly embrace such an Abram's doctrine and that saddens me. I simply believe that a "more of the same" ideology is the antithesis of what "Star Trek" is and was created to represent.

You want to think a little more toward honest participation in discussion and not nearly so much about trying be "provocative". Really.
I do not believe there has been any instance in this thread of my being dishonest. I have responded to your posts politely. I have thoughtfully considered your points. I have agreed with bits of somethings you've put forth. I have even adopted some changes based on your suggestions and input. How have I been a villian in this thread?
Danger Ace

Yes, Virginia, this post is an expression of my opinion.

Last edited by Danger Ace; April 20 2013 at 08:39 PM.
Danger Ace is offline   Reply With Quote