View Single Post
Old May 27 2013, 12:47 AM   #27
Fleet Captain
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Oh please, even TOS was far from artistic. It was a western set in space.
Since when is the "western" genre not a category of art?

Were there a lot of Russians and Asians and Blacks as featured ensemble characters in Bonanza?

Did Gunsmoke feature an interracial kiss?

Did the Rifleman offer consistent subversive allegories about U.S. race relations and foreign policy?

Is the only way to defend the new to smear the old?

Did you even read the bit about the Tu Quoque? I could grant (although I don't) that Old Trek was pure hackery and my claims would still stand.

sj4iy wrote: View Post
And every subsequent movie and series only wanted to milk it more.
Who only wanted to milk it more? The studio certainly wanted to make money and that was their primary aim, but TMP was rather cerebral in it's ambitions.

I think it's sad that the ONLY motive you can attribute to story tellers is the desire "milk it."

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Making this show was never altruistic. Roddenberry may have genuinely liked his work...but he didn't do it for free. Artists want to make a living from their work.
Did you even read my post? I've already noted that artists want to get paid. That writers want to put food on the table is not exclusive to a motive to express, critique, philosophize, jest, subvert, reframe, etc. Is it such a scandal for you to think that artists also have artistic motivations? Are you that jaded?

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Just because these movies fit our time period
What does this even mean? Sunshine, Gattaca, Children of Men, District 9, Moon, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - these are all films "of our time period." That Transformers is also of our time does not mean that the horizon of expectation for science fiction films reduces to the ambition of noisy actioners.

sj4iy wrote: View Post
doesn't make them inferior or only out to "sucker the newbies into liking it because they don't know any better".
They're not suckering the newbies; they are pandering to them. They are giving them Star Trek (im)precisely as they (vaguely) remember it.

sj4iy wrote: View Post
New fans are just as important as old fans,
Are they? In what sense? Not a lot of Glenn Miller fans these days, but would we be doing Glenn Miller's music any favors by converting into dubstep?

How far can you alter the original before it is no longer substantively what it was (Ship of Theseus)? How far can you push things before you lose the soul of the original?

If the only goal is to keep the brand name alive, then who cares? Suppose, for example, America became a country where there was no free speech, no voting for officials, no prosperity, and which oppressed the rest of the world a la Germany in the early 20th century. Would "America" still be something worth fighting for? Would it matter that we kept the name alive if we lost all the substance? Or is there something that matters more than profit, market share, and brand recognition?

sj4iy wrote: View Post
and making a movie that will have mass appeal doesn't diminish it or the people who enjoy it.
But this does not mean that mass-appeal is all we can aspire to.

Some of us feel like Pike in Trek '09. We would simply like to encourage nuTrek to aspire to be a little more.

Your predecessors commanded the franchise for four decades. They inspired people and promoted dialogue on sensitive issues. They dare you to do better.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote