Earth's Role

[DalekJim]

The Stig wrote:

---

So, the exterior of the Enterprise getting shot to hell didn't occur in space?

You're 'concerned' because you've already formed an opinion about that movie and feel the need to bitch about said opinion, not because of anything that's actually been released.

Well OK, I assume you don't mean that I actually bitch about my own opinion as that makes no sense. Instead, I'll assume that your grammar is horrendous and that you meant to say that I shouldn't express my opinion despite not having seen the finished movie.

I have formed the opinion the movie might not be very good. Others have formed the opinion that the movie might be very good.

All of us are allowed to post here without being harassed and told to stop just because we happen to have uncool opinions. I thought Trekkies would actually empaphise more with those that have unpopular views and not pick on them for having feelings they can't help. I WANT to think this movie looks incredible, exciting and daring. I really do. Its fans yelling at me to STFU at every opportunity isn't gonna help.

[Nerys Myk]

EnsignRicky wrote:

---

Sheesh. So this guy is saying they're going to have lots of Earth in it, because every recent Hollywood blockbuster (by name) has had lots of Earth in them. Coming from a movie that demands two writers, (who apparently can't accomplish much individually), it kinda actually makes a whole lot of sense.

No, he's not saying that. What he did say was he wanted to use Earth as an anchor, the same way the Avengers used NYC as an anchor.

Can you comprehend the difference in what he actually said and what you think he said?

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Well OK, I assume you don't mean that I actually bitch about my own opinion as that makes no sense. Instead, I'll assume that your grammar is horrendous and that you meant to say that I shouldn't express my opinion despite not having seen the finished movie.

I have formed the opinion the movie might not be very good. Others have formed the opinion that the movie might be very good.

All of us are allowed to post here without being harassed and told to stop just because we happen to have uncool opinions. I thought Trekkies would actually empaphise more with those that have unpopular views and not pick on them for having feelings they can't help. I WANT to think this movie looks incredible, exciting and daring. I really do. It's fans yelling at me to STFU at every opportunity isn't gonna help.

Do we have to mention your antics in other threads again? You're not exactly the poster child for IDIC.

[DalekJim]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

Do we have to mention your antics in other threads again? You're not exactly the poster child for IDIC.

No. You can maturely answer my points about Earth's role in NuTrek so we can in turn engage in polite, intelligent debate instead of just harassing me around the forum for holding a minority opinion.

Until then, I've given up on this section for a while.

[Carcazoid]

On a forum I used to frequent years ago, this type of back and forth with 2 or 3 members ignoring the rest of the thread was called "teen chat." Just sayin'.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

No. You can maturely answer my points about Earth's role in NuTrek so we can in turn engage in polite, intelligent debate instead of just harassing me around the forum for holding a minority opinion.

Until then, I've given up on this section for a while.

Playing the "mature/polite/intelligent" card aint gonna fly either. Again, your previous posts cling to you like Marley's chains.

There's not too much to discuss about Earth's role. How it plays out will mostly depend on context. Earth has figured in other films and episodes and it worked out fine. So I'm not concerned.

[Talosian]

DalekJim, you're being very immature in monopolizing these threads. At the same time, it's pathetic the way nuTrek fans feel compelled to be white knights in defense of Abram's interpretation.

Having said all that, my concern isn't just that the focus will be too much on Earth but that there may not be enough of a sense of exploration in this series. Granted the films have rarely been primarily about that aspect of Star Trek, but there should be a sense of that mission. Maybe that comes across in that volcano episode people have seen in the preview.

[Jeyl]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

TOS episodes were conceived as, if not written as, a metaphor for the human condition. Regardless of storylines and characters, to change that now would be to abandon entirely GR's vision.

Gene Roddenberry was also known to have said "If we aren't making a story about humans, what's the point?". Talk about writing other races of the Star Trek franchise into a corner. How can an attitude like putting us over anyone who isn't human be considered a forward thinker, or a man with a positive vision?

And it's not like Gene's grand vision was the hallmark of many great episodes. His control over TNG was very much absolute, and under his watchful eye he made the most ludicrous demands of every writer on the show. As a result, we have Picard calling a military uniform a 'costume', preaching about how we've grown out of our 'infancy' because we no longer wish to have possessions, and how humanity and humanity alone will some day be like angels and gods that may one day surpass the Q!

And if you think Gene practiced what he preached, look up the credits to the Star Trek original theme music and you may note that while he was not a composer, his name is there with Alexander Courage. What part of the theme has Gene's contributions in it? Nothing. Because he ripped off Alexander Courage by adding lyrics to the theme which he never intended to use, and as a result took half the royalties from the real artist who was just trying to make an honest living. This man not only wanted his share of Star Trek, but other people's share.

Gene Roddenberry: In the future, there will be no hunger and there will be no greed.

The Wormhole wrote:

---

I sure don't mind if a good deal of STID is Earth based. One Earth-focused movie in a 46 year-old space franchise isn't going to hurt at all.

Except Damon specifically states that he wants Earth to play a more pivotal part in 'their' movies, meaning it's going to be the focus of a lot of plots should they decide to continue Star Trek their way.

[Shazam!]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

One Earth-focused movie in a 46 year-old space franchise isn't going to hurt at all.

Star Trek TMP? Star Trek IV? Star Trek: First Contact? Star Trek: Nemesis? Star Trek XI?

[Franklin]

What was the interplanetary box office take from ST09, anyway?

Are alien movie-goers complaining that "Star Trek" is too human-centric and Earth-centric? Wait, sorry, Terran-centric, since all alien home planets are Earth, after all. How conceited of us humans to use the term exclusively for our planet.

As far as Earth being a paradise goes, things are always more interesting when there's a serpent loose in paradise.

Frankly, I prefer Kirk's take to the vision of human-kind: "We will not kill, today." Imperfect humans striving to stay civilized the same way an alcoholic strives to stay sober, one day at a time. We may eventually solve certain social, medical, and economic problems, but it's silly (IMO) to think the beast will ever leave us.

[Jeyl]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

It's anything but a "cheap gimmick" and Star Trek TOS was virtually always "human focused" - we saw, at most, a couple of aliens serving in Starfleet during the entire run of the series, and not even that many human beings who were directly identified as having been born anywhere other than Earth.

And you know happened with Star Trek over the years after TOS? It grew up. TNG included a pure blooded alien who was a primary character and DS9 gave us multiple alien characters who had many episodes dedicated to them even without the human characters.

Star Trek grew from a series where humanity was the center of the galaxy to just becoming part of a much bigger and diverse galaxy where creatures that are not humans can be just as important in the grand scheme of things. Even WOMEN got to have a role more important than just being the receptionist.

But with JJ's Trek, we've not only gone back to the human dominant crew, we've also gone back to a male dominant crew. Whatever alien looking crew members that are in these films will probably be lucky to have*just a split second of screen time or one word of dialogue.

[SalvorHardin]

Jeyl wrote:

---

But with JJ's Trek, we've not only gone back to the human dominant crew, we've also gone back to a male dominant crew.

What male dominant crew? Even on the bridge there were females all over the place besides Uhura.

Deja vu.

[Nerys Myk]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

What male dominant crew? Even on the bridge there were females all over the place besides Uhura.

Deja vu.

And Uhura is actually an important character in ST09 rather than eye candy/glorified extra.

[Shazam!]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

And Uhura is actually an important character in ST09 rather than eye candy/glorified extra.

I know. I don't know what would have happened had she not been there to make out with Spock in a Turbolift.

[Franklin]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

And Uhura is actually an important character in ST09 rather than eye candy/glorified extra.

Uhura seems to have a large and important part in "Into Darkness", too. And, Carol Marcus is an important character.

There were a lot of strong women characters in TOS, too. Aliens and otherwise. Lest we forget, the original First Officer of the Enterprise was cast as a woman, Number One. However, the future had to fit the present, and a woman first officer didn't fit into 1960s TV-viewing sensibilities.