RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,243
Posts: 5,348,319
Members: 24,610
Currently online: 651
Newest member: CptRoLorne

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 27 2013, 01:21 AM   #31
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.
Bull. Shit.

I've been critical of the flaws in both Abrams films. But I also know that Star Trek has never been this scientifically accurate, morally righteous creation some folks seem to remember it being. It was incredibly flawed, but fun. The Abrams films are incredibly flawed, but fun.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:31 AM   #32
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Carcazoid wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Carcazoid wrote: View Post
It is my considered opinion that casting actors according to their ethnicity is the worst part of Affirmative Action. Not casting the best actor for a role because he is not the right race is the definition of racism.

Disagree if you like, but it won't change my opinion.
Um okay, but if the character you're casting is supposed to be black or Asian or whatever, then wouldn't someone who is black or Asian or whatever be the best actor for a role?

Look, in some cases, yes, race is trivial to a character and anyone of any ethnicity can be cast. Others, race is essential. If you were doing a Martin Luther King biopic, you wouldn't cast a white guy as Martin Luther King, would you?
Yeah, it's the 23rd or 24th century, take your pick. People of different ethic backgrounds intermarry (or interbreed if you prefer) and the differences in race become less apparent over time. I know "black" people who are light skinned with light colored eyes. I know Native Americans with blond hair and blue eyes.

Don't believe me? Look around.

To restrict casting to ethnic stereotypes for a color blind future is not only narrowminded, it's ridiculous.
Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. And to an extent I do agree, it cna be narrowminded. But I also don't think wanting an actor of a specific ethnicity is necessarily prejudiced. It all depends on circumstances and how its handled.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:33 AM   #33
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why did they bother...

BillJ wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post
And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.
Bull. Shit.
Bracketing for the moment, your spotless record of "calling like it is," I would suggest that our discussions are, in fact, terribly polarized with both sides taking offense with little provocation and rallying around their preferred tribes. If you think only one side is guilty of this simply because you think that YOU are even handed is to miss the point.

BillJ wrote: View Post
But I also know that Star Trek has never been this scientifically accurate, morally righteous creation some folks seem to remember it being. It was incredibly flawed, but fun. The Abrams films are incredibly flawed, but fun.
So what's wrong with asking for less flaws with the fun?

Flawed as Trek is, it occasionally has a message. Sometimes that message is heavy handed and pedantic (TNG anyone?), but it has a moral message, a more or less hopefully image of humanity, and a curiosity about the universe (i.e., What if this were true?).
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:34 AM   #34
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
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?
Why does everything have to pander to old fans? Just because I've liked Star Trek longer than someone else doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one that matters. And I didn't like TOS or most of the movies. Never have. The acting is wooden and the stories are, for the most part, bad. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the show, because the original Twilight Zone is one of the best shows I've ever seen. I really enjoyed TNG and DS9, though. And I like this reboot. But I don't demand that everyone like exactly what I like, because what fun would that be? But I respect everyone's opinion on it and I won't insult them simply because they are new to it.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:46 AM   #35
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post

Did you even read the bit about the Tu Quoque?
More times...
YARN wrote: View Post
Tu Quoque? Well, OK, but
YARN wrote: View Post
You can play the Tu Quoque,
YARN wrote: View Post
"The same question applies to other Trek stories!" (Tu Quoque)
YARN wrote: View Post
You are not understanding how the Tu Quoque operates as a response.
YARN wrote: View Post
The Tu Quoque argument does not deny an accusation, it just asserts that the accuser is also guilty of said accusation.
...than I really care to think about.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:47 AM   #36
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Why does everything have to pander to old fans? Just because I've liked Star Trek longer than someone else doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one that matters. And I didn't like TOS or most of the movies. Never have. The acting is wooden and the stories are, for the most part, bad. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the show, because the original Twilight Zone is one of the best shows I've ever seen. I really enjoyed TNG and DS9, though. And I like this reboot. But I don't demand that everyone like exactly what I like, because what fun would that be? But I respect everyone's opinion on it and I won't insult them simply because they are new to it.
No insult is intended, but the function of any criticism or "suggestion for improvement" involves an implicit accusation.

Examples:

RELIGION: "Your beliefs are wrong and you should turn to my deity to seek forgiveness for your sins."

HIGHER EDUCATION: "You won't be as respectable, be as smart, or get the job you want without our service. As it stands, you're level of education is inadequate."

SHAMPOO: "Yuck, get rid of that dandruff!"

You don't like TOS and say that it was bad. The acting was, so you say, wooden and it is terrible in comparison to other shows like the Twilight Zone. Should the TOS fan complain about being insulted or get a thicker skin and realize that people have different opinions. I mean, I could choose to be insulted by your claim that TOS stories were simply bad, but you're entitled to your opinion even if it is offensive to my own. Why aren't critics of NuTrek entitled to their opinions?
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:48 AM   #37
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
If you think only one side is guilty of this simply because you think that YOU are even handed is to miss the point.
It isn't what I think that matters. It is a simple fact that many of the flaws in Abrams Trek are in abundance in other versions of the property.

It's simply tiresome to watch a group of people ignore forty years worth of flaws and claim Abrams has offended them because those very same flaws exist in his films.



So what's wrong with asking for less flaws with the fun?
The flaws are part of Trek's charm.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:55 AM   #38
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why did they bother...

BillJ wrote: View Post
It isn't what I think that matters. It is a simple fact that many of the flaws in Abrams Trek are in abundance in other versions of the property.
Every artwork has flaws. That every artwork has flaws, however, does not mean that there are no significant flaws deserving of criticism (as flaws) in artworks.

BillJ wrote: View Post
It's simply tiresome to watch a group of people ignore forty years worth of flaws and claim Abrams has offended them because those very same flaws exist in his films.
Well, OK, but what does that have to do with the arguments I am making here?

BillJ wrote: View Post
The flaws are part of Trek's charm.
That some flaws are charming does not mean that all flaws are charming or that we cannot criticize Star Trek (old or new), because flaws are "charming."
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 02:12 AM   #39
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
sj4iy wrote: View Post
Why does everything have to pander to old fans? Just because I've liked Star Trek longer than someone else doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one that matters. And I didn't like TOS or most of the movies. Never have. The acting is wooden and the stories are, for the most part, bad. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the show, because the original Twilight Zone is one of the best shows I've ever seen. I really enjoyed TNG and DS9, though. And I like this reboot. But I don't demand that everyone like exactly what I like, because what fun would that be? But I respect everyone's opinion on it and I won't insult them simply because they are new to it.
No insult is intended, but the function of any criticism or "suggestion for improvement" involves an implicit accusation.

Examples:

RELIGION: "Your beliefs are wrong and you should turn to my deity to seek forgiveness for your sins."

HIGHER EDUCATION: "You won't be as respectable, be as smart, or get the job you want without our service. As it stands, you're level of education is inadequate."

SHAMPOO: "Yuck, get rid of that dandruff!"

You don't like TOS and say that it was bad. The acting was, so you say, wooden and it is terrible in comparison to other shows like the Twilight Zone. Should the TOS fan complain about being insulted or get a thicker skin and realize that people have different opinions. I mean, I could choose to be insulted by your claim that TOS stories were simply bad, but you're entitled to your opinion even if it is offensive to my own. Why aren't critics of NuTrek entitled to their opinions?
I have no problem with people not liking the new Star Trek. I just think that that people are insulting new fans for liking it instead of the actual movie itself. "Pandering to newbies" is a phrase like that. I disliked the new version of Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly...but I didn't dislike the people who did like it. I figured that it would be a great way to get people to read the book and maybe even watch other adaptations because they now had an interest that I shared.

I have been berated for being a "bandwagon fan" because I "only" became a fan of hockey 10 years ago...which just happened to be when I moved to a part of the country where people actually played the sport, as opposed to where I grew up. It's the same with Star Trek. Many kids born from the 90's on have not seen Trek in its prime, and more than likely not be fans growing up. However, my nephews liked the movies even though they will probably never enjoy TOS. The update made it fresh and accessible for them- something that none of the other series ever did.

I don't think you have to like movie, but I don't think it's fair to criticize people who are new to it for liking it, is my point.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 02:26 AM   #40
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why did they bother...

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post

Did you even read the bit about the Tu Quoque?
More times...
YARN wrote: View Post
Tu Quoque? Well, OK, but

YARN wrote: View Post
You are not understanding how the Tu Quoque operates as a response.
YARN wrote: View Post
The Tu Quoque argument does not deny an accusation, it just asserts that the accuser is also guilty of said accusation.
...than I really care to think about.
People may not really care to think about it, but if they really cared to think carefully, they would stop making the mistake.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 02:43 AM   #41
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
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?
Hop Sing was a semi-regular. It was also known to tackle social issues.

Did Gunsmoke feature an interracial kiss?
Might have. Quint Asper, played by Burt Reynolds was a Native American.

Did the Rifleman offer consistent subversive allegories about U.S. race relations and foreign policy?
I've no idea on that one.

Daniel Boone feature Native Americans (Mingo) and African Americans (Gabe) in its cast.

The High Chaparral featured several Hispanic characters. The Cannon and Montoya families were central to the show.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 03:03 AM   #42
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post

So what's wrong with asking for less flaws with the fun?
Well, some of us did that for forty years with oldTrek - to no avail.

The closest thing that the oldTrek movies offered in ten outings to a "sensitive exploration" of any real world issue was...let's see...ah - "Save the whales."

STID accomplished more with regard to addressing current issues in one film than the oldTrek movies managed from 1979 to 2003.


YARN wrote: View Post
And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.
Well, that will be tested if and when someone comes up with one that's new and worthwhile.

Until then...pass.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 03:03 AM   #43
Captain Nebula
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why did they bother...

BillJ wrote: View Post
I'm fairly convinced at this point that to a certain group of fans there is simply nothing Abrams can do right, short of leaving the franchise.
SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
And even then you can be sure the same people will be making posts whining about his cruel betrayal because he was never a true fan.
YARN wrote: View Post
And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.
And to be honest, it's none of those things.

If I wanted to buy a table, I have a choice. I could buy a wood table hand crafted and made with care with a beautiful finish that could last a century. Or I could buy a metal and plastic table with an artificial veneer that might look just like the wood tabletop, but really isn't. Both tables may last the same amount of time, but you really know that one is better quality than the other.

It doesn't matter who directed the movie. It's just an artificial veneer over something that may be great fun and cool sci-fi, but just really isn't Star Trek.
__________________
In space, no one can hear you Die Hard.
Captain Nebula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 03:04 AM   #44
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post
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?
Hop Sing was a semi-regular. It was also known to tackle social issues.

Did Gunsmoke feature an interracial kiss?
Might have. Quint Asper, played by Burt Reynolds was a Native American.

Did the Rifleman offer consistent subversive allegories about U.S. race relations and foreign policy?
I've no idea on that one.

Daniel Boone feature Native Americans (Mingo) and African Americans (Gabe) in its cast.

The High Chaparral featured several Hispanic characters. The Cannon and Montoya families were central to the show.

TOS wasn't always so "enlightened". They characterized hippies as too dumb to live. Or where Kirk actually thinks he's a Native American (that was just awful). Or the episode where Kirk and a woman exchange bodies doesn't exactly shine the best light on women in command.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 03:06 AM   #45
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
It doesn't matter who directed the movie. It's just an artificial veneer over something that may be great fun and cool sci-fi, but just really isn't Star Trek.
People keep saying it isn't real Trek, but they are unable to define what real Trek is. Much less prove that Abrams Trek isn't "real".
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.