RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,599
Posts: 5,404,608
Members: 24,870
Currently online: 462
Newest member: The Hooded Man

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


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, 07:28 AM   #61
I Am Groot
I Am Groot
 
I Am Groot's Avatar
 
Location: I Am Groot
Re: Why did they bother...

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.
That is neither a "considered" opinion, the worst (or any) part of Affirmative Action, or the definition of racism.



And since you apparently choose to wallow in your own ignorance without any desire to change when presented with new information according to the last part, why don't you just keep your charming views on race considerations in casting out of the forum and restrict your commentary to the quality or lack thereof of the movie, mmkay?
__________________
We are Groot and Locutus of Bored.
I Am Groot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:46 AM   #62
FreddyE
Commander
 
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post
Sulu isn't a Japanese name, for the record. There is no "l" in Japanese (many Japanese can't even pronounce it), but "Hikaru" is (it means "light").
Actually, there is no "r" either. It´s actually a sound that could be described as "between l and r" (if you look at the tounge position), when beeing transcribed into our writing system it can be written as "l" OR "r". To our western ears it sounds like "l" or "r" or it can even seem to alternate between both.
FreddyE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:47 AM   #63
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Regarding TV Westerns

Let's note...

1. sj4iy deprecated the quality of TOS: "Oh please, even TOS was far from artistic. It was a western set in space."

2. I responded by noting that Westerns occupy their own category of art. I also asked if Gunsmoke, the Rifleman, and Bonanza featured the progressive social commentary we saw on Star Trek.

3. Other posters jumped in claiming progressive features of 60's TV westerns.

If #3 is correct, then great. If so, Star Trek has laudable features in common with TV westerns. Both were engaged in substantive social commentary. If art can serve a moral function (i.e., allow us to explore moral questions and allow artists to take moral stances), then both Star Trek and TV Westerns appear to share this facet.

NOTE: It is still my contention that Star Trek did more than the TV westerns. It was very multi-racial/multi-ethnic for it's time. The bridge of the Enterprise was rainbow of men and women working in unison. In addition, Trek could get away with stories that other shows could not, because it was in a fanciful setting. It could make direct comments about race hatred and segregation (i.e., it's stupid), because the message more easily slid past the censors.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:56 AM   #64
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Why did they bother...

trevanian wrote: View Post
I found the Schumacher batflicks to be embarrassing in storytelling and visually, but not nearly as much as the Abrams with the lens flares and such. Yet for all his faults, Schumacher somehow made FALLING DOWN, which is probably among the top 5 films of the 90s for me, so it isn't just him. Also, if the first Schumacher was so reviled at the time, why was he retained for the real disaster that followed?

Honestly, I don't find the Burton batfilms much better (which puts it in the Abrams category, where others rave and I disagree heartily), though the second one had some moments. I don't find much of Burton's to be all that enjoyable, though I'm sure he has won his ticket to heaven with ED WOOD, which is just wonderful beyond belief.

The Nolans just feel right to me ... except for Katie Holmes, that is.

Of course, the thing about all three of the franchise restarts is that I am a major devotee of Bond and Trek, whereas BATMAN is just something I go see. Perhaps that is why I have been utterly appalled by two of the three Bondfilms (and only fitfully impressed with the middle one) and both Abramspics, while I've been fine (or more than fine) with all the Nolan Batfilms, with BEGINS prid near perfect, TDK very very good and TDKR good with signs of acid rain.

I think he works at a level that is well above these other guys, but maybe I'll be proved wrong in a couple of years. If as rumored Nolan actually does agree to do the next Bond, it will be the ultimate pushme/pullyou for me, as I am quite impressed with nearly all of his work, yet am convinced that there is no way I will see another Bond film until the ugly guy passing as 007 gets put out to pasture and they actually start making the films about Bond instead of about another orphan with neuroses (Bond was an orphan but the neurosis seem clearly linked to the BatRestart.)
Ugly guy?

You mean Daniel Craig, widely regarded as possibly the best James Bond in the franchise's history?

__________________
Remember: No Matter Where You Go, There You Are...88

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
nightwind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 11:23 AM   #65
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Why did they bother...

Locutus of Bored 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.
That is neither a "considered" opinion, the worst (or any) part of Affirmative Action, or the definition of racism.



And since you apparently choose to wallow in your own ignorance without any desire to change when presented with new information according to the last part, why don't you just keep your charming views on race considerations in casting out of the forum and restrict your commentary to the quality or lack thereof of the movie, mmkay?
Thanks, but no thanks.

A. Whether or not my opinions are "considered" is not for you to judge.
B. Unless I'm breaking a forum rule, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up.

But hey, it's been great talking to ya. Have a nice day.

Last edited by marksound; May 27 2013 at 11:50 AM.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 12:30 PM   #66
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

The Dark Knight trilogy puts me to sleep, I'd rather watch the 1989 Batman film any day of the week. Simply because its fun.

I like TOS because its a fun show to watch. I like the Abrams films because they're fun to watch and tickle the kid inside of me.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:35 PM   #67
The Dead Mixer
Vice Admiral
 
The Dead Mixer's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
NOTE: It is still my contention that Star Trek did more than the TV westerns. It was very multi-racial/multi-ethnic for it's time. The bridge of the Enterprise was rainbow of men and women working in unison. In addition, Trek could get away with stories that other shows could not, because it was in a fanciful setting. It could make direct comments about race hatred and segregation (i.e., it's stupid), because the message more easily slid past the censors.
I never watched many westerns when I was younger, so I was surprised when watching some in recent times just how much they were doing the same sort of thing. Whereas Trek could do allegorical stories because it was in a futuristic setting, westerns were able to do them because they were in an archaic one...but often more on the nose because, to use the example of stories about bigotry/intolerance, they were using actual ethnic groups and putting authentic-sounding racial slurs in the mouths of the intolerant. Trek definitely deserves its credit for the future it depicted and the stories that it told, but it wasn't doing so in a vacuum.

(On a completely off-topic note, Trek fans who aren't familiar with The Rifleman might be interested to know that Paul Fix--Dr. Piper from "Where No Man Has Gone Before"--was a regular on the show, and much better utilized as the marshal of North Fork.)
The Dead Mixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 02:32 PM   #68
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

FreddyE wrote: View Post
sj4iy wrote: View Post
Sulu isn't a Japanese name, for the record. There is no "l" in Japanese (many Japanese can't even pronounce it), but "Hikaru" is (it means "light").
Actually, there is no "r" either. It´s actually a sound that could be described as "between l and r" (if you look at the tounge position), when beeing transcribed into our writing system it can be written as "l" OR "r". To our western ears it sounds like "l" or "r" or it can even seem to alternate between both.
It's between an r, l and d sound in my opinion. And it's always Romanized as an 'r'. My Japanese teacher who spoke English well struggled to pronounce the word auxiliary. Doesn't change the fact that Sulu isn't a Japanese name. "Suru" is the most important verb in Japanese, though (as well as several other verbs).

Last edited by sj4iy; May 27 2013 at 03:43 PM.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 02:36 PM   #69
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these new movies?
Because it sells more to have the best-known cast of characters associated with the venerable franchise.

Kpnuts wrote: View Post
Why would people want Pine to do Shatner-isms? Pine's Kirk is fantastic and a breath of fresh air. Let him be his own man.

No Shatnerisms, but I want some Kirk Karate Chops !!
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 03:37 PM   #70
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

trevanian wrote: View Post
I found the Schumacher batflicks to be embarrassing in storytelling and visually, but not nearly as much as the Abrams with the lens flares and such. Yet for all his faults, Schumacher somehow made FALLING DOWN, which is probably among the top 5 films of the 90s for me, so it isn't just him. Also, if the first Schumacher was so reviled at the time, why was he retained for the real disaster that followed?

Honestly, I don't find the Burton batfilms much better (which puts it in the Abrams category, where others rave and I disagree heartily), though the second one had some moments. I don't find much of Burton's to be all that enjoyable, though I'm sure he has won his ticket to heaven with ED WOOD, which is just wonderful beyond belief.

The Nolans just feel right to me ... except for Katie Holmes, that is.

Of course, the thing about all three of the franchise restarts is that I am a major devotee of Bond and Trek, whereas BATMAN is just something I go see. Perhaps that is why I have been utterly appalled by two of the three Bondfilms (and only fitfully impressed with the middle one) and both Abramspics, while I've been fine (or more than fine) with all the Nolan Batfilms, with BEGINS prid near perfect, TDK very very good and TDKR good with signs of acid rain.

I think he works at a level that is well above these other guys, but maybe I'll be proved wrong in a couple of years. If as rumored Nolan actually does agree to do the next Bond, it will be the ultimate pushme/pullyou for me, as I am quite impressed with nearly all of his work, yet am convinced that there is no way I will see another Bond film until the ugly guy passing as 007 gets put out to pasture and they actually start making the films about Bond instead of about another orphan with neuroses (Bond was an orphan but the neurosis seem clearly linked to the BatRestart.)
Burton Batmans - Fun, a step away from the silliness of the original show

Schumacher Batmans - Oh god make it stop

Nolan Batmans - BB was okay, a fresh take but not a great story, TDK was awesomesauce best comic book movie ever, and TDKR was a letdown, although it was fun to see it filmed in the city everyday where I work, even if it did eff up my commute).

Bonds, in order of best to worst - Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton. Obviously my opinion, but that's the frequency with which I will rewatch their movies.

Star Trek, best to worst- TNG, DS9, Voyager, TOS, Enterprise. The new movies rank up there with TNG and DS9 on terms of what I like the most.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:03 PM   #71
Anticitizen
Fleet Captain
 
Anticitizen's Avatar
 
Location: Black Mesa Research Facility
Re: Why did they bother...

BillJ wrote: View Post
Spock had a relationship with a human woman six years prior to season one of TOS per "This Side of Paradise".
No, he didn't. Relevant quotes:


ELIAS: You've known the Vulcanian?
LEILA: On Earth, six years ago.
ELIAS: Did you love him?
LEILA: If I did, it was important only to myself.
ELIAS: How did he feel?
LEILA: Mister Spock's feelings were never expressed to me. It is said he has none to give.

...

LEILA: I love you. I said that six years ago, and I can't seem to stop repeating myself. On Earth, you couldn't give anything of yourself. You couldn't even put your arms around me. We couldn't have anything together there. We couldn't have anything together anyplace else. We're happy here. (crying) I can't lose you now, Mister Spock. I can't.
SPOCK: I have a responsibility to this ship, to that man on the Bridge. I am what I am, Leila, and if there are self-made purgatories, then we all have to live in them. Mine can be no worse than someone else's.

Clearly it was a one-sided 'relationship' in which Leila pined after Spock, but her affections were not returned due to his Vulcan stoicism.

I agree with the original poster. These characters do not resemble the originals. They are one-dimensional parodies and don't even get the basic character traits right.
__________________
The only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes.
Anticitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:11 PM   #72
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

Anticitizen wrote: View Post
I agree with the original poster. These characters do not resemble the originals. They are one-dimensional parodies and don't even get the basic character traits right.
I disagree. I think they're bang-on what I imagine these characters were like a decade prior to TOS. Except for Kirk, who grew up in entirely different circumstances.

And just because Spock couldn't put his arms around Kalomi in an affectionate manner doesn't mean he wasn't banging her. Folks seem to forget Spock went through quite a metamorphosis between The Cage (which was roughly a decade earlier) and who he was during the five-year mission.

__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:27 PM   #73
Anticitizen
Fleet Captain
 
Anticitizen's Avatar
 
Location: Black Mesa Research Facility
Re: Why did they bother...

[QUOTE=BillJ;8161645]
Anticitizen wrote: View Post
And just because Spock couldn't put his arms around Kalomi in an affectionate manner doesn't mean he wasn't banging her.
I'd think that this line you passed over heavily implies that that is not the case:

LEILA: Mister Spock's feelings were never expressed to me. It is said he has none to give.

Folks seem to forget Spock went through quite a metamorphosis between The Cage (which was roughly a decade earlier) and who he was during the five-year mission.
That's because that clip is from the unaired pilot (later reworked into The Menagerie), in which Majel Barett's 'Number One' is supposed to be the logical, unfeeling character, not Spock. I think the viewer is just supposed to pretend that Spock isn't smiling in that scene.
__________________
The only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes.
Anticitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:47 PM   #74
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

Anticitizen wrote: View Post
That's because that clip is from the unaired pilot (later reworked into The Menagerie), in which Majel Barett's 'Number One' is supposed to be the logical, unfeeling character, not Spock. I think the viewer is just supposed to pretend that Spock isn't smiling in that scene.
We have a smiling Spock in Where No Man... and was never an unfeeling character. And since pilot footage from The Cage is included in an episode of the regular series run, you simply can't ignore it because it's inconvenient to your argument.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:49 PM   #75
The Dead Mixer
Vice Admiral
 
The Dead Mixer's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: Why did they bother...

It's harder to pretend that he doesn't shout, "THE WOMEN!!!!!"
The Dead Mixer 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 08:54 AM.

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