RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,312
Posts: 5,352,261
Members: 24,619
Currently online: 580
Newest member: DaxFan74205

TrekToday headlines

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

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


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, 11:54 PM   #91
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".
You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.
Its called a comparison. I have no problem with Kirk/Spock being friends in "Where No Man...", I have no problem with them being friends in Star Trek Into Darkness.

Picking on the film because Kirk and Spock are friends is one of the dumbest criticisms I've seen yet.
__________________
"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, 11:56 PM   #92
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Why did they bother...

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?
I assume casting the best actor for the role is why so few of the characters in Star Trek are played by women. Women are widely known to be terrible, terrible actors. Luckily there are plenty of superior men to play the parts instead.

Don't be deluded. Talented though Cumberbatch is, he was cast because they wanted him. There are plenty of other actors, including many Indians, who could have played the part just as well. The Eddie Murphy movie Boomerang made the point very effectively.

Ethnicity can be mutable but sometimes that can ring hollow when every character ends up being played by a caucasian actor. Angel Coulby played a fantastic Gwenivere in Merlin, there have been two black Felix Leiters, and Naomi Harris was a breath of fresh air in the last Bond movie.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 11:59 PM   #93
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Why did they bother...

BillJ wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Didn't realize recognizing something about the show was considered an "attack".
You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.
Its called a comparison. I have no problem with Kirk/Spock being friends in "Where No Man...", I have no problem with them being friends in Star Trek Into Darkness.
What's more there is growth, obviously the end of STID is leading them to a much deeper friendship that they acknowledge somewhat more openly. I honestly can't wait till the next movie.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 12:02 AM   #94
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why did they bother...

BillJ wrote: View Post
Its called a comparison. I have no problem with Kirk/Spock being friends in "Where No Man...", I have no problem with them being friends in Star Trek Into Darkness.
But you see no reason why they would be friends in the former. You, apparently, do not care if there is any plausible reason why characters would have a bond of friendship in a story.

OK, but some of us actually do care if it makes sense that people would actually care about each other.

BillJ wrote: View Post
Picking on the film because Kirk and Spock are friends is one of the dumbest criticisms I've seen yet.
It would be, if that were the criticism. But it isn't, so there's that.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 12:04 AM   #95
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
sj4iy wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post

You're excusing the new on the basis of the old, attempting to exculpate the former by deprecating the latter. Yes, it's an attack. It's not an OMG! Heretic! sort of thing, but it fits a well-worn pattern of nuTrek apologists; NuTrek is OK, because it is no worse than OldTrek. To pull this off, you have to smear old Trek with criticisms aimed at NuTrek. You're not pulling anything up, but pulling the opposition down.
It's not an attack, it's an opinion. You can't "attack" a show, because it doesn't care if you like it or not.. You can attack a person's opinion, however.
1). Attack and defense is part of reasoned discussion. It is not "bad" to attack something. It is only bad to attack something illicitly. The never-ending Tu Quoque (You're Trek was bad too!) is an illicit attack.

2). That was not simply an "opinion" but a move in a discussion.

a. I endorse RLM's claim that there is no apparent reason why Kirk and Spock are friends.

b. BillJ responds by stating that there was no apparent reason that they were friends in a very early episode of the show.

"b." is a response to "a." BillJ is leveraging his "opinion" as a "reason" challenging my perception of the film. This was not a simple random observation, but a move in an argument.

NOTE: BillJ has not been qualifying his opinions as mere opinions, but stating them as fact-assertions.

EX:

They're obviously friends for no discernible reason in Where No Man... yet I've never seen anyone complain.

He's playing 3D chess with Kirk, calls him Jim, has the guts to tell him to strand Mitchell. They were friends.

Since facts are rationally binding, this implies that his claims are also binding on anyone in a reasoned discussion. That is, he is not saying, "This is my opinion, take it or leave it," but rather challenging my point of view. And good for him for doing so. Again, my only complaint is that his reasoning is wrong, not that he is attacking or that he is attempting to use reasons. It's not just that he's factually wrong in terms of interpretation (we can argue about that), but that his reasoning pattern is illicit. Attacking my reasons - good. Attacking Old Trek to "equalize" or deflect attention from the the New? That's bad.

See, it's not "challenging your point of view" to state that they didn't like what you liked. It's just their opinion. I read nothing in the disagreement that sounded like an attack on your position. And it has nothing to do with "equalizing" it, it simply is saying "I didn't like this, but I liked this." You don't like the movie and you've picked it apart, but no one claimed you were attacking the movie. Disliking the movie doesn't validate the series, nor does disliking the series validate the movie. It's all a matter of preference, and many people like both (my husband) or hate both (several people I know).
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 12:19 AM   #96
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post
See, it's not "challenging your point of view" to state that they didn't like what you liked.
Depends on how it is framed. Evaluations may be offered a "mere opinions" which do not imply a burden of acceptance/rejoinder or they may be framed strongly, in which case there is such an implication.

Also, BillJ wasn't simply talking about what he liked, but was rather offering a competing interpretation. That is, what he did was make a statement about "the facts of the case" (i.e., did they or did they not have any discernible reason to be friends?).

This interpretation, of course, is implicitly connected to disrupting evaluation - See, Old Trek shares the same properties as New Trek, so you cannot criticize it for having the same properties.

Also, when BillJ announces that criticizing Kirk and Spock for being friends is the "dumbest criticism ever," would you say that is a challenge or merely an innocent opinion?

Besides this. Crucially. Besides this, there is nothing wrong with challenging another person's point of view. This is why we invented language.

sj4iy wrote: View Post
It's just their opinion. I read nothing in the disagreement that sounded like an attack on your position. And it has nothing to do with "equalizing" it, it simply is saying "I didn't like this, but I liked this." You don't like the movie and you've picked it apart, but no one claimed you were attacking the movie.
How do you know that I didn't like the movie? Liking a movie and criticizing a movie are two different things.

Indeed, I have attacked the film for having faults. But this is all part of reasoned discussion. Again, I can attack the faults of a film that I "like." What I object to are illicit attacks.

To have a robust discussion of the film we have to be able to freely interpret, evaluate, and describe. All of these will involve making arguments. The clash of arguments always involves attack and defense.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 12:41 AM   #97
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
sj4iy wrote: View Post
See, it's not "challenging your point of view" to state that they didn't like what you liked.
Depends on how it is framed. Evaluations may be offered a "mere opinions" which do not imply a burden of acceptance/rejoinder or they may be framed strongly, in which case there is such an implication.

Also, BillJ wasn't simply talking about what he liked, but was rather offering a competing interpretation. That is, what he did was make a statement about "the facts of the case" (i.e., did they or did they not have any discernible reason to be friends?).

This interpretation, of course, is implicitly connected to disrupting evaluation - See, Old Trek shares the same properties as New Trek, so you cannot criticize it for having the same properties.

Also, when BillJ announces that criticizing Kirk and Spock for being friends is the "dumbest criticism ever," would you say that is a challenge or merely an innocent opinion?

Besides this. Crucially. Besides this, there is nothing wrong with challenging another person's point of view. This is why we invented language.

sj4iy wrote: View Post
It's just their opinion. I read nothing in the disagreement that sounded like an attack on your position. And it has nothing to do with "equalizing" it, it simply is saying "I didn't like this, but I liked this." You don't like the movie and you've picked it apart, but no one claimed you were attacking the movie.
How do you know that I didn't like the movie? Liking a movie and criticizing a movie are two different things.

Indeed, I have attacked the film for having faults. But this is all part of reasoned discussion. Again, I can attack the faults of a film that I "like." What I object to are illicit attacks.

To have a robust discussion of the film we have to be able to freely interpret, evaluate, and describe. All of these will involve making arguments. The clash of arguments always involves attack and defense.
You're accusing people of attacking the show just to make the movie look better, and I don't see that at all. I see people supporting their arguments by using examples from the show to prove their points. If I say "Kirk in TOS was a womanizer" and then show a video of every woman he kissed or fooled around with to support my point, it's not criticizing the show. It's using the evidence to support my claim. That's what other people are doing, and I don't see how it makes the movie better, or vice versa. It's the essence of debate.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 12:49 AM   #98
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

Do we really have to flag every comment as an opinion now? Of course they are opinions!
__________________
"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 28 2013, 12:57 AM   #99
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why did they bother...

BillJ wrote: View Post
Do we really have to flag every comment as an opinion now? Of course they are opinions!
Pfft. My posts are the Voice Of God.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 12:58 AM   #100
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Do we really have to flag every comment as an opinion now? Of course they are opinions!
Pfft. My posts are the Voice Of God.
__________________
"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 28 2013, 12:59 AM   #101
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Do we really have to flag every comment as an opinion now? Of course they are opinions!
Pfft. My posts are the Voice Of God.
In my opinion, MY posts are.

sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 01:09 AM   #102
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post
[...]
Finally, are we really going to apologize for nuTrek by attacking the earliest episodes of the original series?

Keep lowering the bar kids.
Let's not go there, shall we? It's borderline trolling.

YARN wrote: View Post
[...]

1). Attack and defense is part of reasoned discussion. It is not "bad" to attack something. It is only bad to attack something illicitly. The never-ending Tu Quoque (You're Trek was bad too!) is an illicit attack.

[...]

Since facts are rationally binding, this implies that his claims are also binding on anyone in a reasoned discussion. That is, he is not saying, "This is my opinion, take it or leave it," but rather challenging my point of view. And good for him for doing so. Again, my only complaint is that his reasoning is wrong, not that he is attacking or that he is attempting to use reasons. It's not just that he's factually wrong in terms of interpretation (we can argue about that), but that his reasoning pattern is illicit. Attacking my reasons - good. Attacking Old Trek to "equalize" or deflect attention from the the New? That's bad.
YARN wrote: View Post
[...]

Indeed, I have attacked the film for having faults. But this is all part of reasoned discussion. Again, I can attack the faults of a film that I "like." What I object to are illicit attacks.

To have a robust discussion of the film we have to be able to freely interpret, evaluate, and describe. All of these will involve making arguments. The clash of arguments always involves attack and defense.
So attack and defend, but confine the attack and defense to arguments, not other posters. (Yes, I'm aware that you're not the only one doing it; everyone needs to back off a step, in that regard.

Remember: Post, not poster.)

And YARN, if you want to teach a class, go purchase a permit, rent a venue appropriate to the purpose, and sell tickets. In here, you can discuss or not discuss—I leave that up to you—but it's not your job to lecture nor to condescend. Please cease doing so from here on. I'd particularly like it if you were to refrain altogether from posting the words "tu quoque" for the foreseeable future.* That can go for any reference (direct or indirect) to "illicit attacks," as well.



* the next 3-4 years, say.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 01:09 AM   #103
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Why did they bother...

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Kirk and Spock are bigger than William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.
Apprently not, as the nuCast are not cultural icons--just actors in a new version no more authentic than the numerous ST fan films.

Plus, who gives a shit about Captain Nobody of the USS Generic Starship?
If Paramount/Roddenberry shared that belief, The Next Generation and its sequel series would not exist. Yes, the NG ship is another Enterprise, but Picard, et al, were new to audiences.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 02:03 AM   #104
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Why did they bother...

YARN wrote: View Post

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.
If you researched Star Trek's development you'd know that Adult Westerns, like the ones you mentioned, were the inspiration/template for Star Trek. Roddenberry, who worked on Adult Westerns, wanted to do for Science Fiction what those shows did for Westerns.

Star Trek wasn't alone in it's "rainbow" approach to casting. The Networks and studios were pretty much ordering shows to hire non-whites for new programs. Roddenberry didn't come up with this in a vacuum. Mission: Impossible and Hogan's Heroes had multi-ethnic casts, Hogan came out a year before Star Trek and MI the same year.

As others have pointed out, the Adult Westerns did tackle social issues, including racism and segregation. And they didn't have to invent aliens and use allegory to do it. The censors of that time weren't that concerned with those particular topics. Language and nudity were probably bigger concerns. Kirk using "hell" or Barbara Eden's navel were more important than some Indian on Gunsmoke being forced off his land by white men or aliens on Star Trek fighting a genocidal war.

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
So I have to ask, why isn't it Star Trek?
For the same reason that much of Enterprise doesn't feel like Star Trek.

The Star Trek 'Mission Statement'
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. ...to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, and to boldly go where no man has gone before.
How many strange new worlds did nuTrek explore?
How much new life and how many new civilizations?
And did they boldly go... where no one has gone... before?

.
Its not a mission statement. It an opening monologue. Star Trek doesn't have to limit it's self to those mentioned in the monologue. Nor has it. Sometimes they went to new worlds, other times they went to "old" worlds.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Nerys Myk; May 28 2013 at 02:30 AM.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 02:11 AM   #105
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
If Paramount/Roddenberry shared that belief, The Next Generation and its sequel series would not exist. Yes, the NG ship is another Enterprise, but Picard, et al, were new to audiences.
Different time. There wasn't seven-hundred plus hours of Trek.
__________________
"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 07:41 AM.

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