RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,505
Posts: 5,511,381
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 477
Newest member: aprizan

TrekToday headlines

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


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 June 11 2013, 08:42 PM   #241
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Why did they bother...

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
A theory I share. It would seem the only venue that would satisfy them would be a TV series that would have room and time to explore some of the themes that are necessarily given short shrift in a 2 hour movie once every 3-4 years.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 09:25 PM   #242
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Why did they bother...

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post

Its the Spock that was created after 79 episodes of TOS and maybe TAS and maybe some movies. At that stage it was Nimoy Spock.
Well, this is often a generational thing. As I've mentioned before, I was appalled to discover, decades ago, that my youngest brother thought that Roger Moore was the "real" James Bond. I was horrified at first (everybody knew that Connery was the one true Bond), but then I realized it made perfect sense from his perspective. My brother, who was seventeen years younger than me, had grown up on Moore just like I had grown up on Connery.

Trust me on this, ten years from now there will be an entire generation for whom Pine and Quinto are the "real" Kirk and Spock. That's just the way it works.

Heck, not long ago, people were horrified at idea of Universal remaking the "classic" Brendan Fraser version of THE MUMMY, which was, of course, at least the third remake of the 1932 Karloff version.
Hopefully the next generation will think of Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock because that means that Star Trek is still going strong.

I agree its a generational thing. My kids have never heard of
John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind.
Heh, I remember going to into a Hollywood Video, back in the late 1990s and asking for Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte and got a very strange look, and the kid at the counter was only about 10 years younger than me. I can't imagine what knowledge someone in their mid-20s no longer has of Classics 15 years later.
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 09:35 PM   #243
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Why did they bother...

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie.
That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here...
To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

This notion seems to be a relatively recent development, however, and certainly doesn't reflect the way most filmmakers in the history of the art have approached their craft. An engaged imagination has typically been a huge and important part of the experience of watching a movie.
Very reminiscent of the attitude I see among my students. Once I could simply assign a topic for research and expect the students to go the library and do the legwork--with no grumbling, save from a small minority (there's always at least one lazy student in a class). Now, though, if students don't get all the assigned readings pre-packaged as pdf files taken from the relevant journals and a detailed list of suggested sources to consult (in other words--all the legwork done for them), I get a lot of complaints (including, on occasion, some fairly nasty comments about how unfair I am because I'm not accounting for how "busy" their lives are). While I've not entirely given in, I do provide a list of suggested sources (with the caveat that they need to find x number of others on their own--x depends on the scope of the assignment--cuts down on a lot of gibberish, in the end).

It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 10:01 PM   #244
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Why did they bother...

Ovation wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
A theory I share. It would seem the only venue that would satisfy them would be a TV series that would have room and time to explore some of the themes that are necessarily given short shrift in a 2 hour movie once every 3-4 years.
This strikes me as generalizing the critics of the movies in order to delegitimize those critics. I think you'll find enough exceptions and qualification to these generalizations to make them pointless.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 10:10 PM   #245
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Ovation wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post

That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here...
To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

This notion seems to be a relatively recent development, however, and certainly doesn't reflect the way most filmmakers in the history of the art have approached their craft. An engaged imagination has typically been a huge and important part of the experience of watching a movie.
Very reminiscent of the attitude I see among my students. Once I could simply assign a topic for research and expect the students to go the library and do the legwork--with no grumbling, save from a small minority (there's always at least one lazy student in a class). Now, though, if students don't get all the assigned readings pre-packaged as pdf files taken from the relevant journals and a detailed list of suggested sources to consult (in other words--all the legwork done for them), I get a lot of complaints (including, on occasion, some fairly nasty comments about how unfair I am because I'm not accounting for how "busy" their lives are). While I've not entirely given in, I do provide a list of suggested sources (with the caveat that they need to find x number of others on their own--x depends on the scope of the assignment--cuts down on a lot of gibberish, in the end).

It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.
I think that this is a fair point. I would rather put things together for myself rather than have the film over-explain everything. When the plot stops so that the exposition character can tell everyone what's going on it's patronizing and ejects me from the reality of the film.

I think you would agree, however, that if there is such a thing as over-explaining that there is also such a thing as under-explaining. What either amounts to is a debatable question, but I think we can agree, in principle, that a film should not ask the viewer to have to imagine too much.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 10:48 PM   #246
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
This strikes me as generalizing the critics of the movies in order to delegitimize those critics. I think you'll find enough exceptions and qualification to these generalizations to make them pointless.
Not that I agree with the statement you replied to, but saying "mostly" isn't a generalisation. It simply means that most (read: over 50%) of the set of X is composed of items with the feature A. He didn't say "bah, they're just a bunch of TNG fans with no appreciation for true Trek."
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 11:12 PM   #247
thumbtack
Commodore
 
Location: Ankh-Morpork
Re: Why did they bother...

Belz... wrote: View Post
they're just a bunch of TNG fans with no appreciation for true Trek
TNG fans don't appear to appreciate much of anything, including TNG.

Unless you feel that "about 20% of them are still quite watchable" qualifies as an enthusiastic endorsement of the show.
__________________
Last Vote: 2takesfrakes, T'Girl, wulfio. Next Vote: Joel Kirk, orphalesion, Hapless Crewman, Synnove, HIjol.
thumbtack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 11:57 PM   #248
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Why did they bother...

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
A theory I share. It would seem the only venue that would satisfy them would be a TV series that would have room and time to explore some of the themes that are necessarily given short shrift in a 2 hour movie once every 3-4 years.
This strikes me as generalizing the critics of the movies in order to delegitimize those critics. I think you'll find enough exceptions and qualification to these generalizations to make them pointless.
I don't think so. Of course, every generalization is subject to exceptions (something I warn my students of rather frequently) but generalizations can still be made with sufficient data points AND they can help discern broad patterns. As this is not a dedicated research site for statistical analyses of audience preferences broken down by demographics and viewing experiences, this theory is (as already conceded) more of an interesting hypothesis (if we must, in a casual setting, be so precise). And like all hypotheses, it could be wrong--even spectacularly so. But I'd set a small wager on the hypothesis being correct to sufficient degree as to be a viable generalization (subject to the usual caveats of such things).


YARN wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

This notion seems to be a relatively recent development, however, and certainly doesn't reflect the way most filmmakers in the history of the art have approached their craft. An engaged imagination has typically been a huge and important part of the experience of watching a movie.
Very reminiscent of the attitude I see among my students. Once I could simply assign a topic for research and expect the students to go the library and do the legwork--with no grumbling, save from a small minority (there's always at least one lazy student in a class). Now, though, if students don't get all the assigned readings pre-packaged as pdf files taken from the relevant journals and a detailed list of suggested sources to consult (in other words--all the legwork done for them), I get a lot of complaints (including, on occasion, some fairly nasty comments about how unfair I am because I'm not accounting for how "busy" their lives are). While I've not entirely given in, I do provide a list of suggested sources (with the caveat that they need to find x number of others on their own--x depends on the scope of the assignment--cuts down on a lot of gibberish, in the end).

It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.
I think that this is a fair point. I would rather put things together for myself rather than have the film over-explain everything. When the plot stops so that the exposition character can tell everyone what's going on it's patronizing and ejects me from the reality of the film.

I think you would agree, however, that if there is such a thing as over-explaining that there is also such a thing as under-explaining. What either amounts to is a debatable question, but I think we can agree, in principle, that a film should not ask the viewer to have to imagine too much.
That's fair. The transition point from too much to too little is highly dependent on the film type, though. A Terrence Malick film frequently offers what most movie viewers would consider far too little exposition--but if you are a fan of Malick's work (as I am), you are willing to live with that as, by now, such an absence of exposition is an expected element of the viewing experience. On the other hand, I fully expect a Tarantino movie to have as much dialogue as twice the collected works of Malick and would be disappointed otherwise.

First and foremost, I want movies to entertain me (there are a few exceptions, some of which I make use of in my work, but they are not numerous). If they make me think (in a good way), so much the better--but it's not a requirement. I also don't require that my entertainment necessarily conform to some checklist of items by the committee for the promotion of the "way things out to be". Again, if it's there (and makes sense within the context of the film) so much the better. And most important to me, about any work of art (commercial or otherwise)--I want something that first satisfies the artist's desires. I don't want something made "for the fans", unless that is what the artist wants to do. All art should be the product of what the artist wants. I have the right to like it or not, but I have no right to expect satisfaction on my terms. As I have a wide palette of what I find entertaining, I'm rarely frustrated by any art (if I don't like it, I leave, stop watching, listening, etc.). And even when I am frustrated, I don't usually spend much time telling others they should be too (well, except with The Blair Witch Project--that is something no sentient being should suffer ).
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 12:19 AM   #249
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

thumbtack wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
they're just a bunch of TNG fans with no appreciation for true Trek
TNG fans don't appear to appreciate much of anything, including TNG.
I would appreciate if you quoted me in a way that didn't make it appear as though I said something I didn't say. I was clearly quoting a hypothetical person saying something that wasn't said.

Unless you feel that "about 20% of them are still quite watchable" qualifies as an enthusiastic endorsement of the show.
Is that an actual quote ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 01:49 AM   #250
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Why did they bother...

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte
That movie came out when I was about 4 years old. I think my parents saw it at the drive-in with us kids "asleep" in the back. What I saw freaked me out and I've never tried to watch it since. The theme song still gives me the willies.

Ovation wrote: View Post
It would seem that if it is not spelled out for a viewer, it's a "plot hole" or "doesn't make sense". Sometimes that's the case but often, a few seconds of thought can "fill in the blanks" quite nicely and is actually, to me, a rewarding part of the movie watching experience.
Agreed.

Then again, I'm not a critic. Just a fan.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 12:13 PM   #251
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Quinto is Spock now, and Pine is Kirk. When they aren't any more, two other actors will be.
For a time, in the 70s, Roddenberry and Paramount were thinking it would be Paul Newman and Robert Redford, with Walter Koenig as Chekov's father!
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 11:04 PM   #252
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why did they bother...

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Did I miss anybody?
Casting a Puerto-Rican/Haitian actress as Nyota Uhura.

They could have at least had Pine do a Shatner imitation.


No. Just. No.

Any thoughts?
Keep trying. You'll get there eventually.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 11:10 PM   #253
Kevman7987
Captain
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Quinto is Spock now, and Pine is Kirk. When they aren't any more, two other actors will be.
For a time, in the 70s, Roddenberry and Paramount were thinking it would be Paul Newman and Robert Redford, with Walter Koenig as Chekov's father!
The TOS crew is now sci-fi James Bonds; the characters are timeless in that they are not connected to any one actor (though we'll always have our Sean Connery/favorites).
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 11:22 PM   #254
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Did I miss anybody?
Casting a Puerto-Rican/Haitian actress as Nyota Uhura.

They could have at least had Pine do a Shatner imitation.


No. Just. No.

Any thoughts?
Keep trying. You'll get there eventually.
Oh god, I laughed so hard at the one where Kirk "changed bodies" with a woman. It was so horrible.
__________________
"Fear me. I've killed hundreds of Time Lords."

"Fear me. I've killed all of them."
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 12:06 AM   #255
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
No. Just. No.
Yeah. Only Shatner can pull that off.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... 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 09:13 AM.

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