RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,236
Posts: 5,438,649
Members: 24,958
Currently online: 567
Newest member: greatmovies

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 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 September 13 2013, 09:12 PM   #421
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Orci strikes back

geneo wrote: View Post
Why is it do people feel like they have to have a gay person in every show on TV, especially Star Trek. Leave the gay out of it. Star Trek New Voyages put a gay person in the crew and they lost lots of their fans, now they are just a trickle of what they used to be, does Paramount want to try to take that risk with the money maker Star Trek is? I think not. So please, keep gay out of it and just enjoy it the way it is, why ruin it. Why always put the gay factor in. sheeesh.
Let's see. If we substitute for the word 'gay' with 'african-american' or 'female' or 'russian' ... oh yeah, I see what you mean.

But just so the meaning is clear, we'd better set it on another starship, the USS W.A.S.P., which carries shuttlecraft called JOHN BIRCH and REDNECK and maybe even KLANSMAN, though it is hard to tell about the latter because it is usually stored in a shroud.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:13 PM   #422
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Orci strikes back

Able to do almost anything he wanted to, Abrams chose to model his version of Star Trek off of he 1960s TV series and not the 1980s one.

If he didn't adequately capture the characters or vibe of the 1960s series, those are relevant topics for criticism. If it doesn't look or feel like the 1980s series, that was never the intent, so I'd say it's an irrelevant criticism.

Frankly, I'm beginning to feel the talk about whether or not something is "Star Trek," or whether or not "Star Trek" is broken like there is a single "Star Trek" to talk about is silly. There isn't a "Star Trek."

It's doesn't help when we say Abrams took "Star Trek" back to its roots, either. The only common ancestor Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation have is Roddenberry, who many have pointed out created his own way for Star Trek: The Next Generation that was not the way of Star Trek from the 1960s. As far as Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise go, they appropriated the label and owe nothing at all to Star Trek from the 1960s for their content.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:18 PM   #423
Kelthaz
Rear Admiral
 
Kelthaz's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Orci strikes back

The Stig wrote: View Post
I find Abrams's Trek films to be perfectly in keeping with the spirt and tone of TOS and are fun and exciting action-adventure movies. Thus, they are not 'broken' because they achieved the goal they set out to accomplish.
So what you're saying is that Abrams' Trek films aren't broken because you like them? Perhaps some of us don't feel that they reached their goal of being "exciting action-adventure movies" and thus claim they're broken films because they didn't achieve their goal?
__________________
"Who are you?! And how did you get in here?!"

"I'm the locksmith. And... I'm the locksmith."
Kelthaz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:24 PM   #424
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Orci strikes back

BillJ wrote: View Post
As an intellectual exercise, I started mapping what type of story I would tell if I had to make a big-summer blockbuster out of Star Trek. Now I'm not a writer, but even laying down elements for the story I've already found myself doing things that are very similar to things we've seen before. Some intentional, others not so much.

The jobs that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have aren't as easy as fandom likes to think they are.
There are definitely elements that they used in ID that are worthy dramatic devices ... I just found the execution to seriously suck. All of the 7 DAYS IN MAY stuff should have played better than it did, I'm a sucker for that kind of thing.

But last week I saw a little movie called PHANTOM with Ed Harris and Duchovny, and it encapsulated just about everything I'd like to see in a Trek story, even though it is a period piece about the cold war set aboard a Soviet submarine. It had a bit of interesting speculation spun off from a real event, had seriously good interaction and conflict,and only one WTF/thatwasstupid moment in the whole flick (in this century, that puts the film near the head of the class, easy.)

In terms of whether the story was big enough to be a summer tentpole ... well, I think you've got part of the studio mindset that is self-undermining by starting with that perspective. Tell a good damn story, one the actors and b-t-s talent are thrilled to be a part of (which is part of why PHANTOM worked, it had Harris & co really jazzed), and make that the focus, instead of whether it is going to appeal to 11 year-olds (or 70 year old trekkies for that matter.)

I don't think PHANTOM self-consciously ticked off boxes that each reinforced 'this is a submarine movie' in quite the same calculated fashion as AbramsTrek does with its projects. Sure, you've got a CRIMSON TIDE kind of faceoff between two antagonists where they are up close in each other's nostrils, but you're on a sub, where else are they going to be?

Anyway, I recommend PHANTOM almost wholeheartedly, and can say it almost made up for seeing OBLIVION last week (which is for me a near-PROMETHEUS level failure.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:24 PM   #425
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci strikes back

Franklin wrote: View Post
Able to do almost anything he wanted to, Abrams chose to model his version of Star Trek off of he 1960s TV series and not the 1980s one.

If he didn't adequately capture the characters or vibe of the 1960s series, those are relevant topics for criticism. If it doesn't look or feel like the 1980s series, that was never the intent, so I'd say it's an irrelevant criticism.

Frankly, I'm beginning to feel the talk about whether or not something is "Star Trek," or whether or not "Star Trek" is broken like there is a single "Star Trek" to talk about is silly. There isn't a "Star Trek."

It's doesn't help when we say Abrams took "Star Trek" back to its roots, either. The only common ancestor Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation have is Roddenberry, who many have pointed out created his own way for Star Trek: The Next Generation that was not the way of Star Trek from the 1960s. As far as Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise go, they appropriated the label and owe nothing at all to Star Trek from the 1960s for their content.


I call TNG a soft reboot. Gene and Co. were building a new Star Trek with TNG. Sure it called back to the original series--more so after he passed--but it's clear early on that TNG was meant as a means overwrite TOS without completely jettisoning it if they didn't want to.

I tend toward breaking Trek into (now) 3 "timelines"

1st - TOS, TAS, TMP.
2nd - TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TFF, TUC, TNG, DS9, VOY, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, Enterprise
3rd - Enteprise (maybe), ST(09), STID

There's some overlap in the continuity of the various "timelines", but they don't necessarily need or do mesh 100%
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:25 PM   #426
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci strikes back

Kelthaz wrote: View Post
So what you're saying is that Abrams' Trek films aren't broken because you like them? Perhaps some of us don't feel that they reached their goal of being "exciting action-adventure movies" and thus claim they're broken films because they didn't achieve their goal?
Is Iron Man or The Dark Knight trilogies broken because I didn't think they were all that good?
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:28 PM   #427
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Orci strikes back

Franklin wrote: View Post
As far as Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise go, they appropriated the label and owe nothing at all to Star Trek from the 1960s for their content.
I'd disagree only with your assessment that DS9 doesn't owe anything to TOS in terms of content. I think the presence of an edge to DS9 goes directly to the heart of TOS and the frontier feel (even as blunted as it is due to all the magicbox tech inherited from TNG) is part of that as well. The admiralty that sent Kirk on TheEnterpriseIncident mission is definitely part & parcel with the same seen committed to darker deeds in DS9.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:32 PM   #428
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci strikes back

No one has never explained to me, convincingly, why gearing the movies--especially--towards mass market appeal is a bad thing for the franchise. There seems to be a bit of elitism in the works, that the movies should be direct towards a very narrow market that has been repeatedly shown to be fickle enough as to not be a reliable source of revenue for a project (see: Enterprise, Nemesis). The franchise needs to be profitable to keep making movies and other projects--it is, after all, a product for sale. If the movies don't make the money, the won't make the movies.

And, I've said before, be grateful that Abrams respected the source material enough to make serious films. He could have just camped it up and made silly "Ha, ha, lets laugh at the old TV show, ha, ha" type films, like what happened with the Dragnet movie from the 80s.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:48 PM   #429
Soul of Saito
Fleet Captain
 
Soul of Saito's Avatar
 
Location: Limited-area amalgamated alternate timespace with non-corrosive tendencies.
Send a message via AIM to Soul of Saito
Re: Orci strikes back

Frankly, I don't understand how TNG and DS9 even got dragged into this ongoing debate.

And to be completely honest, Stig, one of the underlying messages I get from your article is "Abrams is the first entry since TOS itself to carry on its spirit; it's actually 'true Trek', whereas the 90's spinoffs never were."

Why are TNG and DS9 being dragged through the mud in order to provide ammunition for either a pro- or anti-AbramsTrek position?

And for the record, I thought Trek XI was decent - not great - and STID was quite good, and was a massive improvement over XI in addition to being one of the better Trek movies. I don't really give a rip about "Gene's vision", I believe that he was a master world-builder but not the best writer on his own show, and that his influence drove early TNG to be the mediocre-to-bad show that it was (and it's no coincidence that the vast majority of that preachy, "humans are SO GREAT" stuff can be found in the first two years). Where is the supposed connection between the opinion that the new movies are crap, and the opinion that TNG is great? I don't understand where that's even coming from.

I certainly don't think the new movies are crap - I like em, especially STID, and feel that they capture TOS' spirit very well, but I also think TNG seasons 3-7 and the vast majority of DS9 were far better than either TOS or TNG 1-2.

Kelthaz wrote: View Post
The Stig wrote: View Post
I find Abrams's Trek films to be perfectly in keeping with the spirt and tone of TOS and are fun and exciting action-adventure movies. Thus, they are not 'broken' because they achieved the goal they set out to accomplish.
So what you're saying is that Abrams' Trek films aren't broken because you like them? Perhaps some of us don't feel that they reached their goal of being "exciting action-adventure movies" and thus claim they're broken films because they didn't achieve their goal?
But what does that mean? One could just as easily say:

"So what you're saying is that Abrams' Trek films are broken because you don't like them? Perhaps some of us don't feel that they failed to reach their goal of being "exciting action-adventure movies" and thus claim they're not broken films because they achieved their goal?"

Or in other words: opinion vs. opinion. In which case, the phrase "Star Trek is broken" kind of loses its power, because such a phrase suggests, one would think, that we are discussing something a bit bigger than the opinion of one fan vs. another. "Broken" means "not working". So, the discussion would be more along the lines of, "is Star Trek successful right now." And it is. Some people don't like the current iteration, but that doesn't change that it's successful.

Not liking the new movies is fine. Declaring that because you don't like them, Star Trek is broken/flagging/dead/dying/etc, is not fine.
__________________
Saito S
Valocea - new map/info as of Oct 2014!
Musings and randomness
My solitary Trek fic
Soul of Saito is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:49 PM   #430
The Black Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Black Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Orci strikes back

Kelthaz wrote: View Post
The Stig wrote: View Post
I find Abrams's Trek films to be perfectly in keeping with the spirt and tone of TOS and are fun and exciting action-adventure movies. Thus, they are not 'broken' because they achieved the goal they set out to accomplish.
So what you're saying is that Abrams' Trek films aren't broken because you like them? Perhaps some of us don't feel that they reached their goal of being "exciting action-adventure movies" and thus claim they're broken films because they didn't achieve their goal?
Is that your contention? You feel that STID and Trek '09 failed at being fun action-adventure pictures? I'd love to hear why.
__________________
Some say that he haunts the halls of the Top Gear production office and that, if you listen closely, you can hear his wails around Gambon.

All we know is that he's not The Stig, he's The Stig's drowned predecessor.
The Black Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:55 PM   #431
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Orci strikes back

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Able to do almost anything he wanted to, Abrams chose to model his version of Star Trek off of he 1960s TV series and not the 1980s one.

If he didn't adequately capture the characters or vibe of the 1960s series, those are relevant topics for criticism. If it doesn't look or feel like the 1980s series, that was never the intent, so I'd say it's an irrelevant criticism.

Frankly, I'm beginning to feel the talk about whether or not something is "Star Trek," or whether or not "Star Trek" is broken like there is a single "Star Trek" to talk about is silly. There isn't a "Star Trek."

It's doesn't help when we say Abrams took "Star Trek" back to its roots, either. The only common ancestor Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation have is Roddenberry, who many have pointed out created his own way for Star Trek: The Next Generation that was not the way of Star Trek from the 1960s. As far as Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise go, they appropriated the label and owe nothing at all to Star Trek from the 1960s for their content.


I call TNG a soft reboot. Gene and Co. were building a new Star Trek with TNG. Sure it called back to the original series--more so after he passed--but it's clear early on that TNG was meant as a means overwrite TOS without completely jettisoning it if they didn't want to.

I tend toward breaking Trek into (now) 3 "timelines"

1st - TOS, TAS, TMP.
2nd - TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TFF, TUC, TNG, DS9, VOY, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, Enterprise
3rd - Enteprise (maybe), ST(09), STID

There's some overlap in the continuity of the various "timelines", but they don't necessarily need or do mesh 100%
Calling TNG a soft reboot may be the best way of putting it I've heard so far.

trevanian wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
As far as Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise go, they appropriated the label and owe nothing at all to Star Trek from the 1960s for their content.
I'd disagree only with your assessment that DS9 doesn't owe anything to TOS in terms of content. I think the presence of an edge to DS9 goes directly to the heart of TOS and the frontier feel (even as blunted as it is due to all the magicbox tech inherited from TNG) is part of that as well. The admiralty that sent Kirk on TheEnterpriseIncident mission is definitely part & parcel with the same seen committed to darker deeds in DS9.
It could be the frontier feel, too, but the feeling also could be because (to me at least) the characters seemed more engaging on the whole than the characters in TNG did. (Perhaps the biggest difference between them is the reaction to Q. As bad as Picard may have wanted to punch Q, Sisko actually did, and so would've Kirk.) I also think compared to TNG, and like TOS, the series had a bigger range of episodes: from drama like "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Far Beyond the Stars" to light larks like "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "Take Me Out to the Holosuite". I guess I'd say going for the feel wasn't deliberate, though. Maybe someone did, but I don't recall anyone saying the purpose of DS9 was to capture some of the feel of TOS.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 10:02 PM   #432
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Orci strikes back

geneo wrote: View Post
Why is it do people feel like they have to have a gay person in every show on TV, especially Star Trek. Leave the gay out of it. Star Trek New Voyages put a gay person in the crew and they lost lots of their fans, now they are just a trickle of what they used to be, does Paramount want to try to take that risk with the money maker Star Trek is? I think not. So please, keep gay out of it and just enjoy it the way it is, why ruin it. Why always put the gay factor in. sheeesh.
Warning for trolling. Comments to PM
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 10:04 PM   #433
The Black Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Black Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Orci strikes back

Saito S wrote: View Post
Frankly, I don't understand how TNG and DS9 even got dragged into this ongoing debate.
Because arguments that Trek is somehow 'about' something are rooted primarily in a view of Trek that comes from post-TOS Roddenberry.

And to be completely honest, Stig, one of the underlying messages I get from your article is "Abrams is the first entry since TOS itself to carry on its spirit; it's actually 'true Trek', whereas the 90's spinoffs never were."

Why are TNG and DS9 being dragged through the mud in order to provide ammunition for either a pro- or anti-AbramsTrek position?
This isn't a binary situation. I think that TNG-Trek onward bears very little resemblance to TOS on a thematic level. That doesn't mean that they are automatically bad shows, but that they are bad continuations of Star Trek. As I get older, neither show has aged particularly well to my eyes but that's only part of the point I was trying to make. TOS was an action-adventure series that featured relatable people with (then) modern sensibilities in fantastic situations. TNG and beyond tended to feature fantastic situations populated by talking props.

Not liking the new movies is fine. Declaring that because you don't like them, Star Trek is broken/flagging/dead/dying/etc, is not fine.
Bingo.
__________________
Some say that he haunts the halls of the Top Gear production office and that, if you listen closely, you can hear his wails around Gambon.

All we know is that he's not The Stig, he's The Stig's drowned predecessor.
The Black Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 10:33 PM   #434
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: Orci strikes back

Franklin wrote: View Post
Able to do almost anything he wanted to, Abrams chose to model his version of Star Trek off of he 1960s TV series and not the 1980s one.
I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that Paramount mandated the films be based on TOS.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 10:36 PM   #435
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci strikes back

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Able to do almost anything he wanted to, Abrams chose to model his version of Star Trek off of he 1960s TV series and not the 1980s one.
I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that Paramount mandated the films be based on TOS.
I think the he wanted an opportunity to do a TOS movie as a condition of signing a multi-picture deal with Paramount.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
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 02:33 AM.

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