RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,851
Posts: 5,328,210
Members: 24,552
Currently online: 728
Newest member: SpammetySpam

TrekToday headlines

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4


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 25 2013, 02:44 PM   #76
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Forget it. I really can't be bothered. Harve Bennett wrote Star Trek II. Congrats.

Also, Philip Kaufman wrote Raiders of the Lost Ark. I guess Lawrence Kasden will have to give back that Saturn Award.

Last edited by Shazam!; September 25 2013 at 03:07 PM.
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2013, 06:05 PM   #77
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

In the "For What It's Worth" column: As some here have posted, who's responsible for the script of TWOK is far more complicated than just arguing about Bennett and Sowards.

The evolution of the story as it's related in Memory Alpha is interesting for those who weren't aware of it (or those who need their memories jogged).

Bennett came up with the original idea for the story and wrote a treatment that he gave to Sowards to turn into a screenplay. After the first draft, many people contributed criticisms and ideas in moving towards the final script, even though Sowards remained the sole credited screenwriter. Samuel Peeples and Nicholas Meyer had especially strong influences on the final screenplay, though they were uncredited.

Link to story (scroll about half-way down the page to the heading, "Background Information"):
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star..._Wrath_of_Khan
__________________
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 25 2013, 06:15 PM   #78
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
And it looks like we've got the origin for Kirk being a smartass punk: the novel verse, just add father dying heroic death.
But that's never been a secret. Orci & Kurtzman told us they were reading specific novels.

And George Kirk Sr died a heroic death in the novels, too, but it was offscreen and shrouded in mystery. Jim was just a lot older when it happened.
So, basically, they're actually being respectful of a lot of the details that were for Kirk by the authors of the books. Details that have more or less fallen into accepted fanon.

Why do those bastards hate Trek Fans!
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2013, 08:08 PM   #79
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Shazam! wrote: View Post
Forget it. I really can't be bothered. Harve Bennett wrote Star Trek II. Congrats.

Also, Philip Kaufman wrote Raiders of the Lost Ark. I guess Lawrence Kasden will have to give back that Saturn Award.
When the "story" and "screenplay" credits are shared by a single writer (or writing team) the credit is "written by."

Or, to crib from Wikipedia:

There is a common misconception that a "story by" credit may be given to a person who simply has the story idea for a film or television program. This is never the case, as all writing credits are for actual writing; a written story document or treatment, or in some cases, a complete script. In such cases, a screenwriter produces an original screenplay that subsequently undergoes a "page one rewrite" by a different writer or writers that produces a new and significantly different draft, as determined by the WGA. In many such cases, the original author receives the "story by" rather than "screenplay by" credit. This is known as the Irreducible Story Minimum.
Also, the Saturn Awards are nice, but the AMPAS awards screenwriting Oscars to anyone receiving "story" or "screenplay" credit.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2013, 05:41 AM   #80
Kabraxal
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

I'm sure they are confused and "hurt" at first, then they see the box office returns and blu ray sales and realise "o, just some few vocal idiots that will never be happy". At least I hope so... I was one skeptical ID would be a good ST film after finding 09 to be somewhat disappointing for me. But now, ID is one of my favourite Trek films and 09 has been elevated because of it. I want more of what ID has shown Trek can be.
Kabraxal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2013, 05:05 PM   #81
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Trek is doing pretty fucking good. It's ahead of Iron Man 3 for God's sake!
__________________
*Tim Duncan fills glass with milk*
"Hm, you know what..."
*adds squirt of chocolate syrup*
"Tonight's a special night."
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2013, 05:07 PM   #82
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Trek is doing pretty fucking good. It's ahead of Iron Man 3 for God's sake!
Why must Abrams make Star Trek movies that no one likes?
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2013, 05:13 PM   #83
thumbtack
Commodore
 
Location: Ankh-Morpork
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Trek is doing pretty fucking good. It's ahead of Iron Man 3 for God's sake!

Wow!
__________________
"What went wrong!? All my sockpuppets loved this movie!" - Kevin Smith
thumbtack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2013, 06:32 PM   #84
AUbricklogic
Ensign
 
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

What's really putrid is that the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie that those who didn't think it was worth gushing over are somehow a small but vocal minority. They make up a very large portion if not half of the total amount of people who saw it. If you count those who just thought it was "meh" and nothing particularly special, that percentage rises even farther. It wasn't worth gushing over unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards, actually good films or are easily amused due to being unfit. "Good"? Yes. "Watchable"? Yes. "New-Age"? Definitely. "Greatest-ever or one of the greatest ever"? Only if you're uneducated in several key areas that would affect your ability to determine such a thing.
AUbricklogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2013, 06:34 PM   #85
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
What's really putrid is that the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie that those who didn't think it was worth gushing over are somehow a small but vocal minority. They make up a very large portion if not half of the total amount of people who saw it. If you count those who just thought it was "meh" and nothing particularly special, that percentage rises even farther. It wasn't worth gushing over unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards, actually good films or are easily amused due to being unfit. "Good"? Yes. "Watchable"? Yes. "New-Age"? Definitely. "The new standard"? Only if you're uneducated in several key areas that would affect your ability to determine such a thing.
I have no idea what you're on about?

Shouldn't we be asking that the movies we pay to see be "good" and "watchable"?
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2013, 06:56 PM   #86
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
What's really putrid is that the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie that those who didn't think it was worth gushing over are somehow a small but vocal minority. They make up a very large portion if not half of the total amount of people who saw it.
Do you have data to support this assertion?

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
If you count those who just thought it was "meh" and nothing particularly special, that percentage rises even farther.
Can you provide a link to supporting data?

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
It wasn't worth gushing over unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards, actually good films or are easily amused due to being unfit. "Good"? Yes. "Watchable"? Yes. "New-Age"? Definitely. "Greatest-ever or one of the greatest ever"? Only if you're uneducated in several key areas that would affect your ability to determine such a thing.
Because what this post really looks like is a swipe—"the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie"; "unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards"; "Only if you're uneducated in several key areas"; etc.—at those who were able to enjoy the movie, and that's something you'll want to avoid.

Criticisms of the movie itself are fine; swipes at fans or fan groups with whom you may disagree about the movie are not fine. Please don't do that.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2013, 07:23 PM   #87
Sindatur
Rear Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
What's really putrid is that the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie that those who didn't think it was worth gushing over are somehow a small but vocal minority. They make up a very large portion if not half of the total amount of people who saw it. If you count those who just thought it was "meh" and nothing particularly special, that percentage rises even farther. It wasn't worth gushing over unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards, actually good films or are easily amused due to being unfit. "Good"? Yes. "Watchable"? Yes. "New-Age"? Definitely. "Greatest-ever or one of the greatest ever"? Only if you're uneducated in several key areas that would affect your ability to determine such a thing.
I seriously doubt you can support this 50%+ contention, since Rotten Tomatoes and other sites show 90%+ fresh rating, polls here show about the same thing and out of 23,000+ members on the board, it's a very small percentage of users who express their dislike for the BadRobot Trek movies.

As far as challenging the intelligence of anyone who found the movie enjoyable, that kinda works against argument if you need to insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you
__________________
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 September 27 2013, 08:24 PM   #88
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

The "I hated it, and I saw it FIVE TIMES to be sure I hated it" defense holds zero water.

Unless someone has a link that proves otherwise - Next!
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2013, 04:01 AM   #89
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
What's really putrid is that the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie that those who didn't think it was worth gushing over are somehow a small but vocal minority. They make up a very large portion if not half of the total amount of people who saw it. If you count those who just thought it was "meh" and nothing particularly special, that percentage rises even farther. It wasn't worth gushing over unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards, actually good films or are easily amused due to being unfit. "Good"? Yes. "Watchable"? Yes. "New-Age"? Definitely. "Greatest-ever or one of the greatest ever"? Only if you're uneducated in several key areas that would affect your ability to determine such a thing.
That's a bit hypocritical complaining about fanboys who supposedly make up numbers while swiping at them for being uneducated, having poor standards and being easily amused "due to being unfit" (What does that even mean?)

Very, very insulting, and utterly sinks any argument you were trying to make.
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2013, 04:31 AM   #90
Khan444
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Star Trek 2009 has a 95%approval rating on RT among critics, with an 89% audience approval rating. STID has an 87% approval rating among critics, with a 91% audience approval rating. Sorry, but a 50/50 split simply doesn't exist.
Khan444 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 11:35 PM.

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