RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,918
Posts: 5,478,281
Members: 25,052
Currently online: 493
Newest member: johnclever25

TrekToday headlines

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21


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 December 11 2013, 11:39 AM   #916
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
BigKrampus wrote: View Post
I do suspect that some of those currently willing to rate STID as worse than TFF will mellow out in due course.
Anyone who thinks STID is a worse film than TFF needs to have their head examined.
Now, now. It's just a matter of personal preferences.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2013, 06:26 PM   #917
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Belz... wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
And we all know that things stop being true if they're not constantly mentioned every five minutes.
What's your point ? If you only had snark as a response, why make it ?
If it's only snark, does it really merit acknowledgement?
__________________
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 December 11 2013, 07:55 PM   #918
JWPlatt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Belz... wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
BigKrampus wrote: View Post
I do suspect that some of those currently willing to rate STID as worse than TFF will mellow out in due course.
Anyone who thinks STID is a worse film than TFF needs to have their head examined.
Now, now. It's just a matter of personal preferences.
I'm going to have to enthusiastically go with Dukhat on this one. Even Lindelof might have improved it.
JWPlatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 12:45 AM   #919
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Rhovanion
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Belz... wrote: View Post
It was a homage. Perhaps misguided, yes. But not a rip-off.
It's a question of semantics: what you call a misguided homage, I call a rip-off.

Belz... wrote:
What's your point ?
I would have thought the point was obvious: if source A presents certain information, but source B does not ( though it also does not contradict it ), while sources A and B are in the same continuity, source B's failure to provide the information does not somehow make the information non-canonical. It does not have to be presented over and over again in each successive piece of canon in order to be considered valid. Once was enough. Citation of its lack of appearance in source B ( where it may not even be relevant to the plot ) does not somehow negate its appearance in source A. This is not "snark", it's simply the facts.
__________________
Whatever happens on earth, that up there, that's the endgame.
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 12:55 AM   #920
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

English please.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 01:19 AM   #921
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Rhovanion
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Remember when Star Wars(1977) said that Obi-Wan Kenobi fought in the Clone Wars, but then The Empire Strikes Back(1980) and Return of the Jedi(1983) failed to mention this fact all over again, and then no one ever said, "Because TESB and ROTJ didn't say that Obi-Wan fought in the Clone Wars, it's not true anymore"?
__________________
Whatever happens on earth, that up there, that's the endgame.
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 06:07 AM   #922
Agenda
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Belz... wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
BigKrampus wrote: View Post
I do suspect that some of those currently willing to rate STID as worse than TFF will mellow out in due course.
Anyone who thinks STID is a worse film than TFF needs to have their head examined.
Now, now. It's just a matter of personal preferences.
I'm not a big fan of TFF but I think it's actually more true to the characters and their relationships, especially the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad.
Agenda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 06:39 AM   #923
Search4
Commander
 
Search4's Avatar
 
Location: New Jersey, USA
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Agenda wrote: View Post
The problem with the Khan character in STID has little to do with race or being a Sikh or not. The problem is that, other than the name and the genetic engineering aspect, there is nothing recognizable about Khan in Benedict Cumberbatch's performance - or the way he was written.

Montalban played a handsome character who put on a charming performance as Khan, even if he was a dangerous psychopath. Cumberbatch's Khan is just a dangerous psychopath. With all due respect, he's not nearly as handsome and he's nearly not charming.

It's like he was cast as some different character altogether, then, right before shooting began, somebody handed him a new script that had Khan in it and he didn't have the time or inclination to actually change his performance to suit that character.

Of course, one can say that the character was changed in this reality beyond recognition. And if you're good with that, so be it. But for me, it makes it difficult to suspend my disbelief whatsoever.
Montalban's Khan is right out of the deep freeze.

Real world thought experiment: Adolf Hitler is woken up. Would he look the same and be highly recognizable? If you saw him casually might you say "holy mackeral, that's..."?

This society can make a human appear as a Romulan. Plastic surgery or the equivalent is routine. Ferengis talk English due to invisible technology. The FIRST thing i would do, if i wanted an instantly recognizable face to be useful, is alter it beyond recognition. The second thing would be to change the voice tonality.

OK, your mileage may vary, but Marcus had a year so turn "Khan" into Harrison and i think altering his appearance, drastically, would be expected.
Search4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 11:07 AM   #924
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Set Harth wrote: View Post
It's a question of semantics: what you call a misguided homage, I call a rip-off.
I guess it depends on your own boundaries. I don't think it's nearly close enough to the original to be called a rip-off. Also, don't we usually use that term to mean that someone stole an idea from someone else, and if so, how can this happen within a franchise ? For instance, can someone rip themselves off ?

I would have thought the point was obvious: if source A presents certain information, but source B does not ( though it also does not contradict it ), while sources A and B are in the same continuity, source B's failure to provide the information does not somehow make the information non-canonical. It does not have to be presented over and over again in each successive piece of canon in order to be considered valid.
OK but I don't see how this relates to what I said.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 02:16 PM   #925
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Agenda wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post

Anyone who thinks STID is a worse film than TFF needs to have their head examined.
Now, now. It's just a matter of personal preferences.
I'm not a big fan of TFF but I think it's actually more true to the characters and their relationships, especially the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad.
TFF is a really good TOS episode.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 02:19 PM   #926
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

The Final Frontier is much like Nemesis, when you're watching it you see glimpses of a good movie fighting to get out.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 09:17 PM   #927
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

BillJ wrote: View Post
I don't see many non-Trek fans, actually none, that discuss any Trek movies.
Why should they? There's a hell of a lot of comics, TV shows, movies, etc. that people around here expect me to know about and discuss (ie. Greg Cox' constant references to Batman, Sherlock Holmes, among others). He seems to expect people to understand and be able to follow references to those, but the simple fact is that not everyone here is a fan of everything. Except in the most general terms, I don't discuss those series because I've seen little/nothing of them, I'm not a fan of them, I'm not interested in them at all.

So why expect non-ST fans to discuss Star Trek?


Coach Comet wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
The other extreme position says, "Absolutely nothing in the film is a ripoff of TWOK!"
I don't consider the assertion that "Absolutely nothing in STID is a rip-off of TWOK" to be an extreme position. I consider it to be a statement of fact. One reason that I do, among others, is that TWOK and STID, both being Star Trek films, are two films in the same series. That alone makes it erroneous to characterize any intentional copying of elements from the former into the latter as a rip-off. The implication of the use of the term rip-off is that some sort of theft has occurred. That's simply impossible in this case.
Legal theft? No.

Creative theft? Dramatic theft? Indication of lazy writing? Yeah, I'd say so. And before somebody goes off on a "You must be a Berman fan" rant again, I wasn't impressed with "The Naked Now," either.

Belz... wrote: View Post
Jeyl wrote: View Post
Can't we just say that using Khan like they did in STID was a mistake?
Well I certainly wouldn't have used him at all, and would've used him differently, myself. Can't say it was a mistake, however. Just different from what I would have expected.
You wouldn't have used him at all, but you would have used him differently. But if you wouldn't have used him at all, how could you have used him...

Norman, coordinate.
__________________
"Let's give it to Riker. He'll eat anything!"

For some great Original Series fanfic, check out the Valjiir Continuum!
Timewalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 09:24 PM   #928
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Timewalker wrote: View Post

So why expect non-ST fans to discuss Star Trek?
Part of the discussion was about Into Darkness falling out of favor with general audiences. My point was that pretty much all of the Trek films are of no interest to general audiences once they see it on home video or at the theater. So using general audiences long term interest as a barometer of quality really isn't useful.

General audiences watch something then move on whether they liked it or not.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 09:26 PM   #929
JWPlatt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Belz means if Lindelof, obviously mentally unbalanced, held a gun to his head and forced him to use Khan, he would have written Khan differently. But I doubt you misunderstood that anyway...
JWPlatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2013, 10:16 PM   #930
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

Timewalker wrote: View Post
Creative theft? Dramatic theft? Indication of lazy writing? Yeah, I'd say so.
It's not theft. "Theft," "ripoff," or whatever the word-of-the-day is implies a conscious intent to do harm.

This is why people gang up on the "haters." No one gives two shits that people don't like the film. But when they use such obvious loaded language to skew the discussion in their favor, it becomes very hard to take them seriously.

No one is forcing anyone to like the film, but don't piss on the fans' cornflakes either.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg 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 03:39 PM.

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