Why did they bother...

Oh please, even TOS was far from artistic. It was a western set in space. And every subsequent movie and series only wanted to milk it more.

Making this show was never altruistic. Roddenberry may have genuinely liked his work...but he didn't do it for free. Artists want to make a living from their work. Just because these movies fit our time period (just like all of the other movies and series fit theirs) doesn't make them inferior or only out to "sucker the newbies into liking it because they don't know any better". New fans are just as important as old fans, and making a movie that will have mass appeal doesn't diminish it or the people who enjoy it.

 

Haven't we been over this a thousand times? This Star trek is not for you. I rarely have seen anybody get it this wrong...

RAMA

 

Well, keep in mind it is an alternate reality. I don't know. I guess people thought having the same old crew would make it more appealing even though they did change it a bit. Besides, Gene Roddenberry actually wanted there to someday be a movie or a show about them before they were... them. I honestly don't think they did a horrible job. The only thing wrong for me is that it's lost most of it's "Star Trek". It's kind of just a big action movie with the idea of Star Trek tossed in the background. But I'm not complaining too much because I'm just happy Star Trek is back at all. I mean who knows when it'll all be over. Obviously the legacy will always live on but it's great to have Star Trek happening now. Especially for me who never got to watch any of the series as they came out.

 

I have to say I was underwhelmed by Pine's version of "these are the voyages". There's a reason you have to go to the gag reel to hear it on the '09 film...

 

I looked around during the speech, the larger audience I saw it with was in rapt attention...I think it was very successful, especially in te context it was given.

 

It definitely isn't as good as Shatner or Stewart's versions.

 

Since when is the "western" genre not a category of art?

Were there a lot of Russians and Asians and Blacks as featured ensemble characters in Bonanza?

Did Gunsmoke feature an interracial kiss?

Did the Rifleman offer consistent subversive allegories about U.S. race relations and foreign policy?

Is the only way to defend the new to smear the old?

Did you even read the bit about the Tu Quoque? I could grant (although I don't) that Old Trek was pure hackery and my claims would still stand.

Who only wanted to milk it more? The studio certainly wanted to make money and that was their primary aim, but TMP was rather cerebral in it's ambitions.

I think it's sad that the ONLY motive you can attribute to story tellers is the desire "milk it."

Did you even read my post? I've already noted that artists want to get paid. That writers want to put food on the table is not exclusive to a motive to express, critique, philosophize, jest, subvert, reframe, etc. Is it such a scandal for you to think that artists also have artistic motivations? Are you that jaded?

What does this even mean? Sunshine, Gattaca, Children of Men, District 9, Moon, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - these are all films "of our time period." That Transformers is also of our time does not mean that the horizon of expectation for science fiction films reduces to the ambition of noisy actioners.

They're not suckering the newbies; they are pandering to them. They are giving them Star Trek (im)precisely as they (vaguely) remember it.

Are they? In what sense? Not a lot of Glenn Miller fans these days, but would we be doing Glenn Miller's music any favors by converting into dubstep?

How far can you alter the original before it is no longer substantively what it was (Ship of Theseus)? How far can you push things before you lose the soul of the original?

If the only goal is to keep the brand name alive, then who cares? Suppose, for example, America became a country where there was no free speech, no voting for officials, no prosperity, and which oppressed the rest of the world a la Germany in the early 20th century. Would "America" still be something worth fighting for? Would it matter that we kept the name alive if we lost all the substance? Or is there something that matters more than profit, market share, and brand recognition?

But this does not mean that mass-appeal is all we can aspire to.

Some of us feel like Pike in Trek '09. We would simply like to encourage nuTrek to aspire to be a little more.

Your predecessors commanded the franchise for four decades. They inspired people and promoted dialogue on sensitive issues. They dare you to do better.

 

The funniest thing about Modern Trek was that they were suppose to have had a free hand and ended up being more tepid on social issues than TOS.

Star Trek Into Darkness had the balls to take unpopular positions on U.S. actions and all people can do is scream it isn't enough.

I'm fairly convinced at this point that to a certain group of fans there is simply nothing Abrams can do right, short of leaving the franchise.

 

And even then you can be sure the same people will be making posts whining about his cruel betrayal because he was never a true fan.

 

Unpopular position?

Everyone supports the troops; fewer and fewer people support the wars. Now that the U.S. has been at war for 12 years and we know that there were no WMDs, it's pretty easy to look back with hindsight and say that preemptive war is not such a good idea. The message would have been courageous in 2002 when everyone in America was spoiling for the fight, not in 2013 when we've already had a belly full.

It doesn't take "balls" to take the stand eleven years too late.

The position taken on U.S. foreign policy in the film is muddled. Admiral Marcus is a renegade military man, so this does not really criticize legitimate foreign policy of the United States. That admirals should not take it upon themselves to start their own wars is a no-brainer even in a post 9-11 world. John Harrison is a terrorist which only plays into the "War on Terror" angle.

Plenty of other films have cashed in on 9-11 iconography (e.g., Cloverfield, War of the Worlds), so this isn't new ground either.

And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.

 

Bull. Shit.

I've been critical of the flaws in both Abrams films. But I also know that Star Trek has never been this scientifically accurate, morally righteous creation some folks seem to remember it being. It was incredibly flawed, but fun. The Abrams films are incredibly flawed, but fun.

 

Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. And to an extent I do agree, it cna be narrowminded. But I also don't think wanting an actor of a specific ethnicity is necessarily prejudiced. It all depends on circumstances and how its handled.

 

Bracketing for the moment, your spotless record of "calling like it is," I would suggest that our discussions are, in fact, terribly polarized with both sides taking offense with little provocation and rallying around their preferred tribes. If you think only one side is guilty of this simply because you think that YOU are even handed is to miss the point.

So what's wrong with asking for less flaws with the fun?

Flawed as Trek is, it occasionally has a message. Sometimes that message is heavy handed and pedantic (TNG anyone?), but it has a moral message, a more or less hopefully image of humanity, and a curiosity about the universe (i.e., What if this were true?).

 

Why does everything have to pander to old fans? Just because I've liked Star Trek longer than someone else doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one that matters. And I didn't like TOS or most of the movies. Never have. The acting is wooden and the stories are, for the most part, bad. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the show, because the original Twilight Zone is one of the best shows I've ever seen. I really enjoyed TNG and DS9, though. And I like this reboot. But I don't demand that everyone like exactly what I like, because what fun would that be? But I respect everyone's opinion on it and I won't insult them simply because they are new to it.

 

No insult is intended, but the function of any criticism or "suggestion for improvement" involves an implicit accusation.

Examples:

RELIGION: "Your beliefs are wrong and you should turn to my deity to seek forgiveness for your sins."

HIGHER EDUCATION: "You won't be as respectable, be as smart, or get the job you want without our service. As it stands, you're level of education is inadequate."

SHAMPOO: "Yuck, get rid of that dandruff!"

You don't like TOS and say that it was bad. The acting was, so you say, wooden and it is terrible in comparison to other shows like the Twilight Zone. Should the TOS fan complain about being insulted or get a thicker skin and realize that people have different opinions. I mean, I could choose to be insulted by your claim that TOS stories were simply bad, but you're entitled to your opinion even if it is offensive to my own. Why aren't critics of NuTrek entitled to their opinions?

 

It isn't what I think that matters. It is a simple fact that many of the flaws in Abrams Trek are in abundance in other versions of the property.

It's simply tiresome to watch a group of people ignore forty years worth of flaws and claim Abrams has offended them because those very same flaws exist in his films.

The flaws are part of Trek's charm.

 

Every artwork has flaws. That every artwork has flaws, however, does not mean that there are no significant flaws deserving of criticism (as flaws) in artworks.

Well, OK, but what does that have to do with the arguments I am making here?

That some flaws are charming does not mean that all flaws are charming or that we cannot criticize Star Trek (old or new), because flaws are "charming."

 

I have no problem with people not liking the new Star Trek. I just think that that people are insulting new fans for liking it instead of the actual movie itself. "Pandering to newbies" is a phrase like that. I disliked the new version of Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly...but I didn't dislike the people who did like it. I figured that it would be a great way to get people to read the book and maybe even watch other adaptations because they now had an interest that I shared.

I have been berated for being a "bandwagon fan" because I "only" became a fan of hockey 10 years ago...which just happened to be when I moved to a part of the country where people actually played the sport, as opposed to where I grew up. It's the same with Star Trek. Many kids born from the 90's on have not seen Trek in its prime, and more than likely not be fans growing up. However, my nephews liked the movies even though they will probably never enjoy TOS. The update made it fresh and accessible for them- something that none of the other series ever did.

I don't think you have to like movie, but I don't think it's fair to criticize people who are new to it for liking it, is my point.

 

People may not really care to think about it, but if they really cared to think carefully, they would stop making the mistake.