RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,580
Posts: 5,423,765
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 526
Newest member: Super Scout

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10


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, 06:16 PM   #406
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Orci strikes back

ComicGuy89 wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/13/edit...roken/#5166708

The rebuttal by our very own The Stig.

Nicely done!
From the article:
Star Trek isn’t (and never has been) particularly effective on that front. It’s always played it safe, with pat answers and trite conclusions to all the “issues” presented.
So Abrams must out of necessity play it safe, give us films with pat answers and trite conclusions to all the issues presented? What's preventing Abrams from doing better?
"Better" is subjective. A film can be better by delving into social issues and philosophy, but it can also be better by focusing instead on characterization, action and drama. It can be better in a lot of ways.

Of course you could argue a good film could focus on all these things, but I guess they just wanted to focus on one thing.
But that's the connection I'm not seeing. What does one have to do with the other? What do elements of TOS not being as good as we remember have to do with whether or not nuTrek is good or bad (or broken)?

The article is ambiguous. Is the author saying that critics of nuTrek who think Trek is broken really just want TNG? He never comes right out and says it, but that seems to be the point. Where's the evidence of this? BBS posts? No evidence is presented. It's just a straw man argument, creating the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position (thank you, Google).

"Some people say Star Trek is broken, but what do they really want? I'll tell you... they really want TNG, not Star Trek. Ergo, Star Trek is not broken." Huh?
The Stig wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
What's preventing Abrams from doing better?
Nothing, of course.

The point is that he went another way entirely. He focused on the crew and their relationships, rather than a forced and overwrought 'issue' to define the movie.

I think it's a far better movie for it.
The title of the article is "Star Trek is not broken." Do you feel that you proved Star Trek is not broken?
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 06:18 PM   #407
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Orci strikes back

Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 06:18 PM   #408
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Re: Orci strikes back

BillJ wrote: View Post


Nothing stops Abrams from doing anything he likes with the franchise but it still has to sell tickets. I am perfectly happy with how the pat answers and trite conclusions were presented in Into Darkness.
Two things to keep in mind: INTO DARKNESS had somewhat more meatier plot content than its predecessor. And it sold less tickets in America while grossing a bit less than TREK 2009. Not by any means the first time this scenario's occurred, and it's not an absolute, but I sense a connection. In this day and age, the better you are, the more you often must fight for the cash.
__________________
''Man in red shirt: Scotty, or dead. Woman in red shirt: Uhura, or love interest.''
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 06:23 PM   #409
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci strikes back

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.
This is just bullshit and I think that you know it...

Star Trek is awesome, warts and all. I enjoy the Abrams movies, warts and all.

But it is a bit disingenuous to claim to be a Star Trek fan but then pick the Abrams films apart because it does many of the same things.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 06:25 PM   #410
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci strikes back

foxhot wrote: View Post

Two things to keep in mind: INTO DARKNESS had somewhat more meatier plot content than its predecessor. And it sold less tickets in America while grossing a bit less than TREK 2009. Not by any means the first time this scenario's occurred, and it's not an absolute, but I sense a connection. In this day and age, the better you are, the more you often must fight for the cash.
I think part of it is just a poor marketing campaign, part of it is competing with two blockbusters at the same time and part of it is that the Star Trek brand still has the "virgin nerd living in their parents basement" stigma attached to it.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 06:25 PM   #411
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Orci strikes back

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.
The funny thing is I agree with almost all the points in the article about TOS, Gene's vision, the TNG-era spinoffs; I just don't see it ties in with the title of the article, how it proves nuTrek is good, bad, broken or otherwise.
BillJ wrote: View Post
I think part of it is just a poor marketing campaign, part of it is competing with two blockbusters at the same time and part of it is that the Star Trek brand still has the "virgin nerd living in their parents basement" stigma attached to it.
I think it's simpler than that. Star Trek just isn't the big name money maker and never will be. ID probably is as good as Trek box-office can get. With pretty much all Trek productions, the studio depends on the hardcore fans double-dipping -- seeing the films multiple times, getting the DVDs and blurays.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 08:13 PM   #412
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Orci strikes back

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
The Stig wrote:
Nothing, of course.

The point is that he went another way entirely. He focused on the crew and their relationships, rather than a forced and overwrought 'issue' to define the movie.

I think it's a far better movie for it.
The title of the article is "Star Trek is not broken." Do you feel that you proved Star Trek is not broken?
You seem quite determined to not read the article in its entirety. It's a shame, since I kept it short and to the point. 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.

The problem is, and always has been, that some fans of Trek desperately want it to mean something more: that there is some sort of meaning or purpose to the wider Trek universe. I don't hold with that. It's merely a setting, a backdrop that enables human stories. I don't really care about the made up details of fictional technology or the wider social-political issues of a world that doesn't make a lick of sense.
__________________
Some say that he was the first choice to play the new Doctor but turned it down when he couldn't put racing stripes on the TARDIS.

All we know is, he's called The Stig.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 08:17 PM   #413
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Orci strikes back

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just skimmed, and honestly believe that's what it said.

Take another read of it, it doesn't say Star Trek was never any good, it says Star Trek was never any good at THAT
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 08:18 PM   #414
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci strikes back

The Stig wrote: View Post

You seem quite determined to not read the article in its entirety. It's a shame, since I kept it short and to the point. 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.

The problem is, and always has been, that some fans of Trek desperately want it to mean something more: that there is some sort of meaning or purpose to the wider Trek universe. I don't hold with that. It's merely a setting, a backdrop that enables human stories. I don't really care about the made up details of fictional technology or the wider social-political issues of a world that doesn't make a lick of sense.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 08:27 PM   #415
geneo
Lieutenant
 
Location: WV
Re: Orci strikes back

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.
geneo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 08:28 PM   #416
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
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.
I don't think that you're in the right thread, or the right century.
__________________
Some say that he was the first choice to play the new Doctor but turned it down when he couldn't put racing stripes on the TARDIS.

All we know is, he's called The Stig.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 08:38 PM   #417
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
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.
Little homophobia there? Afraid you'll catch the 'gay' if they put one on screen?

Since they're part of the human race, I'd welcome seeing a gay character as long as he/she isn't just a token.

You may want to check your calendar: it's the 21st century.

EDIT: New Voyages added a gay character in a piss-poor manner. That's why they saw a backlash.

I don't know about any one else, but I could go for some Uhura/Carol Marcus lesbian action!
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill

Last edited by BillJ; September 13 2013 at 08:53 PM.
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 08:52 PM   #418
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orci strikes back

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.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:00 PM   #419
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
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.
<Takes Deep Breath, counts to 10, exhales>

Wow, seriously? Trek would be ruined by adding a gay character? That's an incredibly offensive thing to say, which I'm sure you must know. Try changing that to Black or female, or Asian, instead of Gay, and you'll see just how offensive it is to say. How about "Why does every show have to have straight people in it, why do you have to ruin it" - See sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

First off, "just make Kirk Gay" was a joke, playing off the suggestion of changing gender or changing race, that was earliler posted.

I think you're making things up saying New Voyages lost viewers by adding Ensign Kirk as a Gay Character. That was done pretty early on, and the earliest episodes had alot of issues that would lose viewers just based upon their issues. Adding a Gay character has not been shown to lose viewers in Commercial Television, and there is no reason why it would with Fan Films.

Why do people want to see Gay Characters in shows and Movies? Because we actually exist, we're real people, and we like to see a character that represents us, just as much as Black people or Asians or any other skin color/ethnicity wants to see someone like themselves onscreen. /soapbox
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2013, 09:11 PM   #420
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
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.
So having a character who just happens to be gay "ruins it"? Did you feel the same when DS9 implied or portrayed lesbian encounters that involved the main female characters?
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |
SeerSGB 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 03:41 PM.

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