Orci strikes back

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Mountie1988, Sep 6, 2013.

  1. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    The article itself states it as well.

    and

    And I agree with that.

    What I don't agree with is the notion that you somehow can't criticize the new films for exactly that reason, because "they are not supposed to be like that".
     
  2. iguana_tonante

    iguana_tonante Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Italy, EU
    Or maybe we can just like what we like (and I like both the originals and the remake), and not piss on other people's cheerios.

    Just a thought.
     
  3. Yorkshire Niner

    Yorkshire Niner Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sheffield, England
    Hippy.
     
  4. iguana_tonante

    iguana_tonante Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Italy, EU
    I can feel your anger. Good. Let the hate flow through you.
     
  5. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxuwXczWQC0[/yt]

    [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U[/yt]
     
  6. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    CommishSleer
    I'm quoting from the article:

    I totally disagree.

    I don't see TOS and dismiss its shortcomings because of the 'great' writing and brilliant characters arcs of TNG. Because TNG has more of GRs 'vision'. Wasn't GR only really involved in Season 1 and 2 of TNG. Did the reviewer ever see Season 1 and 2 of TNG? Perhaps he is seeing the great writing and character arcs of TNG through his own rose coloured glasses.

    And:

    Yes TOS was just shoot-em-ups every week. No social commentary or moral issues ever came up. :wtf:
     
  7. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    :techman::rommie:
     
  8. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    You've just completely made your criteria irrelevant. This is a TOS remake, so you can't consider TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, because they aren't TOS and therefore not what the movies are attempting to capture.

    Would you criticize a Vietnam War movie, for not showing the March To Baghdad, complete with such US Domination the enemy soldiers were laying down their arms and surrendering with barely a fight, but, instead showed no US domination, and hundreds of US Soldiers dying to gain to advance the front line only 10 feet (Or having to fall back and still losing hundreds of soldiers). Or would you criticize this Vietnam War movie, for not using patriot missiles? Brining in TNG Era TV show criteria to judge a TOS remake by is no different.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2013
  9. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    I see no problem in the tone & feel of the films. Problem is the horrible script and that they resort to rehashing old stuff, down to rehashing entire scenes.

    ST09 greatest problem was the fuckload of contrivances that moved the plot forward, and the lack of character development. Ironically, STD acknowledges the latter because the characters realize nuKirk is still a dumb hotshot. But at least the film was somehow original, despite giving in to the prequel/reboot craze.

    STD has a nice scope and all, but it was absolutely unneccessarry that the villain needed to be Khan. And it was absolutely unneccessarryy to put the climax from TWOK as the climax of STD. Whoo, they reversed the roles. Big fucking deal, it was still an uninspired ripoff. And you realize that the convoluted story was way too complex even for the writers to understand.

    I blame Lindelof. He was the one who fucked up Prometheus with the unnnecccesssarrry Alien plot and the utterly stupid characters who basically killed themselves because they went full retard. And apparently he was also the one fighting for Khan in this film.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2013
  10. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    CommishSleer
    I like the idea of Khan being an ally.

    Maybe Cumberbatch had too much charisma to live
     
  11. Konata Izumi

    Konata Izumi Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    They attained a higher level of consciousness in the later seasons.:cool:
     
  12. Yorkshire Niner

    Yorkshire Niner Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sheffield, England
    Jar Jar and Paramount didn't have to remake TOS when they decided to make more Trek films. That was their choice. And they chose to throw out decades of continuity, purely because it was easier to do so.

    Surely you aren't serious in thinking that Jar Jar is attempting to imitate and modernise TOS with his films? He's just borrowing all the bankable assets!
     
  13. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    Um... okay, so where do I fit in? I don't care for big dumb Hollywood action flix, but I'm just fine with forgetting about the Trek spinoiffs (I'm quite happy to forget VOY and ENT).

    The conflict is slightly more nuanced than your generalizations allow.
    It's mirroring one popular defense of the new movies: "Well, the original Star Trek wasn't that good either!" Um... okay. I agree the original Star Trek wasn't as good as I used to think it was. How exactly does that make the new movies good? The "TOS wasn't that good either" defense makes no sense. That means we have to accept mediocrity?

    And I completely disagree with author's assessment of the films:
    No, they're using standard Hollywood big budget action films as their primary template. A TOS episode started with a script. The new movies (and all modern action films, for that matter) start with the set pieces and then a story is built around the set pieces. Transformers is more the template for nuTrek than is TOS.
    Decades of continuity from Star Trek spinoffs, derivative series created by other people. It should be thrown out.

    I don't care for Abrams Trek, but I'm all for future Trek reboots.
     
  14. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    I hated The Dark Knight and loved Skyfall. I found The Dark Knight dull and plodding. I loved Skyfall, but found that lots of hardcore Bond fans were leveling the same charges at it that hardcore Trekkies were lobbing at Star Trek Into Darkness. Imagine that?

    This makes absolutely no sense.

    If there not pissing in others Cherrios then they can't be smug about supposedly how much smarter they are than the drooling masses.

    Because Modern Trek had ran its course. When you have three failures back-to-back-to-back, it tends to make the studio leery of investing money. Plus, of all the series, we saw Kirk and Spock the least in live-action and they are Trek's cultural icons. It was time to go home.

    Please don't tell me what I'm thinking. Please actually use the man's name who made the movies. You talk about civil wars and it seems you're the one trying to start them. I'm anxiously awaiting my Into Darkness Blu-ray to arrive plus I've been purchasing the TNG Blu-ray's as they've been released. So which side of this moronic civil war does that put me on?
     
  15. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    You're right, they didn't have to remake TOS, that's what they chose to do. So, that's where your critism should stop on that front, is that their choice to do TOS, rather than a later era bogged down with 50 years worth of Continuity as you would have liked. But, since they did choose to do TOS, it's not a legitimate criticism to compain that it's a bad TOS movie because it doesn't bring in TNG era stuff. Plus, a movie is never going to be able to match a Series in depth. Each Series had a minimum of 100 hour long episodes, versus a movie that's got no more than 2 1/2 hours to work with.

    Of course JJ wanted to make a movie that makes money, that's kind of his job, that's why he gets hired to make movies. But, yes, I absolutely believe Bad Robot, especially the writers who are fans, did want to make a modern update true to the soul of TOS, and I believe they succeeded.
     
  16. KirkusOveractus

    KirkusOveractus Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Ambler, PA
    Once someone makes mention of Abrams as "Jar Jar", then I kind of stop reading and know that your points won't be based on any kind of fact but by personal feelings. You lose credibility and aren't really open to discussing the matter.
     
  17. Keeper

    Keeper Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Land of Illusion
    Uh, this idea TOS wasn't very good is IMO an attitude born in hindsight from decades of re-evaluating it, back it the day it was the best thing on TV - again, imo. Conversations always focused on what it did right or was interesting & topical about it with very little emphasis on the errors of its ways. The first person I recall openly criticizing it in a wholly negative way was Rick Berman.
     
  18. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    I think the biggest thing that acknowledges the awesome quality of TOS is that people are still looking for reasons to tear it down nearly fifty-years after it premiered. :techman:
     
  19. Tiny Timby

    Tiny Timby LIKE LIGHTNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING Administrator

    Joined:
    May 28, 2001
    Have you read Jon Spaihts' original draft of Prometheus? It reads like the bad Alien fan-fiction that people apparently wanted Prometheus to be. It's a disaster.
     
  20. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Yea, I actually haven't heard anyone use that defense of the movies. The mention just recently in this thread of it being a weak defense, is the first I've heard of it even being a defense. Why would anyone put forward a defense of "Well, xxxxxxx, wasn't very good anyways"?