Orci strikes back

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Mountie1988, Sep 6, 2013.

  1. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    I agree, it's not going to happen, but it would be nice to make Spock a little mysterious again. He's so familiar now, and with filmmakers' ability to create really alien-looking aliens now, Spock just looks like a human next to them.

    Of course, there's the fact that Spock is half human. In a future production you could have Vulcans with really severe features, whereas Spock would look like a human with pointed ear. He would be obviously different from both humans and Vulcans, isoated from both. It might make for an interesting character dynamic, and make him seem really alien again (a race of one, by his reckoning) in an age when we could have other crazy-looking aliens walking around in the Enterprise corridors.
     
  2. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    No offense, but this sounds like complaining just to complain.

    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.

    But then, I'm not looking for Star Trek to shape or challenge my worldview.
     
  3. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I don't say this very often: the above is a great idea. :techman:
     
  4. The Stig

    The Stig Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    BBC Storage, hiding from Chris Evans
    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.
     
  5. Opus

    Opus Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bloom County
    Abrams set out to make TOS current and viable for the big screen. I think what The Stig is saying is TOS was never particularly as good as fans claim about attacking the "issues". Rose-colored glasses from both fans AND Gene Roddenberry himself. With STiD, I believe he is saying that JJ actually nailed it (TOS).

    So... are you saying JJ should have done better than even that? Better than TOS actually ever did?
     
  6. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    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 title of the article is "Star Trek is not broken." Do you feel that you proved Star Trek is not broken?
     
  7. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.
     
  8. Foxhot

    Foxhot Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    Location:
    Foxhot
    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.
     
  9. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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.
     
  10. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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.
     
  11. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    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.
    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.
     
  12. The Stig

    The Stig Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    BBC Storage, hiding from Chris Evans
    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.
     
  13. Sindatur

    Sindatur Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    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
     
  14. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    :techman:
     
  15. geneo

    geneo Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    WV
    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.
     
  16. The Stig

    The Stig Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    BBC Storage, hiding from Chris Evans
    I don't think that you're in the right thread, or the right century.
     
  17. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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! :devil:
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2013
  18. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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.
     
  19. Sindatur

    Sindatur Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    <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
     
  20. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    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?