Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Captain Nebula, May 26, 2013.
In my opinion, MY posts are.
Let's not go there, shall we? It's borderline trolling.
So attack and defend, but confine the attack and defense to arguments, not other posters. (Yes, I'm aware that you're not the only one doing it; everyone needs to back off a step, in that regard.
Remember: Post, not poster.)
And YARN, if you want to teach a class, go purchase a permit, rent a venue appropriate to the purpose, and sell tickets. In here, you can discuss or not discuss—I leave that up to you—but it's not your job to lecture nor to condescend. Please cease doing so from here on. I'd particularly like it if you were to refrain altogether from posting the words "tu quoque" for the foreseeable future.* That can go for any reference (direct or indirect) to "illicit attacks," as well.
* the next 3-4 years, say.
Apprently not, as the nuCast are not cultural icons--just actors in a new version no more authentic than the numerous ST fan films.
If Paramount/Roddenberry shared that belief, The Next Generation and its sequel series would not exist. Yes, the NG ship is another Enterprise, but Picard, et al, were new to audiences.
If you researched Star Trek's development you'd know that Adult Westerns, like the ones you mentioned, were the inspiration/template for Star Trek. Roddenberry, who worked on Adult Westerns, wanted to do for Science Fiction what those shows did for Westerns.
Star Trek wasn't alone in it's "rainbow" approach to casting. The Networks and studios were pretty much ordering shows to hire non-whites for new programs. Roddenberry didn't come up with this in a vacuum. Mission: Impossible and Hogan's Heroes had multi-ethnic casts, Hogan came out a year before Star Trek and MI the same year.
As others have pointed out, the Adult Westerns did tackle social issues, including racism and segregation. And they didn't have to invent aliens and use allegory to do it. The censors of that time weren't that concerned with those particular topics. Language and nudity were probably bigger concerns. Kirk using "hell" or Barbara Eden's navel were more important than some Indian on Gunsmoke being forced off his land by white men or aliens on Star Trek fighting a genocidal war.
Its not a mission statement. It an opening monologue. Star Trek doesn't have to limit it's self to those mentioned in the monologue. Nor has it. Sometimes they went to new worlds, other times they went to "old" worlds.
Different time. There wasn't seven-hundred plus hours of Trek.
Um. Neither is the old cast.
"Icon" is the current way of saying "something familiar that I like."
The oldCast (I guess we have a new shorthand, courtesy of TREK_GOD_1) are like Mom's macaroni and cheese - doesn't matter if it came out of a box marked Kraft, it's what she served when we were kids so it's the mac-and-cheese we want.
Uh, are you serious? I mean, I can think of several shows that lampoon the specific performances (not just the characters) of old cast members. I haven't seen much of any of that yet for the new cast, but maybe that will come in time?
I think its more along the lines of the TOS cast weren't cultural icons in 1970, four years after the start of the series. Neither are the new guys, four years after the start of their run.
In forty or fifty years, who knows?
Which is fine, since so many people attack the new based on the old.
I don't think Spock calling Kirk "Jim" is relevant, though. In ST09 he calls him Jim in the Jellyfish.
I agree, but I think that the groundwork done by TOS and the movies help quite a bit, consciously or not.
No, he is making a comparison: if they can be friendly in early TOS, they can be friends in STID, especially after the terrible events of the last movie.
Because they're familiar, not because they're iconic.
You know how many screen actors have reached iconic status? None.
One could maybe make an argument for Charlie Chaplin, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart. But that's if you limit the definition of "iconic" to its idiomatic use. And even still, with all three it's their professional personas that would be iconic, not the actors.
In any case, a person could easily count the number of figures from contemporary pop culture who've reached iconic status on one hand. And, like I said, that's if you leave out the religious component.
People use the word way too liberally around here. I know it's Dennis's pet peeve.
Ah, that makes sense.
Just one more point regarding Kirk and Spock being friends in TOS. In the first episode aired, The Man Trap, we're told they're close before we ever see them on screen together...
So I'm not sure why it's important that we see that golden moment they become friends in these movies.
Trek was ahead of the curve there...we saw belly buttons!
As far as I understand the friendship criticism, it was not that they're simply friends. It was because in the first movie they were pretty much rivals, and in this movie it's progressed to a point where Spock is screaming "Khaaaaaaan" after Kirk's death (which does seem somewhat abrupt and even out of character). The critique says that these movies are relying on a lot of the previously established lore to provide that gradually established familiarity between the two, rather than building that relationship on its own. If the two movies stood alone, it's harder to believe Spock and Kirk becoming friends given how adversarial they were toward each other and given their personalities. Yeah, maybe they became friends working together in the year we didn't see, but the point there is that we didn't see it.
What you say here, of course, is perfectly reasonable. Ad Hominem attacks are, generally, bad form in argument. You have successfully identified and warned about the use of an informal fallacy.
No, we don't have to call this "ad hominem," but this is the appropriate label. Sure would be odd for someone to outlaw using this term. It would almost seem like an attack on reason itself to outlaw reference to words which point out common errors in reasoning, wouldn't it?
I have no idea what "I'd particularly like..." means in this context. If this is just your personal preference, then I couldn't care less. On the other hand, are you indicating that you're going to do something about it if I do?
If you're really (i.e., coercively) prohibiting me, and me alone(?), from using appropriate terms to identify common mistakes in reasoning, then please say so directly.
Uh, yeah. I find there to be a difference between these two situations:
- A sudden smile (which was quickly wiped away) after Spock thought he killed his CO and friend.
- Spock screaming "KHAAAAN" even though Khan wasn't responsible for Kirk's death, and then going on a rampage to hunt him down.
This new Spock is definitely more emotional, or at least definitely worse at repressing his emotions. That's fine, they want to make the character different. So I should rephrase and say that it doesn't seem like the Spock of TOS. "Out of character" was wrong because his character has been shown to be more erratic. It's really beside the point at any rate.
You're lecturing again.
Both are emotional responses to extreme events. Even in the Prime Universe, Spock was more emotional when younger. (The Cage and WNMHGB)
Separate names with a comma.