Justin Lin on the Trailer and Beyond's Clash of Philosophies
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
That's bullshit. You can't expect everyone to just quietly sit on their hands and politely acknowledge the existence of the trailer whilst offering up absolutely no thought and opinion on what is presented. Even if it means wildly jumping to conclusions, those are mistakes we're all entitled to make and laugh at with hindsight when the next trailer is released.
*watching trailer and liking it - fine*
*watching trailer and disliking it - you're a nerdy bellend given to outrageous leaps of assumption*
*watching trailer and liking it - fine*
*watching trailer and disliking it - you're a nerdy bellend given to outrageous leaps of assumption*
Fair points. Maybe I should have clarified that better. There were some interesting ideas in those movies that got lost in favor of a "irrational bad man with a big gun" storyline.
As much as I liked the 2009 Star Trek, the Countdown comic did a much better job of explaining why Nero was so pissed off at Vulcan than the movie.
It put me to sleep the times I've tried to watch it.
Disliking it and making shit up to support that dislike (Lin being a liar, "where will they get gas in the 23rd century?!?") are two distinct things and have been responded to in two distinct ways.
Of course, it's always possible that the interesting ideas in this movie will get lost under the "bad man with 40,000 little guns" storyline. It's always hard for big-budget movies to keep their ideas from being lost under the spectacle and action demanded by the studios. Which is why Star Trek generally works better on TV (or in prose, he added humbly) than in movies.
Well, it used the same backstory as the movie, just fleshed it out more. But despite the claims about it being "close to canon," it was kind of inconsistent with the movie. In the film, when Spock recapped the backstory, he said "He called himself Nero," implying that the two of them met for the first time just before they fell into the black hole. Which conflicts with the comic's assertion that Spock and Nero were friends before the supernova. Although that might be something that was in the script when the comics were written but then changed in post-production.
"It's a real post-9/11 view of conflict (although it's also post-Vietnam, it's just that the Cold War overshadowed the lessons there) in that it's about asymmetrical warfare. The little guy can take down the more advanced big guy by attacking in ways that are both surprising and overwhelming. Yes, the Enterprise could blow up any one of those ships, but there are 40,000 ramming into the hull. Yes, we can take out terrorists with drone strikes, but there are always hundreds more."
-Lin
So... we're just going to get preached to with paper thin analogies about terrorism... in Star Trek... again?? Terrorism was covered almost entirely throughout Into Darkness and certainly influenced also Star Trek 2009 [Nero nuking Vulcan, etc]. I know it's not going to play like a public service message but please, message received.
There are other contemporary commentaries to make other than terrorism. Isn't this obvious to most? What is it about exploring the stars that dictates we must only reflect on our current failings as a society ad nauseam. Escapism!! Dammit11
"We want to push it further, introduce new species and have new adventures, but"
Yep. Rather have motorcycles, got it. Star Trek = motorcycles.
Last edited:
^Why can't new species have motorcycles?
But seriously, given that Lin is of Taiwanese birth and heritage, I'm thinking he might have a different perspective on the colonialism/cultural-imperialism question than we're used to seeing from Trek filmmakers of European ancestry. He might be able to bring a fresh take. (I also see that the first film he directed starred John Cho. That makes me hope this film will finally give Cho something meaty to do.)
But seriously, given that Lin is of Taiwanese birth and heritage, I'm thinking he might have a different perspective on the colonialism/cultural-imperialism question than we're used to seeing from Trek filmmakers of European ancestry. He might be able to bring a fresh take. (I also see that the first film he directed starred John Cho. That makes me hope this film will finally give Cho something meaty to do.)
"It's a real post-9/11 view of conflict (although it's also post-Vietnam, it's just that the Cold War overshadowed the lessons there) in that it's about asymmetrical warfare. The little guy can take down the more advanced big guy by attacking in ways that are both surprising and overwhelming. Yes, the Enterprise could blow up any one of those ships, but there are 40,000 ramming into the hull. Yes, we can take out terrorists with drone strikes, but there are always hundreds more."
-Lin
So... we're just going to get preached to with paper thin analogies about terrorism... in Star Trek... again?? Terrorism was covered almost entirely throughout Into Darkness and certainly influenced also Star Trek 2009 [Nero nuking Vulcan, etc]. I know it's not going to play like a public service message but please, message received.
There are other contemporary commentaries to make other than terrorism. Isn't this obvious to most? What is it about exploring the stars that dictates we must only reflect on our current failings as a society ad nauseam. Escapism!! Dammit11
- Lin
"We want to push it further, introduce new species and have new adventures, but"
The sounds like you took the most extreme positions, put words in Lin's mouth then posted this.
You just stick them in the basket like ET.
...I don't even know how that's possible. Great story, amazing visuals, fantastic acting from the leads, two intense "roll out the guns" naval battles, and a heart pounding score.
I suppose some of it depends on whether you find the setting interesting to begin with or not.
During the long drought of no new Trek worth watching, I was hooked on the Hornblower miniseries that ran from 98 to 01(03?). That was also pretty great.
Master & Commander was the only in flight movie on a flight to London I took when the film was relatively new...I could not stay awake. Did not grab me at all. Every time I awoke I swear the same damn scene was on, lol.
Interesting. While one thread explodes over the lack of deep and meaningful content in Beyond, you're worried about there being too much. We do have variety of opinion here that's for sure!
I would say two things in counterpoint. Firstly, good science fiction is always a reflection of the time in which it was made. TOS reflected the sixties, TNG the eighties, and the new movies the culture of the last decade. The science fiction setting gives an opportunity to explore issues of today with the emotive effect of proximity or 'having a dog in the fight' lessened.
Secondly, i don't think terrorism and asymmetrical warfare has been done to death - i think the perspective he's talking about - what is actually at the heart of the Federation when push comes to shove, and why is it their philosophy is so awesome anyway? - hasn't really been done since DS9 and even then it had to be muted a little by the existence of the continuing franchise. Those constraints are removed now, and we have a Federation ship exploring a new frontier. I'm interested to see what happens when someone is less than thrilled to see them.
Forbidden Planet.
Not at all what he said, is it? His complaint concerns the use in this movie of the Modern Trek interpretation of the Prime Directive, as opposed to the Original Series model.
If you're interested in twisting words or setting up straw men with an aim toward having a joust between one subset of Trek fans and another, let me invite you right now to take that elsewhere. It has no place in this forum or on TrekBBS.
Especially considering that most of the people who are Bermanites most likely hated Berman & Braga and accused them of 'wrecking' Star Trek in the first place, but now love the Berman & Braga Star Trek due to nostalgia.
These people are nothing but moon-faced assassins of joy.
I wouldn't bet on that, unless John is the main star of the movie. It's too bad that we can't have a separate Star Trek movie series with Sulu as captain of the Excelsior.
Except what about anything that Lin says in that article has to do with a TNG+ style of the Prime Directive at all?
Further, STID already took that approach to the Prime Directive. I don't see the point in othering people by labeling them as Bermanites, it's just weird.
Honestly, I don't have any use for it, either, and it tends to fuck up threads. If we could all just be Star Trek fans and get on with talking about trailers and stuff, that'd be great.
Shaka, you know better than that. Please don't let me see it again.
Especially considering that most of the people who are Bermanites most likely hated Berman & Braga and accused them of 'wrecking' Star Trek in the first place, but now love the Berman & Braga Star Trek due to nostalgia.
These people are nothing but moon-faced assassins of joy.