Aaaahhhh... six more months of this... 
Here's the Entertainment Weekly article:
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Aaaahhhh... six more months of this...
It's been going on long before this... it will go on so long as there are trek fans out there.
Aaaahhhh... six more months of this...
It's been going on long before this... it will go on so long as there are trek fans out there.
Another "Good point" here. At least it'll only be 6 more months of speculation on this film. Then comes the debates over it...
Well, I am a "death to Star Trek" kinda guy but only for the reason that I think all stories should be allowed to end. In litSF, Frank Herbert milked Dune for all it was worth, to diminishing returns long before his son and Kevin Anderson exhumed the cow for yet more titty-tugging. I really hope that my all-time favorite tv show--The Sopranos--is as dead as the abrupt ending suggests its hero is. I want no theatrical film, no prequel series, any more than I'd want a Citizen Kane II or a prequel to Hamlet, even if John Updike himself were to write it. Also, I feel people should really think twice before remaking a classic (wouldn't want a remake of Citizen Kane, either, even if it was directed by Ridley Scott or Martin Scorsese and starred Russell Crowe or Daniel Day Lewis--Hamlet, of course, is a different story). The reason why NuBSG is such a marvel is because it took a pretty lousy show and managed to make it into something that advanced SF on televeision as much as Star Trek did back in the sixties. Star Trek was already pretty fucking great--I wouldn't be here if I didn't still list TOS among the best things put on tv.
I find it is next to impossible to say these things around here without being radicalized, pushed into an armed camp and flirting with a flame every third post--which is the fun and shame of the TrekBBS.
Well, I actually see where you're coming from here. A lot of the movie naysayers have just been knee-jerk reactionaries spewing things about canon and JJ Abrams shooting his/her parents in an alley. But, you've brought up a very good point with a civil tone instead of charging in Rambo-style. I highly doubt anyone is gonna radicalize and flame you for such a post.
And indeed, I would ask why is this film being made? Or rather what purpose does it serve? For those fans out there, do watch Star Trek simply to be entertained, or do you watch it for something far more? Indeed, depending on opinion, this will either be the worst or the best Star Trek film. The smartest or the dumbest. It's all perception.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage
That has been my thought as well though I lean toward it being the best
and smartest. And I think the answer is both. They picked this era and crew
because in all sense it is the most iconic. Everyone has heard the phrases
and seen the ears of Kirk and Spock. People know it. The same way non
fans know who James Bond is or what a Wookie is. It's the best way to
reach the largest audience.
Then you get deeper into stories and morals and characters.
This crew and era is very rich for that(like most in Trek) and I think we
will get not only a hell of a ride from this movie, but a great story that will
be effective in reaching the hearts of Trek fans in all the right ways.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
What concerns me is the idea of rebuilding from scratch, which speaks to lazy writing. There's decades of rich history to extend from in the Trek universe. When new creative teams feel the need to recreate a property rather than build on it, it's a concern. (This isn't a comic book after all, where continuity is changed every decade.) Then there's the assumption that this project rests upon: that ST is a dead pop culture series from the 60's that has to be "fixed" somehow.
To be done "right" a film should keep the original history, build on it, and then stretch into new directions. Enterprise and NEM would have both succeeded if the creative teams had taken a few more chances and shown us different aspects of the Trek universe.
From what I know, the movie involves creating a new "timeline" for Trek, so probably not. Insipid idea and a tired plot device.
What concerns me is the idea of rebuilding from scratch, which speaks to lazy writing. There's decades of rich history to extend from in the Trek universe. When new creative teams feel the need to recreate a property rather than build on it, it's a concern. (This isn't a comic book after all, where continuity is changed every decade.) Then there's the assumption that this project rests upon: that ST is a dead pop culture series from the 60's that has to be "fixed" somehow.
To be done "right" a film should keep the original history, build on it, and then stretch into new directions. Enterprise and NEM would have both succeeded if the creative teams had taken a few more chances and shown us different aspects of the Trek universe.
Last edited:
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
"Lazy writing" - a term that gets bandied about on this bbs an awful lot.
You really think starting from scratch is lazy? Sounds like bloody hard work to me!
I've never met a creative writer who has said, "Today I shall be lazy and write the easy way." A lazy writer is the one who never meets deadlines and/or never gets published.
JJ Abrams is going to show us a "different aspect".
"Lazy writing" - a term that gets bandied about on this bbs an awful lot.
You really think starting from scratch is lazy? Sounds like bloody hard work to me!
I've never met a creative writer who has said, "Today I shall be lazy and write the easy way." A lazy writer is the one who never meets deadlines and/or never gets published.
JJ Abrams is going to show us a "different aspect".
Look how well it worked with Nick Meyer.
This just occured to me: with Meyer, at least, we were lucky (and it was an incredible stroke of luck) that he independently recognized one of the things Roddenberry was shooting for all along: the "Horatio Hornblower in Space" aspect. And thus, he set out to "bring" to Trek what was already there. (I find it funny to hear him congratulate himself on this.)
Abrams thinks Star Trek should be more like Star Wars. I find that troubling, and I've said why elsewhere so I won't belabor it here.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
Making up new material is less work in the sense that you don't have to concern yourself with what came before. You don't have to research the fictional history of the ST universe, you don't have to be familiar with the the original series or any that came after. Fitting new material into this jigsaw puzzle is challenging. Doing it in a way that remains true to 40 years of Trek lore while being friendly to new audiences is even more so. It's easier just to say "screw it. I'll just start over and see if I can make ST into a pure action adventure film." It's the lazy way out.
If your idea of a "new aspect" is Trek Wars is an alternate timeline, then yeah. I agree completley that this is a fresh take.
It's a common misconception.
Making up new material is less work in the sense that you don't have to concern yourself with what came before. You don't have to research the fictional history of the ST universe, you don't have to be familiar with the the original series or any that came after. Fitting new material into this jigsaw puzzle is challenging. Doing it in a way that remains true to 40 years of Trek lore while being friendly to new audiences is even more so. It's easier just to say "screw it. I'll just start over and see if I can make ST into a pure action adventure film." It's the lazy way out.
If your idea of a "new aspect" is Trek Wars is an alternate timeline, then yeah. I agree completley that this is a fresh take.
A
Amaris
Guest
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
Making up new material is not less work, it's more work. The writers and J.J. are fully aware that everyone from the hardcore Trek fans are watching, and the totally uninitiated are watching. If he was so lazy, he wouldn't have made a Star Trek movie, he'd have made a Star Wars or other science fiction movie. Your premise holds no water. He didn't need to make this movie, he was successful and had already made a name for himself, but instead of resting on that, he wanted to make a Star Trek movie. That's not lazy, it's ambitious, just as this movie is very ambitious.
Lazy is panning a movie before it's even out in theaters.
Lazy is sticking to personal canon and denying anything else that might go beyond it.
That is lazy.
J.
Making up new material is not less work, it's more work. The writers and J.J. are fully aware that everyone from the hardcore Trek fans are watching, and the totally uninitiated are watching. If he was so lazy, he wouldn't have made a Star Trek movie, he'd have made a Star Wars or other science fiction movie. Your premise holds no water. He didn't need to make this movie, he was successful and had already made a name for himself, but instead of resting on that, he wanted to make a Star Trek movie. That's not lazy, it's ambitious, just as this movie is very ambitious.
Lazy is panning a movie before it's even out in theaters.
Lazy is sticking to personal canon and denying anything else that might go beyond it.
That is lazy.
J.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
Making a ST movie is more work than making other movies? It's more ambitious?
Start making sense.
As for his view on "hardcore fans" or fans in general, he's made it clear he dosen't really care one way or the other what they think.
I have nothing against Abrams, but he's not doing this out of the kindness of this heart. It's another big step in his career if it works. So I wouldn't look on this as a charity project for him.
It's Abram's approach to this film and his assumptions about why the franchise has to be "re-imagined" that troubles me. It all points to a decline in standards.
Making a ST movie is more work than making other movies? It's more ambitious?
Start making sense.
As for his view on "hardcore fans" or fans in general, he's made it clear he dosen't really care one way or the other what they think.
I have nothing against Abrams, but he's not doing this out of the kindness of this heart. It's another big step in his career if it works. So I wouldn't look on this as a charity project for him.
It's Abram's approach to this film and his assumptions about why the franchise has to be "re-imagined" that troubles me. It all points to a decline in standards.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
Reboots like this one is lazy writing, because all you're doing is piggybacking on an established property while ignoring all the limitations and responsibilities that come with working on an established property, primarily that you don't lie to the audience by taking the "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS A LIE!!" approach, i.e., don't go upending the cart and redefining everything "just because you can." You stay true to the established backstory, you sweat out the sniggling details of when Kirk first met Pike, how long Spock served on the Enterprise, what the ship looked like way back when, not because you have to cater to long time fans (even though common courtesy says you should), but because you are working on one tiny part of a much larger whole!
Frankly, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this if they'd just be upfront and honest about it and just admitted that this is a reboot. I still wouldn't like it, I still wouldn't see it, but at least I wouldn't have the issue of how, for the past year, they have been lying through their teeth to us!
I still wouldn't like what JJ's doing to Star Trek, but at least I'd still have some respect for him. At the moment, I have none.
Reboots like this one is lazy writing, because all you're doing is piggybacking on an established property while ignoring all the limitations and responsibilities that come with working on an established property, primarily that you don't lie to the audience by taking the "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS A LIE!!" approach, i.e., don't go upending the cart and redefining everything "just because you can." You stay true to the established backstory, you sweat out the sniggling details of when Kirk first met Pike, how long Spock served on the Enterprise, what the ship looked like way back when, not because you have to cater to long time fans (even though common courtesy says you should), but because you are working on one tiny part of a much larger whole!
Frankly, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this if they'd just be upfront and honest about it and just admitted that this is a reboot. I still wouldn't like it, I still wouldn't see it, but at least I wouldn't have the issue of how, for the past year, they have been lying through their teeth to us!
I still wouldn't like what JJ's doing to Star Trek, but at least I'd still have some respect for him. At the moment, I have none.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
Oh, for god's sake. Watch a fan film!
I can't recommend Phase II though; they too change/add things and take creative license.
Oh, for god's sake. Watch a fan film!
I can't recommend Phase II though; they too change/add things and take creative license.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
But they do it respectfully and with an eye towards toeing the line with the established continuity, at least with the original series.
I just wonder how much money they threw at Cawley to turn him from a critic to a cheerleader.
But they do it respectfully and with an eye towards toeing the line with the established continuity, at least with the original series.
I just wonder how much money they threw at Cawley to turn him from a critic to a cheerleader.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
Oh good lord...
Guess what...Trek is so burdened with it's own continuity that it needs a fresh start. This film was made to MAKE MONEY. Without that...IT FAILS. It needs to be able to reach a large audience, not just people like you who are going to bitch about the color of the paint. Go watch TOS if you don't like what you see, I don't think that the box office will be dictated by people like you.
Oh good lord...
Guess what...Trek is so burdened with it's own continuity that it needs a fresh start. This film was made to MAKE MONEY. Without that...IT FAILS. It needs to be able to reach a large audience, not just people like you who are going to bitch about the color of the paint. Go watch TOS if you don't like what you see, I don't think that the box office will be dictated by people like you.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
Give me a fucking break, April. Stop with the shouty boldface, ALL-CAPS bullshit and the superfluous punctuation and show us -- calmly --where Abrams and company are guilty of any of what you're describing. Galen4, you're welcome to do the same thing, and do use something other than the latest Entertainment Weekly article to support your arguments, will you? There are months of interviews and articles available on the movie, and yet this is all you can find? Yeah, that sounds really credible, unless you're only here to stir up shit.
And I'd stop pushing the "lying about the reboot" button right now, if I were you, April. One of our other posters can tell you what happens when you ring that bell too many times.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
You know, watching bitter fanboys being childish and petulant against public personalities is one of the little annoyances of the Internet.
Watching one slander (look it up) a thoroughly nice, enthusiastic fan/actor like James who is basically a private person and not really fair game...is just revolting.
I've been around enough toddlers to know that sometimes one will bite another in the sandbox for no good reason - and hey, they're pre-rational. Separate them and dole out appropriate punishment.
What to do about an adult who does the same...I dunno. So you're disappointed at not getting what you want? That's reason to add slander to the tantrum? No, it's not.
You know, watching bitter fanboys being childish and petulant against public personalities is one of the little annoyances of the Internet.
Watching one slander (look it up) a thoroughly nice, enthusiastic fan/actor like James who is basically a private person and not really fair game...is just revolting.
I've been around enough toddlers to know that sometimes one will bite another in the sandbox for no good reason - and hey, they're pre-rational. Separate them and dole out appropriate punishment.
What to do about an adult who does the same...I dunno. So you're disappointed at not getting what you want? That's reason to add slander to the tantrum? No, it's not.
Look how well it worked with Berman & Braga.
Look how well it worked with Nick Meyer.
This just occured to me: with Meyer, at least, we were lucky (and it was an incredible stroke of luck) that he independently recognized one of the things Roddenberry was shooting for all along: the "Horatio Hornblower in Space" aspect. And thus, he set out to "bring" to Trek what was already there. (I find it funny to hear him congratulate himself on this.)
Abrams thinks Star Trek should be more like Star Wars. I find that troubling, and I've said why elsewhere so I won't belabor it here.
I believe Abrams wanted to make Star Trek into something that would grab him the way Star Wars did.
It has been quoted that this film is getting a bit of an "Action Upgrade", so what he's doing is creating a movie that is more accessible to non-trek audiences.
The story, which is where a lot of the direction the film comes from, was written by Star Trek fans, Orci doubly so, so they "get it". The KNOW with what they play.
The Romulan appearance before they were supposed to be seen is not as problematic as many may think.
It changes ONE ASPECT of established continuity, and does not inherently change everything story-wise.
I suspect that the VISUAL change may be clouding our judgement about the HISTORY change, and we may be jumping the gun a bit.
Rather than looking at the Star Trek visual media as "documentary footage" of future events, perhaps we should consider them as a Portrayal of the 23rd and 24th Century, and thus may have some leeway in how things are portrayed.
If it works within HISTORY continuity, and is a good movie, I'll be happy.
Similar threads
