Why it is important some people are unhappy

[trekkerguy]

And so long as it was a stand-alone project, I wouldn't give a rip either way.

But second that "Star Trek" label gets attached, it carries with it a responsibility to the rest of the franchise, just like any segment of any other series.

It appears that JJ is not living up to that responsibility.

No it carries no responsibility to anyone or anything except the box office and to provide good entertainment.
This is a fictional Universe and in no way changes or erases anything on our beloved DVDs.

Otherwise it's a reboot. Soft, hard, erotic, XXX. Canon is nothing more than an anchor holding it down.
Hopefully, and it seems this way, Abrams is cutting the chain.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A
But second that "Star Trek" label gets attached, it carries with it a responsibility to the rest of the franchise, just like any segment of any other series.

Neither you nor anyone else who doesn't own "Star Trek" gets to determine what are the "responsibilities" of the filmmakers.

Why is "I don't like it" never sufficient? Why does everyone who complains feel the need to do things like speak for a whole lot of people, or assume authority to declare what is and isn't "Star Trek" or pronounce "objective" judgments on the motives and professional capabilities of people they've never met and whose professions they'd be unqualified to perform?

That kind of thing diminishes an opinion rather than reinforcing its conviction because it bespeaks manufacturing some authoritative "co-signer" for one's individual taste.

This "responsibility" exists in your imagination. Abrams and company are under no obligation to recognize it in terms you'll approve of.

 

[trekkerguy]

A
But second that "Star Trek" label gets attached, it carries with it a responsibility to the rest of the franchise, just like any segment of any other series.

Neither you nor anyone else who doesn't own "Star Trek" gets to determine what are the "responsibilities" of the filmmakers.

Why is "I don't like it?" never sufficient? Why does everyone who complains feel the need to do things like speak for a whole lot of people, or assume authority to declare what is and isn't "Star Trek" or pronounce "objective" judgments on the motives and professional capabilities of people they've never met and whose professions they'd be unqualified to perform?

This "responsibility" exists in your imagination. Abrams and company are under no obligation to recognize it in terms you'll approve of.

Yup, their responsibility is to Paramount and the shareholders, if this movie
doesn't produce big numbers and make a profit then they're probably not
going to be producing or directing any big budget movies in the near future.

And no amount of whining from a small group of extremists is going to effect
whether or not this is a hit.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Fine, then how about making Kirk a crossdressing hermaphrodite, Spock part jackrabbit with a shoe fetish, McCoy a drug addict (such drama!), Scotty an Irishman (Irish, Scottish, same thing, right?), and while we're at it, let's paint the Enterprise hot pink with spinners along the sides of the secondary hull.

No limits, right?

If it made a good film, I wouldn't be bothered.

Yeah like another poster in another thread put a good movie is better than bad cannon.

 

[trekkerguy]

Yes free thinking is oft labeled as such.

Fine, then how about making Kirk a crossdressing hermaphrodite, Spock part jackrabbit with a shoe fetish, McCoy a drug addict (such drama!), Scotty an Irishman (Irish, Scottish, same thing, right?), and while we're at it, let's paint the Enterprise hot pink with spinners along the sides of the secondary hull.

No limits, right?

Typical.

 

[JoeZhang]

Fine, then how about making Kirk a crossdressing hermaphrodite, Spock part jackrabbit with a shoe fetish, McCoy a drug addict (such drama!), Scotty an Irishman (Irish, Scottish, same thing, right?), and while we're at it, let's paint the Enterprise hot pink with spinners along the sides of the secondary hull.

No limits, right?

If it made a good film, I wouldn't be bothered.

Yeh like another poster in another thread put a good movie is better than bad cannon.

I like Star Trek - but it's not important to me - it's just a nice distraction between the mundane things in my life and the real important things like my family, my relationships.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Fine, then how about making Kirk a crossdressing hermaphrodite, Spock part jackrabbit with a shoe fetish, McCoy a drug addict (such drama!), Scotty an Irishman (Irish, Scottish, same thing, right?), and while we're at it, let's paint the Enterprise hot pink with spinners along the sides of the secondary hull.

No limits, right?

Since no one's proposing anything of the kind, this is a non-starter. It's called invoking a straw man and I'm sure that you're familiar with the logical fallacies involved.

No one's likely to be side-tracked or distracted into arguing on your terms, and certainly not if that's the best you can do.

 

[ST-One]

That's not creatve, that's chaos.

The very definition of creativity.

 

[Cheapjack]

I have to disagree with you Polaris. Morality doesn't sicken me like spoiled honey. I love it. I could see ST was a modern Aesop's fables when I was seven and I drank it in. St has kept me going when I felt like giving up.

'Judging by the polution content of the atmosphere, I believe we have arrived in the latter half of the 20th Century'

Sickening? Character driven? Really?

I love it. I'm hungry for it.

He doesn't seem to be say that (and I'm sure he's correct me if I'm wrong) - he's not saying that Morality is sickening but rather then way it was applied in star trek is - the application not the concept.

From my own perspective - I'd put Star Trek on a similar level to He-Man and the masters of the universe when it comes to telling moral tales.

I wouldn't.

I don't recall He-man diiscussing the human condidtion at the same level as ST. ST4 was subtle and clever. And I don't see the way it is applied as sickening. Trying to get people to focus on the plight of the whale isn't sickening -it's good. Telling a tale about the Kennedy assassination and the Cold war isn't sickening either -it's clever. It's what story-telling is about.

I read that flight crews on aircraft were told to take TNG as role models for command decisions in the nineties. I don't think that's sickening either.

What on Earth are you watching this thing for? Don't you think there's a bit more to it than action adventure? Isn't action adventure more for children than adults?

 

[Butters]

I keep hearing about this human condition in trek and I don't get it. OK, spock helped explore what humans are like by being the contrast, same as Data and Odo et al. Alien species were created to represent different aspects of the human psyche, or is that just the excuse for being two dimensional?

I like Trek, its been in my life a long time, but why the pedestal? It only makes the disapointment worse when it doesn't meet those ridiculous expectations.

 

[Cheapjack]

Well, that amazes me, cos I see it all the time in all the ST I have seen so far, and the only thing that worries me is that I have heard no talk of it in ST11.

ST says that humans will be around in another 300 years or so. They will not have destroyed each other in a nuclear war, or degenerated into savages. They will be tolerant and not grievously savage. They will be more controlled and less selfish. Right from the cage to Nemesis, humans in this time are tested and not found to be wanting. In every episode, they are presented with a moral dilemma and resolve it, proving themselves to be moral creatures. In the man trap, they acknowledge the fact that the creature is onlt trying to survive using it's natural abilities- that it's not a bug eyed monster. Thats was a big thing in the sixties. In Arena, Kirk does not kill the Gorn, even though it tried to kill him.

TNG's encounter is ripe with this. They do not fire on the Farpoint creature, even though it is killing people and dangerous. They exibit control and morality and conscience.

Even Voyager is ripe with it, right from the beginning to the end. The episiode where the holographic doctor's rights are discussed is one that springs to mind at the very least.

Try Wikipediaing Star Trek. Give me an episode and I'll give you the moral dilemma and the message. It's not just action adventure, they're Aesop's fables in the 23rd,24th Century. It's what Roddenberry set it up to be and what it should be.

 

[Cheapjack]

And, I don't think it's a ridiculous expectation either, not when all that has gone before has had it in spades, whether some can see it or not.

'Broken Bow' - 'Feeling that the Vulcans have been condescending toward mankind for years, Archer insists it's the humans' responsibility to return the injured Klingon to his homeworld alive'.

Some morality, there, Hmm?

'Dear Doctor' -'In a letter to Dr. Lucas, Phlox expresses the overwhelming feeling of taking responsibility for 50 million patients, but he is struck by the human desire to help others'

A little more than He Man, wouldn't you say?

Give me the episode, and I'll give you the message. I'm going to pay about £7.50 to see this film, and I think a little mesage takes up about £4 of it!

 

[Butters]

Shore Leave

 

[Cheapjack]

That the planet is not hostile, as first seems. It is an amusement park.
Even space travelling peoples need to indulge their fantasies, to make them happier and to unwind, once in a while.

'Play is good', and 'no-one can be harmed' is the message.

 

[Cheapjack]

...and also, at the end, Kirk orders the crew to exhibit control by not fantasising or thinking.

 

[Butters]

That the planet is not hostile, as first seems. It is an amusement park.
Even space travelling peoples need to indulge their fantasies, to make them happier and to unwind, once in a while.

'Play is good', and 'no-one can be harmed' is the message.

Thats a bit of a stretch to take as a message, moral or otherwise.

How about the Spectre of the Gun?

 

[Cheapjack]

I don't think that it is a bit of a stretch, at all. It's quite a new idea, for the time. You can play, even kill people, and indulge your fantasies, without harming anyone. Play is good, not immature. If that story were told today, by another format, Someone would probably get killed for good and this would be regarded as unavoidable.

Thing is, when I point out the message, or moral, on these boards, people say it is minimal, or not an essential part of the story, even when it is right at the end, as a conclusion, and summing up, as in many TOS. Then, when it takes up much dialogue, it is heavy handed. We live in amoral times.

SPectre of the Guns message comes at the end and the beginning. They are being put on trial for being savage. They do not kill, and prove they are not. Spock also teaches them control, with a mind meld, at the end

 

[JoeZhang]

Try Wikipediaing Star Trek. Give me an episode and I'll give you the moral dilemma and the message.

Threshold.

 

[Cheapjack]

Threshold is unusual for ST in that the message is that there are limits to what man can achieve, at least for the moment. Or, there may be other ways to achieve what you want.

You know, I shouldn't have to be doing this, but carry on.

If there's one TV show with message, it's Star Trek!

 

[Butters]

OK, so you can stretch a message from those stories, but without the message you'd just have a sequence of events anyway. I wouldn't expect a soap opera to carry any particular message in its story lines, but what about other sci fi? Are Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica (both versions), Star Gate, Dr Who stories devoid of such content? Serious question because its not the message in the episodes that consciously sticks with me.

I know Star Trek is good, I like it, and I know it carries social commentary, but its not the collection of parabels that some fans hold it to be.

And while we're doing episodes, what was the message/moral behind TNG 'The Big Good Bye'?