Me too.
It was in an article about how the Klingons as depicted in TMP had ruined everything and destroyed the author's memories of the OS. The more things change...
To See or Not To See?
- Thread starter DonIago
- Start date
Me too.
It was in an article about how the Klingons as depicted in TMP had ruined everything and destroyed the author's memories of the OS. The more things change...
"And we know that Kirk would never turn his back on his beloved Enterprise for a desk job in the admiralty."
"And Spock would never turn his back on his human half..."
(paraphrasing, after all these decades...)
There was actually a germ of a point in those gripes, and the guy who said that way back when might've better appreciated TMP more if he just took solace in the fact that he was half-right.
In other words, what TMP showed was that Kirk shouldn't have given up the Enterprise for a desk job, that Spock shouldn't have tried to reject his human half, and we saw just how far they had to come to correct those mistakes that they'd made.
In other words, what TMP showed was that Kirk shouldn't have given up the Enterprise for a desk job, that Spock shouldn't have tried to reject his human half, and we saw just how far they had to come to correct those mistakes that they'd made.
Of course, one thing that will greatly effect whether or not the studio considers it canon is whether or not, or to what degree, this thing is either embraced or rejected by the fanbase.
If it comes across as the gold plated turd many of us suspect it is, its life amonst the canonized may be short lived.
If it comes across as the gold plated turd many of us suspect it is, its life amonst the canonized may be short lived.
So far, as near as I can tell, opinions seem to be almost completely rigid around these parts.
People who are excited about something new for the first time in several decades (like me and 90% of the board mob) tend to remain optimistic about the movie even if there are some details of the movie we're concerned about.
Whereas people who have been sourpussing from day one tend to look at each new detail in the worst possible light.
I don't think any of us are being objective, but that's to be expected. As if objectivity was ever a part of entertainment. I predict we will be having this conversation for many years to come.
People who are excited about something new for the first time in several decades (like me and 90% of the board mob) tend to remain optimistic about the movie even if there are some details of the movie we're concerned about.
Whereas people who have been sourpussing from day one tend to look at each new detail in the worst possible light.
I don't think any of us are being objective, but that's to be expected. As if objectivity was ever a part of entertainment. I predict we will be having this conversation for many years to come.
I'm not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean... that the movie is officially declared non-Canon by Paramount (like they did with TAS once) if it bombs at the box office?
Since when does the OP have any say or control over the thread once it's been unleashed?
If that were true, hundreds of my threads would still be open.
The term "canon" is fairly meaningless to me.
Paramount throws a lot of Star Trek up onto the screen, and it turns out to be good, average, or shitty.
The concept of canon can't make average or shitty Star Trek good.
In fact, to the extent that you buy into it, it only weighs down the good and average Trek with the shitty Trek it forces you to accept, making the collective Trek worse than it was before.
So, I do Paramount a favor and, to the extent that I can control my brain, reject canon and do my best to forget about the shitty movies and episodes.
I know they want me to buy a lot more shit, but "canon" actually makes me want to buy less shit. I buy more shit when I concentrate on the good Trek.
You're welcome, Paramount!
My understanding is that the OP does retain _some_ control of a thread, particularly in that the mods/admins would generally close a thread upon request of the OP.
Personally, I also believe it's courteous to try to adhere by requests an OP makes pertaining to a thread that they started, though whether one is obligated to is a different matter.
The term canon _should_ be meaningless to anyone who's not planning to write for Star Trek in an official capacity, since the writers are the only people who are ultimately required to respect it.
That doesn't change the fact that too many people tend to either not know or not care what the word actually means. Canon's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of what TPTB define as "what actually happened".
More like a character arc that comprimised the characters IMHO. Star Trek needs great music, great writing and great characterizations. The rest it's got. I think the universe is pretty much respected and intact. I consider the universe to be a character itself. I think they're not gonna have great music and a great script IMHO. Just like what made the Beatles great was having three to four great songwriters in one band - Star Trek needs many (at least 4) great writers and composers contributing or competing otherwise it's still nepotism and collusion - power, politics and greed and privelidge.
"The Incredibles"
"Lost"
"Mission: Impossible 3".
I have no qualms whatsoever. I know I'll enjoy it.
All TREK movie music usually rocks. Even in the lamer films that don't do as well. NEMESIS' soundtrack outclassed the movie by a mile.
Who wrote the Nemisis music ?
number6
Vice Admiral
Jerry and Joel Goldsmith
I think it was the last project Jerry Goldsmith worked on before he died.
Similar threads
