Neither you nor Captain Robert April answered my question. All you did was make a smarmy reply because for some dumb reason, you think I'm taking something personally. So I'll ask again: How is this movie in any way like Galaxy Quest?
Haynes Enterprise Manual Updates?
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
- Status
Neither you nor Captain Robert April answered my question. All you did was make a smarmy reply because for some dumb reason, you think I'm taking something personally. So I'll ask again: How is this movie in any way like Galaxy Quest?
Do I need to post those pictures again?
Well, you are taking this rather personally, else you wouldn't push the issue. But, all right, Galaxy Quest is a comedy so it may be a smidge off to compare that, but I will compare the new trek to Glen Larson productions. It's candy, superficial, good effects, but shallow on plot, non-existant on the science, one-dimensional in characters, and designed to be a 'fun ride' but nothing more than that.
Now, at this point, I expect you to give me three or four paragraphs that, when taken in collection, will resort to a painfully-wrought way of saying 'nuh-uh', followed by April or someone else giving me a long warning-worth post that boils down to 'uh-huh' with another post from Dennis or someone saying 'nuh-uh' again citing six pages of sales records detailing the exact people in the LA Area that watched the movie.
And I really don't care. So, there, pretend that I had the argument for you already. I'm not changing my mind.. you're not either. Dennis isn't. April isn't. It's done, over, move on. The movie doesn't give a shit if we liked it or not. Let's return the favour.
Now, this thread, I believe, was about the apparently-cancelled book. We should get back to that.
Now, at this point, I expect you to give me three or four paragraphs that, when taken in collection, will resort to a painfully-wrought way of saying 'nuh-uh', followed by April or someone else giving me a long warning-worth post that boils down to 'uh-huh' with another post from Dennis or someone saying 'nuh-uh' again citing six pages of sales records detailing the exact people in the LA Area that watched the movie.
And I really don't care. So, there, pretend that I had the argument for you already. I'm not changing my mind.. you're not either. Dennis isn't. April isn't. It's done, over, move on. The movie doesn't give a shit if we liked it or not. Let's return the favour.
Now, this thread, I believe, was about the apparently-cancelled book. We should get back to that.
I'm not taking anything personally at all. I wanted April to explain his comment, which he hasn't done. You're the one who butted in with the accusation, and is making more of it than anyone else here. But you're right about one thing: this is getting tiresome really fast. Buh-bye.
I can answer that quite easily.
Galaxy Quest took some of the more recognizable aspects of Star Trek and overemphasized them, to the point of parody. While, at the same time, it didn't include the elements that most of us really loved about Star Trek.
That's interesting (okay, not really), but I don't recall addressing any comments here to you.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
GQ also had the advantage of a story that made some sense.
The notion of "arguing that I don't like" something is nonsense anyway. One can only assert that one likes or dislikes something. One can argue a thing's merits, but not one's feelings.
If it's boob pictures - then yes.
They didn't make any kind of point the first time, and the one containing dog shit got you into trouble. So by all means, go right ahead.
What would those elements be, exactly?
I dunno, but "most of us" evidently refers to the slightly-less-than ten percent of fans who disliked the movie.
Trek, at its best, tended to be very philosophical, and often turned audience expectations on their ear.
Hence, Kirk refuses to kill the Gorn... the quintessential "bug-eyed monster," after all... and the point of the episode, as it turns out, was that THIS is what makes our species worth leaving around.
The standard "sci-fi convention" would be to have Kirk beat the monster and fly off in victory... or for Nero, the 2D villain, to die in impotent rage at the end of the movie.
Time after time, Star Trek (the original, and reasonably often, TNG as well) played "flipping around" audience expectations. Instead of giving us simple, predictable "action/adventure" it made us THINK.
Star Trek, at its best, had a philosophical core that, as far as I'm concerned, Abrams' version not only lacked, but actively opposed.
Want to know how ST'09 could have been made into a "classic Trek" concept?
Make the connection, to Kirk, of his father's death to Nero much more prominent. Make it a driving factor insofar as Kirk is filled with rage over the death of his father. That, I think, would have required the "Kirk born at the same time his father died" to be left by the wayside... but that would be no great loss. I think having an adolescent Kirk being "on the phone" with his dad when Nero shows up and kills him to be much more emotionally-intense than "I never knew my dad."
Make the connection to Spock much more "personal" as well. I'm sorry, seeing Vulcan destroyed was just too much... it was an over-the-top SFX shot, not really a "personal loss" thing. Make the death of Amanda that much more personal... play her up as a character, rather than what was effectively a "walking prop for Spock." Make the audience care about HER, then have her die, in a nasty fashion, with a helpless Spock seeing everything but being unable to do anything about it. (Remember, she died off-screen, and probably pretty much instantly, in this movie... and she was never developed, on-screen.)
Have Kirk and Spock both driven by the desire to destroy Nero utterly...
... and then turn that on its ear. Instead of "killing the bad guy," have Kirk and Spock both agree that the way to resolve this is to take the "jellyfish" to the star which will eventually go "super-hyper-masso-humongo-nova" (and destroy Romulus), and "pre-empt" the event. Kirk, commanding the Enterprise, sacrifices himself and his crew to delay the Narada so that Spock, in the Jellyfish, can get to the star and do what has to be done...
... and he succeeds, thus, actually SAVING Nero, well as reversing everything else that was "turned on it's ear" by Nero's arrival.
End the movie showing Nero, in the late 24th century... the one we know... as the first Romulan to serve as a starship captain in Starfleet... being congratulated by his mentor, Nimoy's Spock.
THAT would be a "classic Star Trek" story. Much more personal, much more hopeful, and with a message... that sometimes, to win, you have to put aside all thoughts of personal revenge... and that sometimes, you have to "love your enemy" in order to prevail...
Instead, we got "big shocking events" and "2D bad guy dies screaming in impotent rage." AGAIN.
Cap it off with a closing shot of the Enterprise, in proper pre-TOS design, awaiting launch in 2245, as a proud Captain April looks on from a travel pod, and you'd have something.
Sorry, I don't agree with that, at least as far as how this answers Robert April's comment about how he's comparing this movie to Galaxy Quest.
I agree with you that Galaxy Quest was a parody in exactly the way you describe. But it was meant to be a parody. Star Trek XI was not a parody. By this logic, nuBSG is a parody of TOS BSG. And as far as I'm concerned, "the elements that most of us really loved about Star Trek" were there in full.
And the only person who would have understood that ending would be you, because even many fans of Star Trek don't even know who the hell Captain April is.
Not really, at least not by the logic I posed. nuBSG really didn't take the "most recognizable aspects of TOS BSG and overemphasize them," did it?
This would have been the case had they taken the whole "Egyptian/Mayan/Toltec/etc" thing to extremes, for instance... or had every character have feathered 70's hair... or had cute/funny/unbearably-obnoxious robot-monkey-dogs in every scene with cooing, cutesy widdle kiddies.
I like much of the new BSG series... albeit there are elements I definitely think failed, and failed badly as well. Similarly, I like aspects of TOS BSG, but think that there are elements of that series that failed, and failed badly. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to draw the conclusion that nuBSG really borrowed the "most recognizable" aspects of TOS BSG and exagerated them.
nuBSG was a true "reboot" as the term is usually used today... which I've taken to calling "reformat and clean-install Windows" rather than "reboot."
My point is that the "look" of certain things was nice to have... except for the goofy fabric chevrons, I was happy with the costumes, for example... but the "philosophical" aspect of Trek which has always been at the core of why I love it, and why so many people over the past 40 years have stated was their main reason for loving it, was absent.
SAVING NERO... seeing our heroes choose not to seek revenge, but rather to sacrifice themselves in order to undo the damage he'd done (and save not only his planet but him in the process)... that's how the Star Trek I grew up with, and have always loved, would have done things. The resolution of this movie was the antithesis of that philosophy as far as I'm concerned.
TOS Kirk: "Yes, I'm a killer... we're a species of killers. But I choose not to kill today."
ST'09 Kirk: "Fire everything we've got!"
I hear what you're saying, Cary, and I agree with you on your points. However, what you're basically saying is that you don't feel that this new movie lives up to the values of the characters of TOS. Okay, fine. But the thing is...these characters are NOT the TOS characters (and I don't mean the actors who play them). When the Narada entered the 23rd century and destroyed the Kelvin, EVERYTHING changed. For everybody. In some cases, entire lives changed (Kirk, who is a completely different person than TOS Kirk). In some cases, there was minimal change (McCoy, and kudos to Karl Urban for making his McCoy so like DeForest Kelley), but that's the whole point. Their circumstances defined their personalities. Your example of the two Kirks' responses only serve to reflect this. Of course JJKirk is going to yell "Fire everything we've got," because he'd been doing that all his life, metaphorically speaking. So one can like what JJ has done with the characters, or one can hate it and watch their TOS DVDs instead and fondly remember the good old days before the "Star Trek antichrist" JJ Abrams came along and renewed interest in a dead show.
So again, how this is in any way equivalent to a parody like Galaxy Quest is terribly unclear to me. However, it seems like we'll just agree to disagree (but at least you're way more interesting to debate with than the "I hate this movie because it ruins my personal canon as Star Trek's self-appointed know-it-all" crowd.).
So again, how this is in any way equivalent to a parody like Galaxy Quest is terribly unclear to me. However, it seems like we'll just agree to disagree (but at least you're way more interesting to debate with than the "I hate this movie because it ruins my personal canon as Star Trek's self-appointed know-it-all" crowd.).
It's not - that's just a baited line.
Dukhat, Cary explained it about as clearly as anybody could explain it. You're not seeing it because you don't want to see it.
- Status
Similar threads
