miscellaneous questions

[I-Am-Zim]

No. The point was trying to get I-Am-Zim to understand that lazy writing isn't an issue if it was written. But I'm glad we got your opinion out of the way again.

Lazy writing is the issue throughout the whole movie. As I said before, people sitting in the theater arent's going to be able to see what may or may not have been written in the original script. They see what is happening on the screen in front of them. By that observation, I have personally determined that the plot holes, contrivances, and rediculous coincidences were the result of lazy writing. Even after editing, someone had to re-write those scenes after all.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Is the TOS crew getting together in STXI any more unlikey than the TOS crew's evil twins uniting in time for "Mirror, Mirror", a universe that diverged from Prime centuries prior (going from the "In a Mirror, Darkly" intro - and assuming that's the same mirror universe)?

The way I see the MU is that it doesn't have a point of divergence from our universe. You can't go back and find a point where somebody changed something because that's not the way it existed. It always was just a fantastical piece with no real logic, figuratively as just a mirror.

Now, we could try and accept the same for this movie that it's just straight up fantasy, but the problem is that we have a pretty good idea of how things should work with divergent universes based on other Star Trek. Did fate bring Worf and Troi to the Enterprise-D in "Yesterday's Enterprise"? No, but that's because it didn't make sense for them to be there. Cause and effect made it so that they went their separate ways.

And what of Vulcan? Billions of people died. What about their fate? What is so unique about the fate of Kirk and his immediate crew that they should serve again together, but the fate of others is drastically changed? I mean, the crew is important, but not that important. They aren't figures guided by destiny.

And that's another thing that separates it from the mirror universe is that this is the foundation of how these characters got to where they are. It's not just some side story universe that will go away for next week's episode. It opens a huge can of worms.

the "currents of time" and the universe attempting to repair itself (as per "City on the Edge of Forever"

What Spock says in CotEoF has nothing to do with that kind of fate though, it just had to do with them appearing in relatively the same location as McCoy did.

Why on earth are Trekkies so unable to pick one of these for themselves? You shouldn't need someone to hold your hands and explain every tiny thing to you. Use your imaginations, people!

For the most part I just shrug it off and accept it. But it's one of those things that this particular creative team seems to cling to, and it's that things are fated to happen regardless of change (usually to suit the writers' whims). That's definitely their prerogative, but I'd prefer either an immutable timeline where nothing can really be changed (like the Novikov self consistency principle), or a mutable timeline where cause and effect takes hold (like the butterfly effect). Star Trek in the past has mostly stuck with those two in regards to time travel.

 

[T'Girl]

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count

Again, and I ask this bluntly, are you criticizing the WRITING or the EDITING? Pick ONE. They WERE in the script. It was written. THE END.

This is what you're failing to pick up upon OneBuckFilms, the criticism is of the package deal, of what ended up on screen. If something is written and then discarded (which you admit) then it in no way benefits the story. If a scene is shot then cut, the scene becomes meaningless. If the audience doesn't see it, that it was at any point written or filmed . . . so what?

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count, unfortunately. It would have made much more sense if those lines had been left in the script. But as it stands according to what was seen on screen, the coincidences still stretch the limits of suspension of disbelief.

Your assertion that lazy writing is to blame is off the mark. The lines were in the script. Some version of that scene with those lines was actually filmed, but those lines weren't included in the movie, which is ultimately a directorial choice. All of this has been discussed here before, many times over.

And the dialog that actual appeared on screen was badly written, it makes no difference what was in a preliminary script, or a work in progress script or a somebody did write it down script. Most scripts as I understand it go through dozens of re-writes. THE SCRIPT is the one that appears on screen. It's the same way with editing, editors spend weeks repeating inserting and removing a few seconds here and there, not everything shot is THE MOVIE, nothing that is edited out is part of the movie. Otherwise the clapboard at the beginning of every scene (yes they still do that) would be considered part of the movie, and it's not.

An example, increasing production companies film entirely separate sequences just for the trailers that are shown in the theaters. None of the sequences are included in THE MOVIE, so are not considered part of it. It makes no difference that the production company filmed them.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This is what you're failing to pick up upon OneBuckFilms, the criticism is of the package deal, of what ended up on screen.

No, what you're "failing to pick up on" is that in this instance the criticism was specifically of "lazy writing," not some weasely generalization about a "package deal."

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count, unfortunately.

I'm sorry, your complaint was about "lazy writing." Until you admit to being mistaken in this respect and withdraw the complaint your remarks can't be taken seriously. This kind of bait-and-switch won't work.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

TGirl, Zim, You can have a legitimate gripe with the film as a whole, and legitimately so.

HOWEVER, Zim took the steps of criticizing the "lazy writing" for not addressing the coincidences, when IN FACT, the writers DID address this issue.

When this was pointed out, that particular piece of writing somehow didn't count because the scene was not in the final movie.

When I pointed out that this was not a writing decision, and thus could not be attributed to the writing, but the editing/directing, all of a sudden, Zim states that his criticism is the film as a whole.

THAT is BAIT-AND-SWITCH.

Zim, you were proven incorrect on an assertion, and now you have been caught in an act of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

This is what you're failing to pick up upon OneBuckFilms, the criticism is of the package deal, of what ended up on screen.

No, what you're "failing to pick up on" is that in this instance the criticism was specifically of "lazy writing," not some weasely generalization about a "package deal."

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count, unfortunately.

I'm sorry, your complaint was about "lazy writing." Until you admit to being mistaken in this respect and withdraw the complaint your remarks can't be taken seriously. This kind of bait-and-switch won't work.

Nope. I will not admit to being mistaken because I'm not. The writing was lazy. It was bad. The writing that ended up in the movie was bad. What ended up on the cutting room floor is completely irrelevant.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

TGirl, Zim, You can have a legitimate gripe with the film as a whole, and legitimately so.

HOWEVER, Zim took the steps of criticizing the "lazy writing" for not addressing the coincidences, when IN FACT, the writers DID address this issue.

When this was pointed out, that particular piece of writing somehow didn't count because the scene was not in the final movie.

When I pointed out that this was not a writing decision, and thus could not be attributed to the writing, but the editing/directing, all of a sudden, Zim states that his criticism is the film as a whole.

THAT is BAIT-AND-SWITCH.

Zim, you were proven incorrect on an assertion, and now you have been caught in an act of intellectual dishonesty.

I was absolutely not proven incorrect by any stretch of the imagination. What ended up on the cutting room floor doesn't exist as far as the movie is concerned. What is seen on screen was the final draft of the scirpt. Someone wrote that final draft. The writing was sub-par and lazy in my opinion. Therefore, no such intellectual dishonesty exists.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

TGirl, Zim, You can have a legitimate gripe with the film as a whole, and legitimately so.

HOWEVER, Zim took the steps of criticizing the "lazy writing" for not addressing the coincidences, when IN FACT, the writers DID address this issue.

When this was pointed out, that particular piece of writing somehow didn't count because the scene was not in the final movie.

When I pointed out that this was not a writing decision, and thus could not be attributed to the writing, but the editing/directing, all of a sudden, Zim states that his criticism is the film as a whole.

THAT is BAIT-AND-SWITCH.

Zim, you were proven incorrect on an assertion, and now you have been caught in an act of intellectual dishonesty.

I was absolutely not proven incorrect by any stretch of the imagination. What ended up on the cutting room floor doesn't exist as far as the movie is concerned. What is seen on screen was the final draft of the scirpt. Someone wrote that final draft. The writing was sub-par and lazy in my opinion. Therefore, no such intellectual dishonesty exists.

BUT what was WRITTEN ABSOLUTELY matters when it comes to the WRITING.

No other logical basis can be used to judge how well it was WRITTEN.

Therefore, that sequence can NOT be excluded from judging the WRITING.

THAT is your intellectual dishonesty.

The final film, IMHO, would have benefitted from that information being there.

 

[Nerys Myk]

This is what you're failing to pick up upon OneBuckFilms, the criticism is of the package deal, of what ended up on screen.

No, what you're "failing to pick up on" is that in this instance the criticism was specifically of "lazy writing," not some weasely generalization about a "package deal."

All that is great. However, not one bit of it ended up in the movie. Therefore, it doesn't count, unfortunately.

I'm sorry, your complaint was about "lazy writing." Until you admit to being mistaken in this respect and withdraw the complaint your remarks can't be taken seriously. This kind of bait-and-switch won't work.

Nope. I will not admit to being mistaken because I'm not. The writing was lazy. It was bad. The writing that ended up in the movie was bad. What ended up on the cutting room floor is completely irrelevant.

Hope you have a hard hat. That hole's getting pretty deep.

 

[T'Girl]

So let me get your point clear. If a novelist writes a book, then deletes an entire chapter, the book is published, everyone is to then judge the quality of the writing of the book based in part on the deleted chapter?

NO.

The judgment of any piece of writing, whether strong or weak, is based upon it final form. If one member of the creative team puts something in and another member of the creative team takes it out, the body of work that is the writing can't be judged on the removed potions. Your insistence that some draft copies be included in the evaluation of the finished product makes no sense.

Try this. I get a sports car, I remove the racing engine and install a much smaller engine. You take it for a test drive and remark that it's "Weak." Oh no I reply, it in fact isn't weak because it use to have a fantastic engine.

At some point in the creative process a decision was made to produce the script it's final form. And that final form was weak.


.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But the car was designed with a racing engine. You can be blamed for switching out the engine, but the car's designer can't.

 

[T'Girl]

Except in the case of Star Trek Eleven the "designer of the car is the same designer who ultimately equipped it with a small weak engine" the movie only had one creative team.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Except in the case of Star Trek Eleven the "designer of the car is the same designer who ultimately equipped it with a small weak engine" the movie only had one creative team.

Orci and Kurtzman were NOT EDITING THE MOVIE.

They did NOT DIRECT THE MOVIE.

The Writers Strike meant that they could not make any ON SET MODIFICATIONS TO WHAT THEY WROTE.

So, although they were part of the creative team, they are NOT the ones who excluded that content.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Except in the case of Star Trek Eleven the "designer of the car is the same designer who ultimately equipped it with a small weak engine" the movie only had one creative team.

Nope the car left their factory and someone else did the modification.

 

[Devon]

So let me get your point clear. If a novelist writes a book, then deletes an entire chapter, the book is published, everyone is to then judge the quality of the writing of the book based in part on the deleted chapter?

NO.

The judgment of any piece of writing, whether strong or weak, is based upon it final form. If one member of the creative team puts something in and another member of the creative team takes it out, the body of work that is the writing can't be judged on the removed potions. Your insistence that some draft copies be included in the evaluation of the finished product makes no sense.

Try this. I get a sports car, I remove the racing engine and install a much smaller engine. You take it for a test drive and remark that it's "Weak." Oh no I reply, it in fact isn't weak because it use to have a fantastic engine.

At some point in the creative process a decision was made to produce the script it's final form. And that final form was weak.

Try this. What you've been posting lately has been falling into the same trap that some of the other members here have been falling into with trying to pass their opinion as a complete fact. It's true that it may have been weak for you, but that's about it really. Sorry.

 

[Timo]

Aw, come on. YOUR argument hinges solely and desperately on some sort of an insanely narrow-minded idea of what "writing" means in the movie context. An idea that roughly 100% of the world fails to share with you, I'm afraid.

Clinging further onto that idea only goes to show that you don't know what you are talking about, don't appreciate the artform that is the subject matter of this subforum, and can't carry an argument if it requires you to actually understand the terminology the opponent uses.

In the context of a movie, "writing" means that aspect of storytelling that gives us the actual story, whereas "photography" provides the story with visuals and "acting" provides the visuals with content, all of which is put together with "directing" and facilitated by "producing".

To argue that "writing" means the process of typing, retyping, erasing and re-retyping words on a piece of paper titled "script", and nothing beyond, is as inane as arguing that "photography" can only mean the taking of still photographs on the sets, or that "directing" can only mean the director telling the actors which direction to go and face. It's a profound misunderstanding of the terminology of moviemaking. If you can't speak the language, just stay out of the discussion.

T'Girl understands the terminology. I-Am-Zim got it right from the very start. That you fail to understand the meaning of key words is an acceptable excuse for the speaking-past-each-other nature of this argument. It's no excuse for throwing around accusations about intellectual dishonesty, though.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Devon]

T'Girl understands the terminology. I-Am-Zim got it right from the very start. That you fail to understand the meaning of key words is an acceptable excuse for the speaking-past-each-other nature of this argument.

To proclaim there was "lazy writing" is to simply pretend that it was never written. I-Am-Zim's copy and paste comment simply was misguided in this case. No amount of tip-toeing around the subject can change that. Simple.

 

[Hythlodeus]

I'm with Devon. The lines (necessary or unnecessary...I didn't miss them) in question were written, they were shot but in the end they ended on the cutting room floor. this a subject of editing not writing.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

To argue that "writing" means the process of typing, retyping, erasing and re-retyping words on a piece of paper titled "script", and nothing beyond...

This is what it means. Sorry.

T'Girl understands the terminology. I-Am-Zim got it right from the very start.

No, and evidently you don't get it either. Overthinking every single thing in an attempt to achieve logical satisfaction is not much of a path to knowlege.

Writers get paid to write a screenplay. The names of the writers as credited on the final film are determined - if necessary - by reviews of the various versions of the written screenplay. "Best screenplay" awards are based on exactly that - the screenplay.

You want to call a lot of other things "writing" - take it up with the WGA. Good luck with that.