Rebooting Star Trek

[Warped9]

^^ Does the phrase "chill out" mean anything to you?

 

[T'Bonz]

One does not have to be a moderator in order to ask for a cease-and-desist of petty snarkiness that has nothing to do with the OP's topic.

Actually, one does. And I did. I don't need a mini-mod in here, we have two mods and that's more than sufficient.

Now can you guys SHUT UP about this stupid stuff and just post about Trek? I don't care if you love nuTrek or hate it, but fighting over it is just retarded.

If we can't keep this thread on target, I'll close it. If I find certain posters are deliberately trying to get topics closed, I'll close THEM.

Enough. Let it go. It's beyond stupid.

 

[Ronald Held]

interesting 5 pages.
I agree that if you cannot tell or create a signficant story within the Prime Universe, than IMO create something new or move to another franchise.
Making a lot of money on an endevour is no indication of quality or artistic worth.
Ignoring the monetary reason, why reboot the Trek franchise and why (mess) with TOS?

 

[A beaker full of death]

Appreciation of art is subjective - in evaluating its success, that is. Interpretation must be informed by both individual experience (subjective) and shared knowledge (objective). But first and foremost, there must be some substance there. Some statement. Some meat. Something.
One of my teachers in art school once defined art as "anything man-made revealing a human plan." That has always stuck with me.

Never heard that from any of my art instuctors. The value/definition of art is what ever the veiwer gets out of it. If a painting of Elvis on velvet moves you or if it's Van Gough's sunflowers it's art.

One might find inspiration in a rolling tumbleweed or a pile of dog crap. One might be moved by the filtering of the sun through a particular cloud formation. That doesn't make them art. A pile of human crap isn't art either just because someone gets out of it more than its creator put into it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Appreciation of art is subjective - in evaluating its success, that is. Interpretation must be informed by both individual experience (subjective) and shared knowledge (objective). But first and foremost, there must be some substance there. Some statement. Some meat. Something.
One of my teachers in art school once defined art as "anything man-made revealing a human plan." That has always stuck with me.

Never heard that from any of my art instuctors. The value/definition of art is what ever the veiwer gets out of it. If a painting of Elvis on velvet moves you or if it's Van Gough's sunflowers it's art.

One might find inspiration in a rolling tumbleweed or a pile of dog crap. One might be moved by the filtering of the sun through a particular cloud formation. That doesn't make them art. A pile of human crap isn't art either just because someone gets out of it more than its creator put into it.

I'm talking about man made things here. Painting, sculpture,poetry, music, plays, film and TV. People will view these things and find an individual meaning in them. Often not what the creators intent was. Sometimes its just pretty.

No offense to you or your instructor but that definition soulds like gobbledygook to me.
But what do I know? Even with six years of art school and a degree.

 

[A beaker full of death]

I'm talking about man made things here. Painting, sculpture,poetry, music, plays, film and TV. People will view these things and find an individual meaning in them. Often not what the creators intent was. Sometimes its just pretty.

No offense to you or your instructor but that definition soulds like gobbledygook to me.
But what do I know? Even with six years of art school and a degree.

I've only got four formal years art school (aside from various other classes), so if we're playing "mine's bigger than yours", you win. Mazel tov.

The distinction you make between man-made or not is fallacious if your only criterion is the effect it has on the viewer.
Here's an example: I seem to recall your agreement about the shortcomings of Rob Liefeld as an artist. Now, if it's all objective, how can any artist have a shortcoming? Liefeld is an untrained hack and he is incapable of putting on bristol that which he is attempting to put on bristol. That makes his art a failure, no matter how many people like it.

 

[BillJ]

interesting 5 pages.
I agree that if you cannot tell or create a signficant story within the Prime Universe, than IMO create something new or move to another franchise.
Making a lot of money on an endevour is no indication of quality or artistic worth.
Ignoring the monetary reason, why reboot the Trek franchise and why (mess) with TOS?

I believe that time to time a concept comes along that deserves to be revisited and perhaps updated. Star Trek is one such concept. Even though I find the final product that is Star Trek 2009 disagreeable, it was one hell of a ride watching the project evolve. The special features are the reason why I own the movie on Blu-Ray. It is just as interesting to watch the why of the film as it is to watch the final product.

I have to admit that debating the decisions leading up to the film and the debates about the quality post release are some of the most stimulating that I've had on a Trek board. I've seen opinions about it being the best thing since sliced bread and it being worse than a dog turd. And I don't think I would consider any of the discussions of this film wasted time.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm talking about man made things here. Painting, sculpture,poetry, music, plays, film and TV. People will view these things and find an individual meaning in them. Often not what the creators intent was. Sometimes its just pretty.

No offense to you or your instructor but that definition soulds like gobbledygook to me.
But what do I know? Even with six years of art school and a degree.

I've only got four formal years art school (aside from various other classes), so if we're playing "mine's bigger than yours", you win. Mazel tov.

The distinction you make between man-made or not is fallacious if your only criterion is the effect it has on the viewer.
Here's an example: I seem to recall your agreement about the shortcomings of Rob Liefeld as an artist. Now, if it's all objective, how can any artist have a shortcoming? Liefeld is an untrained hack and he is incapable of putting on bristol that which he is attempting to put on bristol. That makes his art a failure, no matter how many people like it.

Nah, I'm saying its all subjective. My training and the piece of paper on my wall mean nothing when judging art. People will like what they like and find meaning in that. Sure I can drone on about why this works and that doesn't with the voice of "authority", but in the end they'll pick what they like. I can also make a value judgement based on what they pick, but it probably wont change their mind or their tastes.

Yeah, I think Liefield is untrained and his work crude. Its indicative of someone who learned to draw by looking at comicbooks. Its bad art in my opinion. But if someone likes it and can take inspiration or meaning from it, that's cool. I'll still post the "Captain America Manboobs" pic and laugh though.