Fade In: The Writing of Star Trek: Insurrection

[Thrawn]

To be fair, the initial point was that Kirk didn't even bother to get Spock back and that Spock had also already plans to leave Starfleet, and was not about that "Permission to come aboard" line. It was criticism against the characterization of the "friendship" between Kirk and Spock. The point was that there was no such thing because nobody of them cared. One of them had to be talked into it by his future self, and the other one went like "yeah, whatever, welcome back" but didn't actually do anything to get him back. But as with almost every criticism against the movie, the "haters" get then pinned into argument corners so that eventually the "lovers" can say "You're so obsessed with pointless minutiae!"

That seems like an oversimplification, but I think it's not too far off. Most people who demand of their fictional universes a lot of consistent, explicated context and background find that the new film lacks that, and it contributes to their dislike, but I think it's an equally valid point of view to not really care about such minutiae.

 

[JarodRussell]

That seems like an oversimplification, but I think it's not too far off. Most people who demand of their fictional universes a lot of consistent, explicated context and background find that the new film lacks that, and it contributes to their dislike, but I think it's an equally valid point of view to not really care about such minutiae.

Of course.


As for that Kirk/Spock buddy cop thing... I've seen a lot better, in my opinion. When I think about Lethal Weapon, for example. That movie had a lot better, deeper characterization and a much better story arc. The scene between Riggs and Murtaugh in the diner when Riggs is about to shoot himself with Murtaugh's gun, and then eventually when Riggs gives that special bullet to Murtaugh as a Christmas present in the end, that's so much more intense than anything between Kirk and Spock in this movie. And Lethal Weapon was "just" an "80s buddy cop action comedy". But your mileage may vary.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Then again, we're talking about a film where it literally takes only five seconds for a turbolift to go from the hangar deck to the bridge, so...

 

[David cgc]

As opposed to the far more reasonable fifteen or twenty seconds in Star Trek V, or the twenty minutes it took to go down one floor in "The Enterprise Incident"?

 

[Thrawn]

Then again, we're talking about a film where it literally takes only five seconds for a turbolift to go from the hangar deck to the bridge, so...

No freaking way! To do that, they'd have to have, like, some way of compensating for the obviously large inertia of a sizeable metal cylinder and its occupants!

Some kind of... inertial compensator!

What a RIDICULOUS idea!

 

[elaithin]

So, how derailed can this thread get, exactly?

 

[Joel_Kirk]

^^

I kinda want to derail it further....

I'm just thinking of a topic...

Hmmmm...

 

[Thrawn]

^ Yeah, I was just about to respond "That sounds like a challenge!"

 

[Joel_Kirk]

^^

 

[ST-One]

Then again, we're talking about a film where it literally takes only five seconds for a turbolift to go from the hangar deck to the bridge, so...

 

[JarodRussell]

So, how derailed can this thread get, exactly?

Well it's still kinda about writing.

 

[DimesDan]

So, how derailed can this thread get, exactly?

Well it's still kinda about writing.

Regardless of that silly emoticon, this ongoing discussion is in no way relevant to Insurrection or writing really, it's just a rehash of the constant and to be honest pointless rehashing of arguments over last May's Star Trek release. Something which should be kept in the Star Trek XI forum and not cluttering up here.

 

[BillJ]

So, how derailed can this thread get, exactly?

Well it's still kinda about writing.

Regardless of that silly emoticon, this ongoing discussion is in no way relevant to Insurrection or writing really, it's just a rehash of the constant and to be honest pointless rehashing of arguments over last May's Star Trek release. Something which should be kept in the Star Trek XI forum and not cluttering up here.

What's it matter as long as everyone is having fun and no one is going 'out-of-bounds'?

The internet decorum police are everywhere.

 

[elaithin]

I think his point is that some people are tired of certain other people rehashing the exact same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again every time Star Trek XI comes up.

Also, there's just the chance that people coming to this thread would like to see others' opinions and commentary on Michael Piller's unreleased manuscript, and not Trek XI.

 

[JarodRussell]

Irony is that not a "hater" started that debate by posting about Star Trek 2009. I bumped this thread about a week after nobody else posted anything and made a post about Fade In, nobody cared. 3 days later, Sci replied to some post that was already over a month old and made it again about Star Trek 2009. But that's the way it goes, I guess.

 

[DimesDan]

I think his point is that some people are tired of certain other people rehashing the exact same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again every time Star Trek XI comes up.

Exactly. It was released in May 2009, we're now in late October 2010, by now, I'm sure it's pretty damn clear what the vocal minorities opinion is regarding the film. They think it's shite, blasphemy even and to someone like me, who neither loved nor hated it, the constant rehashing of the same stupid arguments is boring and just comes across as petty and utterly utterly stupid. It's possibly worse than the whole "who shot first thing" in Star Wars!!!!

As for Fade in, I've been dipping in and out of it and it seems like a very indepth piece of work, shame it's never going to be released as a published book.

 

[BillJ]

Exactly. It was released in May 2009, we're now in late October 2010, by now, I'm sure it's pretty damn clear what the vocal minorities opinion is regarding the film. They think it's shite, blasphemy even and to someone like me, who neither loved nor hated it, the constant rehashing of the same stupid arguments is boring and just comes across as petty and utterly utterly stupid. It's possibly worse than the whole "who shot first thing" in Star Wars!!!!

This is a Star Trek board and Star Trek 2009 was the last live-action product. What exactly are we suppose to be debating? I've pretty much seen every topic imaginable discussed here multiple times in the decade I've been a member.

No harm... no foul.

 

[DimesDan]

Exactly. It was released in May 2009, we're now in late October 2010, by now, I'm sure it's pretty damn clear what the vocal minorities opinion is regarding the film. They think it's shite, blasphemy even and to someone like me, who neither loved nor hated it, the constant rehashing of the same stupid arguments is boring and just comes across as petty and utterly utterly stupid. It's possibly worse than the whole "who shot first thing" in Star Wars!!!!

This is a Star Trek board and Star Trek 2009 was the last live-action product. What exactly are we suppose to be debating? I've pretty much seen every topic imaginable discussed here multiple times in the decade I've been a member.

No harm... no foul.

When did the Trek Lit section of the Trek BBS become the Trek XI section of the Trek BBS? If you want to discuss the film there, that's fair enough, I myself would rather discuss things of a Literature variety here, if some seepage happens, fair enough, but whole threads being hijacked by the vocal minority is getting tiresome. Sometimes I personally long for the whole "Bring Back Janeway" threads, yes they are almost as inane as discussions about Trek XI, but they have a whole lot more relivance as she "died" in one of the books!

 

[BillJ]

Exactly. It was released in May 2009, we're now in late October 2010, by now, I'm sure it's pretty damn clear what the vocal minorities opinion is regarding the film. They think it's shite, blasphemy even and to someone like me, who neither loved nor hated it, the constant rehashing of the same stupid arguments is boring and just comes across as petty and utterly utterly stupid. It's possibly worse than the whole "who shot first thing" in Star Wars!!!!

This is a Star Trek board and Star Trek 2009 was the last live-action product. What exactly are we suppose to be debating? I've pretty much seen every topic imaginable discussed here multiple times in the decade I've been a member.

No harm... no foul.

When did the Trek Lit section of the Trek BBS become the Trek XI section of the Trek BBS? If you want to discuss the film there, that's fair enough, I myself would rather discuss things of a Literature variety here, if some seepage happens, fair enough, but whole threads being hijacked by the vocal minority is getting tiresome. Sometimes I personally long for the whole "Bring Back Janeway" threads, yes they are almost as inane as discussions about Trek XI, but they have a whole lot more relivance as she "died" in one of the books!

Just don't see a big deal when a thread wonders off-course. YMMV.

 

[Sci]

Irony is that not a "hater" started that debate by posting about Star Trek 2009. I bumped this thread about a week after nobody else posted anything and made a post about Fade In, nobody cared. 3 days later, Sci replied to some post that was already over a month old and made it again about Star Trek 2009.

*shrugs* All I know is I noticed a thread I hadn't seen before and replied to posts.