Based on the excerpts I read over at Trekmovie.com I have to say that I had no really strong impression one way or the other of the Burnett/Singer/Thorne proposal (in case it wasn't clear in context most of my criticisms earlier in the topic were of the jms/Zabel proposal, which I think was dreadful). As far as Mr. Thorne's participation here is concerned, he makes great sense and I pretty much agree with him right down the line.
details on Singer's Trek pitch
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
To be nerdy technically the "prequel" was over when the lightning storm in space showed up.
[/QUOTE]Good means you liked it. Smart? Not always. Fun? Depends on the story and your individual definition. One man's fun is another man's stupid. Great stories? Not sure a Trek movie has had one yet. Character development? Again not a hallmark of Trek movies. But in spite of that there have been good Star trek movies.[/QUOTE]
So why exactly are you a Trek fan if you don't even think that they had good stories? Good does not mean - "you like it" Good means that its a good story, well written and interesting. Not JJ Trek.
[/QUOTE]A lot more fans were fine with the movie, even around here. ( tough crowd) Of course it departed from "canon". That was the bloody point. From the second the Narada showed up all previous continuity was thrown out. And it was a reboot, not a prequel. The "prequel" was over (and I repeat myself) the second the Narada showed up .
What Star Trek had to do is stop going in circles. Jumping a head a Century or back and popping over to the next quadrant is not "moving forward".[/QUOTE]
So JJ is not going in circles by rebooting? Its pure laziness. You take someone elses idea. Hundreds of people worked on TOS. You take their work and "modernize" it. Then you offer it as something "new". That's complete lack of creativity. That's laziness. That's good business and nothing else. If you like that I have a bridge to sell you.
So why exactly are you a Trek fan if you don't even think that they had good stories? Good does not mean - "you like it" Good means that its a good story, well written and interesting. Not JJ Trek.
[/QUOTE]A lot more fans were fine with the movie, even around here. ( tough crowd) Of course it departed from "canon". That was the bloody point. From the second the Narada showed up all previous continuity was thrown out. And it was a reboot, not a prequel. The "prequel" was over (and I repeat myself) the second the Narada showed up .
What Star Trek had to do is stop going in circles. Jumping a head a Century or back and popping over to the next quadrant is not "moving forward".[/QUOTE]
So JJ is not going in circles by rebooting? Its pure laziness. You take someone elses idea. Hundreds of people worked on TOS. You take their work and "modernize" it. Then you offer it as something "new". That's complete lack of creativity. That's laziness. That's good business and nothing else. If you like that I have a bridge to sell you.
Last edited:
Indeed, which is why there has never been any need to point to the film's financial success as being any indication of it's quality.
We point, instead, to an exhaustive survey of the movie's critical reception (worldwide) as inarguable proof of it's objective quality.
Even as those who whine about the death of a non-existent planet and its fictional inhabitants demonstrate a dubious understanding of the word "objective".
I'm not a big fan of "objective" as a term to be applied to matters of taste or for that matter to values and value-laden statements.
"Consensus" will usually do, IMAO - for example, it may be said that there's a broad critical consensus regarding the quality of Shakespeare's Macbeth (the "Scottish play" for you thespians) as a play and as literature.
And yeah, there's a pretty strong critical and popular consensus supporting any claims of high quality for Abrams's Star Trek as a piece of commercial entertainment.
"Consensus" will usually do, IMAO - for example, it may be said that there's a broad critical consensus regarding the quality of Shakespeare's Macbeth (the "Scottish play" for you thespians) as a play and as literature.
And yeah, there's a pretty strong critical and popular consensus supporting any claims of high quality for Abrams's Star Trek as a piece of commercial entertainment.
Last edited:
I'm not. And let me rephrase my question: What the fuck do you mean?
Most critics, just like most movie goers, are not familiar with Star Trek. It is viewed as a silly space shoot em up by many. As such JJ delivered. But Trek is more then lazers and phazers in space. So as far as an action flick JJ Trek delivers, but he doesn't deliver anything else.
The topic here is a new show. I don't see a new show for a few more years. Its been six since ENT went off the air, and it will probably be another six years before a new show is seriously considered again.
I'm extremely familiar with just about all aspects of Star Trek. Abrams's movie delivers a great deal more than you claim.
number6
Vice Admiral
Agreed.
As soon as fans start saying the show is something more than a show (or a movie), it's trouble.
I'm fine with it being considered a good show, or even a great one. Certainly I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of it for the past 30 or so years. But when fans start to claim that it's something absolutely transcendent and categorically different from anything else on TV, I start to tune out.
Back to the OP, my reaction to personal transporters is exactly the same if you told me there were no transporters at all--I'm fine with it, as long as you're telling a good story about characters I care about.
I'm fine with it being considered a good show, or even a great one. Certainly I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of it for the past 30 or so years. But when fans start to claim that it's something absolutely transcendent and categorically different from anything else on TV, I start to tune out.
Back to the OP, my reaction to personal transporters is exactly the same if you told me there were no transporters at all--I'm fine with it, as long as you're telling a good story about characters I care about.
And yet that's exactly the claim I was responding to.
I have no idea what its worldwide critical reception is, and it doesn't matter. Statistics are not a counterpoint to valid criticisms. If 6.5 billion people think it's kewl to shoot a cadet off the ship to near-certain death rather than put him in the brig, it's still bad writing.
Even if there are such people, it's irrelevant. It may be subjective whether turning the optimistic core of Trek into an apocalyptic holocaust is a good idea or not-- it's subjective whether re-imagining something iconic is a good idea in the first place-- but the quality of the end product can still be objectively evaluated.
Luckily, we're applying objectivity to matters of quality, not taste.
Wow, that was so subtle it almost convinced me.
Nevertheless, "consensus" is also synonymous with "fashion" and "the lowest common denominator."And yet it seems inordinately difficult for anyone to actually come up with any counterpoints to the film's near-infinite failings.
I mean 2001: A Space Odyssey is better than Plan 9 From Outer Space.
I'm extremely familiar with just about all aspects of Star Trek, too. More importantly, I'm extremely familiar with all aspects of good writing. nuTrek is shallow and awkward and amazingly badly written.
How can you quote me and still get what I wrote wrong?
I said there hasn't been a Great story in a Trek Movie. There have been some great episodes of the various series though. I'm a more of a fan of the TV version of Trek.
Yes "good" means you liked it. I've walk out of more than one film that I thought was good/great and my companions thought were horrible. (Barton Fink comes to mind). Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes a "good story" or whats "well written" and "interesting". There are probably some Oscar winning screenplays that folks think are horrible. Or can be picked apart for "plotholes" and bad dialog.
People have been "modernizing" other peoples ideas for centuries. Every new Trek series was a modernization of TOS. TOS was built on other peoples ideas ( There's some truth in my STAR TREK 0: THE FORBIDDEN PLANET gag). Bond, Dracula, Holmes, Batman, Superman, Tarzan...pick any longterm piece of pop culture... have been modernized and presented as something new ( or a new take). No one is pretending the JJ & Co created Star Trek. But they have tried to scrape off the barnacles, apply a new coat of paint and set sail in a new direction. Calling it lazy is calling everyone ( including a few posters here) who've ever worked on property they didn't create lazy and uncreative.
BTW. The bridge selling trope is usally reserved for naive and gullible people not for people who reognize sound business practices. So to that I say
I'm sorry. This is peevish of me but I can't resist.
If 6.5 billion people deem a work of art to be stellar but one person disagrees, claiming knowledge of an objective measure, what is that objective measure and who created it?
Art is deemed art by consensus. End of story. That is not an arguable point. It's one of those things they call... oh, what is the word? Oh. Right.
A fact.
There is no "objectivity" to be found in the art world, not even in commercial art. No one is required to like everything (Lord knows I hate Rothko's "art" with a burning passion) but there's no highest authority you can invoke when claiming "objectively" that one piece of art is awesome while another is crap. As soon as someone disagrees, both of you are right.
Which is your subjective opinion. You never specified any objective criteria.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
KIRK: Too much of anything, Lieutenant, even love, isn't necessarily a good thing.A series would give you about sixty to seventy hours of content in the same time period, wouldn't that be just a little bit better?
Definitely too much TOS. 3 seasons and 6 1/2 movies was enough. Why the hell did they need to do a remake?
Because fans like yourself bitched and whined so much about the newer versions of Star Trek, that the bitching and whining spread from the 'Net straight to the real world and caused the malaise that resulted in the franchise having a meltdown?
You really should have a nice long talk with your partner in this endeavor, Mr. Burnett. If memory serves, he despised JJTrek even more than I do, which is considerable.
That's a long-winded way of saying that the lowest common denominator determines quality. No, thanks.
Okay, chum.
No. It's a very specific, sarcastic way of saying you don't have any idea what you're talking about. For someone who claims to know what's what on this score, you sure don't paraphrase well.
There is no "lowest common denominator" in this context. There is the artist, the artwork and the audience. That's it.
Vincent Van Gogh's work was deemed utter crap during most of his life. Now he's hailed as a visionary genius. Same painter. Same art. Different audiences. Different times. You lose.
If there is an ultimate, objective means of determining quality, outside of asking you what you think is good or bad, point it out.
You can't because it doesn't exist. It never has existed and it never will. Art is, by it's nature, a moveable feast. What's "good" or "bad" shifts from era to era and from region to region and from person to person. It is a protean activity dependent upon multiple, constantly shifting variables.
You can't cite an objective authority because there isn't one. Of course there isn't. The entire history or Art is against you. I mean 100%.
I don't think you like those odds.
Rob was more like my editor-in-chief on this project. And, regardless of our slightly different ways of enjoying Star Trek, he isn't an idiot. He knows it takes all kinds to make a good project or he wouldn't have recruited me.
Would he have made a different movie than Mr. Abrams? Absolutely. So would I have. Not because I don't like the alternate reality version. I do. Very much. But i have my own ideas and so does Rob and so did Mr. Abrams.
(If it had been up to me Voyager would have returned home looking nothing like she did when she left and Seven of Nine would have stayed a full-on Borg for the duration of her time on the series. No catsuit. Odo would have been played by a different actor every season. There would have been at least one gay crew member. etc. etc. etc.)
There are lots of legitimate interpretations of this material. No one answer is right.
Well, actually, that's not true. The right answer is the one that gets filmed or published. Everything else is vapor.
Last edited:
Similar threads
