details on Singer's Trek pitch

[JarodRussell]

I mean 2001: A Space Odyssey is better than Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Which is your subjective opinion. You never specified any objective criteria.

Okay, chum.

Jesus... arguing with a 5-year-old is more substantial. How about you finally give examples and explain what you mean?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Which is your subjective opinion. You never specified any objective criteria.

Okay, chum.

Jesus... arguing with a 5-year-old is more substantial. How about you finally give examples and explain what you mean?

That is not going to happen. I think we should all move on.

 

[Gepard]

When people on both sides of the isle regarding Trek XI are ganging up on you, you know you're doing something wrong.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

This.

There is a basic insecurity in trying to invoke absolute standards with regard to values - a need to be provably "right" (or perhaps even more, that the other person be proven wrong) - which is doomed to frustration because it has no basis in reality. This tendency is much of what underlies, for example, the eternal tension of alliance/opposition between organized religion and the arts.

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.

And this. There are half a dozen major things I'd have done differently from Abrams, to please myself. I actually suspect that CRA would have approved of most of my hypothetical version, as it would have resembled the original TV series a great deal more (and, I readily concede probably would have damaged the movie's commercial prospects). That said, I absolutely love the Abrams movie.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I also suspect that yours would've made a helluva lot more sense than JJ's.

 

[RJDiogenes]

That's a long-winded way of saying that the lowest common denominator determines quality.

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.

I don't have to worry about those odds, because they don't exist; everything you just said is nonsense. If the only way to defend nuTrek is to create a wishy-washy world where there are no objective standards of quality-- where Plan 9 From Outer Space is the equal of 2001: A Space Odyssey-- then you're pretty much admitting that I'm right. Otherwise, you would have actually offered a counterpoint to anything I've said, rather than hiding behind airy rhetoric and politics.

Which is your subjective opinion. You never specified any objective criteria.

Okay, chum.

Jesus... arguing with a 5-year-old is more substantial. How about you finally give examples and explain what you mean?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Okay, I will explain to you what I mean when I say that 2001: A Space Odyssey is better than Plan 9 From Outer Space, though I never in my life would have dreamed that I would be called on to do such a thing. 2001: A Space Odyssey is better written, better directed and better acted than Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is because it was written by a Grandmaster of Science Fiction, directed by a legendary genius of a director and performed by a bunch of decent actors, as opposed to Plan 9, which was written by a nitwit, directed by a nitwit and performed by a bunch of awkward, low-tier extras. If you need me to elaborate on the special effects, I will.

This is more bizarre than when I was told that Robert Crumb would be a good choice to replace Charles Schulz on Peanuts.

 

[RJDiogenes]

When people on both sides of the isle regarding Trek XI are ganging up on you, you know you're doing something wrong.

I'm just a voice in the wilderness.

 

[JarodRussell]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Okay, I will explain to you what I mean when I say that 2001: A Space Odyssey is better than Plan 9 From Outer Space, though I never in my life would have dreamed that I would be called on to do such a thing. 2001: A Space Odyssey is better written, better directed and better acted than Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is because it was written by a Grandmaster of Science Fiction, directed by a legendary genius of a director and performed by a bunch of decent actors, as opposed to Plan 9, which was written by a nitwit, directed by a nitwit and performed by a bunch of awkward, low-tier extras. If you need me to elaborate on the special effects, I will.

And what is objective about all of this?

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I don't have to worry about those odds, because they don't exist; everything you just said is nonsense.

No. It's the facts of actual life. If the only way to defend nuTrek is to create a wishy-washy world where there are no objective standards of quality-- where Plan 9 From Outer Space is the equal of 2001: A Space Odyssey-- then you're pretty much admitting that I'm right. Otherwise, you would have actually offered a counterpoint to anything I've said, rather than hiding behind airy rhetoric and politics.

You are an intellectual coward. No one's talking about politics and I've not used any "rhetoric" whatsoever.

I've asked you, point blank, to show where this objective standard you're talking about exists. Where? How is it set? Who created it? I've been in the arts since I was 14 years old in various forms, professionally, and I've never seen it nor heard of anyone who knows of its existence but you. You have asserted its existence so you are required to offer evidence/proof. As of now you haven't managed that simple thing. Because you can't It's not possible.

What you have is an opinion. No more, no less. That's fine, but it's the minority view which means, in this context, not worth much.

If the majority says its art, it's Art. If the majority say it's good art, it's good art.

That's it.

 

[Tarek71]

Some of it sounds cool.

Like:

And the Federation has expanded through a huge portion of the galaxy -- so far in fact, transmissions from the frontier to Starfleet HQ takes years at subspace frequencies.

Ships sent to these distant areas of the galaxy are near autonomous, expanding the Federation while exploring new worlds and civilizations unknown to the Trek universe.

Thats sounds ok. I would have thought theyd have the transwarp conduits ala the Borg by then though. I would at least expect the ships to be alot faster.

Klingons aren't politicians and it shouldn't be that easy for the Rommies to ever play nice.

Klingons are of course political, but this could just mean that the warrior caste no longer dominates and virtually monopolises the high council and chancellorship as they once did. The majority of the council may be non military, and there could be chancellors who were not prominent military officers, or in some cases, never even served in the military.(!!!) We could say that this would have been unthinkable in the 22nd to 24th centuries.

And since this is the 31st century I would not conclude that anything was "easy" about the Romulans making nice. This would be over 600 years after TNG. Thats a long time, and probably not so easy at all. Indeed if they are still "busy" working that out even centuries after Amb. Spock was there, it would seem fair to say that it was actually very hard.

 

[Harvey]

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.

This.

There is a basic insecurity in trying to invoke absolute standards with regard to values - a need to be provably "right" (or perhaps even more, that the other person be proven wrong) - which is doomed to frustration because it has no basis in reality. This tendency is much of what underlies, for example, the eternal tension of alliance/opposition between organized religion and the arts.

If someone wants a more filmic example, I'd point out that when they came out, John Ford's westerns were less well-regarded than his Oscar-bait dramas. For a time, The Grapes of Wrath was ranked by a consensus of critics as the best American movie ever made, and it wasn't a big deal that How Green Was My Valley beat out Citizen Kane for the Oscar.

Of course, nowadays a consensus of critics prefer Ford's westerns to his Oscar-bait dramas, which are not nearly as highly regarded. The critical consensus changes over the years -- there's no "objective" standard.

 

[bismarck_1892]

When people on both sides of the isle regarding Trek XI are ganging up on you, you know you're doing something wrong.

I'm just a voice in the wilderness.

You're not alone in your assessment of the film, just alone here (more or less). :-)

Ultimately, only time will tell whether JJ Trek was good or bad for the franchise. Or maybe this debate will continue indefenitely. Whatever the answer, a work of art JJ Trek was not.

Those who say that art is in the eye of the beholder are the same people that try to sell you toilets or shit covered canvases as art, and no doubt make a lot of money doing it. There is a finite point to every argument, however.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Whatever the answer, a work of art JJ Trek was not.

Really? That's interesting. So because you don't like it, it's not art? Does it mean that there is no such thing as mediocre or bad art? Art is not a creative human activity, it's some kind of quality label?

 

[bismarck_1892]

Whatever the answer, a work of art JJ Trek was not.

Really? That's interesting. So because you don't like it, it's not art? Does it mean that there is no such thing as mediocre or bad art? Art is not a creative human activity, it's some kind of quality label?

You heard me. Just because I draw a stick figure on a peace of paper does not make me an artist.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Whatever the answer, a work of art JJ Trek was not.

I disagree with you. You are therefore mistaken.

When people on both sides of the isle regarding Trek XI are ganging up on you, you know you're doing something wrong.

Ouch!

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Whatever the answer, a work of art JJ Trek was not.

Really? That's interesting. So because you don't like it, it's not art? Does it mean that there is no such thing as mediocre or bad art? Art is not a creative human activity, it's some kind of quality label?

You heard me. Just because I draw a stick figure on a peace of paper does not make me an artist.

Alright. So art is just a quality label for you, and you get to decide what is and what isn't art based on... what criteria?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Okay, I will explain to you what I mean when I say that 2001: A Space Odyssey is better than Plan 9 From Outer Space, though I never in my life would have dreamed that I would be called on to do such a thing. 2001: A Space Odyssey is better written, better directed and better acted than Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is because it was written by a Grandmaster of Science Fiction, directed by a legendary genius of a director and performed by a bunch of decent actors, as opposed to Plan 9, which was written by a nitwit, directed by a nitwit and performed by a bunch of awkward, low-tier extras. If you need me to elaborate on the special effects, I will.

And what is objective about all of this?

Seriously, man, if this is some kind of awkward attempt at Socratic dialogue, you need to give up. Everything is objective about all this. If you're not familiar with the standards of any of these disciplines, you need to familiarize yourself. Start here. Let me know how it works out.

I don't have to worry about those odds, because they don't exist; everything you just said is nonsense.

No. It's the facts of actual life. If the only way to defend nuTrek is to create a wishy-washy world where there are no objective standards of quality-- where Plan 9 From Outer Space is the equal of 2001: A Space Odyssey-- then you're pretty much admitting that I'm right. Otherwise, you would have actually offered a counterpoint to anything I've said, rather than hiding behind airy rhetoric and politics.

You are an intellectual coward. No one's talking about politics and I've not used any "rhetoric" whatsoever.

Really? For a writer, you don't seem to have a solid grasp of English. And now you've added name calling to your airy rhetoric and politics; that's pretty much the final nail in the coffin of your credibility (and that's a rather odd rewriting of my quote you've got there).

I've asked you, point blank, to show where this objective standard you're talking about exists. Where? How is it set? Who created it? I've been in the arts since I was 14 years old in various forms, professionally, and I've never seen it nor heard of anyone who knows of its existence but you. You have asserted its existence so you are required to offer evidence/proof. As of now you haven't managed that simple thing. Because you can't It's not possible.

You've been involved in the arts professionally since you were 14 and you've never heard of objective standards? Wow. That's astonishing. My niece is eleven and goes to an arts camp in the summer and she's learned a lot about objective standards. Maybe you should look into something like that. So nobody has ever bothered to correct your spelling or taught you how to project your voice while on stage or shown you how to frame a scene or anything? That's pretty bad.

What you have is an opinion. No more, no less. That's fine, but it's the minority view which means, in this context, not worth much.

If the majority says its art, it's Art. If the majority say it's good art, it's good art.

That's it.

Which still says nothing about objective standards of quality, no matter how many times you repeat it.

You're not alone in your assessment of the film, just alone here (more or less). :-)

Yeah, I know. It's just that the apologists are very loud and defensive. And hostile.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

This thread has objectively failed.

 

[JarodRussell]

That's just... I don't know what to say anymore.

This must be the second or third time someone insists that there are objective criteria and standards to judge art, and every time he's asked to specifiy what the fuck these standards are by giving reasonable examples, he just evades the question, makes silly laughing-at-you smilies and basically says "look it up yourself, stupid". Which means he knows nothing, but only likes to troll around.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That sums it up pretty well...objectively speaking.