What was this "vision" and how did ST09 run counter to it?
new style movies are crap
- Thread starter showwild
- Start date
- Status
Explain. Because, I've been following Star Trek for a few decades now. I think I know what it's about. So I'm curious to see if you can articulate this "vision" of Roddenberry and then show how the new movie violated it. Seems a simple task.
Perhaps you can your theory?
You guys brought it up, so after you.
^ I thought as much.
Thought what? That I expected you guys to present your arguments? Yes, I do. You're the ones banging on about the "vision" and the movie is somehow violating this vision. So go for it. A simple request that should be easy to fill. Now suddenly I have to go "first"? You brought it up, remember?^ I thought as much.
Last edited:
If you tried to explain what this "vision" is, people who really know the series and its history could easily point out how narrow, idiosyncratic and ultimately indefensible your statements are as analysis or criticism. So you won't do that.
Clearly, you're contributing just as little.
The difference between you and me is that I have no problems with guys like you who don't care about Roddenberry's vision. Why should I, that's your taste, your preferences.
You on the other hand cannot stand that somebody like me doesn't like ST09 because it violated the Rodd's vision. An acting captain throws somebody off the ship, "my ex-wife took the whole planet" and so on.
I don't need to comment on your "really know the series" aka "I am a real fan and you are not" crap.
You on the other hand cannot stand that somebody like me doesn't like ST09 because it violated the Rodd's vision. An acting captain throws somebody off the ship, "my ex-wife took the whole planet" and so on.
I don't need to comment on your "really know the series" aka "I am a real fan and you are not" crap.
Are you addressing me?
Where did I say you weren't a real fan? I said I've watched a lot of Star Trek, so I think I know what the show is about. That doesn't make me a bigger, better or "realer" fan, just an informed one.
How would the commander of a starship ( or any vessel ), acting or otherwise, removing someone from the ship or a man complaining about a crappy divorce settlement violate the vision of Roddenberry? You picked some odd examples there.
Um...
Are you really that oblivious to your own attitudes?
Your problem here, as I suggested above, is that you believe yourself to be somehow the keeper of, or to have a superior understanding of, a wampeter that you like to refer to as "Roddenberry's vision." I'm telling you that your understanding and definition of it is a personal idiosyncracy and then you pretend that it represents a standard which you get invoke to judge other posters or Star Trek in general.
You're wrong about "Roddenberry's vision" - what it is, where it came from, what importance it has to Star Trek, and whether the new movies respect it or not. That's all.
No, I just see that you're acting foolishly.
And "the Rodd?" Puh-lease - what is he now, a high-fiving bisexual surgeon on a TV sitcom?
Star Trek has been violating "Rodd's" vision as far back as The Man Trap when they decide to execute the creature instead of trapping it...
The Man Trap said:
...and it's Spock who ends up pulling the trigger.
If there is a time for Spock to have an emotional outburst I think losing his mother and planet would be it. It's not like we've never seen Spock have emotional outbursts in episodes like The Galileo Seven, Amok Time or All Our Yesterdays.
A human male being a bit upset because his divorce ended badly and he got the short end of the stick? Sounds human to me. Plus, it was part of the McCoy backstory as far back as I remember. Gene was, evidently, not too happy with his divorce settlement... so much so that he hid profits from the show from his ex-wife.
I've questioned in other threads whether you've actually been paying attention when watching Star Trek because Star Trek 2009 doesn't really violate anything we've seen on screen, including "Rodd's" vision. Which included threatening to wipe out all the population centers of Eminiar VII with General Order 24.
I'll leave "Rodd's" vision from Encounter at Farpoint...
Q said:
How can you look into the Todd's doe-like eyes and suggest such a thing? 
Erm... how did ST'09 supposedly violate "Gene's vision"? I saw a united humanity, more diverse than any in Trek's history (look at the Kelvin and Enterprise crews, and the cadets at SFA) branching out into space. Even the background Romulans had differing lumps and bumps, indicating alien diversity.
No poverty, no illiteracy. In fact, the movie made a point to show the main characters were well educated.
Or it is because they didn't draw attention to any of it? Does it not count if Kirk doesn't make a cornball speech about it?
No poverty, no illiteracy. In fact, the movie made a point to show the main characters were well educated.
Or it is because they didn't draw attention to any of it? Does it not count if Kirk doesn't make a cornball speech about it?
Once again your project your own issues on me. I have absolutely no problem that you don't care about the optimistic, utopian elements of Trek and I certainly wouldn't dare to accuse you of being wrong. I have by the way never claimed to have a superior understanding of anything; you claimed to "really knows the series", not me.Are you really that oblivious to your own attitudes?
Your problem here, as I suggested above, is that you believe yourself to be somehow the keeper of, or to have a superior understanding of, a wampeter that you like to refer to as "Roddenberry's vision." I'm telling you that your understanding and definition of it is a personal idiosyncracy and then you pretend that it represents a standard which you get invoke to judge other posters or Star Trek in general.
You're wrong about "Roddenberry's vision" - what it is, where it came from, what importance it has to Star Trek, and whether the new movies respect it or not. That's all.
No idea why you have a problem that I care about certain ingredients of Trek, guess it must be related to this "real fan" thing.
Those elements were as much present in this version as in TOS.
In fact, your entire attitude here is that you're on to something that other people are missing or "don't care about." You're mistaken. You're the one "projecting."
I find this all pretty funny, myself.
- Status
Similar threads
