Star Trek has never been consistent with its technology nor how the crew used that technology. In an episode of TNG, the audience learns that the windows were made of transparent aluminum. Yet, when the primary hull of the Enterprise crashed into planetary surface, the windows shattered like they were made of glass. In that same movie, the crew, once they knew their shields had been compromised, didn't change the shield frequency rotation, like Tuvok did in one episode of Voyager.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
How about the consistency of transporting through shields? Basically whenever the plot called for it they could do it. When ever it called for not transporting through shields they couldn't do it.
Nice to hear them be a little critical of nuTrek, but to be fair, the TNG movies pretty much ditched the whole moral/social/philosophical aspect of trek as well.
They always tried to force more action into the TNG movies and it just didn't work most of the time. The cast wasn't meant for it.
I couldn't understand much of what was said by Sirtis and Burton. Is there a transcript of what they were saying?
TrekWeb.com has one of the statements from Burton on ST:ID.
http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/06...n-JJ-Abrams-Interpretation-of-Star-Trek.shtml
When reading this press release, I remembered what Wil Wheaton wrote,
TrekWeb.com has one of the statements from Burton on ST:ID.
http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/06...n-JJ-Abrams-Interpretation-of-Star-Trek.shtml
When reading this press release, I remembered what Wil Wheaton wrote,
http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/50514989060/jenniferdeguzman-he-said-star-trek-is-too
I haven't listened to Burton's remarks (nor do I really care to), but in regards to the Jon Stewart interview in the Wil Wheaton link, I do have to admit that there are times (and that interview was one of them) when I wish JJ Abrams would just shut up about how much of a non-fan of Star Trek he was.
Not that you're obligated to be a fan to be a good director. Some of the best Trek writers and directors have not been fans at all, and some of the worst have been huge fans, so it's no guarantee of quality. Nor do I want him to lie and pretend to be something he's not. But you don't have to place sooooo much emphasis on the fact that you weren't a fan and bring it up on your own in every other interview you do. It's kind of bad PR and rubbing it in --especially when his direction is such a divisive issue among certain fans.
Also, while Star Trek is a lot less philosophical than some fans build it to be in their heads (it certainly has its moments, but most of the time it's pretty basic space opera), going into interviews and essentially saying "Star Trek was too thoughtful for me" (admittedly when he was a kid, but he's still talking about it now) is not really a great move when one of the primary fan criticisms of your direction is that you've made the films too shallow and focused on style over substance.
Ironically, I think this film has plenty of depth to it and philosophical moments/themes (I know many disagree), so it was strange to me to see him emphasize that when it's not really what the film was about. Of course, like he says, it was a collaboration between him and the writers (who were Trek fans and did like some of the more intellectual stuff) and they each brought their own perspective to the table and combined their talents to balance things out between more accessible action and more intellectual drama.
Copy/pasting from the previous thread in which Wheaton's remarks were mentioned:
Because that one episode where Wesley gets sauced to the gills and commandeers the Enterprise is just oozing with profound wisdom and ideology...
Yes, but Abrams isn't speaking to dedicated Star Trek fans. When he speaks to the mass media he's sensibly inviting non-fans to identify with him and to follow him along a rhetorical path. Orci, OTOH, dedicates a surprising amount of time to tracking down trekkies in their online gathering places and identifying himself as one of them.
In any case, fannish criticism of these films has proven to be impotent and of little consequence.
That's what I don't understand. It's not as if all the Trek before them had the Roddenberry "vision" in there either.
I dunno, Sirtis and Frakes were pretty frank about some of their later film blunders. I'd imagine most of them understand that pretty well. And Burton initially praised the movie, despite these later criticisms. It's obvious that he enjoyed it on some level.
I lost a little respect for Burton when he made the absolutely misinformed and made-up remark that J.J. Abrams was telling people that his Star Trek was the "only" Star Trek. Ironic that someone who used to host "The Reading Rainbow" doesn't take time to read things that people have said.
Then the other day he declared that it wasn't "okay" with him that "Gene Roddenberry's Vision" [All Rights Reserved] was "missing."
Okay LeVar, time to go back to your Reading Rainbow App now.
Then the other day he declared that it wasn't "okay" with him that "Gene Roddenberry's Vision" [All Rights Reserved] was "missing."
Okay LeVar, time to go back to your Reading Rainbow App now.
Any word yet on where R2-D2 is?
If a veteran actor praises the films, he/she "is a class act". If a veteran actor criticizes the film, he/she "is bitter" or "butthurt".
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
