Orci strikes back

[Sindatur]

So you're saying movie and television makers should be sued for telling little white lies while trying to protect spoilers on their projects? That seems like a rational position.

Don't know if this counts as "sassing the mods," so please forgive me. I'm about to sass you (who so happens to be a mod) for your completely out-to-left-field response. I'm tired of your literal interpretations of my posts. You clearly fail to see the underlying meaning of them, beyond the words written on the page.

First, there is a clear difference between a working title of a project, and denying something that clearly isn't true. No explicit details were released about "Blue Harvest," so your comparison is completely off.

Now, back to Trek. Saying that Cumberbatch isn't playing Khan is meant as a deception, and nothing more. They were trying to generate "controversy" or "mystery," or whatever they wanted to call it. But in plain English: it was a lie. And they knew they could do it, because they were just "fricking" with the public, and no matter what, they'd still make as much money regardless of what they said.

Second, saying the apple in the Kobayashi Maru scene in ST09 was a "total coincidence" to the scene in TWOK where Kirk is talking about the Kobayashi Maru test is completely disingenuous, at the VERY least. It suggests they think the fans are morons. Was the was nuKirk empathetically chomped down on the apple coincidence, considering Prime Kirk did so in an identical fashion?

As Admiral Marcus would say (in another life): "Your move, creep."

Could you point to a direct quote from Orci, Abrams or any of the other Producers, Directors, Writers, etc, where they actually denied Cumberbatch was playing Khan? I don't remember that happening, and, as a matter of fact, that is, as far as what I remember, what kept the rumors alive, was that they didn't ever actually deny it.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I actually didn't think Orci's reaction was that big a deal. In the context of the situation, he was getting hit with complaints from some of the "fans" in that thread, and one person, in particular, engaged him with a displeasure of the movie.

When Orci asked the person to recount the plot of the film or some semblance of a summary, all the person did was continue to complain and skirt the issue.

Sometimes, you have to be blunt when confronted with stupidity. What Orci said was true, to me: he gets to write and work on the movies, we don't. Beyond that, if you want to have a discussion with someone, have something to go from and not just some baseless argument.

Orci is arrogant, I'll admit from seeing some of his tweets and some of his comments here and there, but the person on Trekmovie had Orci's attention and the opportunity to give an intelligent argument as to why they didn't like the movie. They squandered that opportunity.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

Could you point to a direct quote from Orci, Abrams or any of the other Producers, Directors, Writers, etc, where they actually denied Cumberbatch was playing Khan? I don't remember that happening, and, as a matter of fact, that is, as far as what I remember, what kept the rumors alive, was that they didn't ever actually deny it.

I think there was an early denial by one of the filmmakers that Benicio del Toro was up for the part of Khan.

After that went away and Cumberbatch's casting had been announced, there were quoted remarks by Alice Eve and (I think?) Simon Pegg to the effect that he wasn't playing Khan. At around the same time, however, wasn't there also an article relating how Cumberbatch hadn't been told the true identity of "John Harrison" until his part in the filming was nearly completed? If it wasn't in BC's copy of the script and it wasn't in anyone else's, Eve and Pegg may have sincerely believed they were correct.

Dat ol' Mystery Box shore be mysterious.

 

[JWPlatt]

How about the man himself:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/bene...khan-in-star-trek-into-darkness_article_73762

I play a character called John and not that other name.

For me, "not that other name" is just the same as saying "I'm not playing Kahn." He lied. But so what? I don't care. I expect it from Hollywood in reaction to fans who feel they have a right to intrude upon the private wishes of studios and artists. Well, I guess I care, but I don't expect anything to be true. When is a Hollywood executive lying? I think you all know the answer.

Also:

"It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not."

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=60621

 

[BillJ]

How about the man himself:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/bene...khan-in-star-trek-into-darkness_article_73762

I play a character called John and not that other name.

For me, "not that other name" is just the same as saying "I'm not playing Kahn." He lied. But so what? I don't care. I expect it from Hollywood in reaction to fans who feel they have a right to intrude upon the private wishes of studios and artists. Well, I guess I care, but I don't expect anything to be true. When is a Hollywood executive lying? I think you all know the answer.

Also:

"It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not."

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=60621

I can understand the reasoning behind being less than truthful with this fanbase constantly bashing every move that's made. They simply don't want a bunch of bad publicity before the movie is released.

 

[Sindatur]

How about the man himself:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/bene...khan-in-star-trek-into-darkness_article_73762

I play a character called John and not that other name.

For me, "not that other name" is just the same as saying "I'm not playing Kahn." He lied. But so what? I don't care. I expect it from Hollywood in reaction to fans who feel they have a right to intrude upon the private wishes of studios and artists. Well, I guess I care, but I don't expect anything to be true. When is a Hollywood executive lying? I think you all know the answer.

Also:

"It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not."

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=60621

Yea, actors aren't the same as Writers, Directors, Producers. I knew actors had denied it, but, the specific charge made by the poster I was responding to was that Orci and Abrams lied, which I think is incorrect, they never confirmed or denied. The closest they came was saying "Cumberbatch character is called john Harrison", but, that wasn't followed up with a denial that he was aslo really Khan.

 

[Lawrence B]

And now The Hollywood Reporter chimes in with their own take:

Why 'Star Trek' Fans Are Wrong and Roberto Orci Is Right (Opinion)

Paramount's sequel has been dismissed by purists as crass, corny and catering to the lowest common denominator; but are the new films a lot closer to the original sci-fi series than most fans are willing to admit?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/opinion-why-star-trek-fans-624623

 

[M'Sharak]

And now The Hollywood Reporter chimes in with their own take:

Why 'Star Trek' Fans Are Wrong and Roberto Orci Is Right (Opinion)

Paramount's sequel has been dismissed by purists as crass, corny and catering to the lowest common denominator; but are the new films a lot closer to the original sci-fi series than most fans are willing to admit?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/opinion-why-star-trek-fans-624623

The concluding line sounds familiar, for some reason.

In other words, the franchise isn't broken, folks, it's just gone back to its true roots.

 

[MrJ]

And now The Hollywood Reporter chimes in with their own take:

Why 'Star Trek' Fans Are Wrong and Roberto Orci Is Right (Opinion)

Paramount's sequel has been dismissed by purists as crass, corny and catering to the lowest common denominator; but are the new films a lot closer to the original sci-fi series than most fans are willing to admit?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/opinion-why-star-trek-fans-624623

The concluding line sounds familiar, for some reason.

In other words, the franchise isn't broken, folks, it's just gone back to its true roots.

If Star Trek Into Darkness is getting back to Star Trek's actual roots I would have never been a Star Trek fan to begin with. If Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Chrystal Skull was the only Indiana Jones movie, I wouldn't be a fan of him. If the Star Wars prequels were the only Star Wars movies, I would hate Star Wars. And if Michael Bay's Transformers movies were the only version of Transformers, then I wouldn't have any interest in them.

I am getting sick and tired of these big budget dumb movies made for the lowest common denominator. Especially when movies like The Dark Knight, and Skyfall, have shown that not only do smart big budget movies do well, they do the best.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've been watching since the beginning. To me it is getting back to Star Trek's roots.

I enjoyed The Dark Knight and Skyfall, but I can't say I'd call them "smarter" than STID. What made them "smarter"?

The lowest common denominator charge has been mentioned before, leveled at this film and ST09. What comprises this "lowest common denominator"?

 

[Ovation]

The article is spot on about the new movies being consistent with TOS as it actually was, rather than how it's been "remembered". I've been re-watching TOS with my young son and I've been struck over and over by how well the new films have captured the spirit and tone of TOS while also managing to feel fresh. I'm also reminded of why TOS remains my favourite of all the series--it's the most fun one to revisit (been watching it pretty consistently since 1973, so it'd better be fun).

These movies are like TOS than anything since, well, TOS.

 

[M'Sharak]

And now The Hollywood Reporter chimes in with their own take:



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/opinion-why-star-trek-fans-624623

The concluding line sounds familiar, for some reason.

In other words, the franchise isn't broken, folks, it's just gone back to its true roots.

If Star Trek Into Darkness is getting back to Star Trek's actual roots I would have never been a Star Trek fan to begin with.

Spoiler: none of this other stuff is particularly relevant - it's just padding

If Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Chrystal Skull was the only Indiana Jones movie, I wouldn't be a fan of him. If the Star Wars prequels were the only Star Wars movies, I would hate Star Wars. And if Michael Bay's Transformers movies were the only version of Transformers, then I wouldn't have any interest in them.

I am getting sick and tired of these big budget dumb movies made for the lowest common denominator. Especially when movies like The Dark Knight, and Skyfall, have shown that not only do smart big budget movies do well, they do the best.

I see.

Just for curiosity's sake: when was it that you began watching Star Trek? What was your earliest experience of "Star Trek's actual roots," and how would you say that shapes your perspective on Star Trek as a whole?

 

[Yorkshire Niner]

We need to have a Trekkie Civil War to sort this out!

All the fans who like intelligent, well-made, well-written, long running TV shows (with the occasional fun film) and aren't prepared to completely forget about TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT on one side.

And fans who like massive action sequences, CGI special effects and a 'modern' remake of a 1960s TV series on the other.

Let battle commence!!!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I am getting sick and tired of these big budget dumb movies made for the lowest common denominator. Especially when movies like The Dark Knight, and Skyfall, have shown that not only do smart big budget movies do well, they do the best.

And TDK and Skyfall are NOT smart. You're confusing "smart" with a film that has a serious tone. Both fall apart under scrutiny.

 

[Yorkshire Niner]

I am getting sick and tired of these big budget dumb movies made for the lowest common denominator. Especially when movies like The Dark Knight, and Skyfall, have shown that not only do smart big budget movies do well, they do the best.

And TDK and Skyfall are NOT smart. You're confusing "smart" with a film that has a serious tone. Both fall apart under scrutiny.

Hollywood is broken.

MrJ is essentially correct though. The Dark Knight Rises may not be a "smart" film in some people's eyes... but it was a lot less stupid than STID. And Avengers Assemble for that matter.

 

[JarodRussell]

And now The Hollywood Reporter chimes in with their own take:

Why 'Star Trek' Fans Are Wrong and Roberto Orci Is Right (Opinion)

Paramount's sequel has been dismissed by purists as crass, corny and catering to the lowest common denominator; but are the new films a lot closer to the original sci-fi series than most fans are willing to admit?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/opinion-why-star-trek-fans-624623

I like how this turns out as a producers vs fans battle. And the fans are wrong if they don't like it. Holy crap.

The gist of the article basically is: if you want TOS movie level and TNG series level of quality, Abramstrek isn't made for you, and you are wrong for criticizing it because of that.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What exactly is "TNG level of quality"? Trite morals, poor acting and terrible direction?

 

[Amaris]

We need to have a Trekkie Civil War to sort this out!

All the fans who like intelligent, well-made, well-written, long running TV shows (with the occasional fun film) and aren't prepared to completely forget about TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT on one side.

And fans who like massive action sequences, CGI special effects and a 'modern' remake of a 1960s TV series on the other.

Let battle commence!!!

What about those of us fans who like intelligent, well-made, well-written, long running TV shows, and aren't prepared to completely forget about TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, who also like massive action sequences, CGI special effects, and a more modern remake of the 1960s TV series? Because that's who I am, and I loved STiD.

See, I have this thing called "reason," and I employ it when other people try to create stereotypes about who they think is on each side of what. I even had a theoretical conversation with the concept, and it went like this:

I said to myself, "self, we love Star Trek as it has been known for the past 47 years, is that right?"

And self replied, "Yes, that's right."

To which I asked, "Are we really Trek fans?"

Self said, "Of course. We've watched it since we were 4. That was 29 years ago."

To which I replied, "But what about the new J.J. Abrams movies?"

To which self added, "We love them too!"

At this point I scratched my head and said, "but we can't like both!"

Self mused, "why the hell not?"

To which I replied, "because we are merely human, and lack the intellectual capacity to simultaneously enjoy things that are different."

At which time self stated, "who the fuck gave you that idea?"

To which I replied, "lots of Star Trek fans who insist that the movies were for dumb people who like explosions, while the series is for real fans who like thinking movies."

By which time self sighed and said, "So what you're saying is they forgot about all the stupid shit from the series and the movies that completely and utterly belied any sense of intellectualism and reason and instead groped for a cheap laugh or dramatic sting filled with overwrought dialogue and plodding storyline all in the name of self serving, self important, high concept dross."

"That would be the gist of it, yes," I replied.

Self smiled, "so why are we giving a fuck?"

At which point we both smiled, and stopped giving a fuck.

The End.

Signed, J. Allen
Niner for Life

 

[Yorkshire Niner]

What exactly is "TNG level of quality"? Trite morals, poor acting and terrible direction?

Now you're just being silly.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm serious. The past three years I've rewatched The Original Series Enterprise and Voyager, and for the most part enjoyed them. Next was TNG, and I couldn't finish it. I couldn't believe it was the same show that got me into Trek when I was little. It's aged terribly - the crew often just stand around on the bridge (arms straight at their sides, staring blankly) taking turns to recite their lines.