Orci strikes back

[JarodRussell]

The article itself states it as well.

Fans tend to view the original series through lenses colored by the subsequent film series and the later TV programs, especially Star Trek: The Next Generation, where the films had a higher quality of writing and attention to character arcs. Likewise, the later TV shows were much more in line with creator Gene Roddenberry's intentions to create a smarter sort of sci-fi show that touched on moral issues and social themes every week. But the original series was quite different from these later incarnations, and was forced to forgo many of Roddenberry's preferences and ideas in favor of studio demands for an action-adventure Western in space.

and

We already got 10 Star Trek movies that focused more on the idealized conception of the original series. Those films featured a more mature, experienced versions of the crew, and they faced their adventures in a more mature, experienced manner. The films reflected more of Roddenberry's original hopes for what the series could have been, and helped popularize the franchise so that Star Trek: The Next Generation could flourish and fully realize Roddenberry's intentions. The previous films, in other words, all moved beyond the original series.

And I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is the notion that you somehow can't criticize the new films for exactly that reason, because "they are not supposed to be like that".

 

[iguana_tonante]

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!!!

Or maybe we can just like what we like (and I like both the originals and the remake), and not piss on other people's cheerios.

Just a thought.

 

[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!!!

Or maybe we can just like what we like (and I like both the originals and the remake), and not piss on other people's cheerios.

Just a thought.

Hippy.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I can feel your anger. Good. Let the hate flow through you.

 

[BillJ]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxuwXczWQC0[/yt]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U[/yt]

 

[Commishsleer]

I'm quoting from the article:

Fans tend to view the original series through lenses colored by the subsequent film series and the later TV programs, especially Star Trek: The Next Generation, where the films had a higher quality of writing and attention to character arcs.

I totally disagree.

I don't see TOS and dismiss its shortcomings because of the 'great' writing and brilliant characters arcs of TNG. Because TNG has more of GRs 'vision'. Wasn't GR only really involved in Season 1 and 2 of TNG. Did the reviewer ever see Season 1 and 2 of TNG? Perhaps he is seeing the great writing and character arcs of TNG through his own rose coloured glasses.

And:

Likewise, the later TV shows were much more in line with creator Gene Roddenberry's intentions to create a smarter sort of sci-fi show that touched on moral issues and social themes every week

Yes TOS was just shoot-em-ups every week. No social commentary or moral issues ever came up.

 

[Set Harth]

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?"

 

[Sindatur]

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!!!

You've just completely made your criteria irrelevant. This is a TOS remake, so you can't consider TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, because they aren't TOS and therefore not what the movies are attempting to capture.

Would you criticize a Vietnam War movie, for not showing the March To Baghdad, complete with such US Domination the enemy soldiers were laying down their arms and surrendering with barely a fight, but, instead showed no US domination, and hundreds of US Soldiers dying to gain to advance the front line only 10 feet (Or having to fall back and still losing hundreds of soldiers). Or would you criticize this Vietnam War movie, for not using patriot missiles? Brining in TNG Era TV show criteria to judge a TOS remake by is no different.

 

[JarodRussell]

I see no problem in the tone & feel of the films. Problem is the horrible script and that they resort to rehashing old stuff, down to rehashing entire scenes.

ST09 greatest problem was the fuckload of contrivances that moved the plot forward, and the lack of character development. Ironically, STD acknowledges the latter because the characters realize nuKirk is still a dumb hotshot. But at least the film was somehow original, despite giving in to the prequel/reboot craze.

STD has a nice scope and all, but it was absolutely unneccessarry that the villain needed to be Khan. And it was absolutely unneccessarryy to put the climax from TWOK as the climax of STD. Whoo, they reversed the roles. Big fucking deal, it was still an uninspired ripoff. And you realize that the convoluted story was way too complex even for the writers to understand.

I blame Lindelof. He was the one who fucked up Prometheus with the unnnecccesssarrry Alien plot and the utterly stupid characters who basically killed themselves because they went full retard. And apparently he was also the one fighting for Khan in this film.

 

[Commishsleer]

I like the idea of Khan being an ally.

Maybe Cumberbatch had too much charisma to live

 

[Konata Izumi]

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.

They attained a higher level of consciousness in the later seasons.

 

[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!!!

You've just completely made your criteria irrelevant. This is a TOS remake, so you can't consider TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, because they aren't TOS and therefore not what the movies are attempting to capture.

Would you criticize a Vietnam War movie, for not showing the March To Baghdad, complete with such US Domination the enemy soldiers were laying down their arms and surrendering with barely a fight, but, instead showed no US domination, and hundreds of US Soldiers dying to gain to advance the front line only 10 feet (Or having to fall back and still losing hundreds of soldiers). Or would you criticize this Vietnam War movie, for not using patriot missiles? Brining in TNG Era TV show criteria to judge a TOS remake by is no different.

Jar Jar and Paramount didn't have to remake TOS when they decided to make more Trek films. That was their choice. And they chose to throw out decades of continuity, purely because it was easier to do so.

Surely you aren't serious in thinking that Jar Jar is attempting to imitate and modernise TOS with his films? He's just borrowing all the bankable assets!

 

[Hober Mallow]

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!!!

Um... okay, so where do I fit in? I don't care for big dumb Hollywood action flix, but I'm just fine with forgetting about the Trek spinoiffs (I'm quite happy to forget VOY and ENT).

The conflict is slightly more nuanced than your generalizations allow.

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.

It's mirroring one popular defense of the new movies: "Well, the original Star Trek wasn't that good either!" Um... okay. I agree the original Star Trek wasn't as good as I used to think it was. How exactly does that make the new movies good? The "TOS wasn't that good either" defense makes no sense. That means we have to accept mediocrity?

And I completely disagree with author's assessment of the films:

Abrams' movies aren't trying to use the original series as a point of departure -- they are using it as their primary template.

No, they're using standard Hollywood big budget action films as their primary template. A TOS episode started with a script. The new movies (and all modern action films, for that matter) start with the set pieces and then a story is built around the set pieces. Transformers is more the template for nuTrek than is TOS.

Jar Jar and Paramount didn't have to remake TOS when they decided to make more Trek films. That was their choice. And they chose to throw out decades of continuity, purely because it was easier to do so.

Decades of continuity from Star Trek spinoffs, derivative series created by other people. It should be thrown out.

I don't care for Abrams Trek, but I'm all for future Trek reboots.

 

[BillJ]

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 hated The Dark Knight and loved Skyfall. I found The Dark Knight dull and plodding. I loved Skyfall, but found that lots of hardcore Bond fans were leveling the same charges at it that hardcore Trekkies were lobbing at Star Trek Into Darkness. Imagine that?

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!!!

This makes absolutely no sense.

Or maybe we can just like what we like (and I like both the originals and the remake), and not piss on other people's cheerios.

Just a thought.

If there not pissing in others Cherrios then they can't be smug about supposedly how much smarter they are than the drooling masses.

Jar Jar and Paramount didn't have to remake TOS when they decided to make more Trek films. That was their choice. And they chose to throw out decades of continuity, purely because it was easier to do so.

Because Modern Trek had ran its course. When you have three failures back-to-back-to-back, it tends to make the studio leery of investing money. Plus, of all the series, we saw Kirk and Spock the least in live-action and they are Trek's cultural icons. It was time to go home.

Surely you aren't serious in thinking that Jar Jar is attempting to imitate and modernise TOS with his films? He's just borrowing all the bankable assets!

Please don't tell me what I'm thinking. Please actually use the man's name who made the movies. You talk about civil wars and it seems you're the one trying to start them. I'm anxiously awaiting my Into Darkness Blu-ray to arrive plus I've been purchasing the TNG Blu-ray's as they've been released. So which side of this moronic civil war does that put me on?

 

[Sindatur]

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!!!

You've just completely made your criteria irrelevant. This is a TOS remake, so you can't consider TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, because they aren't TOS and therefore not what the movies are attempting to capture.

Would you criticize a Vietnam War movie, for not showing the March To Baghdad, complete with such US Domination the enemy soldiers were laying down their arms and surrendering with barely a fight, but, instead showed no US domination, and hundreds of US Soldiers dying to gain to advance the front line only 10 feet (Or having to fall back and still losing hundreds of soldiers). Or would you criticize this Vietnam War movie, for not using patriot missiles? Brining in TNG Era TV show criteria to judge a TOS remake by is no different.

Jar Jar and Paramount didn't have to remake TOS when they decided to make more Trek films. That was their choice. And they chose to throw out decades of continuity, purely because it was easier to do so.

You're right, they didn't have to remake TOS, that's what they chose to do. So, that's where your critism should stop on that front, is that their choice to do TOS, rather than a later era bogged down with 50 years worth of Continuity as you would have liked. But, since they did choose to do TOS, it's not a legitimate criticism to compain that it's a bad TOS movie because it doesn't bring in TNG era stuff. Plus, a movie is never going to be able to match a Series in depth. Each Series had a minimum of 100 hour long episodes, versus a movie that's got no more than 2 1/2 hours to work with.

Surely you aren't serious in thinking that Jar Jar is attempting to imitate and modernise TOS with his films? He's just borrowing all the bankable assets!

Of course JJ wanted to make a movie that makes money, that's kind of his job, that's why he gets hired to make movies. But, yes, I absolutely believe Bad Robot, especially the writers who are fans, did want to make a modern update true to the soul of TOS, and I believe they succeeded.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Once someone makes mention of Abrams as "Jar Jar", then I kind of stop reading and know that your points won't be based on any kind of fact but by personal feelings. You lose credibility and aren't really open to discussing the matter.

 

[shapeshifter]

Uh, this idea TOS wasn't very good is IMO an attitude born in hindsight from decades of re-evaluating it, back it the day it was the best thing on TV - again, imo. Conversations always focused on what it did right or was interesting & topical about it with very little emphasis on the errors of its ways. The first person I recall openly criticizing it in a wholly negative way was Rick Berman.

 

[BillJ]

Uh, this idea TOS wasn't very good is IMO an attitude born in hindsight from decades of re-evaluating it, back it the day it was the best thing on TV - again, imo. Conversations always focused on what it did right or was interesting & topical about it with very little emphasis on the errors of its ways. The first person I recall openly criticizing it in a wholly negative way was Rick Berman.

I think the biggest thing that acknowledges the awesome quality of TOS is that people are still looking for reasons to tear it down nearly fifty-years after it premiered.

 

[Timby]

I blame Lindelof. He was the one who fucked up Prometheus with the unnnecccesssarrry Alien plot and the utterly stupid characters who basically killed themselves because they went full retard.

Have you read Jon Spaihts' original draft of Prometheus? It reads like the bad Alien fan-fiction that people apparently wanted Prometheus to be. It's a disaster.

 

[Sindatur]

Uh, this idea TOS wasn't very good is IMO an attitude born in hindsight from decades of re-evaluating it, back it the day it was the best thing on TV - again, imo. Conversations always focused on what it did right or was interesting & topical about it with very little emphasis on the errors of its ways. The first person I recall openly criticizing it in a wholly negative way was Rick Berman.

Yea, I actually haven't heard anyone use that defense of the movies. The mention just recently in this thread of it being a weak defense, is the first I've heard of it even being a defense. Why would anyone put forward a defense of "Well, xxxxxxx, wasn't very good anyways"?