Orci strikes back

[Franklin]

I completely agree. The ideas in the "Future of Trek" forum are painful to read. But that doesn't mean the new films are any good.

"But that doesn't mean the new films are any good, in my opinion." That's better.

Okay... so where's the problem? That's exactly what's happening. Abrams and co. put out their work and the fans are expressing their opinions, both positive and negative.

No one has said there aren't valid negative opinions. No one person or opinion is being criticized solely for not liking the movie or being negative. The reality is, if there are 87 positive remarks for every 13 negative remarks, that seems to favor the view that it was a very well-received movie. I hate Red Lobster (with very good reasons, I'd say), but I must be in a small minority because it's a popular restaurant. So, who am I to disabuse the large group of people who dine there with my very good reasons for not doing it? Why waste my time trying to convince them the food is crap? Live and let live. I'll just drive on by.

Exactly. Talk about entitlement. Some fans think the creators are entitled to the blind acceptance of their work by the fans.

I'm sure everyone who writes for a living is thinking, "From your mouth to God's ears, please," on that one.

It's possible not to give a shit about canon but still not like the Abrams films.

Yep. And?

 

[Ovation]

Ovation wrote:
Where do "fans" get off thinking their so entitled anyway? That they should be "listened to"? Artists put something out--they hope it will be well received. Audiences hope that what they spend money on for artistic appreciation will be pleasing to them in some way. But neither is "entitled" to anything other than the right to put the artistic endeavour out to the public on the one hand, and expressing an opinion as to its quality on the other.

Hober Mallow wrote: Okay... so where's the problem? That's exactly what's happening. Abrams and co. put out their work and the fans are expressing their opinions, both positive and negative.

The problem lies with something you quoted just below:

JWPlatt wrote:
I agree that "artists are under no obligation to 'listen to the fans.' And I would write the same post knowing I agree with you. I assume then that you disagree with Orci trying to listen to fans. If they want our loyalty, the reality is they are going to have to take our sensibilities into account. To know us they will have to listen to us. Startups (new businesses or franchises) don't have to do that because that's the nature of brilliant innovation - there's someone with their own vision. But once they're successful and popular and want to retain their clientele, they have to listen. But we are under no obligation to like it and not post about our dissatisfaction.

The bolded statements about "have to listen" (or the equivalent) are what's wrong. Artists NEVER "have to listen" to "fans". They can do so if they CHOOSE--but they are under no obligation to do so--whether brand new or simply continuing to work within the creative framework originated by another. Being a "fan" of an existing creative property does not confer extra "rights" to said "fans".

Hober Mallow wrote:

Exactly. Talk about entitlement. Some fans think the creators are entitled to the blind acceptance of their work by the fans.

Bullshit distortion of what I've posted. Creators are entitled to give back just as good as they get when "fans" decide to vomit all over their work in the crassest of ways. If everyone is free to express their views--that must include those whose works are being criticized. The faux outrage at Orci is that he had the temerity to throw back some of the shit being flung at him at the people who were lobbing it by the bucketful. How dare he be so uppity.

The bottom line is all the whining about "having to listen to the fans" represents the unwarranted sense of entitlement by "fans" who are miffed that Abrams and co., in this case, did not put out a Trek film that fit their pre-conceived notions of what "proper Trek" should be. These self-appointed guardians of The Committee for the Way Things Ought to Be believe that "giving the fans what they want" should be the default position of those who work in established franchises (by which they mean themselves--the "true fans"). Some of them go further and suggest that anyone who actually likes the films that did not get committee approval from the "true fans" are somehow lacking in basic intelligence or some other such drivel.

Any viewer is free to complain about the films. No viewer is entitled to be consulted by the filmmakers beforehand to make sure he will be satisfied with result. And "fans" are not "owed" anything.

 

[Noname Given]

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.

Okay by me. You must have gotten into Star Trek with TNG - which, as time went on REALLY DID move away from TOS' roots in a major fashion. GR retconned the hell out of Star Trek as TNG moved forward.

 

[Opus]

One of my criticisms against the new films is that, his tactical decision to use Khan aside (maybe), Kirk is portrayed as always being right, rarely internally conflicted and has changed little while Spock is portrayed as growing by becoming more like him and accepting of his style.

Fair enough. But to offer a counterpoint, I thought Kirk was shown to be dead wrong many times in the film. 1. Reckless endangerment of the Enterprise and her crew even if the goal is noble. 2. Blatant disregard for policy. 3. Naively believing at the start of the movie that he deserved the five-year mission. 4. Falling prey to Marcus: "I'm Sorry." 5. Believing that everything will turn out alright in the end because he's Jim Kirk and he doesn't believe in no-win scenarios. Yet, he faces a real no-win scenario. He has to die to save the ship. So, he's wrong many times in the movie. And his realization at the end of the movie is that he's not always right, and he's surrounded by good people that he should listen too. (Think he'll ever blow off Scotty's opinion again?)

Will the wiser for it all Jim Kirk still try to save all endangered pre-warp civilizations he come across during his five year mission? Certainly. That sense of moral obligation is innate within him. Will he do it in the same careless manner as he did on Nibiru? Of course not. Will he stand up and be accountable for doing these things? Yes, and his explanations will stick (just as they did in TOS) even if they enter gray areas of policy.

Well said, Franklin.

We reach, brother!

 

[SeerSGB]

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.

Okay by me. You must have gotten into Star Trek with TNG - which, as time went on REALLY DID move away from TOS' roots in a major fashion. GR retconned the hell out of Star Trek as TNG moved forward.

Yep.

As much as TOS was some of the smartest writing of its day, it was still largely a western in tone, set in space: Ride into town, whoo the lady of the episode, shoot up the bad guy, ride out. Now not every episode was that basic. But the philosophy between TOS and TNG are miles apart.

 

[JWPlatt]

The faux outrage at Orci is that he had the temerity to throw back some of the shit being flung at him at the people who were lobbing it by the bucketful. How dare he be so uppity.

I'm not sure that it is correct to defend the behavior for which Orci apologized, thereby stating regret for the things you defend, unless the apology was not sincere.

 

[JarodRussell]

The basic gist is, if you overreact to troll bait, you lost.

 

[BillJ]

I'm not sure that it is correct to defend the behavior for which Orci apologized, thereby stating regret for the things you defend, unless the apology was not sincere.

I don't think the apology was sincere nor do I have a problem with it. There's only so many years you can listen to butthurt fans who take this stuff way too seriously before finally snapping.

 

[SeerSGB]

The faux outrage at Orci is that he had the temerity to throw back some of the shit being flung at him at the people who were lobbing it by the bucketful. How dare he be so uppity.

I'm not sure that it is correct to defend the behavior for which Orci apologized, thereby stating regret for the things you defend, unless the apology was not sincere.

Doesn't make him wrong for what he did. Hell, he was a lot nicer than I wold have been about it.

In hind sight he could have seen that he could have handled it different and apologized---again, something the other parties in that shit slinging session have yet to do that I've seen. Or he might have apologized so that people would shut the hell up about it--which is fine too.

I completely understand and applaud what he did. Every so often fandoms need someone to come along and say "Get a life".

 

[JarodRussell]

The difference is he didn't say "Get a Life!" because he didn't like how people were obsessed with his work, he said "Fuck Off!" because he didn't like how they criticized his work.

Abrams & Co did start that fanbase baiting, with all that "Nacelle's Monthly", "Not Your Father's Star Trek", "Fans bash it as fun, watchable" stuff. With that they directly addressed hardcore fans, telling them that their old lame Trek was gone and replaced by new, better, fresh Trek. And now that some of those hardcore fans didn't like their Trek, they get angry. It's hilarious.

 

[Ovation]

The faux outrage at Orci is that he had the temerity to throw back some of the shit being flung at him at the people who were lobbing it by the bucketful. How dare he be so uppity.

I'm not sure that it is correct to defend the behavior for which Orci apologized, thereby stating regret for the things you defend, unless the apology was not sincere.

I'm quite certain I am correct to defend behaviour I consider worth defending, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the behaviour agrees. It is MY view that I am offering, after all.

I don't think Orci needed to apologize, nor would I have offered an apology in his place. He is free to do as he wishes. My "defence" is of his right to respond in kind to over the top nonsense from his critics. How he feels about the whole thing is irrelevant to how I view it.

 

[BillJ]

The difference is he didn't say "Get a Life!" because he didn't like how people were obsessed with his work, he said "Fuck Off!" because he didn't like how they criticized his work.

There have been some pretty horrible things said about this creative team over the last five-years. We as Star Trek fans should be ashamed as a group instead of crying about one of the creators backhanding the shitty attitude back at us.

If someone dislikes a movie or TV show to the point they can no longer be civil about it, perhaps they should move on.

 

[Ovation]

The difference is he didn't say "Get a Life!" because he didn't like how people were obsessed with his work, he said "Fuck Off!" because he didn't like how they criticized his work.

There is no material difference. He has the right to do exactly as he did. If his "critics" feel free to sling shit, they should have no expectation that shit won't be slung back at them. It's that simple.

 

[SeerSGB]

The difference is he didn't say "Get a Life!" because he didn't like how people were obsessed with his work, he said "Fuck Off!" because he didn't like how they criticized his work.

Abrams & Co did start that fanbase baiting, with all that "Nacelle's Monthly", "Not Your Father's Star Trek", "Fans bash it as fun, watchable" stuff. With that they directly addressed hardcore fans, telling them that their old lame Trek was gone and replaced by new, better, fresh Trek. And now that some of those hardcore fans didn't like their Trek, they get angry. It's hilarious.

ooooh he used the F WORD! My ears! Had I been in his place, I'd left scorched Earth behind me when I went off. The man has dealt with this shit for four years, he admits his snaps every so often when it gets out of hand. So? He's human.

As for baiting the fans: So fucking what? Harlan on fans that rings true more so every day.

 

[Franklin]

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.

Okay by me. You must have gotten into Star Trek with TNG - which, as time went on REALLY DID move away from TOS' roots in a major fashion. GR retconned the hell out of Star Trek as TNG moved forward.

Yep.

As much as TOS was some of the smartest writing of its day, it was still largely a western in tone, set in space: Ride into town, whoo the lady of the episode, shut up the bad guy, ride out. Now not every episode was that basic. But the philosophy between TOS and TNG are miles apart.

I go back to TOS, but I liked TNG fine. However, yes, they are miles apart in many ways, and I think they should be thought of and appreciated that way. TOS was smartly written, but it also had its campy and swashbuckling sides that TNG didn't have. More often than not, action drove the story and Kirk was almost always the center of the action.
The typical TNG format seemed more like detective show or mystery movie centered around an ensemble cast with different roles to fill in solving the story. It opened with an initial mystery or conflict, then moved on to showing its effects, there would be analysis, a crisis, then finally a revelation and a resolution.

They're so different, it frankly strikes me that there's really no logical reason to expect someone to like both.

 

[SeerSGB]

Okay by me. You must have gotten into Star Trek with TNG - which, as time went on REALLY DID move away from TOS' roots in a major fashion. GR retconned the hell out of Star Trek as TNG moved forward.

Yep.

As much as TOS was some of the smartest writing of its day, it was still largely a western in tone, set in space: Ride into town, whoo the lady of the episode, shut up the bad guy, ride out. Now not every episode was that basic. But the philosophy between TOS and TNG are miles apart.

I go back to TOS, but I liked TNG fine. However, yes, they are miles apart in many ways, and I think they should be thought of and appreciated that way. TOS was smartly written, but it also had its campy and swashbuckling sides that TNG didn't have. More often than not, action drove the story and Kirk was almost always the center of the action.
The typical TNG format seemed more like detective show or mystery movie centered around an ensemble cast with different roles to fill in solving the story. It opened with an initial mystery or conflict, then moved on to showing its effects, there would be analysis, a crisis, then finally a revelation and a resolution.

They're so different, it frankly strikes me that there's really no logical reason to expect someone to like both.

TOS was very much pulp-magazine style sci-fi: Light, quick, fun sci-fi, that you could carry in your back pocket. Sure you had a recurring cast of characters, but overall the series was very much more like an anthology style of story telling.

 

[Franklin]

Yep.

As much as TOS was some of the smartest writing of its day, it was still largely a western in tone, set in space: Ride into town, whoo the lady of the episode, shut up the bad guy, ride out. Now not every episode was that basic. But the philosophy between TOS and TNG are miles apart.

I go back to TOS, but I liked TNG fine. However, yes, they are miles apart in many ways, and I think they should be thought of and appreciated that way. TOS was smartly written, but it also had its campy and swashbuckling sides that TNG didn't have. More often than not, action drove the story and Kirk was almost always the center of the action.
The typical TNG format seemed more like detective show or mystery movie centered around an ensemble cast with different roles to fill in solving the story. It opened with an initial mystery or conflict, then moved on to showing its effects, there would be analysis, a crisis, then finally a revelation and a resolution.

They're so different, it frankly strikes me that there's really no logical reason to expect someone to like both.

TOS was very much pulp-magazine style sci-fi: Light, quick, fun sci-fi, that you could carry in your back pocket. Sure you had a recurring cast of characters, but overall the series was very much more like an anthology style of story telling.

Which, to be frank, is probably why TOS tended to translate to the big screen better than TNG did. Consider those who thought Picard was a bit out of character as "action Picard" in the TNG movies (especially FC) compared to the diplomat and intellectual he often was in TNG.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I completely agree. The ideas in the "Future of Trek" forum are painful to read. But that doesn't mean the new films are any good.

"But that doesn't mean the new films are any good, in my opinion." That's better.

Nope. "The new movie sucks" is an opinion. "The new movies are awesome" is an opinion. Pointing out the fact that the lack of fan input does not automatically logically follow that the movies must by definition be good is a fact. And that fact has no bearing whatsoever on my or anybody else's opinion of the new films.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The basic gist is, if you overreact to troll bait, you lost.

But then, what would you do with all that free time?

 

[HaplessCrewman]

Orci has deleted his Twitter account.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...roberto-orci-deletes-twitter-account-20130911

Of course, we have no way of knowing his reasons for doing so but I can't help but think that the recent unfortunate exchange with fans has somewhat soured the situation. I have always thought he should have maintained a professional distance from the fans but as some have stated on this thread, that wall had come down long ago.

I guess those who said it was OK for him to tell the fans to fuck off were right after all. He is under no obligation to interact with the fans at all and now he isn't. Pity.