Orci strikes back

[Set Harth]

There in lays the problem: "We want something original and new!...you bastards, you changed Star Trek! Ruined forever! Canon Violation! Canon Violation!"

Imagine the shitstorm had they made Kirk or Spock a woman. Changed Kirk's race, made him black or middle eastern.

"Original and new" doesn't mean politically correct theatrics such as making Kirk black or a woman. It means original story concepts, new ideas for what to do with the characters we already know. Not racebending ( sexbending? ) as a substitute for originality of plot.

 

[SeerSGB]

There in lays the problem: "We want something original and new!...you bastards, you changed Star Trek! Ruined forever! Canon Violation! Canon Violation!"

Imagine the shitstorm had they made Kirk or Spock a woman. Changed Kirk's race, made him black or middle eastern.

"Original and new" doesn't mean politically correct theatrics such as making Kirk black or a woman. It means original story concepts, new ideas for what to do with the characters we already know. Not racebending ( sexbending? ) as a substitute for originality of plot.

Who said it was? What if an actress or actor of a different race was simply the best person for the role? You going to sit there and say that even with a homerun script and stellar cast, the there wouldn't be a monsoon of Trek-rage if Kirk is anything but a white boy from Iowa.

Please, the zealots in our fandom have confused later day (TNG+) Trek with Star Trek (the series) to the point that they can't even see TOS for what it was--they didn't drink the Kool-aid, they guzzled it, speedballed it into their eyes, and then bathed in it. When they say new and original, the mean the same old stories but with flashier special effects.

 

[Tosk]

Who said it was? What if an actress or actor of a different race was simply the best person for the role?

That already happened. John Cho was cast as Sulu despite not being Japanese.

 

[Sindatur]

Eh, they should've just made Kirk Gay, so, in Gamesters... he would be "helping" Sean, or it could've been Eddie Keeler he threw under the truck in City on the Edge of Forever

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I wonder, would Eddie Keeler have the same soft focus camera work on his close ups?

 

[SeerSGB]

Eh, they should've just made Kirk Gay, so, in Gamesters... he would be "helping" Sean, or it could've been Eddie Keeler he threw under the truck in City on the Edge of Forever

Didn't they already make Kirk gay in the ''Shore Leave'' teaser? Kink in my back. I'll bet....

It sounds like SeerSGB declared STID's overall story superior to TWOK. They're both good films, but one is the other's wellspring.....

About on the same level. The detractors like to make it sound like STID is a shot for shot redo of TWOK, when it's not. Till the last act STID.-Khan aside--had very little in common with TWOK. And even then, the actual similarity is paper thin save for one scene.

 

[BillJ]

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/13/editorial-star-trek-is-not-broken/#5166708

The rebuttal by our very own The Stig.

Nicely done!

 

[ComicGuy89]

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/13/editorial-star-trek-is-not-broken/#5166708

The rebuttal by our very own The Stig.

Nicely done!

I agree. For me, TNG created a new era of Star Trek fans. TNG and all shows since then (including Enterprise) had a certain style and aesthetic that was very much different from that of TOS. This contrast is remarkably visible in Generations, where the style shifted dramatically between the scenes with the Enterprise-B and the later Enterprise-D scenes.

I think the Abrams movies have created another era of fans, but there's a reason you usually see these newer fans discover classic Trek by watching TOS. In my opinion, that's because the Abrams fans really hearken back to what TOS was all about: fun, swashbuckling adventure among a group of close-knit team members.

That's not to say one is more "Star Trek" than the other, what I am simply saying is that TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the reboot movies are all Star Trek in their own unique ways, and that the reboot evokes TOS more strongly while the other post-TNG shows evoked TNG more.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Who said it was? What if an actress or actor of a different race was simply the best person for the role?

That already happened. John Cho was cast as Sulu despite not being Japanese.

Japanese is a race?

That a bit like saying Pegg and Doohan were different races than Scotty. Or Nichols is a different race than Uhura since Uhura speaks Swahili ( a language common in East Africa) while Nichols ancestry is presumably West African.

Sulu isn't even a Japanese name. And apparently some of his ancestors lived in San Francisco's Chinatown during the 20th Century.

 

[Hober Mallow]

What if an actress or actor of a different race was simply the best person for the role? You going to sit there and say that even with a homerun script and stellar cast, the there wouldn't be a monsoon of Trek-rage if Kirk is anything but a white boy from Iowa.

Of course. But who cares?

Please, the zealots in our fandom have confused later day (TNG+) Trek with Star Trek (the series) to the point that they can't even see TOS for what it was--they didn't drink the Kool-aid, they guzzled it, speedballed it into their eyes, and then bathed in it. When they say new and original, the mean the same old stories but with flashier special effects.

I completely agree with this, and my hope for the future of Trek is that the influence of the later spinoffs wanes and eventually disappears completely.

I want a good Star Trek reboot that really makes me feel like I'm in the future, that Spock is really an alien, and that the galaxy is a great big question mark. Jettison most of the established Trek aliens (especially all of the TNG-era aliens) and any other facts taken for granted which came later than TOS. When does Trek take place? The 23rd Century? Nope, not according to TOS. Spock should appear completely different from the way he did in TOS, making him as unfamiliar and alien as Nimoy's Spock was before we got to know him back in the day.

One can dream...

I agree. For me, TNG created a new era of Star Trek fans. TNG and all shows since then (including Enterprise) had a certain style and aesthetic that was very much different from that of TOS. This contrast is remarkably visible in Generations, where the style shifted dramatically between the scenes with the Enterprise-B and the later Enterprise-D scenes.

No, for me what was jarring is that the ENT-B scenes were written with the TNG-aesthetic and style in mind. Scotty was trying to mouth Berman-Trek technobabble, and it was embarrassing. It didn't feel like TOS at all. It felt less like TOS than the Abrams films did, IMO.

 

[BillJ]

Spock should appear completely different from the way he did in TOS, making him as unfamiliar and alien as Nimoy's Spock was before we got to know him back in the day.

I don't know if I agree with this or not. But I know it will never happen. Spock's look is one of those things that are intertwined with Star Trek and is unlikely to ever change.

 

[Opus]

George Takei is Japanese. Sulu is Chinese.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Spock should appear completely different from the way he did in TOS, making him as unfamiliar and alien as Nimoy's Spock was before we got to know him back in the day.

I don't know if I agree with this or not. But I know it will never happen. Spock's look is one of those things that are intertwined with Star Trek and is unlikely to ever change.

Spock's look was kind of typically alien, so I wouldn't call it "unfamiliar". Pointed ears, greenish skin and arched eyebrows were stereotypical even in the 60s.

 

[BillJ]

George Takei is Japanese. Sulu is Chinese.

Other than being "pan-Asian", did they ever tell us who he was descended from? We know he was born in San Francisco, but other than that I thought his ancestry was a blank slate.

 

[ComicGuy89]

Spock should appear completely different from the way he did in TOS, making him as unfamiliar and alien as Nimoy's Spock was before we got to know him back in the day.

I don't know if I agree with this or not. But I know it will never happen. Spock's look is one of those things that are intertwined with Star Trek and is unlikely to ever change.

Spocks look was kind of typically alien, so I wouldn't call it "unfamiliar". Pointed ears, greenish skin and arched eyebrows were stereotypical even in the 60s.

They did make the effort to always point out that he looked like a demon too. His look was definitely a familiar one, if not exactly a comfortable one.

 

[Hober Mallow]

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/13/editorial-star-trek-is-not-broken/#5166708

The rebuttal by our very own The Stig.

Nicely done!

From the article:

Star Trek isn’t (and never has been) particularly effective on that front. It’s always played it safe, with pat answers and trite conclusions to all the “issues” presented.

So Abrams must out of necessity play it safe, give us films with pat answers and trite conclusions to all the issues presented? What's preventing Abrams from doing better?

 

[ComicGuy89]

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/13/editorial-star-trek-is-not-broken/#5166708

The rebuttal by our very own The Stig.

Nicely done!

From the article:

Star Trek isn’t (and never has been) particularly effective on that front. It’s always played it safe, with pat answers and trite conclusions to all the “issues” presented.

So Abrams must out of necessity play it safe, give us films with pat answers and trite conclusions to all the issues presented? What's preventing Abrams from doing better?

"Better" is subjective. A film can be better by delving into social issues and philosophy, but it can also be better by focusing instead on characterization, action and drama. It can be better in a lot of ways.

Of course you could argue a good film could focus on all these things, but I guess they just wanted to focus on one thing.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Spock should appear completely different from the way he did in TOS, making him as unfamiliar and alien as Nimoy's Spock was before we got to know him back in the day.

I don't know if I agree with this or not. But I know it will never happen. Spock's look is one of those things that are intertwined with Star Trek and is unlikely to ever change.

I agree, it's not going to happen, but it would be nice to make Spock a little mysterious again. He's so familiar now, and with filmmakers' ability to create really alien-looking aliens now, Spock just looks like a human next to them.

Of course, there's the fact that Spock is half human. In a future production you could have Vulcans with really severe features, whereas Spock would look like a human with pointed ear. He would be obviously different from both humans and Vulcans, isoated from both. It might make for an interesting character dynamic, and make him seem really alien again (a race of one, by his reckoning) in an age when we could have other crazy-looking aliens walking around in the Enterprise corridors.

 

[BillJ]

So Abrams must out of necessity play it safe, give us films with pat answers and trite conclusions to all the issues presented? What's preventing Abrams from doing better?

No offense, but this sounds like complaining just to complain.

Nothing stops Abrams from doing anything he likes with the franchise but it still has to sell tickets. I am perfectly happy with how the pat answers and trite conclusions were presented in Into Darkness.

But then, I'm not looking for Star Trek to shape or challenge my worldview.

 

[BillJ]

Of course, there's the fact that Spock is half human. In a future production you could have Vulcans with really severe features, whereas Spock would look like a human with pointed ear. He would be obviously different from both humans and Vulcans, isoated from both. It might make for an interesting character dynamic, and make him seem really alien again (a race of one, by his reckoning) in an age when we could have other crazy-looking aliens walking around in the Enterprise corridors.

I don't say this very often: the above is a great idea.