Orci strikes back

[The Doctor]

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?

Nothing, of course.

The point is that he went another way entirely. He focused on the crew and their relationships, rather than a forced and overwrought 'issue' to define the movie.

I think it's a far better movie for it.

 

[Opus]

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?

Abrams set out to make TOS current and viable for the big screen. I think what The Stig is saying is TOS was never particularly as good as fans claim about attacking the "issues". Rose-colored glasses from both fans AND Gene Roddenberry himself. With STiD, I believe he is saying that JJ actually nailed it (TOS).

So... are you saying JJ should have done better than even that? Better than TOS actually ever did?

 

[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?

"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.

But that's the connection I'm not seeing. What does one have to do with the other? What do elements of TOS not being as good as we remember have to do with whether or not nuTrek is good or bad (or broken)?

The article is ambiguous. Is the author saying that critics of nuTrek who think Trek is broken really just want TNG? He never comes right out and says it, but that seems to be the point. Where's the evidence of this? BBS posts? No evidence is presented. It's just a straw man argument, creating the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position (thank you, Google).

"Some people say Star Trek is broken, but what do they really want? I'll tell you... they really want TNG, not Star Trek. Ergo, Star Trek is not broken." Huh?

What's preventing Abrams from doing better?

Nothing, of course.

The point is that he went another way entirely. He focused on the crew and their relationships, rather than a forced and overwrought 'issue' to define the movie.

I think it's a far better movie for it.

The title of the article is "Star Trek is not broken." Do you feel that you proved Star Trek is not broken?

 

[JarodRussell]

Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.

 

[BillJ]

Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.

This is just bullshit and I think that you know it...

Star Trek is awesome, warts and all. I enjoy the Abrams movies, warts and all.

But it is a bit disingenuous to claim to be a Star Trek fan but then pick the Abrams films apart because it does many of the same things.

 

[BillJ]

Two things to keep in mind: INTO DARKNESS had somewhat more meatier plot content than its predecessor. And it sold less tickets in America while grossing a bit less than TREK 2009. Not by any means the first time this scenario's occurred, and it's not an absolute, but I sense a connection. In this day and age, the better you are, the more you often must fight for the cash.

I think part of it is just a poor marketing campaign, part of it is competing with two blockbusters at the same time and part of it is that the Star Trek brand still has the "virgin nerd living in their parents basement" stigma attached to it.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.

The funny thing is I agree with almost all the points in the article about TOS, Gene's vision, the TNG-era spinoffs; I just don't see it ties in with the title of the article, how it proves nuTrek is good, bad, broken or otherwise.

I think part of it is just a poor marketing campaign, part of it is competing with two blockbusters at the same time and part of it is that the Star Trek brand still has the "virgin nerd living in their parents basement" stigma attached to it.

I think it's simpler than that. Star Trek just isn't the big name money maker and never will be. ID probably is as good as Trek box-office can get. With pretty much all Trek productions, the studio depends on the hardcore fans double-dipping -- seeing the films multiple times, getting the DVDs and blurays.

 

[The Doctor]

Nothing, of course.

The point is that he went another way entirely. He focused on the crew and their relationships, rather than a forced and overwrought 'issue' to define the movie.

I think it's a far better movie for it.

The title of the article is "Star Trek is not broken." Do you feel that you proved Star Trek is not broken?

You seem quite determined to not read the article in its entirety. It's a shame, since I kept it short and to the point. I find Abrams's Trek films to be perfectly in keeping with the spirt and tone of TOS and are fun and exciting action-adventure movies. Thus, they are not 'broken' because they achieved the goal they set out to accomplish.

The problem is, and always has been, that some fans of Trek desperately want it to mean something more: that there is some sort of meaning or purpose to the wider Trek universe. I don't hold with that. It's merely a setting, a backdrop that enables human stories. I don't really care about the made up details of fictional technology or the wider social-political issues of a world that doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[Sindatur]

Again with the "Trek had never been good, why criticize Abramstrek for not being good" logic.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just skimmed, and honestly believe that's what it said.

Take another read of it, it doesn't say Star Trek was never any good, it says Star Trek was never any good at THAT

 

[BillJ]

You seem quite determined to not read the article in its entirety. It's a shame, since I kept it short and to the point. I find Abrams's Trek films to be perfectly in keeping with the spirt and tone of TOS and are fun and exciting action-adventure movies. Thus, they are not 'broken' because they achieved the goal they set out to accomplish.

The problem is, and always has been, that some fans of Trek desperately want it to mean something more: that there is some sort of meaning or purpose to the wider Trek universe. I don't hold with that. It's merely a setting, a backdrop that enables human stories. I don't really care about the made up details of fictional technology or the wider social-political issues of a world that doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[geneo]

Why is it do people feel like they have to have a gay person in every show on TV, especially Star Trek. Leave the gay out of it. Star Trek New Voyages put a gay person in the crew and they lost lots of their fans, now they are just a trickle of what they used to be, does Paramount want to try to take that risk with the money maker Star Trek is? I think not. So please, keep gay out of it and just enjoy it the way it is, why ruin it. Why always put the gay factor in. sheeesh.

 

[The Doctor]

Why is it do people feel like they have to have a gay person in every show on TV, especially Star Trek. Leave the gay out of it. Star Trek New Voyages put a gay person in the crew and they lost lots of their fans, now they are just a trickle of what they used to be, does Paramount want to try to take that risk with the money maker Star Trek is? I think not. So please, keep gay out of it and just enjoy it the way it is, why ruin it. Why always put the gay factor in. sheeesh.

I don't think that you're in the right thread, or the right century.

 

[BillJ]

Why is it do people feel like they have to have a gay person in every show on TV, especially Star Trek. Leave the gay out of it. Star Trek New Voyages put a gay person in the crew and they lost lots of their fans, now they are just a trickle of what they used to be, does Paramount want to try to take that risk with the money maker Star Trek is? I think not. So please, keep gay out of it and just enjoy it the way it is, why ruin it. Why always put the gay factor in. sheeesh.

Little homophobia there? Afraid you'll catch the 'gay' if they put one on screen?

Since they're part of the human race, I'd welcome seeing a gay character as long as he/she isn't just a token.

You may want to check your calendar: it's the 21st century.

EDIT: New Voyages added a gay character in a piss-poor manner. That's why they saw a backlash.

I don't know about any one else, but I could go for some Uhura/Carol Marcus lesbian action!

 

[BillJ]

As an intellectual exercise, I started mapping what type of story I would tell if I had to make a big-summer blockbuster out of Star Trek. Now I'm not a writer, but even laying down elements for the story I've already found myself doing things that are very similar to things we've seen before. Some intentional, others not so much.

The jobs that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have aren't as easy as fandom likes to think they are.

 

[Sindatur]

Why is it do people feel like they have to have a gay person in every show on TV, especially Star Trek. Leave the gay out of it. Star Trek New Voyages put a gay person in the crew and they lost lots of their fans, now they are just a trickle of what they used to be, does Paramount want to try to take that risk with the money maker Star Trek is? I think not. So please, keep gay out of it and just enjoy it the way it is, why ruin it. Why always put the gay factor in. sheeesh.

<Takes Deep Breath, counts to 10, exhales>

Wow, seriously? Trek would be ruined by adding a gay character? That's an incredibly offensive thing to say, which I'm sure you must know. Try changing that to Black or female, or Asian, instead of Gay, and you'll see just how offensive it is to say. How about "Why does every show have to have straight people in it, why do you have to ruin it" - See sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

First off, "just make Kirk Gay" was a joke, playing off the suggestion of changing gender or changing race, that was earliler posted.

I think you're making things up saying New Voyages lost viewers by adding Ensign Kirk as a Gay Character. That was done pretty early on, and the earliest episodes had alot of issues that would lose viewers just based upon their issues. Adding a Gay character has not been shown to lose viewers in Commercial Television, and there is no reason why it would with Fan Films.

Why do people want to see Gay Characters in shows and Movies? Because we actually exist, we're real people, and we like to see a character that represents us, just as much as Black people or Asians or any other skin color/ethnicity wants to see someone like themselves onscreen. /soapbox

 

[SeerSGB]

Why is it do people feel like they have to have a gay person in every show on TV, especially Star Trek. Leave the gay out of it. Star Trek New Voyages put a gay person in the crew and they lost lots of their fans, now they are just a trickle of what they used to be, does Paramount want to try to take that risk with the money maker Star Trek is? I think not. So please, keep gay out of it and just enjoy it the way it is, why ruin it. Why always put the gay factor in. sheeesh.

So having a character who just happens to be gay "ruins it"? Did you feel the same when DS9 implied or portrayed lesbian encounters that involved the main female characters?

 

[trevanian]

Why is it do people feel like they have to have a gay person in every show on TV, especially Star Trek. Leave the gay out of it. Star Trek New Voyages put a gay person in the crew and they lost lots of their fans, now they are just a trickle of what they used to be, does Paramount want to try to take that risk with the money maker Star Trek is? I think not. So please, keep gay out of it and just enjoy it the way it is, why ruin it. Why always put the gay factor in. sheeesh.

Let's see. If we substitute for the word 'gay' with 'african-american' or 'female' or 'russian' ... oh yeah, I see what you mean.

But just so the meaning is clear, we'd better set it on another starship, the USS W.A.S.P., which carries shuttlecraft called JOHN BIRCH and REDNECK and maybe even KLANSMAN, though it is hard to tell about the latter because it is usually stored in a shroud.

 

[Franklin]

Able to do almost anything he wanted to, Abrams chose to model his version of Star Trek off of he 1960s TV series and not the 1980s one.

If he didn't adequately capture the characters or vibe of the 1960s series, those are relevant topics for criticism. If it doesn't look or feel like the 1980s series, that was never the intent, so I'd say it's an irrelevant criticism.

Frankly, I'm beginning to feel the talk about whether or not something is "Star Trek," or whether or not "Star Trek" is broken like there is a single "Star Trek" to talk about is silly. There isn't a "Star Trek."

It's doesn't help when we say Abrams took "Star Trek" back to its roots, either. The only common ancestor Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation have is Roddenberry, who many have pointed out created his own way for Star Trek: The Next Generation that was not the way of Star Trek from the 1960s. As far as Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise go, they appropriated the label and owe nothing at all to Star Trek from the 1960s for their content.

 

[Kelthaz]

I find Abrams's Trek films to be perfectly in keeping with the spirt and tone of TOS and are fun and exciting action-adventure movies. Thus, they are not 'broken' because they achieved the goal they set out to accomplish.

So what you're saying is that Abrams' Trek films aren't broken because you like them? Perhaps some of us don't feel that they reached their goal of being "exciting action-adventure movies" and thus claim they're broken films because they didn't achieve their goal?

 

[trevanian]

As an intellectual exercise, I started mapping what type of story I would tell if I had to make a big-summer blockbuster out of Star Trek. Now I'm not a writer, but even laying down elements for the story I've already found myself doing things that are very similar to things we've seen before. Some intentional, others not so much.

The jobs that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have aren't as easy as fandom likes to think they are.

There are definitely elements that they used in ID that are worthy dramatic devices ... I just found the execution to seriously suck. All of the 7 DAYS IN MAY stuff should have played better than it did, I'm a sucker for that kind of thing.

But last week I saw a little movie called PHANTOM with Ed Harris and Duchovny, and it encapsulated just about everything I'd like to see in a Trek story, even though it is a period piece about the cold war set aboard a Soviet submarine. It had a bit of interesting speculation spun off from a real event, had seriously good interaction and conflict,and only one WTF/thatwasstupid moment in the whole flick (in this century, that puts the film near the head of the class, easy.)

In terms of whether the story was big enough to be a summer tentpole ... well, I think you've got part of the studio mindset that is self-undermining by starting with that perspective. Tell a good damn story, one the actors and b-t-s talent are thrilled to be a part of (which is part of why PHANTOM worked, it had Harris & co really jazzed), and make that the focus, instead of whether it is going to appeal to 11 year-olds (or 70 year old trekkies for that matter.)

I don't think PHANTOM self-consciously ticked off boxes that each reinforced 'this is a submarine movie' in quite the same calculated fashion as AbramsTrek does with its projects. Sure, you've got a CRIMSON TIDE kind of faceoff between two antagonists where they are up close in each other's nostrils, but you're on a sub, where else are they going to be?

Anyway, I recommend PHANTOM almost wholeheartedly, and can say it almost made up for seeing OBLIVION last week (which is for me a near-PROMETHEUS level failure.)