‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

[BigJake]

Don't forget the other 'visions' GR had for Star Trek

Another useful rule of thumb: when defending the current product requires you to trash GR as a greedy perv* in order to avoid admitting his work could have had any merit that Abrams' didn't? Probably time to stand back and reassess.

(* I mean, sure it's not exactly like he wasn't, but so what if he was? There was obviously more to Trek than that or none of us would be on this board now.)

 

[Franklin]

Don't forget the other 'visions' GR had for Star Trek

Another useful rule of thumb: when defending the current product requires you to trash GR as a greedy perv* in order to avoid admitting his work could have had any merit that Abrams' didn't? Probably time to stand back and reassess.

(* I mean, sure it's not exactly like he wasn't, but so what if he was? There was obviously more to Trek than that or none of us would be on this board now.)

Meh, what Roddenberry was doesn't enter into it. He was a TV producer trying to get, then keep a TV show on the air. When he realized he couldn't, he more or less abandoned it because he had to move on and make a living. He may not have been a total hedonist, but he was no visionary, either. It's fair to say he later discovered Trek could become a cash cow he could milk (that said, I would've done the same thing). It was his one great idea (and we'd all kill for one idea like that).

TOS lasted mostly because it was fun to watch and the characters were interesting. And that's all. No really deep thinking or heavy lifting was required. What mess is Kirk and the Enterprise going to get into this week and how will they get out of it?

It was more intelligent than a lot of shows in its genre because it was one of the first written for adults, but that didn't make it stand out among other just as well done shows on the networks at the time.

It was as philosophically deep and had no more or less merit than contemporaries like "Bonanza" or "Gunsmoke" or "I Spy" or "The Andy Griffith Show". Plenty of shows in the mid and late 1960s were multi-racial and tackled social issues or were little morality plays -- and some did it better than TOS did.

Today's Trek is in the "popcorn" sci-fi genre. That's where the money is. Whether that's satisfactory to everyone or not is problematic, because we're not putting up the money for the project. Whether or not the "popcorn" approach loses some fans or not is problematic, too, especially if it brings more in than it loses (which I'd bet it has). Abrams knew how to make Trek accessible to movie-going audiences today while maintaining its essence and keeping it at least recognizable to a sizeable part of the core audience. Is he a genius? Probably not. A visionary? No, but neither was Roddenberry. Did he know how to make Trek popular again? Yes.

 

[BigJake]

TOS lasted mostly because it was fun to watch and the characters were interesting. . . It was more intelligent than a lot of shows in its genre because it was one of the first written for adults . . . It was as philosophically deep and had no more or less merit than contemporaries like "Bonanza" or "Gunsmoke" or "I Spy" or "The Andy Griffith Show".

There you go. It was fun to watch, had interesting characters, took its genre forward from where it had been and was comparable to what other good-quality action-adventure was doing in its day.

Personally, that right there is all I've ever really asked for from Trek. If NuTrek had even those modest aspirations I'd be much likelier to have unqualified admiration for it.

Today's Trek is in the "popcorn" sci-fi genre. That's where the money is.

There's money in all sorts of things. On the small screen, Game of Thrones and House of Cards are not in the "popcorn" genre, but in the political intrigue genre, because that's where the money is. The Avatar soon-to-be-franchise is the moderately-intelligent message-driven action genre, because that's where the money is. Selecting a particularly mindless section of the market is a choice, not an inevitability.

we're not putting up the money for the project.

Except in that we're expected to buy it, of course, and have to make decisions about doing so. Don't know about you, but in making that decision I don't give a particle of a bowel movement what the studio's business priorities are. Most viewers don't.

 

[martok2112]

Don't forget the other 'visions' GR had for Star Trek

Another useful rule of thumb: when defending the current product requires you to trash GR as a greedy perv* in order to avoid admitting his work could have had any merit that Abrams' didn't? Probably time to stand back and reassess.

(* I mean, sure it's not exactly like he wasn't, but so what if he was? There was obviously more to Trek than that or none of us would be on this board now.)

Meh, what Roddenberry was doesn't enter into it. He was a TV producer trying to get, then keep a TV show on the air. When he realized he couldn't, he more or less abandoned it because he had to move on and make a living. He may not have been a total hedonist, but he was no visionary, either. It's fair to say he later discovered Trek could become a cash cow he could milk (that said, I would've done the same thing). It was his one great idea (and we'd all kill for one idea like that).

TOS lasted mostly because it was fun to watch and the characters were interesting. And that's all. No really deep thinking or heavy lifting was required. What mess is Kirk and the Enterprise going to get into this week and how will they get out of it?

It was more intelligent than a lot of shows in its genre because it was one of the first written for adults, but that didn't make it stand out among other just as well done shows on the networks at the time.

It was as philosophically deep and had no more or less merit than contemporaries like "Bonanza" or "Gunsmoke" or "I Spy" or "The Andy Griffith Show". Plenty of shows in the mid and late 1960s were multi-racial and tackled social issues or were little morality plays -- and some did it better than TOS did.

Today's Trek is in the "popcorn" sci-fi genre. That's where the money is. Whether that's satisfactory to everyone or not is problematic, because we're not putting up the money for the project. Whether or not the "popcorn" approach loses some fans or not is problematic, too, especially if it brings more in than it loses (which I'd bet it has). Abrams knew how to make Trek accessible to movie-going audiences today while maintaining its essence and keeping it at least recognizable to a sizeable part of the core audience. Is he a genius? Probably not. A visionary? No, but neither was Roddenberry. Did he know how to make Trek popular again? Yes.

Wisdom!

 

[Mudd]

Or it shows that there is a section of fandom that go batshit insane any time you deviate from what they're used to. I'm not talking about the "movie simply didn't work for me" group. I'm talking about the "OMG!!! They raped my childhood!" group.

Bingo!

It's the "Mom's macaroni and cheese" syndrome. Diehard fans tend to be fans of a thing just as it is, or was in their imaginations. So-called franchises quickly become comfort food to some.

 

[Franklin]

I just don't see how STID was mindless. The script was on par with any other Trek movie (damning with faint praise, maybe -- but still). It addressed more serious, current, and provocative issues than any other Trek movie ever came close to doing. It was a true morality play. And, it entertained while doing it. What's wrong with that?

Does anyone really expect to turn to Trek to find serious William F. Buckley round table-type discussions of the issues of the day? Pity if they do.

 

[BigJake]

I just don't see how STID was mindless.

There's a link for that.

Spoiler: @#!*ing short version

I have yet to encounter two viewers of Into Darkness who can come up with the same explanation -- or any explanation, really -- of what Marcus' plan is really supposed to be or why it's built the way it is or why Khan's people are hidden in torpedoes or... well, let's suffice it to say that the problems of narrative coherence here, the illogic of the plot and motivations of the villains by the rules the story itself sets up, are inscrutable on a Phantom Menace kind of level. [. . .] Into Darkness' problem is that it tries for more sophistication than its predecessor but only winds up with more complication, without either more substance or less contrivance.

No, the script is not on par with the average Trek movie, not that the average Trek movie is Citizen Kane or anything.

 

[martok2112]

Dennis, that was more wisdom

Part of the reason I turned my back on and abandoned fandom a long time ago is because unfortunately, fandom tends to be an oppressive regime that does not allow any freedom whatsoever for changes in their favorite franchise...and, with all the childish sniping that goes on between fan-camps...I decided once and for all to break free of those bonds. I simply love Star Trek in all its forms, and I don't need to produce credentials to say: "I am a dyed in the wool, Roddenberry-dogmatist/Abrams-revisionist Trek fan!". I don't need to say I'm a "fan" at all. I am not a fanatic about anything. Life's too short for hang ups like "canon" or "Kirk would never do that!".

Some fans tend to be pretentious pseudo-intellectuals so that they can (try) to put down other fans who might happen to like a different version of Trek than they do. Those are the "batshit insane" ones, in my book.

Roddenberry was a moneygrubber, plain and simple. Watch Star Trek First Contact, and paraphrase Cochrane's little "Who is Zephram Cochrane" speech to Riker, and you've got Roddenberry in a nutshell. He may have had a decent idea, but it was his staff writers that really gave Trek the flavor that fans enjoyed. If Star Trek had remained solely under Roddenberry's control, it would have died not long after birth, never to be heard from again.

That said, I am also one of those who loved Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It was a financial success, if not a critical or fan-favored one. And it gave us eleven more fils with more on the way.

Abrams' Trek opened up Star Trek to people who never gave a damn about Trek before, and are now starting to discover the decades of entertainment they've missed on dvd's and now blu-rays and Netflix. Win win in my book.

I hold Star Trek to no higher standard than Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, StarGate, or The Muppet Show. I have only one requirement: Entertain me. If it has done this, then my time and money were well spent.

 

[trevanian]

I hate to 'somewhat' derail the thread with SW talk, but what about the structure in ESB didn't you like?

(ESB is one of my favorite films, so I'm curious)...

Putting the huge long epic snow battle up front seemed seriously wrong to me, and it creates a real valley for act 2 (yeah, you have the asteroid chase, but the rest is pretty dialog-heavy.) I think this was a pretty common view at the time of the release, that is felt wrong, but that the whole show was too much fun to bitch about (sort of like the 'how did Indy hang onto the sub for thousands of miles?' thing that next year in RAIDERS.)

 

[BillJ]

TOS lasted mostly because it was fun to watch and the characters were interesting. And that's all. No really deep thinking or heavy lifting was required. What mess is Kirk and the Enterprise going to get into this week and how will they get out of it?

It was more intelligent than a lot of shows in its genre because it was one of the first written for adults, but that didn't make it stand out among other just as well done shows on the networks at the time.

I love Star Trek and I've been watching it for a really long time. I started watching the show when I was four-years old (TOS) and it wasn't so far ahead of me that I didn't get a good portion of what was going on even at that age. Were there some layers to it that made themselves evident as I got older? Sure. But they weren't so deep and smart that your average teenager couldn't grasp them (TNG premiered when I was 16 and I had no issues grasping it).

I fell in love with Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise. I fell in love with the sense of adventure. I fell in love with how bold and in your face the show was. Most episodes, it grabbed hold of you for an hour and didn't let go. It didn't matter if the science was gibberish or not. It didn't matter if something they did during a current episode contradicted an episode I saw last week. It didn't matter if Spock was Vulcan or Vulcanian or if the Enterprise reported to UESPA or Starfleet.

All in all, I think some people are more in love with the idea or reputation of "Star Trek" than they are actually in love with Star Trek. The last two movies are in no way perfect but neither was the show that I grew up with.

 

[Mudd]

The script for STID was better than for most Trek movies, rather than on par.

 

[BillJ]

The script for STID was better than for most Trek movies, rather than on par.

I know that we disagree on the various movies but I agree here, as I have Into Darkness ranked third out of the twelve Trek movies.

 

[Franklin]

TOS lasted mostly because it was fun to watch and the characters were interesting. And that's all. No really deep thinking or heavy lifting was required. What mess is Kirk and the Enterprise going to get into this week and how will they get out of it?

It was more intelligent than a lot of shows in its genre because it was one of the first written for adults, but that didn't make it stand out among other just as well done shows on the networks at the time.

I love Star Trek and I've been watching it for a really long time. I started watching the show when I was four-years old (TOS) and it wasn't so far ahead of me that I didn't get a good portion of what was going on even at that age. Were there some layers to it that made themselves evident as I got older? Sure. But they weren't so deep and smart that your average teenager couldn't grasp them (TNG premiered when I was 16 and I had no issues grasping it).

I fell in love with Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise. I fell in love with the sense of adventure. I fell in love with how bold and in your face the show was. Most episodes, it grabbed hold of you for an hour and didn't let go. It didn't matter if the science was gibberish or not. It didn't matter if something they did during a current episode contradicted an episode I saw last week. It didn't matter if Spock was Vulcan or Vulcanian or if the Enterprise reported to UESPA or Starfleet.

All in all, I think some people are more in love with the idea or reputation of "Star Trek" than they are actually in love with Star Trek. The last two movies are in no way perfect but neither was the show that I grew up with.

Marry me!

(Um, sorry. That was awkward.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only character who probably had more fun on TV other than Jim Kirk was Gomez Addams.

 

[BigJake]

The script for STID was better than for most Trek movies, rather than on par.

I just got done saying The Ninth Gate is a better movie than Chinatown. I'd be the last to begrudge a man his eccentricities.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

In my time, we've evolved beyond the need for money.

I don't need it at this point so much as I just like it.

Money's great, my dear Dennis, but I believe you prefer loadsamoney.

 

[BigJake]

In my time, we've evolved beyond the need for money.

I don't need it at this point so much as I just like it.

Money's great, my dear Dennis, but I believe you prefer loadsamoney.

Or perhaps:

 

[M'Sharak]

... so if you don't think you're soaking in it you're probably mistaken.

Madge, is that you?

 

[BigJake]

God, I miss Madge.

Is that weird? That's a little weird, isn't it.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Part of the reason I turned my back on and abandoned fandom a long time ago is because unfortunately, fandom tends to be an oppressive regime that does not allow any freedom whatsoever for changes in their favorite franchise

Nobody has power over you unless you let them have it. You're free to do what you want and be who you are in fandom. It's the internet, who's going to stop you?

 

[BigJake]

^ Exactly.

Also, things are bound to improve ever since the Canon Police promised to stop roughing up fugitives during capture. There's now a better than 65% chance to getting a fair trial on charges of "Aggravated Public Praise of a TAS Episode," which isn't perfect but a huge improvement over the dark days of the Bermaga Terror.