details on Singer's Trek pitch

[JarodRussell]

^^ So the difference between Plan 9 From Outer Space and 2001: A Space Odyssey is subjective?

Well, what differences do you mean specifically? The enjoyment of a movie as a whole is entirely subjective. When you start breaking it down to technicalities like visual effects, you can say that 2001 has more realistic effects, but who says realistic is "better" and unrealistic is "worse"? It's still entirely up to the individual. And if you as me, they are both terrible. Plan 9 is a cheap suckfest, and 2001 is bloated, overhyped and very boring. In my opinion of course.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Since we were talking about standards, I mean the difference in quality.

 

[JarodRussell]

Since we were talking about standards, I mean the difference in quality.

What quality do you mean? Overall? Image? Sound? Script? What? And how do you conclude that one movie is of better quality than the other? Because Syd Field said "Use three acts!", a movie that has 4 acts is of lower quality?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

And, while there may be a gray area, quality is definitely objective.

That's what you're saying now. But when you're throwing things like "ST 09 was the worst excuse for Trek by far. Of course it made the most money. The lowest denominator has spoken", you are not being objective. It is just your personal preferences expressed through hyperbole.

 

[number6]

And, while there may be a gray area, quality is definitely objective.

That's what you're saying now. But when you're throwing things like "ST 09 was the worst excuse for Trek by far. Of course it made the most money. The lowest denominator has spoken", you are not being objective. It is just your personal preferences expressed through hyperbole.

This.

 

[T'Girl]

ST 09 was the worst excuse for Trek by far. Of course it made the most money. The lowest denominator has spoken

Actually, Star Trek: The Motion Picture has made more money then Star Trek Eleven, and (debatable) TMP has a superior story to Eleven's.

So quality does win on occasion, although I understand the A.D.D. crowd doesn't care for TMP.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

ST 09 was the worst excuse for Trek by far. Of course it made the most money. The lowest denominator has spoken

Actually, Star Trek: The Motion Picture has made more money then Star Trek Eleven, and (debatable) TMP was a superior story to Eleven.

I was quite clearly quoting RJDiogenes.

 

[ColeMercury]

So quality does win on occasion, although I understand the A.D.D. crowd doesn't care for TMP.

Y'know, I love it when defenders of Star Trek: The Motion Picture complain about kids today and their darned short attention spans. It's almost as if they don't realise people were criticising the movie for being bloated and slow even back when it was released.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ That's why I referred to it as flawed earlier.

Since we were talking about standards, I mean the difference in quality.

What quality do you mean? Overall? Image? Sound? Script? What? And how do you conclude that one movie is of better quality than the other? Because Syd Field said "Use three acts!", a movie that has 4 acts is of lower quality?

You must be joking. At least I hope so.

And, while there may be a gray area, quality is definitely objective.

That's what you're saying now. But when you're throwing things like "ST 09 was the worst excuse for Trek by far. Of course it made the most money. The lowest denominator has spoken", you are not being objective. It is just your personal preferences expressed through hyperbole.

Not at all. I'm basing it on the objective quality of the script. Ridiculous actions (e.g. shooting a cadet off in a pod to crash and probably die on a hostile planet rather than, say, putting him in the brig), unbelievably stupid plot elements (e.g. only ten thousand Vulcans surviving the destruction of Vulcan when there are many times more Americans abroad in Europe in the 21st century than that, and the Vulcans have been space travelers for a thousand years), and so on. It's like an Asylum movie; pretty much every frame cries out for mockery. I suppose you could say that mocking the ethical standards that TOS was famous for is a subjective complaint; some people may think that turning it into a nihilistic wasteland is an improvement.

 

[bismarck_1892]

Wow, people are still arguing about this movie two years down the road, and will be arguing about the movie for a long time. For the record here is my "subjective" opinion - it sucked.

Here is my question though, in light of the thread we are posting in: Will a new TV series that ignores JJ Trek make things better (within the fandom), or is the new universe now the default universe?

 

[Geoff Thorne]

It's precisely this sort of vehemence from "fans" when they dislike something that dictates why they are totally ignored by anyone hoping to actually make something decent out of STAR TREK.

TMP was a lovely idea. It was an even lovelier idea when it appeared during TOS as "THE CHANGELING."

No one is talking about making TREK into a nihilistic universe. We certainly weren't with FEDERATION.

Sure, there are some plot issues in the recent Abrams film. You want to tell me the SEARCH FOR SPOCK was gold? or Nemesis? Or Insurrection? Please.

And, by the way, SO WHAT?

Do i really have to go back and point out all the silly "mistakes" made in the various series? Even my signature has engendered heated debates about the nature of Starfleet.

Get over it.

It's meant to be fun and somewhat challenging when it's good. Or, y'know, just fun.

 

[bismarck_1892]

I always thought that good meant, smart and fun with great stories and character development. I think what pissed off a lot of fans about JJ Trek is not its lack of quality but its departure from canon. That's, frankly, my main problem.

But if you are doing a prequile then you're automatically trapped. You have to destroy in order to build otherwise there are too many restrictions. That is why Star Trek needs to keep going forward not backward.

Backward works for a two hour movie, where you take the already know elements, modernize them, and feed them to the general public. Forwards should work for a new series, and requires actual creativity and imagination.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Producers looking to mine Trek's past who'd base their proposals on anything other than TOS or TNG are just asking for failure.

It's a good thing they weren't thinking that way when they came up with TNG.

That non sequitur must represent a special gift for missing the point. I don't doubt that you'll think I've missed yours...but no.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I always thought that good meant, smart and fun with great stories and character development. I think what pissed off a lot of fans about JJ Trek is not its lack of quality but its departure from canon. That's, frankly, my main problem.

But if you are doing a prequile then you're automatically trapped. You have to destroy in order to build otherwise there are too many restrictions. That is why Star Trek needs to keep going forward not backward.

Good means you liked it. Smart? Not always. Fun? Depends on the story and your individual definition. One man's fun is another man's stupid. Great stories? Not sure a Trek movie has had one yet. Character development? Again not a hallmark of Trek movies. But in spite of that there have been good Star trek movies.

A lot more fans were fine with the movie, even around here. ( tough crowd) Of course it departed from "canon". That was the bloody point. From the second the Narada showed up all previous continuity was thrown out. And it was a reboot, not a prequel. The "prequel" was over (and I repeat myself) the second the Narada showed up .

What Star Trek had to do is stop going in circles. Jumping a head a Century or back and popping over to the next quadrant is not "moving forward".

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'd love to hear Rob's take on this, since Geoff seems to be a tad testy...

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I'd love to hear Rob's take on this, since Geoff seems to be a tad testy...

LOL.

I'm not testy; I'm serious about my work.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Well, it works both ways. We're serious about what we're presented with.

A few points:

1) Personal transporter capability. This was considered back in '64 (Number One's line, "We have transporter control" was a holdover from that concept) and was rejected because it undercut a lot of potential danger for upcoming shows; makes sense for real life, but not so good for an action/adventure series. Like one of the critiques said at the time, how can we feel our heroes are in any real danger when they can just thumb their noses at the big nasty creature, hit a button, and beam their asses back to the ship?

2) Time period. I'd put it no more than a century past TNG, on the Enterprise-F, or maybe just a heavily refit E-E (wouldn't it be nice to have an Enterprise that doesn't get destroyed before her time?). It was tough enough relating to the 24th Century humans, why make it worse by shooting forward to the 34th?

 

[ColeMercury]

2) Time period. I'd put it no more than a century past TNG, on the Enterprise-F, or maybe just a heavily refit E-E (wouldn't it be nice to have an Enterprise that doesn't get destroyed before her time?). It was tough enough relating to the 24th Century humans, why make it worse by shooting forward to the 34th?

Futurama?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Here is my question though, in light of the thread we are posting in: Will a new TV series that ignores JJ Trek make things better (within the fandom), or is the new universe now the default universe?

Well, the books are still set in the original timeline (except for a new children's series that I heard about), so it's possible that a new show would be as well.

And, by the way, SO WHAT?

So what? Yeah, nothing matters and so what if it did? There's no comparing the even the worst of the original Trek movies with nuTrek; nu Trek is basically just an Asylum movie with a bigger budget.

But if you are doing a prequile then you're automatically trapped. You have to destroy in order to build otherwise there are too many restrictions. That is why Star Trek needs to keep going forward not backward.

The novel writers have been inserting stories into established continuity for decades. All you have to do is hire people with talent and commitment.

Producers looking to mine Trek's past who'd base their proposals on anything other than TOS or TNG are just asking for failure.

It's a good thing they weren't thinking that way when they came up with TNG.

That non sequitur must represent a special gift for missing the point. I don't doubt that you'll think I've missed yours...but no.

Do you know what non sequitur means? There are many ways to do Trek, whether it's moving forward or mining the past, that are original, expand the franchise and do not violate its spirit. There's this fan film called Starship Exeter, for example....

1) Personal transporter capability. This was considered back in '64 (Number One's line, "We have transporter control" was a holdover from that concept) and was rejected because it undercut a lot of potential danger for upcoming shows; makes sense for real life, but not so good for an action/adventure series. Like one of the critiques said at the time, how can we feel our heroes are in any real danger when they can just thumb their noses at the big nasty creature, hit a button, and beam their asses back to the ship?

That's exactly why I'd include both personal transporters and personal force fields. That way, the writers would have to rely more on drama and characterization than mere peril.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Well, it works both ways. We're serious about what we're presented with.

Yes but you haven't enough data to make clean assessments so your relative seriousness is moot. And, frankly, some of you describing your various dislikes for the Abrams Trek are so hidebound and bizarre that they undercut any serious point you might try to make. You do realize you're in the extreme minority when it comes to that film, right? And among Trekkies as well.

1) Personal transporter capability. This was considered back in '64 (Number One's line, "We have transporter control" was a holdover from that concept) and was rejected because it undercut a lot of potential danger for upcoming shows; makes sense for real life, but not so good for an action/adventure series. Like one of the critiques said at the time, how can we feel our heroes are in any real danger when they can just thumb their noses at the big nasty creature, hit a button, and beam their asses back to the ship?

Oh, I dunno. Pesky things like atmospheric conditions, time to suss necessary coordinates, fatal transport accidents, bad guys blocking the transports, ship out of range, bravery, things like that. I do do this for a living, you know. Who cares what they rejected in 1964?

2) Time period. I'd put it no more than a century past TNG, on the Enterprise-F, or maybe just a heavily refit E-E (wouldn't it be nice to have an Enterprise that doesn't get destroyed before her time?). It was tough enough relating to the 24th Century humans, why make it worse by shooting forward to the 34th?

If you found it tough to relate to the 24th century humans, I submit either there's something faulty in your understanding of 21st century humans or in the writing of the shows you watched. Most people had no such problem so I'm leaning toward the fault being with you.

As I said. I'm not testy. I just have a low tolerance for "fans" who think they know what's best and that what's best is zero deviation from their extremely narrow view of what Star Trek is or can be. You guys treat it like a church and you're the fundamentalists. BORING. STAGNANT. HIDEBOUND. Booo.

That's why the thing died the last time, trying to cater to that contingent. It needs to breathe. And it needs to be free from the concerns of people who know what Scotty's address in Glasgow was.

In my opinion.