Hate for the new Trek and the Future of Trek

[Trekkin]

It could have been just as popular without being NuTrek. That's the rub. Rebooting Star Trek was completely unnecessary.

The whole point of making the movie was to reboot the franchise. One way or the other, it was always going to be in a 'new' universe.

Orci and Kurtzman being involved just meant that fans got to keep their precious continuity...in a very distant and inconsequential way.

Also, no creative decision ever 'needs' to be made. They didn't 'need' to set TNG a century after TOS, didn't 'need' to undo 'Space Seed's' happy ending to set up TWOK, didn't 'need' to kill off Spock, etc. Although I do fully understand the motives and desire to try and separate the new stuff from series well-deserved reputation of Star Trek X: Just Another Shitty Star Trek Sequel.

Well, I am a literal person. What I cannot see (with some sort of sensor/microscope) or touch* I do not believe in

That's not what 'literal' means.

Also, can I have a show of hands from anybody who gives a shit about PhaserLightShow's refusal to believe in abstract concepts? You know, now we've established that we can just ignore him when he starts saying 'But I don't understand what you mean...'

 

[fireproof78]

That's not what 'literal' means.

Also, can I have a show of hands from anybody who gives a shit about PhaserLightShow's refusal to believe in abstract concepts? You know, now we've established that we can just ignore him when he starts saying 'But I don't understand what you mean...'

There are lots of reasons why people cannot operate in abstract ways. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[TwoJakes]

But you can touch the art itself

Museums usually frown on this. PhaserLightShow I've been reading your posts for a few weeks now, and if you don't mind me asking is English your first language? I'll admit that it isn't mine.

Neither of the Abrams films have won or been nominated for major movie awards (except in the technical areas?), this in terms of a metric for measuring "art."

They have won a small number of minor movie awards.

 

[Noname Given]

Museums usually frown on this. PhaserLightShow I've been reading your posts for a few weeks now, and if you don't mind me asking is English your first language? I'll admit that it isn't mine.

Neither of the Abrams films have won or been nominated for major movie awards (except in the technical areas?), this in terms of a metric for measuring "art."

They have won a small number of minor movie awards.

^^^
Have ANY Star Trek feature films been nominated for ANY major awards outside set design/costuming/sound/makeup/etc. since the 'film series began in 1979?

 

[Trekkin]

Pretty much just the Hugo's, where 09 was also nominated. Even that's probably a bit too genre-specific to be 'major'.

This isn't really restricted to Star Trek, but I'm not really big on people dismissing 'just' the technical awards. Film is the use of visuals and sound to tell a story. One wrong piece of the puzzle can drag the whole thing down.

It's a bit like dismissing the importance of a writers prose when evaluating a novel.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Museums usually frown on this. PhaserLightShow I've been reading your posts for a few weeks now, and if you don't mind me asking is English your first language? I'll admit that it isn't mine.

Neither of the Abrams films have won or been nominated for major movie awards (except in the technical areas?), this in terms of a metric for measuring "art."

They have won a small number of minor movie awards.

When I say art I mean the Abrams movies (DVD or Blue Ray) because in this context we are not referring to paintings like those in museums. And yes, English is my first language!

That's not what 'literal' means.

Also, can I have a show of hands from anybody who gives a shit about PhaserLightShow's refusal to believe in abstract concepts? You know, now we've established that we can just ignore him when he starts saying 'But I don't understand what you mean...'

What abstract concepts? And yes, that is not what literal means. But I am still a literal person and do not believe in what I cannot touch or see with some sort of sensor.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[JWPlatt]

Can you touch humor, happy, success, hope, optimism, compassion? Do you believe in them?

 

[HIjol]

Well, I am a literal person. What I cannot see (with some sort of sensor/microscope) or touch* I do not believe in. Yes, there may be spiritual atheists, but I am not one of them!
*What I can touch is tangible; what I cannot is intangible!

@PhaserLightShow

Serious question...

What about Love?

 

[JWPlatt]

Mere brain chemistry nature uses and evolution has refined to ensure propagation of the species.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Can you touch humor, happy, success, hope, optimism, compassion? Do you believe in them?

All of these (emotions) are simply electric patterns in a brain. I theoretically could touch them if I were inside your brain.

Serious question...

What about Love?

I do believe in love. Because related thoughts are simply electrical impulses. I could touch them! Because love is induced by something I can touch.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

All of these (emotions) are simply electric patterns in a brain. I theoretically could touch them if I were inside your brain.


I do believe in love. Because related thoughts are simply electrical impulses. I could touch them! Because love is induced by something I can touch.

@PhaserLightShow

That is both a depressing and completely reductive view of the human condition.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

That is both a depressing and completely reductive view of the human condition.

@Chekov's Phaser
How is my view depressing or reductive? It is logical.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

@Chekov's Phaser
How is my view depressing or reductive? It is logical.

@PhaserLightShow

No one who studies the human brain would argue it is "logical" to categorize human emotion as something that can be physically touched. It is much more complicated than that. Thus reductive.

 

[JWPlatt]

Yes. And the rest. I'm not exactly defending it. But if all you care about is business and not so much the intangibles of art, it makes sense.

Art is not intangible. You can touch it.

I do believe in love. Because related thoughts are simply electrical impulses. I could touch them! Because love is induced by something I can touch.

Then finally you should understand the "intangibles" about art; how people can love it, are inspired by it, and form better communities and cultures from it and make progress - all traditional intangibles unless you put it in terms of brain chemistry, and thus understand the point I was making on the previous page.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

No one who studies the human brain would argue it is "logical" to categorize human emotion as something that can be physically touched. It is much more complicated than that. Thus reductive.

Human emotion is caused by electrical impulses. To clarify, I do not believe in emotion exactly, but I do believe that the electrical impulses that cause the illusion of emotion are real. Electrical impulses could theoretically be touched. Did I miss something?

Then finally you should understand the "intangibles" about art; how people can love it, are inspired by it, and form better cultures from it and make progress - all traditional intangibles unless you put it in terms of brain chemistry, and thus understand the point I was making on the previous page.

But I am putting it in terms of brain chemistry. You never mentioned that you were before.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

Human emotion is caused by electrical impulses. To clarify, I do not believe in emotion exactly, but I do believe that the electrical impulses that cause the illusion of emotion are real. Electrical impulses could theoretically be touched. Did I miss something?

I'll say it again, discussing emotion as merely electrical impulses is reductive, i.e. reducing something complicated to something far too simple.

Not sure how you don't believe in emotion. They exist. You might not understand them, but they exist.

 

[JWPlatt]

But I am putting it in terms of brain chemistry. You never mentioned that you were before.

I wasn't. I don't need to. But I eventually figured it better to speak in your language than continue trying to use mine. The burden is upon you and your more unique way of thinking to translate for yourself how the majority of the world communicates and to attempt to speak in terms they understand. Otherwise, it just appears to be willful antagonistic pedantism.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

I'll say it again, discussing emotion as merely electrical impulses is reductive, i.e. reducing something complicated to something far too simple.

Not sure how you don't believe in emotion. They exist. You might not understand them, but they exist.

But emotions merely are electrical impulses!

@PhaserLightShow

I wasn't. I don't need to. But I eventually figured it better to speak in your language than continue trying to use mine. The burden is upon you and your more unique way of thinking to translate for yourself how the majority of the world communicates and to attempt to speak in terms they understand. Otherwise, it just appears to be willful antagonistic pedantism.

Well, art is still tangible. And so is the reason art is enjoyed (just electrical impulses).

@PhaserLightShow

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Can you touch humor, happy, success, hope, optimism, compassion? Do you believe in them?

Success is real. It is when you win and achieve.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

But emotions merely are electrical impulses!

@PhaserLightShow


Well, art is still tangible. And so is the reason art is enjoyed (just electrical impulses).

@PhaserLightShow

Not sure if you legitimately don't understand some pretty basic concepts or are just being obtuse on purpose...