Hated it
- Thread starter KSoldier
- Start date
Score two for Roddenberry, that.
The writer's guide had good instincts, though: getting Next Generation to succeed required touching on what was good about the Original Series while still doing different stuff. Wired heavily into the original setup is stuff that just changes the kinds of stories that can be told --- for example, there's no Science Officer or Chief Engineer. There's a specific Security Officer. Spock's roles are split into two people. There's civilians who, theoretically, have to be thought of in any escalating situation.
Avoiding the most famous aliens of the Original Series is certainly in line with that: Next Generation should go on to make its own aliens. The Ferengi flopped massively as antagonists, alas, and attempts like the Seley and Anticans and Benzites were almost doomed to be minor-leaguers from the start, but when Next Generation finally got serious about making its own villains it succeeded brilliantly with the Borg --- surely Next Generation's biggest contribution to mass pop culture --- and tolerably well with the Cardassians. (Admittedly, while the Cardassians offer a lot of interesting story potential, nobody outside the fandom cares about them, other than as a pun on the Kardashians that's rarely made.)
^ Agreed.
For serious: he doesn't have to get "all" the credit or be exempt from criticism. It would just be pleasantly refreshing if threads like this didn't quite so predictably deteriorate into ludicrously over-the-top slagging-off that people like me have to come in and call out (because the major participants are wrapped up in either doing it or making excuses for it).
For serious: he doesn't have to get "all" the credit or be exempt from criticism. It would just be pleasantly refreshing if threads like this didn't quite so predictably deteriorate into ludicrously over-the-top slagging-off that people like me have to come in and call out (because the major participants are wrapped up in either doing it or making excuses for it).
Q too (though he's evocative of some of the "magical" antagonists faced in TOS).
(Obviously the Ferenghi worked better in DS9, whose set-up meant they could be used for story variety and comic relief, rather than plugged into TNG as "case of the week".)
It would be refreshing, but tough to do, given the text based medium.
Beyond that, I think Franklin has a good point, and one that I have heard before. GR was a creative, hard working, individual who gave us a fun SF show. I won't detract from that.
It is the TNG mindset that GR had this special vision of humanity, called the "Roddenberry box" that I start to question the vision. It was something that was unquestionable in terms of the writing staff, so it makes me wonder at the ramifications of such a restriction.
Beyond that, let us return to the beating up of Abrams, a man who deserves it
See, GR isn't the only one who gets it 
Beyond that, let us return to the beating up of Abrams, a man who deserves it
Abrams is a good director. He knows how to shoot a scene in an exciting way, how to create a look for his picture, and give the actors the direction they need. He knows how to tell a visual story effectively
However he thus far does not seem to have a good story to tell nor the ability to write one; almost every film he has made has been a sequel, reboot, or in the case of Super 8, a emulation of Spielberg, and most films he has writing credits on are not known for their strong story elements.
From what I've seen the blame rests with the writers, who have established a pattern of writing schlock for the most part, as well as with Abram's production company. Since Abrams' company is behind the new films I guess Abrams gets some fault for not having an interest in telling a good Star Trek story, or for respecting the type of tone that fits Star Trek (the new films are way more along the lines of overplotted Star Wars films vs. anything like Star Trek).
Kurtzman & Orci, now there is a pair that definitely warrants a "beating".
Last edited:
^ I'm trying not to be overly pessimistic about Orci-Trek given that he'll be helming the next movie. But honestly, it's pretty clear to me from his various interactions and protestations that he truly, sincerely believes that STID is what a well-told story looks like. Which isn't promising.
Needs more lines adding. There's a universe created when Nero arrives and then there's another universe created when Spock arrives later. Presumably, there's also another universe created when Vulcan is sucked into a black hole and its remains are spewed out somewhere.
Oh, and there's also the universe created from the remains of the Nerada too.
Red Matter: Creating universes since 2233
Beyond that, let us return to the beating up of Abrams, a man who deserves it
Abrams is a good director. He knows how to shoot a scene in an exciting way, how to create a look for his picture, and give the actors the direction they need. He knows how to tell a visual story effectively
However he thus far does not seem to have a good story to tell nor the ability to write one; almost every film he has made has been a sequel, reboot, or in the case of Super 8, a emulation of Spielberg, and most films he has writing credits on are not known for their strong story elements.
From what I've seen the blame rests with the writers, who have established a pattern of writing schlock for the most part, as well as with Abram's production company. Since Abrams' company is behind the new films I guess Abrams gets some fault for not having an interest in telling a good Star Trek story, or for respecting the type of tone that fits Star Trek (the new films are way more along the lines of overplotted Star Wars films vs. anything like Star Trek).
Kurtzman & Orci, now there is a pair that definitely warrants a "beating".
I don't think they are the best writers in the world, but I certainly think that the new films are "Trek" enough to satisfy my TOS preferences. Yes, there is lot of action and explosions, and the film's pacing could have stood a few more expository scenes. I'm not saying they are perfect but more Trek than I think they get credit for.
Reviewing Orci's writing credits is encouragement enough for me.
But, how is that any different then the fact that the Prime Universe was already dead, and never to be returned to onscreen, before these movies were made?
Enterprise TV Series Ratings, coupled with Nemesis' Box office performance already nailed that coffin lid shut, 10+ years ago
At the risk of playing amateur psychologist, it does sometimes seem as though portions of fandom are still working their way through the classic stages of grief:
Denial: "This isn't Star Trek!"
Anger: "Damn you, J.J. Abrams!"
Bargaining: "Okay, you can have your nuTrek movies, but any new TV series will go back to the old continuity, right?"
Depression: "Star Trek is dead to me."
Acceptance: "When's the new movie coming out?"
Denial: "This isn't Star Trek!"
Anger: "Damn you, J.J. Abrams!"
Bargaining: "Okay, you can have your nuTrek movies, but any new TV series will go back to the old continuity, right?"
Depression: "Star Trek is dead to me."
Acceptance: "When's the new movie coming out?"
It doesn't hurt that we're apparently living in a Golden Age of kickstarter-funded fan projects and independent productions, so there's getting to be plenty to divert people who aren't into AbramsTrek.
(Or I guess maybe a bunch of us are stuck in Bargaining, cuz it's kinda working out.)
(Or I guess maybe a bunch of us are stuck in Bargaining, cuz it's kinda working out.
)
Last edited:
At the risk of playing amateur psychologist, it does sometimes seem as though portions of fandom are still working their way through the classic stages of grief:
Denial: "This isn't Star Trek!"
Anger: "Damn you, J.J. Abrams!"
Bargaining: "Okay, you can have your nuTrek movies, but any new TV series will go back to the old continuity, right?"
Depression: "Star Trek is dead to me."
Acceptance: "When's the new movie coming out?"
Well said.
At the risk of playing amateur psychologist, it does sometimes seem as though portions of fandom are still working their way through the classic stages of grief:
Denial: "This isn't Star Trek!"
Anger: "Damn you, J.J. Abrams!"
Bargaining: "Okay, you can have your nuTrek movies, but any new TV series will go back to the old continuity, right?"
Depression: "Star Trek is dead to me."
Acceptance: "When's the new movie coming out?"
And, then there are those like me who are a combination:
Anger and Confusion: "They did it. They finally did it.
Awww, damn you, J.J. Abrams! Damn, you Lindendorf! Damn you Orci and Kurtzman! Damn you all to hell!"
"Why did Kirk rise in a matter of days to the rank of Captain? (Oh, they may make him 'acting Captain' and let the character go through the ranks as normal or jump through time in the next film)."
And after seeing STID, where they ignore any mention of his meteoric rise to Captain: "Really? They are just going to ignore or bypass any mention of it? And, why is the Enterprise being taken away? We obviously know he's going to get it back in the next few minutes!"
"Who is Khan? (To quote Carol Marcus in the original TWOK). Isn't that an Indian name? Did he take that name as a moniker for himself? What is his backstory? Why are we supposed to care about this character? Why is his 'reveal' filmed like a revelation? (The people in this alternate universe never met him, Kirk should have been like, "Okaaay, so you're 'Khan'....What does that mean to me?")
"Awww, damn you, J.J. Abrams! Damn, you Lindendorf! Damn you Orci and Kurtzman! Damn you all to hell!"
Not Quite Acceptance, but Curious: "STID was kinda 'meh'....but I will probably see the next one on DVD."
Beyond that, let us return to the beating up of Abrams, a man who deserves it
Abrams is a good director. He knows how to shoot a scene in an exciting way, how to create a look for his picture, and give the actors the direction they need. He knows how to tell a visual story effectively
However he thus far does not seem to have a good story to tell nor the ability to write one; almost every film he has made has been a sequel, reboot, or in the case of Super 8, a emulation of Spielberg, and most films he has writing credits on are not known for their strong story elements.
From what I've seen the blame rests with the writers, who have established a pattern of writing schlock for the most part, as well as with Abram's production company. Since Abrams' company is behind the new films I guess Abrams gets some fault for not having an interest in telling a good Star Trek story, or for respecting the type of tone that fits Star Trek (the new films are way more along the lines of overplotted Star Wars films vs. anything like Star Trek).
Kurtzman & Orci, now there is a pair that definitely warrants a "beating".
star trek 2009 is widly considered by critics and audience as one of the best origins story of all time. i just can believe how they messed up so badliy in the sequel.
It doesn't hurt that we're apparently living in a Golden Age of kickstarter-funded fan projects and independent productions, so there's getting to be plenty to divert people who aren't into AbramsTrek.
(Or I guess maybe a bunch of us are stuck in Bargaining, cuz it's kinda working out.
I'm sorry, but those productions aren't going to capture all of the public's attention as much as the official productions or be as well-regarded, with the personal exception of Star Trek: Aurora (and Star Trek: Axanar is just as much blasting and shooting as Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, so no moral high ground can be claimed by them on that score.)
Who is Khan, and why is he John Harrison? Well, he's John Harrison because Marcus and Section 31 figured out that he's probably still a wanted war criminal as Khan, and so he was disguised as a white man and given a new name. If you really want to find out more about his beckstory, read Star Trek: Khan, which gives a good (though probably not canon) account of how he came to be.
Before I watched Star Trek 2009 I was rather interested in the reboot, esp. in the redesign of the ship (which turned out to be ugly to me). I was discussing it on another forum back then quite much.
But when I saw it in the cinema finally I totally lost interest in it.
It turned out to be just another action movie to me. I didn't have negative feelings or positive feelings or anything, I didn't even comment it. I just totally lost interest. Mostly I guess because of the absurd and silly plot (the way Kirk became Captain - gimme a break).
I never watched it again and didn't watch 12 in the cinema. And I will not watch 13 either (I guess).
(I still read the news and gossip about it but more out of curiosity about the future of Trek).
But when I saw it in the cinema finally I totally lost interest in it.
It turned out to be just another action movie to me. I didn't have negative feelings or positive feelings or anything, I didn't even comment it. I just totally lost interest. Mostly I guess because of the absurd and silly plot (the way Kirk became Captain - gimme a break).
I never watched it again and didn't watch 12 in the cinema. And I will not watch 13 either (I guess).
(I still read the news and gossip about it but more out of curiosity about the future of Trek).
I don't care when the next movie is coming out. It's going to have to be spectacularly wonderful to make me even tolerate it, let alone like it.It doesn't hurt that we're apparently living in a Golden Age of kickstarter-funded fan projects and independent productions, so there's getting to be plenty to divert people who aren't into AbramsTrek.At the risk of playing amateur psychologist, it does sometimes seem as though portions of fandom are still working their way through the classic stages of grief:
Denial: "This isn't Star Trek!"
Anger: "Damn you, J.J. Abrams!"
Bargaining: "Okay, you can have your nuTrek movies, but any new TV series will go back to the old continuity, right?"
Depression: "Star Trek is dead to me."
Acceptance: "When's the new movie coming out?"
(Or I guess maybe a bunch of us are stuck in Bargaining, cuz it's kinda working out.
In the meantime, I am being well-entertained by various fan films, fanfic, old fanzines, and pre-Abrams era pro novels.
One thing that occured to me in the past, and I still think about on occasion, is: what if they had made a Star Trek movie not as an in-universe story, but as a story about the creation of Star Trek, the television series?
Think about it for a moment. What if Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc. were playing William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, during the days of the mid-late 60's, working on the series? Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, D.C. Fontana, Matt Jeffries and and the rest would all be there too. There's certainly been enough info gathered from those days to construct ideas for a story. I'm not a writer, and have not the skills to construct a story narrative for this, but I'm sure someone could.
If nothing else, it's fun to think about! Who would play Roddenberry, for example? What would the story be like? I think it could have been a fascinating film to watch. I can very much envision a Mad Men sort of texture to it, and being a fan of period pieces, I'd certainly check it out!
One wouldn't even need to be a Star Trek fan at all to enjoy it. I could envision scenes like, say, the actors playing the Pike/Vina picnic scene from the point of view beyond the fourth wall (or pick scenes, any scenes), which wouldn't even need to have been seen by someone in the theater. It wouldn't matter: it's just a random scene to them. Anyone at all could watch this movie, and that's a pretty big potential audience!
I'd love to get some feedback/ideas on this.
Think about it for a moment. What if Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc. were playing William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, during the days of the mid-late 60's, working on the series? Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, D.C. Fontana, Matt Jeffries and and the rest would all be there too. There's certainly been enough info gathered from those days to construct ideas for a story. I'm not a writer, and have not the skills to construct a story narrative for this, but I'm sure someone could.
If nothing else, it's fun to think about!
Who would play Roddenberry, for example? What would the story be like? I think it could have been a fascinating film to watch. I can very much envision a Mad Men sort of texture to it, and being a fan of period pieces, I'd certainly check it out!One wouldn't even need to be a Star Trek fan at all to enjoy it. I could envision scenes like, say, the actors playing the Pike/Vina picnic scene from the point of view beyond the fourth wall (or pick scenes, any scenes), which wouldn't even need to have been seen by someone in the theater. It wouldn't matter: it's just a random scene to them. Anyone at all could watch this movie, and that's a pretty big potential audience!
I'd love to get some feedback/ideas on this.
Similar threads
