He's "not an avid Star Trek fan"?

[Holytomato]

"My only concern, as I stated, was that a couple of the actors expressed sentiments which, to me, lead me to think that they may not ... and this is important... respect the material sufficiently to give a performance that's worthy of the role they've been cast in."

So, JJ doesn't have to be an Uberfan but the actors must be!?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Holytomato said:
"My only concern, as I stated, was that a couple of the actors expressed sentiments which, to me, lead me to think that they may not ... and this is important... respect the material sufficiently to give a performance that's worthy of the role they've been cast in."

So, JJ doesn't have to be an Uberfan but the actors must be!?

Naturally it's you who chooses to "restate" what I said into something I DIDN'T say. What is it with you and your desire to "be kewl" by trying to make fun of stuff?

Show me the term "uberfan" or anything HINTING at that sort of thing.

Only IDIOTS believe that the entire universe consists of pure "black and white" distinctions. In this particular case, it would be idiocy to assume that you are either an "uberfan" or you have a total lack of respect for the source material. REALITY is never so simplistic.

What bothers me is not that these actors don't know every tiny bit of "classic Trek" lore. What bothers me is that they've made statements which seem to be saying "I don't think it's worth my attention AT ALL."

These are definitely "minor" roles, based upon everything we know and everything we've seen. But it would be nice had these actors said something like "well, I can't claim to be an expert but I'm aware of the original character" rather than "I've never seen an episode and know nothing about the characters." The first one is something you'd expect from anyone involved in modern popular entertainment, except for those who think it's "uncool" to know anything about that "geeky garbage."

I'm not 100% sure that's the attitude that they're showing... just that it's a possible implication of what they've said. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that count... and find out that they give excellent performances which are both "artistically sound" and consistent with what the majority of the audience know about the characters they'll be playing.

I just wouldn't be surprised if what we see, instead, is the ego-driven-actor syndrome... "Yes, I know Abraham Lincoln was a real person, but I'm not going to try to portray him according to some preconceptions... I'm going to MAKE THE CHARACTER MINE!!!"

IF... and that's definitely an "if" and not a "when"... IF we see that, then it will be a negative towards this flick, IMHO.

That's what I said before, that's what I'm clarifying now. I know, you WANT to pick things apart, and if you can't find something REAL to attack, you're going to misrepresent things into something else which you CAN attack... just to make yourself feel more "kewl" or whatever. But it doesn't. I really don't get your constant nasty tone... but I'm rapidly getting tired of it and (since I have not seen a single WORTHWHILE or CONTRIBUTING post from you in recent memory) am getting pretty close to just "ignoring" you. I HATE the idea of doing that... and would rather that you gave me something that would make me think "Tomato has something WORTHWHILE to say!"

Do you?

 

[Kinnison]

Cary L. Brown said:
What bothers me is not that these actors don't know every tiny bit of "classic Trek" lore. What bothers me is that they've made statements which seem to be saying "I don't think it's worth my attention AT ALL."

Well, that wasn't the impression that I got from an interview with the actor playing Checkov. It sounded like he really studied the character, his speech patterns, etc, and decided that he was in fact a goof-ball. There's nothing wrong with a goof-ball character. Some people are just goof-balls; you meet them in real life all the time.

I really don't get your constant nasty tone... but I'm rapidly getting tired of it and (since I have not seen a single WORTHWHILE or CONTRIBUTING post from you in recent memory) am getting pretty close to just "ignoring" you. I HATE the idea of doing that... and would rather that you gave me something that would make me think "Tomato has something WORTHWHILE to say!"

Do you?

I "ignored" Tomato within an hour of my return to the BBS. There are plenty of other posters here who are worth your time.

 

[Blake]

No surprise that the chap isn't an avid fan of Trek.But he is an avid fan of money.And if you could resurrect Trek then you would make a lot of money.He also said he prefered shatner's performance in the twilight zone ep than in any Trek adventure.

 

[Ryann866]

James Cawley of New Voyages fame posted over at Trekmovie.com asking " the gang" to calm down in regards to reactions to recent comments by JJ and others about the nature of the film.

Was anyone else a little put off by his telling everyone to cool down? Since when did Cawley self-appoint himself the master of Trek fandom? It's a little suspect how quickly he went from being the biggest critic of the new film to it's loudest cheerleader after he got a set visit and a part in the film.

There's a weird assumption here that the film needs Cawley's blessing, and that if he gives it, all of us fans need to follow his lead.

I don't take anything away from the New Voyages project or the dedication of it's team, but something about the way he presents his tone bugs me.

 

[Holytomato]

James must trash Star Trek XI because he makes New Voyages- The Purist Trek tm.

I do have worthwhile things to say, but if anyone wants to ignore what I write, that's fine. I'm not forcing anyone to read anything. :thumbsup:

By the way, I still stand behind everything I wrote in the previous post. :thumbsup:

 

[StarMan]

Ryann866 said:
Was anyone else a little put off by his telling everyone to cool down? Since when did Cawley self-appoint himself the master of Trek fandom?

He didn't. He has had a peek at the production, which is far more than you and I have. If he knows something we don't, I guess he's in a position to tell those whose opinions conflict with reality to settle down.

 

[Ryann866]

StarMan said:

Ryann866 said:
Was anyone else a little put off by his telling everyone to cool down? Since when did Cawley self-appoint himself the master of Trek fandom?

He didn't. He has had a peek at the production, which is far more than you and I have. If he knows something we don't, I guess he's in a position to tell those whose opinions conflict with reality to settle down.

That's implying that his opinion is more valid than anyone else's. Because he has an inside scoop is irrelevant.

He can present any opinion he wants... I'm just saying that I feel like his "reassuring" the masses is a bit patronizing.

 

[Devon]

Blake said:He also said he prefered shatner's performance in the twilight zone ep than in any Trek adventure.

Well.. actually this is the exact quote:

I used to love him more for the couple of Twilight Zones he did then even Star Trek.

 

[Devon]

Ryann866 said:

StarMan said:

Ryann866 said:
Was anyone else a little put off by his telling everyone to cool down? Since when did Cawley self-appoint himself the master of Trek fandom?

He didn't. He has had a peek at the production, which is far more than you and I have. If he knows something we don't, I guess he's in a position to tell those whose opinions conflict with reality to settle down.

That's implying that his opinion is more valid than anyone else's. Because he has an inside scoop is irrelevant.

He can present any opinion he wants... I'm just saying that I feel like his "reassuring" the masses is a bit patronizing.

To be honest, I can see where the both of you are coming from.

James HAS seen something that the rest of us could only dream of for the time being, and gets to be part of this beast. I think he has a little more something to fall back to voice an opinion. He's seen and has officially been apart of it. He has seen this stuff, I think he should be able to say what he thinks. I mean, why not? We can't voice an opinion about something we haven't seen. But that doesn't mean his opinion will be anymore right or wrong than the next person's.

However, I've seen a bit from James Cawley, someone even reposted his critical posts regarding Trek 11 and he came off as being the self-proclaimed "End All, Be All" to Star Trek. As though Gene was reincarnated in the form of James Cawley or something. I admire him for his intentions, I really honestly do, he's gotten more Trek Alumini than even Star Trek has in the past decade or so. However, how he presents himself *is* a little much though.

But I have nothing against him, or STNV. More power to him and everyone else there, I really mean that too.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Ryann866 said:

StarMan said:

Ryann866 said:
Was anyone else a little put off by his telling everyone to cool down? Since when did Cawley self-appoint himself the master of Trek fandom?

He didn't. He has had a peek at the production, which is far more than you and I have. If he knows something we don't, I guess he's in a position to tell those whose opinions conflict with reality to settle down.

That's implying that his opinion is more valid than anyone else's. Because he has an inside scoop is irrelevant.

He can present any opinion he wants... I'm just saying that I feel like his "reassuring" the masses is a bit patronizing.

Well, since his opinions are a little more well informed, yes. He opinion is worth a little more than the rest of ours. Seeing how he's been there and he has seen things and talked to people the rest of haven't, I do think he is in a great position to defend the movie and tell folks to cool it when our complaints are in direct conflict with what is really going on.

 

[xortex]

It was evident that Nick Meyer wasn't a star Trek fan just by the details . I think Star Trek needs science fiction writers/thinkers who specialize in Star Trek else why should it be any different than Nemisis or James Bond in space or Star Wars for that matter.

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
It was evident that Nick Meyer wasn't a star Trek fan just by the details . I think Star Trek needs science fiction writers/thinkers who specialize in Star Trek else why should it be any different than Nemisis or James Bond in space or Star Wars for that matter.

The problem is - Nick Meyer "got it" well GR was busy forgetting it - Star Trek, is space opera it needs to be fun... when it attempts to be deep it looks all sorts of silly.

And no the worst thing is to have a "specialist" involved - Star Trek would never be popular again since it would become even more myopic and requiring a degree to understand.

Nor is this topic news, since Abrams admitted as much at Comic-Con and within the hour there were people condemning him for liking "Star Wars" more then "Star Trek".

Hey there's a whole lot of things I like more then Star Trek (DUNE, often B5, Bollywood) it doesn't follow that I'd do a horrible job at making a Trek movie (if making movies was what I do) were I to get a chance. Abrams is a good storyteller who cares about his characters and their reality.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

The old series was serious and fun unless you think like most Star Trek writers that it was all silly corniness.

 

[blockaderunner]

Cary L. Brown said:

The job of the first guy is to "make sure it's Star Trek." The job of the second guy is to "make sure it's WORTH WATCHING (which isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing).

That's been the problem of just about every modern production of Trek. Especially in the movies.

I've said this before in other threads. TPTB have been content in making a "Star Trek movie" instead of a MOVIE! that just happens to be about Star Trek. MOVIES! are usually larger than life with larger than life charcaters. The setting usually comes a close second. Citizen Kane is a MOVIE! that happens to be about a newspaper mogul. The Godfather is a MOVIE! that happens to be about an Italian mob family. Star Wars is a MOVIE! that just happens to take place in a far away galaxy. Gone With The Wind is a MOVIE! that happens to be about the Civil War. TMP was probably the last Trek film that had that ambitious MOVIE! vibe. Making sure it's Star Trek is a sure way to drive away the mainstream audience who wants to see a MOVIE!. If you switch your statement around, make the movie worth watching by making it larger than life and ambitious, and then making sure it's Star Trek by hanging all the window dressings like phasers, warp nacelles, and the other flotsam and jetsam your average audience would forget about, and you have your MOVIE!. Let's hope Abrams does that.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I've said this before in other threads. TPTB have been content in making a "Star Trek movie" instead of a MOVIE! that just happens to be about Star Trek.

BINGO! Thank you, now I don't feel like I'm screaming in a canyon by myself...

Sharr

 

[scotthm]

blockaderunner said:
Making sure it's Star Trek is a sure way to drive away the mainstream audience who wants to see a MOVIE!.

Then perhaps Star Trek should stick to the small screen, and leave the MOVIE theaters for other fare.

Personally, I'm not too excited about seeing a new MOVIE, but I would like to see some new and good Star Trek.

---------------

 

[Cary L. Brown]

blockaderunner said:

Cary L. Brown said:

The job of the first guy is to "make sure it's Star Trek." The job of the second guy is to "make sure it's WORTH WATCHING (which isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing).

That's been the problem of just about every modern production of Trek. Especially in the movies.

I've said this before in other threads. TPTB have been content in making a "Star Trek movie" instead of a MOVIE! that just happens to be about Star Trek. MOVIES! are usually larger than life with larger than life charcaters. The setting usually comes a close second. Citizen Kane is a MOVIE! that happens to be about a newspaper mogul. The Godfather is a MOVIE! that happens to be about an Italian mob family. Star Wars is a MOVIE! that just happens to take place in a far away galaxy. Gone With The Wind is a MOVIE! that happens to be about the Civil War. TMP was probably the last Trek film that had that ambitious MOVIE! vibe. Making sure it's Star Trek is a sure way to drive away the mainstream audience who wants to see a MOVIE!. If you switch your statement around, make the movie worth watching by making it larger than life and ambitious, and then making sure it's Star Trek by hanging all the window dressings like phasers, warp nacelles, and the other flotsam and jetsam your average audience would forget about, and you have your MOVIE!. Let's hope Abrams does that.

The thing is, I think you're implying something to what I said that wasn't my intent (and is, in fact, the OPPOSITE in many ways).

I put one item first and the second item second for no particular reason... it matters not one bit which one is "first" and which one is "second." Because both are supposed to be EQUAL, and are really expected to be in CONFLICT a large portion of the time.

If the "story first" guy is the superior of the "trek continuity" guy, you may get a great story which will still tick off the audience by unnecessarily contradicting the things that the audience knows.

On the other hand, if the "Trek continuity" guy is superior, you get something that (as is often described by "worst case scenario" types on here) is effectively "continuity porn" without any appeal to the mass audience.

My version had THREE people... remember. The one who has the power to veto the argument of one or the other of these two equal sides of the argument (but who otherwise should stay the hell out of day-to-day ops) is the BUSINESS FIRST guy. The guy whose sole concern is "what's going to bring in the audiences and make the shareholders the most return on their investment!" That's the "Herb Solow" role I defined. He should know just enough about the content to know what people like and what people don't like... but shouldn't know, or CARE, about specifics of continuity or plotting.

In other words, you have two equal and opposing ARTISTIC PERSPECTIVES, but both need to be subordinate to the overall need to make the audiences LIKE it (which neither, by themself, necessarily is going to accomplish!)

 

[Sharr Khan]

blockaderunner said:
Making sure it's Star Trek is a sure way to drive away the mainstream audience who wants to see a MOVIE!.

scotthm said:
Then perhaps Star Trek should stick to the small screen, and leave the MOVIE theaters for other fare.

There is no good reason it should be so binary a choice.

And no simply putting it on the small screen still leaves you with the dwindling audience so that basically doesn't solve Trek's viewership problems or providing anyone with reason to produce said tv show. It would take more then just Star Trek fans to support an ongoing tv production.

Give me one good (unique) movie over a hit and miss series any day.

but both need to be subordinate to the overall need to make the audiences LIKE it

Oh if you archive the goal of making the general audience like it no matter how many Trekkies you annoy in the end won't matter in the grander scheme of things - pleasing a general audience should be the primary intent here. By doing so you will have established a new base from which to grow out of. Probably a better choice as things are now...

Sharr

 

[Akiraprise]

I was talking to another co-worker today about movies coming out this year, among them Batman and X-Files. When I mentioned Star Trek was getting a new movie too he said he wouldn't see it in theaters because Trek quit interesting him some time ago. When I said it was going to have Kirk and Spock in it he said "Oh? I'll see it for sure then." Even though I told him they were being recast with younger actors he didn't care. Kirk and Spock will get the mainstream audience this movie needs to succeed.