Being at first a wild smartass rebel, and then being studious and serious, during the same stint at the Academy is possible. I know many young people at university who knuckle down and hit the books after their first dismal year of failing grades.
How about this AICN report?
- Thread starter Fedaykin
- Start date
Being at first a wild smartass rebel, and then being studious and serious, during the same stint at the Academy is possible. I know many young people at university who knuckle down and hit the books after their first dismal year of failing grades.
Cary L. Brown said:
I'm sorry, the more I see, the more I'm concluding that the whole time-travel bit is a sleight-of-hand by the production team to distract the internet.
I was thinking that the other day. I read a talkback that Robert Orci did on one of the other boards and it went something like:
"Disgruntled poster - Why cant we just have a normal star trek script without time travel or any other crap?
Robert Orci - I couldnt agree more"
You know, I forget what has actually been confirmed sometimes - what with all the misdirection. Has Time Travel actually been confirmed by anyone?
I'm starting to call bullshit too.
Kirk was a "stack of books on legs" and "positively grim," but he was "no boy scout," too. So there's room to for interpretation there.
I can't see Kirk as the valedictorian type, but I can't see him as a "bad boy" or marginal student, either. Both characterizations are too one-dimensional and both are equally inaccurate even from just those bits and pieces we know about.
Kirk was probably an excellent student who frustrated some of his professors, superior officers, and maybe even fellow students with the unconventional ways he would apply his education and with his extracurricular activities (easily distracted by a pretty face).
Kirk had a strong personality and a strong ego. He threw himself into whatever he was doing with gusto. That could've made him a polarizing figure. There were probably officers at the Academy who championed him and overlooked some of his unconventionality because they saw great potential as a leader. There were probably just as many others who simply saw a loose cannon who didn't respect rules and regulations and was frittering away his great potential.
Was he someone who could eventually be trusted with a command? Or was he truly a self-serving loose cannon? The answer apparently comes out in the no-win scenario scene. And the rest is history, so to speak.
I can't see Kirk as the valedictorian type, but I can't see him as a "bad boy" or marginal student, either. Both characterizations are too one-dimensional and both are equally inaccurate even from just those bits and pieces we know about.
Kirk was probably an excellent student who frustrated some of his professors, superior officers, and maybe even fellow students with the unconventional ways he would apply his education and with his extracurricular activities (easily distracted by a pretty face).
Kirk had a strong personality and a strong ego. He threw himself into whatever he was doing with gusto. That could've made him a polarizing figure. There were probably officers at the Academy who championed him and overlooked some of his unconventionality because they saw great potential as a leader. There were probably just as many others who simply saw a loose cannon who didn't respect rules and regulations and was frittering away his great potential.
Was he someone who could eventually be trusted with a command? Or was he truly a self-serving loose cannon? The answer apparently comes out in the no-win scenario scene. And the rest is history, so to speak.
Why does trailer have Enterprise being built in space....
While review has Enterprise being built at Area 51?
Two simple questions, one big disparity.
While review has Enterprise being built at Area 51?
Two simple questions, one big disparity.
I think it'll be rationalized that way and presented onscreen accordingly. His character really is starting to sound more like Johnny Rico from "Starship Troopers," Maverick from "Top Gun," James Bond from "Casino Royale," Wolverine from "X-Men," etc. than the James T. Kirk the first season presents and talks about. His character will have a rather schizophrenic arc, starting out as cocky and rebellious, then quickly becoming studious and thoughtful and then becoming cocky and rebellious again. One thing I always liked about first season Kirk was that his intellect and discipline seemed to define him more than his physicality and his libido, which later became stronger attributes. It's a shame that so many of the heroes today seem cut out of the same cloth.
The "review" doesn't quite say that. It frames the "area 51" business as a rhetorical question:
The reason for doing so is pretty obvious, if you put yourself in the mindset of someone who's being deceptive about what they know.
Nothing that this guy said except for the "area 51" thing is news to anyone who's been following the leaks and rumors.
Nothing that this guy complains about indicates any real knowledge of the script - it's all general "oh yeah, this scene is in there and the writing in it sucks."
What you have is someone who's got hold of one or two second-hand tidbits - say, something about the Enterprise and "area 51" in the trailer - and isn't sure enough of the context of them to come out and make an easily falsifiable statement about what they are. So he tosses them out as an aside knowing that readers will draw obvious inferences but in such a way that he hopes people who do have inside knowledge won't immediately recognize that he's bullshitting.
Or he's trying to keep spoilers to a minimum or not being a professional writer, mistakes his opinion/vagueness for details, as many amateurs do.
I followed the script reviews for several films discussed at the site over the years and found them to pretty accurate when the final film came out. And, for instance, their rumors many months ago of Shia LaBouef's and Karen Allen's involvement with Indiana Jones IV were absolutely correct, and someone who'd claimed to have seen the script revealed the origin of the crystal skulls -- confirmed by George Lucas himself in the latest Vanity Fair.
On the occasions they were wrong, there were explanations, such as the credits sequence in "Casino Royale" being reshot from one focusing on Bond's rebooted dossier to the excellent animated sequence. And a spy who heard the theme song long before anyone else gave it a review that pretty much matched all the complaints I read online (though I rather like the song, certainly more than anything by Garbage or by Sheryl Crowe.)
That doesn't mean this "review" is accurate, but I don't think there's yet reason to discredit it. I do think that the direction with the Kirk character suggested by the "review" is utterly believable because it is the modern cliche.
I followed the script reviews for several films discussed at the site over the years and found them to pretty accurate when the final film came out. And, for instance, their rumors many months ago of Shia LaBouef's and Karen Allen's involvement with Indiana Jones IV were absolutely correct, and someone who'd claimed to have seen the script revealed the origin of the crystal skulls -- confirmed by George Lucas himself in the latest Vanity Fair.
On the occasions they were wrong, there were explanations, such as the credits sequence in "Casino Royale" being reshot from one focusing on Bond's rebooted dossier to the excellent animated sequence. And a spy who heard the theme song long before anyone else gave it a review that pretty much matched all the complaints I read online (though I rather like the song, certainly more than anything by Garbage or by Sheryl Crowe.)
That doesn't mean this "review" is accurate, but I don't think there's yet reason to discredit it. I do think that the direction with the Kirk character suggested by the "review" is utterly believable because it is the modern cliche.
Given Roberto Orci categorical said: "This guy hasn't read the script." I think there is.
Now he'd be foolish to get into point by point rebuttals of "leaks" since that's nothing but a catch-22 situation. Plus he has zero obligation to do so. Though as I said in the Trekmovie.com thread about this I get why he responded to something that was a direct personal attack.
Sharr
Well, to play the rationalization game popular on this site, we can dissect Orci's comments thus (assuming he isn't just lying, of course): By "read" he could mean line by line, as opposed to skimming where some of the details get blurred; by "the," he could mean the final shooting script, as opposed to an earlier version the reviewer saw which may be changed before the film is completed, and by "script," he could mean the work in its entirety and not just to pages that are currently available (with additions to be included once the strike is over). There's plenty of wiggle room in that comment.
There's nothing to discredit, other than the "area 51" thing. The rest is a very non-specific rant about what awful writers Orci and Kurzman are, digressing into trashing not only their past work but future work which the unnamed writer claims to have seem ("The Fringe").
Not one specific example of dialogue or plot detail other than what's already floating around and has been for weeks.
So no, let's not "discredit" it.
There's another reason for AICN running this kind of dog-in-the-manger attack on a project, and you can look back over the site's history and see it: quite often when something like this is posted over there, it brings people who are close to a given project out of the woodwork - they feel that what they're working on is being unfairly and inaccurately attacked, and they become anonymous sources in an effort to combat negative publicity. In this way, the site actually shakes loose some good info on the project - often a real script review or a rebuttal buttressed by being able to offer specific details in order to prove that the defender is really on the inside.
We'll see what we'll see. Twelve days until we find out something for real.
I finally went over to AICN's article and read all the "talkback" comments.
I'm 99% convinced that really was Bob Orci responding. And I LOVED his responses to all the whiny brats. All the sarcasm of Ellison yet none of the nastiness... it was GREAT.
And given that the article and the posts read as though it was the same guy's comments in both... yeah, it was him.
The guy just went UP in my eyes.
I'm 99% convinced that really was Bob Orci responding. And I LOVED his responses to all the whiny brats. All the sarcasm of Ellison yet none of the nastiness... it was GREAT.
And given that the article and the posts read as though it was the same guy's comments in both... yeah, it was him.
The guy just went UP in my eyes.
Cary L. Brown said:
I finally went over to AICN's article and read all the "talkback" comments.
I'm 99% convinced that really was Bob Orci responding. And I LOVED his responses to all the whiny brats. All the sarcasm of Ellison yet none of the nastiness... it was GREAT.
And given that the article and the posts read as though it was the same guy's comments in both... yeah, it was him.
The guy just went UP in my eyes.
It has been confirmed that it was really Orci -- Orci regularly participates in the comments over at Trekmovie.com, and he's confirmed that the AICN comments are his.
After reading Bob Orci's comments, I'm now more convinced that the report on AICN is true, save for the Area 51 bunk. Orci blusters and barks quite a bit, but that's all it really is. What an asshole. "The best example was one of their review for Transformers. I forgot which one of those wannabes wrote it". Typical response of a man who is very scared that he has been pwned: resort to personal attacks while inflating your own ego.
I hope to God I'm wrong. I really do. But, this doesn't look good.
And, I am sorry to say it, despite the box office success, Transformers was poorly written, with dialogue on a par with "Attack Of The Clones".
I hope to God I'm wrong. I really do. But, this doesn't look good.
And, I am sorry to say it, despite the box office success, Transformers was poorly written, with dialogue on a par with "Attack Of The Clones".
You're wrong.
Actually Transformers wasn't ever EXPECTED to be anything but a mindless "romp" of a film. I mean... except for those who are "True Disciples of Transformer-dom," who ever thought of the freaking TRANSFORMERS as anything an adult could enjoy at any level? Considering my prior EXTREMELY LOW opinion of the source material, I thought that this movie was surprisingly entertaining.
And as for this being a "typical reaction of someone who's afraid he's been"... whatever asinine "kewl" term you used (I refuse to even TYPE that bullshit kiddie-term)... that's just ludicrous. But, sadly, par for the course for people today.
He came on and basically humiliated the people who were attacking him. And I LOVED watching it. Not that the morons who were on their Orci-and-Kurtzman-flamefest-rants weren't already doing a fine job of making themselves look like sad pathetic little losers already...
The truth is that the internet is FILLED with rage-filled, impotent little twits who, if faced with someone in real life, would run away and go hide. That's part of why I often confront that sort of BS, and why I love it that Bob Orci did the same thing on there. I GET why he responded like he did... and I laughed right along with him at the pathos of his wanna-be attackers.
The sheer sense of ENTITLEMENT that some of these folks show is astonishing. And you, "Akira," think that unless he sits back and doesn't respond, he's been... again, I won't use that dumb-ass "kiddie-term" word... ???
This is the difference between kids who were raised in my day (and Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams' day... thankfully!). We were taught that if we fell down and skinned our knees, it was OUR FAULT. Today, kids are taught that if they hurt themselves climbing over the security fence into their neighbor's backyard, they can sue the neighbor.
These days, kids are taught that they can be as nasty, rotten, and self-obsessed as they want to be, and nobody is supposed to be able to call 'em on it. It's PATHETIC.
What, exactly, do you think that was said about these guys on that comment board that remotely qualifies as... what you described it as... and which you think the guy actually would have cause to be hurt or defensive about? I kept expecting one of those pathetic twits to call him a "doody-head."
Some of you have noticed that I tend to be very blunt... and when I think someone's out of line, I have NO reticence towards stepping up and telling them so. And some of you think that this means I'm "mad" or "defensive," too.
It doesn't. It means that I think that someone else is wrong, and that they need to have that pointed out. I don't do it out of "fear" or "anger" or "defensiveness." I do it because I think it's my RESPONSIBILITY to straighten the other guy out. It's my hope that, by confronting bad behavior or erroneous thought processes, I'm actually helping the other guy.
I consider it bad... no, I consider it REPREHENSIBLE... to see someone doing something really bad, or to see someone who's espousing a belief you think is fundamentally in error, and to simply do or say NOTHING. That sort of attitude isn't "being nice" or "being polite," it's essentialy saying "I don't care about anybody but myself."
Orci straighted those guys out and he did it without ever losing his cool at all. As such, he's gained a LOT of respect in my eyes.
How you could think that constitutes "feeling like he's been" ... I'll say "beaten" in lieu of the dumb-ass-kiddie term... is beyond my ability to comprehend. So... feel free to explain how you, personally, think he SHOULD have responded... and WHY.
Well, some folks think that putting in the dialogue is what writers do (or the main thing they do). This is probably why everyone on the Internet thinks at one time or another that they could write for the movies; after all, we all can talk.
Orci has been posting at Trekmovie.com for months. He is earnest, easygoing and seems as direct about all matters as he is able to be. What I've gleaned from reading his comments over time is extraordinarily encouraging about the kind of thinking going into this movie and the kind of people who are working on it.
Calling Orci an "asshole" is tone-deafness to character.
Orci has been posting at Trekmovie.com for months. He is earnest, easygoing and seems as direct about all matters as he is able to be. What I've gleaned from reading his comments over time is extraordinarily encouraging about the kind of thinking going into this movie and the kind of people who are working on it.
Calling Orci an "asshole" is tone-deafness to character.
I agree entirely. That sort of comment, especially from someone who has no basis on which to base ANY form of personal characterization of the guy, really reflects more appropriately on the person making the comment. IMHO, of course.
