"I like the new movie better..."

[darkwing_duck1]

You really should stop quoting from that Onion-video.

What are you talking about?

That piece of satire would go right over your head anyway.

Translation: you got caught trying to say I was doing something I didn't do...

Film sets are usually not built so that you can admire them in detail (people run in front of them all the time - such waste of money).
BTW, your movie would have a problem if the most interesting thing about it would be the set design... oh, right, you are a TMP-fan?

I'm a Trek fan. I even like JJ Trek. But I like it DESPITE it's flaws rather than taking the "cheerleader" position that it's flaws are it's virutes.

And the space FX shots when they went into "spin mode" were simply nauseating. The viewers can't orient themselves to the scene or it's contents. It's unneccessary, and only done for visual "shock value".

Not 'the viewers'. Just you.

I'm far from the only person to complain about it.

There is no such thing as 'change for change's sake'.

They could have made a film that visually was indistinguishable from a Roddenberry-verse Trek film. They CHOSE to make a very different looking film, both design wise and cinematographically. There was nothing that said they HAD to make those changes.

It's just something people blurt out when they don't like something that has changed.

And this is the standard defense from the change advocates who cannot give a good reason FOR the change.

Basically, it's an empty, bullshit phrase.

Your expertise in the field putting you in the perfect position to recognize that, I'm sure.

 

[ST-One]

What are you talking about?

That piece of satire would go right over your head anyway.

Translation: you got caught trying to say I was doing something I didn't do...

Check your dictionary.

And this is the standard defense from the change advocates who cannot give a good reason FOR the change.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^Concession accepted. Now, back to the OT... :thumbsup:

 

[Pauln6]

I'm a Trek fan. I even like JJ Trek. But I like it DESPITE it's flaws rather than taking the "cheerleader" position that it's flaws are it's virutes.

Ditto.

 

[JarodRussell]

Star Wars is a great action adventure but it is written for children. The politics and relationships are very basic. I think some people talk about the new movie dumbing down because they worry about obvious plot holes and the unrealistic way that the Federation acts and reacts. To me this is really evidence that they downgraded the age group that they were pitching at.

Earlier Trek had its own share of silliness but I think it was written for adults and children just enjoyed the elements that they could understand. My own view is that they should work hard to retain that dynamic - it's what has given the Simpsons such longevity. Pitch for adults with elements that the children will enjoy and it should stand up to closer scrutiny.

Having said that, most horror films are not aimed at children and they have idiotic plots so what the hell am I talking about?

Dennis is like Yoda (only taller). He will test your resolve but you must not give in to the Dark Side. And when you look back on his responses, you will see wisdom in his words - or possibly in the words of those who rise up to take the bait. It keeps things lively.

LOL. Star Trek was not written for adults, dude. Star Trek was like a Disney cartoon. Made for kids and teens, but adults could still interpret stuff into it that kids wouldn't. The politics in Trek are just as basic as in Wars. [Caveman Voice]Federation gooood. Klingons baaad.[/Caveman Voice]. They did downgrade the age group with the new movie though: from the Trekkie who grew up with TOS in the 1960s, or the Trekkie who grew up with TNG in the 80s, to new kids who will grow up with the new Trek in the 2010s.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Wars...The politics and relationships are very basic.

This is a precise description of most of Star Trek as well, especially the politics. So nu?

I've been a fan of Star Trek "despite its flaws and shortcomings" for many decades (I guess it was 1967 or '68 before anything about it troubled me). The assertions that the later versions are substantially flawed in some remarkable ways that the early versions are not is ridiculous and annoying. Every version, every week is strong where some others are weak, fails where some earlier story or production succeeded. "That was perfect and this is not" is foolishness based on nostalgic recall.

 

[Pauln6]

Star Wars...The politics and relationships are very basic.

This is a precise description of most of Star Trek as well, especially the politics. So nu?

I've been a fan of Star Trek "despite its flaws and shortcomings" for many decades (I guess it was 1967 or '68 before anything about it troubled me). The assertions that the later versions are substantially flawed in some remarkable ways that the early versions are not is ridiculous and annoying. Every version, every week is strong where some others are weak, fails where some earlier story or production succeeded. "That was perfect and this is not" is foolishness based on nostalgic recall.

There is an large element of nostalgia - most Trek is pretty inane. If you look at what Trek was trying to achieve in the sixties (especially in the first dozen or so episodes) it was way more revolutionary than what came later - particularly as far as women are concerned - NuTrek is epic fail on the feminism score. Nobody will convince me that the Cage was written with children in mind!

Trek has to move forward though - including nuTrek - if sixties mentality had remained all along Trek would have long since folded. Season 1 of TNG is a good example of a sixties/eighties hybrid - it's stories were pretty silly a lot of the time and only as it crept into the nineties and found its own message did it become great.

Sadly for NuTrek, if dumb and explosive sells, it could become even dumber. At least the current writers are trying to maintain a balance. Who knows what will happen when they drop out (look how the Batman franchise fluctuated) but nobody should expect a return to Trek's fictional 'glory' days.

 

[ST-One]

^Concession accepted. Now, back to the OT... :thumbsup:

This childish crap doesn't work in TNZ and it doesn't work here.

 

[zar]

And the space FX shots when they went into "spin mode" were simply nauseating. The viewers can't orient themselves to the scene or it's contents. It's unneccessary, and only done for visual "shock value".

Not 'the viewers'. Just you.

Mental image of a theater full of people's heads twisting about unnaturally while darkwing_duck1 sits alone looking confused...

 

[sonak]

Star Wars is a great action adventure but it is written for children. The politics and relationships are very basic. I think some people talk about the new movie dumbing down because they worry about obvious plot holes and the unrealistic way that the Federation acts and reacts. To me this is really evidence that they downgraded the age group that they were pitching at.

Earlier Trek had its own share of silliness but I think it was written for adults and children just enjoyed the elements that they could understand. My own view is that they should work hard to retain that dynamic - it's what has given the Simpsons such longevity. Pitch for adults with elements that the children will enjoy and it should stand up to closer scrutiny.

Having said that, most horror films are not aimed at children and they have idiotic plots so what the hell am I talking about?

Dennis is like Yoda (only taller). He will test your resolve but you must not give in to the Dark Side. And when you look back on his responses, you will see wisdom in his words - or possibly in the words of those who rise up to take the bait. It keeps things lively.

The whole "Star Wars is for children" thing was only brought up AFTER TPM, chiefly by Lucas himself, and then later by apologists for the prequels. First, it is insulting because it suggests that movies meant for children should be expected to be of lower quality. Second, it was an argument meant to disappointed SW fans feel dumb for taking "kids movies" so seriously. But it was all post-prequels revisionism.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

LOL. Star Trek was not written for adults, dude. Star Trek was like a Disney cartoon. Made for kids and teens, but adults could still interpret stuff into it that kids wouldn't. The politics in Trek are just as basic as in Wars. [Caveman Voice]Federation gooood. Klingons baaad.[/Caveman Voice].

hardly...

Evidently you missed episodes like Errand of Mercy and Arena, which presented more thoughtful and challenging moral fare in the classic sereieses. And if you find In the Pale Moonlight to be "Disney cartoon" morality, you must be one twisted individual.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^Concession accepted. Now, back to the OT... :thumbsup:

This childish crap doesn't work in TNZ and it doesn't work here.

Then stop engaging in it.

And the space FX shots when they went into "spin mode" were simply nauseating. The viewers can't orient themselves to the scene or it's contents. It's unneccessary, and only done for visual "shock value".

Not 'the viewers'. Just you.

Mental image of a theater full of people's heads twisting about unnaturally while darkwing_duck1 sits alone looking confused...

ST-One and I are "unfriends" of long standing. Trying to bait me is reflexive with him.

And that is the last I'm going to say on the topic.

 

[JarodRussell]

LOL. Star Trek was not written for adults, dude. Star Trek was like a Disney cartoon. Made for kids and teens, but adults could still interpret stuff into it that kids wouldn't. The politics in Trek are just as basic as in Wars. [Caveman Voice]Federation gooood. Klingons baaad.[/Caveman Voice].

hardly...

Evidently you missed episodes like Errand of Mercy and Arena, which presented more thoughtful and challenging moral fare in the classic sereieses. And if you find In the Pale Moonlight to be "Disney cartoon" morality, you must be one twisted individual.

In the Pale Moonlight is DS9, 30 years after TOS, thus not part of my argument.
Errand of Mercy and Arena are two episodes out of 79. Criticizing one two-hour movie by comparing it against 79 episodes (or, like you do, against over 600 episodes) is unfair.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^There were plenty of other examples, I just used two obvious ones.

 

[zar]

The Wars prequel trilogy evidently (Jar Jar etc.) tried to appeal to more than one age group at the same time, which is one of the things that made it worse. But I think the notion that Star Wars and/or Star Trek is for kids is too ridiculous to even deserve a counter-argument. It obviously wasn't and isn't.

 

[number6]

Actually Lucas wanted Star Wars to be like the sci-fi adventure serials he saw in the theatres as a kid growing up and the films are all an homage to that. This concept isn't new or a retcon. He stated this often when the first Star Wars came out.

 

[zar]

I hope you don't mean to argue that that was his assertion that SW was meant for kids. I'd say there's a world of difference between an homage to something he saw when he was a kid, and an actual kids show.

 

[Kelso]

Evidently you missed episodes like Errand of Mercy and Arena, which presented more thoughtful and challenging moral fare in the classic sereieses.

You wanted examples of thoughtful and challenging moral fare.... and picked "Errand of Mercy" and "Arena."

Yes, darkwing_duck1, killing is wrong.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

LUCAS: ...The ‘Flash Gordon’ strip was in our local newspaper and I followed
it. In the comic book area I liked adventures in outer space, particularly
‘Tommy Tomorrow’ but movie serials were the real stand-out event. I
especially loved the ‘Flash Gordon’ serials. Thinking back on what I really
enjoyed as a kid, it was those serials, that bizarre way of looking at things. Of
course I realise now how crude and badly done they were.


AA: Do you think the enjoyment you got from those serials led you eventually
to make the Star Wars pictures?

LUCAS: Well, loving them that much when they were so awful, I began to wonder
what would happen if they were done really well. Surely, kids would love them
even more.

AA: How old were you when ‘Flash Gordon’ and the other serials fascinated
you?

LUCAS: Nine.

Here

 

[number6]

I hope you don't mean to argue that that was his assertion that SW was meant for kids. I'd say there's a world of difference between an homage to something he saw when he was a kid, and an actual kids show.

LUCAS: ...The ‘Flash Gordon’ strip was in our local newspaper and I followed
it. In the comic book area I liked adventures in outer space, particularly
‘Tommy Tomorrow’ but movie serials were the real stand-out event. I
especially loved the ‘Flash Gordon’ serials. Thinking back on what I really
enjoyed as a kid, it was those serials, that bizarre way of looking at things. Of
course I realise now how crude and badly done they were.


AA: Do you think the enjoyment you got from those serials led you eventually
to make the Star Wars pictures?

LUCAS: Well, loving them that much when they were so awful, I began to wonder
what would happen if they were done really well. Surely, kids would love them
even more.

AA: How old were you when ‘Flash Gordon’ and the other serials fascinated
you?

LUCAS: Nine.

Here

^Your proof.

Lucas designed Star Wars for the nine year old in all of us.

It's wasn't some ploy to "apologize" for the Prequels..