Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Out Of My Vulcan Mind, Dec 7, 2013.
It'll be less spoly?
Are we allowed to make fun of typos here? w00t! My specialty.
Oh please no. If your favorite episodes of TOS and STNG are any indication, I don't want you anywhere near a script.
I do however, agree with your bitching appraisal.
No, except if the typo's in CAPITAL LETTRES
I'm having flashbacks to the QUINTO'S SPOCK SHOULD BE CONSTANTLY SHOUTING thread (and who knew back then that he'd actually have one of the most cringe worthy shouts in the whole Trekverse?)
Maybe he's talking about La Momie. Sounds French anyways.
The rules of Star Trek have been changing constantly throughout all the series and movies. We fans just pretend they all represent a consistent and coherent universe. They don't, and never did.
If anyone out there actually believes Trek had a consistent world prior to the Abrams movies needs a reality check. Voyager's 75-year galaxy-crossing journey is a complete joke when TOS, TAS and STV hopped from Earth to the edge of the galaxy and back to earth and then to the centre a couple of times.
And the there's TMP, which completely reimagined the look of Star Trek under the flimsy guise of an Enterprise refit. Sure, that explains it ...
Sure, you're allowed to make fun of typos here. But we don't tolerate using zeroes to spell words.
Klingon foreheads also got a refit.
And the spandex never fit!
I suppose in this day in and age who you tag with writing credit is more a formality than anything. The Director, the marketers, the execs, and the actors are going to end up changing it so much it'll barely resemble whatever the original draft was. Maybe that's why Orci's passed it off to two of his pals -- make them make the first draft to bounce off of.
And you know this, how? You're only proving Ovation's point.
Star Trek has never stuck to such a commitment.
Star Trek is full of continuity issues of its own.
Check out the videos in King Daniel Into Darkness's signature (someone posting in this very thread!):
No Star Trek series is immune. You might have fun seeing which ones you agree with, which ones you can explain away, which ones are excusable, etc. I do!
By the way, is it really necessary to take a swipe at Hollywood spouses???
Um... okay. But suppose I don't want to make something new; I want to make Star Trek. Your argument makes no sense.
You want to see 'something new'? Then watch SOMETHING NEW. The rub is, most people don't watch something new, and when they do, they complain that the new things aren't as good (or great) as the old things. So they mostly pine for (and watch) the old things, since according to them, movies and TV suck, and 'the actors aren't as good as they used to be.' Or the original new material isn't as great as material of the past.
So, the cycle of repeats goes on and on. The only problem with believing that is; Broadway has no problems with revivals of older works! Why the fuck should Hollywood have that problem?
He doesn't know anything. Shazam! shoots this sort of empty post like a spitball, hoping someone will react.
And you reacted.
It all comes down to thinking about why one began watching Star Trek in the first place, and what's most important. Is it the story and characters, or is the story simply an escapist vehicle for propping up and maintaining the psychological illusion that a fictional "universe" is somehow and in some way "real." I suspect for many Star Trek fans, the answer is the latter.
I agree Star Trek has a good share of continuity issues that require we Trekkies (I'm not a Trekker - ugh) to fill in the holes with all kinds of rationalizations and cognitive dissonance. But to its credit, Prime Trek did its best to keep that continuity - perhaps more than any other franchise. Ironically, that was the very thing the Trek Rebooters complained about in their justification for the alternate reality - an admission of creative bankruptcy.
But my commentary was generally about lamenting "reboots," with a cynical swipe at Orwellian attempts to doublespeak "remake." Abrams Trek is just one example. Batman, Spiderman, blah, blah, blah - they all have the disease. Remakes used to be decades apart - not any more. The only series midway in I wish they would "reboot," they haven't - Alien 3, a complete and artistically brutal waste of good character development in the form of Snuff Writing out Newt, Hicks, and Bishop - an example of writers getting their jollies by pissing on franchises like dogs to make their mark. Same with Kirk and, particularly regrettable - Picard's family for a throwaway line by Soren thereby making TNG's episode "Family" a tragedy instead of an uplifting story when we see it again. As if death and saving the world/universe is the only thing they can write anymore that has any dramatic strength, but, oddly, little depth.
And yes, Hollywood spouses are easy targets. But I used it as an abstract reference these days of needing to "reboot" every few years or hook up with someone new every night, week or month because of whatever it is - lack of attention span, lack or fear of commitment, the MTV quick-cut edit and shaky cam style of cinematography, or the inability to be happy with what you have for a long time? Whatever. We're like runaway consumers always waiting for the next new thing and never happy with what we've been given - yet spoiling ourselves with two minute trailers and continuous set reports so nothing can possibly be new and our thirst can never be quenched. Ever. Like drug addicts. I just lump it all together into the problems of society today. I don't doubt they're all connected, if only loosely. So we get reboots galore and more news about Hollywood spouses daily.
Huh, and I was totally cool with killing off Newt and Hicks because I didn't think they were worth following (especially Newt). Lance Henriksen is at least around for a few moments.
Separate names with a comma.