I believe this image sums it up nicely.
The spirit of TOS? Fun and adventure with, maybe, some philosophical/allegorical undertone every once in a while if the writers thought to put it in.
Moore and Braga vs. Orci and Kurtzman -- Who Do You Prefer?
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
- Status
I believe this image sums it up nicely.
The spirit of TOS? Fun and adventure with, maybe, some philosophical/allegorical undertone every once in a while if the writers thought to put it in.
Since you spend so much time telling us ST09 is "not" Star Trek... you should be the one explaining what "is" Star Trek. Since, after all, we are merely the unwashed masses, etc. yadayadayada...
Yeah. The average Joe knows who William Shatner and 'Dr' Spock are. Many will also know 'the bald guy' and/or 'the robot guy'.
DS9, VOY, and ENT are basically just for us, the hardcore Trekkies. The mainstream barely know they exist.
LOL.
But I see. Everyone says this movie is true to the spirit of TOS, but nobody can say what that actually means. Which shows that it's just a hollow expression with no meaning to it, it just sounds good. I don't know what the "spirit of TOS" is (and I never ever said I would), so I don't know if the new movie captures it.
Or maybe they know, because they happened to watch one of those on TV and like it. What is a "hardcore Trekkie"? If it's someone who has seen every episode of any Star Trek and every movie, reads novels and comics, knows episode titles and remembers minor character names, can debate the social structure and abilities of various Trek alien races, are predisposed to watch any Trek only because it's Trek etc... There are plenty of people (and I know some of them) who watched some of the shows mentioned above and who are not "hardcore Trekkies".
number6
Vice Admiral
No. You draw erroneous conclusions. I do know the "spirit" of TOS.. The exploration of the human condition by showing a mirror to ourselves.. The bond of heart/mind/soul of Kirk/Spock/McCoy..The destiny of those meant to command and the strength gained from the loss of someone close.. These are themes expressed in TOS and ALL the TOS films, including the newest one.
You wouldn't know if the movie captures it because you're so bothered by trivial things like stardates and everyone speaking english that you've missed the point about what made the show special in the first place.. A lot of those things are what most of us see in this new film. It's not our fault you can't or refuse to see that, but continuously insulting and snarking at the people who liked this film is not going to get you any insightful discussion either. Maybe if you dialed back your attitude, people might actually want to talk to you.
Last edited:
You sure you are talking to the right person?
Please, show me where, when and how I am continuosly insulting people. I know two occasions. I called you an idiot because of your rather silly "why don't you make a better movie yourself right now" remark, and I called SalvorHardin an idiot after he did. In this thread I didn't do anything. We had a civil discussion here. You are actually the one who tries to get personal almost every time. That's not my fault, but in fact, I don't care.
Nobody forces you to read my posts, nobody forces you to reply to them, and nobody forces you to get personal. It's your choice only. Don't get angry because of your own choices.
Your reply is a good example. I simply asked what the spirit of TOS is. It's a legitimate question. So a simple answer from you would have sufficed. You were the one getting snarky there.
Last edited:
And while we are talking about the spirit of TOS...
Now that I think about it, and since Jeyl made a fitting post in another thread, here's a good example why I think the new movie is NOT true to the spirit of TOS:
And you can't argue that this is not a central point of the movie. There goes the "The bond of heart/mind/soul of Kirk/Spock/McCoy" you think you saw in this movie, as well as the morale, which is very questionable and certainly not "true to the spirit".
That is a very broad definition, that -in this form - applies to Star Wars, too.
In the movie I've seen, the famous triangle was non-existant. McCoy was reduced to some one-liners (some of them only repetitions from the original show). Spock was pretty much out of his mind.
Now that I think about it, and since Jeyl made a fitting post in another thread, here's a good example why I think the new movie is NOT true to the spirit of TOS:
And you can't argue that this is not a central point of the movie. There goes the "The bond of heart/mind/soul of Kirk/Spock/McCoy" you think you saw in this movie, as well as the morale, which is very questionable and certainly not "true to the spirit".
number6
Vice Admiral
You can move the goalposts of your argument all you wish, it neither changes nor negates my opinion of this film, which you've already declared you don't care about.
You asked for the what I thought the spirit of TOS is and I told you. I don't care what you think of my opinion.
Strange, I thought it was a discussion board, not an "I don't care what you think" board.
I said I don't care that you get personal, you aren't even reading my posts right.
Maybe you should reduce the speed at which you're reading. And if editing messages provokes you...
I did suggest an answer to your question before you gave this snotty reply. But you clearly didn't bother reading it. Or you did and ignored it because it didn't fit into your mystifying agenda.
Listen, you don't like the new movie. Fine. Most people here will take it in stride and, perhaps, it will provoke an interesting discussion critically looking at the movie. However, when you start nitpicking stupid shit like "stardates", that's when people start calling you on your shit.
*ahem!*
We're getting well away from the topic here, aren't we? Why don't we try to stick with "post, not poster"?
Maybe there should be a list of stupid shit that people aren't allowed to discuss because it upsets you.
1. Stardates
2. ?
3.
...
*ducks*
New to the board but not to Trek. Going on Star Trek movies alone it's a very close call for me: I liked First Contact maybe more than ST11 but actively disliked Generations.
My dislike of Generations was enough to push my vote to Orci and Kurtzman.
New to the board but not to Trek. Going on Star Trek movies alone it's a very close call for me: I liked First Contact maybe more than ST11 but actively disliked Generations.
My dislike of Generations was enough to push my vote to Orci and Kurtzman.
Don't put words in my mouth as I am not the one why seems to be getting upset here. Yes, little things like the new stardate system, or the ship design, or the uniforms, or the tech, or other little details can bring good conversations. They can be fun threads when debating the merits/missteps of the movie.
However, do those little nitpicky things destroy the entire movie? No, they really don't. They are very minuscule when compared to the actual construction and execution of the narrative and movie. That can bring about a good friendly debate when discussing the critical aspects of the movie (which this thread, I thought, was generally about).
However, judging by your tone and general attitude in this thread, that is not what you are interested in doing that. Instead, you bring up minor details, people question you on it, and you get argumentative. Instead of bringing support to your postings, you deflect the question being posed to you and come off as insulting towards the poster. Your response to my post above is a perfect example of that.
That would be correct if it were true. I didn't even bring the stardate thing up in this thread, I just joined the discussion. And it was all civil, until you and number666 decided to jump in. You linked me to a Fuck Yeah image, which was funny btw, and the other one doesn't bother (yet he replied and replied). It wouldn't even be a big thing, you decided to make it into one.
And where in this thread did I say "oooh, stardates are wrong, this movie sucks!" When did I ever say that?
MvRojo and myself were talking about the stardate thing. number666 then brought up his point, and also said the new movie was true to the spirit of TOS. Then I asked what the spirit of TOS is. And then you guys were the ones getting snarky and deflective, not me. Look in the mirror, guys.
And now, as this evolved, the discussion would actually be about how close this movie was to the spirit of TOS. I brought up my points why I think it's not. And we could then try to link it back to the Moore/Braga vs. Orci/Kurtzman topic. That's actually what we should be discussing here. What you do is discussing myself. Which is flattering, but don't you think the other subject is more fitting?
And where in this thread did I say "oooh, stardates are wrong, this movie sucks!" When did I ever say that?
That's especially funny, because you were the first to call what I'm saying "shit". Or is that polite in your world?
MvRojo and myself were talking about the stardate thing. number666 then brought up his point, and also said the new movie was true to the spirit of TOS. Then I asked what the spirit of TOS is. And then you guys were the ones getting snarky and deflective, not me. Look in the mirror, guys.
And now, as this evolved, the discussion would actually be about how close this movie was to the spirit of TOS. I brought up my points why I think it's not. And we could then try to link it back to the Moore/Braga vs. Orci/Kurtzman topic. That's actually what we should be discussing here. What you do is discussing myself. Which is flattering, but don't you think the other subject is more fitting?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
