Orci and Kurtzman

[fireproof78]

I never understood the complaints against Nero. I thought he was probably one of the more interesting Trek villains in that he isn't a super genius, or soldier, or trying to reach godhood. He just was an average joe who had a psychotic break with reality.

 

[Phantom]

Hipster?? Expand on this.

It's been my experience that Hipster-ism is at its core, a very cynical movement. Oftentimes the things it decides to uplift (bands, movie franchises, whatever) are picked not so much for any quality that those things possess but with the idea of using their support as a slap at "the herd". Since the objective is "slapping the herd", and not truly uplifting whatever it is that is being promoted, the result tends to be shallow.

In the case of Trek, I see two "herd-slaps": first is a slap at the "mainstream" audience, to the extent that Trek is perceived as "niche" and not widely popular. That makes it perfect Hipster bait, since they are all about championing the "niche". (Indeed, in the event that "niche" winds up gaining wider acceptance, it becomes less attractive to Hipsters.)

The second slap is at Trek fandom. The concept being that within the context of Trek fandom, the idea of "mainstream" is "niche". So Hipster Trek fans are drawn to the idea of "mainstreaming" Trek as a shot at Trek fandom.

By doing so, the Hipster Trek fans are simultaneously showing contempt for both the mainstream audience and Trek fandom.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipster&defid=7325009 (warning, has a couple of "f-bombs" in the sample sentences)

The end result (as I've said elsewhere) is a shallow, cynical Trek that apes the forms of Trek but possesses little of the substance of Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Hipster?? Expand on this.

It's been my experience that Hipster-ism is at its core, a very cynical movement. Oftentimes the things it decides to uplift (bands, movie franchises, whatever) are picked not so much for any quality that those things possess but with the idea of using their support as a slap at "the herd". Since the objective is "slapping the herd", and not truly uplifting whatever it is that is being promoted, the result tends to be shallow.

In the case of Trek, I see two "herd-slaps": first is a slap at the "mainstream" audience, to the extent that Trek is perceived as "niche" and not widely popular. That makes it perfect Hipster bait, since they are all about championing the "niche". (Indeed, in the event that "niche" winds up gaining wider acceptance, it becomes less attractive to Hipsters.)

The second slap is at Trek fandom. The concept being that within the context of Trek fandom, the idea of "mainstream" is "niche". So Hipster Trek fans are drawn to the idea of "mainstreaming" Trek as a shot at Trek fandom.

By doing so, the Hipster Trek fans are simultaneously showing contempt for both the mainstream audience and Trek fandom.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipster&defid=7325009 (warning, has a couple of "f-bombs" in the sample sentences)

The end result (as I've said elsewhere) is a shallow, cynical Trek that apes the forms of Trek but possesses little of the substance of Trek.

The substance is as much about what the audience makes of it as it is the production teams' work. I think Abrams Trek has as much substance to it as other incarnations of Trek.

 

[wulfio]

A giant unbeatable ship? Like the First Federation ship? Or the Doomsday Machine? Or V'Ger? Or a giant floating god hand?

If you think TMP is in any way comparable with the ST09 or STID, well we have no possible way of having an adult conversation with each other.

I also don't recall saying I liked those episodes. But feel free to quote me where I did.

Don't be so defensive. The wonderful thing about tv/film is it is subjective. If you think Orci and Kurtzman craft a compelling narrative, I'm happy for you. I for one think it's derivative, and filled with action/comedy tropes; not to mention with completely uninspired antagonists. We are all entitled to our own opinion. You do you, and I'll do me.

I never understood the complaints against Nero. I thought he was probably one of the more interesting Trek villains in that he isn't a super genius, or soldier, or trying to reach godhood. He just was an average joe who had a psychotic break with reality.

Same reason why Zod in MOS was a boring villain to me, or any of the Marvel villains. Mustache twirler with singular motivation(revenge), and completely one dimensional. Not at all relatable as a person. His entire dialogue is dedicated to spazzing out, and cheesy one liners.

 

[fireproof78]

A giant unbeatable ship? Like the First Federation ship? Or the Doomsday Machine? Or V'Ger? Or a giant floating god hand?

If you think TMP is in any way comparable with the ST09 or STID, well we have no possible way of having an adult conversation with each other.

I also don't recall saying I liked those episodes. But feel free to quote me where I did.

Don't be so defensive. The wonderful thing about tv/film is it is subjective. If you think Orci and Kurtzman craft a compelling narrative, I'm happy for you. I for one think it's derivative, and filled with action/comedy tropes; not to mention with completely uninspired antagonists. We are all entitled to our own opinion. You do you, and I'll do me.

I never understood the complaints against Nero. I thought he was probably one of the more interesting Trek villains in that he isn't a super genius, or soldier, or trying to reach godhood. He just was an average joe who had a psychotic break with reality.

Same reason why Zod in MOS was a boring villain to me, or any of the Marvel villains. Mustache twirler with singular motivation(revenge), and completely one dimensional. Not at all relatable as a person. His entire dialogue is dedicated to spazzing out, and cheesy one liners.

Definite agree to disagree on this point.

Nero, for me, is a person who lost his entire world, and rather than be ok with it, he actually breaks with reality. He is psychologically damaged, and has no capacity to deal with it.

I agree that Nero is not relatable perhaps in the sense that other villains are, but he is fascinating to me. There are very few villains who are clinically insane in a way that feels like what would happen to a person if they lost their entire world.

Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Franklin]

Hipster?? Expand on this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipster&defid=7325009 (warning, has a couple of "f-bombs" in the sample sentences).

Ah, the 1960s. Sounds like a lot of early TOS fans. Seriously. It really does. TOS was a niche show back then. It had low ratings (that dropped all three seasons, hence its cancellation), but over 40 percent of its audience was in the youngest demographic.

For what it's worth, is Kirk a hipster at the end of STID?

 

[BillJ]

Same reason why Zod in MOS was a boring villain to me, or any of the Marvel villains. Mustache twirler with singular motivation(revenge), and completely one dimensional. Not at all relatable as a person. His entire dialogue is dedicated to spazzing out, and cheesy one liners.

Mustache twirlers aren't always a bad thing. The most memorable villain from Modern Trek for me are the Xindi lizard guys.

 

[mos6507]

The end result (as I've said elsewhere) is a shallow, cynical Trek that apes the forms of Trek but possesses little of the substance of Trek.

Reboot culture is, at its core, cultural reappropriation. Take something from the previous generation, mix it up, and call it your own. Sometimes the result reinvigorates the source-material and sometimes it destroys what made it special in the first place (homogenization). The Star-Warsification of Trek falls into homogenization.

 

[BillJ]

The end result (as I've said elsewhere) is a shallow, cynical Trek that apes the forms of Trek but possesses little of the substance of Trek.

Reboot culture is, at its core, cultural reappropriation. Take something from the previous generation, mix it up, and call it your own.

Still says it was created by Gene Roddenberry.

 

[wulfio]

A giant unbeatable ship? Like the First Federation ship? Or the Doomsday Machine? Or V'Ger? Or a giant floating god hand?

If you think TMP is in any way comparable with the ST09 or STID, well we have no possible way of having an adult conversation with each other.

I also don't recall saying I liked those episodes. But feel free to quote me where I did.

Don't be so defensive. The wonderful thing about tv/film is it is subjective. If you think Orci and Kurtzman craft a compelling narrative, I'm happy for you. I for one think it's derivative, and filled with action/comedy tropes; not to mention with completely uninspired antagonists. We are all entitled to our own opinion. You do you, and I'll do me.

I never understood the complaints against Nero. I thought he was probably one of the more interesting Trek villains in that he isn't a super genius, or soldier, or trying to reach godhood. He just was an average joe who had a psychotic break with reality.

Same reason why Zod in MOS was a boring villain to me, or any of the Marvel villains. Mustache twirler with singular motivation(revenge), and completely one dimensional. Not at all relatable as a person. His entire dialogue is dedicated to spazzing out, and cheesy one liners.

Definite agree to disagree on this point.

Nero, for me, is a person who lost his entire world, and rather than be ok with it, he actually breaks with reality. He is psychologically damaged, and has no capacity to deal with it.

I agree that Nero is not relatable perhaps in the sense that other villains are, but he is fascinating to me. There are very few villains who are clinically insane in a way that feels like what would happen to a person if they lost their entire world.

Obviously, YMMV.

That's cool, we see it from two totally different perspectives. When I think of fascinating psychopaths I think of Patrick Bateman or Louis Bloom. Revenge is just the most overdone and boring motivation for me. It's the easy way out for a writer. And it was indicated to me by how dimensional Nero was. There was little effort in creating that character. What I really prefer is someone who is justified in their actions, is deliberate and methodical, and believes he is right. That is the most compelling and terrifying villain in my books.

 

[fireproof78]

If you think TMP is in any way comparable with the ST09 or STID, well we have no possible way of having an adult conversation with each other.

I also don't recall saying I liked those episodes. But feel free to quote me where I did.

Don't be so defensive. The wonderful thing about tv/film is it is subjective. If you think Orci and Kurtzman craft a compelling narrative, I'm happy for you. I for one think it's derivative, and filled with action/comedy tropes; not to mention with completely uninspired antagonists. We are all entitled to our own opinion. You do you, and I'll do me.




Same reason why Zod in MOS was a boring villain to me, or any of the Marvel villains. Mustache twirler with singular motivation(revenge), and completely one dimensional. Not at all relatable as a person. His entire dialogue is dedicated to spazzing out, and cheesy one liners.

Definite agree to disagree on this point.

Nero, for me, is a person who lost his entire world, and rather than be ok with it, he actually breaks with reality. He is psychologically damaged, and has no capacity to deal with it.

I agree that Nero is not relatable perhaps in the sense that other villains are, but he is fascinating to me. There are very few villains who are clinically insane in a way that feels like what would happen to a person if they lost their entire world.

Obviously, YMMV.

That's cool, we see it from two totally different perspectives. When I think of fascinating psychopaths I think of Patrick Bateman or Louis Bloom. Revenge is just the most overdone and boring motivation for me. It's the easy way out for a writer. And it was indicated to me by how dimensional Nero was. There was little effort in creating that character. What I really prefer is someone who is justified in their actions, is deliberate and methodical, and believes he is right. That is the most compelling and terrifying villain in my books.

I agree. The villain who is more interesting is the one who has a point that can be understood by the protagonist.

Nero is unique in that he is psychotic, his rationale is not logical as he believes that Spock caused the destruction of Romulus.

In a way, I think Nero does believe that he is right, that he is justified in his actions for what he does. However, he isn't a military genius or a tactician. He is an everyman, ruined by circumstance and compelled to take action to avenge the wrong, no matter the cost.

It is a bit tropey but i could do an entire psychological paper on Nero, so it works for me.

 

[Phantom]

Hipster?? Expand on this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipster&defid=7325009 (warning, has a couple of "f-bombs" in the sample sentences).

Ah, the 1960s. Sounds like a lot of early TOS fans. Seriously. It really does. TOS was a niche show back then. It had low ratings (that dropped all three seasons, hence its cancellation), but over 40 percent of its audience was in the youngest demographic.

On the contrary, TOS in the 60s was widely respected, from schoolchildren to (literal) rocket scientists to even Martin Luthor King. And it got MUCH better ratings than NBC later tried to pass it off as, finishing either first or strong 2nd for it's slot in many episodes.

For what it's worth, is Kirk a hipster at the end of STID?

I never said Kirk himself was a Hipster. O&K certainly come off as Hipsters. Kirk is portrayed as more of a frat-boy with brains. But I will say the character settled down quite a bit in the last third of ID (after getting off to a "more of the same" start). It's one reason I like ID better than 09.

The end result (as I've said elsewhere) is a shallow, cynical Trek that apes the forms of Trek but possesses little of the substance of Trek.

Reboot culture is, at its core, cultural reappropriation. Take something from the previous generation, mix it up, and call it your own. Sometimes the result reinvigorates the source-material and sometimes it destroys what made it special in the first place (homogenization). The Star-Warsification of Trek falls into homogenization.

Thank you! Agree 100%

The end result (as I've said elsewhere) is a shallow, cynical Trek that apes the forms of Trek but possesses little of the substance of Trek.

Reboot culture is, at its core, cultural reappropriation. Take something from the previous generation, mix it up, and call it your own.

Still says it was created by Gene Roddenberry.

No, it says "Based on Star Trek created by..." which doesn't mean that it is necessarily in any way the same as or even similar to the original.

 

[BillJ]

No, it says "Based on Star Trek created by..." which doesn't mean that it is necessarily in any way the same as or even similar to the original.

Just like the three TNG spinoffs? I had no idea Rick Berman was a hipster...

 

[Phantom]

No, it says "Based on Star Trek created by..." which doesn't mean that it is necessarily in any way the same as or even similar to the original.

Just like the three TNG spinoffs? I had no idea Rick Berman was a hipster...

I never said he was. I said that the creatives behind JJ Trek were/are. Please stop misrepresenting what I said.

 

[BillJ]

No, it says "Based on Star Trek created by..." which doesn't mean that it is necessarily in any way the same as or even similar to the original.

Just like the three TNG spinoffs? I had no idea Rick Berman was a hipster...

I never said he was. I said that the creatives behind JJ Trek were/are. Please stop misrepresenting what I said.

Jesus, dude. Lighten up.

 

[fireproof78]

Reboot culture is, at its core, cultural reappropriation. Take something from the previous generation, mix it up, and call it your own.

Thank you! Agree 100%

I do believe that Roddenberry anticipated such an event, and that each generation would have its own version of "Star Trek." I wish I could find that quote because it really provides such an interesting insight in to GR and his view on Trek in culture.

Honestly, rebooting is part of human story making. Abrams just did it with Star Trek, and it worked for some, didn't work for others. It doesn't make it wrong. Abrams Trek feels as much like TOS to me as TOS did when I first discovered it.

 

[Phantom]

^^I can and do, when appropriate. I thought we were trying to have a serious discussion about O&K.

My mistake.

I do believe that Roddenberry anticipated such an event, and that each generation would have its own version of "Star Trek." I wish I could find that quote because it really provides such an interesting insight in to GR and his view on Trek in culture..

I know the one you're talking about.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If anybody involved in creating Star Trek over the last 50 years was a "Hipster" it was Roddenberry. Well, an aging Hipster

On the contrary, TOS in the 60s was widely respected, from schoolchildren to (literal) rocket scientists to even Martin Luthor King. And it got MUCH better ratings than NBC later tried to pass it off as, finishing either first or strong 2nd for it's slot in many episodes.

You need to lay off the Cushman.

And it's Martin Luther King. Luthor is the guy that hates Superman. Was King a Trek fan? Evidence? ( Be cool if it was true, though)

 

[Franklin]

If anybody involved in creating Star Trek over the last 50 years was a "Hipster" it was Roddenberry. Well, an aging Hipster

On the contrary, TOS in the 60s was widely respected, from schoolchildren to (literal) rocket scientists to even Martin Luthor King. And it got MUCH better ratings than NBC later tried to pass it off as, finishing either first or strong 2nd for it's slot in many episodes.

You need to lay of the Cushman.

And it's Martin Luther King. Luthor is the guy that hates Superman. Was King a Trek fan? Evidence? ( Be cool if it was true, though)

Truth is, in 1966, TOS did OK compared to the other new shows introduced that season. Still it was somewhere in the middle in the Nielsens, and ratings fell during the first season and as the series ran. Critics of the show were rather split, while many were indifferent to the new show.

After its first season, its ratings were considered "marginal" for whether or not to bring it back. It was third in its timeslot as often as second, and more than first. The premiere episode of season two was in the bottom twenty of the Nielsens.

Not all the affiliates ran TOS in the third season, which cut into its ratings even more and helped lead to its cancellation.

Demographically, the show skewed young as a percentage of its total viewership, which NBC liked, but the actual numbers in that 18 to 39 range were still fewer than those in that group who watched "Bewitched" because "Bewitched" had much higher ratings.

Here's my source for the information I gave above. It's an interesting read.

http://www.tvobscurities.com/articles/star_trek_look/

 

[Trekkin]

I'm going to take a swing and say the 'proof' of King being a fan will be Nichols latest account of why she didn't leave the show at the end of S1.

You know - the story that keeps changing over the years, and originated Nichols recounting how she wondered 'What would Doctor King say?'.

If King really was a fan, then he wouldn't have watched too much of the show. He died only a week or so after Season 2 finished its initial run. He certainly wasn't around when it finally got 'big' in the 70's.