And yet, if JJ Abrams' movie featured a swarthy villain as a terrorist bringing down skyscrapers you can bet your life there'd be outcry.
Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.
- Thread starter Cara007
- Start date
And yet, if JJ Abrams' movie featured a swarthy villain as a terrorist bringing down skyscrapers you can bet your life there'd be outcry.
No, but at one point he has to infiltrate a terrorist cell, and it's not made up of British people.
Really, I think if they were so worried about someone with dark skin crashing a plane into buildings, then they shouldn't have done that. As if there wasn't enough that was callous about those scenes already, it really didn't do anything for the story, but was only there for spectacle.
Enough for you to know that this is a nonsensical thing to say. In fact we covered that in this very thread.
I have to agree that the starship crashing like that didn't really add much to the story except to give nuKhan a way to escape into the city. A few blocks away, it was business as usual - from the way everyone carried on like normal, you'd think a starship hadn't just crashed and caused a great deal of destruction to property and harmed a lot of people.
I wasn't in New York on September 11, but from what I saw on the news and read later, it definitely wasn't "business as usual" just a few blocks away from the towers, was it?
Yeah we have, that's why I said it: he wasn't a Sikh at all, and the brownface was a mistake. The next time we see him, he doesn't have it, and no mention is made of his heritage.
Can't we just say that using Khan like they did in STID was a mistake? Of all the issues on using Khan into STID, his ethnicity was not one of them. What about Khan's purpose that was specifically stated to murder anyone he deems less than superior? When was the original Khan ever told to be like that? Or killing every last one of the crew without hesitation when he not only didn't kill anyone in Space Seed, he did something WORSE than hesitate when he set out to kill Kirk?
Everyone who wrote STID thought Khan to be "The Joker" i.e. The ultimate bad guy, and stuck with it to a T. No mention of his non-aggressive rule, his ambitions to build his own empire or any sign of his charismatic side. The very nature of Space Seed's ending was Kirk and Spock wondering what kind of a world Khan and his followers would build since now they're free to do whatever they want without "lesser" humans to overthrow them?
Still, two out of three ain't bad. I just wish it wasn't the one who told fans to "**** off".
Well someone had to...
Did you... read the discussion earlier in this thread? Are you sure you mightn't benefit from giving it another quick look-see?
Amen. I have no problems with Orci telling the ones who take this stuff way too seriously to fuck off.
I've read the thread where it happened, he was actually way overreacting to a mild and constructive article; it was a low and unprofessional moment for him. But it can be put down to a moment of pique. People holding on to it and forever remembering Orci as "the man who told the fans to f*** off" really shouldn't be.
AFAICS it was entirely absent vitriol and actually put forward ideas for solving the problem it was identifying instead of just bitching. That's what I look for from "constructive." That someone disagrees with its premise doesn't change that.
Except Star Trek is NOT "broken". Nor does it represent a disappointment at the box office. Nor were the "fan service" moments (yes, including the alleged--note alleged--"rip off" of TWOK scene--it actually wasn't anything of the kind) really "poorly done". Nor were the characters "live action cartoons". Nor…well, I could go on but really, why? (and that "poll" that shows "unanimous" contempt for STiD--not a good place to begin if one is seeking to make a compelling argument)
I get the author didn't like the movie. I get that he sees flaws all over the place where I (and the vast majority of viewers--that is a factual statement, not an opinion, based on any available measure of overall viewer satisfaction with the film--overall viewer satisfaction, not "hardcore Trek purist" satisfaction) don't. That's all fine.
But a "constructive" critique of something has to first identify legitimate concerns--and none of the article's arguments are all that compelling. I'll grant that I'd like a TV series, but even that desire undercuts, rather than upholds, the criticisms of the films. TV and film are two different beasts and the kinds of stories you can tell in one medium are not the same as you can tell in the other.
Also, his "fuck you" does not appear to be directed at the article itself, but in response to other comments in reply to his response to the article. Having perused some of those comments, I can fully sympathize with his response (and actually commend him for his restraint). As to his dismissal of the article itself, it is, materially no more condescending than the article's presumption to offer an allegedly better set of options--it's just shorter and sharper. Let Mr. Dickerson take a crack at it himself and let's see if he can do better. Perhaps he can. I have no idea. I do know that I would not presume I can do better than a professional at anything without first trying my hand at it (other than my own profession--and even then I don't pretend to be the world's best at that).
Mr. Dickerson is entitled to the views he espoused. He's not entitled to have them met with respect (it is nice, but it is not required). Also, I suspect Mr. Dickerson has not had to live with the constant barrage of vitriol that Mr. Orci endures. He might find his fuse a bit shorter if that were the case.
I don't think the movie is perfect (no movie is perfect, especially if one watches it multiple times) and there are certainly choices I would have made differently if I'd been the screenwriter. But Mr. Orci is correct--I'm not a screenwriter. I'm entitled to my views but I should not expect them to carry the same weight as those of one who makes his living in that line of work. I think that is probably the biggest source of his frustration. That and having to put up with endless invective make his outburst quite understandable.
Not really. The critique was constructive, but it was just building off of a flawed premise.
This implies that people can't have an opinion on things unless they're qualified, which is nonsense.
I'd put it this way: ST09 got many many reviews like this. Seemingly glowing, but clearly making a very deliberate effort to look around and forgive flaws because the reviewers in question were just glad to have Trek back in some form (even if the form was basically Star Wars).
STiD did nothing wrong that ST09 did not also do... except for foolishly inviting direct comparisons to the old franchise at its height, a comparison in which it's very hard to convince most people that the new version comes out favorably. That hubris is why this has begun to happen from many of the same people who were willing to forgive ST09 its sins. It hasn't cut into profits yet (at least not the point of yielding anything worse than slight underperformance), it hasn't become majority fan opinion yet, but it's the proverbial canary in the coal mine, an early signal that the immense store of nostalgic goodwill the NuTrek franchise was enjoying has already been alarmingly depleted. It's not a good sign.
So I wouldn't dismiss the proposition that "Trek is broken" so easily (though I think it's an overstatement). I do think the AbramsTrek team is getting a foretaste of how their work will really be remembered (or not) if they don't expend a bit more effort in going beyond pure pulp with a decoration of clever references. And I don't think Orci will really take it on board, unfortunately; he cares enough about critical opinion to become defensive about it, but he's believed enough of the inflated early press that he won't really come to terms with it.
That's too bad, but it will be what it is. I wouldn't expend too much effort on defending that mindset, though. The guy he actually told to "fuck off" was someone who refused to pitch one of his own plots to him. If one's "my writing is just fine" defense consists of actually asking your critics to explain your own plots to you, that's just bizarre; not a great moment or coming from a good place.
I would dismiss it. The Abrams group has given us the two most popular Trek movies in the history of the franchise which is no small miracle considering the broken state Berman left it in 2005.
It's possible only Jesus has had an more unlikely resurrection.
The article was in fairness glass-half-full about what Abrams achieved in making Trek a cultural phenomenon again; the guy was only talking about its being a problem that STiD has begun to divide fandom and underwhelm the casual viewer, to the extent to which that has happened.
I don't see anything that actually supports that there's a divided fandom or that the film underwhelmed casual viewers.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=209857
On this site alone, even with the rather loud and persistent bashers, the movie has graded overwhelmingly positive.
The cracks in the consensus are in early stages yet. He seems to mainly be alarmed that they're happening at all (cf. what I said about the store of goodwill NuTrek started out with above).
Some Trek fans are unhappy with the latest film? Some Trek fans are always unhappy with whatever the new version is. Film at 11!
There has to be something more substantial than the nebulous "cracks in the consensus in the early stages" (which I still don't see) to have me believe that people have turned on the film. It sounds more to me that some people are simply hoping beyond hope that they can convince the majority of people to hate the movie as much as they do.
Similar threads
