Orci strikes back

[Ovation]

If Orci didn't want to deal with over-critical fans, many of whom actively worked on keeping the franchise alive for decades, judging his work, maybe he should work on reviving a different franchise. Maybe the Transformers? Spiderman?

So only people who are prepared to receive any and all criticism without any complaint, no matter how unfounded and vulgar some (not all) of it might be should be "allowed" to work on an intellectual property with "over-critical fans"? Really? That's a steaming pile of horse manure (and having worked in a stable to pay for tuition years ago, I know horse manure when I smell it).

 

[F. King Daniel]

Let's see how your favourite Trek movie or episodes hold up under the kind of scrutiny Into Darkness is recieving.

Why?

As I said, to see how they hold up to scrutiny. And to see if you can excuse any issues without citing similar examples in other episodes or movies, which is exactly what you were saying we shouldn't do. Into Darkness shouldn't be held to a higher standard than the rest of the franchise.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If Orci didn't want to deal with over-critical fans, many of whom actively worked on keeping the franchise alive for decades, judging his work, maybe he should work on reviving a different franchise. Maybe the Transformers? Spiderman?

You don't know that. And how does doing that give them any more right to be overly critical than anyone else? That's just more of the entitlement attitude that makes "fandom" look bad in my eyes.

 

[JarodRussell]

That's silly.

The discussion boils down to these two arguments:

1. If you don't like my Trek, you aren't allowed to like your Trek.

2. If you liked this, you MUST like that.


No, and no.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Whats silly?

 

[BillJ]

That's silly.

The discussion boils down to these two arguments:

1. If you don't like my Trek, you aren't allowed to like your Trek.

2. If you liked this, you MUST like that.


No, and no.

You can like whatever you like. It just gets tiresome hearing the same criticisms from the same people over and over and over and over and over and over and over for four years solid. If I hated something that much, I wouldn't waste four years of my life complaining about it.

 

[Shazam!]

Into Darkness shouldn't be held to a higher standard than the rest of the franchise.

I disagree. Into Darkness had all the resource in the world to deliver quality yet still managed to fall short in several key areas, none of which have anything to do with what happened in that one scene of that one episode made 40+ years ago.

 

[Ovation]

Into Darkness shouldn't be held to a higher standard than the rest of the franchise.

I disagree. Into Darkness had all the resource in the world to deliver quality yet still managed to fall short in several key areas, none of which have anything to do with what happened in that one scene of that one episode made 40+ years ago.

"Several key areas"? Such as? Be specific if you're going to critique something. And if you do plan to hold the Abrams films to a higher standard than the rest of Trek, be prepared to explain why. Simply declaring it should be so is not sufficient.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If Orci didn't want to deal with over-critical fans, many of whom actively worked on keeping the franchise alive for decades, judging his work, maybe he should work on reviving a different franchise. Maybe the Transformers? Spiderman?

That doesn't mean he has to put up with &^% from these fans (or anybody).

Orci can respond, of course. However, he ought not be surprised or offended by criticism from dedicated fandom. He would need to anticipate the same hesitation and suspicion if he were reimagining Shakespeare or Wagner, two other areas in which there is a built in and very opinionated audience. Added to that is the lore of fan involvement in making Trek a franchise with a long life. Saying that he is approaching things de novo--which is highly debateable--won't win his critics over.

 

[suarezguy]

That's silly.

The discussion boils down to these two arguments:

1. If you don't like my Trek, you aren't allowed to like your Trek.

2. If you liked this, you MUST like that.


No, and no.

You can like whatever you like. It just gets tiresome hearing the same criticisms from the same people over and over and over and over and over and over and over for four years solid. If I hated something that much, I wouldn't waste four years of my life complaining about it.

The new film is four months old, it's hardly unusual for people displeased by a film to talk about their criticisms while it's still in theaters or just after.

I'd prefer the criticism to be consistent.If you hate the movie because of x,y and z while overlooking the same nitpicks with the previous movies then you're being a hypocritethe

Why can't the movie (and its praises and criticisms) be judged on its individual merit as opposed to relative to some movie made over 30 years ago?

We can't be expected to footnote every criticism with caveats and acknowledgements of previous movie/series citations.

Let's see how your favourite Trek movie or episodes hold up under the kind of scrutiny Into Darkness is recieving.

I believe TNG did and does get a lot of scrutiny (as do notably TUC and FC); under it some of it fails while some still succeeds.

 

[M'Sharak]

We can't be expected to footnote every criticism with caveats and acknowledgements of previous movie/series citations.

Why not?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If Orci didn't want to deal with over-critical fans, many of whom actively worked on keeping the franchise alive for decades, judging his work, maybe he should work on reviving a different franchise. Maybe the Transformers?

He already revived Transformers and it was shit.

He's also producing the next Spiderman.

 

[Opus]

I think it's totally fair to expect someone to cite why 'this' or 'that' didn't work or didn't work specifically for them in STiD, or any Trek for that matter. At least, if they want their criticism to be taken seriously, that is.

Heck, I'm well aware of contrived moments in STiD. They're not deal-breakers for me is all.

And I think it is fair to compare one's complaint about an aspect of the new movie if it's happened before in Trek. To herald it or excuse it in one instance on its face, but then criticize it in STiD is really not keeping a good perspective.

If, however, the complaint is for instance Spock's "Khannnnn!" moment, that is different. It's a direct homage to what has come before. For some it works. Others - not so much. But it's a fair criticism.

 

[Hober Mallow]

You can like whatever you like. It just gets tiresome hearing the same criticisms from the same people over and over and over and over and over and over and over for four years solid. If I hated something that much, I wouldn't waste four years of my life complaining about it.

I don't think they're complaining because they hate Trek, I think they're complaining because they love Trek. Whether you agree with them or not, they are, like the people who love the new films, passionate about Star Trek.

 

[Kelthaz]

We can't be expected to footnote every criticism with caveats and acknowledgements of previous movie/series citations.

Why not?

Because you shouldn't have to defend your argument as if you were writing a thesis just to discuss a movie. It turns a simple, fun conversation into a legal debate.

I disliked The Enterprise and Vengeance duking it out alone while the rest of StarFleet sat back and watched. As proof of the validity of my criticism, allow me to submit for your approval three pieces of evidence -- Star Trek: Nemesis, Star Trek: Generations, and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. More evidence can be submitted if further proof is requested.

 

[SeerSGB]

We can't be expected to footnote every criticism with caveats and acknowledgements of previous movie/series citations.

Why not?

Because you shouldn't have to defend your argument as if you were writing a thesis just to discuss a movie. It turns a simple, fun conversation into a legal debate.

I disliked The Enterprise and Vengeance duking it out alone while the rest of StarFleet sat back and watched. As proof of the validity of my criticism, allow me to submit for your approval three pieces of evidence -- Star Trek: Nemesis, Star Trek: Generations, and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. More evidence can be submitted if further proof is requested.

How long you been in this fandom? Or any fandom? People are going to call people on hypocrisy. In short: Bring the "A" game. Got an opinion? Great. Start citing how "X" is worse that "Y" cause "Y" is a superior product, you better be willing to back it up and then brace to get it torn down and torched.

A lot of the "issues" people bitch about with the Abrams films are standard fare in Trek, but some people shift the goal posts in order to make it look like the Abrams films are somehow worse when they do it than all the other times when it's been done in the franchise.

The hardest critics on Trek are the people that love it but can still see the warts.

 

[BillJ]

I disliked The Enterprise and Vengeance duking it out alone while the rest of StarFleet sat back and watched. As proof of the validity of my criticism, allow me to submit for your approval three pieces of evidence -- Star Trek: Nemesis, Star Trek: Generations, and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. More evidence can be submitted if further proof is requested.

You list three movies but list nothing of why you actually disliked it or what the three movies you list prove.

I like the point made that Spock simply didn't know who he could trust on Earth.

 

[Kelthaz]

How long you been in this fandom? Or any fandom? People are going to call people on hypocrisy. In short: Bring the "A" game. Got an opinion? Great. Start citing how "X" is worse that "Y" cause "Y" is a superior product, you better be willing to back it up and then brace to get it torn down and torched.

If someone is posting their opinion on some important political issue like universal health care or gay marriage I would agree with you. I do not agree with you when it comes to frivolous things such as films. I was talking to a Star Trek fan at work a few weeks ago and he mentioned that Deep Space Nine was the worst Star Trek series without backing up his opinion. Should I have aggressively interrogated him and forced him to compare everything he didn't like to the other series? Should I then have "torn down and torched" his argument if his responses didn't satisfy me? Of course not, so why should we behave any differently on these forums?

 

[BillJ]

Should I have aggressively interrogated him and forced him to compare everything he didn't like to the other series? Should I then have "torn down and torched" his argument if his responses didn't satisfy me? Of course not, so why should we behave any differently on these forums?

No.

But if someone is unable to share details on why they think the way they think, I usually disregard the opinion entirely.

 

[Opus]

Casual conversation is one thing. The boards are discussion based. Citing examples and whatnot certainly helps whatever position you hold. Just sayin'...