Roberto Orci Not Directing Trek XIII

[BigJake]

There's the arrogance.

So, pointing out that bad behavior is bad is "arrogance." Got it. Aaaand nope, not troubled by that either.

(Coming back to the point about "insecurity," incidentally? Getting weirdly personal about it when your opinions of a movie are challenged in the slightest way can also be an indicator. Just sayin'.)

Dungeon... what ?

You know, you can just Google stuff like that.

 

[Melakon]

There's the arrogance.

So, pointing out that bad behavior is bad is "arrogance." Got it. Aaaand nope, not troubled by that either.

Well... I think Ovation may be right in this case. When you say things like

Frankly it smacks of an insecurity that shouldn't be necessary and is a habit you'd be better off without.

it does sound a bit arrogant that you're telling him how he acts is unacceptable, like you're some sort of lifestyle coach or psychologist or higher authority. All because you don't agree with him. On top of that, you're attacking him as a person, not his comment.

 

[Amaris]

You're all very pretty, gentlemen, so you don't have to keep up the back and forth.

 

[BigJake]

it does sound a bit arrogant that you're telling him how he acts is unacceptable, like you're some sort of lifestyle coach or psychologist or higher authority.

Well, I am merely a dude telling another dude the impression his actions bring across, to me at least. And it is about his argument, or rather his rhetoric; I'm telling him that certain rhetorical habits are unpersuasive for a reason. You of course are free to disagree, as he is or Ovation is.

You're all very pretty, gentlemen, so you don't have to keep up the back and forth.

None prettier than J., but thank you.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It's the tiara.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I dunno. Thematically, I saw a lot of TOS in Abrams' Trek movies. A LOT.

Meh, not so much. There was a lot of fanservice, but it's not the same thing.

In my experience across the vast expanse of the internets, using "fan" as a prefix usually denotes "thing I normally wouldn't mind, but since it's in a movie I don't like, I have to cast it in a negative light." Thus, homages, references, and thematic similarities become fanservice, fanwank, and fanboyish. Just as fans of a movie one doesn't like derogatorily become "fanboys" in order to set them apart from more normal fans and make it seem like their preferences are unreasonable.

 

[BigJake]

I dunno. Thematically, I saw a lot of TOS in Abrams' Trek movies. A LOT.

Meh, not so much. There was a lot of fanservice, but it's not the same thing.

In my experience across the vast expanse of the internets, using "fan" as a prefix usually denotes "thing I normally wouldn't mind, but since it's in a movie I don't like, I have to cast it in a negative light."

I don't know about that, but apparently "fanservice" is explicitly a reference to fan-oriented cheesecake, which wasn't really what I had in mind. So, withdrawn in favour of: "There were a lot of references, but that's not the same thing."

 

[Belz...]

Dungeon... what ?

You know, you can just Google stuff like that.

Hey, there's that arrogance again.

I love that you answered the easy part with snark, and then skipped the rest.

 

[BigJake]

Dungeon... what ?

You know, you can just Google stuff like that.

Hey, there's that arrogance again.

No, it's actually a simple fact that you can Google words whose meaning you do not know.

I love that you answered the easy part with snark, and then skipped the rest.

The rest of your snark, you mean? It wasn't compelling, sorry, unless you were really gagging for a specific response to empty rhetoric like "leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals."

But look, I'll try to be a little more constructive here. The reason I said what I did to you has nothing to do with speculating about your state of mind or mental health, about which I'm not concerned and I'm sure both are just fine. I said it because you have a noticeable habit of going overboard with claims about how Trek is supposedly being treated as "holy" or sacrosanct on really very little prompting (meaning that the person you're talking to is rarely actually doing that, but you see fit to treat and talk to them like they're being fanatical nutcases anyway, as in the conversation with Anticitizen). If "insecurity" isn't le mot juste, let's just say this gives the impression (to me at least) of unwarranted defensiveness, of trying to shout down or to misrepresent dissenting viewpoints which don't represent any kind of genuine threat to the particular property you happen to be a fan of. It's weird and over the top, and every once in a while I like to remind people within this particular bubble how that looks from the outside.

You're not the only offender and I'm not trying to pick on you or single you out, you just happened to be the most recent example I noticed. I could just as easily be having this conversation with, say, BillJ on a different day.

 

[Franklin]

Meh, not so much. There was a lot of fanservice, but it's not the same thing.

Sorry. Franklin's a lot more on the nose than you are here.

It is a Surprising Development that you would say that. But after all, on this subject you and Franklin tend to be wrong in similar ways.

I'm not wrong, just thinking differently than you.

You have problems with Abrams' Trek and you've expressed valid reasons for your opinion, but I believe I also have valid reasons for my take on Abrams' Trek. In God knows how many posts in how many threads, I've tried to explain why I see what Abrams has done as a fitting and respectful extension of TOS.

I've read your criticisms that say otherwise, but the problem is, to put it in the kindest way possible, I just don't know what you do want to see in "Star Trek", Big Jake. So, what would be "good" "Star Trek" for you? What for you would be the most entertaining form it could take?

 

[BigJake]

^ Well, it's not all that involved, really. What I want from Trek is Horatio Hornblower-style adventure in space with a bit of thoughtfulness underpinning it, since that was the core strength of the original series at its best; and I prefer that to a product that's more like, say, The Fast & Furious in space, or like Star Wars. (Yes, I know you think AbramsTrek is closer to TOS than either of those things, and yes, I do think that claim just doesn't jive with the content on the screen in either movie... but you know that. )

EDIT: Another poster alluded on a different thread to Master & Commander having been perhaps the best Trek film to be produced in the current century. It was tongue in cheek, but you know... there's something to it.

 

[Belz...]

No, it's actually a simple fact that you can Google words whose meaning you do not know.

I don't typically google words used in a particular way when they have an obvious other meaning, like, dark place in a castle or something.

The rest of your snark, you mean?

No, I meant this:

It's called hyperbole. The point is that New Trek is being portrayed as popcorn fun while TOS is held up as groundbreaking super-sci-fi with strong of social messages. The fact is that TOS is the most popcorn series out of all of Trek.

That's not snark.

Insecurity ? TOS is one of my all-time favourite shows.

That's not snark.

No, I saw a lot too. The most since 1969, in fact.

That's not snark.

Perhaps you should stick to whatever your real life job is and leave psychoanalysis to the professionals.

Ok, that's snark.

So when will you be addressing the non-snark ?

It wasn't compelling, sorry

Is that your version of "I didn't agree with it" ? In what way isn't it convincing ?

unless you were really gagging for a specific response to empty rhetoric like "leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals."

It's just as empty as talking about another poster's insecurity, or telling them that they can google obscure terms rather than just answer their question.

But look, I'll try to be a little more constructive here.

I would appreciate that.

I said it because you have a noticeable habit of going overboard with claims about how Trek is supposedly being treated as "holy" or sacrosanct on really very little prompting

A noticeable habit dating back to when ? Yesterday ?

It's demonstratable that this entire section of the forum is filled to the brim with posts about how much more intellectual than New Trek TOS was. I'm not exaggerating.

meaning that the person you're talking to is rarely actually doing that

I don't think I need to be talking about the person I'm talking to to be making a point.

but you see fit to treat and talk to them like they're being fanatical nutcases anyway

Sorry, that's you there, because I have done no such thing.

le mot juste

Huh. Correct spelling. I'm impressed. People usually fuck up French when they try it.

let's just say this gives the impression (to me at least) of unwarranted defensiveness

Then let me assuage your fears: I'm quite comfortable with New Trek's failings and weaknesses, as I am with TOS' and TNG's and DS9's and ENT's and the various movies'. The only show I'm not comfortable with is Voyager because it sucks ass. I'd just like it if people didn't pretend that a lot of those subcategories of Trek didn't share a lot of the same flaws.

of trying to shout down

No one's shouting down. Pointing out hypocrisy isn't shouting down. It's trying to put things into perspective.

 

[M'Sharak]

No, it's actually a simple fact that you can Google words whose meaning you do not know.

I don't typically google words used in a particular way when they have an obvious other meaning, like, dark place in a castle or something.

Well, no. "Dudgeon" may not be as commonly encountered in conversation as it once was, but it's a distinctly different word than "dungeon". They're not interchangeable.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek isn't exactly the high brow intellectual think piece people like to cast it as. They confuse the legend, hype and spin with the reality of what Star Trek is.

You're just making this up.

Most of us longtime fans watched the show in syndication or during live broadcasts in an era before Internet message boards, if you can imagine such a thing. Back then - and I'm speaking to a time as recently as the 90's here - you talked about the shows you watched with your friends or family, or if you were a BIG fan, you read all the novels and signed up for the newsletters, bought magazines, etc. Any 'legend, hype or spin' came from the direct experiences of people engaged with the media, not some sort of emergent supercollective groupthink phenomenon (which totally does happen on the Internet).

Stop trying to paint classic Trek in a poor light just to make new Trek look better.

I'm 55 years old. I don't need to imagine it, I lived it. My first Star Trek experience was at the tender age of seven. My best friend and I met at 13 and bonded over Star Trek and comic books. I drew my own Star Trek comics. I have shelves full of Trek novels that are two deep. For most of the Trek movies released in the 80s I was in line for the first showing on the day of release. (along with a small army of friends and acquaintances) Sometimes I scored tickets for midnight sneak peaks. I planned my work schedule around TV and film premieres. (pissed off a good friend because I stayed home to watch the premier of TNG instead of going a concert with her) These days I might wait for a later show time depending on the schedules of myself and best friend. ( same guy from when I was a kid), but I'm there with in a week of the premier .

In those decades my view of Trek has evolved. When I was young I lapped up all the stories about the show. How groundbreaking it was. The barriers it broke. How it "Stuck it to the suits". The whole smarter than the rest spin. But as I grew older I started digging deeper and found the stories didn't quite add up. Some things were exaggerated. Others made up. It didn't change the how I felt about the show. I still love Star Trek.* It's by far my favorite TV show. I'm not dragging the show down, I'm just looking at it with a fresh perspective and without the rose colored glasses.

* And by "Star Trek" I mean The original series. The spin offs are somewhat hit or miss for me.

 

[BillJ]

In those decades my view of Trek has evolved. When I was young I lapped up all the stories about the show. How groundbreaking it was. The barriers it broke. How it "Stuck it to the suits". The whole smarter than the rest spin. But as I grew older I started digging deeper and found the stories didn't quite add up. Some things were exaggerated. Others made up. It didn't change the how I felt about the show. I still love Star Trek.* It's by far my favorite TV. I'm not dragging the show down, I'm just looking at with a fresh perspective and without the rose colored glasses.

* And by "Star Trek" I mean The original series. The spin offs are somewhat hit or miss for me.

This pretty much sums up my experiences with Star Trek.

 

[Franklin]

In those decades my view of Trek has evolved. When I was young I lapped up all the stories about the show. How groundbreaking it was. The barriers it broke. How it "Stuck it to the suits". The whole smarter than the rest spin. But as I grew older I started digging deeper and found the stories didn't quite add up. Some things were exaggerated. Others made up. It didn't change the how I felt about the show. I still love Star Trek.* It's by far my favorite TV. I'm not dragging the show down, I'm just looking at with a fresh perspective and without the rose colored glasses.

* And by "Star Trek" I mean The original series. The spin offs are somewhat hit or miss for me.

This pretty much sums up my experiences with Star Trek.

+1

Went through all that, too.

 

[fireproof78]

In those decades my view of Trek has evolved. When I was young I lapped up all the stories about the show. How groundbreaking it was. The barriers it broke. How it "Stuck it to the suits". The whole smarter than the rest spin. But as I grew older I started digging deeper and found the stories didn't quite add up. Some things were exaggerated. Others made up. It didn't change the how I felt about the show. I still love Star Trek.* It's by far my favorite TV. I'm not dragging the show down, I'm just looking at with a fresh perspective and without the rose colored glasses.

* And by "Star Trek" I mean The original series. The spin offs are somewhat hit or miss for me.

This pretty much sums up my experiences with Star Trek.

+1

Went through all that, too.

Yep, this is very similar to my own experience. I think that the books that influenced this were Shatner's "Star Trek Memories" Nimoy's "I Am Spock" and another book by one of the TOS producers (I cannot remember which).

No one is saying TOS wasn't inspiring or influential or anything like that. But, I think that there has to be a certain recognition of the people behind it, and all the flaws that were there.

I guess I'm a bit taken aback by the fact that Abrams Trek gets taken to the cleaners by things that I often see in TOS. Abrams Trek just did it faster, louder and more intense. That doesn't mean it didn't some how lack the social commentary that TOS was known for.

 

[Franklin]

TOS is Dylan pre-electric. Abrams's Trek is Dylan post-electric.

Some say the latter is inferior to the former. A few like the latter better. Some like both for the qualities found in each -- and for what is similar and what is different between them. But no matter the opinions, in all cases, it's all unquestionably Bob Dylan.

 

[Ovation]

In those decades my view of Trek has evolved. When I was young I lapped up all the stories about the show. How groundbreaking it was. The barriers it broke. How it "Stuck it to the suits". The whole smarter than the rest spin. But as I grew older I started digging deeper and found the stories didn't quite add up. Some things were exaggerated. Others made up. It didn't change the how I felt about the show. I still love Star Trek.* It's by far my favorite TV. I'm not dragging the show down, I'm just looking at with a fresh perspective and without the rose colored glasses.

* And by "Star Trek" I mean The original series. The spin offs are somewhat hit or miss for me.

This pretty much sums up my experiences with Star Trek.

Mine as well.

 

[Amaris]

TOS is Dylan pre-electric. Abrams's Trek is Dylan post-electric.

Some say the latter is inferior to the former. A few like the latter better. Some like both for the qualities found in each -- and for what is similar and what is different between them. But no matter the opinions, in all cases, it's all unquestionably Bob Dylan.

Exactly. Hell, I'm watching Into Darkness right now, and Trek fingerprints are all over it, often in subtle ways. I still think it's a great film, not just a Trek film, but a great film.