• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Roberto Orci Not Directing Trek XIII

That was uncalled-for.

Not apologizing. Dennis is acerbic without cause, never contributing anything other than snarky comments. I mean that. I've never seen the guy contribute to a conversation, he just sarcastically swipes at people he disagrees with.
Or, more likely, the pots here call the kettles black with reliable frequency.

And Dennis doesn't swipe at people, he goes after their posts when he disagrees with them, whereas you went after him. The board rules are fine with the former, not the latter.
 
Genius move. By removing Orci as director the movie is guaranteed to be not as bad as it could have been.
 
Genius move. By removing Orci as director the movie is guaranteed to be not as bad as it could have been.

While true, after the debacle of that nasty STD, my feelings towards a third Abramsverse Trek film with the current cast, who to be honest really aren't doing it for me, is so meh, that I couldn't care less about who writes the script or directs.

Getting rid of Simon Pegg would be the first thing that would have to happen to get me near to a new Trek film with the rest of the current cast.
 
The cast was never a problem for me (although I really don't see Quinto as Spock at all) and I like Abrams as a director. I just detest Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman's writing and have done since way before Star Trek. A glance at their Wiki entry and it's amazing how much stuff I disliked even before I knew they had a hand in it (Legend of Zorro, The Island...)
 
There's a groupthink here, and outside opinions aren't welcomed kindly. Outright insults may be banned, but dripping sarcasm and condescension seem to rule the roost - and my own snarkiness in my previous comment was regrettably in kind, for which I am ashamed - I'm finding myself sinking to that level. It's getting painful to read these threads. Sorry to bring up another sci-fi franchise, but I frequent the Doctor Who forums, and that community is as pleasant as sunshine and roses, and they are able to debate about the quality of the show without being so hateful toward one another; I don't know why we can't have that here.

While I agree with you a bit about the groupthink attitude here I'm curious about the Dr Who forums you frequent.
Are people there always hating on Dr Who, calling the writers and directors jerks and saying Dr Who is crap, crap, crap?
 
Do you have any interest, at all, in seeing a good Star Trek film?

But I think that Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness are good films. Am I suppose to disregard them because people other than hardcore Trekkies like them?

They are incredibly well made with good acting and stories that have a very "Star Trek" feel. I'd argue Abrams and Company have a better feel for what makes Star Trek tick than Rick Berman and Company.
 
For most of us longtime Trek fans, Star Trek was a game-changer for us. It was the show (and movies) that taught us new ways to look at the world; a narrative that wasn't afraid to delve into questions of philosophy, asking both the characters and the viewers to re-examine themselves in the face of strange new worlds and new ideas, and come away from the experience at little more open-minded, if not more educated.

Please give some specific examples from Trek history -- TV or movies. Please. Honestly. I'm not baiting you. I just want to know the basis for this belief. You're not the only one to say this about Trek, but no one ever gives any concrete examples of this as the prevalent nature of Trek.

I saw my first TOS episode on a black and white TV in 1967. I still don't know what people are referring to when they say what you did. I honestly don't. I've seen a mostly high-quality show with stories written for the sensibility of adults, but I've never noticed the show (or any of them that followed) breaking any philosophical or intellectual boundaries, or addressing any issues that were taboo on other high-quality TV shows of their times. If anything, I'd say Trek tended to play it safer than the truly ground-breaking TV shows of the 1970s and 1980s did.

For example, in the 1970s, Norman Lear's shows, plus Soap, Barney Miller, and M*A*S*H broke far more new ground and raised far more adult issues than any Trek show ever did. In the 1980s, Roseanne, Hill Street Blues, and Murphy Brown dealt more often and openly with weightier issues than TNG did.

That's not to play down Trek as high-quality action and adventure, but if its purpose was to make people re-examine themselves, become more open-minded, and think and be educated by it, then it was shallow water compared to the shows above.

Of course, that was never its intent. At least I never saw it.
 
Do you have any interest, at all, in seeing a good Star Trek film?

But I think that Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness are good films.
They're great action/adventure flicks, but good films... Eh... Too much convoluted shit, plus all those plot holes...

But at the same time, they're infinitely better than six out of ten previous Trek films. TMP was too ambitious for its own good, ST3 was honestly kinda crappy (nostalgia goggles off), ST V was SW holiday special level bad, and First Contact was the only TNG movie that didn't suck.
 
Was that meant to be some kind of ironic humor, or do you really mean that?
Yeah, I honestly believe Abrams understands Star Wars better than the guy who created it. :rolleyes:

At this point, what do we really know about Abrams' understanding of SW? All we've heard, to my knowledge, is that he's a huge fan and would rather have been directing SW. But that could describe a lot of people.
 
For most of us longtime Trek fans, Star Trek was a game-changer for us. It was the show (and movies) that taught us new ways to look at the world; a narrative that wasn't afraid to delve into questions of philosophy, asking both the characters and the viewers to re-examine themselves in the face of strange new worlds and new ideas, and come away from the experience at little more open-minded, if not more educated.

Please give some specific examples from Trek history -- TV or movies. Please. Honestly. I'm not baiting you. I just want to know the basis for this belief. You're not the only one to say this about Trek, but no one ever gives any concrete examples of this as the prevalent nature of Trek.

I saw my first TOS episode on a black and white TV in 1967. I still don't know what people are referring to when they say what you did. I honestly don't. I've seen a mostly high-quality show with stories written for the sensibility of adults, but I've never noticed the show (or any of them that followed) breaking any philosophical or intellectual boundaries, or addressing any issues that were taboo on other high-quality TV shows of their times. If anything, I'd say Trek tended to play it safer than the truly ground-breaking TV shows of the 1970s and 1980s did.

For example, in the 1970s, Norman Lear's shows, plus Soap, Barney Miller, and M*A*S*H broke far more new ground and raised far more adult issues than any Trek show ever did. In the 1980s, Roseanne, Hill Street Blues, and Murphy Brown dealt more often and openly with weightier issues than TNG did.

That's not to play down Trek as high-quality action and adventure, but if its purpose was to make people re-examine themselves, become more open-minded, and think and be educated by it, then it was shallow water compared to the shows above.

Of course, that was never its intent. At least I never saw it.
:techman::techman::techman:

Should be a sticky post in the TOS forum.
 
Norman Lear's shows, plus Soap, Barney Miller, and M*A*S*H broke far more new ground and raised far more adult issues than any Trek show ever did. In the 1980s, Roseanne, Hill Street Blues, and Murphy Brown dealt more often and openly with weightier issues than TNG did.

Could you provide specific concrete examples, please?

Both Hill Street Blues and Barney Miller featured gay characters before Star Trek: The Next Generation (which never did) was even on the air. Hill Street Blues dealt rather seriously with drug abuse and the drug war (TNG, on the other hand, gave us "Symbiosis").

Norman Lear's shows, of course, dealt with a whole host of social issues that Star Trek never touched (or did so with kid gloves). They were known for that sort of thing, you know.

Prior to Star Trek, there were programs like The Defenders and East Side West Side, too.

The myopia of some Star Trek fans in regards to other television shows is astounding at times. From reading some posts, you'd think the only thing on TV was Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.!
 
Do you have any interest, at all, in seeing a good Star Trek film?

I'd rather see one that I think is good than one that you do. Bad Robot has been delivering on the big screen where the folks running Trek for the previous two decades didn't.
 
Norman Lear's shows, plus Soap, Barney Miller, and M*A*S*H broke far more new ground and raised far more adult issues than any Trek show ever did. In the 1980s, Roseanne, Hill Street Blues, and Murphy Brown dealt more often and openly with weightier issues than TNG did.
Could you provide specific concrete examples, please?

This is true.

At the exact same time as Trek, shows like Judd For The Defense were dramatizing social issues in a direct, contemporary fashion - issues that GR later liked to claim he had to disguise in order to slip by NBC's management. People don't remember those shows because it's really not enough that a drama "raise adult issues" for it to be remembered; Trek is actually remembered for the fact that it was colorful, somewhat sophisticated (for the time) and exciting fantasy of a sort that was pretty unique.
 
I hope this doesn't mean because Shatner and Nimoy together are in it, will be scraped for a new story line :(
 
I could care less about the box office draws. If I like it, I like it. My liking it doesn't depend on the wallet.
 
The myopia of some Star Trek fans in regards to other television shows is astounding at times. From reading some posts, you'd think the only thing on TV was Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.!

Well, for some, there was. Star Trek introduced ideas to an audience not necessarily open to the current crop of TV product.

Just because other shows existed exploring advanced social themes doesn't diminish any impact that Star Trek may have had on an individual. To say otherwise is borderline snobbery.
What audience did you think Star Trek was aiming for?

I don't think anyone was trying to say anything about the impact of Star Trek or any TV show on the individual. And calling someone a snob for pointing out Star Trek wasn't quite the ground breaking show many fans think it is probably defines irony.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top