Roberto Orci Not Directing Trek XIII

[BigJake]

No he's not. A lot of fans keep claiming that old Trek was this super-smart, pure and wholesome source of wisdom and education, versus current Trek's lower-common-denominator-pleasing, explosion-ridden fun. We're pointing out that old Trek wasn't that holy.

You and a few others are typically quick to quite absurd levels of dudgeon about the old Trek being supposedly "portrayed as holy" whenever someone simply mentions it having had qualities NuTrek does not have. Frankly it smacks of an insecurity that shouldn't be necessary and is a habit you'd be better off without.

It's when, "Star Trek is a really cool show; it's kept me entertained, taught me a few things, and helped me make some really great friends along the way," becomes "Star Trek has been the greatest influence in my life. I wouldn't be the same person without it, because it's guided my actions and shaped my ideology more than any one thing or person," that it's time to be concerned. There are people in both films who seem eerily similar to the latter.

This is why the "self-serving" thing took me aback. Trekkies struck me as being reasonably sympathetic to its subjects but certainly a couple of them are uncomfortably fanatical as fans, the more "self-serving" move would have been to conceal that (or conceal them).

I admit "propaganda" was probably too strong a word. I couldn't think of a better one. And the film itself really doesn't do any of that. But there is an element of indoctrination going on and the film does help promote (if only slightly) that. Certainly, it mostly just promotes Star Trek. It's not a stretch to think Paramount's primary goal with the film was to sell more Star Trek stuff. But it does nudge the ideology along to help do so.

I feel like you're way overthinking this. Yes, of course it promotes Star Trek, and of course the actors and fans involved talk about how Star Trek inspired them or made a difference to them (and maybe burnish their own legends a bit in the process, cf. Nichols). But it's a stretch to call that an "ideology" or "tribal doctrine" and all this counterfactualizing about how Star Trek cannot really have had that much of an impact looks like a waste of time to me. It doesn't matter if such-and-such type of cell phone would have happened without Star Trek or so-and-so would have been a doctor with or without Bones, the fact is that Trek did happen and did influence those people and there's no harm in admitting and appreciating that. One can get too obsessed with debunking "mythology," to the point where the debunking itself becomes pointless and even obnoxious.

 

[Jedi_Master]

It doesn't matter if such-and-such type of cell phone would have happened without Star Trek or so-and-so would have been a doctor with or without Bones, the fact is that Trek did happen and did influence those people and there's no harm in admitting and appreciating that. One can get too obsessed with debunking "mythology," to the point where the debunking itself becomes pointless and even obnoxious.

Most Star Trek fans do. The special subset of fans that argue about Trek on boards like this can get a little heated trying to represent their particular shade of red.

Fuschia says: NuTrek pisses on the great work of the Philosopher King Gene Roddenberry. I will not rest until the abomination is destroyed.

Magenta says: TOS was just a cheap serial and you crazy high priests need to lay off the booze. I will not rest until all recognize the saving power of J.J. Abrahms.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Franklin]

I dunno. Thematically, I saw a lot of TOS in Abrams' Trek movies. A LOT. While I may not agree whole-heartedly, I'd even acknowledge the argument that Abrams interpretation of TOS was almost derivative of it rather than an original reimagining of it. The reason one may not be able to find the themes or "messages" amidst all the action and speedy cuts in Abrams' movies may be because they are not overt, just as they were hardly ever overt in the TOS episodes that carried "messages."

Maybe the Abrams movies don't get the credit they deserve for staying true to what Trek stood for because what Trek stands for is so quaint these days compared to many other popular movies in the genre that present darker heroes and/or dystopian societies.

 

[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.

 

[Franklin]

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.

"Fanservice" can be merely a pejorative term for "derivative," so I will give you some of that. Still, I'd see that as no different than going to see a classic rock band and expecting them to play at least a few of their older hits and deeper cuts for the long-time, hard-core fans.

I think this from Scott Mendelson in Forbes speaks nicely to at least how I feel about the issue of Abrams' work and the direction things may take with Lin directing. (Thank to Dennis for giving the link to the essay in another thread.)

I will say that both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness did very much meld big-scale action with character and social commentary, some of it more successful than others. Moreover, as much as we (and yes I include myself) like to discuss Star Trek as this “philosophy first/action second” franchise, the original series was arguably filled with as much action and spectacle (fist fights, phaser shoot-outs, etc.) as the budget would allow. I think we perhaps make the mistake of judging “what Star Trek is supposed to be” purely by Star Trek: The Motion Picture. There is no dishonor in a Star Trek film filled with action as long as it’s also filled with character, commentary, and comradery.

Exactly so. (Sorry, Dennis. Do I owe you a royalty?)

Link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...ustin-lin-is-a-perfect-fit-for-star-trek-3/2/

 

[BigJake]

I think this from Scott Mendelson in Forbes speaks nicely to at least how I feel about the issue of Abrams' work and the direction things may take with Lin directing.

Mendelson uses the phrase "social commentary." I do not think it means what he thinks it means...

Yes of course it is standard to claim that Trek always had "as much action as the budget would allow" and that anyone who's not a fan of big dumb action spectacles is holding all of Trek to the standards of TMP. Those are both false claims, but pretty standard.

I do indeed think it's likely that Lin's films will have as much or more action and the same levels of "social commentary" that Abrams' did, though.

 

[Mudd]

No royalty, but yeah I'm pretty optimistic about this movie with the Lin announcement. I'll be there for the first show.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I think this from Scott Mendelson in Forbes speaks nicely to at least how I feel about the issue of Abrams' work and the direction things may take with Lin directing.

Mendelson uses the phrase "social commentary." I do not think it means what he thinks it means...

Yes of course it is standard to claim that Trek always had "as much action as the budget would allow" and that anyone who's not a fan of big dumb action spectacles is holding all of Trek to the standards of TMP. Those are both false claims, but pretty standard.

I do indeed think it's likely that Lin's films will have as much or more action and the same levels of "social commentary" that Abrams' did, though.

I am looking forward to your 100,000 word treatise on nuTrek III

 

[Ovation]

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.

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

 

[BillJ]

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.

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

+1

 

[Amaris]

+1... um, also.

 

[CorporalClegg]

+3.1415

 

[Jedi_Master]

Mmmmm... pi. I love pi.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Ovation]

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.

Or, just as a possibility, you are the one who's wrong. Just something to think about (though I know I'm asking you to leave your comfort zone just a tad).

 

[BigJake]

Or, just as a possibility, you are the one who's wrong.

But I am never wrong, Ovation. You know that.

(I mean but seriously though. Don't come at me with "has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong." It's not a convincing tactic to try to pretend the person you're talking to is an idiot.)

 

[Ovation]

Of course. Seems I forgot. Silly of me, really. Won't happen again (until it does).

(No idiocy implied. Arrogance, though...)

 

[BigJake]

If being unimpressed with your opinion about a movie is "arrogance," then hey. So be it.

(Is it also "arrogance" to believe that your opinion is so inerrant that disagreeing with it is "arrogance"? Not sure how this works exactly... well, never mind.)

 

[Belz...]

You and a few others are typically quick to quite absurd levels of dudgeon

Dungeon... what ?

about the old Trek being supposedly "portrayed as holy" whenever someone simply mentions it having had qualities NuTrek does not have.

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.

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

Insecurity ? TOS is one of my all-time favourite shows. Perhaps you should stick to whatever your real life job is and leave psychoanalysis to the professionals.

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

Meh, not so much.

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

 

[Ovation]

If being unimpressed with your opinion about a movie is "arrogance," then hey. So be it.

(Is it also "arrogance" to believe that your opinion is so inerrant that disagreeing with it is "arrogance"? Not sure how this works exactly... well, never mind.)

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

There's the arrogance. Plenty more if I felt inclined to point more out. But gotta run. Family duties and all.