Star Trek XI Not A Parody
- Thread starter Carpe Occasio
- Start date
- Status
To expand a little more, Abrams, is not criticizing TOS. It was good TV for its time. However, as plenty of others have said, the LOOK of TOS would simply not stand up, today. But many of the stories are darn good, stand up today, and will stand up tomorrow. Heck, that's half the reason why the enhanced FX episodes were done. To strike a balance between the old and keeping the stories watchable to the CGI generation. But, for people who don't even like that, there's no hope for Abrams's project with them.
One other thing. It's 2008, not 1968. The characters need to be of 2008 not 1968. What made TOS work in its time was that the characters had "enlightened" sensibilities, but were otherwise people with problems and relationships that 1960s people could identify with. It was the same with Gunsmoke or Bonanza. Those characters were no more of the 1800s than TOS characters would be of the 23rd century. The setting was a vehicle for examining the times in a detached way. To that end, I imagine Abrams has certainly kept the essence of TOS, but I think all he's preparing us for is that he's given us a look and feel that fits today and how people are today.
If that was directed at me, you're making a statement you can't possibly support. I have no feelings for Abrams, one way or the other. I'd agree that someone here appears to be blinded by something, but I sincerely doubt that that someone is me.
Give it rest, Matt. Enough, already.
You're not here to discuss; you're just here to pee in everyone else's cereal, and it's gone on long enough.
You should have taken the hint. People have been trying to hold a discussion of the topic and you've given indication over and over that you're not interested in discussion. All you want to do is bash first Abrams, which is dumb, but allowed, and now you're after the other posters in the thread, which isn't.
The latter part will earn you a warning for trolling. Comments to "Don't even bother." I bent over backwards for you on this one. I'm done.
Good Lord, is there a case of the stupids floating around?
It is glaringly obvious that Abrams is trying to make the point that this movie is not a kitschy parody of an old TV show, kind of like The Brady Bunch movies or Starsky and Hutch, that will be stuck in its original decade with nods and winks to the audience.
He's trying to make a serious Star Trek film. If you get anything else out of that article, then the problem is with you and not him.
It is glaringly obvious that Abrams is trying to make the point that this movie is not a kitschy parody of an old TV show, kind of like The Brady Bunch movies or Starsky and Hutch, that will be stuck in its original decade with nods and winks to the audience.
He's trying to make a serious Star Trek film. If you get anything else out of that article, then the problem is with you and not him.
Arn't all trek Films made with the intention of them being serious?
I have been won over by the persuasive and logical arguments presented here -- I'm now convinced that Abrams is making a kitschy parody because he hates TOS and wants to take a dump on us!
A parody of what? If it's parody, then it has to be parody of something. A literary or artistic element, type, style. Something.
It strikes me that Abrams was afraid that if he was too true to the look of TOS that the movie itself would be taken as a parody. He'd hardly want to put out a movie that was seen to be making fun of TOS by making it look like it was shot in 1968 instead of 2008.
It may be kind of like what Temis said upthread, too. There are those not familiar with, or only vaguely familiar with TOS who think of it as that cartoonish show with space monsters and Dr. Spock. He's saying it was more than that, and it will be more than that.
^^^
Absolutely correct. He says that right here:
Obviously, Abrams means here that TOS was parody and that his film won't be true to that.
Absolutely correct. He says that right here:
Obviously, Abrams means here that TOS was parody and that his film won't be true to that.
Proof? the article being discussed doesn't say that, so you must have another source. Enlighten us.
That's what I'm bitching about.
TOS was never meant to be a parody, but that jerkoff thinks it was.
^^^
Right on, brother. Abrams thinks that Roddenberry created a kitschy parody. His own words reveal his true feelings. And everything else he says is a lie.
Right on, brother. Abrams thinks that Roddenberry created a kitschy parody. His own words reveal his true feelings. And everything else he says is a lie.
OK. Abrams says, "Our Star Trek is not parody," meaning the movie he's making. I guess you're taking that as he must think TOS was a parody. But again, if so, parody of what?
What Abrams means, quite simply, is his movie is not a parody of TOS. Until you can tell me what you think he means TOS to be a parody of, I can't support your supposition.
^^^
Right!
Abrams stated "Our Star Trek is not parody." Conversely and by the transitively property, ergo, the inverse implication is "Their Star Trek is parody." In this case, "Their" refers to true fans who love TOS like a sister, and "Our" refers to Hollywood BSers out to make a buck.
Right!
Abrams stated "Our Star Trek is not parody." Conversely and by the transitively property, ergo, the inverse implication is "Their Star Trek is parody." In this case, "Their" refers to true fans who love TOS like a sister, and "Our" refers to Hollywood BSers out to make a buck.
- Status
Similar threads
