Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Lord Garth FOI, Dec 10, 2011.
And then there's that ugly ship underneath it.
Am I doing this right?
I really don't understand the personal attacks on JJ Abrams, just because he didn't make a Trek film the way YOU would have.
It's cause of that reaction that I LOVE the fact that the film was a commercial, and critical success, and was well received by the public, moreso then any other Trek film. And they they are making another.
You don't remember those bumper stickers of Ford's pissing on Chevy's that were common in the 1990's? Same thing.
It's like I'd be doing the same on Dick Cheney's or Mike Malen's grave, not because of incontinence, but simply showing I got no respect for those guys.
Seeing as how this one got dumbed down to appeal to the Joe sixpack crowds, by making Trek into a mindless popcorn action flick, I would not call it a success. To me, success is more of attitude rather than aptitude. Like if a guy sells out in order to make it big, I'd not call him a winner, I'd call him a loser. And with Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass mainstream folks who watch Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, TMZ and other rubbish, I don't exactly call that a success....just sanitized, sterilized, pasturized and homogenized to make ole' Joe Sixpack and Plain Jane happy.
The JJprise suited the rest of the mess loosely called a film. The nice re-imagining we've seen upthread deserves far better than what else was in ST09. Indeed if such a design had been used it would have further underscored how poor the rest of the film was.
If it was that dumbed down, how was it one of the best reviewed films of the year? This wasn't Transformers, where critics thought it was shit, but it made $500 million dollars. Those people, who you know, have studied film, and review it for a living, loved it. Or are they all just Joe Sixpack now, and YOU know something they all don't about film?
I don't read/watch film reviews.
Plus seeing as how popcorn action flicks are what masses watch, it's a no brainer.
So instead of arguing the point, you ignore it? You still haven't shown how it was dumbed down for the masses, despite the fact that you INSIST it was.
And going by this list:
In the top ten of the highest grossing films of all time, I count...two...popcorn action flicks, and that is if you include Avatar in that category of film.
Your argument isn't based in reality. Sorry.
Really The Castellan has a good point. Mindless, generic "popcorn" movies do well. JJ's Star Trek was meant for the masses that aren't serious fans of Trek and in that regard it did very well. However, to many of the serious Trek fans this movie was an utter abomination and in that regard it was a failure. I've never watched it and never will, just seeing the promos made me think "Yuck!". I won't however disregard it's success on a general level, I just keep in mind that it's really not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.
Whats a Trek movie in the true sense of the term? Who and what determines this? Does it have to bomb at the BO to be a true Trek film?
In your guys' personal canon, fine, you have all the right to say that this isn't a real trek film, just as much as I would have the right to say that TOS isn't part of my Star Trek canon (it is, but just for example). However, to those that matter, i.e. Paramount, the people making the decisions, and the rest of the universe, this film as as "true" Trek as TNG is.
And I disagree with the idea that this was an abomination to serious Trek fans. Most Trek fans I know loved the film, and it's a small minority of fans who feel that they were wronged in some way, that are the most vocal detractors of it.
That's what I mean, Servo. Kosh pretty much found the words I was looking for. For a dedicated, serious Trek fan, this was not a Trek film....just an action popcorn flick with "Star Trek" slapped onto it to sell a cookie cutter product. Just because it did well with the masses, does not mean it's a success, not for dedicated Trek fans like Kosh and myself.
I only watched it because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, and possibly in a different thread, because some guy I knew who was working with the filmmakers to help make the DVD showed me an unfinished copy, with just the film and not special features (though the options screen was there, it would do nothing if you highlighted 'extras' and hit play), about a week or so before the film hit the theaters. I was not too keen to see it, but it would have been the height of rudeness to refuse the offer, especially since he got the disk personally for me to watch. And what I saw was, as Kosh said, not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.
Another example of a film not being what it was said to be are these: The Fourth Kind and 2012. As a Ufologist and paranormal investigator, The Fouth Kind was HIGHLY exaggerated regarding UFO's and alien abduction, same goes for 2012, since as I studied so much material, it too, is no where even close to what study shows. Both these films were merely made to make money off legitimate topics to an audience who either never even heard of the topics, or using cheesy, b movies as reference.
And at least with Avatar, there was some thought in the story shown....not much, but more than what JJ Trek had.
To me, JJ Trek is no different than then hundreds of generic science fiction action films being pumped out back in the early 1980's, just this one having a much larger budget.
So, Kosh pretty much said a good deal.
To YOU, and Kosh, fine it wasn't a real Trek film. But there are lots of other SERIOUS Trek fans, myself included, who thought it was perfectly in line with what we have seen before, and even shockingly, improved upon some aspects.
Comparing it to 2012 and The Fourth Kind is comparing apples and oranges. 2012 used the supposed 2012 Mayan legend as an excuse for Roland Emmerich to blow some stuff up. You could removed the 2 or 3 Mayan references in that movie, and still have the exact same film. As for The Fourth Kind, it took some police reports and supposed UFO incidents, and blew them up to such a point where it it really had nothing to do with the actual event it was supposedly based of off. However both of these films are based off of things, that in some manner, exist in reality, whether it just be hearsay, or legend.
Star Trek is a COMPLETELY FICTIONAL work. Therefore, JJ had no need to go upon what was seen before. There was no historical record he had to base it off of. He wasn't twisting an actual incident. He took a franchise that was DEAD, trimmed off a shitload of fat called canon, recast some iconic roles, and repackaged the whole thing in a manner that was accessible to a worldwide audience, not just a small group of hardcore fans, while keeping the fun and spirit of TOS intact.
And as a hardcore Trek fan, I thank him for it, and hope we get a lot more like it in the future.
Sorry, Serious, dedicated Trek fan right here. I think it was a trek film and better than at least 4 other trek films that we have seen.
So please, kindly refrain from trying to speak for the entirety of trek "serious" fandom.
The '09 film wasn't the worst thing ever. It was better than most Trek films.
The ship, however, is ungainly in proportion.
The parts of it that look good are TOS and TMP. The parts of it that look bad are distortions of that pattern.
I personally enjoy how the people who have hardcore hatred of the film and refused to pay money to see it somehow all managed to see it for free. I remain dubious of these claims.
Anyway, on topic: lets face it, the design of the ship had no impact on the movie's success. They could have been flying around on the original design, a different design, Picard's ship, or a giant orange and the movie would have still done as well as it did.
I am a critic. I paid.
Which implies that popular opinion is no indicator of the quality of the design we have.
^^^As if the earlier Star Trek films were all so smart and wonderful. Rose colored glasses sure are nice.
The fact is, Star Trek was never made for "serious fans". Roddenberry himself said it was designed to be mass-market. It couldn't be and hasn't been as successful when it panders to the fanatics. What the vocal minority of self-proclaimed "serious fans" are in a huff about is that the filmmakers finally went, "oh, yeah...maybe we should make this appealing to more than those guys who discuss it endlessly on BBSes."
So are reading glasses. I already said that the '09 film was better than most Trek films.
I guess they should shut down this bulletin board then, seeing as how fans don't matter.
Then again, what it was intended to be is not the final word about the meaning or value of a work of art.
So what? The TOS, TMP, and TNG designs have all proved to appeal to the mass-market.
Why not go with a better design - all things being equal? Why can't fans discuss what they like and don't like?
The TMP films did quite well as I recall.
Right, so it is much better to express outright contempt for the fans? You don't have to snub the fanbase to make a film that is marketable.
The either/or fallacy here is ridiculous.
Yikes, the conversation sure changed while I was at work/asleep. We went from talking about the ship, to debating the merits of the movie. Well let me try to steer things back on course.
The size of the ship does matter in 2 important areas, "the willing suspension of disbelief" and "dramatic need". Simply put, how far can you push the armchair captains in the audience before they cry foul?
Bigger ship = more resources to throw at a problem.
Smaller ship = less resources, so the crew has to be more resourceful, thus higher drama (and unfortunately, more techno-babble).
So to start this conversation the first thing we have to do is set our ground rules (I like to call this, the "Sliding Scale of Cool"TM): we are talking about a scifi space opera, it's just a TV show, it's got a huge following, and those followers tend to be well versed in it's trivia.
The willing suspension of disbelief.
Situation: Landing party loses contact with the ship & are stranded for hours without rescue. Believable?
TOS - Crew of 450. Landing party consists of captain and department heads. Why? Well 450 divided into 3 duty shifts, means that you have approx 300 people awake aboard at any given time. Divide that by 3 divisions (gold, blue, red), then by departments, and you have very few people to throw at a problem.
ST09 - Crew of close to 1000. Divide that up and I hope you'll see what I'm saying. Why would the Captain beam down to a planet? Why would the XO? You guys in the Navy and Coast Guard could chime in and talk about how often your officers go into the field here.
This was also one of my biggest problems with TNG. If the crew has lost contact with the ship, we understand why they didn't throw more people at the problem in TOS, DS9, VOY, and ENT, they didn't have the crew to risk. But in TNG (and ST09), they have a crew of over 900, why don't they just beam down a second landing party, filled with "red" shirts, to find out what happened? They can mob the surface. They have shuttles to launch if transporters aren't working, and people to risk. And they had the good sense to keep the Captain on the ship most of the time.
Friends, remember that movies are made just to make more money. So, what we think that is good or not, or what we think that would be made by another way, in the most of times won´t be taken seriouslly by the producers.
Due to technollogy standards in these days, was logical to expect something VERY different from TOS. About the holes in the script, and something that could be wrote or occurred by other way, nothing can be done. It´s out of our hands and it´s just past, unhappynness... It won´t change, no matter how much alternative scripts we write.
About the new Enterprise, I would change just 03 thingies (but it´s also out of our hands):
1- decrease the naceles size a bit and move it a bit forward, making it to connect to the pylon near of the center.
2- Make the sec hull cutout appears more like in the TMP and give the hull a better sense of scale.
3- Take off those stupid Budwiser components from the scenarios.
For the last... Don´t take scifi so seriouslly. it´s just money for the producers and companies, while is fun for us, but it isn´t a real thing. At least, not for while.
Separate names with a comma.