Re: To Accept or Not to Accept
Quote:
So Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Part II, huh?
Originally Posted by Augustus
THAT WOULD BE GREAT! A TRUELY EPIC FILM IN CINEMATOGRAPHY.
but would it be canon
To Accept or Not to Accept
- Thread starter hal9500
- Start date
- Status
but would it be canon
To Academic
For an Academic you don't sound very pc.
For an Academic you don't sound very pc.
And we probably would get a totally embarrasing final Kirk-Spock scene... Do you remember the dialogue between Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee at the end of 'LotR: The Return of the King'? No offense, but this was sooooo gay!
Hey, you gotta give the K/S slashfic writers something to work with.
I'm almost ashamed to ask... but what does 'pc' mean?
The bottom line for this movie has very little to do with Trek fans. It's all about the casual Trek viewers who may have enjoyed an episode here and there, but were turned off by the repetitive and often silly storylines, the sub-standard budgets, and frankly, the tired old notions of what Trek "should" be. to the extent that any of these casual viewers walks out of the theatre saying "it's just more of that same dorky rubber forehead crap," the franchise loses.
To the Academic
pc= politically correct
PS: I responded to an earlier post of yours. It was my post 190 pg 10,
pc= politically correct
PS: I responded to an earlier post of yours. It was my post 190 pg 10,
A
Amaris
Guest
Just a general thought, when you start picking at someone's user name, you're heading into territory you would probably rather turn around and head away from.
J.
I'm a historian, not a social engineer.
By the way, the term 'political correctness' was first used in Mao Zedong's 'Little Red Book' and adopted by the radical Left in the 1960s as a self-criticism of dogmatic attitudes. I never cared to be affiliated with any of the persons just mentioned.
Also, English is not my native language and I'm not too familiar with the abbreviations used in e-mails or chatrooms or what have you...
Aragorn, I am unfamilar with who you are referring. I simply joined a few days ago because to tell the truth I posted on trekmovie.com for a long time in the begining then they started deleting my posts because of my critical statements about JJ Abrams. I started looking on line to see if there are other websites where Star Trek fans can share their concerns. I always believe in dialog and think this is one of the great lessons of the original series, any topic can be discussed. Yet if you look at many of the forums online it seems anyone labelled as a supporter of 'canon' quickly gets muzzled. This is what I have been observing concerning discussion boards over the new film. Perhaps I am wrong? For those who support canon has anyone else experienced this?
A
Amaris
Guest
I support canon, and no one has muzzled me on anything.
I would imagine it's the way that you support it and the method in which you choose to state your opinion.
J.
i'm a big fan of tos , first and true trek tng to voy where good but nothing topped tos ,we can argue all day about cannon who is right and wrong,but at the end will it remain true to gene's vison and should that not be what trek is about a future we all want to live in, and a darn good story .
I finally caught up to what this thread is about, and offer my own POV.
1 - regarding Canon - JRR Tolkien's LOTR (especially his characterization of Aragorn) is not exactly what Jackson put on the screen. There was dramatic license taken all over the place. Yet the LOTR Trilogy did well in theaters, despite PJ's mangling of what many Tolkien fans considered canon. And a whole new audience of Tolkien fans was created along the way. I count myself in that crew since my first take on the movie (via McDonald's commercials) was to discount it as yet another piece of Hollywood merchandising. I subsequently read the Trilogy, Hobbit, Silmarillion, and Children of Hurin, among many of the books out there. Many forgave PJ his excesses because the storytelling and the characterizations in the movies were done well enough to overcome the risks in taking license. Trek can live with that too, provided the movie's storytelling and characterizations are well done and this isn't just some lovefest with technology and cool SFX. The Trek movie library already has examples of how not to do it.
2 - Paramount's (CBS') interest - they are out to make money, make no mistake about that. Trek, in any incarnation, will stand or fall on this movie's success or lack of same. If Paramount or CBS are looking for ways to keep Trek alive, then this movie represents their last, best hope for years to come. The views of an aging fandom are not necessarily going to count much when developing any future movies or series. In fact, if anything one could accues Hollywood of laziness given the reworkings of other well known movies vs writing all new material (The Women comes to mind). That said;
3 - there is a risk in simply appealing to a "wider audience." ENT attempted to do that and failed miserably, despite the rescue effort mounted in Season 4. DS9 stands for many as an example of doing Trek well, even though it was not universally well liked due to its 'dark' tone (the war stories). Folks wanted a more upbeat series, but many appreciated the risks DS9 took (In the Pale Moonlight anyone?) over the long term, and I see indications of that in this thread.
Reading this thread I get the feeling several posters are hoping they walk out of an upbeat movie as the credits roll. At the same time, there are those who simply cannot accept a new vision of Trek. Many felt (and still feel) that way about the new BSG. Like it or not, the movie is here. Like it or not, it may turn out like the new BSG - well done, thoughtful, and challenging to watch.
I don't know yet if I will go to the movie. I am not interested in anything that makes techonology the star over personal interaction and development. I got enough of that in Star Wars Eps 1-3. I may wait for the reviews first. In the meantime, while I understand the views of those who are appalled that this movie potentially insults Trek canon, I think we all need to take a breath and see what actually happens in May.
1 - regarding Canon - JRR Tolkien's LOTR (especially his characterization of Aragorn) is not exactly what Jackson put on the screen. There was dramatic license taken all over the place. Yet the LOTR Trilogy did well in theaters, despite PJ's mangling of what many Tolkien fans considered canon. And a whole new audience of Tolkien fans was created along the way. I count myself in that crew since my first take on the movie (via McDonald's commercials) was to discount it as yet another piece of Hollywood merchandising. I subsequently read the Trilogy, Hobbit, Silmarillion, and Children of Hurin, among many of the books out there. Many forgave PJ his excesses because the storytelling and the characterizations in the movies were done well enough to overcome the risks in taking license. Trek can live with that too, provided the movie's storytelling and characterizations are well done and this isn't just some lovefest with technology and cool SFX. The Trek movie library already has examples of how not to do it.
2 - Paramount's (CBS') interest - they are out to make money, make no mistake about that. Trek, in any incarnation, will stand or fall on this movie's success or lack of same. If Paramount or CBS are looking for ways to keep Trek alive, then this movie represents their last, best hope for years to come. The views of an aging fandom are not necessarily going to count much when developing any future movies or series. In fact, if anything one could accues Hollywood of laziness given the reworkings of other well known movies vs writing all new material (The Women comes to mind). That said;
3 - there is a risk in simply appealing to a "wider audience." ENT attempted to do that and failed miserably, despite the rescue effort mounted in Season 4. DS9 stands for many as an example of doing Trek well, even though it was not universally well liked due to its 'dark' tone (the war stories). Folks wanted a more upbeat series, but many appreciated the risks DS9 took (In the Pale Moonlight anyone?) over the long term, and I see indications of that in this thread.
Reading this thread I get the feeling several posters are hoping they walk out of an upbeat movie as the credits roll. At the same time, there are those who simply cannot accept a new vision of Trek. Many felt (and still feel) that way about the new BSG. Like it or not, the movie is here. Like it or not, it may turn out like the new BSG - well done, thoughtful, and challenging to watch.
I don't know yet if I will go to the movie. I am not interested in anything that makes techonology the star over personal interaction and development. I got enough of that in Star Wars Eps 1-3. I may wait for the reviews first. In the meantime, while I understand the views of those who are appalled that this movie potentially insults Trek canon, I think we all need to take a breath and see what actually happens in May.
Seen it; you're mistaken. And Abrams is a much better choice for a film like this than Peter Jackson, who is also a fine director.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it.
No. Anthony doesn't delete just for that, sorry. Rude, personally insulting, real repetitive - those are some of the reasons that posts might be deleted.
And we probably would get a totally embarrasing final Kirk-Spock scene... Do you remember the dialogue between Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee at the end of 'LotR: The Return of the King'? No offense, but this was sooooo gay!
I'll be the PC police on this one. If this new Trek includes Kirk/Spock love, more power to them. Besides, not all male love is sexual. Cicero's ideal of perfect friendship was strictly male but not sexualized. Montaigne and Christian de Troyes are a good example of such a relationship.
But on the subject of actual male homosexuality,honestly, not enough Trek has taken real chances with male homosexual love. There was the lesbian kiss in DS9, but nobody will touch male homosexuality. I'd be thrilled if this movie would take a chance like that, even with a character like Sulu. It could be a fitting homage to Takei.
Throughout the entire TOS series and the feature films, the friendship between Kirk and Spock was always depicted as extemely intensive, truly more like the classic examples you quoted, and nothing like today's off-the-rack beer-guzzling footy mates acquaintanceship [excuse my Australianisms]...
I've never thought about that, but now that you mention it, this would really be a fitting tribute for George Takei and be outrageously fresh at the same time. TOS was known to be ground-breaking when it came to social issues (for example, the first black-white kiss), so that would be a tradition worth continuing in nuTrek.
That's, however, where I put my foot down. I prefer my Kirk to remain absolutely William Shatner-style, womanizing like there is no tomorrow...
Uh yeah... they're called primary sources and most of them are or are created by people that have almost no interest in history or academic research.
- Status
