No. People have been seeing Star Trek mostly as entertainment long before that. Since 1966, I'd say.
This isn't a fight and less belligerent language might do the discussion some good.
To those who think Trek is merely 'entertainment' and nothing else
- Thread starter trek_futurist
- Start date
- Status
No. People have been seeing Star Trek mostly as entertainment long before that. Since 1966, I'd say.
This isn't a fight and less belligerent language might do the discussion some good.
Who is this they? Is this thread in response to something that has happened on the board/real life in the past?
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
Listen I agree with people who call JJ an opportunist, because they do so on the basis of JJ playing market games and working backward from them. Gene was an opportunist to some degree too, but it cannot be said that he worked backward from marketability to story and characterization. The pilot episode of the cage was how he originally intended Star Trek, with women wearing pants (female first officer) and a generally very cerebral vision (admitted so by both Gene and Majel in interviews, and they should know, if anybody should, right?).
Gene was forced to make concessions, like putting women in skirts, changing the first officer, making the bridge of the enterprise more colorful, etc.
But it cannot be said that he worked the same way that a JJ abrams did, from market value backward. Someone like JJ basically says 'okay so what attracts people to theaters? Oh yea, colorful explosions, people dissing each other constantly and smart mouthed women who make incest jokes haha'.
Gene make Star Trek Marketable to a fringe movement, and the films to a more universal movement, without compromising what HE wanted the characters to be like. JJ approached his 'version' of Star Trek from the immediate standpoint of compromise. He knew what general audiences liked and delivered based on his knowledge of that. Whereas Gene took opportunistic liberties by fitting his vision into a somewhat universally translatable vision.
JJ just saw dollar signs...(which is not to say Gene didn't want money either, but he didn't completely and utterly dumb down the medium for it)
Gene was forced to make concessions, like putting women in skirts, changing the first officer, making the bridge of the enterprise more colorful, etc.
But it cannot be said that he worked the same way that a JJ abrams did, from market value backward. Someone like JJ basically says 'okay so what attracts people to theaters? Oh yea, colorful explosions, people dissing each other constantly and smart mouthed women who make incest jokes haha'.
Gene make Star Trek Marketable to a fringe movement, and the films to a more universal movement, without compromising what HE wanted the characters to be like. JJ approached his 'version' of Star Trek from the immediate standpoint of compromise. He knew what general audiences liked and delivered based on his knowledge of that. Whereas Gene took opportunistic liberties by fitting his vision into a somewhat universally translatable vision.
JJ just saw dollar signs...(which is not to say Gene didn't want money either, but he didn't completely and utterly dumb down the medium for it)
A
Amaris
Guest
That's not really how J.J. saw it. Sure, he had to keep budget and profitability in mind, but his goal was always to tell a good story. Have you ever watched the interviews?
Well, given that Abrams's movie is so much better in every respect than much of what Roddenberry produced after the first year of TOS I'm not all that concerned about whose unknowable motives were loftier.
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
Why do you keep 'admonishing' people like me and xortex yet you have not once said anything about people implying character traits about other's? Can you please do a more objective job moderating, instead of so obviously choosing sides?
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
I think his goal was two things.
1-marketability (I.E working backwards from 'this is what people want' to 'oh this is star trek by the way').
2-To show his endearing love of starwars by making a starwars movie with the star trek moniker.
A
Amaris
Guest
I remember seeing the 2009 movie and thinking "it's like he absorbed all the great moments from the original series!". He just nailed it, spot on. Great movie, and filled with fun and adventure.
1) Nothing indicates this to be remotely true.
2) He is a fan of Star Wars, yes, but he's also a fan of Star Trek. As a fan of both myself, I can see why his preferences would filter into other genres. The Star Trek movie was still quintessentially Star Trek in every way, just more nuanced in some ways, and just as bold and adventurous as the original series.
Yeah, I bet that really took some arm twisting.
A
Amaris
Guest
The problem is that Gene gets put on a pedestal. You love his creation so you love the creator. You don't want to find fault with the creator, so you put him on a pedestal to keep him away from imperfections. It's like V'Ger in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, who can't possibly believe that it's creator is a fallible human being subject to all the errors and foibles that are so much apart of the species.
If you have a complaint about a moderator's actions, feel free to PM the moderator to work it out in private, or PM the Board Admistrator. Since you refuse to stay on topic after being cautioned more than once - you've earned an infraction for spamming, and this train wreck of a thread is closed.
- Status
Similar threads
