Here we go...
Trekkies Against Torture-A Warning To J.J. Abrams
- Thread starter Dusty Ayres
- Start date
- Status
We are swimming in an endless sea of irony here...
Absolutely Right. (TM)
I just thought the same thing.
As for this comment I will direct your attention to this LINK where you can request access to TNZ. It's a hidden forum where you can discuss politically hot topics of the type you seem to want to talk about. Discussion about the pros and cons of torture need to go to TNZ and not continue in this thread. That goes for everyone.
Noname Given said:[/i][/b]
And as a result, audiences enjoy it. They may never treat it like a religion like Trek, or like nuBSG gets from the most rabid fans. But people who aren't Sci-fi fans still watch it... and they ENJOY it... even if they never particularly care about it.
I've been critical of nuBSG for this very reason... the characters are just generally not LIKEABLE, and as a result, most people DON'T LIKE THEM... and don't want to watch them. Yes, it may be "wonderfully artful" or whatever... but if the audience doesn't want to spend time with these people, they're not gonna watch.
Shows (non-scifi ones) have been doing this for years, and years... it's a common thing. The Korean War setting of MASH was horribly depressing. But the characters were people we would have enjoyed spending time with, who we actually LIKED. So, we watched. They weren't perfect, they were all deeply flawed, but with the possible exception of Major Burns (who, recall, left the show fairly early), every character in the show was a sympathetic character, even if they were also flawed.
Audiences like the characters in SG:A, and audiences don't like the characters in nuBSG. So SG:A gets better ratings, even if it's much more of a "popcorn" show as compared to the "rich stew" of nuBSG.
It's not really hard to figure out.
Well, SG:A is a MAINSTREAM SHOW. It's succeeded in ways that nuBSG has failed utterly... by making itself appealing to "general audiences." It's exciting, and the characters are (GASP!) actually... LIKEABLE.
And as a result, audiences enjoy it. They may never treat it like a religion like Trek, or like nuBSG gets from the most rabid fans. But people who aren't Sci-fi fans still watch it... and they ENJOY it... even if they never particularly care about it.
I've been critical of nuBSG for this very reason... the characters are just generally not LIKEABLE, and as a result, most people DON'T LIKE THEM... and don't want to watch them. Yes, it may be "wonderfully artful" or whatever... but if the audience doesn't want to spend time with these people, they're not gonna watch.
Shows (non-scifi ones) have been doing this for years, and years... it's a common thing. The Korean War setting of MASH was horribly depressing. But the characters were people we would have enjoyed spending time with, who we actually LIKED. So, we watched. They weren't perfect, they were all deeply flawed, but with the possible exception of Major Burns (who, recall, left the show fairly early), every character in the show was a sympathetic character, even if they were also flawed.
Audiences like the characters in SG:A, and audiences don't like the characters in nuBSG. So SG:A gets better ratings, even if it's much more of a "popcorn" show as compared to the "rich stew" of nuBSG.
It's not really hard to figure out.
Well, as long as we are speaking for other people...
"Battlestar Galactica" is the favorite television show of every man, woman, and thundercat on the planet Earth, and every other planet in the universe.
"Stargate: Atlantis," on the other hand, is intensely hated by every living being. Only the Sleestack watch it, and even they hate it, but they can't stop watching. It's sad, really.
The unwashed masses. As long as they don't touch me, I'm content to let them live.
I'm against the torture of Tribbles, unless it's part of a funny joke on the Klingons.
Yep, it caters to an very niche group. I can't stand the show personally, too shakey, talky, and generally meh. There's no hero, nothing to root for. I'm not a soap guy though. Of course, the smaller the fan group, the more...rabidly defensive they become for their little-liked show.
Yep, it caters to an very niche group. I can't stand the show personally, too shakey, talky, and generally meh. There's no hero, nothing to root for. I'm not a soap guy though. Of course, the smaller the fan group, the more...rabidly defensive they become for their little-liked show.
I'm not defensive.
I'm just not as confused as they are. (My apologies to David St. Hubbins.)
Yes, but you're talking about the ORIGINAL. We all know that Thundercats are very partial to robotic monkey-dogs...
Now, that's not true... "Big Alice," as I understand, is very fond of the show too.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
The people behind this website don't want torture from Starfleet characters, period. That's why they are doing this, and they have a good right to be concerned.
It seems that people are not convinced that what happens on Alias & 24 are despiciable acts, so maybe this transcricpt of an September 28th interview on the TV show Democracy Now with the head of the Center For Victims Of Torture will wake them up:
More Health Care Professionals Involved In Design, Structuring of Torture Than In Providing Care for Survivors-written version
]More Health Care Professionals Involved In Design, Structuring of Torture Than In Providing Care for Survivors-video version
Here's an excerpt of what Douglas Johnston (exceutive director of the center) had to say about 24's & Alias's effects on perceptions of torture, in particular the doctors who decided to approve its use:
Now, you tell me there shouldn't be some concern.
I'm afraid not. This being Star Trek, they will use mind-melds instead of torture. They may portray it as analogous to torture (like the mind-rape in Star Trek VI), but that's nothing new to the franchise.
This is pre-emptive in the extreme. Give me evidence that there's torture in the movie and I can see a protest against it. But protesting against torture because Abrams has used it in the past is like, well, protesting against crude humour because there was crude humour in Transformers, Orci & Kurtzmann's latest blockbuster screenplay. Will there be crude humour in Star Trek (2008)? Who knows - and there's no point in being annoyed until this crudity comes to pass.
Or to use another example, imagine a Trekkies Against Musicals forming in the late seventies when it was announced Robert Wise was to direct the Star Trek movie, and they all cited his repeated offenses with West Side Story and The Sound of Music.
There shouldn't be concern about torture in Star Trek. That's what I believe. From everything I've read about J.J. and the rest they intend to keep this movie faithful to the ideals of Roddenberry. That would seem to mean no graphic torture scenes. Maybe we'll get a shot of the agony booth, but that will be the extent.
I don't think anybody said there shouldn't be concern about torture in real life. But we're not talking about real life. We're talking Star Trek. That's why I think that site is silly.
I don't think anybody said there shouldn't be concern about torture in real life. But we're not talking about real life. We're talking Star Trek. That's why I think that site is silly.
- Status
