startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
Well this is an alternate universe so things are going to be a lot different anyway I love how all the characters are younger you can watch them mature into their roles as the movies go on don't you think so?
What Amazes Me
- Thread starter Withers
- Start date
- Status
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
how about introduce a young Carol Marcus or just reference her, throw in a love relationship between Pine's Kirk and Carol what do you think or am I not thinking right?
Well, looks like I've got a lot of catching up to do...
Let the record show that I still do. Insofar as I can find a lot of quite justifiable reasons not to like the movie (that is, they're not just based on predisposition to dislike it), the fact is that I gain no entertainment value by not liking it. I can't sit down to watch a movie and enjoy how much I hate it (it seems that some people can, but I'm not one of them), so the only way this movie is of any value to me is if I enjoy it. So if I can somehow cause myself to enjoy it, that's one more movie that I can watch and be entertained by. Sure, I don't really lose anything by not liking it, but if I do like it, then I've gained something.
I used to hate the Spider-Man movies (I'm downright puritanical about Spider-Man), but I had this same thought about those, and I managed to somehow rewire my thinking to enjoy them. It worked so well that I even liked Spider-Man 3. So now I've got about 8 more hours of film to sit down and enjoy whenever I want then I would've had if I hadn't tried so hard to like them.
I haven't really put in as much effort to make myself like this movie, because I already have 90+ hours of Kirk and crew, so there's just not a lot of urgency there. Even if I can make myself like it, it will still be in a subordinate position to the original series. But anyway, the point is that I, personally, am not done trying to find reasons to like this movie. And you can quote me on that.
Actually, that did come from the book, well, sort of. I've done a Google Books search to refresh my memory, and the line "shaken, not stirred," isn't ever used, but in giving his recipe for his special drink (which he eventually names "the Vesper Lynde"), he does specifically indicate that it should be shaken.
I know, it's a small point, but here's how I think of things like that. I just don't see the reason to take a specifically iconic point about what had come before and declare in bright neon letters that you're no longer honoring that. In my mind, it would be quite enough of a departure to just ask for a dry martini and not bother saying whether it should be shaken or stirred. But instead, they loudly declare their intention to buck the establishment. And I think in some ways that's sort of arrgogant; it's like, "hey look, we know how to do it better than those old fogies (that made a whole lot of money)." I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into it.
And I'm not really just talking about Bond, that's really more of a general statement about remakes/reboots/etc in general. Like, I remember watching the newer version of the Alamo, and there was this one part where Jim Bowie is talking to his black slave. In the old movie, Bowie ends up freeing his slave before it's over, and maybe that's was just a PC sort of external call-out to the civil rights movement, but it was still a pleasant way of making Bowie look just a little more heroic. So, in the new movie, the slave asks Bowie if he can have his freedom, and Bowie very indignantly replies, "No! You're my property until the day I die!"
It's possible that I just kinda took that personally since I'm such a fan of the old version, but to me, it was almost like the writers had just held a sign that said, "Hey everybody, see how silly the old version was, and how much better we are?" And I can understand if they wanted to be historically accurate, but all they would've had to do then is just not have a scene where Bowie frees his slave. Instead, they had a scene where they very specifically highlighted the fact that he would not free his slave, and I really felt that was intended as a direct comparison to the previous. Maybe I'm just paranoid.
But anyway, the point again is that I don't really appreciate scenes like that, because it comes off to me like the new creators are just saying that they know better than the previous ones, if though the success of the previous creators was the only reason the current ones are getting a chance to do this. Again, maybe I'm just over-sensitive, but it strikes me as disrespectful. *shrug*
See, this tagline just doesn't work for me. I liked "My Father's Trek," why should I be excited that this isn't it?
While it's certainly true that Gene had some bad ideas ("The Omega Glory," anyone?), I think he was much stronger as a producer than a writer. And what I mean by that is that he was the unifying element, not essentially the idea man. He didn't come up with the Klingons or Romulans, the Prime Directive, the Vulcan Nerve Pinch or hand salute, those were all from other writers. But he did have a lot of the core concepts of Star Trek which are a lot more subtle, in the background, but which really shaped Star Trek and made it such a cut above the rest. He was good at picking the right people to work for him (which is one of the real marks of good leadership), and he was very serious about going the extra mile to ensure quality. Which is why the quality declined so much in season 3, because the writers were there, but Gene wasn't.
But above all, he was the one that had the idea to do a serious adult science-fiction show that wasn't anthology or space opera, with an optimistic vision of the future. No, that shouldn't qualify him for sainthood, but I think absolutely that he was the right man to "handle" Star Trek, and the main reason that it worked.
Roddenberry wasn't in control of TMP, the A-list director was. It wasn't his fault that it was unfinished, it was the studio's, for committing to a deadline they couldn't reach. How do you think Roddenberry could've influenced that? When it was Phase II, he was in charge, but by the time it was a movie, he really didn't have much (if any) control anymore.
But do you know why?
[EDIT: Therin already gave the short answer, but I'll give the long one.]
Star Trek had had a bad time slot in the second season (when Gene was acting only as executive producer, and the quality was already sliding a little), and he had leveraged the network, saying that he would take over again as the active producer in season 3, but only if the network would give him a better timeslot. The execs recognized how much of an effect Gene's contribution had on the quality of the show, so they gave him a good spot on Monday nights. Then, later on, they went back on their word, changing Star Trek's timeslot to Fridays at 10:30. Of course, the college kids who made up Trek's core demographic wouldn't be at home watching TV at the time on Friday night; it was a death sentence. And Gene had told them that he would return to an active role as main producer, only if they gave him a good timeslot. They didn't, and so if he hadn't carried out his threat, he would've lost any semblance of leverage with the network. So that's why he left. And the difference in quality is noticeable by everyone.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not Gene Roddenberry's #1 fan. He had his share of faults (taking credit for other people's ideas was a big one). But he still is observably the reason that Star Trek succeeded, and succeeded so well that it's still around today. He was far from perfect, but he still should be remembered for that.
The execution of some of the stories he wrote may have been terrible, but don't forget that he rewrote most of the scripts (especially in the first season), and brought them more in line with a unified vision of Star Trek. So, while many of those concepts may not have come from him, we really have no idea what little character moments or classic lines did originate with him.
In my book, bad writer plus good re-writer still equals good producer. (And I have read one of those books not written by his acolytes.)
Well, in the early days (while the show was on), Gene was much more evenhanded about sharing the praise with everyone else. It was really more around the time that hotel lobbies started being packed with thousands of screaming fans declaring he was the greatest thing since sliced bread... he started to believe them. Fame went to his head just like a lot of people. It doesn't excuse his actions; he still did a lot of bad stuff in those later years, but it wasn't always that way. He's not the first or last person to fall into the kind of self-image trap.
Let the record show that I still do. Insofar as I can find a lot of quite justifiable reasons not to like the movie (that is, they're not just based on predisposition to dislike it), the fact is that I gain no entertainment value by not liking it. I can't sit down to watch a movie and enjoy how much I hate it (it seems that some people can, but I'm not one of them), so the only way this movie is of any value to me is if I enjoy it. So if I can somehow cause myself to enjoy it, that's one more movie that I can watch and be entertained by. Sure, I don't really lose anything by not liking it, but if I do like it, then I've gained something.
I used to hate the Spider-Man movies (I'm downright puritanical about Spider-Man), but I had this same thought about those, and I managed to somehow rewire my thinking to enjoy them. It worked so well that I even liked Spider-Man 3. So now I've got about 8 more hours of film to sit down and enjoy whenever I want then I would've had if I hadn't tried so hard to like them.
I haven't really put in as much effort to make myself like this movie, because I already have 90+ hours of Kirk and crew, so there's just not a lot of urgency there. Even if I can make myself like it, it will still be in a subordinate position to the original series. But anyway, the point is that I, personally, am not done trying to find reasons to like this movie. And you can quote me on that.
Actually, that did come from the book, well, sort of. I've done a Google Books search to refresh my memory, and the line "shaken, not stirred," isn't ever used, but in giving his recipe for his special drink (which he eventually names "the Vesper Lynde"), he does specifically indicate that it should be shaken.
I know, it's a small point, but here's how I think of things like that. I just don't see the reason to take a specifically iconic point about what had come before and declare in bright neon letters that you're no longer honoring that. In my mind, it would be quite enough of a departure to just ask for a dry martini and not bother saying whether it should be shaken or stirred. But instead, they loudly declare their intention to buck the establishment. And I think in some ways that's sort of arrgogant; it's like, "hey look, we know how to do it better than those old fogies (that made a whole lot of money)." I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into it.
And I'm not really just talking about Bond, that's really more of a general statement about remakes/reboots/etc in general. Like, I remember watching the newer version of the Alamo, and there was this one part where Jim Bowie is talking to his black slave. In the old movie, Bowie ends up freeing his slave before it's over, and maybe that's was just a PC sort of external call-out to the civil rights movement, but it was still a pleasant way of making Bowie look just a little more heroic. So, in the new movie, the slave asks Bowie if he can have his freedom, and Bowie very indignantly replies, "No! You're my property until the day I die!"
It's possible that I just kinda took that personally since I'm such a fan of the old version, but to me, it was almost like the writers had just held a sign that said, "Hey everybody, see how silly the old version was, and how much better we are?" And I can understand if they wanted to be historically accurate, but all they would've had to do then is just not have a scene where Bowie frees his slave. Instead, they had a scene where they very specifically highlighted the fact that he would not free his slave, and I really felt that was intended as a direct comparison to the previous. Maybe I'm just paranoid.
But anyway, the point again is that I don't really appreciate scenes like that, because it comes off to me like the new creators are just saying that they know better than the previous ones, if though the success of the previous creators was the only reason the current ones are getting a chance to do this. Again, maybe I'm just over-sensitive, but it strikes me as disrespectful. *shrug*
See, this tagline just doesn't work for me. I liked "My Father's Trek," why should I be excited that this isn't it?
While it's certainly true that Gene had some bad ideas ("The Omega Glory," anyone?), I think he was much stronger as a producer than a writer. And what I mean by that is that he was the unifying element, not essentially the idea man. He didn't come up with the Klingons or Romulans, the Prime Directive, the Vulcan Nerve Pinch or hand salute, those were all from other writers. But he did have a lot of the core concepts of Star Trek which are a lot more subtle, in the background, but which really shaped Star Trek and made it such a cut above the rest. He was good at picking the right people to work for him (which is one of the real marks of good leadership), and he was very serious about going the extra mile to ensure quality. Which is why the quality declined so much in season 3, because the writers were there, but Gene wasn't.
But above all, he was the one that had the idea to do a serious adult science-fiction show that wasn't anthology or space opera, with an optimistic vision of the future. No, that shouldn't qualify him for sainthood, but I think absolutely that he was the right man to "handle" Star Trek, and the main reason that it worked.
Roddenberry wasn't in control of TMP, the A-list director was. It wasn't his fault that it was unfinished, it was the studio's, for committing to a deadline they couldn't reach. How do you think Roddenberry could've influenced that? When it was Phase II, he was in charge, but by the time it was a movie, he really didn't have much (if any) control anymore.
But do you know why?
[EDIT: Therin already gave the short answer, but I'll give the long one.]
Star Trek had had a bad time slot in the second season (when Gene was acting only as executive producer, and the quality was already sliding a little), and he had leveraged the network, saying that he would take over again as the active producer in season 3, but only if the network would give him a better timeslot. The execs recognized how much of an effect Gene's contribution had on the quality of the show, so they gave him a good spot on Monday nights. Then, later on, they went back on their word, changing Star Trek's timeslot to Fridays at 10:30. Of course, the college kids who made up Trek's core demographic wouldn't be at home watching TV at the time on Friday night; it was a death sentence. And Gene had told them that he would return to an active role as main producer, only if they gave him a good timeslot. They didn't, and so if he hadn't carried out his threat, he would've lost any semblance of leverage with the network. So that's why he left. And the difference in quality is noticeable by everyone.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not Gene Roddenberry's #1 fan. He had his share of faults (taking credit for other people's ideas was a big one). But he still is observably the reason that Star Trek succeeded, and succeeded so well that it's still around today. He was far from perfect, but he still should be remembered for that.
The execution of some of the stories he wrote may have been terrible, but don't forget that he rewrote most of the scripts (especially in the first season), and brought them more in line with a unified vision of Star Trek. So, while many of those concepts may not have come from him, we really have no idea what little character moments or classic lines did originate with him.
In my book, bad writer plus good re-writer still equals good producer. (And I have read one of those books not written by his acolytes.)
Well, in the early days (while the show was on), Gene was much more evenhanded about sharing the praise with everyone else. It was really more around the time that hotel lobbies started being packed with thousands of screaming fans declaring he was the greatest thing since sliced bread... he started to believe them. Fame went to his head just like a lot of people. It doesn't excuse his actions; he still did a lot of bad stuff in those later years, but it wasn't always that way. He's not the first or last person to fall into the kind of self-image trap.
Making it equally as unimportant, thus, no reason to argue against one or the other. They did what they did, so discuss the merits of what they did do.
That's what I was trying to do. As far as merits go, I think it was wrong to have Uhura and Spock behave so unprofessionally while on duty - it delayed the mission and suggested that couples should not be serving on the same ship. Something more subtle, such as the finger rubbing, if established by using it alongside the kissing in the turbolift earlier, would have got the message across AND highlighted Kirk's observational skills.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Yep. That makes a lot of sense. I was quite put off by Uhura and Spock's extremely unprofessional behavior both on and off the bridge. That is precicesely why relationships between superior officers and their subbordinates is frowned upon (in the real world, at least).
Right, it's not About(TM) Spock Prime being fake... it's About(TM) Spock Prime possibly being fake.
Oh, the agony!Withers said:
Calvary is a location in Jerusalem. I don't think it's rushing anywhere.
Right, it's not About(TM) Spock Prime being fake... it's About(TM) Spock Prime possibly being fake.
Yes it is. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Because the topic of Spock Prime possibly being fake is in fact a completely different topic than the topic of Spock Prime being fake ( in which possibility is not involved at all ). What's it all About(TM), I wonder?
Last edited:
Because the topic of Spock Prime possibly being fake is in fact a completely different topic than the topic of Spock Prime being fake ( in which possibility is not involved at all ). What's it all About(TM), I wonder?
Once again, a "reply" that really has nothing to do with the post you're replying to. Yes, the topic is of Old Spock possibly being fake. That's what it's been from the beginning; you're the only one who's been arguing the completely different topic.
But again, that's completely avoiding the question I asked, so here it is again:
Once again, you make baseless allegations because there's no objective reality in your universe of "opinion". So a reply has nothing to do with a post if you say so, even if it has everything to do with the post.
No, those are the same topic - unless you presume that a topic of "Spock Prime being fake" somehow involves no possibility at all. You're trying to invent a distinction where none exists. Why not? It's just another careless ploy with no basis in reality.
Once again, you make baseless allegations because there's no objective reality in your universe of "opinion". So a reply has nothing to do with a post if you say so, even if it has everything to do with the post.
Of course, the same could be said of you. I'll completely agree that our conceptions of reality are diametrically opposed. But you can't say that I think that I'm the sole arbiter of reality in one post, and then that there is no objective reality in my universe in another post. And you can feel free to illucidate how that had everything to do with my post (thus forwarding the discussion) whenever you actually want to, you know, discuss, and not just insult.
In fact, you were the one who made the distinction:
Because the topic of Spock Prime possibly being fake is in fact a completely different topic than the topic of Spock Prime being fake ( in which possibility is not involved at all ). What's it all About(TM), I wonder?
Or were you being sarcastic? It's kinda hard to tell.
But again, that's completely avoiding the question I asked, so here it is again:
Those mean the same thing. ( Of course I can't say it... because your opinion defines reality, and you could just say that in your opinion it never happened. )
In other words "I know you are but what am I?" But wait...
Then the same can't be said of me? Which is it?
Okay, okay. You're absolutely right, my apologies. You can say it, it's just self-contradictory. If you're okay with that, then it's fine with me.
But again, that's completely avoiding the question I asked, so here it is again:
No, it isn't. Having no objective reality means the same thing as making all reality subject to your opinion.
I'm not avoiding anything; it's just more baseless allegation. If someone answers the question you asked, you can still say they avoided the question you asked, because it's all just opinion, and you can say whatever you want.
Okay, fine, whatever. I'm not gonna press the point; it's moot anyway, because I don't believe either of those things.
And yet, you still didn't answer the question, or in fact, most of the questions I ask. That's not a dialogue, that's a lecture with interruptions.
But if you don't answer it, then you're definitely avoiding it. And I don't say you're avoiding a question unless you don't answer it.
Let me restate it, then, in a more objective way.
Do you accept the following statement:
The original premise of my opinion was that Old Spock could be considered (according to personal preference) to be from an alternate future; it was not that he certainly wasn't from the Prime timeline.
If you do not accept that statement, why?
Until STXI comes along.
I see this tactic has caught on. Monkey see, monkey do. It doesn't matter that I answered the question. As long as you continue to insist that I didn't, your denial overwrites reality.
Still no.
If you did answer the question, then it's clear that I missed it (in addition to not thinking I'm omniscient, I also don't think I'm infallible). So why don't you just quote or post a link to the post in which you did so, and we can go from there? I don't need to try to overwrite reality, because all the reality of this discussion is recorded here for us. If you showed the post in which you answered the question, "why is that so hard for you to understand," and I continued to state that you hadn't answered it, then that would be denying the reality of that situation. So far, you haven't given me any such reality to deny.
- Status
Similar threads
