What Amazes Me

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There was a time when the people in charge of this franchise were actually trying to show a better world than what we have now.

And they still do. "Better" does not mean "perfect" nor does it mean "utopian." In fact, "idealistic" does not map to either of those silly notions either.

Much of Roddenberry's utopian "vision" is in fact repellent to many idealistic folk, as utopias generally are to anyone who doesn't precisely share the utopian planner's values. Roddenberry's idea of Trek came to represent social conformity, behavioral conditioning and suppression of individuality. It was not better, simply less messy than actual human life and therefore more comfortable for some.

Simply because someone else's idea of optimism is not as comfortable for you as Roddenberry's revisionist image of what Star Trek was does not mean there's anything wrong with their ideas. You know, maybe it's as simple as the fact that Abrams and Meyer and a number of the other writers and producers over the decades who have treated Star Trek as something other than utopian are simply more observant, better writers and/or more subtle thinkers than Roddenberry.

That's pretty certainly true in the cases of at least some of them.

 

[Pauln6]

And they still do. "Better" does not mean "perfect" nor does it mean "utopian." In fact, "idealistic" does not map to either of those silly notions either.

Simply because someone else's idea of optimism is not as comfortable for you as Roddenberry's revisionist image of what Star Trek was does not mean there's anything wrong with their ideas. You know, maybe it's as simple as the fact that Abrams and Meyer and a number of the other writers and producers over the decades who have treated Star Trek as something other than utopian are simply more observant, better writers and/or more subtle thinkers than Roddenberry.

I do agree that adding more conflict to the characters' relationships is important to decent story-telling when dealing with a movie. It's more important to wrack up dramatic tension when the story is a one-off that you want to people to watch over and over again.

I don't think that social conditioning is a bad thing though. What an odd thing to say. All parent's socially condition their children to reflect their views - it's not as if children are born wanting to be racist for example. A society that conditions its people to a shared state of cooperation and peaceful existence doesn't seem bad to me!

However, I don't want Trek to become NuBSG. I want a large chunk of that optimism, respect for others' points of view, and altruism to remain.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's a tremendous gulf between the world view of Trek - Abrams or Roddenberry style - and nuBSG; in fact, there's almost that same distance between nuBSG and any other space show ever made for television whether it's Trek or Stargate SG-1 or Buck Rogers In The 25th Century. So you're invoking a false dichotomy there.

 

[RookieBatman]

There was a time when the people in charge of this franchise were actually trying to show a better world than what we have now.

And they still do. "Better" does not mean "perfect" nor does it mean "utopian." In fact, "idealistic" does not map to either of those silly notions either.

I certainly didn't say that "better" meant either of those things, nor do I think it. Are you suggesting I did?

Much of Roddenberry's utopian "vision" is in fact repellent to many idealistic folk, as utopias generally are to anyone who doesn't precisely share the utopian planner's values.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with all of it, either. But, at least they were trying to posit a better world.

Roddenberry's idea of Trek came to represent social conformity, behavioral conditioning and suppression of individuality. It was not better, simply less messy than actual human life and therefore more comfortable for some.

Notwithstanding Pauln6's excellent point about social conformity, I really don't know what you mean by behavioral conditioning and suppression of individuality in TOS. I see plenty of individuality, and I don't see anyone that appears suppressed or irregularly conditioned.

Simply because someone else's idea of optimism is not as comfortable for you as Roddenberry's revisionist image of what Star Trek was does not mean there's anything wrong with their ideas.

Wait a second... are you suggesting that STXI is J.J. Abrams' "idea of optimism?" What's optimistic about it?
And that's not even a value judgment about the quality of the movie. Even if we did say that it was a great/fun adventure film, that hardly means that it was anyone's idea of optimism. What was in there that was an optimistic view of the future, other than the fact that we'll have big guns?

You know, maybe it's as simple as the fact that Abrams and Meyer and a number of the other writers and producers over the decades who have treated Star Trek as something other than utopian are simply more observant, better writers and/or more subtle thinkers than Roddenberry.

That's pretty certainly true in the cases of at least some of them.

Okay, now this is a value judgment: there was really nothing subtle about that movie. I don't think the esteemed writers of Transformers are exactly lauded for the subtlety of their thinking.
And I echo the point that has already been made previously that, aside from times like TNG season 1 (when Roddenberry's creativity was firmly in decline), Star Trek was idealized, not utopian. I'm speaking of the original series only, and that was not a utopian society.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek was idealized...

And it still is.

As for sniping at the writers for having been successful writing movies that you don't care for...well, there were better writers employed from time to time on TOS than Orci and Kurtzman - Ellison, Coon, Spinrad, Sturgeon and others - but Roddenberry, the architect of Trek Utopia, was not among them.

 

[Jeyl]

As for sniping at the writers for having been successful writing movies that you don't care for...well, there were better writers employed from time to time on TOS than Orci and Kurtzman - but Roddenberry, the architect of Trek Utopia, was not among them.

If you're implying that Orci and Kurtzman are the 'better writers' of Star Trek, I'd love to hear some examples as to why because everything I've seen in Trek09 has been done before and done much better.

How about a villain who loses his world, his wife dies, vows revenge against the individual who he thinks is responsible (both individuals weren't really to blame), uses alien bugs that go into your body where it then alters your mind to be more accommodating, steals a device that can destroy planets, and that said technology is what ultimately destroys them and their ship with our hero's ship escaping it's effects just in the nick of time.

Shall I go into the many Star Wars elements for ya? I got a list for that.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

It should have been called Star Wars - Episode VII: The Wrath Of Khan!!!!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It should have been called Star Wars - Episode VII: The Wrath Of Khan!!!!

I think it's going to be "The Wrath Of Fan."

 

[I-Am-Zim]

It should have been called Star Wars - Episode VII: The Wrath Of Khan!!!!

I think it's going to be "The Wrath Of Fan."

True. It's been that for quite some time.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It shouldn't be necessary to speculate.

You really want to go to see movies that require no speculation at all? Where every skerrick of information is spoonfed to us by the creators?

What fun is there in that?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It should have been called Star Wars - Episode VII: The Wrath Of Khan!!!!

I think it's going to be "The Wrath Of Fan."

True. It's been that for quite some time.

Yeah, but "fan" singular.

 

[Pauln6]

You really want to go to see movies that require no speculation at all? Where every skerrick of information is spoonfed to us by the creators?

What fun is there in that?

Lol - sorry I didn't mean for the comment to be taken in a general context. They can speculate after they've run out of easy answers!

They don't have to speculate about the number or location of the romulan crew because they are scanning the ship. They don't have to speculate about whether they can trasnport the romulans because they have 3 transporter rooms and they can just try all the while they are in range.

That's the sort of thing I meant.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They don't have to speculate about the number or location of the romulan crew because they are scanning the ship. They don't have to speculate about whether they can trasnport the romulans because they have 3 transporter rooms and they can just try all the while they are in range.

That's the sort of thing I meant.

Except that they don't seem to be able to do that reliably - earlier Scotty attempts to beam Kirk and Spock into an area of the Narada where he assumes there won't be Romulans. He turns out to be wrong. If he can't do better than that beaming people in, why should we figure that he can scan and establish the exact numbers and locations of all the Romulans a few minutes later?

 

[Pauln6]

They don't have to speculate about the number or location of the romulan crew because they are scanning the ship. They don't have to speculate about whether they can trasnport the romulans because they have 3 transporter rooms and they can just try all the while they are in range.

That's the sort of thing I meant.

Except that they don't seem to be able to do that reliably - earlier Scotty attempts to beam Kirk and Spock into an area of the Narada where he assumes there won't be Romulans. He turns out to be wrong. If he can't do better than that beaming people in, why should we figure that he can scan and establish the exact numbers and locations of all the Romulans a few minutes later?

Ooh yeah I'd forgotten that - it's been awhile since I saw the film. How do they get Kirk out again though? Presumably they can beam people up with a transponder. If that were a consistent limitation I'd be happy but I suspect it is going to vary subject to the plot.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Presumably they can beam people up with a transponder. If that were a consistent limitation I'd be happy but I suspect it is going to vary subject to the plot.

Well, it has in the past so it probably will continue to. There are at least three or four "rules" in Trek that everyone sort of thinks they know but in fact have been applied inconsistently even back during TOS:

1) Subspace radio has a time lag except when it doesn't;
2) You need a communicator for a transporter lock except when you don't;
3) The transporter's range is limited but to what distance and by how much is defined by plot;
4) There's a cubed formula for the warp speeds but really there isn't.

There are a couple of others that don't come to mind right now.

 

[Pauln6]

Presumably they can beam people up with a transponder. If that were a consistent limitation I'd be happy but I suspect it is going to vary subject to the plot.

Well, it has in the past so it probably will continue to. There are at least three or four "rules" in Trek that everyone sort of thinks they know but in fact have been applied inconsistently even back during TOS:

1) Subspace radio has a time lag except when it doesn't;
2) You need a communicator for a transporter lock except when you don't;
3) The transporter's range is limited but to what distance and by how much is defined by plot;
4) There's a cubed formula for the warp speeds but really there isn't.

There are a couple of others that don't come to mind right now.

'YE CANNA CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS' springs to mind...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They've been known to beam people aboard after saying that the shields are up, also...

 

[Kirk1980]

Well, just because it was a stupid mistake in the past....

LET'S KEEP MAKING IT!

Let's make him James R. Kirk then! Have the nacelles change shapes randomly, have film spliced backwards, slow down things for close-ups...

Anything else they did that was dumb in the older shows we want to repeat and then use as justification for what they did dumb in this film?

 

[Nerys Myk]

It more about the nature of the business and the creative process than being "dumb" or "stupid". None of the things Dennis listed are "stupid mistakes", but choices made to tell a story. So when you're try to "sort" things out you have two (or more) contradictory "facts". Makes things tough for the continuity obsessed, but thats not who they were writing for.

 

[Kirk1980]

What are you talking about?

I'm not talking about continuity. I'm talking about things which were mistakes before. Why shouldn't people strive to have things be internally consistent?

For another thing, why do you think I give a damn about continuity?

I'm just tired of every time a criticism is made about this film, it's pointed out the old show did the same thing.

Yeah, so what? So they should just keep making the same mistakes? They should still have plot holes?

Are you serious? Do you have any clue how ridiculous that sounds?

"Well, TOS had stupid moments so therefore you can't complain about stupid moments in Trek 09."

God.