What I think Star Tek XI will be about

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
Later day Trek was all about people. That's the problem. I'd rather learn something about myself than something about them. You can't say that the Twilight Zone wasn't about people but it made us understand a bit about ourselves and the nature of the universe and how it affects us all. I.e. it must be metaphorical and introspective (insightful) and meaningful to you and me, and not just to them.

No it wasn't, it was very much about solving the anomlie of the week or enlightening some backward planet - the last thing it was about was the people involved in these problems.

I'm saying that the story shouldn't be about something, but I do think allegory is the lazy way to create something interesting - allegory is best used as a means to sell a point (make a person come over to your point of view) and it is mostly 2 dimensional. I don't want anymore aliens that are metaphors for human aspects I want them to stand on their own and I mean that for any crew to pilot a starship as well.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

So you don't want metaphor. I'm guessing you liked Star Wars better than 2001.

 

[xortex]

I think Star Trek is a concept show. People are not concepts and it should not be a people show per say. But they are not mutually exclusive is so much the better but it is important that the audience learn something about themselves and the nature of reality. To me, it was always a plot/event driven show which is something they really tried to get away from later on.

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
So you don't want metaphor. I'm guessing you liked Star Wars better than 2001.

No I don't want *agenda* buried in some supposed "Deeper meaning", metaphor can only help a story so go far and is always a crutch to someone who can't make engaging characters.

Thanks for your elitist comment, just whats wrong with modern fandom.

FYI: My Favorite books is DUNE, yes I enjoyed Star Wars (It was better before its creator thought he could make metaphorical political statements - which is what I'm talking about regarding Star Trek), I think 2001 is over rated, pretentious Science Fiction fans irk, I think fiction all fiction is subject to similar rules and to get people to care about the story you need to give them a reason to follow it via the characters.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

How about deeper meaning buried in agenda ?

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
How about deeper meaning buried in agenda ?

No I want an A-political Star Trek, not one created with the purpose of selling a POV. Let me enjoy the characters and their adventure together. Let me discover my own meaning as they come to learn about one another and over come whatever problem is at hand.


Sharr

 

[xortex]

POV comes from the characters and it shouldn't. Maybe the story will be about Dr. Mccoy getting an alien hangnail.

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
POV comes from the characters and it shouldn't. Maybe the story will be about Dr. Mccoy getting an alien hangnail.

huh? Characters are the vehicle by which you tell the story, of course their point of view comes into play. We learn as they learn...

To clarify, when I said point of view I was talking about some over arching agenda with purposes other then moving the story along. Such as Picard spewing how great the 24th Century is to Lily or formerly rich guys from the 20th Century - but in actuality its just an excuse to one be condescending and two sell a Hollywood-Left view.

Sharr

 

[Dale]

xortex said:
How about deeper meaning buried in agenda ?

...and wrapped in an enigma.

 

[cardinal biggles]

I prefer when it's wrapped in creamy nougat and thick caramel.

 

[xortex]

I'm also not interested in how to get rid of an alien hangnail - something McCoy might be very interested in if he had one. A good story should inform us about ourselves, not so much about the characters. Else it is Bond or star Wars.

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
I'm also not interested in how to get rid of an alien hangnail - something McCoy might be very interested in if he had one. A good story should inform us about ourselves, not so much about the characters. Else it is Bond or star Wars.

That has nothing to do with McCoy, that doesn't tell me a thing about who McCoy is or how he views humanity or what it means to be human to him. Its also a fine strawman since no one is talking about doing that - infact "dealing with an alien hangnail" exactly describes how TNG told stories since to them it was always about "Things" and not people.

And News Flash - Star Trek isn't intellectually superior to either Bond of Star Wars - this intellectual superiority complex some Trek fans have really makes me not want to be counted amongst them.

Trust me Star Trek really has never pulled off the reflective, breaking the allegorical wall as they did in "Forbidden Planet" (a movie I happen to like) where the metaphor is suddenly literally part of the plot and you can speak about it in Jungian terms for the audience's sake. If they try that now it will be roundly criticized as art and as theater.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

Is there really something wrong with art ? Art that resonates on many different levels ? Art that is about something indefinable, say ?

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
Is there really something wrong with art ? Art that resonates on many different levels ? Art that is about something indefinable, say ?

There is a lot wrong with art that exists to preach how superior it is, yes. I happen to despise "modern art", show me a field of trees with a farm house on it something that takes talent to paint, or even "The Screamer" but spare me the white canvas with a yellow stripe slashed across it that some might claim holds deep universal meaning thanks very much.

Let it resonate on different levels, but to do that it can't become a "message movie", people need to be engaged and care about the people on the big screen first and foremost. If this tries to be anything else other then an enjoyable film experience its going to crash and be laughed out of the theaters.

Star Trek should never debase itself by becoming art house drivel. Let it be the space adventure, the wagon train to the stars that sold the show not the pompous know it all that was TNG.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

I don't think you give the average fan enough credit. Little kids these days can understand the most complex things at least subconsciously. It should also be metaphysically meaningful about the simplest things. I.e. we have to relate to the story as well as the characters.

 

[Tamek]

Sharr Khan said:

xortex said:
Later day Trek was all about people. That's the problem. I'd rather learn something about myself than something about them. You can't say that the Twilight Zone wasn't about people but it made us understand a bit about ourselves and the nature of the universe and how it affects us all. I.e. it must be metaphorical and introspective (insightful) and meaningful to you and me, and not just to them.

No it wasn't, it was very much about solving the anomlie of the week or enlightening some backward planet - the last thing it was about was the people involved in these problems.

I'm saying that the story shouldn't be about something, but I do think allegory is the lazy way to create something interesting - allegory is best used as a means to sell a point (make a person come over to your point of view) and it is mostly 2 dimensional. I don't want anymore aliens that are metaphors for human aspects I want them to stand on their own and I mean that for any crew to pilot a starship as well.

Sharr

Aliens should be exactly that: alien

 

[Tamek]

Sharr Khan said:

xortex said:
Is there really something wrong with art ? Art that resonates on many different levels ? Art that is about something indefinable, say ?

There is a lot wrong with art that exists to preach how superior it is, yes. I happen to despise "modern art", show me a field of trees with a farm house on it something that takes talent to paint, or even "The Screamer" but spare me the white canvas with a yellow stripe slashed across it that some might claim holds deep universal meaning thanks very much.

Let it resonate on different levels, but to do that it can't become a "message movie", people need to be engaged and care about the people on the big screen first and foremost. If this tries to be anything else other then an enjoyable film experience its going to crash and be laughed out of the theaters.

Star Trek should never debase itself by becoming art house drivel. Let it be the space adventure, the wagon train to the stars that sold the show not the pompous know it all that was TNG.

Sharr

If it crashes I'll probably sniffle out of the theater, not laugh out of the theater.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Sharr Khan said:

xortex said:
Is there really something wrong with art ? Art that resonates on many different levels ? Art that is about something indefinable, say ?

There is a lot wrong with art that exists to preach how superior it is, yes. I happen to despise "modern art", show me a field of trees with a farm house on it something that takes talent to paint, or even "The Screamer" but spare me the white canvas with a yellow stripe slashed across it that some might claim holds deep universal meaning thanks very much.

Let it resonate on different levels, but to do that it can't become a "message movie", people need to be engaged and care about the people on the big screen first and foremost. If this tries to be anything else other then an enjoyable film experience its going to crash and be laughed out of the theaters.

Star Trek should never debase itself by becoming art house drivel. Let it be the space adventure, the wagon train to the stars that sold the show not the pompous know it all that was TNG.

Sharr

Here! Here!

The thing about great art... REAL art... is that it is declared great art as a result of its real appeal.

Every arteeeeest who decides that he can make anything he wants and it has to be appreciated because "I'm an ARTIST... WORSHIP MEEEEEEEE!!!!" ends up as nothing more than a laughing stock.

There's a difference between quality art and PRETENSIOUSNESS.

What I'm hearing here is more about pretense than it is about artistic integrity. And that is REPULSIVE to me.

The snide brattish comment about "well, you must like Star Wars better than 2001" was just about as OBNOXIOUS of a comment as I've seen on this board in a looong time, and I was impressed that Sharr Khan held back so much. I, personally, would have ripped "Xortex" a new bodily orifice or two over a comment so utterly bratty.

Xortex, what the @#$* do you think we're talking about here? This is STAR TREK. It's a known, established quantity. You want to watch movies about gay cowboys eating pudding, go to your local arthouse theater. You want something in bulgarian with subtitles, about the darkness of life, go watch that.

If you want STAR TREK, don't go trying to reinvent what it is to suit your own personal would-be-snobbish sensibilities.

If you want to see something like what you're describing... WRITE IT. Try to sell your ideas. SEE IF IT CAN GAIN AN AUDIENCE.

If you can, and if it's worth watching, you'll have won us over.

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
I don't think you give the average fan enough credit. Little kids these days can understand the most complex things at least subconsciously. It should also be metaphysically meaningful about the simplest things. I.e. we have to relate to the story as well as the characters.

Its exactly because I respect their intelligence, that I don't want to sell them something with pretenses. I want young people enjoying Star Trek to find their own meaning in it and not be told what to think.

I happen to agree with JRR Tolkien in regard to allegory, yeah sure here and there it will slip into art but it cannot be its prime reason for being.

Aliens should be alien in their own right and humans should be developed people.

I watched "The Deadly Years" last night/this morning and the one thing that came across about the story, aside from the crew dealing with the inconvenience of the week and the desk jokey Commodore (Who was really really flat!) at the heart of the story it wasn't about the radiation from the comet but Loyalty and Spock's clear pain at having to call a competence hearing and removing Kirk from Command. To be sure it was about the people.

Out of 79 episodes only a handful are "Message episodes" and then its usually dialed back compared to modern Trek. The rest are a fine space adventure... its a pity Gene Roddenberry himself forgot this.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

Well, it's Abtams trying to reinvent Star Trek, not me. I just hope it's not another episode of Andromeda. Don't you ?