What other things can we change for The Drooling Masses?

[ST-One]

Why are so many fans of a franchise that's all about the positive nature of change so THREATENED by change when they actually see it?

And this is where you make your mistake. I expected changes for this 'reboot'. I do not like the changes that I've seen, particularly since many indicate very short-term thinking and very much the 'kewl fanboi' approach to story-telling.

From that trailer you know about the approach to story-telling?
I'm impressed.

 

[ST-One]

You said they were the cast names

Interchangable meaning, guy, and you're not helping your case. So any three random roles with 'Kirk' 'Spock' and 'McCoy' in them, regardless of the characters they're attached to, is all you're demanding for something to be 'Trek'.

But nice strawman to throw up.

The characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy define what is TOS not the cast.

And it is you who is throwing around these strawmen.

 

[Vance]

And it is you who is throwing around these strawmen.

Again, you show an incredible ability to not actually believe that the words you see mean what they say. He said that the 'characters named X' were all that matters... the names were all that was important.

 

[Qonos]

I thought it was trageted towards fans of the toys/cartoon/teens/young adults.

Exactly. Those would be children, and older ones now who were children back when they were fans. You're not suggesting that adults play with the toys and watch the cartoons, are you?

did some one call me. Plays with alt hound

 

[Qonos]

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

I don't like listening to that music.

It's so 19th century. It needs to be updated.

Brought into the now. They need to add in an electric guitar, maybe some keyboard in it. Oh, and it needs to have music videoes with half-naked strippers in it.

Come on! Bring it to the 21st century! How are you going to get people interested in music by playing them something written in 1820?

Yeah here ya go Snark boy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn0JxTiiGDE&feature=related

 

[StarTrek1701]

Keeping or not keeping the old design? It's an arbitrary choice either way. And besides, like I said, a hell of a lot of people who are not One Of Us would probably say that the design isn't even different enough for them to notice.

So if a person on the street wouldn't notice why change it?

I am sure I am going to get warned for this and I'll take one for the team.

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU BEING SUCH A MASSIVE DROOLING IDIOT ABOUT IT?? The design was perfect FOR THE 60'S you stupid prick! The design SCREAMS "I was designed in the 60's". The straight lines, the simplicity, it all depicts it is an OLD DESIGN. It had to be updated for the modern movie going audiences, the ones that are the most needed to make this movie into a success and bring Star Trek to a new generation. Movie audiences are visual creatures that will like whatever looks nice to them. It is not a period piece that needs to be strictly adhered to visually with the times depicted.

The new design is the exact design that Gene Roddenberry or Matt Jeffries would design had they been the people of this generation. Back in the 60's real life designs were simple and Jeffries took inspiration from that! Just like the designers of this movie is taking inspiration from modern electronics designs of today. Ever been to an electronics store and notice how the stuff in there is vastly different from the designs on the 60's?

Goddamn it, you blabber and blabber but not for one fuckdamn reason do you even hear what others are saying. Or give ANY reasons why YOU think the older design would be a better choice over the new one besides your emotional attachment to it. Hell, even Captain "William Shatner" Kirk likes the new design so STFU you drooling mass!

 

[thumbtack]

because one of the admitted points of the movie is the literally erase TOS and start over with it for the movie series.

In all fairness, this movie also erases all of Berman Trek, so it's not just TOS being picked on.

 

[Vance]

In all fairness, this movie also erases all of Berman Trek, so it's not just TOS being picked on.

Sadly, not quite. Of all the bizzare choices, it actually doesn't replace Enterprise, though it does (by neccessity) replace TNG and onward in the timeline. So while 'erasing' Voyager has a certain appeal, I can imagine that the DS9 fans, when they realize it, won't be happy. :P

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I know not everyone looks at things this way. But a lot of people do. And these people tend to be among the smarter people in society. Which, it's known, correlates to the "best off" among society reasonably well... which in turn relates to "the ones that the studios want to make into fans of their product so they'll keep watching, keep buying, etc, etc."

People like you are the reason Trek is completely disrespected as a work of art. You're so obsessed with minutiae and minor details like whether or not the design of the ship APPEARS to fit into the aesthetic established in previous entries in the canon that you'll start ranting and raving and try to imply that people who disagree with you -- people who value creativity over technicality -- are somehow less intelligent than you are. You're so threatened by change -- and relatively unimportant change at that -- that you'll insult other people over it. Which is particularly ironic, because one of the primary themes of Star Trek is the inevitability and positive nature of change.

Guess what? PLENTY of intelligent people believe in being creative and re-interpreting things for the sake of trying to inject new life and energy into them, or trying to see them through new lenses. Why do you think Brecht took the Threepenny Opera and completely re-adapted it for a 20th Century audience? Why else do you think Larson took La Boheme and re-adapted it into a rock opera in the mid-90s? Why else do you think Moore took the Charlton Comics characters and completely re-adapted them to create Watchmen? Why else do you think Nolan took the Batman mythos and completely re-interpreted it for a post-9/11, post-Iraq, post-Katrina America in The Dark Knight? Why else do you think Lennon took compositions like "Moonlight Sonata" by Beethoven and re-adapted it into the song "Because?" Why else do you think Taymor took the entire Beatles library and adapted them into an epic film musical about the entire 1960s?

As Shatner once said -- and, by the way, William Shatner, Captain Kirk himself, has no problem with the new Enterprise -- "Get a life."

Wow... that's one heck of a ranting flame-fest there, pal...

Make up your mind. Is Trek "entertainment" or is it "art?" Last time I heard you chime in on this, you were adamantly opposed to it being treated as art (you were mocking the discussions of folks talking about how changing the Enterprise is like putting up another painting and telling folks its the Mona Lisa).

Star Trek was successful through the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the 1960s, because a lot of very smart, very successful people in influential positions were Star Trek fans. Sorry if you find that threatening, but it's an acknowledged fact. And the more intelligent, more highly educated among society do tend to be the higher earners... and the higher earners do tend to be those with more disposable income.

How much income do you think that Paramount has seen brought in from this "niche market" over the past forty years? Not from stupid brainless twits but from guys who run Mars exploration programs at JPL, or who design control systems for the space shuttle, or who design communications satellites?

How much do you think came from those who failed out of their math courses in High School?

So... who do you think has been at the center of PPC's lucrative "cash cow" for the past few decades, again?

Here's something you might want to consider... taking offense at this simple fact illustrates that you, my friend, are the one who would do well to "get a life." I get the basics of finance here, which you seem not to.

If you question my point, just look up any discussion of classic Star Trek's ratings, in light of how ratings were calculated before, and then after, that timeframe.

"Demographics" might be a good word to read up on as well.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's about the Starship Enterprise with characters named Kirk, Spock and McCoy. That is Star Trek.

So you must have hated the 1980s, 1990s, and last several years, then?

Give me a break, so the only thing that makes something 'Star Trek' is the extremely superficial branding of it? There's no more to it than that? So, you're here because you really like the cast names?!

Seriously, the hell?

Vance, seriously... don't bother with this guy. He's here only to try to pick fights. I tried to discuss with him and realized that it's better just to ignore him. If he wants to have a serious conversation, he'll start being a bit more polite, won't he?

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Sorry, but I fail to see how this film manages to erase anything at all. So what if it's a new continuity, big deal. All our beloved old Trek still exists on dvd for our viewing pleasure. I really don't get what the problem is.

They're doing something new and saying it's not a reboot, others say it is..... Yeah. Whatever. I don't care. It's supposed to be a fun movie that's thrilling and compelling and memorable... moreover, it's supposed to breathe life into a decrepit franchise. It's Trek and it looks cool to me and I can't wait to see it.

You can like it or not, but saying that it erases all Trek continuity from TOS onward is a bit silly in my opinion- and please don't take this as a personal insult (you people who use this argument), because that's not my intention at all.

Still..... I don't get it, I really don't.

And just because I don't see that and I don't give a damn about the shape of the nacelles (man, I didn't even know these things were called nacelles before registering here, honestly) or what have you doen't make me less of a fan. If it pleases my eye, fine. If it doesn't, well, then I guess I won't like it, then.

 

[Blue_Ranger]

don't bother with this guy. He's here only to try to pick fights. I tried to discuss with him and realized

So you realized that you would give up since you couldn't win against me, so you decided I was just in this to "pick fights".

 

[Vance]

Sorry, but I fail to see how this film manages to erase anything at all. So what if it's a new continuity, big deal. All our beloved old Trek still exists on dvd for our viewing pleasure. I really don't get what the problem is.

Because, in the future, it prevents a revisitation that I might actually like?

You can like it or not, but saying that it erases all Trek continuity from TOS onward is a bit silly in my opinion- and please don't take this as a personal insult (you people who use this argument), because that's not my intention at all.

I mean it literally. The purpose of the plot of the movie is to 'wipe the slate clean' for continuity for future stories. It's a way to elminate the 'canon' baggage from the franchise. Now, this is a bit strange to me, since it seems like it would be simpler to just.. ya know.. start over and say so. I think most fans would be MORE forgiving than having an 'in canon' explanation as to why canon is being wiped clean.

 

[Vance]

So you realized that you would give up since you couldn't win against me, so you decided I was just in this to "pick fights".

Because these conversations are not about 'winning'. And if you really think so, then you should probably just leave now. Certainly I'll have no use for you.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Goddamn it, you blabber and blabber but not for one fuckdamn reason do you even hear what others are saying. Or give ANY reasons why YOU think the older design would be a better choice over the new one besides your emotional attachment to it. Hell, even Captain "William Shatner" Kirk likes the new design so STFU you drooling mass!

I'm getting a HUGE laugh out of watching people who I've seen, repeated and consistently for the past couple of years, ripping into Shatner mercilessly... for no other reason that I can figure out other than that he must've pissed 'em off with his SNL appearance, or that they've been listening to George too closely.

So, these same people who've ripped Shatner continuously for "not really caring about Star Trek, only about himself" says yet another polite, reasonable thing which seems entirely appropriate for an ACTOR to say.

I, personally, couldn't care less if Shatner loves or hates it. He's not "Captain Kirk," he's just the actor who played the role. I like him, but I can tell the difference.

So why do the people who've been so clear about hating Shatner somehow expect that his saying this will suddenly "shame us" into going along with what he says?

I don't care what Shatner, or Nimoy, or Koenig, or Takei, or Stewart, or Frakes, or Spiner, or ANYONE ELSE who's ever been on Trek has to say about this. Their opinions aren't somehow "more relevant" for the fact that they got to play make-believe on-stage for a few years. And most of them... Shatner included... GET THAT. And most of us get that too.

But those who hate these Shatner, and who hate anyone who disagrees with them it seems, somehow expect that we should treat him like a prophet.

 

[Blue_Ranger]

So you realized that you would give up since you couldn't win against me, so you decided I was just in this to "pick fights".

Because these conversations are not about 'winning'. And if you really think so, then you should probably just leave now. Certainly I'll have no use for you.

The fact you two dismiss me with "he's just picking fights" when you know that is a lie means I have won and you can't argue my points legitimately.

 

[Qonos]

So you realized that you would give up since you couldn't win against me, so you decided I was just in this to "pick fights".

Because these conversations are not about 'winning'. And if you really think so, then you should probably just leave now. Certainly I'll have no use for you.

And yet here you are trying ti get the last word in and win.... nice.

 

[Vance]

And yet here you are trying ti get the last word in and win.... nice.

I'm not trying to win. If he wants to remain here and wants to really be a part of the community, he needs to stop thinking of it as a contest where he's literally fighting people to 'beat' them. He needs to contribute.

If he's unwilling to do that, (and, sadly, his followup proves that point), then he's basically a troll trying to start flame-wars, and should be ignored.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[Blue_Ranger]

And yet here you are trying ti get the last word in and win.... nice.

I'm not trying to win. If he wants to remain here and wants to really be a part of the community, he needs to stop thinking of it as a contest where he's literally fighting people to 'beat' them. He needs to contribute.

If he's unwilling to do that, (and, sadly, his followup proves that point), then he's basically a troll trying to start flame-wars, and should be ignored.

Pretty simple, really.

Disagree with you = troll. Got it!

 

[Qonos]

. He's not "Captain Kirk," he's just the actor who played the role. I like him, but I can tell the difference.

Conversely the Ship isn't a real ship it's just a visual Icon that was designed to represent it. If you give a verbal description of it to a bunch of artists and designers they will each come up with a different variation on the theme. Some will be closer to Jefferies version and others will be way off base.

All of them though will be that artist's idea of what the Enterprise looks like based off the description given.

The new E looks like it was based of a simple description that would lead one to draw an enterprise like ship.