Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Santolina chamaecyparissus <sant...@juno.com> wrote:
>Just watched the DVD of the new Trek film and I must say there are a
>couple of things I'm disappointed in. First, the film, but only a
>little. When I first read about the premise and the individuals who
>would be responsible for making it I set my sights rather low. This
>outing, I thought, will likely be heavy on pyrotechnics and light on
>everything else. But then the reviews started pouring in, and they
>were almost uniformly positive. We were assured that fans of the
>various incarnations of Star Trek, as well as the public at large,
>would be thoroughly entertained. Fair enough, I set my sights a
>little higher and was determined to like it. Turns out my first
>instincts were closer to the mark.
>
>Second, I'm disappointed either in myself or popular culture in
>general, but I'm not sure which. After all, consider the
>"story" (I'll avoid the temptation to compose a long essay on how
>threadbare it was and just leave the word in scare quotes). Decimated
>by the loss of his family, a mad scientist named Soran skips across
>space and time looking for some sort of emotional resolution to his
>devastating loss. The answer lies in his destruction of an entire
>planet full of innocent people, but he doesn't care.........oops.
>Sorry, I forgot to note the "spoilers" there. I just gave away the
>entire plot of the new Star Trek movie. Shoot. And since there are
>no subplots or subtexts of any interest I've basically just summarized
>the whole darn thing. Oh well.
>
I liked the movie. I'm not sure its better than TWOK which still
had the TV continuity and long established characterizations to
draw on, but it's a good start. And there were plenty of subplots.
In fact, the main "stop the bad guy" plot was almost secondary to
the subplots. You could actually say the 'A' plot was "Kirk comes
of age" with 'B' character plots of who is
"Spock/Uhuru/Bones/Sulu/Scotty/Checkov" this time and a 'C' stop the
bad guy plot.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> In article <753fb19a-33c6-4faa-8e5c-c57469bfb...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Just watched the DVD of the new Trek film and I must say there are a
> >couple of things I'm disappointed in. First, the film, but only a
> >little. When I first read about the premise and the individuals who
> >would be responsible for making it I set my sights rather low. This
> >outing, I thought, will likely be heavy on pyrotechnics and light on
> >everything else. But then the reviews started pouring in, and they
> >were almost uniformly positive. We were assured that fans of the
> >various incarnations of Star Trek, as well as the public at large,
> >would be thoroughly entertained. Fair enough, I set my sights a
> >little higher and was determined to like it. Turns out my first
> >instincts were closer to the mark.
>
> >Second, I'm disappointed either in myself or popular culture in
> >general, but I'm not sure which. After all, consider the
> >"story" (I'll avoid the temptation to compose a long essay on how
> >threadbare it was and just leave the word in scare quotes).
Possible
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
Decimated
> >by the loss of his family, a mad scientist named Soran skips across
> >space and time looking for some sort of emotional resolution to his
> >devastating loss. The answer lies in his destruction of an entire
> >planet full of innocent people, but he doesn't care.........oops.
I'm not going to say that it was super well written, or that there
were *not* plot holes, but um... You sorta missed something...
Soran did travel across time with the intent of doing anything. That
was an accident.
> >Sorry, I forgot to note the "spoilers" there. I just gave away the
> >entire plot of the new Star Trek movie. Shoot. And since there are
> >no subplots or subtexts of any interest I've basically just summarized
> >the whole darn thing. Oh well.
>
> I liked the movie. I'm not sure its better than TWOK which still
> had the TV continuity and long established characterizations to
> draw on, but it's a good start. And there were plenty of subplots.
> In fact, the main "stop the bad guy" plot was almost secondary to
> the subplots. You could actually say the 'A' plot was "Kirk comes
> of age" with 'B' character plots of who is
> "Spock/Uhuru/Bones/Sulu/Scotty/Checkov" this time and a 'C' stop the
> bad guy plot.
>
> Ted
I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
(mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
on a certain event that occurred.
trag
wrote:
> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
> on a certain event that occurred.
That's not the Kirk that I "know".
Smokie Darling (Annie)
Which is why I put it in quotes. They have the same names, but
because of a certain event, they have changed (some a little, some a
lot).
A Watcher
Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new
movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.
A Watcher
Whoops, some typos in that post.:
Isn't that a point of the movie.
Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who aren't really into ST.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I was wondering if that was snark or a typo :-)
I don't think it will confuse the casual though. They know "Kirk == Captain",
"Spock == Pointy ears + logical", "Bones == doctor + curmudgeon",
"Uhura == attractive black lady + competent",
"scotty == engineer + 'I canna change the laws of physics' schtick".
All that's still there. The *non* casual viewers will complain how it's
all wrong once you get past the first layer, the casual viewers will get
what they expected.
A Watcher
Don't the serious ST fans always complain. :-)
GeneK
> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new
> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
>
> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.
It's THE point of the movie, i.e., "this is why our new Trek is different
from the old Trek but still fits into canon." But casual viewers couldn't
care less about canon, and for longtime viewers, "this is a reimagining
of Trek with a new canon" would be probably be explanation enough
for a good film and "fitting into canon" won't redeem a bad one.
GeneK
Your Name
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:08e41785-e42f-4238...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
"Certain events"
Translation: Nobody in Hollyweird knows (nor cares) how to make real Star
Trek any more. In fact few people in Hollyweird know how to make anything at
all, so they butcher old shows / movies instead.
Wickeddoll
> trag wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
>>> on a certain event that occurred.
>>
>>
>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>>
>
> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new
> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
>
> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.
>
I don't think so - please see my response to "trag"
Natalie
--
"Wicked little doll, you have no soul"
(David Byrne, 1997)
http://www.supernaturalusa.net
Wickeddoll
> Ted Nolan
>>>> trag wrote:
"Smokie Darling (Annie)"
YUP - always have, even for the "real" Trek.
Anim8rFSK
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote:
That's exactly the point; they had writers too lazy and intellectually
dishonest to do their homework.
--
Happy 30th Anniversary
STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE
http://www.onedigitallife.com/images/star-trek-the-motion-picture.jpg
"The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning"
Michael Bowker
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <4b1f00e0$0$1583$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>>> <snip for brevity>
>>>
>>>> But maybe it's just me. Maybe the fact that I've seen shit blown up
>>>> in the movies 500 times and I just am not interested in seeing shit
>>>> blow up anymore is a poor reflection on me and not our social
>>>> values. Maybe Abrams and his cohorts telling us almost in as many
>>>> words in the DVD extras that this movie is directed at teenagers
>>>> shows me to be an aging curmudgeon. Maybe I should just sit
>>>> quietly in my hovel and let the kids enjoy their cardboard cutout
>>>> characters blowing shit up left and right. But at least I had my
>>>> say.
>>> Boy, you liked it a whole more than I did. :-P
>> Hey!
>
> Yeah, how dare somebody take your line! ;-)
>
Who's line was it anyway?
Santolina chamaecyparissus
On Dec 8, 6:03 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> > In article <753fb19a-33c6-4faa-8e5c-c57469bfb...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > >Just watched the DVD of the new Trek film and I must say there are a
> > >couple of things I'm disappointed in. First, the film, but only a
> > >little. When I first read about the premise and the individuals who
> > >would be responsible for making it I set my sights rather low. This
> > >outing, I thought, will likely be heavy on pyrotechnics and light on
> > >everything else. But then the reviews started pouring in, and they
> > >were almost uniformly positive. We were assured that fans of the
> > >various incarnations of Star Trek, as well as the public at large,
> > >would be thoroughly entertained. Fair enough, I set my sights a
> > >little higher and was determined to like it. Turns out my first
> > >instincts were closer to the mark.
>
> > >Second, I'm disappointed either in myself or popular culture in
> > >general, but I'm not sure which. After all, consider the
> > >"story" (I'll avoid the temptation to compose a long essay on how
> > >threadbare it was and just leave the word in scare quotes). Decimated
> > >by the loss of his family, a mad scientist named Soran skips across
> > >space and time looking for some sort of emotional resolution to his
> > >devastating loss. The answer lies in his destruction of an entire
> > >planet full of innocent people, but he doesn't care.........oops.
> > >Sorry, I forgot to note the "spoilers" there. I just gave away the
> > >entire plot of the new Star Trek movie. Shoot. And since there are
> > >no subplots or subtexts of any interest I've basically just summarized
> > >the whole darn thing. Oh well.
>
> > I liked the movie. I'm not sure its better than TWOK which still
> > had the TV continuity and long established characterizations to
> > draw on, but it's a good start. And there were plenty of subplots.
> > In fact, the main "stop the bad guy" plot was almost secondary to
> > the subplots. You could actually say the 'A' plot was "Kirk comes
> > of age"
Ugh. Such as it was, it was one of the worst parts of the movie. So,
Jim Kirk's father dies heroically and poor little Jim has to grow up
with a wicked stepfather. Jim turns into a bad boy. Fine. Later on
Spock tells him that in an alternate timeline he has the good dad, and
Jim turns out.......the same? Huh? One might argue this in a class
about sociobiology, but in a drama it's retarded. I'm sorry, but we
learn nothing new or interesting about Kirk. Shatner's Kirk is a bad
boy too, Pine's is just a little more in your face. And easily
persuadable it seems, since it took Capt. Pike about 45 seconds to
convince him to give up a life of boozing, whoring, and fighting in
favor of Star Fleet. From there he lies, tricks, and stumbles his way
into a position of authority, helped along by another heavy dose of
plot theft; seems that there's a crisis on Vulcan and all Capt. Pike
has at his disposal are a bunch of attractive 20 year olds. Jesus,
whatever.
> > with 'B' character plots of who is
> > "Spock/Uhuru/Bones/Sulu/Scotty/Checkov" this time
Bones, Sulu, Scotty, and Chekov are given nothing remotely interesting
to do except speak with funny accents. Uhura tempts me to call the
whole movie misogynistic, since she is basically given nothing to do
except swoon over Spock. The only interesting, slightly fleshed-out
character in the whole thing is, go figure, Spock.
Speaking of Spock, they manage to bollocks up even his character. So
Kirk needs to be in command, but according to future Spock the only
way to do this is to trick young Spock. So Kirk taunts young Spock
for 45 seconds and this Vulcan who has devoted his life to suppressing
emotion goes ballistic. That's frighteningly improbable, but not even
the worst of it. You see, after losing his temper Spock suddenly
remembers a horseshit Star Fleet regulation which says that if you
have a bad day you have to relinquish command. So naturally he
immediately turns to the suspended cadet stowaway who has spent more
time in honky-tonks than the Kobayashi Maru simulator and says, "here,
take over." All makes perfect sense.
Vulcan, please. This is insulting to the intelligence of the
teenagers at whom the movie was aimed, much less us grownups.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
wrote:
> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
> on a certain event that occurred.
The crucial difference being, the TOS/TNG characters in Generations
were interesting and given more to do than fire phasers and engage in
fist fights.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> trag wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 9:56 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
> >> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
> >> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
> >> on a certain event that occurred.
>
> > That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>
> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new
> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
>
Except, none of them act any differently from the old characters.
Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
Fascinating.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> "A Watcher" <stocks...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
The respect for the canon was reasonably good, though with some
quibbles. The story was stolen and stupid. The explosions were way
more than what I care to waste a couple hours of my life on. The Kirk
character was a lifeless parody of what a teenager imagines a young
Kirk to be. Spock was good, but for me nothing much else was.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <v-idnZhzjpunE4LW...@supernews.com>,
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> it a whole lot more than I did." Happy now?
>> Oh, he was just objecting to you stealing his line. I filled in the
>> word without even noticing that it wasn't there.
>
> A little of both, he stole my line *and* screwed it up!
>
Considering the so-called "movie" this is about, I'd say that both fit
the situation perfectly! :-D
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Dimensional Traveler
why not just write something new? It would probably be easier.
Dimensional Traveler
characters act _nothing_ like the previous bearers of those names.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <ijball-NO_SPAM-E32...@nntp.aioe.org>,
> "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-B1C20...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4b1f00e0$0$1583$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>>>>> <snip for brevity>
>>>>> But maybe it's just me. Maybe the fact that I've seen shit blown up
>>>>> in the movies 500 times and I just am not interested in seeing shit
>>>>> blow up anymore is a poor reflection on me and not our social values.
>>>>> Maybe Abrams and his cohorts telling us almost in as many words in the
>>>>> DVD extras that this movie is directed at teenagers shows me to be an
>>>>> aging curmudgeon. Maybe I should just sit quietly in my hovel and let
>>>>> the kids enjoy their cardboard cutout characters blowing shit up left
>>>>> and right. But at least I had my say.
>>>> Boy, you liked it a whole more than I did. :-P
>>> Hey!
>
> Boy, you liked it a whole more than I did. :-P
>
*high5*
Wickeddoll
> A Watcher wrote:
>> trag wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
>>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
>>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
>>>> on a certain event that occurred.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>>>
>>
>> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
>> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make
>> new movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
>>
>> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.
>>
> If you're going to change the characters and background _that_ _much_,
> why not just write something new? It would probably be easier.
>
No doubt they were selling the brand here, but I, for one, think taking
on the challenge of re-inventing well-established characters is
enormous. I think Abrams pulled it off pretty well. The film is in no
way perfect, but then (IMO, at least) only *one* of the old Trek films
was perfect: TWOK.
As I've said many times, I love the old stuff, and feel nobody will ever
re-create its magic. But that's not what the film is trying to do -
it's another interpretation of the Trek universe; nothing more, nothing
less. Much like (but much better than) fanfic, as well as the published
Trek novels.
I know some hate ST: 2009 for various reasons, but it rankles me when
they insinuate that those of us who liked ST: 2009 are somehow disloyal
(not that I feel *you've* done that) and not "real" Trek fans.
To that, I very graciously say, who died and gave them the right to
judge *us*? And while I'm at it, they can bite me.
:-D
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:08e41785-e42f-4238...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
Actually, "certain event" referred to the death of Kirk's father (and
destruction of his ship) in the "new" timeline. It was that event
that changed the people even though the names were the same.
There needed to be a way to explain to viewers why Kirk was no longer
Shatneresque, why Uhura was no longer Nichele Nichols, why Spock
didn't look the same (or talk the same). The change in timeline was
what they needed to reboot the series.
Whether you liked or disliked the movie was a personal matter/decision
(I know that Anim hated the idea of it). No, it wasn't the "old" Star
Trek, but I wasn't expecting it to be.
Wickeddoll
Ya ain't gonna please everyone, so I just interpret things for myself.
I thought only Pine and Quinto were true to the personalities created by
Shatner and Nimoy - the rest were something else entirely. Including
Urban - he did McCoy's bitching, but I didn't think he got the
personality down - he was too hostile all the time. Kelley's Bones was
a fussbudget, but he was affable most of the time.
By the way, I think Pine turned in the best performance in the most
difficult role. Shatner so defined Kirk, I didn't think anyone else
could even come *close* to playing that character - I think Pine was
amazing.
Professor Bubba
<cd8a167e-fe24-41f4...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
trag <tr...@io.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 7:03 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> > You could actually say the 'A' plot was "Kirk comes
> > of age"
>
> Except he didn't. They drew Kirk as an immature undisciplined brat
> who more or less lucks into success. And he did not change in the
> film.
>
> The original Kirk was a bit of a rogue, but he was also clearly a
> disciplined military man with a sense of duty and honor. The new
> young Kirk more closely resembles one of the drug addicts from the new
> Melrose Place.
I am not arguing with any of your points, but I still enjoyed the new
film a lot more than the two bore-gasms which preceded it.
A Watcher
I've never been much of a ST fan even though I watched it a lot on TV.
I liked the latest movie more than most of what I saw on TV.
Mac Breck
That sounds like the title of an old TV show.
It's Anim8rFSK's (Fred's) line.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Mac Breck
> In article <hfovvc$qi3$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> "Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote:
>
>> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
news:08e41785-e42f-4238...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 9, 9:33 am, trag <t...@io.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 9, 9:56 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)"
>>>> <Barnabus1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
>>>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
>>>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions
>>>>> based on a certain event that occurred.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>>>
>>> Which is why I put it in quotes. They have the same names, but
>>> because of a certain event, they have changed (some a little, some a
>>> lot).
>>
>> "Certain events"
>> Translation: Nobody in Hollyweird knows (nor cares) how to make real
>> Star Trek any more. In fact few people in Hollyweird know how to
>> make anything at all, so they butcher old shows / movies instead.
>
> That's exactly the point; they had writers too lazy and intellectually
> dishonest to do their homework.
...and they made a TON of money doing that, so what has the audience
taught them?
Mac Breck
Then, they wouldn't have been able to bank on the Trek name. Box office
wouldn't have been as big.
Michael Bowker
> Michael Bowker wrote:
>> Mac Breck wrote:
>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article <4b1f00e0$0$1583$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>>>>> <snip for brevity>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But maybe it's just me. Maybe the fact that I've seen shit blown
>>>>>> up in the movies 500 times and I just am not interested in seeing
>>>>>> shit blow up anymore is a poor reflection on me and not our social
>>>>>> values. Maybe Abrams and his cohorts telling us almost in as many
>>>>>> words in the DVD extras that this movie is directed at teenagers
>>>>>> shows me to be an aging curmudgeon. Maybe I should just sit
>>>>>> quietly in my hovel and let the kids enjoy their cardboard cutout
>>>>>> characters blowing shit up left and right. But at least I had my
>>>>>> say.
>>>>> Boy, you liked it a whole more than I did. :-P
>>>> Hey!
>>> Yeah, how dare somebody take your line! ;-)
>>>
>> Who's line was it anyway?
>
> That sounds like the title of an old TV show.
>
> It's Anim8rFSK's (Fred's) line.
>
:)
Wickeddoll
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" wrote in message
trag "Smokie Darling (Annie)"
>>>>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
>>>>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
>>>>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions
>>>>>> based on a certain event that occurred.
>>>>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>>>> Which is why I put it in quotes. They have the same names, but
>>>> because of a certain event, they have changed (some a little, some a
>>>> lot).
>>> "Certain events"
>>> Translation: Nobody in Hollyweird knows (nor cares) how to make real
>>> Star Trek any more. In fact few people in Hollyweird know how to
>>> make anything at all, so they butcher old shows / movies instead.
>> That's exactly the point; they had writers too lazy and intellectually
>> dishonest to do their homework.
>
> ...and they made a TON of money doing that, so what has the audience
> taught them?
>
Jealous?
Steven L.
> "Smokie Darling (Annie)"<Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:08e41785-e42f-4238...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 9, 9:33 am, trag<t...@io.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 9:56 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)"<Barnabus1...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
>>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
>>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
>>>> on a certain event that occurred.
>>>
>>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>>
>> Which is why I put it in quotes. They have the same names, but
>> because of a certain event, they have changed (some a little, some a
>> lot).
>
> "Certain events"
> Translation: Nobody in Hollyweird knows (nor cares) how to make real Star
> Trek any more.
It seemed like real Star Trek to me.
Kirk was arrogant but dedicated and resourceful,
Spock was struggling with his human half (and the bias of other Vulcans
against it), his relationships with Amanda and Sarek were as we knew them,
McCoy was gruff but decent.
We seem to have two sets of contradictory criticisms here:
The OP started out by saying that the movie was too derivative of years
and years of past Trek plots,
but now you're saying that the movie wasn't real Star Trek.
That's a contradiction.
I happen to agree with the first poster, but I cut Abrams some slack
because his "five year mission" was to reboot the Trek franchise with a
new cast of actors, but not throw away the key relationships among the
crew or their key motivations. So he had to essentially revisit each one
separately, rushing by at breakneck speed: Young Kirk was reckless but
matured later, young Spock was tormented by his classmates (that scene
was lifted out of TAS "Yesteryear"), young Spock loved his mom Amanda,
Sarek rationalized marrying Amanda as "logical", on and on.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
This movie vindicated MY position on the future of Trek, which I had
stated here before (check the Google archive):
Star Trek does NOT require the original actors, nor the original sets,
nor the original ship models, nor the original props. The basic concept
would work with any actors and any type of ship (as long as it was large
enough to hold a varied crew).
Critics have to deal with the passage of time: James Doohan is gone,
DeForest Kelley is gone, and the other actors are quite old now--too old
for any more swashbuckling derring-do. If a TOS-type series is to have
ANY future, it HAS to be rebooted from a new cast of actors. Otherwise
the only other alternative is to let Star Trek die off once and for all.
I doubt that Abrams' critics would be happy about that. If production
of the movie had fallen through for any reason, they would be the first
ones lamenting that "TOS is dead, too bad."
--
Steven L.
Steven L.
That's right, the critics of the movie fall into two camps: Those who
think the movie was too derivative of past Trek, and those who think it
was too different from past Trek.
My theory is that just the shock of seeing entirely new actors playing
the old familiar parts has unnerved a lot of Trek fans.
-- Steven L.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Actually young Spock was a bit different as he got key support from
his father at a time when Old Spock didn't, and that support was
in favor of his human side. That seems to have made a difference
in his being able to let go enough to keep a girlfriend..
I thought that was well done, but again not something the casual
audience will notice since he's still "pointy-ears + logical".
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Wickeddoll
GeneK wrote:
>> "A Watcher" wrote in message
They're *still* saying it's dead.
May they grieve in peace, cuz I'm looking forward to the next film.
Steven L.
What was changed?
The main thing that was changed was Kirk's backstory prior to becoming
Captain. But that backstory had been covered in maybe FIVE MINUTES of
dialogue in just TWO episodes in TOS: "Obsession" and
"Operation-Annihilate!"
The other thing that was changed was Uhura sounded more like she was
from Chicago than from Africa. And yes, that's one thing I did NOT like.
But the movie went out of its way to reboot the other characters true to
form:
Spock with Sarek and Amanda;
Spock being bullied by his classmates, which was ONE SENTENCE in
"Journey to Babel" plus a scene in TAS "Yesteryear" which practically no
one saw because it was on Saturday morning for the kiddies;
Captain Pike as the first Captain that Spock served under;
McCoy being called "Bones" for the first time,
Scotty as an engineering "miracle worker,"
and even the Kobayashi Maru test!
-- Steven L.
GeneK
> The OP started out by saying that the movie was too derivative of years and
> years of past Trek plots,
>
> but now you're saying that the movie wasn't real Star Trek.
>
> That's a contradiction.
Not necessarily. If you take an old plot for anything and reuse it but toss out
whatever else besides the action that gave the original its character and then
jack up the noise and FX, it's quite possible to end up with something that is
highly derivative of the original but is not "faithful" to the spirit of the
original. Pick any one of the many remakes of classic films that litter the
average video store and it's sure to have fans of its original making the same
gripe, justified or not.
GeneK
A Watcher
"They" don't have to watch. They can keep watching reruns of TOS.
Dimensional Traveler
2009 movie crew had a level of discipline that makes Somali pirates look
like elite special forces. While the original crew was the trained,
disciplined crew of a military ship. The original Kirk wouldn't have
had to worry about the original Chekov suddenly leaving his station on
the bridge, during a red alert, without even informing anyone let alone
requesting permission, to run thru the ship shouting "I can do that! I
can do that!" so he can push a superior officer away from their station
and interfere with the job they were doing.
The original Kirk may have been the youngest in Starfleet to ever get
command of a Starship, but he did it by graduating from the academy and
working his way up the ranks. He _didn't_ go directly from "suspended
for cheating" to Captain, jumping half-a-dozen ranks and thousands of
superiors, because some now dead ex-captain happened to know his father
and had "a good feeling" about him.
The original Scotty was an experienced, calm, engineer who could be
depended on no matter how bad the situation got. The "new" Scotty's
reaction to seeing two officers having a fist fight on the bridge is
"Oh, I like this ship. Its exciting!" *retch*
Dimensional Traveler
Dimensional Traveler
severe cases of ADD that they can't remember the last movie they saw so
they keep seeing the same one over and over again.
Dimensional Traveler
> On 12/9/2009 2:27 PM, GeneK wrote:
>> "A Watcher" <stoc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
>>> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new
>>> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
>>>
>>> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.
>>
>> It's THE point of the movie, i.e., "this is why our new Trek is different
>> from the old Trek but still fits into canon." But casual viewers couldn't
>> care less about canon, and for longtime viewers, "this is a reimagining
>> of Trek with a new canon" would be probably be explanation enough
>> for a good film and "fitting into canon" won't redeem a bad one.
>> GeneK
>
> This movie vindicated MY position on the future of Trek, which I had
> stated here before (check the Google archive):
>
> Star Trek does NOT require the original actors, nor the original sets,
> nor the original ship models, nor the original props. The basic concept
> would work with any actors and any type of ship (as long as it was large
> enough to hold a varied crew).
>
used it. Characters with these names holding the same positions is
_not_ the basic concept.
Greg Goss
>Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>> Except, none of them act any differently from the old characters.
>> Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
>> Fascinating.
>>
>And yet most of the complaints include something about how the
>characters act _nothing_ like the previous bearers of those names.
I like most of the new cast and characters. Kirk's "look at me"
attitude when demonstrating that he could outwit the impossible
challenge was at the edge of believable.
The Scotty stuff was the worst to me. Scotty is not a slapstick
victim, and the intersystem transporter technology is just wrong.
And Scotty would KNOW what happened to the beagle, even if he didn't
want to admit it. (I liked the book's final scene where the missing
beagle's waveform is intercepted by the Enterprise, and the automated
circuitry in the transporter room reassembles it. Though this looks
like leaving the ship wide-open for bad-guy entry down the road.
Giving the ship to the academy kids after the emergency mission isn't
really believable to me, nor is the legalistic jui jitsu that allows
them to swap Spock and Kirk as captain.
And why did the Vulcans send a million-planet supply of red stuff on a
mission that needed a barely visible amount?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
>The original Kirk may have been the youngest in Starfleet to ever get
>command of a Starship, but he did it by graduating from the academy and
>working his way up the ranks. He _didn't_ go directly from "suspended
>for cheating" to Captain, jumping half-a-dozen ranks and thousands of
>superiors, because some now dead ex-captain happened to know his father
>and had "a good feeling" about him.
Pike isn't dead.
Wickeddoll
But apparently some can't do that without bashing those of us who liked
ST: 2009.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>Blowing up two planets in the opening act, violates pretty nearly
>every conceivable dramatic guideline.
In what movie did that happen?
Brian
Your Name
The fact that it was a silly "reboot" that doesn't fit with already
established facts means it was real Star Trek. It's a silly new,
sub-franchise, version, and the original is now completely dead and won't
ever see the light of day again (except in re-runs and DVDs). :-(
Your Name
> On 12/9/2009 2:27 PM, GeneK wrote:
> > "A Watcher" <stoc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
> >> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new
> >> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
> >>
> >> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.
> >
> > It's THE point of the movie, i.e., "this is why our new Trek is
different
> > from the old Trek but still fits into canon." But casual viewers
couldn't
> > care less about canon, and for longtime viewers, "this is a reimagining
> > of Trek with a new canon" would be probably be explanation enough
> > for a good film and "fitting into canon" won't redeem a bad one.
> > GeneK
>
> This movie vindicated MY position on the future of Trek, which I had
> stated here before (check the Google archive):
>
> Star Trek does NOT require the original actors, nor the original sets,
> nor the original ship models, nor the original props. The basic concept
> would work with any actors and any type of ship (as long as it was large
> enough to hold a varied crew).
True, but real "Star Trek" does require fitting with the already established
facts, and a silly "reboot" / "reimagining" by definition doesn't do that -
it throws out whatever it wants and makes up new stuff along the way (no
matter how much they try to disguise it with a silly time travel backstory).
Abrams movie is not and never will be "Star Trek" ... it's "new Star Trek"
or "Abrama Star Trek" or other silly qualifers so that people no which
version you're talking about.
Your Name
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b20624a$0$1627$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Not to mention having all the characters at the Academy at the same time so
that they could all go joy-riding on the "alt-Enterprise". :-\
Your Name
The shock of having estblished facts simply thrown away has "unnerved" a lot
of fans.
It aint "Star Trek". It's simply a money-grubbing exercise by Hollyweird
hiding behind the name of the original ... like all stupid "reboots" /
"reimaingings" / "remakes". :-(
Your Name
> A Watcher wrote:
>> trag wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 9:56 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
>>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
>>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
>>>> on a certain event that occurred.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>>>
>>
>> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
>> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new
>> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
>>
>> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.
>>
> If you're going to change the characters and background _that_ _much_,
> why not just write something new? It would probably be easier.
But that would require proper creative ability and an actual knowledge of
"Star Trek" ... neithr of which exists in Hollyweird these days. Bevis &
Butthead started the downhill slide, especially with "Enterprise", and
Abrams pulled the chain to flush proper Star Trek down the toilet :-(
Dimensional Traveler
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> The original Kirk may have been the youngest in Starfleet to ever get
>> command of a Starship, but he did it by graduating from the academy and
>> working his way up the ranks. He _didn't_ go directly from "suspended
>> for cheating" to Captain, jumping half-a-dozen ranks and thousands of
>> superiors, because some now dead ex-captain happened to know his father
>> and had "a good feeling" about him.
>
> Pike isn't dead.
Sorry, wishful thinking on my part there. He should be for putting
suspended cadet Kirk in command even temporarily.
Wickeddoll
> Greg Goss wrote:
>>
>>> The original Kirk may have been the youngest in Starfleet to ever get
>>> command of a Starship, but he did it by graduating from the academy
>>> and working his way up the ranks. He _didn't_ go directly from
>>> "suspended for cheating" to Captain, jumping half-a-dozen ranks and
>>> thousands of superiors, because some now dead ex-captain happened to
>>> know his father and had "a good feeling" about him.
>>
>> Pike isn't dead.
>
> Sorry, wishful thinking on my part there. He should be for putting
> suspended cadet Kirk in command even temporarily.
>
What? When did he do that? Pike put Spock in command. But even if he
did, you put the best people in charge, even if they've recently effed
up, in an emergency.
GeneK
> This movie vindicated MY position on the future of Trek, which I had stated
> here before (check the Google archive):
>
> Star Trek does NOT require the original actors, nor the original sets, nor the
> original ship models, nor the original props. The basic concept would work
> with any actors and any type of ship (as long as it was large enough to hold a
> varied crew).
I agree. If you google my preferences, I would have preferred that they
dispense with any attempt to tie the old and new canon together, just give us
their best shot at a reinterpretation of the original concept and be judged on
that.
GeneK
Michael Urban
Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>> And yet most of the complaints include something about how the
>> characters act _nothing_ like the previous bearers of those names.
>
>That's right, the critics of the movie fall into two camps: Those who
>think the movie was too derivative of past Trek, and those who think it
>was too different from past Trek.
>
>My theory is that just the shock of seeing entirely new actors playing
>the old familiar parts has unnerved a lot of Trek fans.
And yet we have fan-film projects like "New Voyages/Phase II" which
have had new (and frequently inexperienced) actors in the familiar
roles - even playing alongside the original actor, in the case
of Walter Koenig. It is not clear how many fans of the original
series (however you define that classification) have been turned
off by this compared to those who have embraced it; nor indeed
is it clear whether the existence of such projects may have
made it easier for fans to accept the new actors in Trek09.
Note that Abrams gave James Cawley, who plays Kirk in 'Phase II',
an appearance as an extra on the bridge in the present film.
I was not terribly impressed by Trek09. I was more or less
entertained while in the theatre, but only through a willful effort
of turning off my brain while watching. The clumsy plot devices,
the absurd sounds-like-science (yes, even making allowances for
Star Trek standards thereof), the overemphasis on 'action' rather
than anything remotely intriguing or ingenious - all added up to
a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing (I will refrain
from calling it a tale told by an idiot, however). I fall
into neither of your 'two camps'.
Mike
PS. Oh, and if they're going to lift a scene almost bodily from
the animated episode 'Yesteryear', shouldn't they give some
kind of credit to D.C. Fontana? Gotta love Hollywood.
Merrick Baldelli
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>If you're going to change the characters and background _that_ _much_,
>why not just write something new? It would probably be easier.
Not when you're inherently lazy. It's far easier to write
something from an established story/plot than it is to come up with
something "new".
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Merrick Baldelli
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>It seemed like real Star Trek to me.
I concur that there were definitive moments in this that
Abrams had caught some of the elements that had been carried by three
years of TOS, and years after that of syndication. But there was also
elements of this movie that I found hit too close to the ass-raping
that Berman & Braga did when it came to retconning history as they had
done in "Enterprise".
>Kirk was arrogant but dedicated and resourceful,
>Spock was struggling with his human half (and the bias of other Vulcans
>against it), his relationships with Amanda and Sarek were as we knew them,
>McCoy was gruff but decent.
The elements that threw them together in this movie was a
shade too... convenient. In fact, it was like the "Enterprise
Effect" (how the characters were all there from the beginning even
though it's probable they didn't know each other at the time) to the
reality warping power of a Black Hole.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to
simply have them all serving onboard the same ship and beginning to
have a friendship form. Abrams and his ass-licking monkeys had to go
back to them beginning their Academy Days in order for these bonds to
form... And they did so to slather the point on the head of a maul to
drive the point home to the viewers in a way that bores both the
casual viewer and especially the fans that remember.
Further one of the biggest elements of Trek that Roddenberry
had instilled was both the ability to follow the rules, and the
necessity for breaking them. This movie lacked too much of the former
and went overboard with the latter.
>We seem to have two sets of contradictory criticisms here:
>
>The OP started out by saying that the movie was too derivative of years
>and years of past Trek plots,
>
>but now you're saying that the movie wasn't real Star Trek.
>
>That's a contradiction.
It is subject to interpretation. One can have all the
elements of previous Star Trek Plots and still miss the point;
particularly when you take the same elements and hand them down person
to person until the original meaning of the plots are completely
warped and different by the end.
>I happen to agree with the first poster, but I cut Abrams some slack
>because his "five year mission" was to reboot the Trek franchise with a
>new cast of actors, but not throw away the key relationships among the
>crew or their key motivations.
I had whopping issues with Spock throwing Kirk off the ship.
They do have these things called "brigs" which are in fact on naval
vessels. And further have been shown being used from TOS through TNG
and I believe even on Enterprise... One does not simply jettison
someone off a ship for insubordination -- even if the manner for which
this occurred would get Montgomery Scott onto Enterprise. It had been
shown that several people have ended up in the brig even in TOS, so
keeping him there to be pulled out wouldn't have hurt the story, even
if the writers couldn't tie in Montgomery Scott and Spock Prime
adequately with the way they had the story currently written.
Further -- the manner for which Kirk got his commendation for
winning against the Kobayashi Maru Scenario was entirely too
reminiscent of the anal raping that Beavis & Butthead (Berman & Braga)
did when they made the Vulcans in "Enterprise" into nothing more than
insipid one-dimensional sock puppets. It was entirely too bad boy
gotten it good for my taste and seems to be more evidence of
retconning history according to Abrams and his merry band of
ass-licking writers decided they wanted to interpret it for a 21st
century version of *cringe* "fresh and new".
While these weren't necessarily deal breakers in my book -- I
do admit that they were part of the niggling issues that I had sitting
there watching the film, as it was apparent that while Abrams did do a
successful "reboot" (when viewed in terms of income), still seemed to
add elements to this film to stroke his own fanwanking ego in its
production. From the Red Matter (reminiscent of another piece of work
he had his hand on, otherwise known as "Alias"), to the almost slash
way that he threw Spock and Uhura together are clear evidence of this
ego masturbation.
>So he had to essentially revisit each one
>separately, rushing by at breakneck speed: Young Kirk was reckless but
>matured later, young Spock was tormented by his classmates (that scene
>was lifted out of TAS "Yesteryear"), young Spock loved his mom Amanda,
>Sarek rationalized marrying Amanda as "logical", on and on.
And yet simultaneously retconned the way McCoy and Kirk had
met, Enterprise Effected the way Spock had designed the Kobayashi Maru
Scenario which Kirk had cheated against to win, threw Montgomery Scott
to some backwater outpost that conveniently is in the same place that
Kirk was jettisoned from Enterprise, slashed together Spock and Uhura
while writing out Nurse Chapel entirely from the story all under the
guise of "alternative timelines" just so that in the end everything
can be conveniently reset and they become the happy crew of the
Enterprise.
I find myself thrilled and repulsed all at the same time. Or
is that too contradictory for the likes of you?
Merrick Baldelli
<sant...@juno.com> wrote:
>Except, none of them act any differently from the old characters.
>Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
>Fascinating.
Or added phobias to McCoy that he didn't have. Or the fact
that Montgomery Scott was well known for knowing Enterprise inside and
out, and yet everything he was doing since boarding the ship even
surprised him. Or that Sulu was pretty incompetent for a helmsman and
had issues getting out of space dock...
Maybe you need to pay some more attention.
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>> ...and they made a TON of money doing that, so what has the audience
>> taught them?
>
>Jealous?
Missing the point much?
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>That's exactly the point; they had writers too lazy and intellectually
>dishonest to do their homework.
And yet, here we all are, a minority of fans with the money
necessary to throw away for a film or DVD flocking to the newest
iteration of the film, like mad sheep -- paying money for a
turd-blossom that whatever producer of the week decides they want to
squat over a movie back screen and shit for 2 hours.
Here we are, continually writing about it, giving it praise,
giving it ire to cause other bleating sheep that didn't get to see if
the first time around, into seeing it to pay for the very same piece
of shit that was shown to others... To the point where millions are
being made that allows these -- producers -- to keep squeezing out
pieces of shit.
Here we are, keeping the hope alive that the next iteration is
going to be something that will revive the glory-days of our youth,
when we would sit down and watch something, week after week and often
finding ourselves disappointed that while sometimes some good will
come of it, the corny chunks in the turd get in the way... Hoping
that our children or our progeny will be able to get the same thing
out of something that we had gotten in our youth.
Tell me.. Who's really to blame here? The producers that we
rattle their cages to give us something to pass a couple of hours of
time by throwing money at? Or Us?
Merrick Baldelli
<stoc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I've never been much of a ST fan even though I watched it a lot on TV.
>I liked the latest movie more than most of what I saw on TV.
Age please... For perspective.
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>The technobabble was very weak, and saying it's an alternate timeline
>does not fix that.
Particularly given alternate timelines are as overused in the
Star Trek Universe as Borg and Holodecks...
>Blowing up two planets in the opening act, violates pretty nearly
>every conceivable dramatic guideline.
Except if you're a drama queen... Then it's just the start of
another day.
>But the "plot" was just a device to run characters around doing
>schtick. This is how the current generation of screenwriters and
>hollywood suits likes it, maybe the audience likes it too, but I call
>it "attention deficit theater" and I despise it.
Definitely... This is will be a flash in the pan. They might
be able to get one or two more movies out of this, but given the
over-the-top approach to the first one, I seriously doubt they've got
it in them to keep going up. In fact, it's a gimme that it can only
go down from here.
Merrick Baldelli
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>What was changed?
>
>The main thing that was changed was Kirk's backstory prior to becoming
>Captain. But that backstory had been covered in maybe FIVE MINUTES of
>dialogue in just TWO episodes in TOS: "Obsession" and
>"Operation-Annihilate!"
The complete destruction of the home world of Vulcan is a
pretty huge change in my book.
The manner for which command had been handed from Pike to Kirk
is another.
The entire time-traveling retread of Romulans inflicting
revenge another..
>The other thing that was changed was Uhura sounded more like she was
>from Chicago than from Africa. And yes, that's one thing I did NOT like.
The slash romance between Uhura and Spock (which completely
write's out the existence of Nurse Chapel)
>But the movie went out of its way to reboot the other characters true to
>form:
How is slashing Uhura and Spock together "true to form?"
How is Spock jettisoning Kirk from the Enterprise to a nearby
ice planet near to Vulcan "true to form"?
How does making Spock so emotional at the beginning of the
story so "true to form"? Remember it took many years of experience
with humans as well as going through Pon Far in "Amok Time" (30
episodes yet 34 production in) for him to finally begin to acknowledge
and begin the acceptance his human side and yet, Abrams and his crew
of ass-licking monkeys made him wildly emotional someplace at the
beginning.
>Spock with Sarek and Amanda;
>
>Spock being bullied by his classmates, which was ONE SENTENCE in
>"Journey to Babel" plus a scene in TAS "Yesteryear" which practically no
>one saw because it was on Saturday morning for the kiddies;
That I definitely appreciated, even though they hadn't shown
his Sehlat -- I-Chaya -- which would have probably still been alive
back then. Then again, it was apparent that the budget for this film
was for the explosions and special effects.
>and even the Kobayashi Maru test!
Which I think was botched; for while Kirk could be a blow-hard
braggart, was also well known for also being cunning and sly --
neither quality demonstrated at all during his third attempt at the
Kobayashi Maru Scenario. In fact, this testosterone poisoned scene I
believe to be one of the most poorly executed in the whole of the
movie.
A Watcher
Whatever they did would have been criticized by the ST fans. I don't
really like time travel plots, but this movie seemed to be a good way to
restarting the Trek story.
A Watcher
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:20:32 -0800, A Watcher
> <stoc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I've never been much of a ST fan even though I watched it a lot on TV.
>> I liked the latest movie more than most of what I saw on TV.
>
> Age please... For perspective.
>
I'm old enough to remember when ST first came on TV while I was in my
20's. I've been a sci-fi fan since junior high, yet I didn't really
like the first showing of ST all that much. Of course at that age I had
a lot better things to do than watch TV.
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:48:27 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >If you're going to change the characters and background _that_ _much_,
> >why not just write something new? It would probably be easier.
>
> Not when you're inherently lazy. It's far easier to write
> something from an established story/plot than it is to come up with
> something "new".
More importantly, it's easier to sell.
--
Happy 30th Anniversary
STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE
http://www.onedigitallife.com/images/star-trek-the-motion-picture.jpg
"The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning"
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And yet simultaneously retconned the way McCoy and Kirk had
> met,
Point of order; when have we ever heard how McCoy and Kirk (or for that
matter any of the TOS regulars) met?
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:21:49 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >That's exactly the point; they had writers too lazy and intellectually
> >dishonest to do their homework.
>
> And yet, here we all are, a minority of fans with the money
> necessary to throw away for a film or DVD flocking to the newest
> iteration of the film, like mad sheep -- paying money for a
What you mean 'we' white eyes?
> turd-blossom that whatever producer of the week decides they want to
> squat over a movie back screen and shit for 2 hours.
>
> Here we are, continually writing about it, giving it praise,
What you mean 'we' white eyes?
> giving it ire to cause other bleating sheep that didn't get to see if
> the first time around, into seeing it to pay for the very same piece
> of shit that was shown to others... To the point where millions are
> being made that allows these -- producers -- to keep squeezing out
> pieces of shit.
>
> Here we are, keeping the hope alive that the next iteration is
> going to be something that will revive the glory-days of our youth,
What you mean 'we' white eyes?
> when we would sit down and watch something, week after week and often
> finding ourselves disappointed that while sometimes some good will
> come of it, the corny chunks in the turd get in the way... Hoping
> that our children or our progeny will be able to get the same thing
> out of something that we had gotten in our youth.
>
> Tell me.. Who's really to blame here? The producers that we
> rattle their cages to give us something to pass a couple of hours of
> time by throwing money at? Or Us?
What you mean 'us' white eyes?
Wickeddoll
Wickeddoll
> wrote:
>
>>> ...and they made a TON of money doing that, so what has the audience
>>> taught them?
>> Jealous?
>
> Missing the point much?
>
Ya know, Merrick, I was actually glad to see your name here, but I see
you're just as friendly as the last time I spoke with you. I've
actually missed you; you can be a very clever, insightful guy, but you
hang on to negative feelings so long, there is no fix for it.
I was just joking with a guy with whom I converse regularly. He knew I
was just kidding; and had you bothered to read any of my other posts on
this subject (as painful as that may have been for you) you would have
known that.
I hope all is well with you; I never wished you any harm.
Natalie, sighing
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:05:50 -0800 (PST), Santolina chamaecyparissus
>
> >Except, none of them act any differently from the old characters.
> >Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
> >Fascinating.
>
> Or added phobias to McCoy that he didn't have.
Who the fuck cares about trivial shit like that? Did the new Bones
act so substantially like the old Bones that everybody recognized him
as Bones, yes or no?
> Or the fact
> that Montgomery Scott was well known for knowing Enterprise inside and
> out,
Er, a dozen years or more in the future, yeah. Somebody'd not paying
attention and it's not me.
How do you think Scotty should be depicted a dozen or so years before
TOS times? Maybe jovial, clever, and with a quaint accent? DING DING
DING DING...... Scotty was Scotty. They changed nothing about him,
just put him in a different setting and made him a bit sillier as
would befit a much younger man.
> and yet everything he was doing since boarding the ship even
> surprised him. Or that Sulu was pretty incompetent for a helmsman and
> had issues getting out of space dock...
My, what insightful analysis. How do you think Sulu should be depicted
a dozen years or so before his age of competency? Actually, the new
Sulu is almost entirely devoid of personality whatsoever, easily the
most forgettable of the core characters.
>
> Maybe you need to pay some more attention.
>
Funny. All the characters are unchanged in any substantial way from
their old depictions. Kirk is just a more exaggerated version of
Kirk, Spock is Spock, Bones is Bones (but with an extra phobia!!!),
Scotty and Chekov are younger and sillier versions of themselves, Sulu
is Sulu except with even less personality. The only exception is
Uhura, who seems less interested in her career than Spock's potent
blend of Vulcan/Human musk.
If changing the timeline only changes a character in trivial ways then
what was the point of changing the timeline? Maybe they'll get around
to telling us in the next movie, if they can squeeze a little
exposition in between all the fucking explosions.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> >> trag wrote:
> >>> On Dec 9, 9:56 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
> >>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
> >>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions based
> >>>> on a certain event that occurred.
> >>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
> >> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
> >> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new
> >> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.
>
> > Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
> > Fascinating.
>
> characters act _nothing_ like the previous bearers of those names.
>
Every review I read, and they were by generic movie reviewers rather
than Trek fans, included some statement along the lines of "X and Y
nailed their characters." I don't recall any of them complaining that
they couldn't recognize the reimagined characters, but maybe you read
more reviews than I did. Who complained, old Trek fans? They'll
complain about anything.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
>
> I was not terribly impressed by Trek09. I was more or less
> entertained while in the theatre, but only through a willful effort
> of turning off my brain while watching. The clumsy plot devices,
> the absurd sounds-like-science (yes, even making allowances for
> Star Trek standards thereof), the overemphasis on 'action' rather
> than anything remotely intriguing or ingenious - all added up to
> a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing (I will refrain
> from calling it a tale told by an idiot, however). I fall
> into neither of your 'two camps'.
>
What he said.
Your Name
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-38A69...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
> In article <vc52i5plbon0nqjut...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:48:27 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > >If you're going to change the characters and background _that_ _much_,
> > >why not just write something new? It would probably be easier.
> >
> > Not when you're inherently lazy. It's far easier to write
> > something from an established story/plot than it is to come up with
> > something "new".
>
> More importantly, it's easier to sell.
Except that if most people actually had brains, it wouldn't be easier to
sell.
*If* real Star Trek is so bad ly patronised that it's no longer worth making
properly, then common sense would tell you that making a movie called "Star
Trek" isn't going to make any difference whatsoever since people with brains
who don't like Star Trek want bother going to see it. Making a new movie
with a new name and starting a new franchise would be a MUCH more sensible
idea and give a much wider potential audience.
In fact the real reasons so many non-Trek people went to see the movie is
simply because they tagged Abrams name onto it as the latest toy on the
block. People are also becoming more and more stupid - growing numbers of
people simply go to the movies every Friday night to watch ANYTHING, even if
they have zero interest in it and come out complaining about it - it's
simply what they do on Friday nights. Then there are those who claim to be
fans (including some of the fools in Hollyweird making these silly "reboot"
things), but don't really give a damn what happens to the franchise they're
supposedly fans of - anything is fine as long as it still says "Star Trek"
on the tin. :-\
Anthony Buckland
"JRStern" <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in message
news:mscuh596a8v06fl21...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:42:54 -0800 (PST), Santolina chamaecyparissus
> <sant...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>Second, I'm disappointed either in myself or popular culture in
>>general, but I'm not sure which. After all, consider the
>>"story" (I'll avoid the temptation to compose a long essay on how
>>threadbare it was and just leave the word in scare quotes). Decimated
>>by the loss of his family, a mad scientist named Soran skips across
>>space and time looking for some sort of emotional resolution to his
>>devastating loss.
>
> The technobabble was very weak, and saying it's an alternate timeline
> does not fix that.
>
> every conceivable dramatic guideline.
A good (MHO) episode of Enterprise blew up Earth just
to get things going. So there's precedent.
Dimensional Traveler
> On Dec 10, 8:02 am, Merrick Baldelli <mbalde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:05:50 -0800 (PST), Santolina chamaecyparissus
>>
>> <santol...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> Except, none of them act any differently from the old characters.
>>> Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
>>> Fascinating.
>> Or added phobias to McCoy that he didn't have.
>
> Who the fuck cares about trivial shit like that? Did the new Bones
> act so substantially like the old Bones that everybody recognized him
> as Bones, yes or no?
>
>> Or the fact
>> that Montgomery Scott was well known for knowing Enterprise inside and
>> out,
>
> Er, a dozen years or more in the future, yeah. Somebody'd not paying
> attention and it's not me.
>
> How do you think Scotty should be depicted a dozen or so years before
> TOS times? Maybe jovial, clever, and with a quaint accent? DING DING
> DING DING...... Scotty was Scotty. They changed nothing about him,
> just put him in a different setting and made him a bit sillier as
> would befit a much younger man.
>
You appear to be assuming that the end of the 2009 movie does not
correspond to the beginning of the five year mission. I would assume
the opposite.
>
>> and yet everything he was doing since boarding the ship even
>> surprised him. Or that Sulu was pretty incompetent for a helmsman and
>> had issues getting out of space dock...
>
> My, what insightful analysis. How do you think Sulu should be depicted
> a dozen years or so before his age of competency? Actually, the new
> Sulu is almost entirely devoid of personality whatsoever, easily the
> most forgettable of the core characters.
>
See above.
>
>> Maybe you need to pay some more attention.
>>
>
> Funny. All the characters are unchanged in any substantial way from
> their old depictions. Kirk is just a more exaggerated version of
> Kirk, Spock is Spock, Bones is Bones (but with an extra phobia!!!),
> Scotty and Chekov are younger and sillier versions of themselves, Sulu
> is Sulu except with even less personality. The only exception is
> Uhura, who seems less interested in her career than Spock's potent
> blend of Vulcan/Human musk.
>
And yet many of us disagree with "the characters are all the same, just
younger", seeing the 2009 movie versions as having entirely different
personalities.
> If changing the timeline only changes a character in trivial ways then
> what was the point of changing the timeline? Maybe they'll get around
> to telling us in the next movie, if they can squeeze a little
> exposition in between all the fucking explosions.
>
I doubt it.
Dimensional Traveler
characters the reviewers don't know. Yes, that's such a ringing
endorsement. More likely the reviewers were saying that the actors
"nailed" the characters as written for the movie, which is not the same
as the characters from the series or previous movies.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 8:02 am, Merrick Baldelli <mbalde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:05:50 -0800 (PST), Santolina chamaecyparissus
>
> >> <santol...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>> Except, none of them act any differently from the old characters.
> >>> Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
> >>> Fascinating.
> >> Or added phobias to McCoy that he didn't have.
>
> > Who the fuck cares about trivial shit like that? Did the new Bones
> > act so substantially like the old Bones that everybody recognized him
> > as Bones, yes or no?
>
> No.
>
Seriously? If they'd bleeped the audio where he introduces himself
but left the rest of the performance intact you'd have had no idea
what character that was? Feel free to expound on that.
> >> Or the fact
> >> that Montgomery Scott was well known for knowing Enterprise inside and
> >> out,
>
> > Er, a dozen years or more in the future, yeah. Somebody'd not paying
> > attention and it's not me.
>
> > How do you think Scotty should be depicted a dozen or so years before
> > TOS times? Maybe jovial, clever, and with a quaint accent? DING DING
> > DING DING...... Scotty was Scotty. They changed nothing about him,
> > just put him in a different setting and made him a bit sillier as
> > would befit a much younger man.
>
> You appear to be assuming that the end of the 2009 movie does not
> correspond to the beginning of the five year mission.
I assume only the facts in evidence. The timeline of ST09 corresponds
roughly to Capt. Pike's mission to Talos IV, does it not? If they
move forward with a new movie they're free to populate the fleet's
flagship with a bunch of 20 year olds, if that's what their teenage
audience demands. Personally, I would hope for something less stupid
than that, but I don't get a vote.
> I would assume
> the opposite.
>
>
>
> >> and yet everything he was doing since boarding the ship even
> >> surprised him. Or that Sulu was pretty incompetent for a helmsman and
> >> had issues getting out of space dock...
>
> > My, what insightful analysis. How do you think Sulu should be depicted
> > a dozen years or so before his age of competency? Actually, the new
> > Sulu is almost entirely devoid of personality whatsoever, easily the
> > most forgettable of the core characters.
>
> See above.
>
Feel free to expound upon anything that made you say, "my god, that's
so not Sulu."
>
>
> >> Maybe you need to pay some more attention.
>
> > Funny. All the characters are unchanged in any substantial way from
> > their old depictions. Kirk is just a more exaggerated version of
> > Kirk, Spock is Spock, Bones is Bones (but with an extra phobia!!!),
> > Scotty and Chekov are younger and sillier versions of themselves, Sulu
> > is Sulu except with even less personality. The only exception is
> > Uhura, who seems less interested in her career than Spock's potent
> > blend of Vulcan/Human musk.
>
> And yet many of us disagree with "the characters are all the same, just
> younger", seeing the 2009 movie versions as having entirely different
> personalities.
>
Feel free to expound upon that.
> > If changing the timeline only changes a character in trivial ways then
> > what was the point of changing the timeline? Maybe they'll get around
> > to telling us in the next movie, if they can squeeze a little
> > exposition in between all the fucking explosions.
>
> I doubt it.
>
Me too.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
Uh, no. They know the characters, they're just not Trek geeks so far
as I can tell. Don't be obtuse.
> Yes, that's such a ringing
> endorsement. More likely the reviewers were saying that the actors
> "nailed" the characters as written for the movie,
No, they were saying what I implied they were saying.
Anim8rFSK
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ANIM8Rfsk-38A69...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
> > In article <vc52i5plbon0nqjut...@4ax.com>,
> > Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:48:27 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> > > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you're going to change the characters and background _that_ _much_,
> > > >why not just write something new? It would probably be easier.
> > >
> > > Not when you're inherently lazy. It's far easier to write
> > > something from an established story/plot than it is to come up with
> > > something "new".
> >
> > More importantly, it's easier to sell.
>
> Except that if most people actually had brains, it wouldn't be easier to
> sell.
But we aren't talking brains, and we're barely talking people; we're
talking producers.
The reason the whole 'remake tv shows' genre came up in the first place
is that if you'd try to sell something original to a producer, he'd
always rephrase it in terms of "it's like..."
"This script is a stirring drama about a woman's love for a sea captain
over the years"
"So it's like Gilligan's Island with penguins? Can you put in some
Mayans?"
Eventually people realized it was just easier to pitch Gilligan's Island
in the first place, with or without penguins.
Mac Breck
> Mac Breck wrote:
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> "Your Name" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" wrote in message
> trag "Smokie Darling (Annie)"
>>>>>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
>>>>>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
>>>>>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions
>>>>>>> based on a certain event that occurred.
>>>>>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>>>>> because of a certain event, they have changed (some a little,
>>>>> some a lot).
>>>> "Certain events"
>>>> Translation: Nobody in Hollyweird knows (nor cares) how to make
>>>> real Star Trek any more. In fact few people in Hollyweird know how
>>>> to make anything at all, so they butcher old shows / movies
>>>> instead.
>>> That's exactly the point; they had writers too lazy and
>>> intellectually dishonest to do their homework.
>>
>> taught them?
>>
>
> Jealous?
???What??? No, you completely missed the boat. In fact, the boat is
halfway across the Atlantic and you're still on the shore.
It was a straight question. The answer is that it's taught them (the
writers and everybody else involved in the production of "Star Trek"
(2009)) that what they did, is what the audience wants.
Sheesh, quit looking for emotions that aren't there.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Mac Breck
> Wickeddoll wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>> GeneK wrote:
>>>> "A Watcher" wrote in message
>>>>> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the
>>>>> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and
>>>>> make new movies based on these different characters. There's no
>>>>> end to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> into ST.
>>>>
>>>> It's THE point of the movie, i.e., "this is why our new Trek is
>>>> different
>>>> from the old Trek but still fits into canon." But casual viewers
>>>> couldn't
>>>> care less about canon, and for longtime viewers, "this is a
>>>> reimagining of Trek with a new canon" would be probably be
>>>> explanation enough
>>>> for a good film and "fitting into canon" won't redeem a bad one.
>>>> GeneK
>>>
>>> This movie vindicated MY position on the future of Trek, which I had
>>> stated here before (check the Google archive):
>>>
>>> Star Trek does NOT require the original actors, nor the original
>>> sets, nor the original ship models, nor the original props. The
>>> basic concept would work with any actors and any type of ship (as
>>> long as it was large enough to hold a varied crew).
>>>
>>> gone, DeForest Kelley is gone, and the other actors are quite old
>>> now--too old for any more swashbuckling derring-do. If a TOS-type
>>> series is to have ANY future, it HAS to be rebooted from a new cast
>>> of actors. Otherwise the only other alternative is to let Star Trek
>>> die off once and for all.
>>>
>>> I doubt that Abrams' critics would be happy about that. If
>>> production of the movie had fallen through for any reason, they
>>> would be the first ones lamenting that "TOS is dead, too bad."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steven L.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They're *still* saying it's dead.
>>
>> May they grieve in peace, cuz I'm looking forward to the next film.
>>
>> Natalie
>
> "They" don't have to watch. They can keep watching reruns of TOS.
...or they could quit watching Trek, period, ....which is pretty much
what I've done. I didn't watch any Trek between the end of "Enterprise"
and "Star Trek" (2009) on DVD. I have no great attraction to Trek
anymore; I can take it or leave it. I don't own TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY
or ENT on DVD except for the Borg Collection (Collective?), which I got
for the effects in VOY "Scorpion I & II." When the next movie comes
out, I'll wait for the DVD.
Mac Breck
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:27:37 -0800, Wickeddoll <n...@chance.dude>
> wrote:
>
>>> ...and they made a TON of money doing that, so what has the audience
>>> taught them?
>>
>> Jealous?
>
> Missing the point much?
<ding> <ding> <ding> Spot on.
Mac Breck
> Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> Wickeddoll
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> ...and they made a TON of money doing that, so what has the
>>>> audience taught them?
>>> Jealous?
>>
>> Missing the point much?
>>
>
> Ya know, Merrick, I was actually glad to see your name here, but I see
> you're just as friendly as the last time I spoke with you. I've
> actually missed you; you can be a very clever, insightful guy, but you
> hang on to negative feelings so long, there is no fix for it.
>
> I was just joking with a guy with whom I converse regularly. He knew
> I was just kidding;
That was a joke? To me it looked like you thought I was jealous
about....something...maybe how much money the movie has made, or
something else (I dunno.). The attribution of jealousy to my comments
is completely offbase, ....not applicable. When it comes to Trek, I
(and you can take this literally) just don't care anymore. I have no
emotional investment in it, at all. If there is a new movie, fine. If
there isn't, fine. If there is a new TV show, fine. If there isn't,
fine.
> and had you bothered to read any of my other
> posts on this subject (as painful as that may have been for you) you
> would have known that.
>
> I hope all is well with you; I never wished you any harm.
>
> Natalie, sighing
--
Wickeddoll
OK, Merrick was right - you didn't get that I was joking.
My bad.
:-D
Natalie
Wickeddoll
I didn't buy any of the series on DVD either - I have that Borg
Collection, as well as the Klingon one, and I bought TOS and TAS for hubby.
But I *did* buy ST: 2009 - at hubby's request (and he's a die-hard TOS fan!)
Mac Breck
> In article <de62i5po9lig9nok0...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:21:49 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's exactly the point; they had writers too lazy and
>>> intellectually dishonest to do their homework.
>>
>> And yet, here we all are, a minority of fans with the money
>> necessary to throw away for a film or DVD flocking to the newest
>> iteration of the film, like mad sheep -- paying money for a
>
> What you mean 'we' white eyes?
What are you talking about?
"Stick"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090073/
Moke (Dar Robinson)
or
Harry Dresden's half-brother, Thomas Raith?