Warmaker, to be fair, when you talk about "capturing the friendship dynamics" of the old series, I don't see how, with the premise of the new universe, one could expect that to be the same, particularly with how severely Kirk was affected by the shift in timelines. That this was a casualty of Nero is something Old Spock pretty much openly acknowledged as a tragedy. Some look at it as a horrible offense to them. I see it as what it's stated to be: evidence of damage to the timeline.
I have my disagreements with things JJ did: the treatment of Carol Marcus, Uhura's unprofessional attitude problem, Spock's pulling strings based on a relationship with a cadet, failing to explain the change in Khan's appearance (the casting wouldn't have been so much of an issue if they'd let Cumberbatch react in spoken dialogue to being physically altered against his will by Marcus and might even have given us a powerful character moment), etc. But I see absolutely no reason to let that devolve into an irrational hatred, into nitpicking things that are *not* really a big deal, into not being able to see *anything* good, or feeling the need to administer a purity test to new fans who may want to come in because of the new movies. I don't need to call names, go after Abrams personally, or act like the sky is falling at times when I should choose to air one or more of these critiques.
In the end I do love Star Trek, but I am not going to elevate it beyond its rightful place in my life. It IS entertainment, not an actual, serious code to live by. Sure, some Trek writers hoped to start a conversation, but I don't think they ever expected to be revered like penmue's attempt to compare it to Ancient Greek pageantry. If anyone on the staff did, then there are serious issues.
The whole alternate thing using TOS characters and a mockery of events never sat well with me. "Into Darkness" was a gold mine for the latter, especially the twisting of elements of TWOK. When they showed it would be rehashed Khan, I knew the "Khaaaan!" part would be redone. I was expecting it. I was dreading it. When it happened with the "twist" I simply groaned and did a double-facepalm.
Do something new with new characters. Maybe they'd still TRIBBLE something up with a new setting and new characters but you're not going to walk into a minefield redoing classic TOS characters and events.
For the record, I would also view a "re-imagining" of TNG, DS9 in a negative light. These characters have been built upon for years and there's no need to change that.
I mean, come on! With today's technology, what can they really show us with a Star Trek universe, say, 100 years after the Dominion War and TNG crew's "Nemesis?" What can they show us by having essentially a clean slate to forge a new era of the franchise with minimal entanglements?
That's not what we got. Instead, we got a caricature of TOS.
Paramount aren't allowed to explore post-Nemesis events due to the conditions of the Viacom split. The Prime Timeline is solely the intellectual property of CBS. Paramount had no choice but to reboot the movie franchise.
No, they just aren't allowed to do it without dealing with CBS. Marvel was not allowed to use Spiderman...until they made a deal with Sony. So IP rights aren't a law of nature that can never be broken, they just mean 2 companies have to deal with each other to make something.
Which Paramount and CBS are unlikely to do: Sony Motion Pictures were facing imminent financial failure and thus needed to do a deal with Marvel Studios to keep the Spider-Man movie rights.
What imminent failure are you referring to? Amazing Spiderman 1 cost 230 to make and made 750. Amazing Spiderman 2 cost 250 to make and made 700. I didn't like them and neither did the critics, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they both made a bunch of money. So, link?
It wasn't just Spider-Man. In the fallout of the Sony Motion Pictures hack, Sony ended up losing a lot of money, especially when coupled with the aborted screening of The Interview.
On a U.S. dollar basis,
operating income decreased year-on-year. This decrease was primarily due to the lower Motion Pictures sales
noted above and higher restructuring charges incurred during the current fiscal year. The current fiscal year’s
operating results also reflect the underperformance of White House Down and After Earth.
My point exactly. Other than TASM (which I actually thought was very good), Sony haven't had many well-performing movies. CBS, by contrast is a still-successful TV network while Paramount is one of the US's biggest and highest-grossing movie studios.
Excuse me? S31 are villians in DS9 (they became the heroes of ENT however).
Then Berman should have done a better job of making them pure evil rather than just a group who doesn't see eye to eye with Bashir. Their attempt to exterminate the changelings is no different than General Order 24 which Kirk gives in one episode of TOS (under far less pressing circumstances than war with the Dominion is) and which has been employed at least one other time in the Star Trek Universe - and which you could argue Sisko employed against the Maquis by making an entire planet uninhabitable. And you can't convince me that them framing one Romulan to protect an operative is "pure evil."
I like Odo a lot, probably my 2nd favorite character next to Dax, and I'm very happy to see Bashir take on Section 31 to stop the changeling virus - but I don't think Section 31 was evil for doing it.
"The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-One exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." - Luther Sloan
Post edited by penemue#7777 on
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
It wasn't just Spider-Man. The current fiscal year’s operating results also reflect the underperformance of White House Down and After Earth.
I saw the older Spider man movies with Toby in them. However when they brought out the "Amazing" version so quick, I didn't care to watch them. I'm like they just did the a series. I didn't want to see another round so soon. As for the White house and After movies. I didn't care enough to see them. The trailers just didn't get enough excitement to get my attention.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Most of the people who start threads like this operate under two serious misperceptions.
1. Their opinion on anything and everything actually matters.
2. The rest of us are eagerly waiting for them to come down from Olympus and share with us mere mortals.
I now fully intend to see the film twice. Once for me and once for the hipsters who publicly sneer at JJTrek yet can come here and play STO without blinking an eye. And cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in such actions.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
I'll watch it atleast once, in the cinema - big freak for big screens.
That out of the way... I feel underwhelmed by that trailer.
I watched 09, probably had bigger expectations then what a single movie could deliver (and after so much years without an ST movie, can you blame me?), though even after three times watching it, I didn't personally like it as much as some people. It's too hectic, too bursty-emotional (I know, Jim, difficult to put to words), was hard to pick it up with as much an open heart I had at the moment.
Into the Darkness fared much better to me (ironically, most of people I know didn't dig it), in fact I really enjoyed the movie. The pace is just about right, the actors feel more comfortable in their roles, Khan is amazing (yes, I'm admitting, totally over "new" Khan), story-wise it's predictable but still quite agreeable, really enjoyed the Fed Dreadnought design as well - space battle scenes are breathtaking. What I'm trying to say is, unlike Star Trek 09, I perhaps (taught by 09 before) had lower expectations out of this one, thought it's gonna be "Meh movie, khan-ruining lensflare-overloaded messy" action movie, and while I was right about lens flares, I was pleasantly surprised by the rest of the movie.
I don't get the same vibe from Beyond, though, if trailer is to be judged.
I now fully intend to see the film twice. Once for me and once for the hipsters who publicly sneer at JJTrek yet can come here and play STO without blinking an eye. And cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in such actions.
There's no hypocrisy, I'm relatively certain that Cryptic doesn't have a $185 million dollar budget for STO to produce one and a half to two hours worth of content like Abrams et al do. If they do, please correct me and I'll be much more picky with their writing and content. And there's quite a number of responses on this thread, including yours.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Just guessing, but I think he's referring to the fact that STO is 99% "kill kill kill" in every mission, like many people complain JJ-Trek is just an action movie with no significant Trek story.
Action in a video game requires my participation which is different from action in a movie which just requires me to sit there which utterly bores me. I remember watching that "jump from ship to ship" section from Into Darkness and I was just thinking... "dear god when will this stupid scene end so I can watch the movie?" By contrast I can somewhat enjoy "strategically" controlling the action in a game. It's pretty fun in my Ki'tang Bird-of-Prey to solo Borg Cubes and come out every time with 50% hull and only ~50% forward shields.
Additionally, I've played some greatly plotted Foundry missions. "No Prize for Second Contact I-IV" has been my favorite as of yet (I'm pretty new to the game). I have some complaints about the seeming obsequiousness of the Romulan Republic towards Vulcan philosophy as well as the mustache twirling of the Tal Shiar - but it is what it is. It could be worse - could be better. It's not my favorite story - but I've never been conditioned to expect grade A quality writing from any video game and it's always pleasant when I find it (Fallout New Vegas is grade-A top-notch writing).
I'd rather have an "Elite: Dangerous" size galaxy with tons of randomly generated (and inevitably repetitive) content in a Star Trek game and lots of tedious exploration/colonization/science/building type work to do - but most people want action in an MMO and I'll take it over no Star Trek game at all.
I do think STO is one of the few Star Trek games that's ever approached the level of "good."
But I will concede that I've always considered the writing in most games to be lackluster - Fallout New Vegas is one I've always pointed out as reaching above and beyond what is deemed necessary by pop culture and was clearly written by people who quite clearly care about their fantasy universe and the stories they tell in it (and it features Michael Dorn!) Still, I enjoy MMORPGs.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
...because I refuse to be insulted by these hacks anymore who seem to consider the viewers of entertainment as infants who are only capable of comprehending and enjoying pretty flashing lights. Star Trek was great - and now it's just another formulaic reboot. I might see it like I saw "Into Darkness" - three years after release date on Netflix.
How far the franchise has fallen since my favorite ST movie (I understand your objections to the characterization of Kirk, they are reasonable, but it's still a great film):
People can tell me to "get with the times" all they want - that "it's just a silly movie and you should enjoy it" - but when you give me a trailer that tells me nothing about the story of the movie you tell me you have no story which means you're incompetent.
Yeah, I'm looking at that Star Trek Beyond trailer and recalling how all the trailers for the really good Star Trek movies emphasized the intellectual exploration of the human condition. Oh, wait: https://youtu.be/vOIYaRb6XpQ https://youtu.be/YQ1eiEvefKI
And did you even actually watch the trailer for TUC that you yourself posted? They're all the same thing: PEWPEWPEW! SOME GUY MONOLOGUING ABOUT REVENGE! KABOOM! YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED! MORE KABOOM! MORE PEWPEWPEW! WATCH OUR MOVIE BECAUSE IT'S AWESOME!
You get the picture? The trailer's not aimed at Trekkies, it never is. It's meant to attract unspecialized sci-fi action adventure moviegoers, which, by the way, is exactly what Star Trek was described as in the writers' bible for the original series: a sci-fi action adventure series meant to entertain people. The hardcore Trekkies have either already decided to see it because Star Trek, or they've decided to act like you and boycott it for the unforgivable crime of not being theirStar Trek. Which, by the way, was the exact same reaction that Star Trek: The Next Generation got, and now half of you think it's a sacred cow.
You knee-jerk Abrams haters are hopeless. Go enjoy your rose-colored glasses nostalgia trips while the rest of us move the franchise on into the future. I'm seeing the movie and planning to judge it on its own merits and enjoy it.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I'd rather have an "Elite: Dangerous" size galaxy with tons of randomly generated (and inevitably repetitive) content in a Star Trek game and lots of tedious exploration/colonization/science/building type work to do - but most people want action in an MMO and I'll take it over no Star Trek game at all.
Excellent. Now, compare what you just said with the following:
I'd rather have a story about exploring and going where no man has gone before, but most people want action in a movie and I'll take it over no Star Trek movie at all
Congrats, you are now using the exact same logic to justify/defend the way STO is made as many people use to justify/defend the way the JJ-movies are made.
Congrats, you are now using the exact same logic to justify/defend the way STO is made as many people use to justify/defend the way the JJ-movies are made.
If it makes you feel better, I have a "don't recommend" review on Steam for STO because there's no "meh" review option. I said I recommend if you're a trekkie, but not if you're not really into Star Trek. I'm still having fun enough with the game and some of the UGC is quite good and there's several episodes of the main story I've yet to explore. Additionally, I clarified that there's a big difference between watching action and participating in it in the form of a game - I can appreciate the enjoyment of controlling an RPG toon just like I think D&D 2.0 and 3.5 mechanics are top shelf material for math games.
I said I would prefer a game that was X - not that I will only play a game that is X. By contrast, with film, I demand a film that is X and I won't watch it if it is not X. The key difference between "mindless entertainment" in a video game vs. a film is that a film truly is completely non-participatory. Additionally, I don't play Call of Duty or Halo or any of those other games that truly are designed to be mindless action in their entirety so I do have my limits in game worlds as well.
I liked the Elachi quest with Worf and the intro Klingon questline. I think the Devidian plot line is pretty entertaining. But it is true that I have a different standard for $200 million dollar films whose script is going to be no more than 100 pages (as there's literally no excuse to rush or half-TRIBBLE such a thing as can be read out-loud in under few a hours - or - in the case of an action flic - probably under 30 minutes without paused for the action sequences) than I do for a game that is supposed to have enough content to last several hundred hours or so made with a fraction of the film budget that needs many very costly props and programming.
As I stated...
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
You can't really compare the action focus in STO to the action focus in JJ-Trek. STO is a video game, JJ-Trek are movies--they're completely different beasts.
It's easy to create compelling stories about things like character development and exploration in a movie because you have perfect control over what happens. The audience is outside looking in--the thrill is watching what happens.
In a video game, the audience are active participants. This introduces a huge element of uncertainty: if the writer wants the protagonist to have an epiphany and take a stand in a movie, he just writes it that way, but how is a video game writer supposed to reliably have an epiphany? As for exploration and diplomacy, programming a computer to create things to discover is really hard, and as for diplomacy? No AI in the world can emulate a living creature that well.
Also keep in mind the kind of constraints movie writers work under vs. the STO Devs. Movie writers have a one-and-done, move on to the next project sort of workflow, while the STO devs must constantly expand upon and refine their work without much safety net or break time. They have to grab and hold attention for much longer than the 2 hours it takes to watch a movie, and they have to figure out how to do it in time for the next season.
Congrats, you are now using the exact same logic to justify/defend the way STO is made as many people use to justify/defend the way the JJ-movies are made.
If it makes you feel better,
Actually, your post doesn't affect my "feeling" at all. That said, I feel great. Why? Because I don't need or even want other people to agree with how I feel about something as trivial in life as a video game or movie. I am secure in my own opinion about my entertainment choices, and don't feel the need to post a thread to preach the gospel of my opinion or try to convert other people or rally them to my side.
If you hate the JJ-movies and refuse to see the new one, that is completely fine. Individually, you are just as "right" in your opinion as the person who loves them. Generally, you are in the small minority. But that shouldn't bother you, because it's just a movie. You shouldn't feel like you need people on your side("who else isn't going to see this?") to validate your opinion about a movie. If we were talking about some kind of important social issue, that would be different. But again, it's just a movie.
Because I don't need or even want other people to agree with how I feel about something as trivial in life as a video game or movie. I am secure in my own opinion about my entertainment choices, and don't feel the need to post a thread to preach the gospel of my opinion or try to convert other people or rally them to my side.
Ah... well, I care about culture - not everyone does. Storytelling and art are the primary means through which culture is taught and transmitted - whether it be religious mythology or TV sitcoms. Star Trek isn't the only culture I care about nor the primary one, however it is what these forums are about.
But that shouldn't bother you, because it's just a movie. You shouldn't feel like you need people on your side("who else isn't going to see this?") to validate your opinion about a movie.
My viewpoint is already well validated to me. I was curious who may be likeminded regarding the new films as I'm new to this game and was curious what peoples here thought.
If we were talking about some kind of important social issue, that would be different. But again, it's just a movie.
"The foundation of empire is art and science, remove them or degrade them and empire is no more. Empire follows art and not vice-versa as Englishmen believe." - William Blake
Some people believe culture is important, others believe it is irrelevant. Some political/literary thinkers like George Orwell and Bradbury considered prolefeed to be very serious issues for discussion. I happen to side with them on this matter.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
"The foundation of empire is art and science, remove them or degrade them and empire is no more. Empire follows art and not vice-versa as Englishmen believe." - William Blake
Some people believe culture is important, others believe it is irrelevant. Some political/literary thinkers like George Orwell and Bradbury considered prolefeed to be very serious issues for discussion. I happen to side with them on this matter.
Sorry, but I don't buy that from the same person who said this:
...because I refuse to be insulted by these hacks anymore who seem to consider the viewers of entertainment as infants who are only capable of comprehending and enjoying pretty flashing lights.
People can tell me to "get with the times" all they want - that "it's just a silly movie and you should enjoy it" - but when you give me a trailer that tells me nothing about the story of the movie you tell me you have no story which means you're incompetent.
You can't rant like a child one minute, insulting people for making a movie/trailer you didn't enjoy, and then pretend to be sophisticated the next. Your OP was no different than the people who post over on general discussion claiming the devs "insulted" them or "slapped them in the face" by nerfing a power. When you start insulting people and calling them names for doing something you didn't like with a movie or video game, you have already lost all credibility.
Your OP was no different than the people who post over on general discussion claiming the devs "insulted" them or "slapped them in the face" by nerfing a power. When you start insulting people and calling them names for doing something you didn't like with a movie or video game, you have already lost all credibility.
Well, there are times I complain about watered down mechanics in video games which is different than complaining about a nerf. Watered down mechanics is where you get Skyrim from Morrowind. I don't usually complain about this stuff that much but it does occasionally affect whether I play a game as I very much enjoy good mechanics in a game.
The trailer to me, giving me no hint what the movie is about in the slightest, implies that I go see a movie for the cool action sequences and witty one-liners. I don't - I find Hollywood's contemporary insistence that this is why I see a movie insulting as a consumer. Contrary to your assertion, I said I was being insulted rather than I was insulting someone else.
You can't rant like a child one minute, insulting people for making a movie you didn't enjoy, and then pretend to be sophisticated the next.
Nah, I was already "pretending to be sophisticated," for example, my pseudonym referencing mildly-obscure apocryphal Abrahamic religious texts (I'm a mythology addict I guess - part of the reason I like meaningful Star Trek. Most classical myth is not meaningless and Trek generally has fit the form of "non-meaningless mythology."). I'm sorry my original post wasn't pretentious enough for you for me to state I have multiple reasons for why I criticize turning Star Trek into pure action-adventure.
Allow me to be more clear: I feel insulted when pop culture gives me extremely formulaic and generally a-thematic literature and/or art. I, additionally, think this is a larger cultural concern. JJTrek isn't remotely at the top of my list for what I regard as threats to western culture - but as Trek is the focus of this forum that is what I talked about on this forum.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Contrary to your assertion, I said I was being insulted rather than I was insulting someone else.
Wrong, you actually did both. You claimed that you were being insulted by a movie/trailer you didn't like, AND at the same time called the people who made it "hacks" and "incompetent". So contrary to your false statement above, you DID insult someone else. Over a movie. About a space ship. And that is my point. When you start insulting someone because you didn't like their science fiction movie, you have no credibility.
Allow me to be more clear: I feel insulted when pop culture gives me extremely formulaic and generally a-thematic literature and/or art. I, additionally, think this is a larger cultural concern. JJTrek isn't remotely at the top of my list for what I regard as threats to western culture - but as Trek is the focus of this forum that is what I talked about on this forum.
Then you're taking it too emotional. It's entertainment industry, the whole goal is to provide as much entertainment to a widest audience possible for as minimum money as possible. Entertainment isn't art - although some people in it are artists. See what I did?
I didn't dig the first JJ movie, but I loved the second. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't feel insulted or threatened just because I didn't personally like it, there's countless of others that did, and that's just what it is - a taste thing.
This is hilarious. I wish the internet was around in the 80's. I am willing to bet that most of the complaints that people long against this reboot were some of the same ones they loved against Star Trek The Next Generation.
Usenet WAS around in the 1980ies and rec.arc.starterk was FULL of people who loved/hated TOS/TAS/the TOS films (when I was active a lot there was only TMP, TWoK and TSFS to talk about. Some of the prevailing topics I recall:
- 'The odd numbered Trek films suck!'
- 'Why do the 1701-A warp pods look like they were ripped off of a Klingon D7?'
- 'TWO turbolifts on the Bridge?! UGH!'
- 'TAS sucks worse than TOS Season 3...'
And no, not kidding. You had to be attending a University or be in the Military and have a reason for access (I was pursuing my Programming Degree from 1981-87 and thus had a university e-mail account, and access to Usenet, and the Gofer and Archie search tools.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
This is hilarious. I wish the internet was around in the 80's. I am willing to bet that most of the complaints that people long against this reboot were some of the same ones they loved against Star Trek The Next Generation.
Usenet WAS around in the 1980ies and rec.arc.starterk was FULL of people who loved/hated TOS/TAS/the TOS films (when I was active a lot there was only TMP, TWoK and TSFS to talk about. Some of the prevailing topics I recall:
- 'The odd numbered Trek films suck!'
- 'Why do the 1701-A warp pods look like they were ripped off of a Klingon D7?'
- 'TWO turbolifts on the Bridge?! UGH!'
- 'TAS sucks worse than TOS Season 3...'
And no, not kidding. You had to be attending a University or be in the Military and have a reason for access (I was pursuing my Programming Degree from 1981-87 and thus had a university e-mail account, and access to Usenet, and the Gofer and Archie search tools.
(in my best Ron Perlman voice) Fandom. Fandom never changes.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
That's false, most entertainment is most certainly a form of art and vice versa - some exceptions being spectator sports which I don't really see how I could call "art" in and of itself. Even the editing of reality shows to push the narrative the editors want is a form of art. I suppose the Entertainment industry wants you to shut off your brain and just absorb what they pump out without thinking about it which is why the "entertainment isn't art" lie got started. Or it might be nonsense dogma from the postmodernists trying to pretend their "art" (e.g. Pollock, Rothko, Bukowski, Steve Reich and their ilk) is actually really smart and deep instead of the mindless trash it appears to be.
You claimed that you were being insulted by a movie that didn't meet your standards, AND at the same time called the people who made it "hacks" and "incompetent".
Did I say "incompetent?" Maybe, I don't remember. They're clearly competent at producing something that with the right PR will sell. "Hacks" - most definitely. I guess those are insults. Well, I forgot what I wrote a few days ago precisely. Anyway, there are plenty of incompetent moments in the writing which I already described in earlier posts, especially in Into Darkness.
Hackneyed - absolutely... From them not being able to come up with lines for Spock other than quoting percentages of likelihood down to the 10th decimal place as if he were in fact an android - to Uhura spending 90% of her on screen time bitching out her man for not expressing his feelings enough, to arbitrarily pure, irredeemably evil intelligence agencies - to pointless "edge of your seat" action sequences that exist for no reason (including ones that really have no place in the 23rd century like Kirk's 20th century car chase scene (Kirk is an equestrian, not a motor junkie - that's Tom Paris) or the new movie's apparent dirt bike jumping).
I guess these are insults - I was just describing them. I think of insults as things which aren't necessarily true.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Pretty sure JJ would have to film a literal dumpster fire and play it back to the audio accompaniment of dueling accordions to make a worse movie than Star Trek V.... Now that was a movie to miss.
Very well, I didn't reread my quote in your quote of my original quote. Regardless, I don't even know what your original point was by somehow insisting I couldn't quote an author after stating the writing in the new Star Treks was incompetent (something I backed up with argument later) and hackneyed.
I didn't really consider these insults so much as vehement descriptors - I suppose "incompetent" is insulting - but "hack" is a descriptor. I described in another post some of my reasons for having characterized it as such - however I didn't want to post an "essay" as the start of a thread. I do believe it is certainly incompetent writing - particularly as regards Kirk. Orci makes Kirk look and act like a very dangerous person to have in charge of a "Starship" - this is not something that you see in The Original Series nearly at all. This is an act of writing incompetence by not thinking through the cause and effect of your character's actions and the logic of the universe your character inhabits.
Here is part of that post which is not inclusive of all my annoyances with Orci Trek:
I hate that Kirk is perpetually shown to be incompetent in the films to the point that thousands wouldn't die in San Francisco in Into Darkness if Kirk had done the responsible thing and checked the payload of his torpedoes which both Scotty and Spock warn him to do (so the author has apparently noted to himself that it's unusual for the Captain to load torpedoes without knowing the payload - but decides to ensure he makes the wrong decision to move the plot along despite the damage that causes to the protagonist's character and the suggestion that he's competent to command a starship). But Roberto Orci hates Kirk and wants to make Kirk seem incompetent and undisciplined - once again projecting his personal aggression against George Bush onto a character in Star Trek. As well as suggesting that Section 31 is actually more evil than it is in DS9 (it's still a good natured organization in DS9 - just more likely to not follow Federation ideology to the last dotted "i" in foreign relations). The fact that Kirk will avoid any punishment for not checking the Torpedos is evidence that they're not interested in writing a responsible, quasi-"realistic", and upstanding Federation at all - one that cares about Captain behavior and fitness.
Since Orci is still listed as part of the new Star Trek screenwriters - I have no interest. There are numerous other things I could list, most of which aren't quite as neurotic as some trekkies' complaints. I will slightly complain about universe-changing technologies like "transwarp transporters" thrown carelessly in without concern for the repercussions to future plot lines - but not about, say, minutia errors in technobabble.
One thing I will give the new Star Treks is that Quinto is an excellent Spock - if only they had writers who were more capable of respecting Spock as a dynamic character - which was done somewhat better in their first reboot, but was horrific in Into Darkness with Spock being barely more than a foil and verbal abuse target from Kirk and Uhura. Spock has always been somewhat of the brunt of jokes - but I never felt like he was really ever disrespected in the way ST:ID did. Except when the disrespect was a result of Spock severely disregarding human custom and emotion - like in Galileo Seven, or when he's the target of open racism like in Balance of Terror. Regardless, even with McCoy's constant complaining about Spock you never get the real impression that McCoy has no respect for Spock at all.
Anyway, the last two movies were incompetently written and hackneyed. It's been longer since I've seen 2009 ST so I can't describe in detail as much why it left me very uninspired such that when ST:ID came out I didn't have any real interest in seeing it and was watching Voyager on Netflix from front to back for the first time when it did come out (so it wasn't as if I wasn't into Star Trek) and I didn't end up seeing Into Darkness until about 2 years after it's release on Netflix as well.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
I'm going to watch it. You can't all moan about trailers giving away plot, then moan when they don't give it away.
Also, it's not a reboot, it's an alternate universe, and the last two films have been leaps and bounds above Insurrection, Generations, or the Final Fronter.
Try judging it on its content not by crying about it from one trailer.
I beg to differ. The last two films were eye candy with no content. Insurrection, Generations and Final Frontier were about family. They were far better than Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness. I might watch it on dvd but I will not see it in theaters. How many times will they destroy the Enterprise?
Comments
It wasn't just Spider-Man. In the fallout of the Sony Motion Pictures hack, Sony ended up losing a lot of money, especially when coupled with the aborted screening of The Interview.
According to Sony's own fiscal figures for 2014:
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Oh yeah, those sucked so bad I forgot about them
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My point exactly. Other than TASM (which I actually thought was very good), Sony haven't had many well-performing movies. CBS, by contrast is a still-successful TV network while Paramount is one of the US's biggest and highest-grossing movie studios.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Then Berman should have done a better job of making them pure evil rather than just a group who doesn't see eye to eye with Bashir. Their attempt to exterminate the changelings is no different than General Order 24 which Kirk gives in one episode of TOS (under far less pressing circumstances than war with the Dominion is) and which has been employed at least one other time in the Star Trek Universe - and which you could argue Sisko employed against the Maquis by making an entire planet uninhabitable. And you can't convince me that them framing one Romulan to protect an operative is "pure evil."
I like Odo a lot, probably my 2nd favorite character next to Dax, and I'm very happy to see Bashir take on Section 31 to stop the changeling virus - but I don't think Section 31 was evil for doing it.
Section 31 is a complex antagonist - not a villain.
"The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-One exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." - Luther Sloan
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
I saw the older Spider man movies with Toby in them. However when they brought out the "Amazing" version so quick, I didn't care to watch them. I'm like they just did the a series. I didn't want to see another round so soon. As for the White house and After movies. I didn't care enough to see them. The trailers just didn't get enough excitement to get my attention.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
1. Their opinion on anything and everything actually matters.
2. The rest of us are eagerly waiting for them to come down from Olympus and share with us mere mortals.
I now fully intend to see the film twice. Once for me and once for the hipsters who publicly sneer at JJTrek yet can come here and play STO without blinking an eye. And cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in such actions.
That out of the way... I feel underwhelmed by that trailer.
I watched 09, probably had bigger expectations then what a single movie could deliver (and after so much years without an ST movie, can you blame me?), though even after three times watching it, I didn't personally like it as much as some people. It's too hectic, too bursty-emotional (I know, Jim, difficult to put to words), was hard to pick it up with as much an open heart I had at the moment.
Into the Darkness fared much better to me (ironically, most of people I know didn't dig it), in fact I really enjoyed the movie. The pace is just about right, the actors feel more comfortable in their roles, Khan is amazing (yes, I'm admitting, totally over "new" Khan), story-wise it's predictable but still quite agreeable, really enjoyed the Fed Dreadnought design as well - space battle scenes are breathtaking. What I'm trying to say is, unlike Star Trek 09, I perhaps (taught by 09 before) had lower expectations out of this one, thought it's gonna be "Meh movie, khan-ruining lensflare-overloaded messy" action movie, and while I was right about lens flares, I was pleasantly surprised by the rest of the movie.
I don't get the same vibe from Beyond, though, if trailer is to be judged.
There's no hypocrisy, I'm relatively certain that Cryptic doesn't have a $185 million dollar budget for STO to produce one and a half to two hours worth of content like Abrams et al do. If they do, please correct me and I'll be much more picky with their writing and content. And there's quite a number of responses on this thread, including yours.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Hipsters? err, I'm not sure that means what you think it means, Clyde.
What hypocrisy? STO is set in the prime, unsullied Trek universe, not the JJ-verse. Perhaps you need to re-run the intro to reduce your confusion.
I think he means how both STO and JJ-Trek are 99% action/shooting, which is essentially the total opposite of what TOS/TNG was about.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Action in a video game requires my participation which is different from action in a movie which just requires me to sit there which utterly bores me. I remember watching that "jump from ship to ship" section from Into Darkness and I was just thinking... "dear god when will this stupid scene end so I can watch the movie?" By contrast I can somewhat enjoy "strategically" controlling the action in a game. It's pretty fun in my Ki'tang Bird-of-Prey to solo Borg Cubes and come out every time with 50% hull and only ~50% forward shields.
Additionally, I've played some greatly plotted Foundry missions. "No Prize for Second Contact I-IV" has been my favorite as of yet (I'm pretty new to the game). I have some complaints about the seeming obsequiousness of the Romulan Republic towards Vulcan philosophy as well as the mustache twirling of the Tal Shiar - but it is what it is. It could be worse - could be better. It's not my favorite story - but I've never been conditioned to expect grade A quality writing from any video game and it's always pleasant when I find it (Fallout New Vegas is grade-A top-notch writing).
I'd rather have an "Elite: Dangerous" size galaxy with tons of randomly generated (and inevitably repetitive) content in a Star Trek game and lots of tedious exploration/colonization/science/building type work to do - but most people want action in an MMO and I'll take it over no Star Trek game at all.
I do think STO is one of the few Star Trek games that's ever approached the level of "good."
But I will concede that I've always considered the writing in most games to be lackluster - Fallout New Vegas is one I've always pointed out as reaching above and beyond what is deemed necessary by pop culture and was clearly written by people who quite clearly care about their fantasy universe and the stories they tell in it (and it features Michael Dorn!) Still, I enjoy MMORPGs.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Yeah, I'm looking at that Star Trek Beyond trailer and recalling how all the trailers for the really good Star Trek movies emphasized the intellectual exploration of the human condition. Oh, wait:
And did you even actually watch the trailer for TUC that you yourself posted? They're all the same thing: PEWPEWPEW! SOME GUY MONOLOGUING ABOUT REVENGE! KABOOM! YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED! MORE KABOOM! MORE PEWPEWPEW! WATCH OUR MOVIE BECAUSE IT'S AWESOME!
You get the picture? The trailer's not aimed at Trekkies, it never is. It's meant to attract unspecialized sci-fi action adventure moviegoers, which, by the way, is exactly what Star Trek was described as in the writers' bible for the original series: a sci-fi action adventure series meant to entertain people. The hardcore Trekkies have either already decided to see it because Star Trek, or they've decided to act like you and boycott it for the unforgivable crime of not being their Star Trek. Which, by the way, was the exact same reaction that Star Trek: The Next Generation got, and now half of you think it's a sacred cow.
You knee-jerk Abrams haters are hopeless. Go enjoy your rose-colored glasses nostalgia trips while the rest of us move the franchise on into the future. I'm seeing the movie and planning to judge it on its own merits and enjoy it.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Excellent. Now, compare what you just said with the following:
Congrats, you are now using the exact same logic to justify/defend the way STO is made as many people use to justify/defend the way the JJ-movies are made.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If it makes you feel better, I have a "don't recommend" review on Steam for STO because there's no "meh" review option. I said I recommend if you're a trekkie, but not if you're not really into Star Trek. I'm still having fun enough with the game and some of the UGC is quite good and there's several episodes of the main story I've yet to explore. Additionally, I clarified that there's a big difference between watching action and participating in it in the form of a game - I can appreciate the enjoyment of controlling an RPG toon just like I think D&D 2.0 and 3.5 mechanics are top shelf material for math games.
I said I would prefer a game that was X - not that I will only play a game that is X. By contrast, with film, I demand a film that is X and I won't watch it if it is not X. The key difference between "mindless entertainment" in a video game vs. a film is that a film truly is completely non-participatory. Additionally, I don't play Call of Duty or Halo or any of those other games that truly are designed to be mindless action in their entirety so I do have my limits in game worlds as well.
I liked the Elachi quest with Worf and the intro Klingon questline. I think the Devidian plot line is pretty entertaining. But it is true that I have a different standard for $200 million dollar films whose script is going to be no more than 100 pages (as there's literally no excuse to rush or half-TRIBBLE such a thing as can be read out-loud in under few a hours - or - in the case of an action flic - probably under 30 minutes without paused for the action sequences) than I do for a game that is supposed to have enough content to last several hundred hours or so made with a fraction of the film budget that needs many very costly props and programming.
As I stated...
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
It's easy to create compelling stories about things like character development and exploration in a movie because you have perfect control over what happens. The audience is outside looking in--the thrill is watching what happens.
In a video game, the audience are active participants. This introduces a huge element of uncertainty: if the writer wants the protagonist to have an epiphany and take a stand in a movie, he just writes it that way, but how is a video game writer supposed to reliably have an epiphany? As for exploration and diplomacy, programming a computer to create things to discover is really hard, and as for diplomacy? No AI in the world can emulate a living creature that well.
Also keep in mind the kind of constraints movie writers work under vs. the STO Devs. Movie writers have a one-and-done, move on to the next project sort of workflow, while the STO devs must constantly expand upon and refine their work without much safety net or break time. They have to grab and hold attention for much longer than the 2 hours it takes to watch a movie, and they have to figure out how to do it in time for the next season.
Actually, your post doesn't affect my "feeling" at all. That said, I feel great. Why? Because I don't need or even want other people to agree with how I feel about something as trivial in life as a video game or movie. I am secure in my own opinion about my entertainment choices, and don't feel the need to post a thread to preach the gospel of my opinion or try to convert other people or rally them to my side.
If you hate the JJ-movies and refuse to see the new one, that is completely fine. Individually, you are just as "right" in your opinion as the person who loves them. Generally, you are in the small minority. But that shouldn't bother you, because it's just a movie. You shouldn't feel like you need people on your side("who else isn't going to see this?") to validate your opinion about a movie. If we were talking about some kind of important social issue, that would be different. But again, it's just a movie.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Ah... well, I care about culture - not everyone does. Storytelling and art are the primary means through which culture is taught and transmitted - whether it be religious mythology or TV sitcoms. Star Trek isn't the only culture I care about nor the primary one, however it is what these forums are about.
My viewpoint is already well validated to me. I was curious who may be likeminded regarding the new films as I'm new to this game and was curious what peoples here thought.
"The foundation of empire is art and science, remove them or degrade them and empire is no more. Empire follows art and not vice-versa as Englishmen believe." - William Blake
Some people believe culture is important, others believe it is irrelevant. Some political/literary thinkers like George Orwell and Bradbury considered prolefeed to be very serious issues for discussion. I happen to side with them on this matter.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Sorry, but I don't buy that from the same person who said this:
You can't rant like a child one minute, insulting people for making a movie/trailer you didn't enjoy, and then pretend to be sophisticated the next. Your OP was no different than the people who post over on general discussion claiming the devs "insulted" them or "slapped them in the face" by nerfing a power. When you start insulting people and calling them names for doing something you didn't like with a movie or video game, you have already lost all credibility.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Well, there are times I complain about watered down mechanics in video games which is different than complaining about a nerf. Watered down mechanics is where you get Skyrim from Morrowind. I don't usually complain about this stuff that much but it does occasionally affect whether I play a game as I very much enjoy good mechanics in a game.
The trailer to me, giving me no hint what the movie is about in the slightest, implies that I go see a movie for the cool action sequences and witty one-liners. I don't - I find Hollywood's contemporary insistence that this is why I see a movie insulting as a consumer. Contrary to your assertion, I said I was being insulted rather than I was insulting someone else.
Nah, I was already "pretending to be sophisticated," for example, my pseudonym referencing mildly-obscure apocryphal Abrahamic religious texts (I'm a mythology addict I guess - part of the reason I like meaningful Star Trek. Most classical myth is not meaningless and Trek generally has fit the form of "non-meaningless mythology."). I'm sorry my original post wasn't pretentious enough for you for me to state I have multiple reasons for why I criticize turning Star Trek into pure action-adventure.
Allow me to be more clear: I feel insulted when pop culture gives me extremely formulaic and generally a-thematic literature and/or art. I, additionally, think this is a larger cultural concern. JJTrek isn't remotely at the top of my list for what I regard as threats to western culture - but as Trek is the focus of this forum that is what I talked about on this forum.
I don't think they're doing it to spite me personally, obviously, but I feel I, and others, should be insulted when the pop culture gurus do stuff like this (for example (I don't like country but I feel it illustrates contempt on the part of the producers for their consumer base)).
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Wrong, you actually did both. You claimed that you were being insulted by a movie/trailer you didn't like, AND at the same time called the people who made it "hacks" and "incompetent". So contrary to your false statement above, you DID insult someone else. Over a movie. About a space ship. And that is my point. When you start insulting someone because you didn't like their science fiction movie, you have no credibility.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Then you're taking it too emotional. It's entertainment industry, the whole goal is to provide as much entertainment to a widest audience possible for as minimum money as possible. Entertainment isn't art - although some people in it are artists. See what I did?
I didn't dig the first JJ movie, but I loved the second. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't feel insulted or threatened just because I didn't personally like it, there's countless of others that did, and that's just what it is - a taste thing.
Usenet WAS around in the 1980ies and rec.arc.starterk was FULL of people who loved/hated TOS/TAS/the TOS films (when I was active a lot there was only TMP, TWoK and TSFS to talk about. Some of the prevailing topics I recall:
- 'The odd numbered Trek films suck!'
- 'Why do the 1701-A warp pods look like they were ripped off of a Klingon D7?'
- 'TWO turbolifts on the Bridge?! UGH!'
- 'TAS sucks worse than TOS Season 3...'
And no, not kidding. You had to be attending a University or be in the Military and have a reason for access (I was pursuing my Programming Degree from 1981-87 and thus had a university e-mail account, and access to Usenet, and the Gofer and Archie search tools.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
(in my best Ron Perlman voice) Fandom. Fandom never changes.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
That's false, most entertainment is most certainly a form of art and vice versa - some exceptions being spectator sports which I don't really see how I could call "art" in and of itself. Even the editing of reality shows to push the narrative the editors want is a form of art. I suppose the Entertainment industry wants you to shut off your brain and just absorb what they pump out without thinking about it which is why the "entertainment isn't art" lie got started. Or it might be nonsense dogma from the postmodernists trying to pretend their "art" (e.g. Pollock, Rothko, Bukowski, Steve Reich and their ilk) is actually really smart and deep instead of the mindless trash it appears to be.
Did I say "incompetent?" Maybe, I don't remember. They're clearly competent at producing something that with the right PR will sell. "Hacks" - most definitely. I guess those are insults. Well, I forgot what I wrote a few days ago precisely. Anyway, there are plenty of incompetent moments in the writing which I already described in earlier posts, especially in Into Darkness.
Hackneyed - absolutely... From them not being able to come up with lines for Spock other than quoting percentages of likelihood down to the 10th decimal place as if he were in fact an android - to Uhura spending 90% of her on screen time bitching out her man for not expressing his feelings enough, to arbitrarily pure, irredeemably evil intelligence agencies - to pointless "edge of your seat" action sequences that exist for no reason (including ones that really have no place in the 23rd century like Kirk's 20th century car chase scene (Kirk is an equestrian, not a motor junkie - that's Tom Paris) or the new movie's apparent dirt bike jumping).
I guess these are insults - I was just describing them. I think of insults as things which aren't necessarily true.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Your memory of what you wrote a few days ago doesn't really matter, because I actually quoted your words in my earlier post, and highlighted them:
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12821116/#Comment_12821116
Your denial of what you said, as well as the comment above about your memory, all came after that.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Very well, I didn't reread my quote in your quote of my original quote. Regardless, I don't even know what your original point was by somehow insisting I couldn't quote an author after stating the writing in the new Star Treks was incompetent (something I backed up with argument later) and hackneyed.
I didn't really consider these insults so much as vehement descriptors - I suppose "incompetent" is insulting - but "hack" is a descriptor. I described in another post some of my reasons for having characterized it as such - however I didn't want to post an "essay" as the start of a thread. I do believe it is certainly incompetent writing - particularly as regards Kirk. Orci makes Kirk look and act like a very dangerous person to have in charge of a "Starship" - this is not something that you see in The Original Series nearly at all. This is an act of writing incompetence by not thinking through the cause and effect of your character's actions and the logic of the universe your character inhabits.
Here is part of that post which is not inclusive of all my annoyances with Orci Trek:
Anyway, the last two movies were incompetently written and hackneyed. It's been longer since I've seen 2009 ST so I can't describe in detail as much why it left me very uninspired such that when ST:ID came out I didn't have any real interest in seeing it and was watching Voyager on Netflix from front to back for the first time when it did come out (so it wasn't as if I wasn't into Star Trek) and I didn't end up seeing Into Darkness until about 2 years after it's release on Netflix as well.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
I beg to differ. The last two films were eye candy with no content. Insurrection, Generations and Final Frontier were about family. They were far better than Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness. I might watch it on dvd but I will not see it in theaters. How many times will they destroy the Enterprise?
Those were great movies. Perhaps not the best of the lot but several notches higher than the new boring timeline.