Topic: ST3 drives itself backwards.  (Read 18919 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1329
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2015, 10:10:05 am »
I'm glad somebody sees my point.  The word "parody" wasn't quite accurate.  A parody is funny.  JJ Trek is a mockery.  Mocking is purely derisive and requires little original thinking.  This is why no 'trekkie' likes the Abrams movies.  After all, he's working for a company that just sold the rights to ST, and had the contempt to coin the word "trekkie" to begin with.

We all take our fantasy worlds seriously.  After all, where else can we take refuge from reality?  The ST setting shows us a future without any of the social problems we experience, while we invent exciting new ways to destroy other sentient beings!  (We come in peace.  Men, shoot to kill!)

What I find interresting is that I happened across a thread, http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163382152.0.html
and a conversation about TOS Romulan technology.  They were extrapolating from the underdeveloped ideas presented in the program, and thinking along the same lines I was.  The people that write the movie scripts never do this.  A television show will often do this, because the nature of a series.  It requires consistantcy.

I think this is because of the nature of copyrights and trademarks.  While the studios have their rights and merchandising routines, fans create a world that they have little control of.  I use a beautiful model of a FASA destoyer in SFC.  Can the studio use that model in a movie and then turn around and bill me for royalties?  Of course, not.  This is the wierd nature of the ST franchise.  Owning it is like trying to keep a firm grip on quick-sliver.  The movies have to do something completely different from a logical extrapolation to make sure whatever they have rights to hasn't been done before.

My question is, "Who wants the rights to use anything off of JJ Trek?"  OK, the girl in her underwear was cute.  No, come to think of it, I like girls with softer bellies....  I've had enough of Paramount's ST.  I hope they hurry up and finish their last film, so CBS can go ahead and rebuild the franchise.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 12:35:22 pm by Tulwar »
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2015, 05:13:39 pm »
Who's to say that CBS isn't going to run with the "astounding success" of JJ Trek and continue to produce crap? The key word in the term "show business" is business. Old fart Trek is seen as dead and no one is interested in "an optimistic future" right now. They will go where the money takes them.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2015, 05:37:12 pm »
Actually it isn't their intelligence that is in question, it's their imagination and education. Old Trek required a modicum of both to be fully appreciated, but it's real achievemet was to not be too preachy about it.

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1329
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2015, 07:06:02 pm »
Who's to say that CBS isn't going to run with the "astounding success" of JJ Trek and continue to produce crap? The key word in the term "show business" is business. Old fart Trek is seen as dead and no one is interested in "an optimistic future" right now. They will go where the money takes them.

JJ Trek's "astounding success" is all hype.  Remember that just about everything you hear  about anything comes from a promotions company.  The first JJ Trek did fairly good, because so many people wanted to see a genuine reboot.  The sencond movie did not do so well, because the target audience knew it wasn't.  They didn't lose money, because you can't lose with a name as big as "Star Trek."  Just how bad the real numbers are we will never know.  Movies do not make their money at the box office.  Products sold under JJ Trek license will not sell as well as anything made for an earlier version of ST, because there is no love for these movies.  This type of success astounds nobody.

Show buisness may still be buisness, but movies and tv have starkly different models.  It's the difference between an event company and a night club.  To be a successful, event companies only have to get people to come to their party once.  A night club needs to have people come back night after night, year after year.

"Old Fart Trek" really is dead.  1960's production standards relates to today's standards like a Sopwith Camel compares to a Panavia Tornado.  ST TNG only comes as far as a Spitfire on that scale.

Where you are completely wrong is the need to see an optimistic future.  This isn't about what's cool and never has been.  When times are tough, the need to escape the present is even more vital.

The bar for a good ST really isn't that high.  TOS wasn't that good.  TNG had some good episodes, but really, not that many.  Only DS9 showed good episodes on a regular basis.  Voyager stank.  Enterprise ran down hill after the first season.  Should a big company put some resources behind it, without too much micro-management, there is no reason a new ST series won't knock your socks off.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #64 on: January 15, 2015, 07:07:39 am »
"Old Fart Trek" really is dead.  1960's production standards relates to today's standards like a Sopwith Camel compares to a Panavia Tornado.  ST TNG only comes as far as a Spitfire on that scale.

Anybody who thinks ST has anything to do with visual effects and action has missed the entire point of the program and always will.


Where you are completely wrong is the need to see an optimistic future.  This isn't about what's cool and never has been.  When times are tough, the need to escape the present is even more vital.

I'm not wrong about anything. This is about one man's dream and vision of the future, not a product line. The problem is that, as with all things, the dream is only pure for the lifetime of the dreamer (and sometimes not even that long). Then others get involved that turn it into a commodity and it's all downhill from there. ST isn't about what people want to see at the time, it's about GR's vision/universe. If you aren't going to be true to it to the best of your ability, for whatever reason, just let it die like so many other great entertainments and move on.


The bar for a good ST really isn't that high.  TOS wasn't that good.  TNG had some good episodes, but really, not that many.  Only DS9 showed good episodes on a regular basis.  Voyager stank.  Enterprise ran down hill after the first season.

In your opinion. I found really good and really bad in all of them, and a lot of solid ones that I wished they could have done more. That's just TV. They have limited time frames and budgets to produce this stuff and sometimes you're going to get a stinker.

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1329
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2015, 03:33:41 am »
Anybody who thinks ST has anything to do with visual effects and action has missed the entire point of the program and always will.
Quote
Part of the 'bad' production standards in ST TNG was to use visual effects everywhere.  I mean everything involved in production: casting, direction,...  simply keeping the episodes in sequence!  Watch TOS, and then look at an episode of Stargate SG1.  The cameras alone are so much better.

Half of improving the visual effects would simply be just not using so many.

I'm not wrong about anything. This is about one man's dream and vision of the future, not a product line. The problem is that, as with all things, the dream is only pure for the lifetime of the dreamer (and sometimes not even that long). Then others get involved that turn it into a commodity and it's all downhill from there. ST isn't about what people want to see at the time, it's about GR's vision/universe. If you aren't going to be true to it to the best of your ability, for whatever reason, just let it die like so many other great entertainments and move on.

TOS was hardly a pure dream.  Much of what's wrong with ST is the effect of too many cooks, but this is easily dealt with by good studio management.  As far as letting ST go and moving on, that's just take a look in the mirror.  If there wasn't an aspect of ST you couldn't let go of, you wouldn't post to this forum.


In your opinion. I found really good and really bad in all of them, and a lot of solid ones that I wished they could have done more. That's just TV. They have limited time frames and budgets to produce this stuff and sometimes you're going to get a stinker.

Anything that doesn't have a limitted time frame and budget doesn't happen.  I've been really impressed with so much television over the last 20 years.  I really enjoyed the first season of Enterprise, despite hating the premise, the Vulcan chick, and the model of the Enterprise.  It would be really surprising if a new production team couldn't reimagine ST and make something absolutely fabulous.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2015, 01:15:44 pm »
I wasn't aware that having a formed opinion on what I find entertaining and what I don't constituted an inability to move on.

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1329
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2015, 02:22:37 pm »
You're statement about letting ST die can be taken as hypocritical.  Since our conversation has taken an adversarial tone, I had to jump on it.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2015, 02:35:19 pm »
I'm not trying to be adversarial. If I seem that way I apologize. I just don't see any hypocrisy in knowing what I like, and I don't like people sh*tting in other people's backyards. Do the source material justice or leave it alone and make up your own stuff. It really has nothing to do with ST except that it happens to be the subject of this thread. I've felt this way about other reboots and "reimaginings" as well. I couldn't stand the new BSG simply because of the hyperactive ADD camera work. To me it was distracting and pointless.

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1329
Re: ST3 drives itself backwards.
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2015, 12:13:12 pm »
Reimagining a subject is perfectly legitimate.  The producers of BSG made a number of choices I would with a reimagined show, but the deal-breaker was their whole hearted embrace of nihilism.  The show was simply too painful to watch.

As for JJ Trek, you're entirely right.  His movies are mockeries of ST.  They're not made for to reach a "whole new generation;" only an "old fart" trekkie could get the "jokes."  Red matter wasn't a poorly concieved MacGuffin; it was joke.  Imploding Vulcan was a joke.  These aren't jokes that could be understood by anyone that is new to ST.  They are simply insulting to anybody who follows ST.  All of it is Paramount's way of saying, "So long, suckers!"  It is not polite to insult your audience.  These movies should not have been made.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary