If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Star Trek XII - Set phasers to beaming and embrace the franchise's new prime directive: Make it smart, keep it moving and don't sweat the past   (nydailynews.com) divider line 34
    More: Spiffy, Star Trek, Make It, Zachary Quinto, Michael Giacchino, Uhura, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, Dr. McCoy  
•       •       •

3519 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 May 2013 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-14 09:45:40 AM
4 votes:

jayhawk88: Something something Lens Flare.

Maybe I'm just getting old and crusty, but nerds are really starting to annoy me. They'll worship at alters of their own making for classic books/movies/TV shows, whine and moan about how Something should be filmed like so or Another should be done like this,  lament how BSD sci-fi is dying and Oh! won't someone come and give us a new, fresh and exciting take on Whatever...and the minute someone does they descend like a flock of vultures to tear it apart for not being exactly like the original.


The problem with the reboots isn't that they're different.  The problem is that they are not anything like the originals, except for the names.  The 2009 Star Trek was, like another poster pointed out, Generic Space Adventure Movie with the Star Trek names pasted on to increase ticket sales.

Most of the TNG movies had the same problem -- see Plinkett's version of "TV Picard vs Movie Picard".

It would be the same thing if one were to remake ST:TMP with Star Wars characters -- The feel is wrong because the characters are not behaving in a way which is consistent with the universe in which they were created -- so their behavior makes no sense.  In 2009 Star Trek they try to make sure that a ton of character traits are given lip service (Kirk living in Iowa, McCoy's nickname of "bones", etc) but they're throwaway one-liners so the writers can say they're being true to the original characters.

Take TOS Kirk vs 2009 Kirk.  Sure, TOS Kirk likes the ladies, but he was more than that -- he had internal conflicts (ST:2's growing old, ST:6's racism, things like honor, duty, concern for his crew, etc) and he used McCoy and Spock as sounding boards to make the "right" decision.   He is a multidimensional character, even within the popular stereotype.

Now, the 2009 Kirk can be described in one word:  douchenozzle.   He's arrogant, irresponsible, self-centered and a snowflake's wet dream:  he gets promoted from recruit to captain in a period of 20 minutes.  Would this Kirk give a toss about a crewman that's turned into a dodecahedron and then crushed?  Nope, he'd have a cutesy one liner, and then there'd be an explosion.

A franchise universe is more than just the names and the technology.   The characters are what makes the universe interesting and they were totally chucked out with the reboot which is why people thinks it sucks.
2013-05-14 01:36:34 PM
2 votes:
Just repeat to yourself: "its just a show, I should really just relax"images.publicradio.org
2013-05-14 11:36:07 AM
2 votes:

yves0010: Kirk always broke Starfleet rules, first known offense was the Kobayashi Maru (seen in Wrath of Kahn) which he was rewarded a medal for Original Thinking. He also broke it when stealing the Enterprise in Search for Spock.


He broke the rules but the story didn't glorify it.  The sole purpose of the dialogue about the Kobayashi Maru Test was to later contrast with Spock's sacrifice given that Kirk had no answers to a problem he couldn't cheat out of.  It wasn't some defining Kirk kick-ass moment; it was his past coming back to bite him and leading directly to Spock's death.  Sacrificing Spock might have been the only solution, but it was a character flaw in that it never occurred to Kirk to give the order (or ANY order for that matter) because he never took in good faith the one test in the Academy that was intended to teach cadets how to make difficult decisions.

As for stealing the Enterprise, it led to the flagship's destruction and his demotion in spite of saving the world.  As it is it's apparent he clung to his command post by Saving the Whales.

The huge difference between Kirk and most renegade sci-fi protagonists is that Kirk lives in a world where his impulsive decisions have consequences, and despite his outward cockiness he's well aware of when he crosses the line.  His decisions to go rogue, while often right, don't automatically result in happy endings and comeuppance to his doubters.  It's his way of getting out of impossible situations where he basically picks his poison, which is why he's considered an excellent commander.  He doesn't break the rules just to be some sort of smug asshole, which is more than can be said for a lot of protagonists in pop culture these days.
2013-05-14 10:06:58 AM
2 votes:

Wellon Dowd: So you're expecting 24-year-old Kirk to be the same as 34 or 54-year-old Kirk?


They had to make him 24 because...??  Or, if for some reason they did, wouldn't it have been more satisfying to say, start with him as an Ensign who barely made it out of the academy and then have him do some amazing ship-saving thing by the end of the movie as helmsman and have someone say he's going to have his own ship some day?  No?

Put it another way, how believable would it be for some felonious punk ass biatch with no compass to enlist in today's Navy and in a couple of weeks take over as captain of a submarine because everyone else sucks too much?  There's suspending disbelief and then there's pulling down your pants and shiatting all over it.
2013-05-14 09:33:18 AM
2 votes:

Silverstaff: If network censors would have allowed a bra & panties shot like that in the late 60's on TV, they would have done it in a heartbeat.


i.imgur.com
2013-05-14 09:24:32 AM
2 votes:

OnlyM3: Star Trek Into Darkness - JJ Abrams' Starfleet return will underwhelm even the most committed Trekkies   Set phasers to yawwn.


Yowtch, that review.  If you're the kind of person who likes to drop phrases like "crepuscular realm", you probably shouldn't be allowed to publish reviews of summer action movies.
2013-05-14 09:21:53 AM
2 votes:
There is no possible version of this film that will not produce nerd poutrage. I say this as a card-carrying (wrote DS9 fanfic, once spoke Klingon to Michael Dorn) supertrekkie: The 2009 film was great fun, and sensors detect massive amounts of awesomeness being emitted from Into Darkness. Haters can live long and prosper... far away from us.
2013-05-14 09:17:03 AM
2 votes:

Wellon Dowd: This ain't your father's Star Trek.

[i.imgur.com image 557x614]


Yes it is.  Re-watch TOS on Netflix and count the babes.
2013-05-14 09:10:46 AM
2 votes:
Something something Lens Flare.

Maybe I'm just getting old and crusty, but nerds are really starting to annoy me. They'll worship at alters of their own making for classic books/movies/TV shows, whine and moan about how Something should be filmed like so or Another should be done like this,  lament how BSD sci-fi is dying and Oh! won't someone come and give us a new, fresh and exciting take on Whatever...and the minute someone does they descend like a flock of vultures to tear it apart for not being exactly like the original.
2013-05-15 12:02:44 AM
1 votes:

dragonchild: it's that in the Star Trek utopia, cockiness is discouraged from the get-go.


I think again, we might be discussing different parts of Star Trek.  TOS never discouraged cockiness-- it put its cockiest bastards on humanity's most challenging frontiers over and over.  The movies painted a different picture, though, as did later series.  I think this is why I like the new movies.  TOS was always my favorite, and they feel more like TOS to me than even the movies with the TOS characters.

No "Either he goes down, or we do" there.

If that's a quote from the new movie, that's a better reason than I've heard from anybody else to dislike New Kirk.  If it's your attempt to paraphrase what I think of the original Kirk, I've done a terrible job explaining myself.  He's a cocky, swaggering, brilliant, womanizing, loyal and occasionally really stupid guy-- but I didn't mean to imply he was a violent take-no-prisoners type.  Hell, he was so cocky and overconfident that there were times I felt like he SHOULD have gone in guns-blazing but didn't.  You don't come by that kind of overconfidence naturally after the age of about 23.  It has to be reinforced.  And while you're right that it could get him killed, it's the unlikely "he farks up but lives" error that you need to turn Mr. All-Swagger into Mr. Introspective Swagger.
2013-05-14 10:32:07 PM
1 votes:
The new Star Trek was a lot of fun.  I don't need or even want the new Trek to be a carbon copy of the old.  Frankly, the franchise was getting stale and needed a big kick in the ass.  The characters are close enough to the originals for me.
2013-05-14 09:24:26 PM
1 votes:

I Like Bread: Tell you what - I'll try to recreate lens flare in real life, while you try to recreate the Vulcan Nerve Pinch. We'll decide which is more realistic.


That makes no sense at all.
2013-05-14 09:13:13 PM
1 votes:

kroonermanblack: It bears mentioning that, since Star Trek's universe is post scarcity, the crews we see literally are 'the best humanity has to offer' in so many ways. They're the ones who were purely motivated, skilled, talented, and driven enough to actually make the cut and get a position, without any monetary, etc. motivation.


Well actually, the first mention of them not using money was in Trek 4. And that was just to serve the plot. They used money all the time, before and since. The first use of the replicator was in TNG. And all of that was pretty much negated in DS9 so Trek philosophy is fairly random.
2013-05-14 07:32:04 PM
1 votes:

raygundan: TOS is the fluffiest fluff that ever fluffed a fluff.


Some of it yes. But it also did address some of the same things most science fiction tries to do, which is the issues of our own time. Racism, politics, religion...etc. But that's pretty much been covered. So now it's just about some pissed off guy out for revenge and blowing shiat up, which have been most of the movies. DS9 and some of  TNG (the series) and Voyager were about more than that though.
2013-05-14 07:02:39 PM
1 votes:
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

Abrams TreK:
  Ironman, meets Twilight, in SPAAAAAACE

let's face it fellow Trekkies, it's over
2013-05-14 06:42:28 PM
1 votes:

sprag: Now, the 2009 Kirk can be described in one word: douchenozzle. He's arrogant, irresponsible, self-centered and a snowflake's wet dream: he gets promoted from recruit to captain in a period of 20 minutes. Would this Kirk give a toss about a crewman that's turned into a dodecahedron and then crushed? Nope, he'd have a cutesy one liner, and then there'd be an explosion.


I... can't make sense of this.  New Kirk is a douchenozzle.  Old Kirk is a douchenozzle.  There are a lot of things you could poke fun at in the new Trek movie, like the engine-room scene or Abrams' obsession with red spheres-- but the characters are fairly true-to-form.  They're not carbon-copy duplicates, because nobody can chew scenery like Shatner-- but his character has always been a brilliant, young, promoted-too-fast, loyal, shoot-from-the-hip womanizing douchebag who was inexplicably given command of a starship.  New Kirk hasn't had time to worry about getting old yet *because he isn't getting old yet.*  I think he would care about a dodecahedron crew member, just like old Kirk would.... but I also think BOTH of them would toss off a one-liner followed by an explosion.  Old Kirk would have put on a leotard and done space-judo to relax afterwards, though, so at least we've been spared that. That's Trek's thing.  It's cheeseball space opera wrapped around simple analogies to current events (racism in TOS, terrorism in the reboot movie)....

...to me.  It's something else to you, I guess.  It's a big world, and we all get our own opinions.  I really liked the first one, and am looking forward to seeing this one.  I'm sorry it hasn't worked out as well for your tastes.

The characters are what makes the universe interesting and they were totally chucked out with the reboot which is why people thinks it sucks.

This is where we differ the most.  To me, it seems like the characters are the primary thing they HAVE faithfully carried over-- and I watched TOS in its entirety right before the first reboot movie came out just to compare things.  The biggest differences are that the emotionless guy now has a terrible tragedy to struggle with-- Vulcans were always at their most fascinating when the secret-rage-filled-murderous-emo-inside backstory that drove their historical effort to suppress emotions came up, and this is likely to happen more often now-- and Uhura, who has a personality now.  I guess you could say Uhura isn't a faithful character translation because of that... but she wasn't really much of a character in TOS.  The universe is somewhat different, but the characters feel faithful to me.  If Young Kirk has too much swagger and confidence and not enough introspection, ask yourself "what kind of man would TOS Kirk have been before his swagger and confidence got him into some trouble?"  Nobody becomes brash, confident, AND introspective until their brash confidence gives them something to introspect about.
2013-05-14 05:56:13 PM
1 votes:

I Like Bread: TOS has probably been responsible for more idiotic sci-fi tropes than any other franchise.


But it did lead to an increase in support for space exploration, by repeatedly telling us that space is just jam-packed with hot alien babes who are (for some reason) anatomically-compatible with humans, and eager to be taught about this Earth emotion called "love."
2013-05-14 05:38:47 PM
1 votes:

Madbassist1: You dont know what you're talking about.


Did you watch a different Star Trek than I did? I guess so, since some guy being promoted to Captain really fast is totally a bogus premise that insults your intelligence, but I suppose slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time, or aliens that can access your memories by touching your face, is kosher because it "fits in the universe"...?

I had a classmate in college who was 15 years old. Ask me which of the above examples I find the least preposterous. TOS has probably been responsible for more idiotic sci-fi tropes than any other franchise. God bless JJ for trying to make something palatable out of it.
2013-05-14 04:41:32 PM
1 votes:
So many rose-colored glasses being worn in this thread.

The deepest TOS ever got was City On The Edge of Forever, written by Harlan Ellison, who Gene Roddenberry hated because he wrote stories that added depth to the karate-chopping, green-biatch-banging hero. Kirk was James Bond in Space and the Federation to be a monument to all that is good in humanity. I'd write further but it's just so sickeningly, one-dimensionally utopian it bores me to death.

Now take that James Bond character and give him daddy issues. Take your coldly logical Vulcan and make him suffer an immeasurable loss. Oh, and take the walking pair of tits and give her an actual personality. Look, I'm interested again.
2013-05-14 03:59:32 PM
1 votes:

Madbassist1: As a result, he was commissioned directly to the rank of captain and appointed as commanding officer of the service's flagship, the USS Enterprise. This makes me cry...and hate.


Yes. I would have liked it better if the scene following the Kobayashi Maru  took place 3 years later with Kirk as third in command behind Spock and Spock still pissed at him for beating him at his test on an Enterprise that had been in service for a few years already. And then, later in the movie, have old Spock mention that Kirk's dad was one of the original designers for the Enterprise which, in an altered time line, could explain why the Enterprise looked different and was launched at later stardate. But old time Trekies are the only ones who would notice or care.
2013-05-14 03:33:47 PM
1 votes:
"screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and Roberto Orci"

aka the same ass-crew responsible for Transformers.

Star Trek is dead to me.
2013-05-14 01:31:01 PM
1 votes:

Egoy3k: Man I hate modern nerds.


You'll get over it.

Egoy3k: If you want your beloved stories and characters and whatnot made into multimillion dollar productions you are going to have to accept that they will be made accessible for a wider audience.


There's a difference between an adaptation and taxidermy.
2013-05-14 01:01:20 PM
1 votes:

Jaws75: Unfortunately, the makers of ST09 and STID--and Paramount itself--don't get any of this at all.


No, they think that replacing James T. Kirk with Poochie was a great idea. Because it's so hip and now, like what all the kids are into these days.
2013-05-14 12:44:24 PM
1 votes:
Man I hate modern nerds.

You should all shut up and be damn grateful that comic books and science fiction/fantasy movies are getting made in such abundance. You make up a small fraction of the population. The vast majority of people in the world have no idea what happened in Iron Man #167 and why the most recent Iron Man movie is blasphemy. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY cares.

If you want your beloved stories and characters and whatnot made into multimillion dollar productions you are going to have to accept that they will be made accessible for a wider audience.  Otherwise stick to reading fan-fiction and STFU.
2013-05-14 11:28:09 AM
1 votes:

sprag: jayhawk88: Something something Lens Flare.

Maybe I'm just getting old and crusty, but nerds are really starting to annoy me. They'll worship at alters of their own making for classic books/movies/TV shows, whine and moan about how Something should be filmed like so or Another should be done like this,  lament how BSD sci-fi is dying and Oh! won't someone come and give us a new, fresh and exciting take on Whatever...and the minute someone does they descend like a flock of vultures to tear it apart for not being exactly like the original.

The problem with the reboots isn't that they're different.  The problem is that they are not anything like the originals, except for the names.  The 2009 Star Trek was, like another poster pointed out, Generic Space Adventure Movie with the Star Trek names pasted on to increase ticket sales.

Most of the TNG movies had the same problem -- see Plinkett's version of "TV Picard vs Movie Picard".

It would be the same thing if one were to remake ST:TMP with Star Wars characters -- The feel is wrong because the characters are not behaving in a way which is consistent with the universe in which they were created -- so their behavior makes no sense.  In 2009 Star Trek they try to make sure that a ton of character traits are given lip service (Kirk living in Iowa, McCoy's nickname of "bones", etc) but they're throwaway one-liners so the writers can say they're being true to the original characters.

Take TOS Kirk vs 2009 Kirk.  Sure, TOS Kirk likes the ladies, but he was more than that -- he had internal conflicts (ST:2's growing old, ST:6's racism, things like honor, duty, concern for his crew, etc) and he used McCoy and Spock as sounding boards to make the "right" decision.   He is a multidimensional character, even within the popular stereotype.

Now, the 2009 Kirk can be described in one word:  douchenozzle.   He's arrogant, irresponsible, self-centered and a snowflake's wet dream:  he gets promoted from recruit to captain in a period of 20 minutes.  Would this Kirk give a toss about a crewman that's turned into a dodecahedron and then crushed?  Nope, he'd have a cutesy one liner, and then there'd be an explosion.

A franchise universe is more than just the names and the technology.   The characters are what makes the universe interesting and they were totally chucked out with the reboot which is why people thinks it sucks.


They're taking certain character concepts and running in different directions with it. The characters are similar. They're not supposed to be the same. The writers, the actors, and the societal conception of the Star Trek universe has changed in 20 years.

So it's going to be different.

You're also conflating a series of shows, and movies using a series as a base, with a movie which has no such backing. Movies don't have the time to interlay such complex relationships as a series, since a movie has to fit everything in a tight 2 hour package. A series just has a lot more time to devote to things.

It's like grousing that a movie is different than a novel.

Now, the 'tested well so sure make him a captain!' Thing was hack writing. I can see the attempt, that he rose to command through being willing to act decicively and pull it off when it was most needed, but still hacked.

Other than that? It had cold logical Spock. It had many of the required basics for the characters to come together and function how they do. It was a great summer movie, same as the originals.
2013-05-14 10:18:21 AM
1 votes:

Mugato: RexTalionis: The other movies (Star Trek III, Star Trek V,  Star Treks VII-X - actually, especially VII-X) were all big dumb movies.

I really don't get the hate for Trek 3.


Christopher Lloyd's hamfest makes that movie worth watching...seriously.
2013-05-14 10:11:02 AM
1 votes:

sprag: Being an ass isn't a legendary quality.


LOL.  Your post said the same thing better and more succinctly than mine.

A good compare and contrast that comes to mind is Batman Begins.  The audience is allowed to see the character grow into being a badass vigilante instead of him suddenly just deciding to be one and being a complete douche about it at the same time.
2013-05-14 10:02:48 AM
1 votes:

Wellon Dowd: So you're expecting 24-year-old Kirk to be the same as 34 or 54-year-old Kirk?


Nope, but a real person would be a vast improvement.   There were no qualities in the 24yo version of Kirk that would allow him to grow into the legend that he's surely to become.  Being an ass isn't a legendary quality.  He was a one dimensional character and the writers bent the universe around so he could become a captain and start down that road.

I'm pretty sure that pushing someone and catching them before they fell while saying "Saved your life" would get you promoted to admiral in that universe...
2013-05-14 09:49:18 AM
1 votes:

sprag: Take TOS Kirk vs 2009 Kirk.  Sure, TOS Kirk likes the ladies, but he was more than that -- he had internal conflicts (ST:2's growing old, ST:6's racism, things like honor, duty, concern for his crew, etc) and he used McCoy and Spock as sounding boards to make the "right" decision.   He is a multidimensional character, even within the popular stereotype.

Now, the 2009 Kirk can be described in one word:  douchenozzle.   He's arrogant, irresponsible, self-centered and a snowflake's wet dream:  he gets promoted from recruit to captain in a period ...


So you're expecting 24-year-old Kirk to be the same as 34 or 54-year-old Kirk?
2013-05-14 09:40:19 AM
1 votes:
i500.listal.comwww.thestranger.comvampjac.comwww.beertripper.com

Whatever, dude
2013-05-14 09:34:00 AM
1 votes:

gaslight: I don't mind them jettisoning decades of canon to do something else as the last films and TV shows were awful; I do mind a film that can't stick to its own logic and requires everyone to act like idiots and forget things that they've learned in order for the unlikely plot to careen to its conclusion.


Pretty much this.  I get bored at any sci-fi move, heck ANY movie, where you can tell they just started making shiat up to just get the damn movie done oh and BOSS FIGHT!

The script even farking sucked in the last one.  I mean "Either they're going down, or we're going down!"   Kirk said cheesy things, not idiotic things.
2013-05-14 09:26:28 AM
1 votes:

brandent: Wellon Dowd: This ain't your father's Star Trek.

[i.imgur.com image 557x614]

Yes it is.  Re-watch TOS on Netflix and count the babes.


I've been watching Star Trek since before most Farkers were born. Many people here seem to be under the false impression that it is some sainted piece of Western literature. It is great fun and has lots of heart, but has enough cheese, plot holes, and scientific errors to sink a battleship. Everyone should stop acting like Abrams is George Lucas and Roddenberry was George Lucas.

As for the alien tail, sure it's always been there. It was just usually more covered between the neck and thighs.

i.imgur.com
2013-05-14 09:22:25 AM
1 votes:
I don't mind them jettisoning decades of canon to do something else as the last films and TV shows were awful; I do mind a film that can't stick to its own logic and requires everyone to act like idiots and forget things that they've learned in order for the unlikely plot to careen to its conclusion.
2013-05-14 09:02:17 AM
1 votes:
Subby must have a different definition of "smart" than I do.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report