ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The destruction of Star Trek as we knew and loved it.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Apr. 21 2013, 8:05 pm

Quote: PicardNerd @ Apr. 21 2013, 5:35 pm

>

>Am I the only one who sees the blatant sexism? Think about it, in the reboot all of the main female characters were introduced half naked. They didn't even tell Spock's or Kirk's mother's names in the reboot even though they had prominent roles. Instead it was just '____'s wife/_____'s mother'. It bugs me. A lot.

>


Uhura = fully clothed (in a Starfleet uniform, no less)


Spock's mother = fully clothed (wearing Vulcan garb)


 


And did Amanda and Winona really need to be named in the film? They were Kirk and Spock's mothers. That was all the audience needed to know, and going out of their way to name them on-screen would've probably been distracting.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Apr. 21 2013, 11:03 pm

Quote: PicardNerd @ Apr. 21 2013, 5:35 pm

>

>Am I the only one who sees the blatant sexism? Think about it, in the reboot all of the main female characters were introduced half naked. They didn't even tell Spock's or Kirk's mother's names in the reboot even though they had prominent roles. Instead it was just '____'s wife/_____'s mother'. It bugs me. A lot.

>



Don't think Amanda or Winona ended up half-naked during the film...except during childbirth.


Uhura was introudced, as mentioned, in full Starfleet cadet uniform, and only had one scene in her underwear.


You know, the whole Winona and Amanda name thing is unfortunately lost due to editing. I mean, the deleted scenes feature more of Amanda than in the film itself, though Winona doesn't feature as prominently.


I don't think that makes the movie sexist. For Amanda's part, she is very important to Spock and her influence is clearly shown as a postive one in his life.


You want sexism? Let's watch TOS or TNG and discuss the behind the scenes drama. The source material is just as bad as the new stuff.


I get tired of sexism in advertising though

fjsully3

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Apr. 22 2013, 8:20 am

well, as a previous attempt vaporized, this'll be short... I submit that the '09 release shouldn't have taken place! It doesn't belong in the timeline, regardless of any paradoxes, It drifts without subatance. A condensed prequel to TOS! Ok, here's one of the adventures of James T. and Spock as junior officers, before they were friends?! To say nebulous at least is an acknowledgement. Enterprise (with Bakula) is legite as a timeline series. The 1st episode in 2 parts of TOS, 'The Cage', portrays spock's character enigmatically, with a striking demeanor...all business and impervious to emotion! Pike's command is the prequel contained in the series itself. No further adieu is necessary. For the unitiated, and in lieu of Abram's propensity for prequels and his preference for Star Wars, it happened. Totally illogical.

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this Apr. 22 2013, 6:23 pm

Quote: Sora @ Jan. 14 2013, 3:25 pm

>

>Yeah I gotta agree with everyone here, and don't get me wrong, it's painful for me to say it, but the reboot did save Trek. I mean after Enterprise, alot of people thought Trek was gone for good.

>Now the reboots will always be my least favorites in Trek, as I was always perfectly happy with the original Trek franchise as it was. I never thought there was anything wrong with it. But the sad truth is, hardcore Star Trek, which tends to be scientific and intellectual, just doesn't bring in ratings. I mean TNG is pretty much the only series that didn't have problems with ratings. TOS was canceled, ENT was canceled, DS9 was nearly canceled, and Voyager was nearly canceled. I know DS9 and Voyager were nearly canceled both in their 3rd seasons, which is why they were both revamped in their 4th seasons, and Enterprise tried to do the same thing with the Xindi, which I thought was freakin awesome personally, and Season 4 was fantastic, but the ratings just weren't there.

>And the films always made decent money, but I think, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I think the only films that made REALLY good money, was the Motion Picture, Wrath of Kahn and First Contact. I know Insurrection and especially Nemesis were both considered box office flops.

>Sadly, Star Trek 2009 made more money than any other Star Trek movie ever has. But there's several reasons for that, and you have to take that into consideration.

>First off, Star Trek is hard for new people to get into without help, due to how large it is.

>Many people are very overwhelmed and just think it's too much trouble to get into.

>2nd, Star Trek has a reputation of being "dorky" and "nerdy" and boring and many people who don't know any better expect the acting to be terrible.

>Star Wars has always been considered cooler by the vast majority, even though when you really take a real look at both, Star Trek is superior in every imaginable way.

>The casual viewer doesn't care about the prime directive, they don't care about orders from starfleet, they don't care that starfleet is a career and a job, they don't care about exploration, they don't care about morality stories.

>They want to see space battles and ships exploding and want as much action as they can get.

>This is why Star Wars is generally considered better even though it's not better.

>Star Wars 90% action 10% plot, and people are okay with that. It drives me crazy personally. Star Trek is the opposite, 90% plot 10% action. Now we the Star Trek fans, we love that. Because this is a universe for us to escape into on our off days, and when we get home from work. Starfleet is the job we all really want but can't have.

>All the decisions made in Star Trek matter to us, and having little to no action is okay for us. And yes we are all extremely passionate, and also quite nit picky, and we love everything or nearly everything Star Trek does, but we are the few, and the proud, hardcore fans.

>Most people are going to be casual fans, and casual viewers, and they just aren't going to see it in the same way that we do.

>Now that being said,

>that is why Star Trek 2009 was good because it gave those people a place to jump into. Some people who watched 2009 loved it so much they went back and watched all the previous stuff. Some will only watch the new stuff.

>But the bottom line is, because of the popularity of 2009 it gave us a TON of new merchandise, both New Trek and Old Trek. There are so many great things we have today because of 2009 that we wouldn't have without it.

>So whether 2009 is your favorite or not, we still have to appreciate it for being those casual fans back into the circle. Because without the casual fans, we don't have a series.

>


...and that's what we all want.


Nicely said Sora.


 


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

Ne vem

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 40

Report this Apr. 22 2013, 8:23 pm

About the vulcans and how they 'should' be played - the Vulcans we see on Star Trek are vulcans who are representing their planet in Space. Same with the Klingons. That's why the vulcans are usually all logical, and the Klingons are usually warriors.


In that episode of Enterprise, the lawyer Klingon said a lot of klingons weren't warriors, but the warrior class had become dominant. I guess that's why they're all on birds of prey and we see them so often, whereas the other ones are probably on some hippy planet or colony, living a very different life.


If there were an emotional vulcan in Starfleet or representing Vulcan then they probably wouldn't be in that position for very long. Starfleet would let them stay, but most of the Starfleet vulcans seem to follow the typical vulcan mould, which makes sense as the 'successful vulcans' would most likely come from the dominant, majority attitude of their culture.


There are probably lots of Klingon painters, there's just no believable way to cram them into an episode of Trek.


J J Movies - watchable, not really Trek, but still better than all TNG movies. It's the same as the world cup in football, everyone says it's the most important, but it's usually rubbish. Trek movies are usally rubbish, but people think they matter for some reason - who cares? The Tv series are the most important things to get right as you can do so much more with them...


Why does no-one in Trek make zines?

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Apr. 23 2013, 9:06 am

You know, one of the most common complaints about Abrams' Trek is that "it is not Star Trek"


Could someone please define Star Trek for me? I mean, I get that Abrams had a whole different take, far more modern than many Star Trek movies and episodes, but that hardly makes it "not Trek" simply because it is more modern. If Star Trek is part social commentary, the presentation has to appeal to the society it is commenting on.


If you don't like, that's fine and I get that if it doesn't appeal to you. But someone needs to explain how it is "not Star Trek" and what Star Trek is.

Anime Odo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 209

Report this Apr. 23 2013, 7:54 pm

Guys I was watching Trek Nation and as it turns out this new show is what Gene Roddenbery wanted there is video of


him saying that he would like it if a new creater redid it and added new younger characters . Yes I don't like the show and I am not defending it, it's just that Gene wanted it to happen so be a little softer on it okay.


"I don't believe in luck, but I appreciate the sentiment." - Odo

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Apr. 24 2013, 9:47 am

fireproof78:


 


People who say stuff like "it isn't real Star Trek" don't understand Star Trek themselves. They certainly understand it less than those they are accusing of passing off falsified Trek.


Star Trek, at is CORE is about IDIC. It's about acceptance of all that is different. It's about humanity realizing that great strength and achievement come from celebrating our differences and leveraging that to accomplish amazing things.


To be dismissive of a particular element of the franchise becuase it is "different" is contrary to that fundamental philosophy and indicates to me that the person is really narrow-minded.


You don't have to "like" it. Heck, there's plenty of Trek that I'm not fond of. But, I don't label it (or fans who do like it) as "not real Star Trek." That's arrogance and closed-mindedness at work.

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Apr. 24 2013, 9:59 am

One thing that often causes some confusion, IMO, is the idea that Vulcans are not emotional.

Vulcans are very, very emotional. They experience emotions at all times just like human beings. The real issue is that most  Vulcans spend their lives practicing the art of remaining in control and attempting to think clearly even when their feelings are boiling inside their heads. Vulcans have emotions, they simply do not emote and they do not allow their emotions to control them. They're just putting on the world's best poker face at all times.

So my problem with Vulcans, as portrayed, is that they're kind of full of shit. Trying to convince others that they have no emotions and even in some cases trying to deceive themselves into thinking that they've "purged" what nature has woven into the very fabric of their being is dishonest. If a Vulcan really wanted to claim that they are an honest person they should be able to say "I feel angry" when they're angry and simply continue to keep control as usual.

One should really ask the unpleasant question "is it logical to lie about my emotional state and to deceive myself about the way that nature has made me?"

The idea that you wouldn't see Vulcans in Star Fleet that are capable of walking around and stating facts like "I feel fine" and "I love you, Dana" is absolute nonsense. Star Fleet is a merit based organization and has no interest in enforcing Vulcan dogma. Vulcans who do not choose to lie to themselves and to others would flock to an organization like Star Fleet where even as a lowly ensign they would receive a measure of opportunity, dignity and respect denied to them by the ideologues in charge on Vulcan.

Similarly you should see examples in Star Fleet of atypical members of the various species. It should literally be the main target for outcast and oppressed members of various societies. Star Fleet offers them a far better deal; do your job, follow our relatively loose rules and if you're loyal and good at your job we'll give you respect and maybe authority.

The scene in Star Trek 2009 where Spock rejects his Vulcan education is a pretty clear example of why Star Fleet will likely have more oddballs. Spock was almost assuredly angry, as it's a fact that all Vulcans are emotional, but he was also clearly given the message that no matter what he achieved or how perfect he were to become that they would always make sure to view him through a racist (speciesist?) lense. Star Fleet was the right and logical choice.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

Holo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 253

Report this Apr. 24 2013, 10:57 am

Every time new Trek comes along, there are fans who will complain that it steps all over the toes of old Trek.


My dad thinks TOS is the only real Star Trek and doesn't like the original movies or anything after. I know people who think TNG can't possibly be in the same universe as the original series. I personally did not like Enterprise when it first came out because I thought it screwed the the continuity too much.


But really it didn't. I was just sad the TNG-era was over and taking it out on Enterprise.


And neither do the new movies. Yes, the look and feel has changed, but the core of the story is there. Yes, the Abrams movies are action-packed and have a frenzied pace... but so did the Harve Bennett movies for the most part.


I am not a fan of the new movies, not by a long shot, but I won't deride them as not being "real" Star Trek.


We could have done worse than Abrams. There's an alternate universe out there with Michael Bay directing Trek movies. Be thankful you don't live in it.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 24 2013, 12:31 pm

Quote: leroybrock @ Apr. 24 2013, 9:59 am

>One thing that often causes some confusion, IMO, is the idea that Vulcans are not emotional. Vulcans are very, very emotional. They experience emotions at all times just like human beings. The real issue is that most  Vulcans spend their lives practicing the art of remaining in control and attempting to think clearly even when their feelings are boiling inside their heads. Vulcans have emotions, they simply do not emote and they do not allow their emotions to control them.


Honestly, as a fan, and as my favorite fictional species, I find the "confusion" about Vulcans to be strange. On every show/movie that features the species it is implied or outright shown that Vulcans are emotive though they maintain (sometimes failing spectacularly) physical control. From Sarek's disappointment and lifelong distance from Spock over his choice to join SF, to Spock's "logic is just the beginning of wisdom," to T'Pol's drug addiction and relationships with Archer and Trip. It baffles me that hardcore fans seem to conveniently ignore or explain away the obvious: Vulcans were emotional.


The depiction of Spock in ST09 never bothered me. His dad in the prime universe was already an oddball by marrying TWO human wives. Wives that he loved dearly as expressed by Picard when they melded/switched thoughts/whatever they did. Hell, there's no telling what kinda home life Sarek had going on when Sybok was a child. 



ST depicted only a fraction of a fraction of various fictional galactic species. I don't know why people assume that Species X shown on series/movie Y would be representative of a million/billion/trillion member species.


Heck, REAL humans have their own cultural oddities. What's taboo in one culture is perfectly fine and expected in another. And each group thinks the other is strange.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Apr. 24 2013, 9:18 pm

Quote: PicardNerd @ Apr. 21 2013, 5:35 pm

>Am I the only one who sees the blatant sexism? Think about it, in the reboot all of the main female characters were introduced half naked. They didn't even tell Spock's or Kirk's mother's names in the reboot even though they had prominent roles. Instead it was just '____'s wife/_____'s mother'. It bugs me. A lot.


Dude, you need to re-watch the film and pay closer attention.


When Uhura was introduced she was in full uniform, it want till much later that she was seen in her undies.


 


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Apr. 24 2013, 9:25 pm

Quote: fjsully3 @ Apr. 22 2013, 8:20 am

> The 1st episode in 2 parts of TOS, 'The Cage', portrays spock's character enigmatically, with a striking demeanor...all business and impervious to emotion!

>


Whewn was the last time you saw "The cage"?


I recall Spock smileing/almost laughing at the sound of some alien plants and yelling in shock when trhe women disapeared from the transporter room.


Photobucket

xxburnITdownxx

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Apr. 25 2013, 2:42 am

...seriously you guys have NO idea what youre talking about. None. I mean I have never seen a director find that fine line between nostalgia and technology better than J.J. Abrams he has given the film the look of Star Trek of the 60s while staying up to date with slick technology. The cast is hauntingly spot on...the future that it depicts is a believable one I can see us being there its...just...amazing work...and if there is a God in heaven J.J. will do Battlestar Galactica next...lord please please please.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Apr. 25 2013, 9:34 am

Quote: xxburnITdownxx @ Apr. 25 2013, 2:42 am

>

>...seriously you guys have NO idea what youre talking about. None. I mean I have never seen a director find that fine line between nostalgia and technology better than J.J. Abrams he has given the film the look of Star Trek of the 60s while staying up to date with slick technology. The cast is hauntingly spot on...the future that it depicts is a believable one I can see us being there its...just...amazing work...and if there is a God in heaven J.J. will do Battlestar Galactica next...lord please please please.

>


I like the new guy. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum