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.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Feb. 25 2013, 6:52 pm

Quote: johnd777 @ Feb. 24 2013, 6:07 pm

>

>IMHO snotty remarks about the reboot is what took it so long to be followed up by STID. Keep it up guys and gals and we'll have nothing but fan movies and books that contradict each other. 

>


Are you joking!??!  ST 2009 was a huge success.  If anything, Paramount would've rather have had it sooner rather than later.  The only thing that kept it back was scheduling, not audience demand.  The film was both a critical and box office success. 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 25 2013, 8:36 pm

ST 2009 received a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 91% which is an analysis of all the different reviews of the movie.


Despite the negative reaction out there Paramount made bank and ensured that more would be made.


How is that destroying a franchise? By making money?

BoldlyTheyRode

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 11:35 am

The only good I can see in his movies is that it might encourage people to look into star trek, and discover what it really is, and hopefully come to like it. 

poundpuppy29

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 96

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 1:09 pm

I enjoyed JJ's move and looking forward to the new one and I have loved Star Trek since the late 80's.  I just hope we get a new series with new characters.


 photo STcomfinalIRRH2.jpg poundpuppy29 AKA Erika My Fav Scifi /Fantasy T.V. Shows, Movies, My Franchises, My Fav Ships, My Fav Characters & My Sports Teams & My Fav Sitcom

Trajan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 137

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 10:49 pm

[quote]


The franchise needed a reboot, in my humble opinion.  And I am tired of watching reruns.  I enjoyed the 2009 Trek Movie, and am looking forward to the next one.  Quinto was spot on portraying Spock, btw.



[/quote]


 


I enjoyed the film for what it was, but Quinto was not "spot on" portraying Spock.  None of the actors were "spot on", nor do I think they were trying to be.


Leonard Nimoy and Mark Lenard set the standard for how Vulcans should look, speak, and act.  And, in my opinion, no other actor has come close to meeting that standard.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 9:35 am

one of the wonderful things about star trek is that many of the alien species are so well developed that they can become individuals with distinct variations.  There is no "right" way to be a vulcan, to say otherwise is really an insult to the amazing writers who created this universe for us.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

RecklessVulcan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 12:18 pm

OH GOD! If Abrams is a star wars fan, we're all screwed! He'll just make the sequel mindless action like all the star wars movies! Also, the bit about Spock violating the Prime Directive was an interesting point.


Live long and prosper

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 1:07 pm

Everyone can see that the Prime Directive can be a steaming load half the time. If Spock is a pragmatic will he find it logical to allow a people to be wiped out to keep their culture intact? What purpose does that serve except to help someone feel better about themselves while dodging any responsibility?

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

Trajan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 137

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 7:55 pm

Quote: wissa @ Feb. 28 2013, 9:35 am

>

>one of the wonderful things about star trek is that many of the alien species are so well developed that they can become individuals with distinct variations.  There is no "right" way to be a vulcan, to say otherwise is really an insult to the amazing writers who created this universe for us.

>


Actually, I think most writers (and fans) would agree that there is a "right" way to write/play a Vulcan.  Otherwise, Roddenberry wouldn't have created a "bible" for the show to guide the writers on what was/wasn't acceptable stories for the Star Trek universe.


To expound a little more on your idea that there is no "right way" to portray a Vulcan, well, yes there is.  You couldn't play a Vulcan as a highly emotional character, because they weren't originally conceived of in that fashion.  (At least, you couldn't from TOS - VOY.)  And by "couldn't play", I mean that literally.  No actor would have been allowed to do a scene that way.  Period.


And on the other hand, you couldn't have Klingons refusing to go into battle because it wasn't "logical", nor would any actor have been allowed to play a Klingon as a purely intellectually and logically driven individual.


So, yeah, there is a "right way" to play Vulcans, just like there is a right way to play every species in Star Trek.


Do all actors then come up with the same performance?  No.  They work within those confines, and their performances are judged based on ability, charisma, force of personality, etc...


But as is often the case, their performances are also judged based on comparison.  Comparison to those that have come before them, and comparison to those who have been judged to have performed well in the past.


Now there are many, many fans out there, myself included, who feel Leonard Nimoy set the standard for Vulcans, a standard which no other actor has since been able to equal.  I also include Mark Lenard on that list, and I'm sure Im not alone.


If you disagree, by all means, disagree.  I'd even invite you to make a poll of some sort to gauge the responses from like-minded fans.  But I really feel you would be in the minority.


 

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 9:50 pm

If Leonard Nimoy set the standard for how to play a Vulcan and he approves of Quinto's performance then that means it's being done right.


On the note of what Vulcans "should" be like it is absurd to believe that in a species composed of billions of individuals that they'll all just be kind of the same. They shouldn't all be logical. They're literally born to be highly emotional. So all Vulcans just sat down and said from now on we're all just going to be very good at logic and try to pretend that we don't have emotions even though we'd be full of shit if we said that and nobody's going to touch food with our hands. And all the billions of us and all subsequent spawn will just agree and do all that.

That's bullshit and you know it. Not just among Vulcans but in every other intelligent species their should be a wide variety of individuals and groups. There should be Vulcans who can be logical but just don't give a shit and Klingons who discovered that they enjoy sitting back with a good book and think that the warrior bit is for the childish and the naive and Andorians who decided to become lawyers or pacifists and aren't very emotional. Their should be Ferengi who are into physical violence who don't particularly give a shit about money and Cardassians that are martial artists or professional painters.

Reducing these species to a robotic pattern that billions of them just kind of all agree to be really takes away from them even if it makes them less messy and easier for you to idolize or deal with.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 10:43 pm

Quote: Trajan @ Feb. 28 2013, 7:55 pm

Quote: wissa @ Feb. 28 2013, 9:35 am

>

>

>one of the wonderful things about star trek is that many of the alien species are so well developed that they can become individuals with distinct variations.  There is no "right" way to be a vulcan, to say otherwise is really an insult to the amazing writers who created this universe for us.

>

Actually, I think most writers (and fans) would agree that there is a "right" way to write/play a Vulcan.  Otherwise, Roddenberry wouldn't have created a "bible" for the show to guide the writers on what was/wasn't acceptable stories for the Star Trek universe.

To expound a little more on your idea that there is no "right way" to portray a Vulcan, well, yes there is.  You couldn't play a Vulcan as a highly emotional character, because they weren't originally conceived of in that fashion.  (At least, you couldn't from TOS - VOY.)  And by "couldn't play", I mean that literally.  No actor would have been allowed to do a scene that way.  Period.

And on the other hand, you couldn't have Klingons refusing to go into battle because it wasn't "logical", nor would any actor have been allowed to play a Klingon as a purely intellectually and logically driven individual.

So, yeah, there is a "right way" to play Vulcans, just like there is a right way to play every species in Star Trek.

Do all actors then come up with the same performance?  No.  They work within those confines, and their performances are judged based on ability, charisma, force of personality, etc...

But as is often the case, their performances are also judged based on comparison.  Comparison to those that have come before them, and comparison to those who have been judged to have performed well in the past.

Now there are many, many fans out there, myself included, who feel Leonard Nimoy set the standard for Vulcans, a standard which no other actor has since been able to equal.  I also include Mark Lenard on that list, and I'm sure Im not alone.

If you disagree, by all means, disagree.  I'd even invite you to make a poll of some sort to gauge the responses from like-minded fans.  But I really feel you would be in the minority.

 


that's all great except for the part where Spock was displaying some strong emotion in every other episode of tos   Vulcan's always were portrayed as having emotions and they all did at some point.  sometimes I wonder if people were watching the same show as me.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 10:47 pm

Quote: leroybrock @ Feb. 28 2013, 9:50 pm

>If Leonard Nimoy set the standard for how to play a Vulcan and he approves of Quinto's performance then that means it's being done right. On the note of what Vulcans "should" be like it is absurd to believe that in a species composed of billions of individuals that they'll all just be kind of the same. They shouldn't all be logical. They're literally born to be highly emotional. So all Vulcans just sat down and said from now on we're all just going to be very good at logic and try to pretend that we don't have emotions even though we'd be full of shit if we said that and nobody's going to touch food with our hands. And all the billions of us and all subsequent spawn will just agree and do all that. That's bullshit and you know it. Not just among Vulcans but in every other intelligent species their should be a wide variety of individuals and groups. There should be Vulcans who can be logical but just don't give a shit and Klingons who discovered that they enjoy sitting back with a good book and think that the warrior bit is for the childish and the naive and Andorians who decided to become lawyers or pacifists and aren't very emotional. Their should be Ferengi who are into physical violence who don't particularly give a shit about money and Cardassians that are martial artists or professional painters. Reducing these species to a robotic pattern that billions of them just kind of all agree to be really takes away from them even if it makes them less messy and easier for you to idolize or deal with.


Um, Cardassians who are martial artists? Isn't that all of them, given their warlike attitude?


While I agree that their is individual variation within races, what is often presented on screne as the way a species is is very much uniform. Now, this is a fallacy of all of Star Trek, and a lot of science fiction in general, but given that the Vulcans decided to engage in a very logical discipline is similar to teaching human children socially appropriate behavior.


Not saying that society's are not messy but I think the Vulcans are more likely to keep things uniform. What has been presented, time and again, is that Vulcans are logical, disciplined and ordered people who value reason and science. Their children are raised to behave logically. We've even seen what happens if children act out and the steps that Vulcans take to maintain order within society. Even Sarek, a highly respected ambassador, concealed his diminishing emotional control from eveyrone but his closest advisors. In Abrams Trek, when Spock lets loose against Kirk it is Sarek, his father and another Vulcan, who chides him.


Again, individual patterns occur, but there is definitely a pattern of conforminty. Similarlly, with Klingons, we see how Alexander is treated when he fails as a warrior in Klingon society.


The point is, these cultures are highly colletivist and the nail that sticks out is hammered down.

VORTEX8472

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 371

Report this Mar. 02 2013, 10:35 pm

Although I'm not the biggest ST09 fan, I can credit the reboot for introducing 2 of my friends to Star Trek.  Btw they never had any interest in Star Trek before because they felt it was too big and complicated to get into. Today we regularly talk about TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT episodes they've just watched for the first time; its fun to see new people discover Star Trek and really appreciate its value as a cool storytelling vehicle.

flottanna

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 495

Report this Mar. 03 2013, 7:51 am

Even if you didn't like the last film. He is resposible for the reboot. So many of my friends and family who would never give the showor other movies loved it and have started watching other Trek related films and series.


"Please Watch Our Films" Youtube.com

SixOfSeven05

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23

Report this Mar. 03 2013, 8:20 pm

What i hated the most, Was all the errors. How come one drop of the "Red Matter" was enough to consume an entire supernova, But all of it not enough to consume Two ships? Why did Spock throw Kirk off the Ship? And not in the Brig? I Question New Spock's Logic. And Coincidentally Kirk landed where (Prime) Spock and Scotty were Located? How is that Possible they saw Vulcan from Delta Vega? The only logical explanation is that they landed on Vulcans moon. Vulcan has no Moon. Why are Romulans portrayed as Bumbling Retarded Buffons, They are Highly Intelligent. That's not even all. I'm Giving you one last chance with Into Darkness, Don't **** up.

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