trevanian
Rear Admiral
Oh please.
I said 'might.' That's still giving him plenty of rope to hang the franchise with, assuming he needs much more.
Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments...
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I said 'might.' That's still giving him plenty of rope to hang the franchise with, assuming he needs much more.
Reinterpreting popular myth has been a part of human culture since the goddamn stone age; get over it.Oh please.
I said 'might.' That's still giving him plenty of rope to hang the franchise with, assuming he needs much more.
And even assuming this movie blows donkey ass, the worst that could possibly happen is that the tie-ins to the previous continuity sell a little better. This movie existing does in no way change anything that came before it.
I find this whole attitude in fandom tiresome and unworthy.
Captain Robau could outrun lightning in his sleep.
Robau doesn't run from lightning. Lightning runs from Robau.
I run from NOTHING!
.
.
.
What??
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Reinterpreting popular myth has been a part of human culture since the goddamn stone age; get over it.Oh please.
I said 'might.' That's still giving him plenty of rope to hang the franchise with, assuming he needs much more.
And even assuming this movie blows donkey ass, the worst that could possibly happen is that the tie-ins to the previous continuity sell a little better. This movie existing does in no way change anything that came before it.
I find this whole attitude in fandom tiresome and unworthy.
It ain't THAT popular of a myth ... if it were, it wouldn't be needing to get reinterpretted again that fast, it'd've adapted or survived the last pack of assholes who crapped it out in the 80s with most TNG and killed it dead with VOY and ENT.
And I can't wait to see what most of America thinks when some modern filmmaker remakes that classic of Griffith's ... BIRTH OF A NATION. Do you think they'll keep the Klan as the heroes?
I love it when people say that ST novels written by ST scriptwriters should be counted as canon. Denny Martin Flinn wrote this one.
Listen to his commentary on the DVD of Star Trek 6, and you'll realize how little he knew of the universe in which he was writing.
The hell?
What possible relation is there between the Klan and new Star Trek? (Other than a fashion sense inspired by the bedroom... one wears bedsheets, the other pyjamas.)Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
The hell?
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
His logic was that Star Trek must not be a popular myth because it was cancelled in 2005, and that therefore it should not be reinterpreted as popular myths often are. He then suggested that reinterpreting un-popular myths are a bad thing, and mentioned Birth of a Nation as an example of that.
It's a complete bullshit piece of logic, though, because Star Trek is still fairly popular -- recall that it took three years from ENT's cancellation for The Experience to close, and that there's still a line of around 24 ST books published per year. To say nothing of the fact that trevanian suggests that if Trek were a popular myth, it would have adapted and survived, whilst ignoring the fact that a reinterpretation such as what Abrams is doing is exactly how Trek is trying to adapt and survive.
That is a total non sequitur. Reinterpretation is evidence of success, not failure. They were reinterpreting Superman in radio and animated form within two years of the character's premiere -- not because Superman wasn't popular, but because he was wildly popular. And of course, back before there were recording media or widespread literacy, when tales were told orally, it's a safe bet that every storyteller who transmitted a tale reinterpreted it in his or her own way for each new audience. That's how humans instinctively transmit stories -- by reinventing them, recasting them for new listeners and new eras, finding new possibilities in their basic essence.
But that's exactly what it did (although you're bizarrely wrong to define TNG as a failure). ENT failed, the franchise seemed moribund, but less than two years later, the new Paramount executives committed themselves to making Star Trek a massive tentpole property and investing hundreds of millions of dollars and a great deal of the studio's prestige and credibility in the project. That is adapting and surviving. That proves that though ENT was a failure, Star Trek is not.
I can't begin to imagine why you thought this paragraph was worth writing, unless your goal is merely to be gratuitously offensive. This paragraph doesn't even support your own prior arguments, as far as I can tell.
To be fair, I think it might be an interesting thing to see a "remake" of Birth of a Nation that completely subverts the original's racist message by telling the story of the origins of the civil rights movement in the 1800s in the face of white oppression, rather than the story of the origins of the Ku Klux Klan in the face of Northern occupation.
A whole thread about bizarre Trek Novel moments, and nobody's yet mentioned How Much For Just The Planet? I'm shocked.
It was bizarre, but I loved it!
"Someone, give the captain a pie!" At least a dozen pies intersected on Kirk.
The Experience was, IIRC, running on a ten-year contract. About 18 months before the contract ran out, the hotel was suggesting that they probably weren't interesting in signing another licensing deal. They were no doubt hoping the price to renew would drop because there was no current ST production around.
I would have to with one thing that bothers me about Rogue Saucer. Why the hell would they have to go through a whole wargame simulation to test a Galaxy-class Saucer section that is suposed to be able to land instead of oh I don't know just landing it to see if it works.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
TNG pissed all over TREK IMO, more than any TOS feature, so as a core to my view, that is an absolute. It was already not TREK to me, though DS9 did get some of that frontier feel that TREK needs to be TREK for me (neat trick, given all the creative dead-ends for storytelling that TNG set up.)
Get this straight (once and for all, because I know I've written this in response to YOU before
I do not define Trek success by how many people watch it or how big a franchise it becomes. I never have, and I never will. Trek's success is tied entirely to how well it works for me. So I don't care if less people watched Lil Enterprise, because it didn't matter to me ... I stopped watching pretty early on, and hadn't seen much VOYAGER either. They didn't work for me, and whenever I'd 'check in' I'd see more of the same old crap that wasn't working for me. So check all your notions about success when countering my position on anything. Geezus, by most standards TOS was a total failure, except as a syndication phenomena. BTW, the BIRTH reference was simply the first thing that came to mind as far as a reenvisioning that most folks would recognize. If there's another one you want to substitute, feel free.
I'm reasonably sure that I'd have bought off on a new STAR TREK film set before Kirk or just after him (end of 23rd century), because the boring utopia/replication-magicbox tech hadn't become omnipresent. In fact, I remember sketching out some way they could use PLANET OF THE TITANS as a Capt April movie a couple years back. But I don't buy the recasting, the total switchover designwise, or much anything I've heard about the new one.
(though I did get an assignment to write about it recently, so I will see it, just as I saw M:I 2 and TPM years ago ... only because I was assigned to write about them.)
Get this straight (once and for all, because I know I've written this in response to YOU before
Well, if that's so, then why did you post the following?
It was your choice to speak of Trek's popularity, which you must surely agree is a totally different subject from its success in your own mind. So if you're only concerned about your own personal perceptions of it and have no interest in any other standard, you should avoid casting your discussions in terms of things like popularity. In fact, if you have no interest in any opinions other than your own, you should avoid posting those opinions on a public discussion board where they will no doubt prompt others to voice opinions other than your own.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Get this straight (once and for all, because I know I've written this in response to YOU before
Well, if that's so, then why did you post the following?
It was your choice to speak of Trek's popularity, which you must surely agree is a totally different subject from its success in your own mind. So if you're only concerned about your own personal perceptions of it and have no interest in any other standard, you should avoid casting your discussions in terms of things like popularity. In fact, if you have no interest in any opinions other than your own, you should avoid posting those opinions on a public discussion board where they will no doubt prompt others to voice opinions other than your own.
Okay, I'll try small words and small sentences.
The poster I replied to used the popular myth line. Got it so far? I chose to reply to his post that used the popularity line. Fol-low?
I was replying to that, so I employed it to make specific reference to his premise. Still following me?
I was disagreeing (sorry about the number of syllables -- dis-a-gree-ing) with the poster over his view. That is what often happens on forums.
Now it is going to get tricky. You are going to have to try to understand that if I have an opinion that differs from yours, or another poster's, and I have something to say to you, I am going to say it (sorry, that sentence was long.) I may or may not value somebody else's opinion here, that isn't your position to judge. That is my interpretation of the value of their information or viewpoint, regardless of how they came by it. So if you don't like where I'm coming from, then please do whatever they do that makes it so my posts don't show up in your field of view.
Otherwise kindly shut the hell up or post something useful. I'm really tired of your posturing.
Star Trek as a modern myth? I'm not really buying it. Characters like Superman and Batman, sure. They have been around much longer and EVERYONE knows who they are. My grandma knows who they are.. Superman and Batman have always been popular in one way or another, even during their down periods.
Trek is still a baby compared to characters like that. Trek has also gone through long periods of fairly low popularity, surviving as a cult type phenomenon. I have encountered many people in my life, hard as it might be for those of us here to believe, that have never even heard of ANY incarnation of Star Trek.
Maybe someday, but Trek still has a ways to go before being anywhere near that well known.
To Trevanian: I actually agree with some of your points (though not about TNG) but telling people to shut the hell up accomplishes nothing to advance your argument and isn't very nice either. We're only arguing about freaking Star Trek here, right?
Trek is still a baby compared to characters like that. Trek has also gone through long periods of fairly low popularity, surviving as a cult type phenomenon. I have encountered many people in my life, hard as it might be for those of us here to believe, that have never even heard of ANY incarnation of Star Trek.
Maybe someday, but Trek still has a ways to go before being anywhere near that well known.
To Trevanian: I actually agree with some of your points (though not about TNG) but telling people to shut the hell up accomplishes nothing to advance your argument and isn't very nice either. We're only arguing about freaking Star Trek here, right?
Get this straight (once and for all, because I know I've written this in response to YOU before
Well, if that's so, then why did you post the following?
It was your choice to speak of Trek's popularity, which you must surely agree is a totally different subject from its success in your own mind. So if you're only concerned about your own personal perceptions of it and have no interest in any other standard, you should avoid casting your discussions in terms of things like popularity. In fact, if you have no interest in any opinions other than your own, you should avoid posting those opinions on a public discussion board where they will no doubt prompt others to voice opinions other than your own.
Okay, I'll try small words and small sentences.
The poster I replied to used the popular myth line. Got it so far? I chose to reply to his post that used the popularity line. Fol-low?
I was replying to that, so I employed it to make specific reference to his premise. Still following me?
I was disagreeing (sorry about the number of syllables -- dis-a-gree-ing) with the poster over his view. That is what often happens on forums.
Now it is going to get tricky. You are going to have to try to understand that if I have an opinion that differs from yours, or another poster's, and I have something to say to you, I am going to say it (sorry, that sentence was long.) I may or may not value somebody else's opinion here, that isn't your position to judge. That is my interpretation of the value of their information or viewpoint, regardless of how they came by it. So if you don't like where I'm coming from, then please do whatever they do that makes it so my posts don't show up in your field of view.
Otherwise kindly shut the hell up or post something useful. I'm really tired of your posturing.
You know its posts like this that give people who don't like the new movie a bad name.
Actually, people who don't like the new movie give themselves a bad name just by existing, since they don't actually know jack-shit about the new movie because they haven't seen it. I find it impossible to take anyone who claims to hate the movie right now in any way, shape, or form seriously, since the opinion isn't an informed one.
^ I hate the idea of the new movie with a passion. I have always strongly disliked JJ's work. I feel it is the completely wrong direction, just regurgitating the past. Playing it safe. I want new ideas. Occasionally I have made some negative comments about it as well..but I figure at this point the thing is made and it is going to come out whether I like it or not. I'm attempting to steer clear of the arguments about it for the most part unless I really have something worthwhile to say about it.
Let it succeed or fail, I won't be a part of it and I fully realize that bitching on a message board about it won't accomplish a damned thing. I also realize that there isn't any reason to rain on the parade of those who are excited about it.
I advise the rest of the haters to do the same, saves some wear and tear on your blood pressure at the very least!
Of course I don't expect anybody to actually to take my advice, but there it is.
Let it succeed or fail, I won't be a part of it and I fully realize that bitching on a message board about it won't accomplish a damned thing. I also realize that there isn't any reason to rain on the parade of those who are excited about it.
I advise the rest of the haters to do the same, saves some wear and tear on your blood pressure at the very least!
Of course I don't expect anybody to actually to take my advice, but there it is.Similar threads
