PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek



kirksmithicus
04-04-2009, 12:25 AM
I'm totally excited about this movie, after all, I was named after James Tiberius Kirk. The baddest dude in the Alpha quadrant. It will also be the first movie that I have seen in a movie theater in about 2 years. Normally I don't go to movies, I just rent them on DVD, but I want to see this one on the big screen.:pop2:

I know your excited too. Admit it Nerd!

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-04-2009, 12:30 AM
I went to The Watchmen today. If it werent for the trouble of trying to get my ticket from the keosk(sp?), i would have got to see the Star Trek preview. Yea, i realize that i can see it online, but it really isnt the same, now is it. :rolleyes:

Oh, and, i am excited to see it too. :D

Kaewin
04-04-2009, 07:59 AM
My gaming group 3wants to do the movie in one big group opening night. My wife does want to see it but we probaly won't go opening weekend.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-04-2009, 11:28 AM
Good luck and enjoy, Kaewin. I, myself, prefer to wait it out a week or two and see it on a weekday, in the daytime. For there is nothing nicer than feeling that you have the whole theater to yourself/yourselves: no kids screaming, no people moving and crunching on foodstuff, no babies crying, , no cell phones ringing, etc.

Sascha
04-04-2009, 03:36 PM
Sylar in the ears? Sold~, even before seeing the costume ;)

GoddessGood
04-06-2009, 08:47 AM
Don't forget Eomir as Bones. *drools*

Kaewin
04-06-2009, 08:54 AM
The real pronblem on going on a weekday the rugrat sitter is not available. My 14 yr old can't rember to run the dishwasher after she loads it so that means I don't think she is old enough to watch her brother and sister.

And she wants a cell phone too

tesral
04-06-2009, 08:56 AM
I'm not excited. TPTB have spewed forth so much excrement labeled as Star Trek product that I am wary at best. I have been a fan since the show was created. I'm still a fan, but I want quality, not just more.

TPTB don't get it, they haven't been getting it for at least a decade. We the fans don't want Kirk and Spock back, we don't want more catsuits, we don't want boobs and explosions. We want good stories. Good stories is the one thing they don't seem to be capable of doing.

Excited? No. Vaguely sick to my stomach? Yes. I have no confidence they will do this justice. And no reason to feel otherwise.

GoddessGood
04-06-2009, 08:56 AM
The real pronblem on going on a weekday the rugrat sitter is not available. My 14 yr old can't rember to run the dishwasher after she loads it so that means I don't think she is old enough to watch her brother and sister.

And she wants a cell phone too
But you didn't tell me to run the dishes, you just said put them in the dishwasher!

Give her one of those disney phones that is embarassingly childish and lets you track her every move via GPS. Laugh gleefully. Profit.

Kaewin
04-06-2009, 09:04 AM
Yes you have it right, I tell her to put her pants and shirts away and then I get you didn't tellme to put away my socks and underwear.

tesral
04-06-2009, 09:10 AM
Passive-aggressive "I don't want to". That is a teen. I like the Disney phone idea.

You could threaten to hang around her friends and use out of date slang on them.

GoddessGood
04-06-2009, 09:11 AM
Haha, tell her to think for herself and see if that works ;) Nah, I'm being mean.

See if you can find Bill Cosby's stand up routine called "Himself" on youtube. He's got a delightful rant on parenthood in it ... several, actually. One of my favorites is the bit about their nightly routine. They have to tell their children, "Go upstairs, get in the shower, turn on the water, put soap on your body, please don't forget to rinse, dry yourself off with a towel, put your pajamas on and go to sleep." Because if they don't say it like that, they'll forget a step.

tesral
04-06-2009, 09:14 AM
See if you can find Bill Cosby's stand up routine called "Himself" on youtube. He's got a delightful rant on parenthood in it ... several, actually. One of my favorites is the bit about their nightly routine. They have to tell their children, "Go upstairs, get in the shower, turn on the water, put soap on your body, please don't forget to rinse, dry yourself off with a towel, put your pajamas on and go to sleep." Because if they don't say it like that, they'll forget a step.


Oh ghodd, that thing HURT! I literally laughed till my ribs were sore. Seriously rolling on the floor laughing. Why? Because it is TRUE! Every word of it is gospel truth.

Skunkape
04-06-2009, 11:01 AM
I seem to remember something like the following from that routine.

Bill: "Why are your pajamas wet?"

Child: "Because I forgot to dry off!"

Kaewin
04-06-2009, 12:16 PM
I can trust her to clean herself up right but the idea to use old slang near her friends is cool. When I want to bother my daughters in the car (this way they can't get away) I practice using "new slang" at least something I have herad in the last couple of years. They hate being called "G" :D

I like when they game and role a number than I say "miss" just to make them go miss. Children torture is fun. Might have to go with the Disney phone, she hates Hanna Montana and High School Musical, need to fin d one with one of them on it.

tesral
04-06-2009, 01:01 PM
As a parent it is your sacred duty to use your awesome powers of uncoolness to make your children miserable. The best part is teens do it to themselves.

And yes, "practicing new slang" on her friends is worse than using old slang on them. I under stand it must not be over used. Teens have been know to pop like soap bubbles from sheer embarrassment.

My son and his friends used to try and gross out the old man. It took them a while to realize that while I might not have seen it all, I had seen a lot more than they had, and they could not win that game at all.

Kaewin
04-06-2009, 01:45 PM
KIds are funny that way, I am trying to get them to come around to my way of thinking.

kirksmithicus
04-06-2009, 04:18 PM
I'm not excited. TPTB have spewed forth so much excrement labeled as Star Trek product that I am wary at best. I have been a fan since the show was created. I'm still a fan, but I want quality, not just more.

TPTB don't get it, they haven't been getting it for at least a decade. We the fans don't want Kirk and Spock back, we don't want more catsuits, we don't want boobs and explosions. We want good stories. Good stories is the one thing they don't seem to be capable of doing.

Excited? No. Vaguely sick to my stomach? Yes. I have no confidence they will do this justice. And no reason to feel otherwise.

I'm not a fan of "the next generation" or whatever it's called, and the old Star Trek series is pretty hokey as well. I am by no means a die hard fan. I just thought the trailer for this movie looked pretty cool. A new Star Trek cast and crew would have been cool too. The best Star Trek moment was when Ricardo Montalbon (sp?) says "from Hell's heart I stab thee", shortly before he bites it. Sheer awesomeness.


I practice using "new slang" at least something I have herad in the last couple of years. They hate being called "G" :D


23 Skiddo



And yes, "practicing new slang" on her friends is worse than using old slang on them.

I guess 23 Skiddo is out then. ;)

Kaewin
04-06-2009, 07:02 PM
I use dude and gnarly alot. From my good ole teenage days...sniff sniff

tesral
04-06-2009, 07:37 PM
Groovy man, groovy.

kirksmithicus
04-06-2009, 08:18 PM
LOL, I often use the phrase "...dude, man". Which is, I admit, rather annoying. I'm also fond of "gnarly", "*****in'", "sweet", "cool beans", "stoked", "psyched", "awesome" and other antiquated slang terms.
What I could really use right now, is some more cow bell!

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-06-2009, 08:27 PM
I'm totally excited about this movie, after all, I was named after James Tiberius Kirk. The baddest dude in the Alpha quadrant. It will also be the first movie that I have seen in a movie theater in about 2 years. Normally I don't go to movies, I just rent them on DVD, but I want to see this one on the big screen.:pop2:

I know your excited too. Admit it Nerd!
You and me both, kirksmithicus. I'll miss the opening night of Star Trek for i hate the noise and crowds, but waiting a week before going to see it, now thats my window of opportunity. Cant wait!

tesral
04-07-2009, 12:18 AM
You and me both, kirksmithicus. I'll miss the opening night of Star Trek for i hate the noise and crowds, but waiting a week before going to see it, now thats my window of opportunity. Cant wait!

I will wait to get reports form those I trust. Not thrilled. Uneasy at best. I don't want my heroes "reimaged". The image they have is just fine.

I have been reviewing older TV. I hate to say it but yea, while the production values have improved since then, the quality has not. The old dramas hold up, as good drama. Things like Gunsmoke with period themes hold up the best. Star Trek TOS likewise. They were not all gems, but in general they were good.

kirksmithicus
04-07-2009, 01:37 AM
Yep, I had a feeling the hardcore Trekkies might not like it one bit. Just one more reason to look forward to opening day. Lets see if the Vulcan members of the audience can keep from showing their emotions. :D
--- Merged from Double Post ---
LOL, I just discovered that Goddessgood started a Start Trek movie thread in the Sci-fi forums about a month ago. Who would have thought to look in there for such a thing. I just noticed, since I rarely wander in there.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-07-2009, 05:34 AM
Yep, I had a feeling the hardcore Trekkies might not like it one bit. Just one more reason to look forward to opening day. Lets see if the Vulcan members of the audience can keep from showing their emotions. :D
--- Merged from Double Post ---
LOL, I just discovered that Goddessgood started a Start Trek movie thread in the Sci-fi forums about a month ago. Who would have thought to look in there for such a thing. I just noticed, since I rarely wander in there.
Star Trek movie thread, you say? I must endeavor to mosey over there later today.

Skunkape
04-07-2009, 07:41 AM
Opening nights can be good or bad mostly depending on the movie crowd. A friend of mine and I caught the very first showing of Empire way back when and it was one of the best shows I saw, even with the crowd reacting to the movie.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-07-2009, 09:52 AM
Opening nights can be good or bad mostly depending on the movie crowd. A friend of mine and I caught the very first showing of Empire way back when and it was one of the best shows I saw, even with the crowd reacting to the movie.
As big of a Star Wars fan i am, i never made it to the triple feature. Dunno why. My loss. :confused:

I do have high hopes for Star Trek, soon to be released in theaters. I'm hoping i'll walk away after said movie feeling it was worth my $10. Those flicks always seem to be hit or misses.

tesral
04-07-2009, 10:37 AM
As big of a Star Wars fan i am, i never made it to the triple feature. Dunno why. My loss. :confused:

I do have high hopes for Star Trek, soon to be released in theaters. I'm hoping i'll walk away after said movie feeling it was worth my $10. Those flicks always seem to be hit or misses.


Lately more miss than hit. The harder they try for the target the wider they seem to miss. Which tells me that they don't really get it anymore. Hence my skepticism as to the over all quality.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-07-2009, 10:41 AM
Lately more miss than hit. The harder they try for the target the wider they seem to miss. Which tells me that they don't really get it anymore. Hence my skepticism as to the over all quality.
Agreed. The last few were definitely misses, and i do share in your skepticisim, but will continue to hope knowing that the dice will be against me. You think they'd learn. The wider the audience the movie industry strives to interest, the worse movies become.

kirksmithicus
04-07-2009, 11:20 AM
Agreed. The last few were definitely misses

I think this may be why they have gone back to the original series. To try and recapture some of the originality, spirit, coolness etc that the series had back in the day. Recapture the magic that has been lost, if you will.

I for one am also interested to see what the Klingon will look like. Will they be closer to TOS or Whorf? One of my favorite DS9 episodes is when they went back in time, and one of the characters gives Whorf a strange look after they encounter some Klingons from TOS time period and he simply says "Don't ask". (or something along those lines)

tesral
04-07-2009, 11:31 AM
I think this may be why they have gone back to the original series. To try and recapture some of the originality, spirit, coolness etc that the series had back in the day. Recapture the magic that has been lost, if you will.

However, unless you know why Star Trek is Star Trek it will not work. Abrams stating the Star Trek needs more Star Wars in it makes me a bit on the ill side.

When Star Trek was New (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/startrek/files/wstwn.html), by Bill Stone Bill's post was so to the point that I asked him to clean it up into this essay to post on my site.

Every iteration of Star Trek has been a reflection of the times it was made in, the hopes and the fears. TOS was made with a degree of optimism that has only been reflected in TNG. mainly I think because Gene himself got it off the ground, and knew what he was after. The others have occasionally brushed the theme of optimism, but quickly ran in the other direction in case it stuck.

Skunkape
04-07-2009, 11:35 AM
mainly I think because Gene himself got it off the ground, and knew what he was after.

That's the main thing that has me worried about the re-imaging, Gene's not involved!

tesral
04-07-2009, 11:39 AM
That's the main thing that has me worried about the re-imaging, Gene's not involved!

I hear he isn't doing much these days.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-07-2009, 11:41 AM
I hear he isn't doing much these days.
You think?

kirksmithicus
04-07-2009, 12:17 PM
That's the main thing that has me worried about the re-imaging, Gene's not involved!

Given that the movie is supposed to cover events that happened before or leading up to TOS, and were only alluded to, or were background information in TOS. I would hardly call it a re-imagining. Well not anymore than I would call the Star Trek: Enterprise series a re-imagining of TOS.


However, unless you know why Star Trek is Star Trek it will not work. Abrams stating the Star Trek needs more Star Wars in it makes me a bit on the ill side.

When Star Trek was New (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/startrek/files/wstwn.html), by Bill Stone Bill's post was so to the point that I asked him to clean it up into this essay to post on my site.

Every iteration of Star Trek has been a reflection of the times it was made in, the hopes and the fears. TOS was made with a degree of optimism that has only been reflected in TNG. mainly I think because Gene himself got it off the ground, and knew what he was after. The others have occasionally brushed the theme of optimism, but quickly ran in the other direction in case it stuck.

I wont' even comment on that rant other than to say, ughh Baby Boomer rants :rolleyes:. really, there was a point to all that?.

As for the two-dimensional, naive optimism of TOS and TNG, you can have them. I'd rather watch something that had some depth. Also as you point out, it's the writer's or creator's that determine the feel of a series. So it's not really so much the times in which they are created but the writer's outlook.

GoddessGood
04-07-2009, 12:43 PM
I hear he isn't doing much these days.
I tried to restrain the urge to say, "He's dead, Jim." See how well I did?

kirksmithicus
04-07-2009, 01:13 PM
I tried to restrain the urge to say, "He's dead, Jim." See how well I did?

A glorious failure.

Sascha
04-07-2009, 01:37 PM
I tried to restrain the urge to say, "He's dead, Jim." See how well I did?

Fry (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0921942/): Oh, dip!
Leonard Nimoy (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000559/): Dip, indeed.

Skunkape
04-07-2009, 01:50 PM
I hear he isn't doing much these days.

I hear a rim-shot somewhere in that comment!:lol:


I tried to restrain the urge to say, "He's dead, Jim." See how well I did?

Definitely after that one!:laugh:

tesral
04-07-2009, 04:36 PM
I wont' even comment on that rant other than to say, ughh Baby Boomer rants :rolleyes:. really, there was a point to all that?.

As for the two-dimensional, naive optimism of TOS and TNG, you can have them. I'd rather watch something that had some depth. Also as you point out, it's the writer's or creator's that determine the feel of a series. So it's not really so much the times in which they are created but the writer's outlook.


Sorry you feel that way. One, it wasn't a rant. It was explanation to the time when Star Trek was created. But yes, your Father and his kind don't know anything, we know that. It has been that way since time was born. May you have children just like yourself.

I'll take optimism over dark and scary so called depth any day. There is no depth there, just a lack of light.

Writer's outlook? Where do you think writer's outlooks come from? Macy's? They come for the time they live in. The culture that surrounds them. The news, the time and the place.



I tried to restrain the urge to say, "He's dead, Jim." See how well I did?

I'm not Jim.



Garry's Rules for Trek Plots


Or: Why I do as I do and don't do what I don't do Here are some of Epiphany Trek's plotting rules. These are "plot" ideas that I will not use because I think that they are; A) stupid, or B) vastly over used and therefore stupid. No one is required to agree with me. However I reserve the right to believe that Star Trek in general would be improved if they where followed by TPTB.


1) "The holodeck will never be used for anything but crew entertainment, and does not have 'interesting' failure modes."

Isn't space travel "interesting" enough that we have to take entertainment with us that is also dangerous? The first time the holodeck pulled a "The Big Good-bye" on the Kongo Tim Kirk would have it shut down and examined nanometer by nanometer for any sign of flaws in design, manufacture, or wear. If he didn't find any it would be ripped out and replaced with a fern bar. If something was found, it would be corrected, and the holodeck only put back in use once it passed a full engineering check, again. Second incident? Hello fern bar.

To my thinking, any holodeck "adventure" that cannot be reframed as a story outside the holodeck, doesn't need to be told. That doesn't mean that holodeck shouldn't appear in stories, but that it should be a setting, not a plot device.

Worse than holodeck malfunctions, the holodeck is used for "pretend" adventures when the crew could be having "real" adventures. In TOS you visit a Roaring Twenties planet, in TNG you run a Roaring Twenties program. TOS you take shore leave on a planet, and if you want to play baseball, you set up a diamond. DS9, you play baseball in a holodeck. Does this mark a trend were we want our world safe and sterile, and our dangers washed for bugs first? Perhaps. I want my characters to live larger.


2) "Warp cores and other critical technology do not fail for reasons outside of massive damage."

How long has Earth been in space by the time of The Next Generation? Some 400 years. How long have they had warp drives? Some 300 years. You would think that in that amount of time, something was learned about the making and maintaining of warp drives.

During the run of TNG I walked into my local hobby store and asked Mike, the guy at the counter. "Hey Mike, do you have the new Enterprise D model with warp core breach in progress?" He fell off his chair, and he isn't even a fan. Yes, it got to be that big a joke.

Why the necessity of placing the ship in danger? Is this false sense of drama needed? Does it mean that the writers can't do anything but cheap thrills? Towards the end of the run, I began to think so.

I assume that unless you have a Good Reason, technical glitches are not life threatening. Consider the US Navy's safety record. It is not perfect, but when you consider the toys they play with, and the sheer deadly nature of the carrier flight deck, the fact they don't lose a man a day per ship is testament to good technology and good operational doctrine. Why doesn't Starfleet at least have that?

Now flying on an airliner is safer than my car. My car, I have had it since 1998. Not once has it suffered a serious malfunction that was of any threat to me. And I have blown the "internal combustion core"! Auto technology is only 100 years old give or take. Cars don't have "interesting" failure modes. (Sorry SUVs roll-overs are 90% driver error, an SUV is not a car, and cannot be driven like one, but, different rant.) My car is very safe, but airplanes are safer still. Protocols are in place to assure this safety. Should an airliner fail, others of the type are grounded and a solution sought before anyone else gets hurt. Aircraft do have "interesting failure modes" that is because if it stops working in the air it is going to fall. You can't pull over to the nearest cloud and wait for the tow plane. So aircraft have more stringent safety standards

Why can't I expect a similar degree of safety from starships that have "been around" longer than either the technology of my car or the airplane? Yes there are technology failures, but once it fails that way, efforts are made to see it doesn't happen again. I expect as much from Trek.

Now, how do we get this degree of safety? Yes, I accept that machines will break. We get it the same way the Navy gets it and the airline industry gets it. Aggressive maintenance is the how.

Mean time to failure is known for each part, and it is replaced before that time. Why would Starships with the ticklish matter/antimatter drive be less well maintained than today's aircraft? Call it my machinist background, but mature technology will be stable and safe due to aggressive maintenance and an operational doctrine based on the 400 years of experience in space. Our Heroes will not behave as if all this was just invented and they don't know how to deal with it.

Therefore I resolve to do better. if a ship blows up in my stories, it is either a self destruct, or massive battle damage is involved.


3) "Transporter failures have been done to death, therefor we will not do any."

I don't think a lot needs to be said here. Transporters have been around over 200 years and they don't have the bugs out yet? McCoy and Polaski might have had the right idea.
See above, what goes for warp cores is double for transporters. Yes, mechanical failure is a fact of life. However if my car's engine fails, the fuel tank does not explode. In 200 years of engineering, transporters should be engineered for "safe failure" If something is wrong they don't do anything. If in the middle of a transport they hand off to one of the other five transporters on the ship. They shut down, not explode your guts across the pads.

Ever notice that? If one transporter is broken, all of them are? Yet every set of "ship plans", official and otherwise, indicates more than one transporter on any given ship except the very smallest. Often in TOS Kirk mentions "Transporter room three", for example, on the way down. Where are these presumed back up systems when the primary one is out of service? In any case. This leads to...


4) "The Transporter is not the SF equivalent of the Philosopher's Stone, and will not be used as a plot device or worse 'Deus Ex Machina'."

At first they used the transporter to fix stuff the transporter did, I didn't have a big problem with that, until transporter failures got old. Then they started to use the transporter to fix stuff the transporter didn't do. That was beyond the pale (old word, look it up). If I have to use the transporter to "fix" my plot conflict, I need another plot conflict, or a better writer. Transporters safely and conveniently whisk people to and fro, and are not plot devices. It is over done.

We get back to "Why would people continue to use and tolerate death machines?" If two airplanes of a type crash in a six month period they ground the entire fleet and check them out. That is real life. Why would the 24th century abandon a fundamentally sound practice for when something potentially dangerous fails? I am reminded of the scene in Metropolis where the workers shuffle mindlessly into the maw of Mammon. Friz Lang ladled the allegory pretty heavily in that film. Having these incidents again and again makes the people of the 24th century look stupid.

If you have to break sound real life practices to get a good story, it's not a good story. You just created a five minute plot. We endeavor to do better, and assume that our characters are not stupid or suicidal.


5) "Captain James Timothy Kirk does not have a girl in every port." (When the Hell did Tomcat have the time to get any Starfleet work done? :party:

Nothing wrong with a girl in every port, but that's not the character's personality. No rant required.


6) "Time travel has been done to death, et all." (I bent that one badly, but to good effect I think. See "Time and Again")

Repeat of the transporter rant, and one more. "The Big Red Reset Button". Time travel is used as a way to make horrible changes in our characters, and then make it all go away by magic. It never happened. I don't buy that one. If I am making changes in the character that is the point of telling the tales. They learn something, they take something away from the experience and that deepens them. The reset button is a cheat. It's the author cheating the reading public out of a good tale, and himself out of better characters. Therefor...


7) "I will never use the Reset button, never ever. If something happens in my Trek universe, the characters, and the universe, eat the consequences."


8) "Klingons will be treated as creatures with brains, as will other villains that have them." ("Our brains shrunk" --Borf, Serv Trek)

Klingons are too often treated as honor on a stick. No thought behind the same, fight to the death every last one of the puppies. Truth is if the society was that way, there wouldn't be many Klingons left. So, Klingons in Epiphany Trek have brains under the ridges.

Star Trek villains need brains. More than that they need to be people too. Remembering that "No one is a villain in their own mind." is a very much a Star Trek principle, I have villains that have a wife and kids, hopes and dreams. Such villains are simply at odds with our heroes. If I cannot get you to see inside the villain's motivation I have, at a fundamental level, failed the tale as Star Trek.


9) I will not introduce a neat new technology and have it vanish never to be seen again at the end of the story.

One of my pet peeves about Trek is that they introduce the test tech of the week, and we never hear from it again. OK, M-5 was a failure, but no one developed an M-6 from the experimental data? If I intro a whiz bang device and it is good, you will start to see that device in use. Does the device fundamentally break the Trek universe? We'll then I shouldn't use it, no matter how neat a plot can be woven around it.


10)"Dark and scary" is not an indication of complex background and plotting.

DS9 started this Voyager leaned on it, and now Enterprise is falling back on the same hack writer trick. The "Dark and Scary" setting. This and the pragmatist "hero" are the two worst things that have ever happened to Trek. The most Basic of Trek tropes is that Our Heroes live the Ideals of the Federation even if it hurts. They have a better world and upholding those ideals is the only way they will keep it. Yes we will not be perfect, but unless we strive to be perfect we have no chance at it.

Section 31 is an abomination. It is against the very ideas that the federation itself have been said to be founded on. It is an admission that the good guy code doesn't work, and that hard men willing to do evil things are required for good to win. I must fall back on the Bible here; "What profit it a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul." Picard is the patron saint of those principles of Star Trek. It is Picard that stands up again and again to state "What kind of people are we?" Again and again he confirms that we are a people that hold truth as the highest virtue. We are a people that hold you cannot defend a principle if you break it. James Kirk also has his moment at the pulpit. "Yes, we are killers, but we will not kill today!

Enterprise kicks these two fine men right in the teeth. Voyager does it again and again. "Ooo dark and scary" and "The ends justify the means" are never "principles" that will succeed in Epiphany Trek. Tim Kirk and the other Heroes in my tales will adhere to the principles of "the First Duty" and "The Drumhead". there is no Section 31 in Epiphany Trek. The Federation itself adheres to those principles as well.


11)Epiphany Trek characters will never save the Federation, nor will they save the Earth.

The former is bigger than any single threat, the latter has been over done.

My Star Trek is about people, not epic threats to all civilization. Epic threats are huge. They are not caused or solved by a single person. I want my Trek to remain focused on faces, single people and single people problems. While larger events can and will happen, the focus remains on the single character.
Saving the Earth.... Never has one planet required saving so many times. Too Hollywood and Vine (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/startrek/files/myrules.html#note1) for me. My Star Trek is about out there, not back here. Earth will be seen, visited, and talked about, but Earth will not be the focus of any story I write. A story might happen on Earth, but Earth is not the focus.
I am of the opinion that there is a reliance on the gimmicks listed above, and it is found in filmed Trek and unfortunately followed by many a faithful-to-canon fan-fiction site. I eschew such gimmicks because they have been used to the "gimmick" point. I think anything they have to say, has been over said, badly.

What I am saying is the flash and glitter will not make up for a rotten foundation. If you don't have a good plot with good characters, free of rationalization and plot holes, or inconstant behavior, all the fancy words and bright dialog you can write will not hide the facts so stated. Your foundation must be real, and firm. Nothing can replace that.

Look at it this way. I can walk on stage with the fanciest costume ever designed to dance in, it can be worth thousands of bucks. However, the audience is going to figure out pretty quick that dead elephants dance better than I do. Gregory Hines can walk out in a white t-shirt and black stretch pants and wow their socks off. The difference being that Hines is a master of dance, I barely manage to move without hurting myself. Most people you meet are at least smart enough to know the difference.

The written word or filmed tale might fool "most people" a little longer. But if you don't put in the beef, by the time they get around the tale or film the smart ones are saying "Where's the Beef?"

I question my ability to write using these tired old gimmicks because I don't believe in their base concepts. I write under the assumption that if I cannot believe my words, no one else can either. Sure, I could sulkily churn something like that out, but I wouldn't vouch for the quality.

However, the Narn Bat Squad is not going to visit your house if you write one. I haven't found their number yet. ;P


See the Trek Creative Lexicon (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/trkguid/lexicon.html) - "Hollywood & Vine Syndrome".

kirksmithicus
04-07-2009, 06:15 PM
Sorry you feel that way. One, it wasn't a rant. It was explanation to the time when Star Trek was created. But yes, your Father and his kind don't know anything, we know that. It has been that way since time was born. May you have children just like yourself.

I'll take optimism over dark and scary so called depth any day. There is no depth there, just a lack of light.

Writer's outlook? Where do you think writer's outlooks come from? Macy's? They come for the time they live in. The culture that surrounds them. The news, the time and the place.


Father knows best.
Depth need not be dark and scary.
So called lack of light.
Macy's indeed.

Yes a writers outlook comes from the times and culture in which they live, the sum total of their experiences. Strangely enough, two writers born in the same period and in the same culture can have opposing views on life and humanity. Quite the conundrum.

Perhaps some day, when my father's generation is long dead, I shall be old enough to have an opinion. Of course by then, my son will be a teenager, and I'll then be too old to have a valid opinion on anything. So if I'm lucky I might be able to squeeze in a week around 2020.

tesral
04-07-2009, 06:46 PM
Yes a writers outlook comes from the times and culture in which they live, the sum total of their experiences. Strangely enough, two writers born in the same period and in the same culture can have opposing views on life and humanity. Quite the conundrum.

If you observe they will have opposing opinion about the same issues however, just as people commonly do. But the issues of 1966 are not the issues of 2009. Understanding the background on which those opinions stand will go a long way to explaining the opinions themselves. It is never so simple as one viewpoint. However the statement stands. Star Trek, and Science Fiction in general better reflect the present they were written in than any future they supposedly project. A truism that didn't originate with me.

If you understand "When Star Trek was New", planet 1972 in the case of Bill Stone. You will better understand where TOS is coming from. Likewise TNG is from Planet 1982 and so forth. In the plots of the various episodes you will see refections of the issues of the day. TOS is big on evil computers and cold war tensions. Evil computers don't fly to well when everyone has one on their desk. The cold war is long over. I off the top of my head can think of five epsiodes that dealt with computers out of control. A Taste of Armageddon, Retrun of the Archons, The Untimate Computer, The Apple, I Mudd. The emerging computer technologies were a concern of the day. TNG? Well one can argue that Data is the untimate personal computer.




Perhaps some day, when my father's generation is long dead, I shall be old enough to have an opinion. Of course by then, my son will be a teenager, and I'll then be too old to have a valid opinion on anything. So if I'm lucky I might be able to squeeze in a week around 2020.

<VOICE="wry"> Join the club. </VOICE>

Skunkape
04-08-2009, 08:14 AM
May you have children just like yourself.

Very funny!


I'll take optimism over dark and scary so called depth any day. There is no depth there, just a lack of light.

Whole heartedly agree with you there. I get enough dark and scary from real life!

Skunkape
04-09-2009, 07:08 AM
Co-worker sent me this yesterday late in the day and I didn't read it till this morning.

PopWatch Blog (http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/04/star-treks-snea.html?cnn=yes) - Surprise screening of new Star Trek movie.

I'm reading Harry's blog about the movie and so far, he's got a lot of praise for the new film.

Wanted to warn everyone, about 1/4 of the way through Harry's blog, he starts talking about the story of the film, so you'll start seeing spoilers if you read the whole thing. Once he started discussing the film, I stopped reading, as I already know those parts of the film but I want to be surprised when I see it, so if you read his blog, when he first mentions the Kelvin, you might want to stop.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-09-2009, 10:10 AM
Very cool extended Star Trek teaser: http://www.startrekmovie.com/

tesral
04-09-2009, 10:14 AM
I'll be waiting on An Opinion I Trust.

Skunkape
04-09-2009, 12:10 PM
I'll be waiting on An Opinion I Trust.

You don't trust Harry?!

I generally have issues with critics, hence my modified statement, "Those that can't do, critique!"

But Harry generally likes the same things I do.

tesral
04-09-2009, 12:38 PM
You don't trust Harry?!

I generally have issues with critics, hence my modified statement, "Those that can't do, critique!"

But Harry generally likes the same things I do.

Exactly. I don't know Harry, so I'll wait to hear from someone that likes what I do.

mrken
04-09-2009, 01:37 PM
Some of you may not be interested in seeing this movie, but I am. As is typical for Hollywood, I have most likely seen all the good parts of the movie, but I would like to set down for a bit and be entertained. Not too hard for me to do.

Even though I was not a big fan of the original television show, I can admit it broke a lot of new ground and was way ahead of its time. If you wish to look back and bad mouth it for its weaknesses, go ahead, it had plenty. Same reasons I bad mouth it. But, it was something special. It gave us everything we have in the SciFi/fantasy realm.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-09-2009, 01:38 PM
Having seen the extended previews, i am of high hopes that this one will be the best.

Kaewin
04-10-2009, 09:37 AM
I only feel a little cheated that they didn't do a DS9 movie. i would have loved to have seen the wormhole on the big screen.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-10-2009, 10:31 AM
I only feel a little cheated that they didn't do a DS9 movie. i would have loved to have seen the wormhole on the big screen.
Dont give up hope. Most people that see Star Trek would go see DS9. That kind of guarantee of income may be just the motivator they(the powers that be) need.

Kaewin
04-10-2009, 02:43 PM
That would be nice, maybe they could get one of the people who wrote the newer novels to do it. I don't read the other Trek books, just DS9

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-10-2009, 02:47 PM
I'm a big science fiction movie guy, so would absolutely love more sci-fi flicks made.

It's not like their hurting for ideas, there are, after all, seems like, millions of science fiction novels that have been released over the years.

GoddessGood
04-14-2009, 02:25 PM
I disagree on the "not hurting for ideas" bit. If the string of sequels indicates anything it's that hollywood is getting a lot less creative.