« There Might Be Blood | Main | One of our submarines »

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Comments

John,

This was a funny rant!! I was laughing out loud reading it...I will still go to see it..I grew up on the first series and I still watch in re-runs when it is on....Didnt know about the second remake of the Thing....The first is sci-fi classic..one of the best sci-fi horror films ever made...I actually liked Carpenter's remake but it is not as good as the original..hard to improve on that film.-Tony

Thanks for killing off my childhood icon, jackasses!

I love you, man.

And the bastards didn't just kill him off. They bridged him.

Hollywood is full of ideas on how to make as much money as possible with the least creativity and risk possible

Tell it, tell it.

The cutest thing about this zeitgeist swarm? The internet mugging of old skool Trek fen who beg to differ? Punk-ass youngsters who want to mug me for my baby boomer bennies complaining that I'm hogging ST, too. "STFU... leave our Trek alone."

Whiny ass titty babies, they are. They've made our film culture a collection of abortive attempts to feel what they felt when they saw SW: A NEW HOPE in their jammies, and now they want ST, too? Feh.

Yeah, how dare They destroy an artistic classic! First it was the Hulk, then it was Transformers, now it's Star Trek! Who'll be next, huh? (Imagine the Martin Niemoller line here: first they came for the Transformers, but I was not a Transformers fan so I did nothing...)

I don't see anyone making any claims that Star Trek is "an artistic classic," Duncan. It's just something a lot of people happen to like. Surely there are things you happen to like as well, and feel mildly protective about?

strasmangelo jones: actually, no, not that I can think of, and I tried. If a movie I like is remade, and I think it's terrible, I just don't watch the remake. Or I tell people that I think the original is better. Ditto for books made into movies. Or remakes of popular songs -- many if not most of the "originals" people cling to are in fact remakes themselves.

I've just seen too many people get their pants in a wad (like theatrical fury over the killing off of Captain Kirk, who should have been killed off long before as far as I'm concerned) over stuff like this. Like the person who was furious at the remake of The Amityville Horror -- why do They have to ruin a great movie like that?

While it's true, John didn't use the word "artistic classic," he did imply that Star Trek somehow was different from "the other dreck Hollywood keeps pumping out." I don't think it is, and while I'm not a Trekkie/Trekker, I did see the original series when it first aired, and all but the first movie. Star Trek is the dreck that Hollywood pumps out and pretends it's science fiction, but that's okay, because science fiction is still out there to be read and enjoyed. Besides, science fiction (or 90% of it anyway, as Theodore Sturgeon allowed) is dreck too -- I know, I've read enough of it.

If a movie I like is remade, and I think it's terrible, I just don't watch the remake. Or I tell people that I think the original is better.

And this is notably different from what's being expressed in John's post... how?

You don't care about "Star Trek," I get it. And really, that's fine - billions of people don't care about "Star Trek." But you seem to be exerting a whole lot of energy on not caring about "Star Trek," which is mildly peculiar.

bsjones: Exactly. Nicely said.

Duncan: ...he did imply that Star Trek somehow was different from "the other dreck Hollywood keeps pumping out." I don't think it is...

With all due respect, if you see no significant difference between the Star Trek TV series and the Transformers movie, I think your dreckometer needs finer gradations. And it's a tad ironic that you'd imply it's not really science fiction while invoking Theodore Sturgeon, who wrote two episodes (as did several other noted science fiction authors).

We saw the Trek movie yesterday. Entertaining in spots, but overall, it sucked. Spoilers follow, if anyone cares.

Basically, with their time travel plot they wiped out of existence every incident in every episode and movie on Star Trek that's ever been made, since that timeline is now gone. None of that stuff happened, now, unless one wants to say it happened in a parallel universe which still exists and this movie is just about a different universe. (The Scott Bakula show is safe, since that was before Kirk, but I doubt too many care whether that got wiped out or not. Though even it had its moments.) As a geek I find this shows a disturbing lack of respect for the material.

Thanks for taking one for the team, Donald.

Basically, with their time travel plot they wiped out of existence every incident in every episode and movie on Star Trek that's ever been made, since that timeline is now gone.

Hey, perfect. Vaguely reminiscent of the way Alien 3 smeared a handful of feces on Aliens. I've forgiven David Fincher for that atrocity on the basis of things like The Game and Fight Club, but just barely.

This clears the decks for them to take Star Trek in whatever direction they want now, though, which I assume was the intention. And that's my point: why do they insist on turning Star Trek into just another vehicle for brain-numbing action sequences, tediously overdone CGI, and ear-bursting Dolby digital? If it needs to be changed so significantly to fit this tired Hollywood formula, why not just fashion a new vehicle instead?

It's a rhetorical question with an obvious answer, of course: Star Trek has a built-in audience and instant name recognition, so bringing it into line with standard 21st century Hollywood action fare provides an enormous marketing advantage; it's much easier to co-opt the "Star Trek" name for this new franchise than to try giving it its own identity. And if that means chucking the things that made the original series unique (and worthwhile, and memorable), who cares? Like I said, it's just product.

In loving retrospect, I can do no better than to quote Bryan Lambert, as follows.

"When you have that much personally invested in something, you never want it to change. This not only means you will be eternally disappointed when things DO change, but on those rare occasions when it's the fanboys getting pandered to instead of the broader audience, it's the rest of us that have to suffer from safe, banal bullshit that won't upset the delicate sensitivies of the people with seventy three fucking buttons pinned to their denim vest. And all you have to do is let go."

Star Trek XI was, in any sense not dependent on terminally wanky continuity-porn fanboyism, worlds better than Enterprise, and that's, in short, why.

Sorry you missed the point, Anonymous. But I will say this: Hamlet 2 was pretty damn funny.

The comments to this entry are closed.