User Avatar Image

Star Trek... the Next Thread

posted by BagginsKQ on - last edited - Viewed by 2.2K users

**IRISHMILE EDIT** ok here is your Star Trek thread instead of talking about it on the Kings Quest section.. Enjoy.. we will now return to your previous conversation.............
** END IRISHMILE EDIT**

I'd surely like to ignore the last Star Trek movie (what kind of writer destroys "Romulus and Remus" in an offscreen/minor incident, rather than focusing on it as a major movie in its own right/Why ignore 60 years of Star Trek time travel mechanics? I.E. if you change time, your previous timeline ceases to exist/paradox created, I.E. City on the Edge of Forever (Original Series), Yesterday's Enterprise (TNG) or Past Tense on DS9, etc, thus the need for Temporal Prime Directives, and an agency that monitors for changes in the timeline?)

http://www.tunequest.org/star-trek-2009-permanency/20090604/

...or the last episode of Enterprise...

Oh well... unfortunately all future Star Trek shows and movies will take those into account... Nothing I can do about it...

140 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Yes, I did read the article.

    First, he's not an art critic, so his opinion as a professional film critic does not qualify. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as a high profile critic, his opinion about things is given greater consideration. With that in mind, his position should be delivered with greater care and consideration than to appear as a rant about the worthlessness of video games.

    Second, art does not have an absolute, quantifiable definition as to what is and is not art, so the whole argument against the product of a given medium being art is moot and unnecessary.

    Third, he has little to no experience actually interacting with recent products of said medium in the method by which they were designed to be experienced (ie. played, not watched), nor has he spent a significant amount time watching recent video games either (again despite it being insufficient anyway), so his opinions should be considered inconclusive at best.

    Fourth, any person willing to engage in legitimate debate should be open to opposing view, and given new evidence ought to be willing to adjust their opinion accordingly. He was not willing to do either of these things.

    So, there was no point to his bringing it up; he doesn't have properly sufficient data with which to back up what he says; he doesn't accept any additional data; and he belittles opposing view. Sounds like trolling to me.

  • I defer to Brian Moriarty's thoughts on the matter. Brian Moriarty is a designer of games which are quite possibly the closest examples of art(specifically, GOOD art) that I could possibly conceive of, Trinity and Loom. He is brilliant. Like, fucking brilliant. Like, I would listen to this guy talk for hours. He *does* know games, he *does* know art, and(unlike you) he *does* know Roger Ebert and *his* work.

  • Ebert's last word on games as art was something like "You know, I never should have said anything. Never mind." He admitted he couldn't come up with a definition of the word "art" that would exclude games and include everything else he thinks of as art, so he backed off. I thought that was reasonably mature so I stopped feeling the need to bag on him about it. That and the fact that his jaw cancer situation makes it no fun to envision arguing with him any more.

    I do think it's a shame that he doesn't have the interest or the patience to play some games, since he definitely enjoyed Dark City (enough to record an audio commentary track for the DVD) and Dark City is basically the movie version of what it feels like to experience a video game properly. I think he definitely has the capacity to enjoy a game, but if he doesn't want to then that's his business.

    Anyway I thought Star Trek 2009 was good enough that it made me interested in watching more of the various series, so it can't be all bad. I thought the time-travel-reboot model was a pretty clever way to go about it.

  • @Rather Dashing said: I defer to Brian Moriarty's thoughts on the matter.

    Okay, with his position I am compelled to agree.

    Brian does cite some back and forth that Ebert had in the end (in which Ebert basically admits he never should have brought it up) that I admittedly wasn't aware of... probably because the conversation had become tired (read: "tl;dr") by then.

    back to what started the whole Ebert convo:

    @Rather Dashing said: "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."-Roger Ebert

    I disagree both with this opinion and the attitude behind it. Star Trek 09 is a good movie. Certainly, it has a different tone and shooting style than TOS did, but that neither makes it bad, a "popcorn movie," nor unworthy of inclusion as part of the world Roddenberry created.

  • Also, Star Trek has been reduced to loud and colourful action before Star Trek 09 came along.

  • @Rather Dashing said: Trinity


    Holy Hell I love that game.

  • @MusicallyInspired said: Also, Star Trek has been reduced to loud and colourful action before Star Trek 09 came along.

    The Original Series is, in fact, my least liked Star Trek series. It seems to me like there are quite a lot of TOS episodes that use any one of the same 4 or 5 basic plots; hammy overacting abounds; and the only real characters with a reasonable amount of depth (and screen time) are Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Couple these problems with the issue that the effects and tech haven't aged well either.

    All of the other series are very good, each in their own way, but TOS just doesn't hold up well for me at all. Therefore, despite TNG being very good, the opinion that more recent Trek films and shows are ruining Roddenberry's original vision doesn't fit properly into my view.

    In contrast, I find that the Kirk movies are generally better than the TNG movies: Generations has too much emotion-chip humor and Picard uncharacteristically broods; First Contact is too dark and action-oriented; and Insurrection is forgettable (though of those three, First Contact is probably the best.)

  • @Chyron8472 said: The Original Series is, in fact, my least liked Star Trek series. It seems to me like there are quite a lot of TOS episodes that use any one of the same 4 or 5 basic plots; hammy overacting abounds; and the only real characters with a reasonable amount of depth (and screen time) are Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Couple these problems with the issue that the effects and tech haven't aged well either.

    All of the other series are very good, each in their own way, but TOS just doesn't hold up well for me at all. Therefore, despite TNG being very good, the opinion that more recent Trek films and shows are ruining Roddenberry's original vision doesn't fit properly into my view.

    In contrast, I find that the Kirk movies are generally better than the TNG movies: Generations has too much emotion-chip humor and Picard uncharacteristically broods; First Contact is too dark and action-oriented; and Insurrection is forgettable (though of those three, First Contact is probably the best.)

    Would you say you're a bigger fan of science fiction or space opera?

  • @Chyron8472 said: In contrast, I find that the Kirk movies are generally better than the TNG movies: Generations has too much emotion-chip humor and Picard uncharacteristically broods; First Contact is too dark and action-oriented; and Insurrection is forgettable (though of those three, First Contact is probably the best.)

    That's true. Nemesis was my favourite TNG movie. The cast even said (at least one of them) that they recognized their characters more in this movie than the others.

  • None of the Trek films other than 2-4 ever hapenned.

Add Comment