Star Trek... the Next Thread

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

Explain to me then why he suddenly decided to declare that video games are not and never will be art; and then when people stood up and told him to play various games that could prove to him otherwise, he basically said that to do so is pointless and no one would ever dissuade him from his opinion (regardless of the fact that the evidence he had gathered was woefully incomplete)?

He's a professional critic. He should be professional when considering his viewpoints. In this case, however, he was stubborn about it for no apparent reason, he started the whole thing with no apparent cause (beyond purposely making people mad), and he basically belittled the entire gaming community as though their activity of choice was stupid and unworthy of further consideration beyond watching someone else play a game or two for a few minutes. So, yes--I will hold it against him and call him a troll.

Have you actually READ the article to which you are referring? He was talking about a very specific definition of art--and by that definition, video games don't qualify. It's not a matter of opinion--they simply don't fit the criteria as that article had defined it.

[Chyron8472]

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.

[Rather Dashing]

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.

[LuigiHann]

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.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

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:

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

"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.

[MusicallyInspired]

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

[DAISHI]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

Trinity

Holy Hell I love that game.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

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.)

[DAISHI]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

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?

[MusicallyInspired]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

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.

[Ribs]

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

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by DAISHI

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

Now, that's a curious question.

I do like various science fiction movies. However, until I very recently started watching through Stargate SG-1 on Netflix, I would have said that I could only ever get into sci-fi TV series that were Star Trek. [ie. My mom likes Dr. Who, but I've only seen a handful of episodes from both the old and new format; I started watching the first 10 or so episodes of the new BSG show, but stopped; and I've only seen half a dozen or less Babylon 5 episodes. I did like Sliders when it aired, but not enough to actively pursue watching it (though I have since seen the entire series and do not approve of episodes after Jerry O'Connell left the show.)]

Of the Star Wars Saga, the original Original Trilogy is what I greatly prefer and pretty much only care about at this point, albeit taking exception for good fan edits.

I have read various Star Trek and Star Wars books, but I find that I'm only drawn to certain authors such as Peter David and Drew Karpyshyn.

I don't know about the sci-fi vs. space opera genres as a whole, but I would say that in general I like the Star Wars OOT; the Kirk movies (except 5), Nemesis, and Star Trek 09; and all Trek shows (except TOS and TAS). Any of these, were they on television in a circumstance of my surfing channels, I would stop and watch them regardless of how many times I'd seen them or whatever else was on at the time.

I will add however, that the first 2 TNG movies and SW:ROTS are still watchable, and I might find enjoyment when I watch them again. Also, of Dr. Who, I do recall the (full multi-part) episodes leading up to and following the death of Tom Baker's Doctor, and "The Five Doctors" rather fondly.


tl;dr version: I like the Star Wars OOT, and Trek 2, 4, 6 and 2009 best of all sci-fi movies, and I care little for any sci-fi TV show that isn't Star Trek. Take from that what you will.


EDIT: oh, I almost forgot. I agree that George Lucas has no idea how to write or direct a good movie anymore, and I disagree with the notion that Rick Berman has held the Star Trek universe back, though I do think he ruined the Enterprise series finale (which I will never ever watch again, and regret having seen in the first place.)

[Chyron8472]

dooble pawst (it's been almost 8 hours)

Have any of you gone to a Trek convention of some kind?

I have not. I've also used having never been to one nor dressed in a Trek costume as evidence that I'm a fan of the franchise and not a "Trekkie."

[MusicallyInspired]

I've never been to a convention. Don't have those up here in Canada or at least not many so I'm always too far away. I have owned a TNG uniform in the past. I went as a captain on Halloween once. My brother was my first officer. Had the phaser, tricorder, and communicator toys to boot. That was great.

And just as a little note, SG-1 gets exponentially better as it goes on. Especially around the 4th/5th seasons. Starts to wane again around 9 and 10 but not as bad as the first season, in my opinion. The beginning is nothing really special, but does start on a very fantastic universe.

[Chyron8472]

Netflix says my SG-1 viewing has as yet reached s3e11.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

Have any of you gone to a Trek convention of some kind?

I've gone to a "general geek convention" at which Patrick Stewart, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy(and other Trek stars) were guests.

[MusicallyInspired]

There was a Comic Con in my city a few months ago. I sadly could not attend. But apparently Leonard Nimoy was there. And there was another event shortly after where Shatner came. That one was freaking expensive, though.

[Alcoremortis]

Well...I...uh...I went to the Rose Parade and mere blocks away, George Takei was watching THE SAME PARADE!

...Yeah, I got nothing.

[Shadowknight1]

I went to a convention and heard Shatner speak once, a long time ago. Also got to meet David Prowse.

[Chyron8472]

Watched Star Trek (2009) again. I love how they treat/explore the characters in ways hinted at by the Prime universe but were never originally talked about.

Vulcans in the Prime universe, including Spock, generally have a low opinion of humans and other species who show emotion. However, Spock still joined Starfleet (which is dominated by humans) instead of the Vulcan Science Academy: In The Voyage Home, Sarek says "As I recall, I opposed your enlistment in Starfleet. However, it is possible that judgement was incorrect; your associates are people of good character."

In TOS, Spock played his lute for Uhura in the rec room; and she more than once made romantic advances toward him, even while on the bridge.


In Wrath of Kahn, Kirk says he "got a commendation for original thinking" after cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test, and I love how 2009 implies that it was a bald-faced lie, since it would make more sense to get in trouble for cheating instead of rewarded for it.