Posts tagged star trek

'Game of Thrones' and 'Star Wars' have some surprises in common

On a scale of Luke Skywalker to Arya Stark, how well do you deal with the murder of your entire family while you were out chasing a sword?

[READ MORE]

Orci’s response to Dickerson’s editorial revealed how far removed he is from the fandom that has given Star Trek such a legion of followers over time. Calling Dickerson the equivalent of “a child acting out against his parents,” he went on to imply superior knowledge of how to craft the film.

Engaging with fans this way is never a good idea, but Star Trek fans in particular have been their franchise’s lifeline at numerous points over the years. Comparing a man who’s written two scripts to a die-hard fan of a 50-year-old show doesn’t exactly yield a parent-child relationship—or if it does, it’s not structured the way Orci seems to think it is.

Fans might also question whether a man who’s writing for one of the most temporally progressive science-fiction franchises in this or any galaxy is qualified to do so when he purports not to understand feminism, one of humanity’s most progressive political philosophies and one that affects over half the planet. After all, if Orci can demand that audiences swallow two hours of character assassination upon Khan Noonien Singh, the least he can do in return is a cursory Google search for "third-wave feminism."

Is Roberto Orci too out of touch with the Star Trek fandom to direct the new film?

In the original series, the worst punishment the crew of the Enterprise could devise for their enemies, the Klingons, was inflicting them with a ship full of tribbles. In the new franchise, the Federation government is so corrupt and evil that it’s willing to sabotage its own ships in order to fabricate a reason for war against the Klingons. This is not your parents’ Star Trek.

[READ MORE]

Where are the women in the new 'Star Wars' cast?

hellotailor breaks it down:

stuckinsidethesnogbox:

I INTERRUPT YOUR DASH WITH THIS IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: Christopher Eccleston ships McSpirk, I repeat, Christopher Eccleston ships McSpirk! 

Vitally important nerd update. — Gavia.

stuckinsidethesnogbox:

I INTERRUPT YOUR DASH WITH THIS IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: Christopher Eccleston ships McSpirk, I repeat, Christopher Eccleston ships McSpirk! 

Vitally important nerd update. — Gavia.

cimness:

(via Tribble shaming. | Animals)

Tribble shaming. OK. — Gavia.

cimness:

(via Tribble shaming. | Animals)

Tribble shaming. OK. — Gavia.

enterprisi:

2x03 - The Changeling

#is this a dick joke

…. probably. — Gavia.

Star Trek Into Darkness writer calls critics "shitty fans"; challenges them to write a better movie.

It seems like a no-brainer to suggest that when engaging with your fans online, you probably shouldn’t actively insult them. For example, don’t log on to a popular fansite and start posting comments describing other readers as “shitty fans” and telling them to “f*ck off”. 

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Star Trek writer Bob Orci just did. 

On September 1, popular Star Trek fansite TrekMovie.com published an editorial titled “Star Trek is broken—Here are ideas on how to fix it.” The article focuses on this year’s Star Trek Into Darkness, which was a moderate box office success but failed to impress most old-school fans. In fact, while the 2009 reboot is still very popular, Into Darkness was recently voted the fandom’s least favorite movie at a Star Trek convention, with Wrath of Khan topping the poll.

Orci (writing as “boborci”, a screenname that has been confirmed as real by TrekMovie.com moderator Matt Wright), first responded with this comment:

“I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.

Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of “broken.” And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.”

A little passive-aggressive, but not too bad. Sadly, he didn’t leave it at that, instead going through the comments section responding to fans who criticised Into Darkness—including challenging one person to pitch him a better movie idea. In response to someone who (politely) compared Into Darkness with Raiders of the Lost Arc, Orci wrote:

STID has infinetly more social commentary than Raiders in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend. You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the FUCKING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!”

[READ MORE]

puzzleboat:

robbiebaldwin:

J.J. Abrams is the Fake Geek Girl we were warned about.

I HAVE ALSO SAID THIS. THIS IS TRUE. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.

And you thought it was just a myth! The truth will out! —Aja

In 2009’s Star Trek, JJ Abrams successfully made the effort to appeal to new viewers as well as dyed-in-the-wool Trekkies. This time round, he seems to be going further afield— and alienating the original fanbase entirely.

The publicity for Into Darkness has been solidly high school: Don’t worry—it may be Star Trek, but it’s not for nerds anymore! In an interview with Jon Stewart this week, Abrams made it very clear that he’d never liked the show as a kid, because it was “too philosophical.” “I stopped listening when you said you didn’t like Star Trek,” Stewart joked. “I saw your mouth moving, so I assume you apologized.” 

It’s not actually necessary for a director to be a lifelong fan if they want to make a successful adaptation. In fact, JJ Abrams’ first Star Trek movie was proof of that. But it’s another thing for an adaption to leave most of the original show’s values in the dust, which is what Into Darkness seems to be doing. The dialogue is snappy, the action sequences are fun, and the characters seem real enough, but the heart and the brain are now gone.

In 1966, Star Trek broke new ground with its international crew of hopeful explorers, scientists, and adventurers. True, the show was full of heavy-handed Cold War metaphors and casual 1960s misogyny, but its central messages were obvious: Racism is bad. Give peace a chance. That kind of thing. Men and women, Russians and Americans, aliens and humans: all could work together on a more-or-less equal footing. For many viewers, Nichelle Nichols (Lieutenant Uhura) was the first woman of color they’d seen playing anything other than a maid. Star Trek was pushing the envelope.

In 2013, not so much. Into Darkness shows more racial diversity among cameos from alien species than it does among human characters in main speaking roles. Worse still, iconic Star Trek villain Khan Noonien Singh was recast as Benedict Cumberbatch, possibly the whitest man on the planet. 

In Khan’s original role, he was super-intelligent, super-strong, the head of a genetically engineered master race—and brown. In other words, the opposite of the usual racial stereotypes one saw in mid-20th century “foreign” or “exotic” villains. Whitewashing Khan into being an posh-sounding Englishman reinforces the message sent out by Kirk, Spock, and the morally ambiguous Admiral Marcus: Good or evil, everyone in power is a white male. Suddenly, the awkwardness surrounding one of John Cho’s publicity interviews makes sense. “Who is your favourite villain?” he is asked. “Ricardo Montalban,” he answers. “He was badass. And a man of color, I might add.” Nervous laughter. Next question, please.

[continue reading]

In 2009’s Star Trek, JJ Abrams successfully made the effort to appeal to new viewers as well as dyed-in-the-wool Trekkies. This time round, he seems to be going further afield— and alienating the original fanbase entirely.

The publicity for Into Darkness has been solidly high school: Don’t worry—it may be Star Trek, but it’s not for nerds anymore! In an interview with Jon Stewart this week, Abrams made it very clear that he’d never liked the show as a kid, because it was “too philosophical.” “I stopped listening when you said you didn’t like Star Trek,” Stewart joked. “I saw your mouth moving, so I assume you apologized.”

It’s not actually necessary for a director to be a lifelong fan if they want to make a successful adaptation. In fact, JJ Abrams’ first Star Trek movie was proof of that. But it’s another thing for an adaption to leave most of the original show’s values in the dust, which is what Into Darkness seems to be doing. The dialogue is snappy, the action sequences are fun, and the characters seem real enough, but the heart and the brain are now gone.

In 1966, Star Trek broke new ground with its international crew of hopeful explorers, scientists, and adventurers. True, the show was full of heavy-handed Cold War metaphors and casual 1960s misogyny, but its central messages were obvious: Racism is bad. Give peace a chance. That kind of thing. Men and women, Russians and Americans, aliens and humans: all could work together on a more-or-less equal footing. For many viewers, Nichelle Nichols (Lieutenant Uhura) was the first woman of color they’d seen playing anything other than a maid. Star Trek was pushing the envelope.

In 2013, not so much. Into Darkness shows more racial diversity among cameos from alien species than it does among human characters in main speaking roles. Worse still, iconic Star Trek villain Khan Noonien Singh was recast as Benedict Cumberbatch, possibly the whitest man on the planet.

In Khan’s original role, he was super-intelligent, super-strong, the head of a genetically engineered master race—and brown. In other words, the opposite of the usual racial stereotypes one saw in mid-20th century “foreign” or “exotic” villains. Whitewashing Khan into being an posh-sounding Englishman reinforces the message sent out by Kirk, Spock, and the morally ambiguous Admiral Marcus: Good or evil, everyone in power is a white male. Suddenly, the awkwardness surrounding one of John Cho’s publicity interviews makes sense. “Who is your favourite villain?” he is asked. “Ricardo Montalban,” he answers. “He was badass. And a man of color, I might add.” Nervous laughter. Next question, please.

[continue reading]