Star Trek films of the 21st Century (remakes in general)
I've noticed the Treks catching a lot of flack online. It's the same thing I've heard about Transformers, G.I. Joe, and pretty much nearly every remake in general (yes, I know those two aren't remakes). People go online and complain they could make a better movie if only they had the resources and the money which is just f-ing ridiculous because if they were half as talented and intelligent as they purport to be, they could produce an independent film with no more than a few friends and a home camera. I've seen countless independent films and a large number of them are surprisingly good for the ridiculously low budget they had to work with. These finks shoveling slop into their gullets, bloating in front of their computer screens wouldn't have nerve enough to try. That's why they waste their time complaining rather than doing anything substantial.
Rant against "idiotic critics who are of no value to society" aside, what a lot of people fail to understand about the "reboot" is that its built to draw in the masses. It's true that Star Trek is "too cerebral" for the average viewer which is why it's more of a niche for the Sci-Fi fan in general. When was the last decent Star Trek series? (I don't know about those here, but most ST fans I've heard from declare that Enterprise with Scott Bakula sucked... probably because they didn't like Bakula... but then there is the fact that Enterprise takes place before the Kirk saga and yet the Klingons are those seen in NG instead of the ones we were used to from the original series) Do you want to see another Star Trek series? The industry seems to have given up hope for the franchise since Enterprise but I'm fully expecting Abrams' interpretation to drag in more fans made from those who spectated at the theaters.
People complain that the studio jerks think the average viewer is a monkey with one hand on his groin and another on a snack waiting for the next flash of skin, explosion, or violent outburst (even choreographed fights). Here's the newsflash for you: IT'S F-ING TRUE! We are a planet of apes, people. We like sex. We like violence. We like anything in relation to a sense of power. Just because there is a portion of the human mind with the clarity and desire to understand more complex issues doesn't mean we're instantly gonna be drawn to a work that panders to that niche. I misspoke myself though. We're not apes. Apes are smart. Most humans have to be spoon-fed complex issues. But that's all societal. We're raised under the thumb of tyranny in one form or another and our first understanding is that survival requires overt displays of violence.
One online reviewer (another jackass) complained that Abrams use of time travel to retcon the series while maintaining the existence of the original universe (Old Spock) was a blatant copout and while I agree that Nero is an idiot (why wouldn't he warn Romulus about the events he'd witness instead of waiting around to get revenge for something Spock was in no way responsible for?) and an overt plot device with no greater purpose than to crew the Enterprise with the faces we expect in a matter of minutes, I have to tell you, I don't really have a problem with it. But that much was obvious at the start of this rant.
Personally, I have to one wonder 1) how long do Romulans live? Would Nero have lived long enough to warn Romulus. 2) If he warned them right as he arrived, would the people of Romulus have heeded Nero's warning centuries later or dismissed his appearance as a superstitious myth? 3) WTF would you do after witnessing the destruction of your planet? I'm pretty you'd be absurdly pissed and given the nature of Romulans being more or less contrary to Vulcans and on par with the vengeful nature of Klingons, it makes enough sense to me that he would have chased after Spock. Waiting around for 20 years for Spock to appear on the other hand is a little hard to swallow. He couldn't think of anything better to do with his time? But you can't f-ing argue logic with someone who has clearly lost their mind.
Nerds and geeks are separated by a stark divide. I'm a geek. Like the otaku possessed of obsessive tendencies, geeks tend to obsess over things they like. I'll admit to things about the Star Trek movies that I didn't like (as I have above), but I balance that with the things I do like. Nerds are hypercritical creeps who are overly intellectual (like Sheldon Cooper) who break down everything you love and point out all of the reasons you should hate it. Don't get me wrong sometimes Nerds are Geeks too, but the latter term would envelop the former. Nerds are pure logic and they tend to think the problems of the world are caused by idiots who like guns and explosions who believe bigger is better. But the truth is that our world's problems are caused by the arrogant nerds with good intentions whose overinflated egos result in the creation of not only technologies but circumstances in general that become the world's issues.
The reason I mention that (it seemingly having nothing to do with the above rant) is because it tends to be these same nerds who hypercritique such things as the recent storm of remakes who also tout holier-than-thou intentions explaining that the originals were more meaningful. Star Trek, for example, was a subtle morality tale about issues of the 1960s. Gene Roddenberry particularly "wanted Star Trek to show humanity what it might develop into, if only it would learn from the lessons of the past, most specifically by ending violence. An extreme example is the alien species, the Vulcans, who had a very violent past but learned to control their emotions." --STAR TREK on Wikipedia. Very many nerds aspire to be Spock-like in their day-to-day existence and more insist that Star Trek's overall message is that all humans should aspire to become Vulcans... could you imagine how boring our world would be? It is in this desire to become Vulcanized that nerds lose their grip on reality and aspire to alter humanity by more forceful means.
--
Anyway, sidebar: there once existed an argument over Transformers where one reviewer began seeming to claim that the movie was stupid and pandered to an audience of ape-like idiots with its giant robot fights. In response, it was proposed that this was exactly the point of the Transformers movie, people like it, and this guy should get over it. In return, he claimed he expected it to more of a hardcore violent giant robot romp than it came out to be instead offering pitiful bits of expired controversy and ridiculous attempts at purporting to subtly expose government conspiracy... I don't know about you, but it seemed to me that this guy was changing his story after realizing he had no bite in this dog fight.
Reply With Quote
