TheBoost

ChainsawAsh said:

And all art is subjective - I really don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

I disagree, although not by much.

There are objective observations to be made about art. There is craft and skill that can be measured and discussed. Films contain symbolism that can be hackneyed, cliche, obstuse, or elegant. Poetry contains meter and rhythm, and going with or breaking from them causes a specific effect. Some comicbook artists cant draw hands. Without these observations, all discussion on art becomes variations of "But that's just my opinion" repeated ad nauseum.

I agree mostly with your sentiment, that making blanket statements about art is very tricky given art's nature,  but I would phrase it: Art cannot be all objective.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I doubt even more strongly whether than insult is an objective fact.

Then you probably belong to the "everything about art is subjective" school of thought. I don't.

I found the film to be of extremly high quality and containing much more depth than the show.

Well god only knows how you came to that conclusion.

I beg your pardon a thousandfold. I assumed you meant the funny pilot. I'll continue the statement though that Shephard Book never did much that was important either. Whatever he brought to the plot was in a supporting role, his mysterious background was never addressed and served mainly as the real main characters moral compass. He served the same role in the film.

Ron Glass was by far the best actor on the show. The intelligent thing to do would be to use that, rather than to focus on a lot of inferior acting from Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau.

 

 

And it was totally unecessary to ask the question you asked. All that needed to be understood was that I thought Serenity did not live up to the standard of Firefly, and that stuff was obvious from my original post. It was not necessary to understand anything else. Picking on the issue and questioning me about it was pestering me about something that did not need explaining. And if you did find my thinking (that Serenity was an insult to Firefly) hard to understand (and I don't see why it should be) then so what, it was not important. So what if I chose to see something as insult to Firefly while disliking Firefly. How in god's name was it important how I managed to do that? Picking unnecessarily at my psychology like that certainly looks a little like it's intended to imply that my thinking is bullshit -and perhaps my whole mentality too. Which is generally what it seems to me that some people here think of me generally.

It's interesting that you seem to be of the opinion that all art is objective, and your opinion is the objective truth.

We could each write lengthy essays on the strengths and weaknesses of "Firefly" and "Serenity." I thought both were great, with "Serenity" being the better product. That is my opinion I'm willing to defend, but it is apparently wrong, because your completely objective view is that they both are bad but Serenity is insultingly worse.

If Glass was the best actor on the show (debatable), he was still a minor, supporting character. Christopher Lee can act the pants off anyone else in the PT, but Dooku isnt the focus of the show.

sans_fi said:

Ok, this should be the last one about this... (i guess)

 This is now my desktop.

If I have one suggestion, the ROTJ poster has a very, very recognizable image of Han from Star Wars. I know he;s about to shoot Greedo. Otherwise, I freakin' love it.

DarkFather said:

Continue escalating kinosthetics. If you neglect to make physical contact often, then the first kiss will be uncomfortable for both of you. I recommend squeezing the nape of her neck, and sliding a palm over the small of her back. Both of these areas of the body are bundles of nerves that are rarely touched, thus she will become naturally more excited.

Totally true. Are you American? I found dating in America harder, because there was less touching in the culture. In Mexico and England I found it easier to initiate smooching, because we'd already made contact casually dozens of time. This isn't about manipulation, it's about comfort zones between two people. Touching hands on a tabletop is an important first step.

Sean Wookie, if you want it to be a 'date' you MAKE it a date. If she doesn't, she'll let you know with certain social cues. If she was showing cleavage, 10 will get you 20 it was a date, and you have tacit permission to up it a notch if she goes out with you again.

DarkFather said:

DarkFather said:

 

Scandanavians and Aborigines have been genetically seperated for more than 2000 years, and they're still the same species.

 

Fascinating. And are the Scandanavians from the planet Scandanav, or have they been on the earth those whole 2,000 years just as the Aborigines?

 

In case this makes sense only to me, I was demonstrating that TheBoost raised a point perfectly answered by the statement he quoted me on before raising the point.

I don't see what being on different planets would have to do with it. Genetic seperation is genetic seperation, whether its the next room or the next planet.

skyjedi2005 said:

 

Except Star Trek is set in our own primary universe and in the future.  And star wars is set long ago in a galaxy far far away, or once upon a time.  One is clearly intended to be science fiction and the other pure make believe fantasy.  Star Trek is made up to, but it has humans from Earth in it.  Star Trek is more relatable to the real world sciences except where they constantly remain inconsistent with real science.  And It is supposed to follow our own known physics but often denies the implied laws.  

Star Wars and Star Trek cannot be any more opposite in my opinion.  In wars the only people of any subtance are elites who decide how the rest of everybody should live.  In Star Trek its supposed to be every race and people being equal and working together at least in the federation.  But the TV show and movies did not reflect this for a long time.  The Captain James T Kirk being a heterosexual white male.  And everyone else his subordinate and beneath him.

I'm not so sure people want a gay or transgendered captain.  Though they did do the interspecies thing in star trek it was almost always looked upon negatively.  And later on we got a black captain and a female captain. 

Even in the real world of television and movie production Star Trek has had a problem with diversity.  But has made some strides.  At the end of the day though it was created by a White Man who supposedly was a womanizer, And more concerned with making a living as a writer than in changing the world.

That Star Trek claims to be science fiction doesn't mean it has an iota more science in it that Star Wars.

And Elites? The OT is about a group of Rebels (admittedly including a Princess, although her political clout or overall importance seems to be minimal) battling a tyrranical empire. The main heroes are a farmboy, a big hairy monkey-man, and a down on his luck smuggler. Later we have a gambler/small town mayor added to the mix. I'm not sure what you mean by Elites, unless you're refering to the PT.

As near as I can tell, Trek is a fascist socialist society. The pseudo-military Starfleet rules everything with an iron fist. There's no private industry, and apparently no real political equality as the Maquis and the movie 'Insurrection' seem to show.

I know nothing about Rodenberry as a man, but if I understand correctly, he was really trying to show a utopian future. I just think his personal shortsightedness and that of his writers, as well as scientific laziness, shows through quite strongly.

C3PX said:

TheBoost said:

In a broad manner Trek does (the white/black vs. black/white aliens) but when you really look at HOW these races/cultures are written I think you see a lot of racist ideas. Notably, how species and culture are the same thing, unless your human. Only humans can have variety...

Some good points there. I guess you could take these things as racism, but I think it is more the limited scope of the story tellers.

Equally valid interpretation of the material.

DarkFather said:

again, this would be like saying that we're a different species from Jesus or Ceasar.  Like you said, they took different paths.

We do not live on separate planets as they did.

Scandanavians and Aborigines have been genetically seperated for more than 2000 years, and they're still the same species.

double post

 There is a lot of racism shown from the sides of Klingons, Ferangi and other species, but I have always felt Star Trek has done a good job of painting racism as a negative thing, and shown the Federation to meet all alien races with open arms. Perhaps I am wrong on this. Mind citing a few examples of aliens needing to act more human in order to become better?

In a broad manner Trek does (the white/black vs. black/white aliens) but when you really look at HOW these races/cultures are written I think you see a lot of racist ideas. Notably, how species and culture are the same thing, unless your human. Only humans can have variety.

I think Spock's long term arc of being more human and embracing his friends is portrayed as a positive (this is strongest in the movies). Spock's influence never influences a human to become more logical and less friendly.

The Ferengi teenage on DS9 had to learn to be more human (less greedy, brave). Cisco's kid was never shown to learn to be more like a Ferengi (and if he had, it would have been seen as a bad thing).

Worf needed to learn to be more human to deal with his spinal injury on TNG. A Klingon would have just killed himself. And Picard TOOK WORF'S SIDE, insisting that no Klingon could adapt to what he'd expect a human to adapt to, even a Klingon raised and living among humans. 

Im not sure, but I think the half-Klingon on Voyagers second line ever was "I'm sorry, but my Klingon half is forever warring with me!"

Given that we have had zero known contact with extra terrestrial lifeforms, I just don't think the science is there to prove this. Yes, it is true with earth species, a dog can't mate with a cat. But I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go along with the idea that various alien species in the galaxy have evolved so closely along the same lines that they are able to produce viable offspring with one another. Ultimately, it is pretty ridiculous that all these different aliens look so much alike. At the end of the day, you could peg the "bad science!" label on every single sci-fi and fantasy story ever told.  

 I'm not attacking that they all look human. That's a reality of TV/Film production. But if Vulcans and Romulans have a common ancestor and can breed, they are the same species. That's what 'species' means.

Really, I've always hated the 'Star Trek has real science' argument. Of 'Star Trek is for grown ups.'

Star Trek wraps itself in nonsense technobabble, but has NO more science in it that Star Wars. Star Trek even spends half their time dealing with various 'omnipotent aliens' who for all intents and purposes are evil gods. And just because the chick in the leotard on the Enterprise says she's an alien telepath, as far as I'm concerned she's a Force User, with as much science as that contains. The Genesis Device has no more merit than the Death Star.

And if every sentient species in the galaxy can mate, that's just magic.

C3PX said:

TheBoost said:

"I hated Terminator, and I can't beleive they spit on it with the shameful T2! Blasphemy!"

Boost, stop mocking VINH!

Just trying to illustrate my confusion.  Ihave no secret agenda. Half the time I dont even bother to check whose post I'm quoting!

Played some D&D in middle school. Stopped in high school for football and chasing girls.

After TPM came out, it was summer vacation from college, and me and the old gang spent a month playing Star Wars RPG in my folks' garage pretty much every afternoon. It was a golden time.

I was the DM and we basically did plots from old Marvel Star Wars comics, because none of my pals had read them.

Gaffer Tape said:

Since this is come up, I have to ask this question, as it's something that's always bugged me.  Why does it always seem to be implied that the reason that Spock (and, apparently Saavik) is able to express emotion because of his mixed heritage?  Obviously his mixed heritage is the reason for his feelings of isolation and inferiority, but it should have nothing to do with his or any Vulcan's ability or inability to be emotional.  Lack of emotion is NOT an inherent biological trait in Vulcans.  They train themselves to be logical and to supress emotions.  From what I can see, any Vulcan is capable of being emotional, they simply choose not to.  And before anyone says that maybe Vulcans are more easily possessed of this than humans, you also have to note that Vulcans and Romulans are the same species.  The Romulans are what the Vulcans would be (and were) had they not chosen to become logical:  extremely emotional and warlike.  So what difference does it make even if Saavik is half-Romulan?  Nothing!  That's not even biologically different from being a full-blooded Vulcan.  The differences between Vulcans and Romulans (and Vulcans and humans, for that matter) is not nature, it's nurture.

It's a combination of racism, bad science, and lazy writing that plagues all Star Trek.

Lazy writing in that it allows endless "I'm torn between two worlds!" character moments.

Bad science in that any two organisms that can breed and produce fertile offsprings (like every race in Star Trek) should be considered the same species.

Racism in that all alien races are defined by a single trait (/flaw) that can only be overcome by being more human.

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Serenity was an insult to Firefly, all around low in quality and shallow. Plus they killed off the best character after giving him hardly any screen time. And Mal Reynolds was at his most annoying. Plus they focused on River, a totally unbearable character.

I'm curious. If you don't care for Whedon, and hate two of the main characters in Firefly, and seem to really like the background comic releif character who never did much of importance, how can the movie be an insult to a show you clearly didn't like?

 

How are my feelings about Firefly relevant to the question of whether Serenity was an insult to Firefly?  It either is or isn't an insult to it. My feelings are beside the point. As it is, it was most definitely an insult. It dropped and minimized what little good the show had and maximized its bad stuff.

Btw, you're getting into the habit of needling me with questions that seem designed to imply my thinking makes no sense. Sometimes I ignore it. But it's getting annoying. The above question was entirely unnecessary.

and seem to really like the background comic releif character who never did much of importance

How the fuck was Book a comic relief character?

I seriously doubt whether an entertainment property can actually be an 'insult' to another entertainment property, but if it is possible, I doubt even more strongly whether than insult is an objective fact. I found the film to be of extremly high quality and containing much more depth than the show.

I beg your pardon a thousandfold. I assumed you meant the funny pilot. I'll continue the statement though that Shephard Book never did much that was important either. Whatever he brought to the plot was in a supporting role, his mysterious background was never addressed and served mainly as the real main characters moral compass. He served the same role in the film.

And if I have some sinister pattern, it's asking questions when someone else makes a point I'd like clarification on. I think the question was as necessary as any other question talking about movies, because I'm still confused how you can be insulted by changes in a show you never liked in the first place.

"I hated Terminator, and I can't beleive they spit on it with the shameful T2! Blasphemy!"

EDIT: C3PX beat me to a lot of this.

skyjedi2005 said:

I still think only the first season of heroes was any good and the show should have been cancelled after its second half season.  Never mind the rediculous season 3 that might as well have been crafted by JJ Abrams and his writers.

Seasons? What are you talking about. Heroes was an awesome 22 episode miniseries that ended when they killed Sylar and Peter blew up. It was great.

(puts fingers in ears and runs away)

Vaderisnothayden said:

Serenity was an insult to Firefly, all around low in quality and shallow. Plus they killed off the best character after giving him hardly any screen time. And Mal Reynolds was at his most annoying. Plus they focused on River, a totally unbearable character.

I'm curious. If you don't care for Whedon, and hate two of the main characters in Firefly, and seem to really like the background comic releif character who never did much of importance, how can the movie be an insult to a show you clearly didn't like?

Janskeet said:

Ripplin said:

Janskeet, you really need to learn about editing and make your own version. I don't know if it could still be called Star Wars, though! ;)

Would it be legal for me to sell my edit if I change the name of the title, the characters, spaceships, and everything else that identifies it as Star Wars?

 

 Totally. As long as you also redub all the actors, re-do the special effects with new models of your own design, and reshoot all the live action. Don't forget to re-score it and it might help if you changed the story completely too.

Good idea Axia, but I'd say go for the WTF level. My sweet little granny could have answered that last one without even looking at wookiepedia on her iPhone.

Monroville said:

 

I would have the Imperial SDs resemble Sith battle cruisers.  I say make the Jedi and the Sith actual forces to be reckoned with, and the Empire was created as a means of wiping out ALL religion.  Being that the Empire is a good mix of the Nazis, Communist Russia and colonial British Empire, one of the goals of the first 2 groups was to eradicate religion as they believed it to be the source of all bad things.  If it is shown just how ravaged the Republic becomes due to the constant crusades and jihads the Jedi and Sith declare on each other (with everyone else left in between) I could easily see how the masses could elect the 3rd party candidate so to speak (in the form of a General Palpatine) who then becomes the first Caesar.

In regards to the Mandalorians, one could make them more like the Templars than pirates - they are hired to do specific jobs, which may or may not mean assasination, stealing or whatnot.  I would keep them low in number (like 10 or 12) and give each unique battle armor.

So glad to see someone is still playing!

Thoughts:

Palpatine's rise to power as a general as opposed to as a politician is BRILLIANT. It makes him more interesting and vital, eliminates the need for complicated politics in`the plots, and is a nice 180* turn from the actual PT. ALso, he can be one old, grizzled, ugly warlord type, eliminating the need for any 'Sith deformities' to explain how damn ugly he is.

Although having the Jedi/Sith conflict as bad as you imply makes Palpy almost a good guy, which is some morally murky water. There are interesting plot points in making the Jedi morrally questionable, but that might be taking it a bit far if we plan to have them as heroes. Also, if we have Jedi and Sith, having the Madalorians as another class of super-warrior might get crowded. I'd rather keep the Super Mandalorians as you describe and just cut the Sith alltogether.

Having read the excellent SECRET HISTORY OF STAR WARS I am more enthused than ever to include as many names and ideas from the original treatments into the NPT as possible. Episode II might involve the Kiber Crystal, and somebody needs to be named CJ Thorpe.

C3PX said:

I still maintain that the Klingon foreheads is by no means a continuity issue, but rather a simple evolution of technical abilities. Originally to make different aliens they just dressed them differently and gave them different ears. Some got masks, but they looked awful. By the time the Motion Picture came along, the money and technology was there. Why not take advantage of it?

To start, I have to say I have NO BEEF whatsoever with the improved Klingon appearance over the years. But that has to do with Star Trek being lots and lots of small stories. Discounting a handful of episodes and the movies 2-4, Star Trek isn't one long narrative, so 'continuity' isn't important. On the same hand, I've never given much thought to any 'continuity errors' in the EU.

But it seems to me if it's kosher to change the entire appearance and culture of the main antagonists, why is it sacriligious to redesign the spaceship (which looks pretty darn identical to me)? Uhurua is serious, beutiful, and brilliant. Spock is half-human... why wouldn't they dig eachother? Is flipping out and denying what I thought was a couple nice character moments based on the nebulous concept of 'canon' really worth it?  

Here's a quote from Paula Block, head of liscensing at Paramout on the topic of 'canon'

Another thing that makes canon a little confusing. Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn't like the way the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was NOT CANON. He also didn't like a lot of the movies. So he didn't much consider them canon either. And—okay, I'm really going to scare you with this one-after he got TNG going, he .. well .. he sort of decided that some of the Original Series wasn't canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in the Original Series, and he told me that he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.

AxiaEuxine said:

Well the only true Star Trek was the Original Series its movies and the Next Generation. I enjoyed parts of DS9 and Voyager but they werent Star Trek. Enterprise was just garbage. TOS and TNG were made by Roddenberry, his creation so they were Star Trek.

And the movie DID wipe out 40 years of canon. Its not an alternate timeline. Its an altered timeline. I it was only an alternate timeline Spock (Nimoy real Spock) should be able to get back to his proper timeline but he cant. Its been altered. Paramount and Abrahms pissed all over Star Trek fans with this film. 

But since Rodenberry is dead, isn't it therefore impossible for this new film to be real 'Star Trek'? So they might as well make a good movie everyone seems to like and make money, since it can't be 'canon'?

And did Rodenberry give a damn about continuity? As soon as he had the money didnt he make Klingons look and behave in completly different ways, with nary a thought towards an explanation with regards to 'canon'? He was more concerend with telling the best story he could.

brash_stryker said:

 

TheBoost said:

 My first thought would be 'WOW! Unnamed guy with the eye-scar was really Luke's father!"

 

Why would you think that? Besides, if someone found a way of giving him a name, this wouldn't be a problem.

 

Even if Anakin was seamlessly renamed Stinkpot Magee, if I watched three movies about how Stinkpot Magee fell to the darkside, served the Emperor, and hunted down the Jedi, and all of a sudden the character Vader, who fell to the darkside, serves the emperor, and hunts down the Jedi says "Luke, I am your father" is it more likely that ones mind would draw a connection with the main character in the PT who does all those things, or with a character mentioned once before and not even named, and be shocked how the nameless Mr. Skywalker did everything Magee did, only wasn't in the movie, and somehow became Darth Vader.

AxiaEuxine said:

No if I hated the prequels and liked the new Star Trek then Id be a hypocrite as I would like the new Star Trek for almost the same reasons I hated the prequels IE they arent Star Wars. The Prequels are Star Wars, they were fucking made by Lucas while the new Trek is revisionist horseshit that has nothing to do with Star Trek. It wasnt made by any of its creators seeing as both Roddenberry's are dead now. I find it abhorrent that the new movie is SO much not Star Trek it makes me wish that ass Berman was back in charge.

Yeah, that movie made me long for the days of realistic doomsday weapons, like the Genesis Device, that could resurrect the dead.

And that lame time travel story made me long for the hard-science thinking man's time travel story like Star Trek 4. Black holes don't cause time travel. Flying around the sun really fast causes time travel.

And those horrific action sequences! Where were the Shatner-esque flying cross bodyblocks and double ax handles?!? And why was Star Fleet so competent? I like my Star Fleet so inept that they can't even keep track if planets explode (the main plot point in Wrath of Khan).

I hated how they used Chekov and Scotty for comic relief instead of having them do intelligent things like saying Cinderella is an old Russian fairy tale, or knock their heads on beams.

But the worst was how they made Kirk into some arrogant wonder boy, loved by women, admired by men, a maverick who does his own thing and saves the day, rules be damned. What a Mary Sue!

Seriously, why even CALL it Star Trek?

brash_stryker said:

Retain Hayden's fall, just make him a different person. i.e. not Anakin. Remove the chosen one aspect, and remove Padme having babies.

That way, he's still Obi Wan's student, but assumed to have become Darth Vader. Then it is revealed in Empire that its really Obi Wan's good and loyal Jedi friend, Anakin (whom we never see in the PT)

Can you imagine how shocking that revelation would be? We're all under the impression that Darth Vader was the little shit of a student we saw in the PT, but it turns out to be Luke's dad!

It would make his unmasking that much more coherent with the PT (seeing as Sebastian shaw looks nothing like Hayden Christensen).

So... we'd watch 6 hours of young Obi's adventures with some guy who ultimately doesn't matter, never meet anyone named Skywalker,and then when he talks to Luke in "Star Wars" he'll refer to his good buddy Skywalker that we've never heard of.  Then in "Empire" we learn Vader is Luke's father.

 My first thought would be 'WOW! Unnamed guy with the eye-scar was really Luke's father!" not "Wow, Luke's father had the exact same character arc as eye-scar guy but is totally unrelated and so unimportant as not to be featured in the last three movies."

vaderios said:

That would be cool to have vader half transformed in ROTS:

Ignore the lighting :P

-Angel

What is that image from???