Quote from Mr Phatt:
Times have changed, and film makers cannot get away with that kind of story telling anymore, and while I have unlimited affection for the original series, thats the unfortunate reality.
You've jumbled several separate notions, and confuse story with medium, while promoting a video-arcade level of amusement.
Scenery and backdrop are for context, they aren't the storytelling. For GR's purposes, virtually every TOS story could readily transpose into a wild frontier "cowboys and indians" setting, with sweaty horses and smoking six-shooters instead of beaming and phasers.
The job of marketeers is to convince the consumer that every sweet apple is better when it's "enhanced" by the latest and greatest in colorful candy. After you've developed an appetite for processed sugar, the original fruit doesn't gratify. This is all the more true for viewers who are weaned on the superficial additives. Eventually, even a poison can become essential to what feels "right" for the fashionable addict.
Once upon a time, there were only ink-on-paper novels by "real" authors. Fans had to be literate, and they were compelled to actually use their mind's eye. TOS champions that standard among TV series.
Today, attention-deficit herds will reward the box-office for "modern" saccharin, in return for an optically triggered brain-chemistry "high", in under two hours, without thought enough to learn the spelling of SFX.
That is the unfortunate reality of a commercialized "New and Improved!" jingle culture.
--------
Star Trek: Romulans - Hollow Crown #1 (of 2)
Well I've been a fan of the original series from the beginning and I for one am glad that they have repackaged it.
Also I can certainly say that I don't have an attention deficit disorder simply because I enjoy the Original Series even more now because they upgraded the special effects. I can now become even more involved with the story without being yanked out of it by horrendous special effects. There was nothing more jarring than watching Tomorrow is Yesterday and watching a special effects sequence where the Enterprise is supposedly undergoing a sling shot manoeuvre around the sun and all we get to see are some atrocious shots of it wobbling around in space.
We don't live in the 1960's anymore. Times have changed, and film makers cannot get away with that kind of story telling anymore, and while I have unlimited affection for the original series, thats the unfortunate reality.
I think it takes a forward thinking individual to recognise that Star Trek does need a new wrapper. Star Trek is all about being forward thinking, its about evolving, and Star Trek needs to evolve if it is going to survive, and it can only do that if it appeals to a new generation. The current generation of fans won't live forever, and when they go so will Star Trek if they are its only audience.
I would love to see those classic and iconic characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy continue to entertain a new generation of people, and I see this new movie as neccessary in order to achieve that.
Quote from Hober Mallow:
As to Collins's remarks representing a larger issue, no one's who has made that assertion has proven his point.
The irony is that, like Collins, you too buy into the larger issue. And you don't recognize this, thus you also affirm the "Can't see the forest for the trees" idiom.
Few people would be so (obviously) closed-minded as to admit they judge books by their covers -- but that's precisely what's happening when a person won't watch classic sci-fi (such as TOS) because of its retro window-dressing.
An attention-deficit audience refuses to engage the story, simply because of the wrapper it comes in.
--------
Archives TPB Vol. 1 - Best Of Peter David
I've was watching the adventures of the original NCC-1701 long before there was a bloody A, B, C, or D. To me, there is only one Star Trek. It's not the TOS or "The Original Series," it's just called Star Trek. I would be perfectly happy if all future Trek totally ignored all the spinoffs.
That said... the original Star Trek *is* cheesy-looking. As a long-time fan, I can totally understand Collin's reaction. That cheese factor 10 is what's killing Star Trek, keeping the modern audience from seeing what ST is really all about and appreciating it. That's why ST needs an update, to keep it relevent so the true message of ST resonates with a new audience.
Will the new movie suck? It could very well. I'd personally prefer a story by a real SF author.
As to Collins's remarks representing a larger issue, no one's who has made that assertion has proven his point. When one makes an assertion, the burden of proof is entirely upon that person.
--------
"It's fiction. It's not supposed to make sense." --a Trekweb poster defending Brannon Braga's scripts
Quote from Mr Phatt:
It's really inconsequential if Collins doesn't like Star Trek and finds it cheesy.
As noted here, several times by several posters: Collins' remarks represent a LARGER ISSUE about audiences in general.
The heart of the matter is presented in this thread, for anyone who's able to comprehend the words.
--------
Star Trek: Romulans - Hollow Crown #1 (of 2)
Arrgghhh!!!
I can't stand this anymore!! I have stayed silent for too long and after having read all of this i've had to say something.
rassmguy and cdydatzigs are about the only two people in this thread that have had sensible and balanced things to say.
TRexx you have proven yourself to be an extremely unbalanced individual on this topic. There is no need to attack Steve personally by means of derogatory comments. And please don't mention that he attacked you first because he stated: "This is probably the single-most predictable reaction to this kind of interview you can find on a Star Trek news web site."
This comment is observation and not an attack. If anything it accurately descibes the unbalanced nature of many fans.
It's really inconsequential if Collins doesn't like Star Trek and finds it cheesy. WHO CARES!! The success of this movie is not going to ride on whether he likes it or not. I love the original Star Trek and I don't care if he doesn't. I also don't care if other fans don't like it . Big bloody whoop!! It's just a damn TV show!
He is just an actor who was hired to do a job. As rassmguy said, Alec Guinness hated scifi and was less than stellar about the idea of working on Star Wars but I'm still glad he was a part of it, because he did a terrific job.
Please try not to be so damning of those who are under no obligation to like the things that you do.
Quote from cdydatzigs:
You couldn't be any more right.
You couldn't be more oblivious to an issue that applies to TV and movies in general, due to the audience of "eye candy" junkies.
You're barely conscious enough to dribble more stupor into your keyboard.
--------
Star Trek Assignment Earth #3
Quote:
Bingo. Those getting offended by his comments might want to recall Shatner's classic SNL sketch.
You couldn't be any more right. In fact I believe Jon Lovitz played Trexx in that sketch.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
Quote from cdydatzigs:
Last time I checked...
Once again, there's nothing in your response that addresses anything I've posted here. You're completely disjointed from the topic at hand, as usual, likely because of severe comprehension problems.
As others here have recognized, Collins both makes and illustrates the point of discussion.
Meanwhile, you're posting entirely irrelevant dialog from the voices in your head.
--------
Michael Giacchino's Award-winning Ratatouille O.S.T
What I found curious in his comments was he was unwilling or unable to look beyond the so called "cheese" and see underneath--see and understand what TOS is really all about. Does that denote his lack of patience and understanding? His shallowness? Is he a person who judges things based only on how they look? Or, is it simply not his cup of tea? Don't know. Since it could mean all or some of the above, I'm glad he is just a minor actor in the movie and has little to do with major decision making regarding the film, which is a great thing. I would want an artist making this movie who has the ability to use his inner eye, and can look beyond the superficial, and not make judgments based on how something looks.
-
Quote from the quickening:
What I found curious in his comments was he was unwilling or unable to look beyond the so called "cheese" and see underneath--see and understand what TOS is really all about.
Right, Collins says he sees "corny" instead of "cool" in TOS. This tells us that Collins doesn't relate to the "serious" factors which birthed and fueled a pop-cult phenomenon, and which are subjects of university study in sociology and theology: TOS' timeless and pan-cultural storytelling.
So, was Collins' mind closed by his own (misguided) expectation of seeing "cool" 2008 SFX in a poorly funded 1960s series that Gene Roddenberry created to tell tales of the human condition?
This would qualify Collins as an attention-deficit audience.
--------
TOS Communicator Replica
-
"Right, Collins says he sees "corny" instead of "cool" in TOS. This tells us that Collins doesn't relate to the "serious" factors which birthed and fueled a pop-cult phenomenon, and which are subjects of university study in sociology and theology: TOS' timeless and pan-cultural storytelling. So, was Collins' mind closed by his own (misguided) expectation of seeing "cool" 2008 SFX in a poorly funded 1960s series that Gene Roddenberry created to tell tales of the human condition? This would qualify Collins as an attention-deficit audience."
Perhaps...but, ultimately, why does any of that matter? (And I'm not attacking you, just to be clear--I'm asking in order to hear your opinion on the subject.) Having a grasp of pop-cult phenomena isn't required to act a role. However the role is written, that's how he'll play it. Understanding cult phenomena, and recognizing Roddenberry's desire to tell tales of the human condition, aren't necessary for acting. So you may be right about his lack of depth as a judge of fine storytelling, I don't know--but for me, I don't see how it will affect how he approaches the role. If the role is well written, and if he's good at it, then he'll shine in the film, even if deep down, he thinks The Fast and the Furious Part 3 was the epitome of Hollywood brilliance, and even if he thinks Star Trek fans all live in their parents' basements, weigh 500 pounds and never have sex with anything but their own tube socks. I'm sure many people who have appeared on Star Trek were no different, and many of them shined in their roles as well. In the end, all I care about is one simple thing: Is the film well-written and well-acted? If so, I'll be happy.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
"What I found curious in his comments was he was unwilling or unable to look beyond the so called "cheese" and see underneath--see and understand what TOS is really all about. Does that denote his lack of patience and understanding? His shallowness? Is he a person who judges things based only on how they look? Or, is it simply not his cup of tea? Don't know. Since it could mean all or some of the above, I'm glad he is just a minor actor in the movie and has little to do with major decision making regarding the film, which is a great thing. I would want an artist making this movie who has the ability to use his inner eye, and can look beyond the superficial, and not make judgments based on how something looks."
I'd say, with all due respect, that that's an over-analysis of the situation. He doesn't like the show. A lot of people don't. Why does it matter? It shouldn't have any bearing on his performance. Half the cast of TNG and DS9 members weren't fans of the original series either. Acting and fandom are completely separate animals.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
He might be talking about the production design for all we know. I can tell you that when a non-fan who is unfamiliar with the franchise comes over to my apartment (my own roommate included) and sees me watching TOS, they always chuckle. In 2008, that show is not very realistic in appearance. It just isn't! We give the show a free pass because we have a fondness for it, but let's be perfectly frank here: TOS isn't exactly 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clifton Collins was just saying what 95% of the non-fan audience would think if they saw TOS for the first time.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
"He might be talking about the production design for all we know. I can tell you that when a non-fan who is unfamiliar with the franchise comes over to my apartment (my own roommate included) and sees me watching TOS, they always chuckle. In 2008, that show is not very realistic in appearance. It just isn't! We give the show a free pass because we have a fondness for it, but let's be perfectly frank here: TOS isn't exactly 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clifton Collins was just saying what 95% of the non-fan audience would think if they saw TOS for the first time."
Bingo. Those getting offended by his comments might want to recall Shatner's classic SNL sketch.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
Quote:
Collins' remarks raise an issue that applies to ANYONE who says classic sci-fi such as TOS is unwatchable and that something newer is the real deal. You speak on behalf of an attention-deficit audience that'll "outgrow" sci-fi material you've never even seen, particularly if it's "old."
Actually, I never said I agreed with the guy. I have been DVR'ing all of the remastered TOS episodes every Sunday night because I very much enjoy TOS. So you are wrong.
If you actually READ what I said (rather than trying to find yet another reason to use 'non-sequitor' in a sentence), you would have noticed that I was simply defending the actor for giving a candid response. If you actually knew a thing about the entertainment industry, you would know that as an actor you are unemployed more often than you are working. Last time I checked, there was no requirement by the studio that you had to be a fan of Star Trek in order to work within its franchise. Wake up idiot.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
More than having a point, Collins illustrates a point.
People tend to regard the entertainment of their generation with an unintentional haughtiness. We sneer at the shows and movies of decades past, dismissing them as being "cheesy and antiquated." We see our productions and fads as being superior to all those that have come before it. Better effects, better writing, etc.
It's a shortsighted and unthinking attitude, really. For everything that is highly regarded today as entertainment and top of the drawer will eventually look "cheesy and antiquated" to future generations. This includes Abrams "new, improved, and reinvented" Trek XI.
No doubt, fifty years from now, when Paramount is looking to reinvent Abrams' Trek, at least one of the actors hired to replace Pine, Quinto, Collins, et al, will say, "Trek XI? Sure, I tried to watch it. Couldn't do it, though...too cheesy."
History does only one thing...it repeats itself. Like television reruns.
Hey, at least he's honest about how he feels about the old Trek!
--------
Quote from cdydatzigs:
This is probably the single-most predictable reaction to this kind of interview you can find on a Star Trek news web site.
Again and again, you're unable to process what's actually posted here -- so your response is another non-sequitur monologue from a little yellow script of soundbites in your head.
Collins' remarks raise an issue that applies to ANYONE who says classic sci-fi such as TOS is unwatchable and that something newer is the "real deal."
You speak on behalf of an attention-deficit audience that'll "outgrow" sci-fi material you've never even seen, particularly if it's "old."
You're the prized possession of a commercialized "New and Improved!" jingle culture that does not encourage its consumers to think.
--------
Mission: Impossible - S4 starring Leonard Nimoy
Quote:
With all due respect, Mr. Collins, if you can't get your head around TOS then you don't understand Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek -- which means you wouldn't know the "real deal" even if it beamed directly into your living room. The perception problem is yours, sir.
This is probably the single-most predictable reaction to this kind of interview you can find on a Star Trek news web site. I know it is difficult for the diehard fan to think objectively and NOT sink their talons into a non-fan's forehead over honest comments such as his, but please remember:
(1) Acting in a Star Trek production is a JOB. It is an occupation from which these people make a living. Just because you are a fan and would leave a wet spot as soon as you were fitted for a uniform, doesn't mean that everyone who works there is going to.
(2) We have a fondness for the 1960's "quaintness" that TOS had because we are fans of the franchise. He is not, and there is nothing wrong with that!
I mean jeez, some of you should have betting lines at Las Vegas in terms of what your recations to these interviews are gonna be! Myself and Shatner included :)
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
I would have been dissappointed if comments did not invoke such replies. Afterall, us Trekkies have a reputation to uphold, right? :)
I agree Steve, he is right about the cheesiness. That's what makes it so timeless, IMO. I don't find it a knock on Star Trek persay. A lot of TV shows made during that time were also cheesy. It was indeed the times. Well, I think TNG also borderlined on cheesy at times. I appreciate his honesty.
--------
"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
-- John Wayne
"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
--Dr. Leonard McCoy
"I'm a politician, which means I am a cheat and a liar, and when I am not kissing babies I am stealing their lollipops."
-- Jeffrey Pelt, The Hunt for Red October
"Liberals, Intellectuals, Peacemongers, IDIOTS!!!!"
- General Decker, Mars Attacks
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
- Q from Q Who
-
Quote:
I would have been dissappointed if comments did not invoke such replies. Afterall, us Trekkies have a reputation to uphold, right? :)
I agree Steve, he is right about the cheesiness. That's what makes it so timeless, IMO. I don't find it a knock on Star Trek persay. A lot of TV shows made during that time were also cheesy. It was indeed the times. Well, I think TNG also borderlined on cheesy at times. I appreciate his honesty.
Yet, it's not as cheesy as the sci-fi that was pumped out in the 70s and 80s. lol Star Trek isn't cheesy - it's the big cheese! : )
But yeah, everyone doesn't like TOS because it's not everyone's cup of tea. That's nothing new. It's not like Christopher Plummer is having all-night TOS marathons at his house....is he?
--------
There once was a man named Scorned,
whose posts were more offensive than porn.
He posted one too many,
got kicked out on his fanny,
and all the while he had been warned.
-
True. However, I consider that timeframe of scifi more in the processed/immitation cheese variety. It was was simply fake. I would say the original BSG was borderline real cheese but went fake with BSG1980. Buck Rogers was definitely immitation cheese. I do like Cheese Wiz but I am not sure if that is a separate category or not.
I put TOS in the aged USDA Grade AAA chedder (or whatever your favorite cheese is).
PHHHHHH! Sorry, I cut the cheese. Sorry, me bad!
--------
"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
-- John Wayne
"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
--Dr. Leonard McCoy
"I'm a politician, which means I am a cheat and a liar, and when I am not kissing babies I am stealing their lollipops."
-- Jeffrey Pelt, The Hunt for Red October
"Liberals, Intellectuals, Peacemongers, IDIOTS!!!!"
- General Decker, Mars Attacks
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
- Q from Q Who
But he's kind of right. The show was made in the 60's and it's cheesy sets, cheap special effects, greasy makeup and corny music do make it less than palatable to today's audience. We've gotten so accustomed to today's slickly polished and hip sci fi shows that modern audiences have forgotten what REAL science fiction has the potential to be.
With Star Trek, to me, it's not about the window dressing...it's about what's in the house. Hopefully, the new film will take the spirit of what makes Star Trek so great, wrap it in a shiny new wrapper, and introduce it to people who never gave it a chance before. Perhaps then they'll look back at the original and say, "Hey, maybe this wasn't so bad after all..."
This story needs a spoiler alert:
"Ignoramus who does not appreciate TOS gets role as Romulan.There must be more enthusiastic actors available".
Heck, they could have given me the bit part. I would atleast bring some gusto and respect to it and treat it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Quote from Clifton Collins:
"I tried to watch some of the old 'Star Treks' and with all due respect, they were probably cool at the time, but I couldn't watch them."
With all due respect, Mr. Collins, if you can't get your head around TOS then you don't understand Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek -- which means you wouldn't know the "real deal" even if it beamed directly into your living room (which TOS continues to do, via worldwide TV reruns).
A constant and indiscriminate craving for something "new but realistic" is what Paramount feeds by giving TOS a CGI facelift. Ditto for the colorization of some classic black-and-white films.
The perception problem is yours, sir.
--------
Mission: Impossible - Season 5 with Leonard Nimoy
-
There's nothing wrong with Collins saying he doesn't like the '60s series. That has nothing to do with whether or not he's right for the part--if they only hired Star Trek fans to play roles in Star Trek, a ton of people who have turned in fine performances over the years would never have gotten the jobs. The only thing that matters is if he turns in a fine performance--if he does, then who cares how he feels about the original series? You might as well say Alec Guinness shouldn't have been allowed to play Obi-Wan Kenobi, given that he despised sci-fi, hated working on Star Wars and had no use for geeky fans who approached him for autographs--but just imagine how unfortunate it would have been if he HADN'T played the role. The same could end up being true for Collins--if he's great in the role they've written for him, then nothing else matters since his real-world opinions aren't part of the movie. He's an actor, and as an actor, he acts. It's easy for fans to get all high and mighty because someone dared to disrespect something they've spent probably too much of their life obsessing over--and I fully expected that to happen here, as I'm sure it'll happen on other forums--but the reality check is that actors don't need to be fans of a show or a genre to act in them. They just need to be good actors.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
While I agree that TOS often seems corny and dated now, anyone that think s Star Trek should be about "bad dudes" just doesn't get it, in my opinion. However, Leonard Nimoy is notoriously picky about scripts and is certainly not just doing this movie for the money, so I trust him to choose a project that maintains the Trek spirit, at least on paper.
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
(1)
| 
