How many movies of all types have we watched where all of a sudden there is a GRATUITOUS sex scene which seemed so out of place?
The reason being is that the stars contract states that he will get laid.
If that's all that's behind this ST sex, then leave it on the cutting room floor.
Take Terminator 1. A sex scene yes, but it produces John Connor so it's appropriate.
Keep it classy!
Yes, Star Trek had some sexual inuendo. But it was written above kids heads. It told two stories to two different audiences and kids were one of those audiences. It is those kids who who made Star Trek what it is today.
Teenagers and young adults will go see this movie, but they will not be the ones who support the franchise. It will be the kids, who in 20 years will plunk down $100 for what ever garbage crap Paramount licensees sell and wait in line to see Trek XXV.
But I am not taking my kid to see some bimbo, take her shirt off just for the sake of showing her bra or or tolerate a gratuitus sex scene in what should be a a family movie. And many parents may do the same. Bottom line, you then hurt the long term future of the franchise by not pulling in the kids.
Is Kirk a horn-dog? Yes. That is who he is. It has been well documented in many jokes. But it was subtle. Not "sexed-up" and so visual on the show where you had to think about not letting your kids see it.
Why has Star Wars survived? Even with crap stories? Because it is written for kids.
-
Because nothing on TV or in movies contains depictions of physical intimacy in any degree, and kids these days know nothing of these bizarre physical acts.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
I'm really glad you have a kid and all, but I think it's really presumptuous of you to think that your decision to procreate means Star Trek can't be edgy. If you make Star Trek for kids, only kids will want to see it. Which means they won't plunk down money when they're adults "twenty years" from now. Which is why this Star Trek isn't necessarily for small kids. "The show" you're holding up as the standard aired from 1966-69, and it was always treading on thin ice with the censors even back then. If this movie's sex comes across as gratuitous, that's another matter, but I think it's a little naive to insist a movie competing in 2009 conform to the standards of the nineteen sixties. Find a babysitter and take a date. Star Trek is not JUST for kids.
-
Being on thin ice is not the same as stepping OVER the line.
And instead of being an ignorant jacka$$, read the whole post. I said it catered to BOTH audiances, but it is the kids who keep the franchise afloat, not teens or slightly older. Remember the Back Street Boys? That age group really kept that franchise afloat. Jerk.
This movie will die a quick death.
-
you still haven't addressed who the blatant sex-appeal in TOS was catered towards
also, considering the level of TOS sex-appeal during the time-period when it aird, I think this movie will be more 'cheeky' than blatant in comparison
-
First of all, thank you for making crystal clear who's the real ignorant jackass jerk. With a mouth like that you won't have to worry about the movies corrupting your kid.
I read your whole lame post and gave my reasoned response. Do me the same courtesy.
Your argument is flawed. I understand in a young parent's mind the world must be constructed around their offspring, but frankly I don't care if your kid sees this movie or not. That'll be your call. Either way the fact remains, adults don't want their entertainment dumbed down to the level of a child and Star Trek isn't a kid's show. Sex has always been a part of Trek, never more gratuitously than in TOS. So insofaras it inspired kids like me back in the day, the next evolution will inspire kids today. What line are you talking about crossing?? You haven't seen the movie! Talk about ignorant. There's no reason why anyone would think this movie is less kid friendly than recent Star Trek movies, or TOS was in context of the culture of the 1960's. That is unless you're just one more chicken little wringing your hands over nothing because you can't help yourself.
-
First off, this statement made by Pine has been blown way out of proportion.
This movie is meant to be a 'reinvigoration' of Star Trek and the sex appeal is one of the many facets of trek that the creative team is balancing to create this movie, as stated in many interviews. Whether or not they pull this off is yet to be seen, and a single shot from a trailer that is meant to get a GENERAL AUDIENCE excited for the film doesn't mean it's porn-trek.
Secondly, there is no way you can argue that the writers of previous iterations of trek wrote the sex-appeal to be 'above the heads of children'. Yes...some of it was more so innuendo, but you can't ignore the COUNTLESS scantily clad women from all iterations. In TOS most of them would dance in a what would be considered at the time to be leud. Remember when TOS was made...based on that I would consider it to be the most baudy of all iterations of trek. Save for the decontamination scene in ENT.
As we have now learned, the context of the scene is meant to be comedic, in a wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time kind of way, and we probably don't see any real nudity anyways...the movie is pg-13 after all...
I for one am glad that they didn't forget that trek had it's fair share of sex-appeal
I don't know why people are getting so bent out of shape over it...it's a staple of the franchise, as much as the techno-babble is!
RIP ST
game over man ,,, game over
Not that I don't wince at his writing, but it might be informative nonetheless. In case anyone missed it by accident, I found this Harry Knowles essay on the Star Trek footage he's seen to date including the recent NY screening (and I have to say, unlike most other "journalists", he does a great job of skirting around spoilers and just describing his informed impressions):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607728@N05/3047221196
I know I am going to get it for this (don't care).
But how much of a "geek" do you have to be to WANT to see Uhura take off her shirt? Really!?
If you argue "it is not about seeing Uhura but rather about seeing a really hot chick... blah, blah, blah." then why don't you just save yourself some time and watch HQ pron? - LoL.
Also, I am sick of the immaturity of some posters on this board saying to "Trek Purist" to "go get laid." The fact some of you are pro sex in the movie suggest YOU are the ones who need to go get 'um some.
Man... some things are sad... others are just funny.
--------
-
Quote:
But how much of a "geek" do you have to be to WANT to see Uhura take off her shirt?
It's not so much about wanting to see Uhura take her top off. It's more that, despite what some fanboys are making it out to be, it's hardly a bad (or new, for that matter) thing for a beautiful woman to be showing some skin. If you listen to the way some of the people are reacting to it, you'd think they seriously believe that girls truly do have cooties or something.
--------
"Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk
Absolutely! Go rent the movie Haven. She's a dirty girl :) LOL Can't wait for May 09'!
--------
"Humor, it is a difficult concept..."
Yeah. But it was thoroughly dorky and about as sexy as Mike and Carol Brady's pillow-talk.
--------
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
only hollow rhythms resounded from within.
-
Dude...I did not need that mental image.
--------
Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
-John Mellencamp
Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law
Great. Star Trek's always been entirely too prudish. Oh sure, they've titilated with catsuits and other various bits of cheesecake and fetishizing, but they've rarely been willing to just come out and be sexual; and sexuality is a major component--whether the under-sexed prudes on this board admit it or not--of the human condition (something Star Trek claims to examine).
Further, anytime Star Trek has tried to be sexy, it's been adolescent and cringe-worthy. Never sexy. Never hot. Plus, the men have never been nearly as attractive as the women, something that is now, with Chris Pine, no longer the case.
And to any Trek fan reacting to Pine's words with even the slightest level of outrage...put down your Star Trek encyclopedia, take a break from working out how Kor, Koloth and Kang got their ridges back, and go get laid. Star Trek doesn't--and never should have--belong(ed) to you. The kingdom of the dorks stole Star Trek...and Abrams, Pine, Quinto etc are taking it away from you and giving it back to the mainstream where it belongs.
--------
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
only hollow rhythms resounded from within.
-
Quote:
Great. Star Trek's always been entirely too prudish. Oh sure, they've titilated with catsuits and other various bits of cheesecake and fetishizing, but they've rarely been willing to just come out and be sexual; and sexuality is a major component--whether the under-sexed prudes on this board admit it or not--of the human condition (something Star Trek claims to examine).
Further, anytime Star Trek has tried to be sexy, it's been adolescent and cringe-worthy. Never sexy. Never hot. Plus, the men have never been nearly as attractive as the women, something that is now, with Chris Pine, no longer the case.
And to any Trek fan reacting to Pine's words with even the slightest level of outrage...put down your Star Trek encyclopedia, take a break from working out how Kor, Koloth and Kang got their ridges back, and go get laid. Star Trek doesn't--and never should have--belong(ed) to you. The kingdom of the dorks stole Star Trek...and Abrams, Pine, Quinto etc are taking it away from you and giving it back to the mainstream where it belongs.
It was sexy in the 60's, but you wouldn't know that since TOS wasn't made by RDM, so you don't like it.
-
I've yet to see anything in the trailer that suggests anything substantially (if at all) more provocative than standard TOS episodes featuring the Amorous Captain Kirk and The Revolving Troupe Of Scarcely Clad Women.
This is nowhere near "obscene", or, for that matter, anything unlike what is found in many extremely popular movies and television programs. In other words, if it's a problem it's not showing up in the rest of pop culture's fortunes.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
Quote:
Great. Star Trek's always been entirely too prudish.
and sexuality is a major component--whether the under-sexed prudes on this board admit it or not--of the human condition (something Star Trek claims to examine).
After 21 years of marriage and 5 kids, I hardly consider myself an "under-sexed prude," but I'd rather be doing it with my wife than see other people do it on a screen. Are you one those voyeurs that like to watch?
One thing I always liked about Trek was that it was mostly a family-friendly show. Kirk would kiss a girl, fade to black, and the next scene showed him puuling on his boot. I'd rather that my young kids learn about sex with their own spouses and not get a faceful of cheap, shabby sex lessons from Hollywood in the guise of paid entertainment. For this reason, I'm not planning on taking my kids to see this "sexed up" Trek. After anticipating this flick for months, we are very disappointed. Clearly, our family is not the target demographic for this flick.
Sure, sexuality is perhaps the most important aspect of the human condition -- it's how we all got here. So why do you anti-reproductive left-wingers always lecture us family types about our alleged "prudishness"?
--------
GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!.... You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME! -- William Shatner on Saturday Night Live (1986)
-
LOL
There are a lot of "under-sexed prudes" on this board, that's true. Why is that, I wonder?
--------
"If there was nothing wrong in the world there wouldn't be anything for us to do." -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Jadzia Dax (and pretty much the rest of the DS9 crew), along with Jim Kirk and Will Riker were about the only ones to shed that prudishness among the regular characters.
mmm...Dax...
--------
Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
-John Mellencamp
Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law
...."eyes glazing over..."
Mourners weep over the dream that once was...a utopian vision of peace and hope and justice in the land.
RIP my friend ....Star Trek.
:-(
--------
.."Tis a thirst....a flower... dying in the desert....
"Stop, No!, Do not order me!"
"I choose where I want to go, what I want to do... I CHOOSE!"
-
Funny how you people never seem to remember how TOS actually WAS. It NEVER paraded women as objects er nuthin'
God. for all the wonderful things it offered people like you just gloss over stuff like that and when Abrams actually copies some of that and tries to make it just a bit more adult HE'S the fucking heretic and as though you never watched the damn show in the first place.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
-
Yes, but do you believe he Abrams has overstepped the bounds at least somewhat of decency?
Is this going to be an R rated or NC-17 Trek???
it bodes ill for the heart of a series that at least TRIED to make a statement and a difference in the world,
whether it was Kirk in his sincere delivery of the words of the "eeb-plab-neesta", in TOS Or Picard telling Q .."how noble...how great a person's value is to that pompous immortal!
This thing is neither, and I do not like how the Enterprise has been veered of course by the Kelvin Andromidian named Abrams...
--------
.."Tis a thirst....a flower... dying in the desert....
"Stop, No!, Do not order me!"
"I choose where I want to go, what I want to do... I CHOOSE!"
-
Quote:
Yes, but do you believe he Abrams has overstepped the bounds at least somewhat of decency?
No. Because all I've seen so far:
Is a woman in her bra. I can point to a host of TOS episode where the women therein are wearing that much.
Is a man draping accross a woman in what looks like a bikini-type outfit while preparing (presumably) to have sex. I've seen essentially the same thing in TOS.
So, so far I've seen far more of the feminine form when T'Pol bared her ass in ENT ("Real" Trek to you, btw. Another Hmmm moment?) than I have in the new movie.
Where you're getting R or NC-17? From your paranoid little mind.
And since you have seen at least as intense displays of sexuality (or worse) in Trek up to this point and not one bit of the ACTUAL story, I say again, "Get back on your meds."
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
-
Amy...
--------
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
only hollow rhythms resounded from within.
-
Alright then....it is just like when Spock was put on FULL LIFE SUPPORT...when the I-Morg removed his brain then!
:-)
--------
.."Tis a thirst....a flower... dying in the desert....
"Stop, No!, Do not order me!"
"I choose where I want to go, what I want to do... I CHOOSE!"
-
--------
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
only hollow rhythms resounded from within.
*Blank Stare*
Did he really just say that?
--------
I don't see how seeing Zoe Saldana or the character Uhura half naked is a problem :) Doesn't violate canon in the least :) Yum!
--------
"Humor, it is a difficult concept..."
oops. Double post
--------
"Humor, it is a difficult concept..."
Let's get one thing clear all you Star Trek Fans.....
When the TOS movies were being made, Gene Roddenberry WAS STILL ALIVE !!! Any directors who were not fans (Nick Meyer, Robert Wise, etc.) had him there guiding / steering the projects (movies and subsequent series - TNG) along. With his passing, Star Trek as a whole became open season and everyone (such as Berman & Braga, etc.) wanted to put in their half cents worth and tried to re-do Trek in some form or other...Witness how things have gone downhill since....
I have been involved with Star Trek in some form or other since the beginning and this new movie, frankly, worries me...
Just looking at the trailer gives me a LOOOOOOOONG PAUSE -- for one, the Enterprise built on Earth ??!?!?! We all know it was built in space. The bridge looks too Neon-y (too much Las Vegas influence -- did the SET designer spend a week-end there to get inspired ?!!?!??), Uhura getting undressed...(pandering to pubescent males to attract them to see the movie???!!) what in the seven levels of the different multiverses are they trying to do???!?? GREAT MAKER !!!!
If this is a re-booting, then say so, don't go around saying you are a fan, then you are not a fan (you hear this, JJ ??) and make things look different....Look at what happened to DS-9,Voyager,and especially Enterprise -- all the attempts to make it "different", "fresh" "new" and not sticking to cannon (let me remind y'all about the Xindi story line on ENT. and what it did to the series...cancelled after four seasons (bad ratings)--new headwriter Manny Coto brought in to "fix" things...but by then the damage was allowed to go on too long and it got cancelled - just when it looked like it was FINALLY getting back on the right track....) Remember there are FORTY (40) years of established cannon -- you CANNOT IGNORE THAT FACT. AND having been intimately involved with Star Trek for the past 11 years, I can vouch for the passion and scrutiny that the real true fans have for Star Trek...THey will tear every detail apart...AND it is the fans from waaaay back that are going to get behind you or not. THIS IS NOT STAR WARS - DONT MAKE IT LOOK LIKE STAR WARS....
It just royally pisses me off to have some suppossed hot shot try to (so - called) re-envision (or call it "re-imagining") something so established. JJ, your track record is not perfect..
Mission Impossible 3 was NOT that big of a success...you are not perfect, all-knowing,and infallible.. SO THERE !!!! ANd as a final note, I am, quite frankly getting real sick & tired of the manipulative process (from Paramount) going on whereby there is all this secrecy and confidentiality crap going on and then, little morsels are tossed from the table to the salivating fans and the hype surrounding this whole thing....ENOUGH ALREADY !!!!!! Fans, WAKE UP !!! As Gene Roddenberry said at one convention, "Paramount considers you nothing more that open wallets." As a small example --at the now closed Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas, a simple T-shirt worth two or three dollars would be sold for sixteen bucks -- and many were fool enough to pay that amount-- just because it had something Star Trek printed on it...Oh, and the ticket price --$!0.00 when they opened and it zoomed up to $49.95 by the time they closed -- and they said it was an 'all day pass' (for two shows) - you could repeat and re-ride as many times as you wanted - and BTW, toward the end, they looked like they were running a skeleton staff on the ride/shows...all that money for half-staffed shows (I saw the same actors doing all the different roles) --in the beginning, there seemed to be hundreds of Starfleet officers running around the sets -- it looked real -- in the end there seemed to be only six or seven actors doing ALL the roles -- and I paid FULL PRIce for a half staffed show !!!! What a rip-off !!!I wonder how many people realized they were being fleeced?? The powers that be really couldn't care less about the integrity of the "franchise" or "the brand" (that's what it is called, folks!!! -- believe me, I DO Know - I was on the inside...) or Gene's Vision of the Future. It's all about the money, people, and how much they can make you part with your hard earned dough...STOP LETTING YOURSELVES BE MANIPULATED !!!!
SO, there !! my rant on this whole thing...consider it a reallity check, everyone....
-
I love the irony involved in your cutting and pasting of the exact same response you posted yesterday in another thread. How deliciously symbolic of the stubborn, mindless, repetitive, attention-seeking whining of the resident IN-ALL-CAPS hysterics who are having the vapours over a movie that they've only just seen a trailer for.
Your copied-and-pasted rant was definitely a "reality check", but almost certainly not in the manner that you intended.
IMHO,
-The Doctor
--------
"That green-blooded Son of a Bitch... It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost to me!"
- Bones
-
"I have been involved with Star Trek in some form or other since the beginning and this new movie, frankly, worries me..."
Mmmm, how were you involved? By implying you were "involved" you indicate that you worked for Star trek in some fashion. What would an actual Star Trek employee be doing on this site? Hopefully you mean you were a fan since the beginning, which makes you well over 50, otherwise you could not have seen Trek "since the beginning"
If you were involved with it at 50, you were 12, so it's probably unlikely, unless you were a child star in it. That is also unlikely.
If you wrote for Star Trek, perhaps TNG. You would also have had only connections to the writing staff, not with production.
Typing in all caps tips me off that also you are trying to shout to make a point, but to what end?
Reality check? Ha.
Take your Retalin this morning?
I don't think any of the bloggers here can claim they really were "involved" with Star Trek, as though writing or in production on it.
That is, except for some that actually were.
And yes, this movie does look cheesy but I'll see it anyway.
And thne first seasons of TNG were all about sex appeal, "Justice", "Haven", "Second Chances", "Reunion", and DS9 explored it too, Risa episodes, Dax in suggestive episodes, Quark was horny, Kira was horny for odo, and Enterprise too much Trip and T'pol, but not so much Voyager.
It's ironic that a Star Trek fan would argue that there shouldn't be sexy Star Trek. roddenberry had the girls in miniskirts and go go boots, which for the time were highly provocative. He even married that Majel Barrett (Mrs. Roddenberry) nurse actress on the show.
I grew up on TNG and wrote spec scripts for Deep Space Nine and Voyager, snd I never claimed to be "involved". I only would have said that had they hired me.
-
See my response to prometheus 59650 ......
And yes, I cut and pasted to save time....
And no, I do not take drugs.....I am not dependent on them unlike a vast majority of people who have become so dependent on meds for everything...
again, see my response to prometheus 59650 I do touch on the drugs/medication issue.....
Finally, yes, its just a TV show/movie..but some people are just getting so overboard with this whole thing....the secrecy, non-disclosure documents that had to be signed by all cast and crew, the speculation about who, what, where, and so on....
So typical - very symptomatic of being manipulated.....
Let's just wait for the movie's release, okay ???
-
Paragraphs are your friends.
Quote:
When the TOS movies were being made, Gene Roddenberry WAS STILL ALIVE !!! Any directors who were not fans (Nick Meyer, Robert Wise, etc.) had him there guiding / steering the projects (movies and subsequent series - TNG) along.
Nice fantasy, but completely divorced from reality. GR despised TWOK. He offered notes on each film as "Executive Consultant" but those notes were almost entirely ignored. Harve Bennett ran the film franchise. Period.
Quote:
one, the Enterprise built on Earth ??!?!?! We all know it was built in space.
Where does it say that it was built in space? In space, maneuvering parts, work bees, supply pallets, etc is a pain. Tools get lost. Wasted energy and material and time transporting parts from the surface to space, etc. Even GR conjectured that it was only assembled in space.
Besides, when you're dealing with a species (Humans) that, by this time, have conquered gravity it doesn't matter where you build.
Quote:
The bridge looks too Neon-y (too much Las Vegas influence -
I'm sorry, there's no neon on that bridge. No vegas influence. If you'd have ever stood on The Strip to know you'd never have typed such a thing.
Quote:
Uhura getting undressed...(pandering to pubescent males to attract them to see the movie???!!)
Yes. Because TOS has NEVER pandered to males.
Quote:
(let me remind y'all about the Xindi story line on ENT. and what it did to the series...cancelled after four seasons (bad ratings)--
ROTFLMFAO. Yes. It was the Xindi that killed ENT. It wasn't the fact that the show's ratings were NEVER good.
Quote:
Remember there are FORTY (40) years of established cannon -- you CANNOT IGNORE THAT FACT.
Sure you can. In fact, 4 decades of slavish canon is what has been strangling the franchise.
Quote:
Mission Impossible 3 was NOT that big of a success...you are not perfect, all-knowing,and infallible..
$400 world gross on a $150 film...not counting revenue from DVD sales. Certainly seems successful to me.
Quote:
As Gene Roddenberry said at one convention, "Paramount considers you nothing more that open wallets."
Hahahahaha. Yes. Because to Gene Trek was NEVER about making money.
Quote:
As a small example --at the now closed Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas, a simple T-shirt worth two or three dollars would be sold for sixteen bucks -- and many were fool enough to pay that amount-- just because it had something Star Trek printed on it...
Cedar Point or Six Flags T-shirts? Mall of America mugs? Disneyland "Mickey" ears? The differece is....what, exactly? Ohhhhh...that's right. Trek is from jesus and GR was Moses. Trek is holy.
Quote:
in the beginning, there seemed to be hundreds of Starfleet officers running around the sets -- it looked real -- in the end there seemed to be only six or seven actors doing ALL the roles -- and I paid FULL PRIce for a half staffed show !!!!
1st off I've BEEN there. Those sets are SMALL. There's literally no ROOM for your delusional 'hundreds' to be milling around. 2nd? Yes. As revenue dwindles we really SHOULD spend the same on staffing.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
-
So ...you've been to The Experience. How many times?? (I've been there countless times...since it opened till it closed).
My girlfriend worked there. On many occassions employees were allowed to bring in friends & family for some functions after closing time - I got to go to areas the public did not see AND I got to see how the special effects worked (i.e. the transporter...).Yes, the place was not that big, but when they opened, there were enough cast membeers to make it feel like a real Starship with "hundreds" of crew members running around. When I said "intimately" I was diplomatically (and trying to be tastefully) refering to my connection to the place (my girlfriend) and the business. I was privy to most of the goings on behind the scenes.
Speaking of behind the scenes, I know one cast member who was there for the entire run of the place - very well educated, had lived in several countries, spoke, read and wrote three languages fluently, had a masters degree in theater arts, had worked in stage, film, television - was trained by the BBC (that's British Broadcasting, in case you didn't know) who was a Star Trek fan (knew quite a lot - fellow crew members used that employee as a walking reference source) and was NEVER offered a promotion, though this cast member could have been a very good management person. By the way, I did hear (from a VERY reliable source) that this cast member - in all the years of service to the company - got a grand total of $2.00 plus some loose change in raises (employees there got a yearly cost-of-living increase) -- that's total for ALL the raises received for ALL the years worked at The Experience.(Cost of living increase, indeed !!) Doesn't sound like the Company trully appreciated their employees,their skills, and their loyalty...Well, that's Corporate America for you -- sounds like slavery of sorts..
And, yes, I do live in Vegas and get to see all the neon -- everyday, in fact. ANd by the way, they used a lot of flourescent lighting in the sets at the Experience -- flourescent, neon...technically different, but same effect.
My use of capital letters is my way of emphasizing not shouting.
So all the theme parks DO overprice their merchandise ? And WE, the public are fool enough to let ourselves be gouged.
I wasn't born yesterday and I DO understand economics and economic considerations, but one cannot just look at ONLY numbers.
The main point of my original post was to get y'all to realize that we are letting ourselves get so manipulated by these Big Businesses. Example -- the Big Three Auto-makers want a bail-out yet they take a private jet to go to Washington to beg. These executives take home $28 million dollar salaries yet can't afford to give a loyal deserving employee a descent raise (remember - they called it a cost of living increase). And let me recall to you a news item from last year about an Oil Company Executive (I believe it was an Exxon CEO) who retired with a $480 MILLION retirement package. I doubt he will live long enough to spend all that money. Meanwhile, I'm sure, some of the empoyees near the bottom of the corporate ladder are about to (if not already) lose their homes. This situation is not just outrageous -- I consider that downright pornographic...
While we are on the subject of manipulation, watch any TV show and there is usually at least 5 adverts for drugs -- what does that tell us (directly and by implication)? We are a sick (as in unhealthy) society. For every problem, there is a drug. Can't cope with life ?? Take a drug !!.... BUT wait !!! There are precautions (side effects) which far outnumber the "problem" that that particular drug is supposed to fix......
Speaking of the automotive industry, whay have they not been able to get a vehicle to get more than 30 mpg (and that's from those small cars, i.e.Smart cars, etc,) ??!?! Remember, there was the first gas crunch in the 70's when we had to line up around the block several times over to fill up. Suppossedly, there was a shortage of oil. As soon as the price went up, voila !! no more lines. Laws were passed in Congress/Senate to mandate cars to get at least 24 - 26 mpg. Well, its 30 years later and have we progressed well beyond that ??? Today we are being manipulated into buying trucks & SUVs (Humvees/Hummers) that get about 12 to 15 mpg. Rumors have abounded for years about some tinkerer in a home garage somewhere who was able to make a carburetor that got 150 to 300 mpg. The Big Car Companies came and offerred to buy the invention ostensibly to develope it further and put it on the market....where are those inventions ?? If we could put man on the moon, why can we not engineer a better, less polluting vehicle ???(This is the USA and we have the most brilliant minds on the planet here... we are number one in the world -- yet eighth and ninth graders can't read, write, or spell to save themselves...I know, I'v seen the test papers and the homework these brilliant kids do.... ) And, oh yes, there are also those rumors about Tesla's invention of a gas-less electric car..... True or not, we are supposed to have brilliant minds working on our problems.....but where ...how ????
And I could go on and on ----
I apologize for taking shortcuts in what I wrote...I could get more detailed, but I don't think there is enough space on this site to write a book,.
The point I was trying to make is that we have allowed ourselves to be so manipulated by the so-called authority figures (corporate talking heads, politicians, etc) that we have lost all sense of self-accountability and questioning -- so much so that one just has to take a look at what is happening with the economy, etc.
Is this a happy situation ????
Its time to really wake up, think, and ask questions....
-
Where's the neon?
Ah, yes. The web's universal, "I have a friend who..."
As for your story...if your friend didn't like his job, he should have quit.
Quote:
So all the theme parks DO overprice their merchandise ? And WE, the public are fool enough to let ourselves be gouged.
And you're free to call it not a good value and NOT pay it. But they are NOT wrong for asking the proce.
The rest of your rant has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. As such, I'm ignoring it.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
-
"SO, there !! my rant on this whole thing...consider it a reallity check, everyone...."
Um....relax, okay? It's just a TV show, in the words of Shatner himself. Getting this worked up about it is unhealthy.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
She redefines TV with the first interracial kiss, and now she gets the "Porky's" treatment in the new film. Nice.
-
"She redefines TV with the first interracial kiss"
Actually, she didn't. That's just a myth--not only because she and Shatner never actually kissed (I believe it was his autobiography that revealed that their lips never touched since an on-set censor wouldn't allow it), but also because Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez (on I Love Lucy), as well as Sammy Davis Jr. and Nancy Sinatra (on Movin' With Nancy), had already kissed on TV. What's more, Shatner had already kissed France Nuyen, who is Vietnamese. the Shatner/Nichols kiss, therefore was at least the fourth case of an interracial kiss on TV. Now, if you're speaking strictly Black/White, then Davis and Sinatra still beat them--and theirs was an actual, full-on kiss.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
Your info is appreciated, but I'm sure you've had to repeat it a few thousand times, right? Their kiss in Palto's Stepchildren looked like a kiss the last time I saw it( like when I was 12) and people constantly talk about it as such.
Despite all your interesting tidbits, it was still the first full on makeout between a black woman and a white man. Clearly, the setting and the implication was that they were being forced to sexually perform. That's way more loaded than a peck on the cheek on somebody's variety show. No doubt why the "myth" has prevailed.
Certianly, MLK, when he fought with Nichelle Nichols to stay in the show, probably wasn't saying, "And girl, you could be immortalized in a strip scene for generations to come."
I want to sex you up? Fine by me.
--------
"I would be happy for Star Trek to come along decades later with a new group of minds. I'd love someone to say, 'Besides this one, Gene Roddenberry's was nothing!'" - Gene Roddenberry
"...I think it would be wonderful years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest, as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations..." - Gene Roddenberry
Frankly, I don't like most Hollywood sex scenes. They are way too gratuitous. Alot more non-Hollywood films and Indie films know how to handle sex scenes better. Those are not only sexier, but are much more romantic, very very intimate and tender, and end up being far more arousing, and exciting to watch. Foreign film and Indie films are much better at handling sex that has intimacy, love and tenderness, as apposed to Hollywood's whip it out, stick it in and tongue it hard sex scenes.
If you are doing a Teen Sex Romp Comedy movie Hollywood is good for a sex scene.
But a real sex scene with intimacy, Hollywood is clueless.
Kirk is going to be doing an Orion chick while at the academy, how romantic could it be, You know she will be "just a piece of tail for him". Typical Hollywood, I know I will be yawning when these scenes come on screen.
Now, if they show Kirk with Carol Marcus, they should do it Indie film style sex scene, intimate, and sensitive. Look at ST2, they are both still hurting after that break-up. They must have really loved each other.
If Star Trek does a love scene, they should do it with intensity and emotion. That would depict, real life people in relationships, not just horn dogs in space.
i really don't see how anyone could be excited about this movie.
Uhura used to be a symbol of equality in the future. Now she's a sex pot. Way to go J.J.!
-
Uhura has ALWAYS been a sex symbol. Every episode, she turned her profile to show off her curves, crossed her legs in such a way as to tantalize viewers, and bent over while talking to enhance her bustlinee. She also made a point of telling Sulu, when he thought he was D'artagnan, that she wasn't a virgin ("Sorry, neither"), and she's been known to flirt with Spock, Scotty and Sulu. She's also been shown to have attracted the male members of the crew, who stared openly at her butt and legs as she walked away from them--and she was smiling at the time, as she knew what they were doing and liked it. She may have been a symbol of equality, but she's always been portrayed as a sex object. Hell, in Star Trek V, she was dancing naked, for crying out loud.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
/facepalm
You know, we Star Trek fans are quite the paradox. We're a segment of fandom ridiculed and lampooned on a regular basis for the intensity of our devotion, yet a disturbingly large portion of fans insist on perpetuating it. Devotion is a noble concept, but the nobility is lost once it's taken to such extremes as to inspire inflexibility, and that's all I've seen from people on various Star Trek forums lately.
Ask any hardcore fan what IDIC is, and they'll readily tell you "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations". To my mind, that not only applies to races, but to beliefs and ideas. Funny how we forget all of that so quickly when something pops up that doesn't comfortably mix in. IDIC, but only if it's what we want...is that how it goes now?
Does Star Trek need "sexing up"? Maybe not, but it does need to evolve. It needs to become something more than it's been if there's any hope for it to survive. Sure, the original series and its spin-offs will live on in the hearts and minds of its fans, but that's not going to be enough to keep the franchise alive in the entertainment lexicon. Unless the fans want to see Star Trek become nothing more than an extended footnote in the annals of entertainment history, they have to cut Abrams and his crew a little slack and give their interpretation a chance at the box office. At least see the movie ONCE. Keep the protests, complaints, and bellyaching down to a dull roar and go see the bloody thing. Then, if it confirms all your fears and concerns, you're more than welcome to sound off as such anywhere you want. At least then, your opinions will be informed rather than irrational and unsubstantiated.
Show some degree of flexibility. Let these scenes play out in the context they're meant to fit rather than judging them blindly based on their presence in a trailer meant to attract an audience, not tell a full story.
-
I have plenty of healthy skepticism about this movie, but I'm far more skeptical of those fans who pass sweeping judgement on a product THEY HAVE NOT SEEN.
I'm a long time, devoted Star Trek fan. I am also a realist. Star Trek is dead and backward thinking of the sort I've read from those who've already decided sex and action on the one hand, and cerebral-ness and heart on the other, are mutually exclusive, are just throwing more dirt on the body. You have to evolve to survive.
This movie looks to be very entertaining with some spectacular effects and maybe even a great story. If, AFTER seeing this movie, it misses the heart and humanity that is ALSO Star Trek, then I'll help give the ole girl a proper burial myself.
In the meantime, lets not deny her a chance at a Lazarus moment.
-
Quote:
i really don't see how anyone could be excited about this movie.
Uhura used to be a symbol of equality in the future. Now she's a sex pot. Way to go J.J.!
There's an old TV series from the 1960s called Star Trek. I suggest you watch it. It's around somewhere. That said, there's plenty of precedent for some Trekkies to be so uptight about sex and romance that they want it obliterated from the franchise -- we've seen this song and dance performed since TNG and it just got embarrassing by the time of Enterprise where a common response I saw when the issue was broken with non-Trekkies was something like "grow the ---- up."
Me, I'm just curious how Rachel Nichols has gone from reportedly playing an Orion slave girl to reportedly playing a redheaded Starfleet cadet to back reportedly playing an Orion again. But whether she's redheaded, greenheaded, or no-headed, a love scene with Rachel Nichols is never a bad thing.
Al
-
Dont look at me. I only report those things. Maybe Rachel plays a redheaded Orion slave cadet LOL
Anyway, the more I hear, the more I want to see this movie.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
(2)
| 
