Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-24 Thread David Bruggeman 
Me type not so good on iPad...

Points of homage *done* right, not get right.

2009 film, not 2000 film.

David

Sent from my iPad

On May 24, 2013, at 8:58 PM, David Bruggeman  wrote:

> A particular concern I have with STID is that it's an odd case of too much 
> tell, not enough show in many of the relationships tested in the film.  For 
> all the points of homage get right, I think the attempt to hew closer to the 
> original than the 2000 film (I can't get more specific w/o spoiling) manages 
> to force two movies' worth of story into one.  Had there been a Marvel-like 
> plan in place where films that didn't focus on the main characters were OK, I 
> think a lot of this could have been avoided, and some of the parties getting 
> early kudos could have really shown (rather than told) their stuff.
> 
> Bottom line for me, while these films are better, many of the people behind 
> them have been responsible for some pretty empty films (looking at those 
> monster and living car movies, mostly).  And JJ remains a decent TV guy for a 
> film director.  Not unlike Trek in terms of film vs. TV.
> 
> I suppose I'm really complaining about how this good space action movie could 
> have been a great movie.  And complaining about how a particular gimmick 
> really got in the way of the people making the film.
> 
> David
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 24, 2013, at 8:22 PM, PGage  wrote:
> 
>> It is too early to go over the specific plot points that would allow me to 
>> attempt to rebut your point that the current film has nothing in common with 
>> the original other than names and basic concepts, but I think most fans of 
>> the original tv and films, even if they do not like JJ's films, will be able 
>> to cite a lot more commonalities than that.
>> 
>> As stannc notes, Roddenberry explored current events in his space show - he 
>> also explored relationships. I think Abrams is doing the same - arguably the 
>> reboot is allowing him to get into the relationship issues in even greater 
>> depth than the restrictions of the 1960s would ever allowed GR, and the 
>> second film is clearly exploring issues raised by the Bush-Obama "War" on 
>> terrorism in terms that are more subversive and critical of conventional 
>> opinion than anything Roddenberry ever did.
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-24 Thread David Bruggeman 
A particular concern I have with STID is that it's an odd case of too much 
tell, not enough show in many of the relationships tested in the film.  For all 
the points of homage get right, I think the attempt to hew closer to the 
original than the 2000 film (I can't get more specific w/o spoiling) manages to 
force two movies' worth of story into one.  Had there been a Marvel-like plan 
in place where films that didn't focus on the main characters were OK, I think 
a lot of this could have been avoided, and some of the parties getting early 
kudos could have really shown (rather than told) their stuff.

Bottom line for me, while these films are better, many of the people behind 
them have been responsible for some pretty empty films (looking at those 
monster and living car movies, mostly).  And JJ remains a decent TV guy for a 
film director.  Not unlike Trek in terms of film vs. TV.

I suppose I'm really complaining about how this good space action movie could 
have been a great movie.  And complaining about how a particular gimmick really 
got in the way of the people making the film.

David

Sent from my iPad

On May 24, 2013, at 8:22 PM, PGage  wrote:

> It is too early to go over the specific plot points that would allow me to 
> attempt to rebut your point that the current film has nothing in common with 
> the original other than names and basic concepts, but I think most fans of 
> the original tv and films, even if they do not like JJ's films, will be able 
> to cite a lot more commonalities than that.
> 
> As stannc notes, Roddenberry explored current events in his space show - he 
> also explored relationships. I think Abrams is doing the same - arguably the 
> reboot is allowing him to get into the relationship issues in even greater 
> depth than the restrictions of the 1960s would ever allowed GR, and the 
> second film is clearly exploring issues raised by the Bush-Obama "War" on 
> terrorism in terms that are more subversive and critical of conventional 
> opinion than anything Roddenberry ever did.
>  

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-24 Thread PGage 
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Dave Sikula  wrote:

> I, too, was bilked out of my hard-earned dough for the 3D/IMAX
> presentation and couldn't disagree more about his creating a "successful"
> film adaptation of Star Trek. No Trekkie I, but to my untrained eye, the
> movies have almost nothing in common with the spirit and ideas of the show
> beyond the names and basic concepts (Enterrpise, transporters, phasers). I
> found the sequel to be mostly a dumb shoot-em-up, with no real connection
> to the original. (This is to say nothing of the massive plot holes that
> riddle the thing.)


Well, you disagree with me even more than you say here explicitly, as my
claim is that he has created the two most successful film adaptations of a
television show ever, not just a successful adaption of Star Trek.

It is too early to go over the specific plot points that would allow me to
attempt to rebut your point that the current film has nothing in common
with the original other than names and basic concepts, but I think most
fans of the original tv and films, even if they do not like JJ's films,
will be able to cite a lot more commonalities than that.

As stannc notes, Roddenberry explored current events in his space show - he
also explored relationships. I think Abrams is doing the same - arguably
the reboot is allowing him to get into the relationship issues in even
greater depth than the restrictions of the 1960s would ever have allowed
GR, and the second film is clearly exploring issues raised by the
Bush-Obama "War" on terrorism in terms that are more subversive and
critical of conventional opinion than anything Roddenberry ever did.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-24 Thread David Bruggeman 
Which would have more weight had principal photography not been in the can for 
about a year.

Of course, IMO.

David

Sent from my iPad

On May 24, 2013, at 6:30 PM, stannc  wrote:

> I don't want to reveal plot points only a week into its run, but 
> Roddenberry's M.O. was to comment on current events veiled in science fiction 
> stories. The first big "explosion scene" immediately reminded me of the 
> Boston Marathon. 
> 
> -Stan
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-24 Thread stannc 
I don't want to reveal plot points only a week into its run, but Roddenberry's 
M.O. was to comment on current events veiled in science fiction stories. The 
first big "explosion scene" immediately reminded me of the Boston Marathon. 

-Stan

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-24 Thread Dave Sikula 
I, too, was bilked out of my hard-earned dough for the 3D/IMAX presentation 
and couldn't disagree more about his creating a "successful" film 
adaptation of Star Trek. No Trekkie I, but to my untrained eye, the movies 
have almost nothing in common with the spirit and ideas of the show beyond 
the names and basic concepts (Enterrpise, transporters, phasers). I found 
the sequel to be mostly a dumb shoot-em-up, with no real connection to the 
original. (This is to say nothing of the massive plot holes that riddle the 
thing.)

--Dave Sikula

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:21:07 PM UTC-7, PGage wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Tom Wolper 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Dave Sikula 
>> > wrote:
>>  
>>> So one guy's plan to bilk suckers out of millions was thwarted by a 
>>> corporation's desire to bilk suckers out of millions? Color me uninterested.
>>>
>>
>> Or to put it another way, in case we needed a reminder, TV is just a 
>> business. 
>>
>
> I don't care too much about the multiplatform mediaverse, but I am one of 
> the millions of suckers who is happily bilked out out of $10 to see Star 
> Trek films (well, I think it as $13 to see this in 3D).  I think it is 
> clear that Abrams has created the two most successful film adaptations of a 
> television show ever, and I am bummed that an inability to agree on a 
> marketing and mechanizing strategy is going to deprive us of additional JJ 
> Star Trek versions. It is also irritating that Star Wars is going to get 
> the full JJ treatment instead. I enjoy Star Wars, and even liked the new 
> ones (well, the last of the new ones) well enough. But I am of a generation 
> and a community that sees far (far) more potential for interesting and 
> meaningful story-telling in the Star Trek universe than the Star Wars 
> universe, though I suppose  if Star Wars 7 and beyond are freed from 
> Lucus-control it merely provides an open canvas for JJ to do whatever he 
> wants, which may prove worthwhile.
>  

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-19 Thread M-D November 
Also, FWIW, I believe Bad Robot is signed up for at least one more "Trek" 
film, unless Paramount decides there's a conflict of interest with "Star 
Wars" and somehow ends their partnership on "Trek"...

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:14:40 PM UTC-4, David Bruggeman wrote:
>
> Is JJ getting the keys to the full kingdom, or is he only handling the 
> next Episodes (though I guess only 7 is a confirmed deal)?  By point of 
> comparison, is he Joss Whedon, or whomever at Marvel is coordinating all 
> their 'Phases' (Avengers ended Phase 1, Iron Man 3 starts Phase 2)
>
> Let's also remember that JJ can have a wide degree of involvement in his 
> projects.  He's much more hands on in his directed films than in produced 
> films or recent television work.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 19, 2013, at 6:21 PM, PGage > wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Tom Wolper 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Dave Sikula 
>> > wrote:
>>  
>>> So one guy's plan to bilk suckers out of millions was thwarted by a 
>>> corporation's desire to bilk suckers out of millions? Color me uninterested.
>>>
>>
>> Or to put it another way, in case we needed a reminder, TV is just a 
>> business. 
>>
>
> I don't care too much about the multiplatform mediaverse, but I am one of 
> the millions of suckers who is happily bilked out out of $10 to see Star 
> Trek films (well, I think it as $13 to see this in 3D).  I think it is 
> clear that Abrams has created the two most successful film adaptations of a 
> television show ever, and I am bummed that an inability to agree on a 
> marketing and mechanizing strategy is going to deprive us of additional JJ 
> Star Trek versions. It is also irritating that Star Wars is going to get 
> the full JJ treatment instead. I enjoy Star Wars, and even liked the new 
> ones (well, the last of the new ones) well enough. But I am of a generation 
> and a community that sees far (far) more potential for interesting and 
> meaningful story-telling in the Star Trek universe than the Star Wars 
> universe, though I suppose  if Star Wars 7 and beyond are freed from 
> Lucus-control it merely provides an open canvas for JJ to do whatever he 
> wants, which may prove worthwhile.
>  
> -- 
> -- 
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com 
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-19 Thread David Bruggeman 
Is JJ getting the keys to the full kingdom, or is he only handling the next 
Episodes (though I guess only 7 is a confirmed deal)?  By point of comparison, 
is he Joss Whedon, or whomever at Marvel is coordinating all their 'Phases' 
(Avengers ended Phase 1, Iron Man 3 starts Phase 2)

Let's also remember that JJ can have a wide degree of involvement in his 
projects.  He's much more hands on in his directed films than in produced films 
or recent television work.

Sent from my iPad

On May 19, 2013, at 6:21 PM, PGage  wrote:

> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Tom Wolper  wrote:
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Dave Sikula  wrote:
>>> So one guy's plan to bilk suckers out of millions was thwarted by a 
>>> corporation's desire to bilk suckers out of millions? Color me uninterested.
>> 
>> Or to put it another way, in case we needed a reminder, TV is just a 
>> business. 
> 
> I don't care too much about the multiplatform mediaverse, but I am one of the 
> millions of suckers who is happily bilked out out of $10 to see Star Trek 
> films (well, I think it as $13 to see this in 3D).  I think it is clear that 
> Abrams has created the two most successful film adaptations of a television 
> show ever, and I am bummed that an inability to agree on a marketing and 
> mechanizing strategy is going to deprive us of additional JJ Star Trek 
> versions. It is also irritating that Star Wars is going to get the full JJ 
> treatment instead. I enjoy Star Wars, and even liked the new ones (well, the 
> last of the new ones) well enough. But I am of a generation and a community 
> that sees far (far) more potential for interesting and meaningful 
> story-telling in the Star Trek universe than the Star Wars universe, though I 
> suppose  if Star Wars 7 and beyond are freed from Lucus-control it merely 
> provides an open canvas for JJ to do whatever he wants, which may prove 
> worthwhile.
> -- 
> -- 
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-19 Thread PGage 
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Tom Wolper  wrote:

> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Dave Sikula  wrote:
>
>> So one guy's plan to bilk suckers out of millions was thwarted by a
>> corporation's desire to bilk suckers out of millions? Color me uninterested.
>>
>
> Or to put it another way, in case we needed a reminder, TV is just a
> business.
>

I don't care too much about the multiplatform mediaverse, but I am one of
the millions of suckers who is happily bilked out out of $10 to see Star
Trek films (well, I think it as $13 to see this in 3D).  I think it is
clear that Abrams has created the two most successful film adaptations of a
television show ever, and I am bummed that an inability to agree on a
marketing and mechanizing strategy is going to deprive us of additional JJ
Star Trek versions. It is also irritating that Star Wars is going to get
the full JJ treatment instead. I enjoy Star Wars, and even liked the new
ones (well, the last of the new ones) well enough. But I am of a generation
and a community that sees far (far) more potential for interesting and
meaningful story-telling in the Star Trek universe than the Star Wars
universe, though I suppose  if Star Wars 7 and beyond are freed from
Lucus-control it merely provides an open canvas for JJ to do whatever he
wants, which may prove worthwhile.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-17 Thread Tom Wolper 
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Dave Sikula  wrote:

> So one guy's plan to bilk suckers out of millions was thwarted by a
> corporation's desire to bilk suckers out of millions? Color me uninterested.
>

Or to put it another way, in case we needed a reminder, TV is just a
business.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[TV orNotTV] Re: Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

2013-05-17 Thread Dave Sikula 
So one guy's plan to bilk suckers out of millions was thwarted by a 
corporation's desire to bilk suckers out of millions? Color me uninterested.

--Dave Sikula

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:36:02 PM UTC-7, Bob in Jersey wrote:
>
> Plain and simple, CBS was not interested in "parking" the TOS merch 
> despite the obvious differences... 
> TheWrap
>
> -- BOB
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.