Slashdot Mirror
Trekkies Director Roger Nygard Answers
Roger Writes:
Thanks for inviting me to field questions on Slashdot. I had no idea how wide a reach this site has. It certainly outed my geek friends, those who popped me an email saying they saw the first posting. One of my editorial assistants, and Final Cut Pro expert, Jeremy Rousch, looks at me differently now. One week ago I was just some guy who had made some movies. Big deal. Now, post Slashdot mention, "I'M FAMOUS!" Being mentioned on Slashdot crossed me over some invisible line of notoriety. Thanks for that, Commander Taco.
Before I get started, here's a little background. I have directed and/or produced six independent features (3 narratives and 3 documentaries), directed and edited for the HBO series "The Mind Of The Married Man," as well as having edited a few projects.
Prior to shooting Trekkies, I had never attended a Star Trek convention, but I had been to a Fangoria convention, where I witnessed the auction of a pair of purportedly authentic Vulcan ears. They went for $350 bucks. That blew me away, and led to making sure we filmed an action in Trekkies.
And now here is my pre-plug to tell you that my requisite shameless plug is at the end of the questions, where you can find links to locate my films. (I put the pre-plug here so those who grow weary of my ranting and click away before the end will not go away plugless.)
Re:Schadenfreude? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Chundra (189402)(#10754884)
Are you a Star Trek fan?
How do you define "Star Trek fan"?
By the definition of the folks in my documentaries, the answer would be, no. The dividing line might be whether or not you have ever attended a Star Trek convention, by your own choice.
I am a sci-fi fan. Star Trek was one of many shows I loved as a kid. (Other favorites were Time Tunnel, Lost In Space, Land Of The Giants, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, UFO, Night Gallery, Probe, The Man From UNCLE, The Invaders, etc.) The difference was that Star Trek was on in syndication every day after school and as a result I have seen every episode of the Original Series so many times that I can still quote lines. For example:
"This is Tranya, please drink. I hope you relish it as much as I."
"There are witches, there are!"
"I remember the old ones." (Very deep voice needed)
"The one that bore me was killed in a freestyle match."
"It is not a dance, it does not gather food, it does not serve Vol."
"Sterilize! Sterilize! Must Sterilize!" -- Anyone have a pair of anti-grabs?
This stuff is forever burned into my cranium.
accusations (Score:3, Interesting)
by Savatte (111615) (#10756263)
http://www.rit.edu/~mds2184
How do you respond to accusations that you condescended and were basically laughing at the subjects in Trekkies?
I laugh at and condescend toward all those who accuse me of laughing and condescending.
Uh, let me start again...
If there is condescension in my work, I don't feel it. I like my interview subjects. Many have become my friends. Gabriel Koerner is a perfect example. We chat all the time, and he worked on Trekkies 2 doing all the digital effects, in addition to baring his soul a second time.
It's true, there is a lot of laughter in Trekkies. My feeling is that as a documentarian, you provide a soapbox for people who can choose to get on it and speak their mind, or not. Some make a great point and some don't. They are adults and it is up to them.
I've screened Trekkies for both Trek fan audiences and civilian audiences. Guess who laughs harder? The Trek fans of course. They get it, they have a great sense of humor about themselves. Or most do, anyway. Perhaps the few that don't feel like they are looking into a mirror, and they don't like what they see; they have not accepted the geek in themselves. So they accuse those who point it out as being condescending.
Being a geek should be a badge of honor. The geeks are inheriting the Earth. Who are the CEOs and the inventors and the writers and forward thinkers? Those geeks we all remember being made fun of in High School, only they are all grown up now and making bank.
Taking advantage of Star Trek geeks..... (Score:3, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward (#10755971)
Some of the Star Trek "fans" in your movies, like the midget Daryl, clearly have mental health issues. Do you feel any need to get some of these people help or do you just profit from their stupidity like the people who make the Girls Gone Wild videos?
I don't provide counseling for anybody, but I do provide an avenue for somebody to express themselves.
All my films have been about obsession in one way or another. Obsession can be pretty funny when you take a step back and have a look at it.
And let's face it, there are certainly worse things to be obsessed with than Star Trek. Everybody has their little obsessions.
I wish I had thought of the Girls Gone Wild idea. Are you going to tell me you don't watch every nanosecond of those commercials?
Too Nerdy for The Movies (Score:5, Interesting)
by ThePolkapunk (826529) (#10756009)
Was there anything you shot or witnessed during the creation of your documentaries that was just too "hardcore" to put in? Were there things that were just so horrifically nerdy you had no choice but to leave them out? Anything that would alienate everyone except the heartiest star trek fans and alien conspiracy theorists? Was there anything that was just so scary you couldn't possibly put it on film?
No. We put it all in. The more exceptional the better. And you do have to focus on the extreme. If you made a documentary about baseball players, you wouldn't focus on the guy who bats .200, the average guy, the "normal" guy. People are intrigued by exceptional players. It's the same for any subject, including Star Trek fans.
Probably the most bizarre people I have ever encountered are some of the subjects in Six Days In Roswell, my film about UFO fanatics. We went to Roswell, New Mexico for the 50th anniversary of the alleged crash of an alien space ship and interviewed the pilgrims, the abductees, the experts, and the locals. The result? Are there really aliens? Abductions? Is that really the anal probe that was used on Whitley Streiber? You be the judge.
The award for the most extreme Star Trek fan in Trekkies 2 goes to Tony Alleyne, in England. He turned his flat into a space ship (70% based on ST: TNG) and lives in it. There is no bed, because he turned the sleeping area into transporter pads (which are functional, BTW). He sleeps on the floor. Does Tony have mental issues? I don't think so. He told us that building his Star Trek environment was therapy for him, after going through a break-up with his wife. And now he loves the publicity he gets from his creation. Similarly, anybody who goes out in public in a Star Trek uniform craves attention. What's the harm in giving it to them?
The most hilarious folks the second time around were the Star Trek theme bands in Sacramento. We shot five bands performing including, Warp 11, No Kill I, and a Klingon death metal band called Stovokor. They were so entertaining nothing else could follow them so we put that segment last in the movie. We also have released a soundtrack with two songs from each band, as well as some filk singers. ("Filk" is science fiction folk singing.)
Here are the lyrics to one of my favorite songs by No Kill I (be prepared for some profanity, the Gorn incites passions):
GORN! (by Ensign Baron von Grizman) Trekking through space Chasing some Gorn Fucking with the Federation A battle is born Taken from our ships Our savage nature calls Human pitted against Gorn Who's got the bigger balls? GORN! Can't kill Kirk GORN! Green fucking jerk! GORN! No can do! GORN! Fuck you! So we fight in an arena Amuse some fucking gods But this is Captain Kirk Not some fucking dog Gorn coming for me Like some fucking snail Death to humanity If I should fail. GORN! Can't kill Kirk GORN! Green fucking jerk! GORN! No can do! GORN! Fuck you! How 'bout a little chemistry Sulfur and coal Diamonds down the shoot Blow him a new hole! Hissing like a Sleastack The lizard king is torn Green motherfucker just got whacked! Toot my fucking horn! GORN! Can't kill Kirk GORN! Green fucking jerk! GORN! No can do! GORN! Fuck you
Why does... (Score:5, Interesting)
by WoodenRobot (726910) (#10755178)
http://www.buddhanet.net/
In your experience/opinion, why does Star Trek attract such a fanatical following, and why is there such ridicule directed towards those that consider themselves fans? It seems unique even among sci-fi franchises.
Star Trek has an underlying positive philosophy (IDIC, The Prime Directive, a better future for mankind, etc.) that makes it unique among sci-fi shows. This chord resonates among the Star Trek fans in such a way that it unites them and inspires this fanatical following.
The nerds will always attract ridicule from the less well informed (read ignorant), but the nerds have the last laugh.
Here we go (Score:5, Interesting)
by Jeffery (810339) (#10754797)
do you think the old or new Trekkies are more fanatical?
I think a cross section of each age group probably contains the same percentage of extreme fans. However, there may be fewer new Trek fans currently entering the club than there were in previous years--judged simply by the lesser interest in, and lower ratings for, the current series incarnation. By that reckoning, quantitatively, there are probably fewer fanatical new Trekkies.
Aging fanbase? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Darth23 (720385)(#10755425)
It seems to me that the Star Trek fanbase is aging, and there aren't really a lot of new fans getting into it. During the filming of Trekkies 1 and 2, did you notice large numbers of younger fans, and did there seem to be around the same number when you filmed the sequel - or did you notice any decline in the numbers of younger fans?
This is related to the previous answer. But I could add that although the numbers of new recruits per year may be fewer than in previous years, I don't think there is a declining fan base overall. Once a Trek fan always a Trek fan. But what's happening is that many, if not most, are satiated. After 6 series (I count the cartoon) and 10 movies and countless books and merchandise the fans need a little time off. I love a Thanksgiving turkey dinner as much as the next guy. But right after I've finished gorging myself, the last thing I want right then is another bite. I need some time off to digest--and then tomorrow I'll be just as hungry again for more. The fans need time to digest. That's all.
Audience (Score:5, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward (#10755241)
I am curious about the audiences of your films. Were you intending for them to cater to the non-nerd community? Nerd community? Only hardcore fans of Star Trek, Alien Conspiracy Theorists, etc.? What audience did your films end up finding?
Like all filmmakers, I want my work to find the broadest possible audience. Otherwise you're making home movies.
With Trekkies, we knew we had a core audience of Star Trek fans, but we also wanted the film to crossover to non-fans. The sometimes contradictory reactions/reviews are fascinating. Some think the films mock Star Trek fans, some think they are a celebration of fandom. Some think Gabriel Koerner is a geek (in a negative sense), some think he is a hero.
I think the Trekkies doc is like a Rorschach test. Because we had no narration, because we don't overtly comment on the fans and their lifestyles, because we present the fans and allow the viewer to judge, people tend to project motives onto the filmmakers that coincide with attitudes within themselves. If they are intolerant of lifestyles such as those presented, they see the film as an indictment. If they are open-minded about how other people choose to live their lives, they see the film's presentation as sympathetic.
With Six Days In Roswell, we made a film that we hoped that hard-core UFO enthusiasts would enjoy as well as skeptics who find the whole thing absurd. Renowned alien experts like Stanton Friedman, Budd Hopkins, Peter Gersten, Don Schmidt and others make excellent points. But on the other hand, some people are clearly riding the alien wave doing things like selling alien beer, alien beef jerky, alien ashtrays, and staging the production, "Roswell, The Musical." --If you see only one musical before you die, you must see "Roswell, The Musical." The opening number, "Something In The Air," has to be seen to be believed and appreciated...
I also directed Suckers, a dramatic comedy about car salesman starring Daniel Benzali, Louis Mandylor, and Lori Loughlin. We thought that anybody going to buy a car (which is all of us) would enjoy seeing a realistic peek behind the curtain at a new car dealership (we reveal the secrets to how car salesmen do their tricks). Curiously, the core audience for this film turned out to be car salesmen themselves. Go into any car dealership and ask them if they have heard of Suckers and see the reaction for yourself. For them, it is sort of like mobsters watching The Godfather. They enjoy seeing their evil deeds dramatized.
More than just fandom with Trekkies? (Score:5, Interesting)
by notmikey (825548)(#10755041)
On the surface, it seems like Trekkies are just really big fans, and that fandom propels them to participate in the universe.
It seems to me, however, that something different is going on. Fandom is often emulation--the Spock ears, the "Dammit Jim" variations, that sort of thing. But Trekkies take it a step farther: they create new material that is meant to merge with the pre-existing Trek world. In this way, Trekkie-ness is more like playing D&D than being in a Sci-Fi film club.
What I wonder (and here's my question) is whether you've noticed some common ground that launches people to go past being a fan and becoming a Trekkie? Is it dissatisfaction with new series and recent movies being weaker than past ones? Possibly some other characteristic that fans tend to share that, when merged with fandom will lead into Trekkie-ness? Is there something inherent about the star trek world that encourages people to internalize their identification with the star trek world? Or is there nothing at all consistent about the way Trekkies enter that world?
You have hit on another basic vibe that makes Star Trek fans different. One critique of Trekkies was that we didn't go deep enough into this aspect of fandom (so we did in Trekkies 2).
Many Star Trek fans take what they perceive as the positive message of the show and they apply it to their lives in the real world.
For example, to move up in rank in a Star Trek club, you have to perform a certain number of hours of community service. Another example is that there is almost always a charity benefit of some kind at every convention. Why? These folks are do-gooders. They are good people. They want the world (and ultimately the Universe) to move in a direction toward the ideal portrayed in the show.
Trekkie Questions (Score:3, Funny)
by FerretFrottage (714136)(#10754850)
Do any fans buy the fact that even the slightest blast cases fires/sparks on the bridge? Do they hold the lowest price enterprise contractor responsible?
Ha! Maybe Halliburton will be out of business by the 23rd century; let's hope the Federation will have better quality contractors by then. Either way, there will always be profiteers substituting cheaper wires and pocketing the difference. But here's the upside: if there weren't selfish, greedy bastards out to line their own pockets at the expense of everybody else, battles with Klingons would be far less dramatic visually.
Something to keep in mind, post presidential election, is that in the long run conservatives always lose. If this statement were not true, we would still be living in caves. We wouldn't have cell phones, vaccines, and rockets. Conservatives will never go to the stars. They are too busy trying to hold society back.
Every new idea that is introduced is liberal at first. The idea that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun was denounced by conservative leaders at the time. Fact-based evolution is currently being denounced and taken out of some school curriculums, to be replaced, or taught side-by-side, with faith-based creationism. Faith has it's place for some people in society, but it didn't get us to the moon and beyond.
Shooting and Editing (Score:5, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward (#10754740)
What format are you using to shoot your documentaries (digital or film)? What workstations and applications do you use to edit your film?
Trekkies: Standard 16mm, 35 hours of raw footage, edited on an Avid, cut negative, 16mm answer print, blow-up to 35mm. We shot 16mm because we were self financing the project and that is the film format with the most cameras floating around. One of the main criteria we had when hiring camera personnel was, "Do you own a 16mm camera? You do? You're hired."
Six Days In Roswell: Super 16mm, 35 hours of raw footage, Avid, cut negative, blow up to 35mm answer print. I really wanted to try for better visual clarity on Six Days In Roswell. I love the look of Super 16mm. If you expose it properly you can't even tell it wasn't 35mm to begin with. 35 hours of raw footage is pretty low by most documentary standards, but in both Trekkies and Six Days In Roswell the footage was so rich, we didn't need to shoot more. Also, shooting film instead of video forces you to be more judicious. You can't let it run like you can with videotape.
Trekkies 2: DVCam (Sony DSR 500 and PD 150), 150 hours of raw footage, Final Cut Pro, mastered on DigiBeta. The future is digital. We shot a lot of footage, but since we were traveling to 8 different countries to create a portrait of foreign StarTrek fandom, we figured we should shoot as much as we could while there since we couldn't go back for pick ups. While Trekkies and Six Days took about 3-5 months of cutting, It took me 8 months to sort though all the Trekkies 2 footage. But the upside is in all the bonus material on the Trekkies 2 DVD, 80 minutes worth. I tried Final Cut Pro for the first time and welcomed the instant online capability.
polarity (Score:4, Funny)
by Fr05t (69968)(#10754695)
In your experiences, have you ever found a problem that couldn't be fixed by reversing the polarity of something?
A good solution in almost every exigency. Frost, you are a genius.
However, though some might, I personally wouldn't use this tactic for issues in the bedroom.
Extreme behavior (Score:5, Interesting)
by warrped (202864)(#10754840)
Have you ever considered juxtaposing the extreme yet socially reviled behavior of the 'Trekkies' against the no less extreme but socially accepted behavior of (for example) sports fans? Is it the 'socially aberrant' element that draws you to the subject?
Several fans discuss that issue in Trekkies 2. It would be humorous to dissect sports fanatics vs. Star Trek fans--but almost too easy. I'll wager that the average IQ of the guy wearing cheese on his head and screaming obscenities at a referee and the average Star Trek fan leave no comparison. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
There were dozens of comments suggesting future topics for Roger to apply his skills to, so I'm just lumping them all together. Roger, our readers suggest you document AD&D Players, Slashdot Readers, Football Fanatics, Everquest Addicts, and the LAN Party Phenom. They all essentially ask the question, "Why 'Trekkies'?" and how do you pick your subject matter.
I am an accidental documentarian. Trekkies was Denise Crosby's idea. I cast her in my first film, High Strung (which stars Steve Oedekerk, and will be re-released by Steve next year), and a few years later she pitched the Trek fan doc idea to me. I said, "I can't believe nobody has done this yet. It seems so obvious." After shooting our first weekend, I was hooked on documentaries. Unlike a narrative project, where it's a challenge to come as close to the script as possible, shooting a doc is a journey, it's exciting not knowing what's around the next corner, how the story will end.
What's next? I'll wager it will have to do with obsession. I'm sure all the ideas proposed above have their "extreme" members. But it will depend on the person, or persons, profiled. You can't make documentaries about things, you have to make them about people. When I meet the person involved in one of these activities who is so interesting that he has to be profiled, I'll start shooting footage immediately. Where are you? Are you out there? Drop me an e-mail (See my address below).
The quintessential question: (Score:3, Interesting)
by Jucius Maximus (229128) (#10754795)
Which captain do you think was the best?
I asked that very question of Star Trek fans in 1996 when we put up our first Trekkies website. The votes for 32 different captains are posted if you want to have a look. (Websites below.)
To summarize, Picard barely edged out Kirk, 2826 to 2799 votes. Q got the most votes for a non-Federation captain at 2079. I'm gonna go with Captain Pike (1178 votes).
For the last time... (Score:2)
by DwarfGoanna (447841) (#10755766)
I'm a Trek-KER you....*sigh* insensitive clod!!
That's cool. Is it cool for some to call themselves a Trekkie? We get even further into that world-rattling debate in Trekkies 2.
your last name (Score:2)
by latroM (652152) (#10755348)
Do you have Finnish or Swedish relatives? My surname is Nygård, so I'm quite interested.
Are you aware of the fact that you've been misspelling your name your whole life?
Ha! Yes. We don't have that "a" with the little knob on our keyboard over here. We will have to import some of those knobs.
My great grandfather, Louis Nygaard, came to Minnesota from Norway. He dropped the extra "a" at some point, saving the family thousands of pounds of ink over the generations.
Why weren't Shatner or Stewart interviewed? (Score:5, Interesting)
by GuyMannDude (574364) (#10756041)
My first question of the director is if he could verify my assumption: that Shatner and Stewart weren't interviewed for Trekkies because of money (as opposed to a conscious decision by the director to focus on the other actors). Second, if you did, indeed, want them in the film and they refused, did you work hard to get them? Did you try to negotiate their payment? Did they even consider your offer? Or did you simply get a letter from their agent saying, essentially, "Mr. Shatner is too important to be interviewed in your two-bit documentary."
We indeed wanted to include William Shatner and Patrick Stewart. Shatner is included briefly meeting with his fan club in Trekkies, but he refused to sit for an interview.
The way we got our interview subjects, was to ask to interview them whenever we crossed paths at conventions. When we tried to go through proper channels like agents, managers, and publicists, it was fruitless (Connor Trinneer is the exception). I think we are still waiting for Avery Brooks' agent to call us back. Our paths never crossed initially with Patrick Stewart, and the word we have gotten back since is that he is not a fan of the first film.
We never paid anybody for an interview. Documentaries typically do not pay their subjects. It's the nature of the form. If you had to pay everybody, documentaries would never get made because doc budgets are very low. Our budget on Trekkies was $120,000 by the time we got to a 16mm answer print. That money was coming out of our own pockets, so we couldn't afford to throw it around.
Favorite Episode? (Score:0, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward (#10754706)
Do you have a favorite Star Trek episode and a favorite series? If you say Voyager or Enterprise, you may be lynched.
The one where Frank Gorshin is running. Original series fans know exactly what I'm talking about.
Shameless plugging link zone! Here is where you can get Roger's films.
Trekkies & Trekkies 2 (available internet retailers, Best Buy stores, and hip DVD stores)
Favorite Captain tally
Official Paramount Site
Trekkies 2 soundtrack a Reboot Music release.
Six Days In Roswell on DVD or VHS
Lastly, here is Roger Nygard's Homepage and his email (which he included, so don't blame me, at least I fuzed it up for the robots!)
Thanks for your time Roger... Good luck on whatever you tackle next.
"why is there such ridicule directed towards those that consider themselves fans? It seems unique even among sci-fi franchises"
The nerds will always attract ridicule from the less well informed (read ignorant)....
That's funny, here I thought it was because it was the franchise most likely to inspire morbidly obese men to don skin-tight clothing and prostheses.
But seriously, I would say that a fairly specific image of the nerdy "trekkie" has been part of our collective consciousness for almost as long as the original series has been a fixture in popular culture. The same can't be said of the fanbase of Star Wars, Doctor Who, Tolkien's works, roleplaying games, or other immersive universes likely to inspire emulation; there just isn't a visual archetype for people to latch on to.
This one seems kind of obvious to me. When Star Trek was new it was basically the only game in town (lost in space notwithstanding) and it was amazingly revolutionary stuff for television. All the other shows are just more of the same, and they don't tend to push boundaries to nearly the same degree as TOS.
These days trek faces [and has faced] competition from other sci-fi shows which are arguably better, like Stargate, Babylon 5, et cetera. Back then, there was no competition.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Yes, people did have lower expectations of effects - they obviously didn't have all the fancy tricks the Enterprise guys have, they had to make do with what they had. Even the TNG guys had vastly more options in terms of effects than TOS.
And as for the story, you have to appreciate the era it was made for and filmed in - Americans wanted a tough, strong character who killed the baddie and got the girl, and Kirk was that. In TNG, culture and diplomacy was the buzzwords around at the time, and that's what Picard is the epitome of.
The thing with television classics is you can't hold old TV shows up to the standards and sensibilities we have now, but appreciate them for what they were at the time.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
It's great to see the Gorn get some mention, even if it's just a silly song. I always thought that epsiode (Arena) was fascinating. When I was a kid, I loved this episode because it features Kirk fighting against a dinosaur-looking alien. As an adult, I can appreciate it even more. Unlike so many Star Trek epsiodes where Kirk is lecturing some other species about justice or equality, here Kirk is taught an important lesson about his own prejudice.
The episode begins with the Enterprise finding a Federation colony under savage attack by an unknown species. Countless men, women, and children -- all civilians -- have been slaughtered. Kirk is enraged and chases the attacking vessel across space. Spock tries to talk some sense into Kirk but he will have none of it. He pushes his vessel past safe limits in an attempt to catch the aliens. When when the two ships travel into space claimed by the Metrons -- an advanced, pacifistic species -- the situation changes considerably.
Realizing that both the Enterprise and the aliens are running on pure adreneline and not thinking things out, the Metrons decide to let the two sides satisfy their thirst for violence through a one-on-one battle between the captain of each starship. Kirk and the captain of the alien ship are transported to the surface of a barren world where they are to engage in hand-to-hand combat to the death. To Kirk's horror, he finds that his opponent is from a species of incredibly strong reptiles named the Gorn. Kirk quickly discovers that he is physically outmatched.
What makes this episode so fascinating is how Kirk changes during the course of the conflict. At the start, he is openly hateful of the Gorn, even going so far to as to admit that he has a natural revulsion towards reptiles. He considers them lower lifeforms. However, he is aware of his prejudice against them and forces himself to remember that his opponent is every much his equal intellectually. Late in the battle, he communicates with the Gorn captain through the universal translator device and discovers that the Gorn attacked the Federation colony because they believed it was an invasion. For the first time, Kirk is able to see the situation from the other side. The Gorn were acting in (perceived) self-defense.
By the time that the battle has finally reached the final confrontation between the two, Kirk has come to the conclusion that he is not qualified to judge the action of this species nor dispense justice. His surprising resolution of the conflict impresses the Metrons, who have been overseeing the battle.
The ambition of this episode -- airing in the 60s and with a limited budget -- is staggering in retrospect. Shooting a battle between Kirk and a reptile running around in the desert is impressive enough. But the fact that Kirk, the quintessential hero, is able to admit that he may have been wrong is something that is rare even in today's popular TV shows and movies. This episode was well before its time. Everyone remembers that episode where Spock has to wed that cold-hearted, logical Vulcan babe -- why doesn't Arena get mentioned more often as a fan favorite?
GMD
watch this
Every new idea that is introduced is liberal at first.
Read another way: Every good idea was once new... therefore every new idea is good...
That just doesn't follow, even if you agree with his point.
I think you're expecting too much of it. It was written in the 1960's, and at the time it was revolutionary. Those cheesy looking special effects where done first on this show - on a very tight budget. They weren't that bad, either. Interracial kissing? Would have gotten you killed if you'd done that in public back then.
The original series had a lot more humour than the other shows as well. I wish they'd put more of this into the newer series.
And I guess you can also say by the way his friends namechecked /. to him and he then reflected that back on us, slashdot is itself a brand and an identity.
What is music when you despise all sound?
As has been said previously, TOS had an extremely low budget (pick up Shatner's book Star Trek Memories sometime if you're interested; it has some great stories about just how hard it was to get these shows made), and was made in the Sixties, when expectations for television were very different.
In a time when you have branding, popups during the programs, and advertisements plastered all over the end credits, I can see where something like TOS would seem very slow-paced. And yeah, they're not all gems, but a lot of those episodes were the first of their kind, and would be ripped off -- err, emulated in later series.
TOS also experimented a lot more with different stories, something TNG did, and gave up on, in its first and second seasons. The first couple seasons of TNG bore a lot of similarity to TOS in tone and style, but once you get to the fourth season and onward, they've established a slick, well-done, but ultimately formulaic approach to Star Trek -- "The alien is attacking, rerout the arglebargle through the froofraw to go back in time and defeat it." "Oh no, we all fell unconscious and the holodeck went crazy; Data will have to fix it."
This is something I felt kind of helped murder the franchise, personally; DS9 broke from the mold, taking the environment off a spaceship, putting it on a station, and adding real continuity. A lot of people didn't like it; I thought it was great. Then came Voyager and it was back to more of the same old thing. Enterprise just seems incredibly tired to me -- like the whole thing is just out of gas.
I think there a lot of different stories to be told int he Trek universe; unfortunately, it seems easiest to just rehash the same old thing for twelve years running or however long it is now. I think TOS has definitely dated itself (as one day all the series will), but I can still appreciate it for what it is.
If they are intolerant of lifestyles such as those presented, they see the film as an indictment. If they are open-minded about how other people choose to live their lives, they see the film's presentation as sympathetic.
Aww. Lay off a little, maybe? They're being overly harsh to you, but there are myriad more acceptable reasons for them to do so. They're overprotective. Lord only knows why.
This reminds me of the Irreversible director saying that everyone who was offended by his movie was only offended because they identified with the rapist. You can presume to know how to make a film, but not necessarily to know your audience. At least not so well.
And Iduno. I haven't seen the movies. Maybe he's right.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Wow, a reply from the man himself? I honestly didn't think you'd be reading & responding to this.
Look, the guy below me (aardvarkjoe) said it better than I could have. I don't want you to come over to my side, and I'm not interested in a religious debate with you or anyone. Religion is a highly personal subject and I have zero problem with your belief in evolution.
What I do have a problem with is the whole idea that conservatives would like to have us living in caves and are too busy trying to hold society back. Do you honestly believe major technological achievements were all performed by liberals? Conservatives have supported space exploration. Richard Nixon certainly was more conservative than liberal and was a religious man, yet "On January 5, 1972 Nixon approved the development of the Space Shuttle program, a decision that profoundly influenced U.S. efforts to explore and develop space for several decades thereafter."
Further, I really didn't see the need to include these comments in the answer to a question about special effects. Randomly throwing that sort of talk out reminds me of that stupid movie - what was it, Two Weeks Notice? My wife used to love Sandra Bullock. She owned most every movie Bullock was in. That is, until they randomly came up with that anti-Bush talk in the middle of an otherwise acceptable chick-flick. It served no purpose, and my wife now wants nothing to do with any of Bullock's movies (which is just great as far as I'm concerned).
But I wish the conservatives currently in power were more interested in funding NASA than corporate tax breaks.
Well, so do I, Roger, but the liberals haven't done us any better. What did Clinton do for NASA during his 8 years? Nothing great that I know of.
It comes down to this: Painting it as a "conservatives & religious people vs. the rest of us" matter is simply ridiculous. I know an awful lot of religious conservatives that support space exploration.
Lastly, I must apologize for calling you an idiot and an asshole. It's easy to get caught up in a brief moment of frustration, and even easier to use such words when talking about someone who you don't think will ever read it. Those words were inappropriate and not the words a Christian should be using.
I didn't intend to paint a "conservatives & religious people vs. the rest of us" portrait. I do stand by my assertion that in the long run conservatives will ultimately lose, because by definition, a conservative wants things to stay the same. I don't see conservative and liberal as dirty words. They are simply descriptions. I used the creation in the schools issue as an extreme example of one conservative viewpoint that one group of people want to cling to, despite the changes in the world to the contrary since that was a dominant belief.
I don't thing it is one side vs. another. It is much more complex than that, as we all have conservative and liberal beliefs (and faiths) that overlap.
Thanks for some good e-conversation.
Ha! That's my favorite line. You don't have the time? How much time did you just spend on that monologue? Holy cats! It doesn't seem like you are actually interested in a discussion--and if you are, great, here I am, but try a little brevity next time.
:)
Well, I just wrote an elephantine article establishing that your generalization was less than fully accurate, which as you correctly guess, did in fact consume an immense amount of time. However, I judged that the argument would gain little for including a discussion of, say, Confuscianism as well, and I was getting just a bit tired of writing at that point, so I decided to bow out of that possible track of discussion. It's not as if I was trying to dodge something that would have destroyed my argument.
I don't know where you presumed I have a thesis that proclaims faith doesn't have a place.
In the Red-Versus-Blue dichotomy (yes, the Halo machinima reference is perfectly intentional), "Faith" is something much more strongly associated with Reds, unless you mean the rather vague spirituality characteristic of, say, The Next Generation -- which is "a place" for religion in the sense of "putting it in its place," and again feels like trying to have it both ways.
Actually, what it feels like is a sort of folk memory of the Socratic dialogue at the end of Will Durant's The Story of Civilization where Voltaire and the Pope of his era -- Innocent VIII, if I recall rightly -- discuss the merits of religion in social affairs, and Voltaire loses. (In fact, the dialogue is a bit anachronistic; by the time he died, Voltaire had returned to Catholicism, and would have agreed with the Pope heartily, but it's a Socratic dialogue. The point is the expression of an argument, not the accurate depiction of its characters.)
You spent a lot of words talking around something I didn't say.
I was concerned with proving two points. First, that the model for "conservatives" which you evoked by mentioning Haliburton and the recent election does not, in fact, describe all opponents of, say, Roddenbery's view of the world. Second, that even those who it does describe are not explicitly opposed to 'progress,' however it may be defined, so much as destructively disinterested.
If you'd like to know what I think about that I'll be happy to tell you: thankfully our country is free and structured in such a way to allow folks to have the faiths of their choosing.
You know, one could say that this is a fault... After all, if a religion purports to describe the world, it either describes it in an accurate manner, or in an inaccurate one, and it is better to know how the world operates than to not know and think you do.
Of course, this opens a whole new can of worms, and I'm not going to advocate the argument any more than, say, the adoption of the Highland clan system in the United States, or the reinstitution of polygamy following John Milton's argument. Still, all three of these are interesting arguments, and although they have considerable flaws at the very bottom of them, are still worth contemplating.
(The most obvious refutation of forcible conversions, at least to Christianity or a similar religion, is that conversion is meaningless if secured under threat of force...)
However, as I did say, faith does not invent rocket ships. It can give comfort while you are stuck in on--and that's great.
Assuming I have the sense of this right, this statement can be made more assertive: "Faith is inferior to something which does invent rocket ships, or, for that matter, to something which more reliably gives comfort while aboard them." The main problems with this statement are the unqualified use of "faith" and "something which invents rocket ships," not to mention the idea that the whole role of religion is to make one feel better, so I set out to disambiguate, a bit defensively on account of the vituperative