Star Trek

Lawrence was absolutely clear on the matter, in the first chapter of Seven Pillars. He *was* gay, which unfortunately had much more serious implications then, than now. I don't understand why there is speculation about something on which Lawrence himself was clear.

I don't think that the 'fat/different' business had any subtext to it, beyond Lawrence acknowledging that he is fundamentally different from the English whom his guide had met, before...A fat country...fat people. But you are not fat? No...
 
Sad Max said:
Lawrence was absolutely clear on the matter, in the first chapter of Seven Pillars. He *was* gay, which unfortunately had much more serious implications then, than now. I don't understand why there is speculation about something on which Lawrence himself was clear.

I don't think that the 'fat/different' business had any subtext to it, beyond Lawrence acknowledging that he is fundamentally different from the English whom his guide had met, before...A fat country...fat people. But you are not fat? No...
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought you were implying he wasn't...But come on, that fat/different line is rich with subtext. I'm sure Robert Bolt was fully aware what he was doing writing that line. He was no dummy. Reminds me of the oysters/snails scene in Spartacus.
 
I don't see the connection. The conversation is about Lawrence's different perspective on the Arabs and his sense of alienation from his own people.

I mean, sure one can make that into a gay subtext if one wants to, but one could do that with virtually any part of the film: Rains' difference between you and me line near the end is probably a better candidate, but even in that scene there's no reason to suspect any particular subtext - the dialog supports the action and story at hand...
 
Last edited:
I just don't see how a writer of Robert Bolt's caliber could not know what he's doing there. If it can be seen or not seen to me is just evidence of his skill as a writer and being able to cover his tracks in a time period less accepting of Lawrence's homosexuality.

But back to Star Trek, how is this for subtext, Kirk in a scene from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" --

star+trek+stalagtite.jpg
 
Looks like decent evidence that the fact someone sees a subtext, does not mean that it was actually placed there...
 
ChipG said:
Honestly, if your a Trekkie they will never get better (Trekkies knows this), the flaws will be squared to the 11th power.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for any Trekkies other than myself, but speaking for this Trekkie, you're wrong. I can easily see them making a better movie than this one; because although I overall liked this movie a lot, it made dumb mistakes with regards to Star Trek that easily could have been fixed without having any effect on the average non-Trekkies view of the movie.

For the market they are going after it'll be bigger than ever.
Click to expand...

But aren't Trekkies (or Trekkers, for those out there who feel the need to make the distinction; I'm perfectly happy with Trekkie myself :p ) part of the market they're going after? Not exclusively, of course, but they said many times that they didn't want to lose the existing fanbase, just make a movie with appeal beyond it.

Why don't all the "smart" Trekkies who complain like little girls go out and make thier own movie?
Click to expand...

Because Paramount isn't throwing $150 million at them? :D
 
An analysis of a "for the fans" reference gone wrong

An analysis of a "for the fans" reference gone wrong

Captain Pierce said:
although I overall liked this movie a lot, it made dumb mistakes with regards to Star Trek that easily could have been fixed without having any effect on the average non-Trekkies view of the movie
Click to expand...

As an example of this, let's talk about the planet that Kirk gets marooned on: Delta Vega.

star-trek-20081015025340385.jpg


old_delta_vega_night.jpg


Delta Vega, for the non-Trekker, is a reference to the second Star Trek pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before." After an incident at the edge of the Galaxy, the Enterprise manages to limp back to Delta Vega, a planet with an automated lithium cracking station, to make repairs. The implication is clearly that Delta Vega isn't very far from the edge of the Galaxy, because the Enterprise is in no condition to travel very far.

Now, it seems clear that naming the planet that Spock maroons Kirk on (and, ironically, the planet that Nero has marooned a certain other character on) "Delta Vega" is meant to be a "throw the fans a bone" reference. ("Hey, let's call this planet Delta Vega, cause that name was in Star Trek once, and maybe the fans will still be stoked enough about that to distract them from this transwarp beaming bullshit we're going to throw at them in about twenty minutes.") The problem is that this can't possibly be the same Delta Vega, because if the TOS Delta Vega had been close enough to Vulcan that you can see a certain spoiler happen with the naked eye from there, certainly it would be close enough that a damaged starship could make it the couple of extra AU's and get fixed properly.

So, a reference that only the old-school fans will get, and yet one that's destined only to make them mad. Better luck with Transformers 2, guys...
 
Captain Pierce, I was not aware of Delta Vega being as built up in TOS versus the new film and the tiny little outpost there. I agree though, why change Delta Vega so much yet include it as a nod to the hardcore fans?

As for Trekkies versus Trekkers as the proper name for those that apply, how about a hip new term, TrekkerZ ?

Batutta said:
There are only a few hints the real Lawrence had gay relations, but there is none of him having female relations so you can see why people speculated...

What this has to do with Star Trek I have no idea anymore.
Click to expand...

It all started with my "what if" Voyager cast/director list. Sorry everyone, I had no idea it would cause such a controversy.

Now, somebody chime in and agree with my pick of Cate Blanchett as a good choice for Captain Janeway in a big budget Voyager remake. At least that one is a pretty good casting call. Anyone...
 
Last edited:
I figured it out! I figured it out!

I just figured out why the engineering spaces on Federation ships look like giant breweries!

Remember Yahoo Serious? Remember Young Einstein and his discovery of the limitless energy locked up in the humble Beer Atom?

Well, in JJ Abrams' new improved Trek timeline, Young Einstein's discovery (rather than Zefram Cochran's) underpins all warp technology: energy extracted from the decay of accelerated beerions powers the ship's drives, weapons and systems, requiring the installation of a giant brewery facility in engineering to keep the machinery supplied with the necessary flow of suds to make everything work.

I should be a writer.
 
Last edited:
I actually have seen it, so I guess i'm that other person...I remember taking my friend's little brother and he was traumatized for weeks by a scene of kittens going in an oven.
 
Batutta said:
I actually have seen it, so I guess i'm that other person...I remember taking my friend's little brother and he was traumatized for weeks by a scene of kittens going in an oven.
Click to expand...

Ha! LOL :) Did he ever go to the movies with you again?
 
Ha ha, my favorite part of that interview:

I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening.
Click to expand...

Um, J.J., if there's something spectacular happening just off camera, why aren't you pointing your camera at it?????
 
Batutta said:
Ha! Whoever said the guy holding the flashlight was making the lens flares was right! They weren't done in post. JJ admitted he went a little overboard in this interview--

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous
Click to expand...

When I was on set (not for that scene) over a year ago, closer to two, J.J. didn't want anyone to know it was a flashlight. Didn't know he went public about it until he did the interview. What do ya say? I guess nothing from now on.
 
Been thinking about this. There was much made about this film taking Star Trek and making changes in order to appeal to a "wider audience."

Just curious as to what exactly that means, and the specific ways in which it was accomplished (or meant to have been accomplished) in this film.
 
The main specific way it was accopmlished (for the masses) was to start from the begining so the new audience wouldn't be lost from not following the TV series or other Trek movies to know what was going on or where they had been etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top