ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Star Trek movie Gripe session..

BenJGrimm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Jun. 21 2009, 8:37 pm

Quote (SpaceTherapist @ June 21 2009, 8:22 pm)
In my time on this board I have found that people do often say outrageous things and I often think they are using hyperbole only to discover that they are not and they mean just what they are saying.

Well; you can visit intentions if you please. I suppose you have your own unique way of making the determination that people are saying what YOU BELIEVE they are saying. I'll have to take your word for that, I guess.

So I have decided to take what they say at face value until they otherwise state differently.

As a long time fine I was very happy with this movie and I enjoyed it immensely.

Oh, by the way..WELCOME to the boards!

In my time on this board I have found that people do often say outrageous things and I often think they are using hyperbole only to discover that they are not and they mean just what they are saying.

Well; you can visit intentions if you please. I suppose you have your own unique way of making the determination that people are saying what YOU BELIEVE they are saying. I'll have to take your word on that, I guess.

So I have decided to take what they say at face value until they otherwise state differently.

As a long time fine I was very happy with this movie and I enjoyed it immensely.

I sort of gathered that.

Oh, by the way..WELCOME to the boards!

Thanks for the welcome.

BEN[QUOTE][/B][B]

KeeRock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 352

Report this Jun. 21 2009, 8:47 pm

Why wasn't there an "All of the above" choice?

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 1:04 am

Quote (BenJGrimm @ June 21 2009, 7:22 pm)
You da man, DJ! Great thread, sir! I would have voted all of the mentioned choices if I could have! It's hard to pick ONE off of THAT list!

I despised the movie, personally; but to my fellow fans that did not I would say: I have NOTHING personal against ANYONE who likes the movie! (no matter HOW ASTONISHED I AM, by your liking it!;) However, (some of) you, are very quick to play the increasingly tired "HATERS" card every time someone so much as sneezes in this movie's general direction! As many have pointed out; it IS a MOVIE!!! It's OK to "HATE" a MOVIE, isn't it? Is it REALLY EVIL if some of us "HATE" it and criticize it; as long as we give our reasons why, and don't insult those who disagree?

This IS a discussion board, after all; with a clearly defined topic! Why are some so DEFENSIVE of ol' J.J.? To some of us, he TRASHED something we love: STAR TREK! And, he was down right ARROGANT about it! So, intelligent counter arguments are great; likes and dislikes of movies are highly subjective; but, if all you have in your intellectual arsenal is "You HATERS!" then, why even bother to converse on the subject?

BEN


:cool:

That's cool, BenGrimm (or Thing!  :laugh: ).  I totally agree with what you said about respecting each others povs.  Sorry you didn't like the film, but I can understand why you didn't.  You're right, it is just a movie.  But there are some people here who think ST is much much more than that.  For example, one person thinks it should be a philosophy treatise and the other thinks the continuation of the human species depends on ST or something.

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 1:08 am

Quote (rocketscientist @ June 22 2009, 3:04 pm)
Quote (BenJGrimm @ June 21 2009, 7:22 pm)
You da man, DJ! Great thread, sir! I would have voted all of the mentioned choices if I could have! It's hard to pick ONE off of THAT list!

I despised the movie, personally; but to my fellow fans that did not I would say: I have NOTHING personal against ANYONE who likes the movie! (no matter HOW ASTONISHED I AM, by your liking it!;) However, (some of) you, are very quick to play the increasingly tired "HATERS" card every time someone so much as sneezes in this movie's general direction! As many have pointed out; it IS a MOVIE!!! It's OK to "HATE" a MOVIE, isn't it? Is it REALLY EVIL if some of us "HATE" it and criticize it; as long as we give our reasons why, and don't insult those who disagree?

This IS a discussion board, after all; with a clearly defined topic! Why are some so DEFENSIVE of ol' J.J.? To some of us, he TRASHED something we love: STAR TREK! And, he was down right ARROGANT about it! So, intelligent counter arguments are great; likes and dislikes of movies are highly subjective; but, if all you have in your intellectual arsenal is "You HATERS!" then, why even bother to converse on the subject?

BEN


:cool:

That's cool, BenGrimm (or Thing! ¿:laugh: ). ¿I totally agree with what you said about respecting each others povs. ¿Sorry you didn't like the film, but I can understand why you didn't. ¿You're right, it is just a movie. ¿But there are some people here who think ST is much much more than that. ¿For example, one person thinks it should be a philosophy treatise and the other thinks the continuation of the human species depends on ST or something.

Whilst I believe the philosophy of Star Trek is FUN  :D

Kiwifrank

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 6:53 am

Quote (DammitJim6200 @ June 20 2009, 4:37 pm)
Let's face it, this nut-fest movie from the untalented JJ Abrams is the surprise hit of the year,
But clearly this film isen't a hit with some of us fans..
Many times Abrams slap Loyalist and purist in the face claiming the movie isen't for us, "This movie isen't for fans of Star Trek."
but he's right, this lame movie isen't for us, he turned Star Trek into a immature, LOUD silly joy ride with no real story or substance, just glitter,

Showing no appreciation for the brilliant TOS whatsoever
turning Kirk and Spock into two manneqiuns with no personality..

Making Chekov into a silly annoying boy, who shouldn't be no where near a Flagship.

Turning a dignified women like Uhura into a desperate, irritating go getter.

Not to mention the horrendous new versions of Engineering, the Bridge and the Enterprise itself, clearly and insult to Matt Jefferies.

And those STUPID belts they got to carry the Phaser and communicator, Roddenberry would NEVER allowed that stupidity,

Those are just a few, I know many purist has problems with this overrated movie,
so express it here,
but be kind, JJ Abrams or some of his lackeys might be reading this and who knows we might give them good advice !

Only those who have a gripe about this dumb movie comment.. ¿;)

This is my first post on this Forum...

I've been a SF and Trek fan since I first saw it as a kid - and luvved every moment of it. At the time, the weekly adventures of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al, was a glimpse into a world I barely knew existed.

But I have to agree with "DammitJim". Especially where he stated,

"but he's right, this lame movie isen't for us, he turned Star Trek into a immature, LOUD silly joy ride with no real story or substance, just glitter..."

It was LOUD. There was no real story or even a theme. It was lots of explosions and snarling and people dysing (albeit fictional).

I came out of the cinema going, "Wow! What a ride!"

And then the adrenaline subsided, the excitement died away... and my "sugar rush" was over. I was left feeling... empty.

What the f**k had I just seen? It was not "Star Trek" - that I'm sure of. And by "Star Trek", I'm not referring to the incidental things like getting Engineering right (but yes - it looked like a Brewery!;) or the weird thing between Uhura and Spock (?!?!;) or the contradiction of the time-travel storyline* or the lame charachterisations...

I'm talking about the spirit of STAR TREK. What used to define "Star Trek" as optimistic about the future.

Sure, we'd find aliens and have problems with them. Then we'd finds ways to overcome those problems. That was Roddenberry's vision of the future; hope.

What I saw in this movie was a kind of malevolent, hopeless, and very nasty vision of the future. It was brutish and violent.

At least with the Borg, they wanted to assimilate us for our own good.

And the Klingons - now THAT'S what I'm talking about. They were Bad Guys - until they got to know us, and we them. And then it became more positive, and the character "Worf" was born.

But can anyone please tell me what positive theme came out of this movie? Because I sure as hell couldn't find anything. Not a thing.

This wasn't Star Trek. This was some aberration; a mutation spawned from our psyche and current obssession with destruction. ¿Don't believe me?

Check out BATMAN BEGINS and DARK KNIGHT. Have a look at the background shots of the destruction. Buildings, overhead rail, ships, roads - massive destruction. Lots of LOUD noise.

It's as if our attention spans have become so shortened; that the movie producers feel they need to give us *bigger bangs for our bucks*, to elicit Shock & Awe.

I've had an uneasy feeling about the blockbusters I've seen over the last five years or so.

And Star Trek has turned that unease into full-scale revulsion.

This is not Star Trek As We Know It, Jim. It is something that is... obscene. It is the Mirror Universe Star Trek - and it permeates our current entertainment industry.

I wonder what Gene Roddenberry would think of this current incarnation of his beloved star-child.

Somehow, I don't believe he would be happy...


(* If the Romulans had travelled back 184 years - why didn't they simply destroy the errant star, in this time period, BEFORE it went nova? They had the ship; the knowledge; the "Red Matter"; and Spock's assistance. Yet they go for "revenge" instead??? Why? The star hadn't destroyed Romulus yet - they could EASILY have prevented it!;)

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 7:12 am

Quote (Kiwifrank @ June 22 2009, 8:53 pm)
Quote (DammitJim6200 @ June 20 2009, 4:37 pm)
Let's face it, this nut-fest movie from the untalented JJ Abrams is the surprise hit of the year,
But clearly this film isen't a hit with some of us fans..
Many times Abrams slap Loyalist and purist in the face claiming the movie isen't for us, "This movie isen't for fans of Star Trek."
but he's right, this lame movie isen't for us, he turned Star Trek into a immature, LOUD silly joy ride with no real story or substance, just glitter,

Showing no appreciation for the brilliant TOS whatsoever
turning Kirk and Spock into two manneqiuns with no personality..

Making Chekov into a silly annoying boy, who shouldn't be no where near a Flagship.

Turning a dignified women like Uhura into a desperate, irritating go getter.

Not to mention the horrendous new versions of Engineering, the Bridge and the Enterprise itself, clearly and insult to Matt Jefferies.

And those STUPID belts they got to carry the Phaser and communicator, Roddenberry would NEVER allowed that stupidity,

Those are just a few, I know many purist has problems with this overrated movie,
so express it here,
but be kind, JJ Abrams or some of his lackeys might be reading this and who knows we might give them good advice !

Only those who have a gripe about this dumb movie comment.. ?;)

This is my first post on this Forum...

I've been a SF and Trek fan since I first saw it as a kid - and luvved every moment of it. At the time, the weekly adventures of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al, was a glimpse into a world I barely knew existed.

But I have to agree with "DammitJim". Especially where he stated,

"but he's right, this lame movie isen't for us, he turned Star Trek into a immature, LOUD silly joy ride with no real story or substance, just glitter..."

It was LOUD. There was no real story or even a theme. It was lots of explosions and snarling and people dysing (albeit fictional).

I came out of the cinema going, "Wow! What a ride!"

And then the adrenaline subsided, the excitement died away... and my "sugar rush" was over. I was left feeling... empty.

What the f**k had I just seen? It was not "Star Trek" - that I'm sure of. And by "Star Trek", I'm not referring to the incidental things like getting Engineering right (but yes - it looked like a Brewery!;) or the weird thing between Uhura and Spock (?!?!;) or the contradiction of the time-travel storyline* or the lame charachterisations...

I'm talking about the spirit of STAR TREK. What used to define "Star Trek" as optimistic about the future.

Sure, we'd find aliens and have problems with them. Then we'd finds ways to overcome those problems. That was Roddenberry's vision of the future; hope.

What I saw in this movie was a kind of malevolent, hopeless, and very nasty vision of the future. It was brutish and violent.

At least with the Borg, they wanted to assimilate us for our own good.

And the Klingons - now THAT'S what I'm talking about. They were Bad Guys - until they got to know us, and we them. And then it became more positive, and the character "Worf" was born.

But can anyone please tell me what positive theme came out of this movie? Because I sure as hell couldn't find anything. Not a thing.

This wasn't Star Trek. This was some aberration; a mutation spawned from our psyche and current obssession with destruction. ?Don't believe me?

Check out BATMAN BEGINS and DARK KNIGHT. Have a look at the background shots of the destruction. Buildings, overhead rail, ships, roads - massive destruction. Lots of LOUD noise.

It's as if our attention spans have become so shortened; that the movie producers feel they need to give us *bigger bangs for our bucks*, to elicit Shock & Awe.

I've had an uneasy feeling about the blockbusters I've seen over the last five years or so.

And Star Trek has turned that unease into full-scale revulsion.

This is not Star Trek As We Know It, Jim. It is something that is... obscene. It is the Mirror Universe Star Trek - and it permeates our current entertainment industry.

I wonder what Gene Roddenberry would think of this current incarnation of his beloved star-child.

Somehow, I don't believe he would be happy...


(* If the Romulans had travelled back 184 years - why didn't they simply destroy the errant star, in this time period, BEFORE it went nova? They had the ship; the knowledge; the "Red Matter"; and Spock's assistance. Yet they go for "revenge" instead??? Why? The star hadn't destroyed Romulus yet - they could EASILY have prevented it!;)

Welcome Kiwifrank to the boards,

Um, I'm not going to repond to your post as such, for two reasons:

1. I am a huge fan of Star Trek (40 year fan) and of STXI, so you and I will disagree

2. Every point your make has been covered, discussed, argued etc over dozens of threads and hundreds of posts over the last 8 weeks (longer actually if we take into account DJ's concerted campaign against this movie for the last 18 months, except for that brief period there where he admitted to enjoying the movie...LOL).

I am sorry you didn't enjoy STXI, but you are most welcome to express your feelings about it.  :D  And I hope you stay on ST.com, contribute more and get to know us all, we aren't a bad bunch.

And be prepared to be challenged

Again welcome

Cheers MG

Kiwifrank

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 7:32 am

Thanks, Mirrorgirl. I look forward to many challenging debates and taking delight in our different views... :)

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 7:34 am

Quote (Kiwifrank @ June 22 2009, 9:32 pm)
Thanks, Mirrorgirl. I look forward to many challenging debates and taking delight in our different views... :)

That's what it's all about  :D

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 7:51 am

Quote (Mirrorgirl @ June 22 2009, 7:34 am)
Quote (Kiwifrank @ June 22 2009, 9:32 pm)
Thanks, Mirrorgirl. I look forward to many challenging debates and taking delight in our different views... :)

That's what it's all about ¿:D

and here i thought it was about conroeming to what paramount spoon fed us...........

oh but i like the gruel........ i really do  ;)

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 7:53 am

#### i misspelled conforming......

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 7:58 am

Quote (thereR4lights @ June 22 2009, 9:53 pm)
#### i misspelled conforming......

Turn at least one of your four lights on, or get a backlit keyboard  :laugh:

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 8:02 am

Quote (Mirrorgirl @ June 22 2009, 7:58 am)
Quote (thereR4lights @ June 22 2009, 9:53 pm)
#### i misspelled conforming......

Turn at least one of your four lights on, or get a backlit keyboard ¿:laugh:

your terrible, just terrible  :laugh:

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 8:48 am

Quote (thereR4lights @ June 22 2009, 10:02 pm)
Quote (Mirrorgirl @ June 22 2009, 7:58 am)
Quote (thereR4lights @ June 22 2009, 9:53 pm)
#### i misspelled conforming......

Turn at least one of your four lights on, or get a backlit keyboard ?:laugh:

your terrible, just terrible ¿:laugh:

It's what I do  ;)

frimmel

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 350

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 8:49 am

There was no selection for the more technical aspects of film making, editing, cinematography, shot selection, and of course the lens flares. The movie looked like it was shot for TV.

The story was all just a framework for the action sequences.

I thought the charcterisation was more from spoof Trek or  popular perception of the characters than what the characters were. Basil Rathbone as opposed to Jeremy Brett.

I can understand how folks could like it and have fun. I don't understand how the critics have given this a pass.

chickadee

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 855

Report this Jun. 22 2009, 8:52 am

Quote (DammitJim6200 @ June 20 2009, 11:09 pm)
Quote (docnoc @ June 19 2009, 11:20 pm)
I'd rather the movie had been created the way Star Trek Phase II has.

The movie has so many things wrong with it you make a book!

Doc Noc
nojarjar.ning.com

Agreed, and what about the horrible job they did with Quinto's Spock, he's soft spoken and ¿confused
you wouldn't believe he's a Commander,
and dosen't Vulcans have a gold yellow skin color, the Spock in the movie had a california sun tan,
and Vulcan's suppose to have green blood, I ¿remember his blood being pretty red when he got into a fight as a kid and was bleeding..
This movie sure disgraces TOS.

his blood was green, the blood on his lip was green and the bruise forming on his face had a green tinge to it

and have you seen the planet Vulcan as they show it? it's a desert like place with a lot of sun....so of course Spock would have a tan. If anything he would probably have been much darker

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum