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

Why Star Trek 2009 sucked

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 1:15 pm

Quote: WkdYngMan @ Apr. 24 2011, 8:54 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Apr. 24 2011, 8:22 pm

>

 HAHAHAHAHA.  Stop it, I can't breathe!  This basically sums everything up from the naysayers, although now you need to add in over the top violent threats which some of the extremist members of Star Trek's facebook did today on Damon Lindelof's birthday posting.  As someone posted, they were coming off as mentally ill.


I'm not surprised. Some of the comments on this site and trekmovie.com are disturbing. Some people either have mental issues or they have nothing else going on in their life. Very sad.


 


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 1:17 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

Say it isn't so.

Don't start talking about Santa Claus please.


Santa is real. The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy told me so.


 


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 1:22 pm

Quote: coastcityo @ Apr. 25 2011, 7:42 am

>

>Yes Vger23, us Trek fans that hated 2009 can be a wee bit over the top and nit picky in our reasons for hating this film, but for me it comes down to a couple of things.

>I hated the performances of Spock and Kirk (Spock much more than Kirk, he just totally reminded me of Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber), and that is an insurmountable stumbling block for a show that is driven by these two main characters. Others can like or love the job these guys did, but I didn't. That is totally a perception and taste thing, and will not be swayed by any fan of the show. Their acting job can't totally be blamed on JJ, but as the director he does deserve some of the credit and blame for the job his actors did.

>I hated the story, and that is another big road block towards liking the film. And again, this is something the director has a hand in, and so JJ again gets some more of my ire. 

>If I had cared about the story, while hating the two main stars, then maybe I wouldn't hate the entire film so much, or even vice versa. But, when you hate the two main stars as well as the story itself, you are going to hate the entire experience of the film. So I hated the experience of JJTrek 2009, and all the little minute details that us haters are whining about are just blown up even more out of proportions. It's like, after breaking up with someone, how you can recall every annoying thing they ever did.

>Another part of the problem for me, is I got used to having a lot of Trek going on at once, and now there is just the void filled by 2009. It used to be easier to get over the trek I didn't like, by focusing on the Trek I did like. I didn't like Voyager, but that's ok because I have DS9. Now, all I had was that 2009 film I hated, and then I get to wait a few years for another helping of the same meal I already hated. And, that just feeds my hatred of JJ and his Trek, knowing that his is the only show in town for the next few years, and I just have to suck it.

>


Dude/Dudette


You need a hug. I'm a throw this one out for free and hope someone in your life will provide a few more.



It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 1:24 pm

Quote: Caalma @ Apr. 25 2011, 8:36 am

>

>WAIT A FREAKIN MINUTE....

>Star Trek isn't real???? Trek2009 sucked??? What??? NO WAY!!!! I have to go kill myself now. THANKS ALOT!!! this must be how that geico caveman feels?

>


Don't do it! It's going to be okay.



It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

neuweiler

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 2:49 pm

Now give it a break guys!


Yes, Star Trek is a TV/Movie franchise and nothing of it is real (although more and more becomes real - compare the TNG pad with the iPad). Some people have a more detached view to the whole thing and some fans (aka as fanatic, aficionado, supporter) blend their live a bit more with the whole idea, philosophy of Star Trek or even get inspired by it. As to where the borderline between "healthy" and "unhealthy" (e.g. sick) escaping from the reality or wishing for a better present and future is crossed, I wouldn't dare to come to a conclision and I think none of you is really capable of doing so. Sometimes it might even be a good thing for someone to hide in fantasy for a certain time. So anyone calling someone else "sick" or "mentally instable" because he disliked or even hated the movie, is crossing the line in my opinion and disqualifies himself and his argument.


One of the basic principles of Star Trek is tolerance - something that's difficult to find in this thread.


 


Personally, I didn't like the movie either. I admit, it's very catchy, it's got some good humor and really good scenes.  But to me it was rather something like "Luke Skywalker and Han Solo meet Nemesis" than a Roddenberry like Star Trek. The most annoying thing being that it has absolutely no message - just plain action. Earlier movies (except Nemesis) all had their message and gave you something on the way to think about - even ST V (correction: especially ST V). That's why I don't like ST 2009 and Nemesis. Not because Vulcan get's blown up, Spock and Uhura have a relationship or the Enterprise looks like a hot rod and was incorrectly constructed on earth. Discussing such details is all besides the point because in a good movie, you could tolerate them. Besides the very simple dualistic theme "bad guy wants to kill me - me good, so I kill him first" all it has to offer is a new concept of time travel which is completely contradictory to the previously used concept and hence either invalidates itself or all previous movies/shows where time travel occured. The two are just not compatible and lead to a lot of confusion in the fan community.


In my point of view, it's not JJ Abrahams who is to blame. It's the ones that made him director of ST 2009, because the outcome should have been clear from the moment this decision was made.


Anyone who's tempted to tell me to get alive, give me a hug or come back to the topic of Santa Claus, I'd like to kindly ask what it was that he (or she) liked about ST 2009.


PS: Maybe it's not only ST 2009 that upsets me but more the general tendency of Holywood movies becoming more and more content-less. (Idiocracy might be closer that I thought... )

___Lucifer___

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1142

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 3:22 pm

all it has to offer is a new concept of time travel which is completely contradictory to the previously used concept and hence either invalidates itself or all previous movies/shows where time travel occured. The two are just not compatible and lead to a lot of confusion in the fan community.

LOLWUT?!?! Which previously used concept are you talking about? There have been many different methods of Time travel in the various incarnations of Star Trek:

Cold Start of warp engines - The Naked time
Slingshot Effect - Tomorrow is Yesterday/Assignment Earth/Star Trek IV: TVH
Guardian of Forever - The City on the Edge of Forever/Yesteryear (TAS)
The Nexus - ST: Generations
Borg Temporal Wake - ST:First Contact
Energy Vortex - Time Squared
Temporal Rift - Yesterday's Enterprise/Future's End/Shattered
Temporal causality loop - Cause and Effect
Vorgon Technology - Captain's Holiday
Time Pod - A Matter of Time
Temporal distortion - Time's Arrow
Q - Tapestry/All Good things/Death Wish
Transporter Malfunction - Past Tense
Temporal Displacement - Visionary/The Visitor
Orb of Time - Trials and Tribblelations, Wrongs Darker than Death or Night
Time Warp - Little Green Men
The Prophets - Accession
Energy Barrier - Children of Time
Time Portal - Time's Orphan/Cold Front/Shockwave/Carpenter Street/Azati Prime/Zero Hour/Storm Front
Metreon Radiation - The Sound of Her Voice
Quantum Singularity - Parallax
Subspace fractures - Time and Again
Micro-wormhole - Eye of the Needle
Bio-Temporal Chamber - Before and After
Temporal transmitter - Timeless
Temporal transporter - Relativity
Energy surge from VOY's warp core - Fury
Chrono-deflector - Endgame
Temporal Communications Chamber - Shockwave part II
Temporal radiation - Future Tense
Subspace Corridor - E2

Just because they invented a new one for the movie doesn't cancel out the previous times they have done it.


Six of Nine

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 622

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 3:24 pm

It was great. period


As a wise man once wrote, : "Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever".

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 3:27 pm

I suggest those who hate the movie to read the Countdown and Nero comics which were made while the movie was in production to support it.  I didn't like the movie when I first saw it, then I read the comics which made the second time I watched the movie much more palatable.


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Apr. 25 2011, 3:43 pm

Quote: neuweiler @ Apr. 25 2011, 2:49 pm

>

>Now give it a break guys!

>Yes, Star Trek is a TV/Movie franchise and nothing of it is real (although more and more becomes real - compare the TNG pad with the iPad). Some people have a more detached view to the whole thing and some fans (aka as fanatic, aficionado, supporter) blend their live a bit more with the whole idea, philosophy of Star Trek or even get inspired by it. As to where the borderline between "healthy" and "unhealthy" (e.g. sick) escaping from the reality or wishing for a better present and future is crossed, I wouldn't dare to come to a conclision and I think none of you is really capable of doing so. Sometimes it might even be a good thing for someone to hide in fantasy for a certain time. So anyone calling someone else "sick" or "mentally instable" because he disliked or even hated the movie, is crossing the line in my opinion and disqualifies himself and his argument.

>One of the basic principles of Star Trek is tolerance - something that's difficult to find in this thread.

>Personally, I didn't like the movie either. I admit, it's very catchy, it's got some good humor and really good scenes.  But to me it was rather something like "Luke Skywalker and Han Solo meet Nemesis" than a Roddenberry like Star Trek. The most annoying thing being that it has absolutely no message - just plain action. Earlier movies (except Nemesis) all had their message and gave you something on the way to think about - even ST V (correction: especially ST V). That's why I don't like ST 2009 and Nemesis. Not because Vulcan get's blown up, Spock and Uhura have a relationship or the Enterprise looks like a hot rod and was incorrectly constructed on earth. Discussing such details is all besides the point because in a good movie, you could tolerate them. Besides the very simple dualistic theme "bad guy wants to kill me - me good, so I kill him first" all it has to offer is a new concept of time travel which is completely contradictory to the previously used concept and hence either invalidates itself or all previous movies/shows where time travel occured. The two are just not compatible and lead to a lot of confusion in the fan community.

>In my point of view, it's not JJ Abrahams who is to blame. It's the ones that made him director of ST 2009, because the outcome should have been clear from the moment this decision was made.

>Anyone who's tempted to tell me to get alive, give me a hug or come back to the topic of Santa Claus, I'd like to kindly ask what it was that he (or she) liked about ST 2009.

>PS: Maybe it's not only ST 2009 that upsets me but more the general tendency of Holywood movies becoming more and more content-less. (Idiocracy might be closer that I thought... )

>


1. NOBODY was accusing people who dislike the movie of being insane or mentally unbalanced. That accusation is directed toward people who actually wish physical and emotional anguish on writers / producers / actors who take the franchise in a direction that is contrary to their own desires. If you'd read the entire thread, you'd have picked up on that. Someone posted a frigging DEATH THREAT on one of the creative team's facebook pages. It's disgusting. I don't care how into a show you are. You need professional help if you are doing stuff like this.


2. I've never heard the Star Trek / Star Wars comparison with this movie before. Wow. That's insightful.   I'd love to know that this actually even MEANS. What does it mean that the new movie was "more like Star Wars than Roddenberry-influenced Trek?" Does it mean that it was less pretentious, preachy, slow, and nerdy? Does it mean it was more fun, witty, kenetic, and action oriented? Hmmm...that sounds awful. You're right, I'd much prefer the main cast sit in a conference room debating the morality and ethics of using the bioneural gelpacks to cross-circut the phase inducers so they can channel an inverse taychon pulse through the Heisenberg compensators and open a space-time vortex capable of blah blah blah blah blah. Yeah, that's very entertaining and VERY intellectual.


3. How does the message of Star Trek 2009 get lost on you? You seem like a long-time fan. I can't imagine how the simple concept of a diverse team coming together to overcome their differences and accomplish great things is lost on you. That's what the entire movie was about! Kirk and Spock (to the prime degree) and the rest of the crew (to a lesser degree) are all from different backgrounds and worlds. There is conflict, danger, and outright violence, but by the end of the film, they have put aside their smaller differences (again, especially Kirk and Spock) to join together and become greater than the sum of their parts. At the end of the day THIS is what the original Star Trek was all about. It wasn't about inverse taychon pulses through the main deflector. It wasn't even about the evolved ethical behaviors of man. It was a celebration of overcoming our differences to achieve great things. This was, at the very core, what the new film was about. And that's why I loved it. I loved it because it was a "back to basics" approach to what made Trek great: those characters.


3. The guy's name is actually JJ Abrams. I say Abrahams only to make fun of people who complain and constantly screw it up.


4. If by "idiocracy" you mean "dumbed down entertainment," I'd submit that is fairly arrogant. Who are you to judge that people who like a certain kind of entertainment are drooling idiots?


5. I agree about Star Trek V. I thought it was pretty good, despite popular opinion to the contrary.


6. You say all of the other Trek films have a message that makes you think. Really? What was the "message" of Wrath of Khan? "Don't create genetic supermen??" That's a bit of a stretch. What was the "message" of First Contact? "Ummm...revenge is bad?" Ok...again that's a bit of a stretch. Also, I don't need entertainment to "make me think." Some of the best Star Trek was just mindless entertainment. Look at "Best of Both Worlds!" Where was the high-level message there? If I want to think, I'll read a science, philosophy or history book. I don't need Jean Luc Picard preaching about some ethical dilemma to "make me think."  You can't apply a standard to the new movie and not apply it to the others. There are plenty of reasons to hate any of them if you look hard enough.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 2:51 am

I don't see the main timeline as being in jeopardy because of ST09. The timeline that Nero's actions created here is alternate, like the Mirror Universe. The existence of the JJverse doesn't cancel out the main storylines at all. Just allows him room to move within his 'verse.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 4:25 am

Better for these type people to come here and vent their frustrations and hate then to be reproducing themselves like normal people.

"Thank Pitch Forks and Pointed Ears"

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 7:53 am

Quote: Treknoir @ Apr. 25 2011, 1:15 pm

Quote: WkdYngMan @ Apr. 24 2011, 8:54 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Apr. 24 2011, 8:22 pm

>

>

 HAHAHAHAHA.  Stop it, I can't breathe!  This basically sums everything up from the naysayers, although now you need to add in over the top violent threats which some of the extremist members of Star Trek's facebook did today on Damon Lindelof's birthday posting.  As someone posted, they were coming off as mentally ill.

I'm not surprised. Some of the comments on this site and trekmovie.com are disturbing. Some people either have mental issues or they have nothing else going on in their life. Very sad.

 


I concur.


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 8:05 am

It's okay to dislike or even hate ST09. But folks who make death threats, use hate a skillion times in one post, create new accounts to post how much they hate ST09 over and over again (not saying the OP did this, but I am saying it does happen), or use every damn opportunity to curse ST09 need a hug, meds, or a long vacation.


I don't care what the topic, somebody will find a way to gripe.


Poster 1: I heart Data. I'm wearing a handknit Data sweater right now!


ST09 Hater: I bet Data won't even exist in the AU. Abrams sucks.


Poster 2: I think Vulcan ideology is loosely based on Eastern philosophies.


ST09 Hater: Abrams destroyed Vulcan. Who cares about ideology? The AU sucks sweaty socks.


Poster 3: I want to make a Tribble for my mom. Any ideas?


ST09 Hater: I bet Tribbles in Abramsverse will mate with nuSpock. Makes about as much sense as him sexin' Uhura.


It's ridiculous. The movie exists. It's part of ST history. But NO ONE can make you like it or watch it. There are series, movies, and books that do not in any way touch or mention the AU created by ST09. It really is okay.


 


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 8:34 am

Quote: Treknoir @ Apr. 25 2011, 1:15 pm

Quote: WkdYngMan @ Apr. 24 2011, 8:54 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Apr. 24 2011, 8:22 pm

>

>

 HAHAHAHAHA.  Stop it, I can't breathe!  This basically sums everything up from the naysayers, although now you need to add in over the top violent threats which some of the extremist members of Star Trek's facebook did today on Damon Lindelof's birthday posting.  As someone posted, they were coming off as mentally ill.

I'm not surprised. Some of the comments on this site and trekmovie.com are disturbing. Some people either have mental issues or they have nothing else going on in their life. Very sad.

 


 


it amazes me the amount of time people will spend discussing something they don't like.  There is an incarnation of trek I don't like but I bet not many people can tell me what it is despite being here for 7 years now.  If you don't like some aspect of trek then go ahead and feel free to discuss the ones you do like.  Don't we get enough trek bashing from the rest of the world to do it among ourselves?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Officer Norm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 13

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 9:47 am

You are completely wrong. Does take place in a mirror world

NoRm

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