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

Lieutenant_Jedi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1728

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 11:09 am

Quote: wolfman_9234 @ Apr. 24 2011, 3:33 pm

>

>The newest movie (Star Trek 2009) was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, as it completely undermines the Star Trek Universe with its plotline. How can they possibly explain away the destruction of Vulcan and Romulus when so many episodes of all 5 television series make reference to them and feature them as existing locations. Jean-Luc Picard himeslf stands on Romulus in the Romulan senate in Nemesis, or did they forget that tiny detail?? Had the young Spock taken the stolen future ship containing the red matter to the star that went supernova, destroying Romulus, and destroyed it before it went supernova, thus negating the alternate timeline protrayed by the movie, this problem could have been avoided. Ending the movie in this alternate reality was a huge mistake, in my opinion. I have lost all faith in J.J. Abrams.

>


 


Thank you for your opinion. 


My advice for you is- don't watch the next one.


The millions of us who understood the movie and are excited about the next one will not miss you. 


"Can you detect midi - chlorians with a tricorder?"

Lieutenant_Jedi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1728

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 11:10 am

Quote: Treknoir @ 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.

>


 


Quoted for truth. 


"Can you detect midi - chlorians with a tricorder?"

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 1:08 pm

Quote: Lieutenant_Jedi @ Apr. 26 2011, 11:10 am

Quote: Treknoir @ 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.

>

 

Quoted for truth. 


 


Amen


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Apr. 26 2011, 1:10 pm

Quote: wissa @ 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?


 


It's true, and that's generally what I was getting at in one of my other replies. Why do people waste time, energy, and emotional resources on 2 hours of the franchise they DON'T like as opposed to discussing the potential 100's of hours that they DO like?


Answer: because some people derive pleasure from being miserable and dragging others down with them.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Kroghh

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 1:52 am

What I didn't like about the film, was more in the lines of wanting to have the crew on the enterprisenin their academy days.  So now Kirk (Captain) and Chekov (Ensing) are suddenly at the academy at the same time?  Even with a five year spread among freshman and seniors, by rank structure it's very unlikely that an ensing and a commander would be training at the same time.  That would be like everybody getting rank just by graduating and when the freshman covers the 5 academy years the senior in 5 years makes commander.  Plus the scene of sending kirk to the planet as opposed to the brig, makes no sense at all.  Nobody on the ship saw it weird thath the commanding officer is sending someone to a freezing planet instead of just calling security?  That was the worst excuse for setting up the meeting between kirk and elder spock.


PS One time at a halloween party, I showed up in a TOS uniform, and somebody dress as a vampire started making fun of me, saying "you do realize Star Trek is not real, it's just a tv show"  I replied "Obviously vampires are soooooooo much more real...." 

neuweiler

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 2:35 am

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:


- list of episodes with time travel -


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


Thanks for the detailed episode list - I wasn't aware there were so many episodes with time travel. What I meant is that in all these episodes the time travel followed the "old" principle where you can travel into the past, change something, travel back to "your" present and watch the effect of the change - linear time travel.


In the approach chosen in ST09, every change in the past spawns a new time line, a parallel universe, and it's impossible to travel back to your timeline. Although this is a more modern aproach, it's incompatible with the one previously used.


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.


Sounds interesting. Got a link?


1. NOBODY was accusing people who dislike the movie of being insane or mentally unbalanced.


To me the following statements don't sound like that: "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." or "Better for these type people to come here and vent their frustrations and hate then to be reproducing themselves like normal people."


If they refer to threats being made towards the team of the movie, I entirely agree with you. That's going way to far. Mild swearing would be acceptable but anything above that not. But if such arguments are meant to devalue the ones of those who didn't like the film, it peeks my interest. If people with an opposing opinion are simply called stupid or not normal and no further arguments as to why are being presented, it smells a lot to me like people are being called communists because they realize how stupid it is e.g. to have the public water supply being privatised. Or being called tree hugger if they want to make the chemical industry stop polluting the environment: It's pure defamation.


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.


Nah nah... you're mixing up nerdy technobabble with real intellectual content or challanges here. That's how Star Trek differentiates itself from Star Wars. Star Wars is eye-candy, action and a very simple dualistic world view. That's ok but it's not a prime directive, it's not philosophical debates about what's right and what's wrong, etc. That's what differentiates Star Trek from the rest - imho. Stuff that not only trickles your eye and ear nerves but also some of your grey cells.


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.


Hmm, you're right. But it still is a thin plot and most of it was seen in the last movie. But if we'd take it simply as a pilot to a new series of movies/shows, it might pass.


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?


I'm not saying that people watching these movies with less and less content are drooling idiots. I'm just saing that what we get to see are more and more movies with non-stop action and no real content or depth. Sometimes I also like to watch such movies and get thrilled. But if movies with content that make you think about a topic becmoe more and more an exception - movies which sometimes slow down the pace to give you time to get enveloped by a ambiance. But if you have a scene cut every 3 seconds or less, then I think such movies are starting do dumb you down. Because you constantly get stimulated audio-visually and the level of stimuli has to rise and rise to keep your attention, you don't get a chance to think.


I admit I'm one of those who love ST I for its pathos and its extremely slow pace during the 12min departure scene of the Enterprise from space dock.


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


Yes, I actually love it. Not for Shatner directing it but for taking on the philosophical debate about what, who or where god is (or however the deity might be called).


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?


I thought someone will catch up on this. You're right, with ST II it's a bit more difficult than with others. What pleases me in this movie is: Meeting an old rival and playing cat and mouse with him (incl. 3D tactics), regrets about missed opportunities in family life because of an "unhealthy" focus on career, well put citations of literature, the tension built up during a slow paced chase (in the nebula).


I can't beleive this thread hasn't been deleted for the content of the title.


It might be a simple oversight or it's because there are still people who can deal with criticism.


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.


I agree with you. The thing is that if you went to watch the movie as naively as I did, it takes a mental effort to push the AU out of your mind if you don't agree with it. In my opinion there was so many harsh criticism and people venting their steam on forums because they were literally shocked. So many parts which were the foundation of their/our "beliefs" were thrown out the window. I perfectly understand how people who integrate Star Trek to a bigger extent into their life were slapped in the face. It's only logical that the ignorance of this existing sub-culture results in an outrage which somtimes goes to far.


It's true, and that's generally what I was getting at in one of my other replies. Why do people waste time, energy, and emotional resources on 2 hours of the franchise they DON'T like as opposed to discussing the potential 100's of hours that they DO like?


Answer: because some people derive pleasure from being miserable and dragging others down with them.


Then why do you read their posts and comment them, hmm? For any other reasons?


 


So guys, until now I got presented one argument as to why this movie was good contentwise: Overcoming differences to reach a common goal. I sincerely hope that this is not all you've got, because otherwise it really just smells like diffamation of those who didn't like this action flick you liked so much. Bring it on! Facts, not blaming and bashing!


 


BTW: My brother bought the DVD and liked the movie - that alone is a clear warning sign as he was mocking me for being a Trekker for the past 25 years.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 5:41 am

While I can't fault you for putting out such a thorough response, I am extremely reluctant debating the issue with you. Clearly, you have a mindset that cannot be changed, so there's no point in trying to argue things that you're simply going to refute becuase you view the universe differently.


Also, it's clear that you appreciate aspects of the franchise (philosophical debate, morality conflicts, discussion of ideals, etc. etc.) that are different from what I do (character interplay and charm, outer space action and adventure, human drama, intensity, humor, fun), so it's clear we're going to like different things about it. I bought in to Star Trek back in the late 70's for the fun and adventure. I never wanted to be preached at, nor did I crave an "ah-ha" moment every week. I just wanted to have some fun and watch some cool special effects and enjoy the brilliant characters.


It's like I said, there are elements of the franchise that are considered absolute classics that have no "message" or ham-handed preaching at all (Wrath, Best of Both Worlds, First Contact, Trouble With Tribbles, Yestrerday's Enterprise all immediately come to mind as simple sci-fi adventure stories focusing on thrills, fun, and characters). Trek doesn't need pseudointellectual content to be successful or to be considered "good." It's but one aspect of a highly diversified and highly flexible franchise. I find that most Trek fans who cling to the "STAR TREK IS AN INTELLIGENT SHOW WITH A DEEP PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLCTUAL APPROACH TO STORYTELLING" myth are usually over-compensating for the bad image Trek fans are portrayed as having, and have watched one too many Gene Roddenberry interviews from the 1980's. It's ironic, actualy, because I've drawn the conclusion that Trek fans have a bad image because of the nit-picky, entitled, elitist, exclusionist, whiny attitude a small but vocal group displays...the same kinds of behaviors apparent in the people who constantly and unwavering whine about a 2-hour movie 2 full years after it has been released.


Trek 2009 was popular for a multitude of reasons. This is my honest, no-fooling assessment of why the movie was so wildly popular, for better or worse:


1. It brought passion, heart, and genuine human emotion back to the silver screen. TNG, while very beloved, rarely had heart or passion. It was typically a very measured, deliberate, "play it safe" series when it came to characters and plotlines. it was more about debate and contemplation than it was about adventure in the final frontier. It did not translate well to the big screen as such.


2. It focused on the CORE element I discussed earlier (the basic, fundamental premise that Star Trek is about humanity's ability to overcome weaknesses and differences to achieve great things), which was ALWAYS the reason for it's initial appeal.


3. It had fun, well-written character interplay. The charm, wit, and heart of those characters were back in spades.


4. It had a very effective opening 10 minutes that locked the audience in emotoinally for the remainder of the film, perhaps overshadowing other minor flaws. Easily one of the best sequences in the entire film series.


5. It had top-notch production values: the musical score, cinematography, special effects, wardrobe, etc were all worthy of a hollywood blockbuster, unlike the past 4 - 6 films in the series. It looked, felt, and sounded like a MOVIE...not like a TV episode projected on the big screen.


6. It had the "curiosity factor" going for it. A re-cast and re-imagining of a classic is going to draw attention.


7. It was universally applauded by film critics of all types (mainstreem, backpage, web, genre, etc). So, as much as some of the more "set-in-their-ways fans might not have considered it a "good film," it was universally considerd such by the people that drive the industry.


8. It was a roller-cosater ride of fun and adventure, like a major motion picture should be. The reality is that people don't want to see TMP when they go to the theater any more. And, even though I LOVE TMP, I recongnize that the thought-provoking and deliberate Star Trek movie just ain't gonna fly any more. I'm a lifelong fan, and even I'm done with that approach. I want to see Indiana Jones in space, not an undergrad philosophy debate in space.


9. It had big names attached to the production. Nobody cares about Stuart Biard, Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, David Carson and Jonathan Frakes in the general public (or even Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett for that matter). But everyone knows this creative team. That's a draw and a huge shot in the arm.


10. I'd argue that it WAS thought-provoking in it's own interesting way. It had character arcs that were meaningful and inspiring. Showing Kirk as a lost soul becuase of the different way his life turned out, only to have that "moment of clarity" in the discussion with Pike was VERY meaningful to me. We've all made decisions in our lives that change the course of everything we are for the rest of the time we live. They may not even seem like big decisions at the time- but it's undenyable. I think audiences identify more with this kind of tale and focus than they do with the way "Nemesis" presented similar questions or with the dilemma of whether or not it is right to relocate 600 hippies so the entire galaxy can reap untold medical improvements. The multi-verse theory is also intersting, and they didn't try to over-explain it with some lame conference room scene.


Ultimately, you could (and I'm sure WILL) turn around and refute, deny, and challenge every point here. I guess my point is that YOUR personal perception of how things SHOULD be is very different from mine, so no amount of debate on a message board is going to change your 25 years of conditioning and my 35 years of conditioning. People like what they like.


Fortunately for people like me, it seems that many people prefer the style of Trek that I'm attracted to given the success of the last film, and it seems like there's certainly more to come. So, to your point, I'm not miserable at all. I have no reason to be, not even in relatively small context of my Trek fandom. I got a film that I enjoyed, and the franchise is headed in a direction I am on-board with. My reason for giving complainers a hard time is clearly stated in other places in this thread. It has nothing to do with my need for conflict or my need to drag people down. Thanks for your concern, though.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

___Lucifer___

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1142

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 9:38 am

What I meant is that in all these episodes the time travel followed the "old" principle where you can travel into the past, change something, travel back to "your" present and watch the effect of the change - linear time travel.


In the approach chosen in ST09, every change in the past spawns a new time line, a parallel universe, and it's impossible to travel back to your timeline. Although this is a more modern aproach, it's incompatible with the one previously used.


The "Many worlds" theory of Time-travel has been around long before JJ Trek:


"City on the Edge of Forever": When Doctor McCoy jumped through the time portal, the other crewmembers on the planet's surface perceived the sudden disappearance of the entire Federation. Supposedly, he changed the past so that the Federation was never created. But that is impossible because the other crewmen still existed. They still had memories of the Federation. They still had Federation uniforms and Federation weapons. The "many worlds" theory neatly explains this problem: McCoy and all of the people on the planet's surface were all transported into a timeline (or parallel universe, whichever you prefer) in which the Federation never existed. The original timeline is not destroyed, thus explaining why they still remember its history, but they can no longer perceive it or return to it. When Kirk and Spock jumped back to "fix the damage", they caused everyone to jump into another timeline, in which the Federation was founded again, but with slightly different events surrounding Edith Keeler's death. This is not the same as "going home", but as far as they're concerned, it's good enough.


"Star Trek First Contact": When the Borg jumped into the past, the crew of the Enterprise perceived the disappearance of the Federation's entire history. This is impossible because they still exist, and they still retain all of their memories, equipment, history files, etc. Data suggests that they were somehow "shielded from the changes in the timeline", but he doesn't even attempt an explanation of how this is possible. The "many worlds" theory provided a neater explanation: they were dragged into a new timeline by the Borg sphere's "temporal wake", and when they stayed in the wake long enough to perform a similar jump, they ended up in yet another timeline. In this new timeline, they tried to "fix" events so that they unfolded more or less as they remembered (albeit with an orbital bombardment of Cochrane's launch facility which didn't occur in their original history). Note that the "many worlds" theory also explains the biggest conundrum of STFC: why the Borg fought their way to Earth before performing the time-jump, instead of making the jump from the safety of their own territory. The answer is that a time-jump would move the travellers to a divergent timeline but it would have no effect on the original timeline. Therefore, it would do the Collective no good. You might ask why they performed the jump at all if this is the case, but the Queen's attack had failed and she was facing imminent destruction. A jump into a divergent timeline would not change history in her original timeline, but she may have found the prospect preferable to simply being destroyed by one of Picard's quantum torpedoes.


"Yesterday's Enterprise": History seems to change when the Enterprise-C appears two decades away from where it was supposed to be destroyed in battle. But the original timeline is not gone, and in the new timeline, Guinan can actually perceive that the Enterprise-C belongs to a timeline other than her own (she can even perceive some of the history of that timeline). This perception manifests itself as a disquieting sensation that something is "wrong", but that's an oversimplification. After all, how can a timeline be "wrong?" With countless timelines in existence as seen in "Parallels", why would one be more "right" or "wrong" than another? A better explanation is that Guinan perceived enough of the Enterprise-C's original timeline to know that she thought it was better than the one she was currently in. We jumped to a divergent timeline when the Enterprise-C arrived and we jumped to another divergent timeline when it departed.


Special thanks to Michael Wong


Caalma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 654

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 9:44 am

i am only going to say this one more time...


NOTHING ABOUT STAR TREK SUCKS, WILL EVER SUCK, HAS THE CAPACITY OF SUCKING, OR WILL EVER HAVE SUCK USED IN THE SAME SENTENCE, EVER.


got it?


thank you and goodnite.... there will be no encore.


"Do you think it's possible for two people to go back in time and correct a mistake that never should have happened?" ... "On this ship, anything is possible."

luvy4532

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 187

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 10:25 am

The point that bothered me was that the new crew knew that the Romulans even existed.    One of the best Origional Series episodes is the one where the Enterprise chases after an 'unknown' vessel that has just destroyed a federation outpost .  It is a mind game between Kirk and the Subcommander over who will survive.  When a barely visible picture is established everyone including Spock are shocked to see The pointy ears of the subcommander.  Spock has to explain about his planets past and how the romulans came to existance. Even Spock thought it was just a rumored story.   The look on the crew was wonderful--they were not exactly trusting of vulcans to begin with. ( Something Enterprise played up on that show. )  So for me , I feel they lost the potential for that plotline to come up in a future movie.  


live long and.....

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 10:50 am

Bless your heart, Lucifer. You provided examples.


I don't understand the fascination that fringe ST fans have with continuity and pseudoscientific (i.e., it does not exist IRL) concepts like time travel, warp, beaming, etc.


And yes, before Pointdexter Anonymous responds, I am well aware that scientists have speculated about warp and time travel. Here's a neat little article from NASA that actually addresses time travel and warp: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warpstat.html


But the fact still remains that such things aren't real. So why does it matter how it is depicted? Linear, multiverse, parallel, mirror. I mean, SERIOUSLY, are you being kept up all night over such a matter?


ST is to authentic science what Olive Garden is to authentic Italian cuisine. Like Kool-aid is to fruit juice. Like Velveeta is to cheese. 


I like Olive Garden, Kool-Aid, and Velveeta, by the way.


 


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

___Lucifer___

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1142

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 2:08 pm

Quote: Caalma @ Apr. 27 2011, 9:44 am

>

>i am only going to say this one more time...

>NOTHING ABOUT STAR TREK SUCKS, WILL EVER SUCK, HAS THE CAPACITY OF SUCKING, OR WILL EVER HAVE SUCK USED IN THE SAME SENTENCE, EVER.

>got it?

>thank you and goodnite.... there will be no encore.

>


They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So here's mine:



neuweiler

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 2:51 pm

Now I think the discussion is getting in the right direction. Thanks a lot for your replies vger23 and lucifer. I'm only going to refute that I'm about to refute everything you wrote. I must say you brought up some interesting points. I agree that the TNG-ish movies might not appeal to such a big audience as ST09 does nowadays.


Probably it has something to do with two different types of character. There are those who embrace the new and thrilling, sometimes leap before they think everything through and then there are those who prefer continuity, stability, who want to have a clear picture of the possible outcome before jumping into action. The TOS and the TNG types.. the USA types and the old world types for the sake of using stereotypes... the ones living in the given reality and the ones wishing for a better reality. Sorry for getting a bit philosophical here but maybe the secret of Star Trek's success bases on the fact that it embraces both principles to some extent. And that was already included in TOS: black woman and Russian in leading position (inspired Whoopy Goldberg to start acting), first kiss between white male and black woman in a TV show, several portraits and criticism of the cold war, etc. etc. - Just to make sure no one blames me of portraing TOS to be an action/fun only series.


4. It had a very effective opening 10 minutes that locked the audience


Absolutely. I think that was the best part of the movie. No other movie ever managed to get a tear in my eye within 10 minutes... but it wasn't enough to lock me emotionally for the entire movie. They lost me when Scotty was swimming in the coolant tube and Spock banned Kirk to an ice planet. Don't get me wrong, I love self-irony but the Scotty-slapstick was like a poor 3D effect: it pushes you out of a movie back into your cinema chair.


10. I'd argue that it WAS thought-provoking in it's own interesting way. It had character arcs that were meaningful and inspiring. Showing Kirk as a lost soul becuase of the different way his life turned out,


Agreed. It's a nicely portraied butterfly effect.


Fortunately for people like me, it seems that many people prefer the style of Trek that I'm attracted to given the success of the last film, and it seems like there's certainly more to come


Yep, that's most likely to be the case. That's why I'm going to check out the next movie a bit better instead of naively thinking "It's Trek, I'm gonna like it".


@Lucifer: I know the multiverse theory wasn't JJ's invention (I would give him that much credit anyway). But to look at the other episodes/movies again with this new theory in mind is actually quite fascinating. Although I'm pretty sure they were written with the linear timeline concept in mind, it's interesting to see how certain facts could be better explained with the multiverse theory.


@Treknoir: It's not that I have an issue with the pseudo-science. It's sci-fi after all. But a franchise without a certain amount of continuity is doomed to fail or has to be rebooted. Imagine Agent Mulder no longer being a sceptic, Dr. House suddenly becoming a cheerful guy singing country songs, Kirk becoming fat and loosing his physical agility ...


@vger23: Accusing me of having a mindset that cannot be changed wasn't very kind. I hope I've proven to you that I'm open enough. Some of your points I didn't quote here were certainly well put and valid.


You know, although I didn't like ST09 and the AU, the whole story had a really nice side-effect: Because I was so disappointed, I started looking into ST books - actually because of a reviewer on Amazon who didn't like ST09 either but who had a very interesting list of recommended books. I bought several of them blindly and spent a very nice summer 2010 reading more than 10 ST books in the public bath. And although they lack the visual and auditory stimuli, the greatest thing about the books is, they're not finished after 45 minutes!


NOTHING ABOUT STAR TREK SUCKS, WILL EVER SUCK, HAS THE CAPACITY OF SUCKING, OR WILL EVER HAVE SUCK USED IN THE SAME SENTENCE, EVER.


Except for one thing: Intolerant Star Trek fans suck! And unfortunately there are plenty of those...


So, that said, I think we'd better get back to work, continue wishing for a (good) next ST movie and continue to live long and prosper...


Never give up! Never surrender!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 5:29 pm

Quote: neuweiler @ Apr. 27 2011, 2:51 pm

>@vger23: Accusing me of having a mindset that cannot be changed wasn't very kind. I hope I've proven to you that I'm open enough. Some of your points I didn't quote here were certainly well put and valid.

>Except for one thing: Intolerant Star Trek fans suck! And unfortunately there are plenty of those...

>So, that said, I think we'd better get back to work, continue wishing for a (good) next ST movie and continue to live long and prosper...

>Never give up! Never surrender!

>


Perhaps you misunderstood. I tried to be sensitive and illustrate what I meant by that simply by saying that our tastes had clearly developed along divergant lines, and I recognized that a back-and-forth on a message board, no matter how well-conducted, is not likely going to change your (or my) way of thinking after 25 years. It wasn't meant as a slight, it was simply an acknowledgement of a likely reality.


One last thing to consider....(just a suggestion)


Instead of saying:


So, that said, I think we'd better get back to work, continue wishing for a (good) next ST movie and continue to live long and prosper...


Maybe it's better (and more accurately) put to say "continue wishing for a ST movie that I can enjoy," since "GOOD" is subjective (and in fact, critically and financially the movie WAS "good," by the only non-subjective measures that matter). That way, the debate doesn't get ugly over "good" vs. "bad." It simply becomes "I didn't like it because XYZ" vs. "I liked it because ABC," which is FAR more productive...!


 


 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

DammitJim6200

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6876

Report this Apr. 27 2011, 7:47 pm

Quote: wolfman_9234 @ Apr. 24 2011, 3:33 pm

>

>The newest movie (Star Trek 2009) was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, as it completely undermines the Star Trek Universe with its plotline. How can they possibly explain away the destruction of Vulcan and Romulus when so many episodes of all 5 television series make reference to them and feature them as existing locations. Jean-Luc Picard himeslf stands on Romulus in the Romulan senate in Nemesis, or did they forget that tiny detail?? Had the young Spock taken the stolen future ship containing the red matter to the star that went supernova, destroying Romulus, and destroyed it before it went supernova, thus negating the alternate timeline protrayed by the movie, this problem could have been avoided. Ending the movie in this alternate reality was a huge mistake, in my opinion. I have lost all faith in J.J. Abrams.

>


I truly concur with you, wolfman, that fathead ingrate JJ abrams made fools out of alot of people into believing that ignorant movie of his was Star Trek, the war has been thrust upon us, the Battle is not over yet, don't worry, the jury is still out with this new cast, One movie that made money DOSEN'T MEAN IT'S GOOD, Jar Jar Abrams may had won this time, but we're stronger than he is, ONE DAY we'll get OUR Star Trek back, just don't support his idiotic sequel and we'll win in the end.   


  

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