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

The NEW Trek movies are like the Ewok movies.

robapel

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 26

Report this Jun. 12 2012, 1:37 pm

So if most Star Wars fans refuse to accept or acknowledge the 2 Ewok movies as real Star Wars and since they are not to be found on the Star Wars web site then can we PLEASE do the same thing with the 2009 movie and the upcoming one? Let's not accept them nor acknowledge them as real Star Trek and remove any and all mention and indication of them from this web site.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Jun. 12 2012, 2:31 pm

Unfortunately, it's going to be up to us as individuals to do that. However, I refer to Abrams' movie as "The Slut" and the forthcoming movie as "Sloppy Seconds". I hope that helps.

MoppyCGDaniels

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 409

Report this Jun. 12 2012, 4:15 pm

Nor I believe ST09 plus the sequel is something alike that, because of the fact the 1st movie is a reboot it's to the contrary not that Star Wars esque (without the given charators) whatever. ST 2 (I believe) and the already done movie is an retro setting with an earlier timeperiod of the NCC-1701 (A) crew. The staff is on an previous point of time for the original officers known from TOS & their movies.


 


The Ewoks movies were just a story with aliens known from the former triology. For the Abramsverse this has indeed picked the original charactors & isn't just another story which has nothing to do with the maincharactors.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jun. 12 2012, 8:48 pm

Why decanonize the Abrams movies? They may not be traditional, but they're popular and make lots of money. Not to mention they probably saved the franchise.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Jun. 13 2012, 9:06 am

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Jun. 12 2012, 8:48 pm

>

>Why decanonize the Abrams movies? They may not be traditional, but they're popular and make lots of money. Not to mention they probably saved the franchise.

>


 


surely Star Trek's about more than being popular and making lots of money - since when was the Enterprise captained by captain Reagan?


and i don't agree they 'saved the franchise' one bit


i'm with robapel all the way - in fact i'd go so far as i'd rather ST was forgotten about (which it won't be) than for it to be so distorted and cheapened as to lose all meaning.


 


 


"There are always alternatives" Spock

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jun. 13 2012, 9:29 am

surely Star Trek's about more than being popular and making lots of money


The whole purpose of the franchise is to "be popular and make lots of money". They accomplish that by making it utopian future and the likes.


and i don't agree they 'saved the franchise' one bit


Nemesis got trashed. Enterprise got cancelled. I think it's fair to say the franchise was struggling at the time. It still is, to a point, but now the Abrams movies are getting it attention again.


i'm with robapel all the way - in fact i'd go so far as i'd rather ST was forgotten about (which it won't be) than for it to be so distorted and cheapened as to lose all meaning.


I agree - I just don't think it's gotten anywhere near that point yet.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 13 2012, 4:57 pm

I agree with Mitchz95 100%. Anyone who thinks that Star Trek exists for any reason other than to make a profit is out of their minds. Gene Roddenberry himself was the biggest opportunist of them all. 


There IS no Star Trek franchise without profit, popularity, and $$$. There is no Star Trek franchise if it doesn't evolve beyond the mid-1980's sensibilities that TNG had and the rest of the post-TNG franchise copied again and again. I think that Star Trek fans in general are a spoiled, entitled, self-diluted bunch who think that the franchise has some great message and meaning, and that suddenly, the latest movie has just spat in the face of all that. 


I rather think that the only thing the last movie spat in the face of is the fans who take the franchise and themselves too seriously. And, it was needed. I've been a fan for over 30 years. I've liked some Trek and I've been indifferent about that which I don't care for. I've never tried to condemn something just because it didn't meet with my approval, though. But, the passionate hatred that people exhibit for this particular film is ridiculous and, in many ways, telling. 


It paints the picture of a spoiled, enabled fanbase who think that they are above the needs of the franchise and above the intellectual levels of most movie goers / general audiences in the most elitist of ways. It's really quite sad. 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jun. 13 2012, 5:15 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Jun. 13 2012, 4:57 pm

>

>I think that Star Trek fans in general are a spoiled, entitled, self-diluted bunch who think that the franchise has some great message and meaning, and that suddenly, the latest movie has just spat in the face of all that.

>


Well, I don't know if I'd go that far. The franchise's utopian future does hold meaning and such to tons of people, myself included. I just don't delude myself about the intent behind its origins.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Jun. 13 2012, 10:17 pm

Yes! just when I thought this conversation was getting stale... I've got reason to keep coming back for more! Let's add some more fuel to the fire once again! I'll grab some popcorn.


 


 


Meanwhile...


(elsewhere in space)


 


stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jun. 16 2012, 7:56 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Jun. 13 2012, 9:06 am

>and i don't agree they 'saved the franchise' one bit


can you make a logical argument against the idea?


Photobucket

Draven84

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 88

Report this Jun. 16 2012, 8:50 pm

Instead of giving it the lable of "Star Trek" They should go with "Space Travel movies based loosely off a popular series"


 

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Jun. 17 2012, 1:49 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Jun. 16 2012, 7:56 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Jun. 13 2012, 9:06 am

>

>and i don't agree they 'saved the franchise' one bit

can you make a logical argument against the idea?


well the definition of the word 'saved' is crucial - if by 'saved' you mean a greater number of people will have heard the names Star Trek, Enterprise, Kirk and Spock then fine, but if we're talking more about what Trek really began as, taking that whole backstory apart just to make a typical mass-audience blockbuster, isn't saving what Trek really is, it's distorting and trashing it, ultimately causing something very special to become part of the everday Hollywood popcorn mish-mash


 


"There are always alternatives" Spock

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 17 2012, 7:01 am

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Jun. 17 2012, 1:49 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Jun. 16 2012, 7:56 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Jun. 13 2012, 9:06 am

>

>

>and i don't agree they 'saved the franchise' one bit

can you make a logical argument against the idea?

well the definition of the word 'saved' is crucial - if by 'saved' you mean a greater number of people will have heard the names Star Trek, Enterprise, Kirk and Spock then fine, but if we're talking more about what Trek really began as, taking that whole backstory apart just to make a typical mass-audience blockbuster, isn't saving what Trek really is, it's distorting and trashing it, ultimately causing something very special to become part of the everday Hollywood popcorn mish-mash

 


 


"Saved" I think is quite obvious. In this case, the term means "made relevant again so there will continue to be a franchise."


I don't see how there's any fuzz on that.


How do you account for the fact that most hollywood mish-mash blockbusters are reviewed poorly almost universally by critics, and Star Trek was praised as being smart, fun, slek, and entertaining and was universally PRAISED by critics?


Again, people have to get over their own personal biases. If you didn't like it, that's one thing...and that's totally understandable. But, don't claim it was a "bad movie" when every single measurable piece of data that is used to gauge films points to the fact that it was actually a very GOOD movie. 


 


Am I the only one who finds it ironic that you can read on a message board like this one a buch of folks whining about how bad (TOO MANY EXPLOSIONS, TOO MANY PLOT HOLES, NOT WHAT GENE WOULD HAVE DONE, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) the new movie is and then look at the 20-30 posts all clamoring for a "Romulan War" series or some other kind of crappy stereotypical sci-fi fanboy turd?


Folks, let's face it, if most of you had $150M and the green light to do whatever project you wanted to do, about the only people who would like it would be yourselves.


I think we need to get on with it already. This is Star Trek now, regardless of our most passionate desires. No ammount of whining about it is going to change it. I KNOW that some of you believe that it will...like if enough people post in displeasure that someone at Paramount is going to do something about it. But...that's not going to happen. The fans don't hold the power any longer. So, if you don't like it...why don't you just ignore it? I mean, rally the troops and go see the TNG movie event instead or something. Anything's better than just digging up the same old tired complaints and counter-points.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 17 2012, 7:01 am

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Jun. 17 2012, 1:49 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Jun. 16 2012, 7:56 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Jun. 13 2012, 9:06 am

>

>

>and i don't agree they 'saved the franchise' one bit

can you make a logical argument against the idea?

well the definition of the word 'saved' is crucial - if by 'saved' you mean a greater number of people will have heard the names Star Trek, Enterprise, Kirk and Spock then fine, but if we're talking more about what Trek really began as, taking that whole backstory apart just to make a typical mass-audience blockbuster, isn't saving what Trek really is, it's distorting and trashing it, ultimately causing something very special to become part of the everday Hollywood popcorn mish-mash

 


 


"Saved" I think is quite obvious. In this case, the term means "made relevant again so there will continue to be a franchise."


I don't see how there's any fuzz on that.


How do you account for the fact that most hollywood mish-mash blockbusters are reviewed poorly almost universally by critics, and Star Trek was praised as being smart, fun, slek, and entertaining and was universally PRAISED by critics?


Again, people have to get over their own personal biases. If you didn't like it, that's one thing...and that's totally understandable. But, don't claim it was a "bad movie" when every single measurable piece of data that is used to gauge films points to the fact that it was actually a very GOOD movie. 


 


Am I the only one who finds it ironic that you can read on a message board like this one a buch of folks whining about how bad (TOO MANY EXPLOSIONS, TOO MANY PLOT HOLES, NOT WHAT GENE WOULD HAVE DONE, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) the new movie is and then look at the 20-30 posts all clamoring for a "Romulan War" series or some other kind of crappy stereotypical sci-fi fanboy turd?


Folks, let's face it, if most of you had $150M and the green light to do whatever project you wanted to do, about the only people who would like it would be yourselves.


I think we need to get on with it already. This is Star Trek now, regardless of our most passionate desires. No ammount of whining about it is going to change it. I KNOW that some of you believe that it will...like if enough people post in displeasure that someone at Paramount is going to do something about it. But...that's not going to happen. The fans don't hold the power any longer. So, if you don't like it...why don't you just ignore it? I mean, rally the troops and go see the TNG movie event instead or something. Anything's better than just digging up the same old tired complaints and counter-points.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jun. 17 2012, 12:03 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Jun. 17 2012, 1:49 am

>well the definition of the word 'saved' is crucial - if by 'saved' you mean a greater number of people will have heard the names Star Trek, Enterprise, Kirk and Spock then fine, but if we're talking more about what Trek really began as, taking that whole backstory apart just to make a typical mass-audience blockbuster, isn't saving what Trek really is, it's distorting and trashing it, ultimately causing something very special to become part of the everday Hollywood popcorn mish-mash


The defintion of 1 word in the statyement is completely irrelevernt.


What is of suibstance is how the word was used and the context of the statement itself.The claim was that...[pharphased]


"Abrams Trek may not be traditional, but is likely saved the franchise"


to counter that claim the only thing of relevence is the status of the franchise as a buisness before and after the film.


 


 


Photobucket

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: JOYOFVGR

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