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

Star Trek the Movie

ttrek42

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 12:02 pm

Its interesting to see the diverse opinions on the Abrams movie.


Abrams could easiliy address and correct the timeline concerns without compromising his vision, but i doubt that this will happen.


I also doubt that I will be contributing money to see his next movie.


 

Doc Boomstick

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 178

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 12:07 pm

Quote: mario.aragona @ Oct. 31 2012, 3:21 pm

>

>I finally watched the movie for a second time. I couldn't bring my selfe to watch for so long because i really felt that just what i saw from the trailer i was upset. Well I finally gave it a chance and my suspisions were right.

>I felt there was no continuity. Those die hard fans of the oritinal series know that for example Spocks mother didn't die, she appeared in "jurney to Bable"  Vulcon wasn't distroyed and Uhura and spock didn't have a thing prior to the series. How can we fans accept this film as a part of STARTREK lore??? Can someone help me understand this.

>


 


It's kind of funny how you can enjoy science fiction, watch this movie, listen to Spock's speech about an alternate reality, and still not get it.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 3:42 pm

Quote: Blockman @ Dec. 08 2012, 4:48 am

>

>"Ratatouille" in comparison looks like the best movie ever made with 96% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. But that's because it's not being come at from the perspective of ALL movies ever made. It's being come at from the perspective of an Animated childrens film, which it succeeded at highly. But no one's going to say it was somehow better than The Godfather or Casablanca.

>


I will! hehehe...


While I like The Godfather, there are many many movies that I like better! But I guess that just highlights the point that we all have differing opinions.


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

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 3:47 pm

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 08 2012, 7:06 am

>

>Oh yeh, I forgot. I think everyone who is going to see it is just a young, ignorant, tasteless member of the low-brow masses.  Oh well, that excludes me then.

>


...and therein lies the problem -- that people on both sides so often seem to shift away from judging a story on its own merits, and extend that judgement to fans who are simply looking for a couple of hours' escape from the humdrum routine of life.


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

Shirou Goenji

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 7:34 pm

I think that it wasn´t so bad but it wasn´t so good, also the movie had to re-launch the franchise after the disaster that was Star Trek Némesis and Enterprise. For that disasters, that was just a simple movie, and the Academy Award helped a lot to put Star Trek on the place it has to be: On Top.


Live Long and Prosper.

darth_timon

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this Dec. 09 2012, 8:37 am

I've read all sorts of complaints about Star Trek XI that revolve about the destruction of the timeline and how their TNG stuff is now worthless (false complaint, since the Prime timeline still exists for anyone who chooses to believe it still exists, and there's nothing stopping people making new stories in the Prime timeline at a future date). I've read complaints that the characters don't behave in the way they're supposed to- well, we meet these characters at earlier stages of their lives, and in Kirk's case, where his father is dead! I saw a lengthy complaint on this very board that the trio of Kirk Spock and Bones wasn't the same as it was before- well, in this timeline, and at this stage of their relationship (especially with regards to Spock and Bones, as of XI), they barely know each other, so why should their relationship be the same?



I've heard complaints that Spock was too emotional in the last film. Well, we know Vulcans aren't born with the ability to control their emotions, so if Spock as a child doesn't react well to cruel taunts about his parents, what of it? It's not like the other Vulcan children were acting logically and Spock was the exception now was it? Plus, seeing your mother die and your entire world be destroyed is bound to be emotional.



Bottom line is, there are bound to be differences in the way the characters behave in this timeline, as their experiences are different.

ttrek42

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Dec. 09 2012, 10:50 am

The best action for everyone who is unhappy with the new timeline is simply to avoid going to the next movie.  There is no stronger message to Paramount and Abrams than a lack of revenue.

Raven_CWG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this Dec. 13 2012, 10:11 pm

What is at issue here is a fundamental ideological difference between those of us who liked Star Trek just fine the way it was (or at least as use to be back when it was at its height before it was ruined by bad writing, etc.) and those who honestly don’t give a damm about what came before and have no desire to go back there ever again, who prefer mindless action over substance and are willing to except anything as long as it is wrapped up in big explosions, flashy special effects, and pithy one-liners.


As others have pointed out, its not that the JJ Abrams movie was terrible as far as big-budget, “check-your-brain-at-the-door”, summer blockbuster, action flicks go and nobody can deny that it has been a huge financial success. Even I have to admit that it was visually spectacular and had some entertaining moments; but that said, it most definitely was NOT the Star Trek that many of us long time, die-hard Star Trek fans grew up with, know and love.


Despite all arguments to the contrary, the JJ Abrams movie at its most fundamental level was nothing more and nothing less than a total reboot and for many of us that is completely unacceptable. You can argue until you are blue in the face that it’s not a reboot and is instead just an alternate timeline and that the prime Star Trek universe still exists, but you all know that is total crap. The fact is that in every practical sense, in terms of the future of the franchise and the intentions of the powers-that-be that control the rights to it, the Star Trek that we’ve knew for 40+ years with all of its spin-offs, movies and all of its rich history is dead. There is no going back. Of course we’ll always have the DVD’s of all the past shows and movies; that is not what we are talking about and you know it. We are talking about new productions going forward. If the executives at CBS/Paramount have their way, we will never again (at least not anytime in the foreseeable future) see another TV series or movie set in what is now being referred to as the “Prime Universe”. For all of us who were hoping to someday see a post DS9/Voyager TV series or another TNG movie, we can just forget about it because it’s simply not going to happen…ever. THAT is what we mean by “our” Star Trek is DEAD.


What angers so many of us long-time, die-hard fans (you know us unimportant people, who’s support made Star Trek so successful and kept the franchise alive so many years) more than anything is that at one time we use to represent the majority view among Star Trek fans, but now more and more these days it seems like our opinions and wishes concerning the future of the franchise are increasingly being treated as archaic, out of touch, and largely irrelevant by a new generation of so-called fans who have no respect for our Star Trek, its canon or its continuity. Honestly, we’re getting really tired of being treated like a minority voice within the Star Trek fandom simply because we dare to criticize the sacred cow that the JJ Abrams movie has become, and being called “whiners” and malcontents for daring to express our dissatisfaction with it in any way, shape or form. We’re also tired of being told that if we don’t like the direction things are going that it’s just too bad and that we either need to get over it or get out of the way. Well I’m sorry if some people don’t like it, but I’m sick of being told that my option as a Star Trek fan no longer matters and I’m not just going to just sit down and shut up about it. I and many, MANY other long-time fans do not like and will NEVER accept the direction that JJ Abrams is taking our favorite sci-fi franchise; and like it or not, we have at least as much right to condemn it as those of you who are fans of his take on Star Trek have a right to defend it.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 14 2012, 3:04 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Yes you are disappointed you didn't get to see a 22nd series in the 24th century but you may not believe this but you have a better chance of getting it with the success of the Abrams movie. 

>


Actually that part is probably true. Whatever you may think of them, by renewing general interest in Star Trek, Abrams et al. have increased the likelihood of seeing a new series. Some people may bemoan the influence that the new movies might have on the style of said series, but in all honesty -- if you look at a lot of stuff that has come out recently, a future Star Trek series probably would never have had the same style as its predecessors. And before anybody accuses me of anything -- I am not the greatest fan of shaky-cam. and lenseflares either.


Sometimes you do have to be pragmatic about these things.


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

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 14 2012, 3:38 am

JUST A FEW GENERAL RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTS (in no particular order):




·         1The distinction between “Prime” and “Alternate” universe is nothing new – it’s been around in Star Trek for at least as long as there has been a Mirror Universe, and probably longer besides. The main universe is not dead. The more pertinent fact is that there isn’t a new series in either case, there wouldn’t be a new series without the movies, and there would probably be a lot less talk of a possible new series too. Meanwhile, there are books, there are comics, there is Star Trek Online, there are roleplays, fan-films, fan-fics, a plethora of fan-art, and without the recent films, there probably wouldn’t be any more going on in the Star Trek world.


·         2There is every chance that this movie universe will simply be JJ Abrams’ baby. Of course we don’t know for sure what direction a new series will take, but the “JJ-Verse” belongs to this particular run of movies. It’s as likely as not that TPTB will decide that it should not have a major part in a future series.


·        3 “We saw Spock at his worst and his best in the movie.” That I really think is a strong point of characterisation – to reveal someone at each extreme. TNG and other series did tell us that Vulcans were not without emotion, and it makes sense that after a traumatic event, this Spock might have trouble controlling his own feelings.


·         4Now that the characters know each other a little better in this movie, there’s a good chance that their relationships etc will settle into a more familiar pattern. (Remember in the first movie they were only just meeting for the first time so they couldn’t be like old friends straight off the bat.


·         5Much as I don’t actually mind any TNG movie that much, it may be less accurate to say that JJ Abrams killed the chance of another TNG movie, and more so to say that Nemesis did.


·        6 I would love to say that there is no suggestion that old-timey fans’ or new fans’ opinions are less relevant to discussions regarding the new movie – I will say that if this is a factional fight, then both sides ought to accept some responsibility for making it thus. People can hate on it as much as they like, but you gotta respect others’ right to have a different opinion than your own.


·         7The other simple fact is that stories change, and characters with them – particularly characters who have made it into our public consciousness. For evidence of this, look no further than Superman, Batman, & other comic book heroes – how many incarnations they have gone through, and almost everybody accepts for example that Christian Bale’s Batman is going to be very different from that of Adam West. Look no further than representations of Arthur, Heracles, and other figures of myth!


 


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

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 14 2012, 4:13 am

Raven_CWG  Couldn't have said it better myself.


Take no notice of apologists bleating about you being elitist, insulting..blah blah.


Just defensive reactions from an indefensible position.


 


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 14 2012, 5:53 am

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 14 2012, 4:13 am

>

>Raven_CWG  Couldn't have said it better myself.

>Take no notice of apologists bleating about you being elitist, insulting..blah blah.

>Just defensive reactions from an indefensible position.

>


 


No, just people who don't like hipocritical high-horse jerks, actually.


It always amuses me when people like you stomp around like you're above everything and put down the opinions and tastes of others, and then you act all shocked when people think you're acting like a doooosh. It's really hipocritical to preach and drone on and on about how your tastes and preferences are somehow superior to most and then claim to be (in essence) a "real" Star Trek fan...when your very behavior and attitudes indicate that you miss the entire FUNDAMENTAL point of the franchise about tolerance and diversity of thought.


 


Different opinions are not only welcome, they're NECESSARY to a board like this to have any value. But don't be so small and insecure that you feel the need to come off like an arrogant goonball. Gotta give respect to get it.


 



I AM KEE-ROCK!!

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Dec. 14 2012, 6:24 am

What is at issue here


There is nothing "at issue here."


is a fundamental ideological difference between those of us who liked Star Trek just fine the way it was (or at least as use to be back when it was at its height before it was ruined by bad writing, etc.) and those who honestly don’t give a damm about what came before and have no desire to go back there ever again, who prefer mindless action over substance and are willing to except anything as long as it is wrapped up in big explosions, flashy special effects, and pithy one-liners.


Again, no issue here.  YOU created this scenario yourself.


As others have pointed out, its not that the JJ Abrams movie was terrible as far as big-budget, “check-your-brain-at-the-door”, summer blockbuster, action flicks go and nobody can deny that it has been a huge financial success. Even I have to admit that it was visually spectacular and had some entertaining moments; but that said, it most definitely was NOT the Star Trek that many of us long time, die-hard Star Trek fans grew up with, know and love.


Who cares?  Was "The Wrath of Khan" the Star Trek of old?  Not in the slightest.  In fact "The Wrath of Khan" has been said to be almost a reboot of the franchise.  Guess what?  It's the benchmark for all Star Trek films since thene.  This is the 2000s, not the 1960s.


Despite all arguments to the contrary, the JJ Abrams movie at its most fundamental level was nothing more and nothing less than a total reboot and for many of us that is completely unacceptable.


I understand you're throwing around the "many of us" phrase to make yourself feel better and not so "alone," but you need to focus on your own feelings.


You can argue until you are blue in the face that it’s not a reboot and is instead just an alternate timeline and that the prime Star Trek universe still exists, but you all know that is total crap.


I think most people have accepted it as both.


The fact is that in every practical sense, in terms of the future of the franchise and the intentions of the powers-that-be that control the rights to it, the Star Trek that we’ve knew for 40+ years with all of its spin-offs, movies and all of its rich history is dead. There is no going back.


But according to you "bad writing" was setting in during the Prime Universe.  So you're confused about your own argument.


Of course we’ll always have the DVD’s of all the past shows and movies; that is not what we are talking about and you know it. We are talking about new productions going forward. If the executives at CBS/Paramount have their way, we will never again (at least not anytime in the foreseeable future) see another TV series or movie set in what is now being referred to as the “Prime Universe”.


CBS isn't likely going to put on a new Star Trek series soon in any universe.


For all of us who were hoping to someday see a post DS9/Voyager TV series or another TNG movie, we can just forget about it because it’s simply not going to happen…ever. THAT is what we mean by “our” Star Trek is DEAD.  What angers so many of us long-time, die-hard fans


Stop with the lies now.


(you know us unimportant people, who’s support made Star Trek so successful and kept the franchise alive so many years) more than anything is that at one time we use to represent the majority view among Star Trek fans, but now more and more these days it seems like our opinions and wishes concerning the future of the franchise are increasingly being treated as archaic, out of touch, and largely irrelevant by a new generation of so-called fans who have no respect for our Star Trek, its canon or its continuity.


If you like to make large sweeping incorrect generalizations about Star Trek fans, I have to wonder what kind of falsehoods you assert about other groups of people?


Honestly, we’re getting really tired of being treated like a minority voice within the Star Trek fandom simply because we dare to criticize the sacred cow that the JJ Abrams movie has become, and being called “whiners” and malcontents for daring to express our dissatisfaction with it in any way, shape or form.


Stop being a martyr.


We’re also tired of being told that if we don’t like the direction things are going that it’s just too bad and that we either need to get over it or get out of the way.


The whole problem is that SOME of you (note the "some," not the "many" that you claim) is that you can't criticize fairly without making absurd posts like you just did in which you ATTACKED 80-90% of the fanbase and then want to cower in a corner and complain that you are criticised for your views.  YOU created this scenario.  NO ONE ELSE DID.  So its YOUR fault if you get criticized for your "views" when you turn them personal.


Well I’m sorry if some people don’t like it, but I’m sick of being told that my option as a Star Trek fan no longer matters and I’m not just going to just sit down and shut up about it.


First of all, your current screen name has only 17 posts.  So obviously the fact that you're implying to have a supposed long history of confrontation implies that you actually have posted or post under another screen name.  This is only the first I've heard of you.  So what is your other screen name here?


I and many, MANY other long-time fans do not like and will NEVER accept the direction that JJ Abrams is taking our favorite sci-fi franchise;


Obviously this supposed "many, MANY" people have made no effect on anything, financially, critically, etc.  "Star Trek" was the highest received film by fans (and I do have proof of that from polls on TrekBBS.com, TrekWeb, TrekMovie, etc.) and the general movie population alike.  It was also the highest domestic grossing film of any of the films, the second worldwide.  So yes, I'm going to make you feel like a minority just to put you in your place.  Don't lash out at everyone and expect to be stroked on the head and told "You're right, the rest of us are just stupid."

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 14 2012, 6:47 am

Quote: WkdYngMan @ Dec. 14 2012, 6:24 am

>

>What is at issue here

>There is nothing "at issue here."

>is a fundamental ideological difference between those of us who liked Star Trek just fine the way it was (or at least as use to be back when it was at its height before it was ruined by bad writing, etc.) and those who honestly don’t give a damm about what came before and have no desire to go back there ever again, who prefer mindless action over substance and are willing to except anything as long as it is wrapped up in big explosions, flashy special effects, and pithy one-liners.

>Again, no issue here.  YOU created this scenario yourself.

>As others have pointed out, its not that the JJ Abrams movie was terrible as far as big-budget, “check-your-brain-at-the-door”, summer blockbuster, action flicks go and nobody can deny that it has been a huge financial success. Even I have to admit that it was visually spectacular and had some entertaining moments; but that said, it most definitely was NOT the Star Trek that many of us long time, die-hard Star Trek fans grew up with, know and love.

>Who cares?  Was "The Wrath of Khan" the Star Trek of old?  Not in the slightest.  In fact "The Wrath of Khan" has been said to be almost a reboot of the franchise.  Guess what?  It's the benchmark for all Star Trek films since thene.  This is the 2000s, not the 1960s.

>Despite all arguments to the contrary, the JJ Abrams movie at its most fundamental level was nothing more and nothing less than a total reboot and for many of us that is completely unacceptable.

>I understand you're throwing around the "many of us" phrase to make yourself feel better and not so "alone," but you need to focus on your own feelings.

>You can argue until you are blue in the face that it’s not a reboot and is instead just an alternate timeline and that the prime Star Trek universe still exists, but you all know that is total crap.

>I think most people have accepted it as both.

>The fact is that in every practical sense, in terms of the future of the franchise and the intentions of the powers-that-be that control the rights to it, the Star Trek that we’ve knew for 40+ years with all of its spin-offs, movies and all of its rich history is dead. There is no going back.

>But according to you "bad writing" was setting in during the Prime Universe.  So you're confused about your own argument.

>Of course we’ll always have the DVD’s of all the past shows and movies; that is not what we are talking about and you know it. We are talking about new productions going forward. If the executives at CBS/Paramount have their way, we will never again (at least not anytime in the foreseeable future) see another TV series or movie set in what is now being referred to as the “Prime Universe”.

>CBS isn't likely going to put on a new Star Trek series soon in any universe.

>For all of us who were hoping to someday see a post DS9/Voyager TV series or another TNG movie, we can just forget about it because it’s simply not going to happen…ever. THAT is what we mean by “our” Star Trek is DEAD.  What angers so many of us long-time, die-hard fans

>Stop with the lies now.

>(you know us unimportant people, who’s support made Star Trek so successful and kept the franchise alive so many years) more than anything is that at one time we use to represent the majority view among Star Trek fans, but now more and more these days it seems like our opinions and wishes concerning the future of the franchise are increasingly being treated as archaic, out of touch, and largely irrelevant by a new generation of so-called fans who have no respect for our Star Trek, its canon or its continuity.

>If you like to make large sweeping incorrect generalizations about Star Trek fans, I have to wonder what kind of falsehoods you assert about other groups of people?

>Honestly, we’re getting really tired of being treated like a minority voice within the Star Trek fandom simply because we dare to criticize the sacred cow that the JJ Abrams movie has become, and being called “whiners” and malcontents for daring to express our dissatisfaction with it in any way, shape or form.

>Stop being a martyr.

>We’re also tired of being told that if we don’t like the direction things are going that it’s just too bad and that we either need to get over it or get out of the way.

>The whole problem is that SOME of you (note the "some," not the "many" that you claim) is that you can't criticize fairly without making absurd posts like you just did in which you ATTACKED 80-90% of the fanbase and then want to cower in a corner and complain that you are criticised for your views.  YOU created this scenario.  NO ONE ELSE DID.  So its YOUR fault if you get criticized for your "views" when you turn them personal.

>Well I’m sorry if some people don’t like it, but I’m sick of being told that my option as a Star Trek fan no longer matters and I’m not just going to just sit down and shut up about it.

>First of all, your current screen name has only 17 posts.  So obviously the fact that you're implying to have a supposed long history of confrontation implies that you actually have posted or post under another screen name.  This is only the first I've heard of you.  So what is your other screen name here?

>I and many, MANY other long-time fans do not like and will NEVER accept the direction that JJ Abrams is taking our favorite sci-fi franchise;

>Obviously this supposed "many, MANY" people have made no effect on anything, financially, critically, etc.  "Star Trek" was the highest received film by fans (and I do have proof of that from polls on TrekBBS.com, TrekWeb, TrekMovie, etc.) and the general movie population alike.  It was also the highest domestic grossing film of any of the films, the second worldwide.  So yes, I'm going to make you feel like a minority just to put you in your place.  Don't lash out at everyone and expect to be stroked on the head and told "You're right, the rest of us are just stupid."

>


 


Wow, I'd love to add something to this...but this just about sums it up perfectly.


I'm a longtime, lifelong fan myself...and I have no problem with the direction the film franchise has taken. I mean, did they make every choice I personally would have made? No, of course not! But, for the first time in a long time, I'm not embarassed that the franchise I love is bogged down by being a stale, bloated dinosaur caught in a mid-1980's mentality (TNG was awesome, but that was 25 years ago) any longer. They've risked to revisit and revitalize the franchise, and they KNEW there would be fallout in the hardcore fanbase. It's be DESIGN.


I like it. I'm re-energized by it. I haven't felt this way since Star Trek was cranking back in the early-to-mid 90's when TNG was moving to the silver screen, DS9 was kicking off, VOY was in development, and the TOS films were still fresh in our minds.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4024

Report this Dec. 14 2012, 7:26 am

Quote: Vger23 @ Dec. 14 2012, 6:47 am

Quote: WkdYngMan @ Dec. 14 2012, 6:24 am

>

>

>What is at issue here

>There is nothing "at issue here."

>is a fundamental ideological difference between those of us who liked Star Trek just fine the way it was (or at least as use to be back when it was at its height before it was ruined by bad writing, etc.) and those who honestly don’t give a damm about what came before and have no desire to go back there ever again, who prefer mindless action over substance and are willing to except anything as long as it is wrapped up in big explosions, flashy special effects, and pithy one-liners.

>Again, no issue here.  YOU created this scenario yourself.

>As others have pointed out, its not that the JJ Abrams movie was terrible as far as big-budget, “check-your-brain-at-the-door”, summer blockbuster, action flicks go and nobody can deny that it has been a huge financial success. Even I have to admit that it was visually spectacular and had some entertaining moments; but that said, it most definitely was NOT the Star Trek that many of us long time, die-hard Star Trek fans grew up with, know and love.

>Who cares?  Was "The Wrath of Khan" the Star Trek of old?  Not in the slightest.  In fact "The Wrath of Khan" has been said to be almost a reboot of the franchise.  Guess what?  It's the benchmark for all Star Trek films since thene.  This is the 2000s, not the 1960s.

>Despite all arguments to the contrary, the JJ Abrams movie at its most fundamental level was nothing more and nothing less than a total reboot and for many of us that is completely unacceptable.

>I understand you're throwing around the "many of us" phrase to make yourself feel better and not so "alone," but you need to focus on your own feelings.

>You can argue until you are blue in the face that it’s not a reboot and is instead just an alternate timeline and that the prime Star Trek universe still exists, but you all know that is total crap.

>I think most people have accepted it as both.

>The fact is that in every practical sense, in terms of the future of the franchise and the intentions of the powers-that-be that control the rights to it, the Star Trek that we’ve knew for 40+ years with all of its spin-offs, movies and all of its rich history is dead. There is no going back.

>But according to you "bad writing" was setting in during the Prime Universe.  So you're confused about your own argument.

>Of course we’ll always have the DVD’s of all the past shows and movies; that is not what we are talking about and you know it. We are talking about new productions going forward. If the executives at CBS/Paramount have their way, we will never again (at least not anytime in the foreseeable future) see another TV series or movie set in what is now being referred to as the “Prime Universe”.

>CBS isn't likely going to put on a new Star Trek series soon in any universe.

>For all of us who were hoping to someday see a post DS9/Voyager TV series or another TNG movie, we can just forget about it because it’s simply not going to happen…ever. THAT is what we mean by “our” Star Trek is DEAD.  What angers so many of us long-time, die-hard fans

>Stop with the lies now.

>(you know us unimportant people, who’s support made Star Trek so successful and kept the franchise alive so many years) more than anything is that at one time we use to represent the majority view among Star Trek fans, but now more and more these days it seems like our opinions and wishes concerning the future of the franchise are increasingly being treated as archaic, out of touch, and largely irrelevant by a new generation of so-called fans who have no respect for our Star Trek, its canon or its continuity.

>If you like to make large sweeping incorrect generalizations about Star Trek fans, I have to wonder what kind of falsehoods you assert about other groups of people?

>Honestly, we’re getting really tired of being treated like a minority voice within the Star Trek fandom simply because we dare to criticize the sacred cow that the JJ Abrams movie has become, and being called “whiners” and malcontents for daring to express our dissatisfaction with it in any way, shape or form.

>Stop being a martyr.

>We’re also tired of being told that if we don’t like the direction things are going that it’s just too bad and that we either need to get over it or get out of the way.

>The whole problem is that SOME of you (note the "some," not the "many" that you claim) is that you can't criticize fairly without making absurd posts like you just did in which you ATTACKED 80-90% of the fanbase and then want to cower in a corner and complain that you are criticised for your views.  YOU created this scenario.  NO ONE ELSE DID.  So its YOUR fault if you get criticized for your "views" when you turn them personal.

>Well I’m sorry if some people don’t like it, but I’m sick of being told that my option as a Star Trek fan no longer matters and I’m not just going to just sit down and shut up about it.

>First of all, your current screen name has only 17 posts.  So obviously the fact that you're implying to have a supposed long history of confrontation implies that you actually have posted or post under another screen name.  This is only the first I've heard of you.  So what is your other screen name here?

>I and many, MANY other long-time fans do not like and will NEVER accept the direction that JJ Abrams is taking our favorite sci-fi franchise;

>Obviously this supposed "many, MANY" people have made no effect on anything, financially, critically, etc.  "Star Trek" was the highest received film by fans (and I do have proof of that from polls on TrekBBS.com, TrekWeb, TrekMovie, etc.) and the general movie population alike.  It was also the highest domestic grossing film of any of the films, the second worldwide.  So yes, I'm going to make you feel like a minority just to put you in your place.  Don't lash out at everyone and expect to be stroked on the head and told "You're right, the rest of us are just stupid."

>

 

Wow, I'd love to add something to this...but this just about sums it up perfectly.

I'm a longtime, lifelong fan myself...and I have no problem with the direction the film franchise has taken. I mean, did they make every choice I personally would have made? No, of course not! But, for the first time in a long time, I'm not embarassed that the franchise I love is bogged down by being a stale, bloated dinosaur caught in a mid-1980's mentality (TNG was awesome, but that was 25 years ago) any longer. They've risked to revisit and revitalize the franchise, and they KNEW there would be fallout in the hardcore fanbase. It's be DESIGN.

I like it. I'm re-energized by it. I haven't felt this way since Star Trek was cranking back in the early-to-mid 90's when TNG was moving to the silver screen, DS9 was kicking off, VOY was in development, and the TOS films were still fresh in our minds.


^that.  couldn't have said it better myself.  The world could not bear another star trek in a burgandy jumpsuit


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

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