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

JJ on The Sequel

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 7:48 pm

Quote: lonstar70 @ Feb. 21 2013, 7:39 pm

>

>Come on, haters...STILL? You have had 4 years to cry about the last one, we have this one coming up, and everyone is signed for a 3rd, I think. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO STOP OR CHANGE ANYTHING BECAUSE OF YOU!!!!! Will you ever, ever, EVER GET OVER IT? Why do you come to these boards and whine about the the same thing over, and over, and OVER?? I have a great idea... DON'T WATCH THE NEW STUFF IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH!!!!! You are just like William Shatner said in the infamous SNL skit...GET A LIFE!!!

>I'm curious...WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT??? More movies that takes place in the "PRIME" universe? Good luck with that. Maybe if they hadn't released those two steaming turds INSURRECTION and NEMESIS there would still be something to go with. THEY DESTROYED IT!

>Seriously, WHAT DO YOU WANT???

>


What he said, minus the rage.


"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

GreggorDarr

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 8:21 pm

Quote: lonstar70 @ Feb. 21 2013, 7:39 pm

>

>Come on, haters...STILL? You have had 4 years to cry about the last one, we have this one coming up, and everyone is signed for a 3rd, I think. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO STOP OR CHANGE ANYTHING BECAUSE OF YOU!!!!! Will you ever, ever, EVER GET OVER IT? Why do you come to these boards and whine about the the same thing over, and over, and OVER?? I have a great idea... DON'T WATCH THE NEW STUFF IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH!!!!! You are just like William Shatner said in the infamous SNL skit...GET A LIFE!!!

>I'm curious...WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT??? More movies that takes place in the "PRIME" universe? Good luck with that. Maybe if they hadn't released those two steaming turds INSURRECTION and NEMESIS there would still be something to go with. THEY DESTROYED IT!

>Seriously, WHAT DO YOU WANT???

>


I WANT Star Trek - not Berman puke, or Abrams trash.

Insurrection WAS crap. Nemisis wasnt any better. 
The problem is, the farther the genre gets away from Roddenberry's vision, it gets limp. If you WANT to watch Star Wars, FINE, watch it... but why does that mean true Star Trek fans cant have what they want, without some big deal director coming in, and revamping it into something that almost doesnt even resemble Star Trek? It didnt work with Enterprise (until the last season when Berman gave up and let the fans have what they wanted, then it was too late) and its not going to work now...

As for fans not being able to change how things are?

We named the Space Shuttle. We make up NASA. Those cell phones you use? Yeah, the idea came from a Star Trek fan. True Star Trek fans are every where, and Im sorry that you dont understand that. Some are complacent, and dont care one way or the other... some are less forgiving. Id be fine with it, if it werent such a BLATENT spit on the grave of the Roddenberry. Berman did a good enough job of that, Abrams doesnt need to keep doing it, especially since he doesnt even give a crap about it, except for how much money he makes. 

Before you start your 14 year old rants of F this and F that, keep in mind. I get it. Paramount wants to make money. But instead of trying to retcon / reboot everything (which seems to be the way of this new, uncreative generation) how about getting back to the roots of the thing, and make something that people want to watch.

If I wanna watch abunch of explosions, Ill go watch Die Hard. If I wanna watch Star Wars special effects, Ill go watch Star Wars, and if I want intelligent, well thought stories that deal with today's issues, and give us hope that someday, these issues will be fixed, and scripts filled with techno-babble, Ill go watch STAR TREK.

I am entitled to my opinion, as are you. My opinion is, this new shit blows goats.


Let the middle school style rants begin.  

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 8:38 pm

"but why does that mean true StarTrek fans cant havewhat they want"

Go hang yourself.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 8:48 pm

Quote: GreggorDarr @ Feb. 21 2013, 8:21 pm

>
The problem is, the farther the genre gets away from Roddenberry's vision, it gets limp. If you WANT to watch Star Wars, FINE, watch it... but why does that mean true Star Trek fans cant have what they want, without some big deal director coming in, and revamping it into something that almost doesnt even resemble Star Trek? It didnt work with Enterprise (until the last season when Berman gave up and let the fans have what they wanted, then it was too late) and its not going to work now...

>


The problem with that logic is, the franchise was getting stale. As you noted yourself, Insurrection and Nemesis -- and most of Enterprise too -- were largely responsible for the decline in the franchise. If JJ Abrams hadn't come along with his movie (which, I might add, was highly successful both critically and commerically), Star Trek might have sunk for good. Whether or not you liked his movie, the fact remains that it brough the franchise back from the brink and gave it new life.


Don't give up on the Abramsverse. Whatever you though of the last one, we have no way of knowing how good or how bad the next one will be. Perhaps it will be more in line with the "better future" theme we all know and love.


"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

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 10:07 pm

Quote: Beershark @ Dec. 30 2012, 9:26 am

>Please give examples of these so called "sparks" She teased him in a couple of episodes and she sang along to is harp on occasion,


You just named the examples.


Granted, not everyone will see things the same way.But even as a child I thought I was seeing an attraction in those situations.


Photobucket

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 10:09 pm

Back to the OP and discussing Star Trek characters. I always find it interesting that people do not seem to find the characters interesting. For me, I thought they were developed, conflicted and uncertain. Sure, they were not the polished crew, but that was due to inexperience, personal difficulties and maturing process.


For me, the characters really speak for themselves as each cast member gets their moment to shine. When I first read the releases of each actor and actress, I honestly felt a sense of dread (Sylar as Spock? Really?) as this did not seem to fit what I expected for the younger Star Trek crew. However, watching the film was a different experience for me. Each character presented the personality of the original character, without being an impersonation or parody.


Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy and Zachary Quinto as Spock are two shining examples of the cast. Urban presents McCoy as irritable and gruff while still caring doctor, but never lapses in to farce. Instead, Urban feels like a natural, younger Bones who could just as easily operate as have a drink.
Quinto, likewise, provides such a fantastic performance, constantly bringing the emotionless balance to Pine’s Kirk. Just like Nimoy, Quinto also provides wonderful subtly in his acting, often showing little cracks in Spock’s logical expression, hinting at the emotion underneath. A classic scene is Spock before the Vulcan Science Academy board, where he tells them, “Live long and prosper,” while his tone and facial expression indicate neither. It’s a great moment and one of several carried forward by a strong performance. I also love the back and forth between Sarek and Spock, and the impact that Sarek has on Spock.


Pine’s Kirk is a little uneven at first, but I think he grows in to the character at the end. Again, there isn’t the sense of imitation to his performance, but I think that it also the stage that Kirk is in his life that may come off as such. Pine performs with a lot of gusto and flair and adds so much energy to movie that I find his character growth and change very engaging and entertaining.I think it is the growth potential within Kirk that makes him so intersting, that he is ambitionless and without direction until he encounters a father figure that challenges him to do better.


Greenwood’s  Pike is probably my favorite character of all, as he presents a leader who is both balanced and charismatic. Honestly, he almost is like Kirk was in TOS and provides solid example of the officer that Kirk will eventually become. The fatherly role Pike provides to Kirk is a great exchange between the two.


Eric Bana’s Nero is perfectly crazy. I know there is a lot of criticism regarding him as a villain, but I found him to be convincing as a man who has lost everything and is struggling with the loss and dishing out as much pain as he possibly can. I can’t stress  enough that Nero is supposed to be insane. To us, as the average movie audience, he looks irrational. That’s because he is supposed to be irrational. Nero, as mentioned before, reacts to his emotions, and he is dealing with anger, pain and loss on a scale that would drive anyone insane. He blames the Federation for inaction and lashes out against them. I like him because he is insane.


Overall, the actors bring wonderful life to each character, and add an interesting perspective to the crew we know and love. If one performance I found lacking was Simon Pegg’s Scotty. It may have been how he was introduced but it felt he didn’t really fit in with the rest of the crew, though it may be that we didn’t have more time to get to know him. I do like how he plays off of his little assistant, though he keeps yelling at him. Plus, his beaming away Archer’s beagle is a great aside.


Even the characters who don’t get a lot of time do a great job. My favorite, non-main, character is Captain Robaeu, who brings such an intensity and leadership, even in the simple way he commands Kirk Sr. and confronts Nero. It’s a simple role but it is done so well that I would honestly watch a show about the Kelvin and her crew.


Similarly, Chris Hemsworth brings a very passionate and emotive role as Kirk Sr, despite the brief time on screen. The moment of him hearing his son being born and the emotions that are there within him come across so beautifully and brings me to tears every time. That whole opening sequence is incredibly well done and with Hemsworth’s emotions and performance drive that scene forward.


The characters are the strongest piece of this film. The family connections that come across are due to the strong performances brought forward by the cast led strongly by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. The movie does a decent job of giving each crew member opportunities to shine and show the growing relationships among the ensemble.


I look forward to Star Trek: Into Darkness and the growing relationships, especially with Pike and Kirk's exchange already in a trailer, as Kirk faces challenges he wasn't expecting.

GreggorDarr

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 10:54 pm

[quote]


 The problem with that logic is, the franchise was getting stale. As you noted yourself, Insurrection and Nemesis -- and most of Enterprise too -- were largely responsible for the decline in the franchise. If JJ Abrams hadn't come along with his movie (which, I might add, was highly successful both critically and commerically), Star Trek might have sunk for good. Whether or not you liked his movie, the fact remains that it brough the franchise back from the brink and gave it new life.


Don't give up on the Abramsverse. Whatever you though of the last one, we have no way of knowing how good or how bad the next one will be. Perhaps it will be more in line with the "better future" theme we all know and love.


[/quote]

First off, thank you for presenting a mature, compelling debate. Its a nice breath of fresh air.

Id like to start with replying to your statement that the franchise was getting stale. I agree... and it was being caused by Berman-nites at Paramount that have been attempting to (by their own admission) distance the genre from Roddenberry since his death. Enterprise was a project that Berman tried to sell Gene on for years, and he was told NO repeatedly... when Gene died, after they made Voyager to "prove" the old ways didnt work anymore (deliberate writing scripts to weaken the franchise) he then attempted to do the same thing with Enterprise that they are trying to do now with the reboot


... and it failed. Berman stated in several interviews that this was due to the "Saturation" of the genre, and that the fans were done with Star Trek. They were going to "take a break" to give the fans time to recover... In reality, the fans were speaking at conventions about what they did want, and when Berman got pissed, he let Braga and his writers do pretty much what they had heard at conventions, and violia!  the last season of Enterprise was AWESOME! I just think things would have been great if Paramount had listened to the fans, and carried on Roddenberry's legacy, rather than trying to bury the idea of Star Trek along with its creator. 



  

GreggorDarr

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 11:06 pm

[quote]


Back to the OP and discussing Star Trek characters... 


[/quote]

I would agree that the casting for the reboot was pretty good. 

Karl Urban and Zach Quinto were perfect choices... Most of the others were ok...


If I had any major beefs with casting, it would be with Scotty.


Paul McGillion (Stargate: Atlantis) was slated to play the part originally, and would have been great, in my opinion. After being GUARANTEED the position, he broke his contract with SyFy, and went to shoot the movie, only to arrive and find out he had been replaced by Simon Pegg (WTF?)

The reason? Abrams and Paramount felt that Pegg had more star power, and therefore would be more of a draw at the box office. Saddly, it allowed Pegg to bring his poor comedic style to the role, where McGillion is actually a good sci fi actor. 

lonstar70

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 72

Report this Feb. 22 2013, 12:13 am

Quote: GreggorDarr @ Feb. 21 2013, 8:21 pm

Quote: lonstar70 @ Feb. 21 2013, 7:39 pm

>

>

>Come on, haters...STILL? You have had 4 years to cry about the last one, we have this one coming up, and everyone is signed for a 3rd, I think. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO STOP OR CHANGE ANYTHING BECAUSE OF YOU!!!!! Will you ever, ever, EVER GET OVER IT? Why do you come to these boards and whine about the the same thing over, and over, and OVER?? I have a great idea... DON'T WATCH THE NEW STUFF IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH!!!!! You are just like William Shatner said in the infamous SNL skit...GET A LIFE!!!

>I'm curious...WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT??? More movies that takes place in the "PRIME" universe? Good luck with that. Maybe if they hadn't released those two steaming turds INSURRECTION and NEMESIS there would still be something to go with. THEY DESTROYED IT!

>Seriously, WHAT DO YOU WANT???

>


I WANT Star Trek - not Berman puke, or Abrams trash.

Insurrection WAS crap. Nemisis wasnt any better. 
The problem is, the farther the genre gets away from Roddenberry's vision, it gets limp. If you WANT to watch Star Wars, FINE, watch it... but why does that mean true Star Trek fans cant have what they want, without some big deal director coming in, and revamping it into something that almost doesnt even resemble Star Trek? It didnt work with Enterprise (until the last season when Berman gave up and let the fans have what they wanted, then it was too late) and its not going to work now...

As for fans not being able to change how things are?

We named the Space Shuttle. We make up NASA. Those cell phones you use? Yeah, the idea came from a Star Trek fan. True Star Trek fans are every where, and Im sorry that you dont understand that. Some are complacent, and dont care one way or the other... some are less forgiving. Id be fine with it, if it werent such a BLATENT spit on the grave of the Roddenberry. Berman did a good enough job of that, Abrams doesnt need to keep doing it, especially since he doesnt even give a crap about it, except for how much money he makes. 

Before you start your 14 year old rants of F this and F that, keep in mind. I get it. Paramount wants to make money. But instead of trying to retcon / reboot everything (which seems to be the way of this new, uncreative generation) how about getting back to the roots of the thing, and make something that people want to watch.

If I wanna watch abunch of explosions, Ill go watch Die Hard. If I wanna watch Star Wars special effects, Ill go watch Star Wars, and if I want intelligent, well thought stories that deal with today's issues, and give us hope that someday, these issues will be fixed, and scripts filled with techno-babble, Ill go watch STAR TREK.

I am entitled to my opinion, as are you. My opinion is, this new shit blows goats.

Let the middle school style rants begin.  


Who is talking about a schoolyard? Did I drop any "F" bombs? Serioulsy...who just cursed here....oh, that would be you.I just dropped in on these boards for the first time in a couple of years (since it's been the same old "Down with JJ" jazz since 2009) to see what the vibe was, and there YOU were, standing in the schoolyard on the merry go round preaching. Don't come at me for what you just pointed out was my opinion that I am indeed entitled to. Let's see, you came to the conclusion that I'm 14 (I'm 42), you decided that I want Star Wars meets Die Hard....what else did you Vulcan mind meld from me.... oh, that I will be dropping F bombs "middle school style" (I wasn't allowed to cuss in Middle School, I had what's known as a good upbringing), and that I'm not a "true" Star Trek fan.


Wow. You sure gleaned a LOT from one post. Yeah, I USED CAPS and it's simply becasue I come back here after a few years and am hearing the saaaaaame whiney...welll I'll use YOUR word.....shit. Yes, the same shit. Happy now? I cursed for you.


And I don't know WHAT naming a space shuttle (that never went to space) "Enterprise" has to do with anything. Sort of a different era, ya know? And then you throw in...um...cell phones! Yeah! We have cell phones, so that means we can get Ronald D Moore to come save Star Trek or something.


K, bro have fun on the playground. Watch out for blowing goats.

GreggorDarr

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Feb. 22 2013, 7:06 am

Quote: lonstar70 @ Feb. 22 2013, 8:39 am


Who is talking about a schoolyard? Did I drop any "F" bombs? Serioulsy...who just cursed here....oh, that would be you.I just dropped in on these boards for the first time in a couple of years (since it's been the same old "Down with JJ" jazz since 2009) to see what the vibe was, and there YOU were, standing in the schoolyard on the merry go round preaching. Don't come at me for what you just pointed out was my opinion that I am indeed entitled to. Let's see, you came to the conclusion that I'm 14 (I'm 42), you decided that I want Star Wars meets Die Hard....what else did you Vulcan mind meld from me.... oh, that I will be dropping F bombs "middle school style" (I wasn't allowed to cuss in Middle School, I had what's known as a good upbringing), and that I'm not a "true" Star Trek fan.


Wow. You sure gleaned a LOT from one post. Yeah, I USED CAPS and it's simply becasue I come back here after a few years and am hearing the saaaaaame whiney...welll I'll use YOUR word.....shit. Yes, the same shit. Happy now? I cursed for you.


And I don't know WHAT naming a space shuttle (that never went to space) "Enterprise" has to do with anything. Sort of a different era, ya know? And then you throw in...um...cell phones! Yeah! We have cell phones, so that means we can get Ronald D Moore to come save Star Trek or something.


K, bro have fun on the playground. Watch out for blowing goats.


Geez "bro" take it easy. My apologies to you for lumping you in with the others that attacked me when I posted an opinion. There were others that DID use the "F"-Bomb when arguing (go back an look if you're that interested), and then the intensity of your post (caps and all) lumped you in with them. Seriously, you and others on this forum need to take a page from Mitchz95 and learn the fine are of debate. 


42? Wow - seriously, my apologies again. Had I known that, I would have approached that conversation an entirely different way. But I dont know many people in their forties that talk with such disrespect and angst, so I just assumed. Again, apologies. 

Why does it matter that we named a space shuttle? Why does it matter that half the technology in our society was created due to the vision of Star Trek? It answers the statement that was put forth (by you or someone else) that Star Trek fans cant change anything that is happening to the franchise. With enough pressure, Star Trek fans CAN change, or influence things that change the world! They've done it before, they can do it again. 


And lastly, I apologize for cursing. You and the others managed to get me angry, as I can be passionate about this topic, and I lost my cool. I momentarily stooped to a lower level of conversation to make a point that would be understood by most of those that were attacking. For that, I am sorry. 


With this said, I hope we can put that all behind, and concentrate on a spirited, intelligent debate.  

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 22 2013, 7:32 am

Quote: GreggorDarr @ Feb. 22 2013, 7:06 am

>

>Quote: lonstar70 @ Feb. 22 2013, 8:39 am

>Who is talking about a schoolyard? Did I drop any "F" bombs? Serioulsy...who just cursed here....oh, that would be you.I just dropped in on these boards for the first time in a couple of years (since it's been the same old "Down with JJ" jazz since 2009) to see what the vibe was, and there YOU were, standing in the schoolyard on the merry go round preaching. Don't come at me for what you just pointed out was my opinion that I am indeed entitled to. Let's see, you came to the conclusion that I'm 14 (I'm 42), you decided that I want Star Wars meets Die Hard....what else did you Vulcan mind meld from me.... oh, that I will be dropping F bombs "middle school style" (I wasn't allowed to cuss in Middle School, I had what's known as a good upbringing), and that I'm not a "true" Star Trek fan.

>Wow. You sure gleaned a LOT from one post. Yeah, I USED CAPS and it's simply becasue I come back here after a few years and am hearing the saaaaaame whiney...welll I'll use YOUR word.....shit. Yes, the same shit. Happy now? I cursed for you.

>And I don't know WHAT naming a space shuttle (that never went to space) "Enterprise" has to do with anything. Sort of a different era, ya know? And then you throw in...um...cell phones! Yeah! We have cell phones, so that means we can get Ronald D Moore to come save Star Trek or something.

>K, bro have fun on the playground. Watch out for blowing goats.

>Geez "bro" take it easy. My apologies to you for lumping you in with the others that attacked me when I posted an opinion. There were others that DID use the "F"-Bomb when arguing (go back an look if you're that interested), and then the intensity of your post (caps and all) lumped you in with them. Seriously, you and others on this forum need to take a page from Mitchz95 and learn the fine are of debate. 

>42? Wow - seriously, my apologies again. Had I known that, I would have approached that conversation an entirely different way. But I dont know many people in their forties that talk with such disrespect and angst, so I just assumed. Again, apologies. 

Why does it matter that we named a space shuttle? Why does it matter that half the technology in our society was created due to the vision of Star Trek? It answers the statement that was put forth (by you or someone else) that Star Trek fans cant change anything that is happening to the franchise. With enough pressure, Star Trek fans CAN change, or influence things that change the world! They've done it before, they can do it again. 

>And lastly, I apologize for cursing. You and the others managed to get me angry, as I can be passionate about this topic, and I lost my cool. I momentarily stooped to a lower level of conversation to make a point that would be understood by most of those that were attacking. For that, I am sorry. 

>With this said, I hope we can put that all behind, and concentrate on a spirited, intelligent debate.  

>


 


Well if we're going to be civil, one might point out that claiming that you're a "real" Star Trek fan therefore automatically implying that anyone that you speak for all "real" fans and that anyone that doesn't agree with you isn't a "real" fan is narcissistic and offensive.


I Am Ultra Narcissus.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 22 2013, 9:03 am

I may be new to the boards, but enjoying Star Trek and spirited debate is one reason I joined.


And as passionate as some are about disliking Abrams Trek I feel the same way about defending Trek. I made the point that when Nicholas Meyers took over for Star Trek 2, he actually moved the films away from Gene's vision and more towards the modern film age. I am often amused that people will slam Abrams with hatred and vitriol, yet Meyers will get a pass.


Yet, Meyers was a man who was unfamiliar with Star Trek in general and designed many aspects to be more of a naval style rather than the nonmilitary approach that Gene had proposed (Starfleet was originally more of a Merchant Marine organization that became more militarized. He was also inspired by Heinlein's Space Cadet novel). Meyers take on it was much different and yet it endured.


Likewise, Abrams take is more modern and different than what has come to be regarded as Star Trek. However, there are still elements of Star Trek in there that I feel make the movie work. Like I mentioned in my character post, Nero is a great, insane, villain, one that I look at and go, "Yeah, I get him."


As for cell phones, the concept was around in the 1940s with he idea of having transceiver towers being able to "hand of" transmission to another tower and carry the call.


Also, a military platform was nick named "Star Wars" and one of Regan's speech writers borrowed "Evil Empire." Cultural impact has occurred for many franchises but I don't think it makes one more important than the other.


In all honesty, if I wore my Trek pin to work I would probably get made fun of

lonstar70

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 72

Report this Feb. 22 2013, 8:34 pm

Quote: GreggorDarr @ Feb. 22 2013, 7:06 am

>

>Quote: lonstar70 @ Feb. 22 2013, 8:39 am

>Who is talking about a schoolyard? Did I drop any "F" bombs? Serioulsy...who just cursed here....oh, that would be you.I just dropped in on these boards for the first time in a couple of years (since it's been the same old "Down with JJ" jazz since 2009) to see what the vibe was, and there YOU were, standing in the schoolyard on the merry go round preaching. Don't come at me for what you just pointed out was my opinion that I am indeed entitled to. Let's see, you came to the conclusion that I'm 14 (I'm 42), you decided that I want Star Wars meets Die Hard....what else did you Vulcan mind meld from me.... oh, that I will be dropping F bombs "middle school style" (I wasn't allowed to cuss in Middle School, I had what's known as a good upbringing), and that I'm not a "true" Star Trek fan.

>Wow. You sure gleaned a LOT from one post. Yeah, I USED CAPS and it's simply becasue I come back here after a few years and am hearing the saaaaaame whiney...welll I'll use YOUR word.....shit. Yes, the same shit. Happy now? I cursed for you.

>And I don't know WHAT naming a space shuttle (that never went to space) "Enterprise" has to do with anything. Sort of a different era, ya know? And then you throw in...um...cell phones! Yeah! We have cell phones, so that means we can get Ronald D Moore to come save Star Trek or something.

>K, bro have fun on the playground. Watch out for blowing goats.

>Geez "bro" take it easy. My apologies to you for lumping you in with the others that attacked me when I posted an opinion. There were others that DID use the "F"-Bomb when arguing (go back an look if you're that interested), and then the intensity of your post (caps and all) lumped you in with them. Seriously, you and others on this forum need to take a page from Mitchz95 and learn the fine are of debate. 

>42? Wow - seriously, my apologies again. Had I known that, I would have approached that conversation an entirely different way. But I dont know many people in their forties that talk with such disrespect and angst, so I just assumed. Again, apologies. 

Why does it matter that we named a space shuttle? Why does it matter that half the technology in our society was created due to the vision of Star Trek? It answers the statement that was put forth (by you or someone else) that Star Trek fans cant change anything that is happening to the franchise. With enough pressure, Star Trek fans CAN change, or influence things that change the world! They've done it before, they can do it again. 

>And lastly, I apologize for cursing. You and the others managed to get me angry, as I can be passionate about this topic, and I lost my cool. I momentarily stooped to a lower level of conversation to make a point that would be understood by most of those that were attacking. For that, I am sorry. 

>With this said, I hope we can put that all behind, and concentrate on a spirited, intelligent debate.  

>


 


>But I dont know many people in their forties that talk with such disrespect and angst

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 22 2013, 9:47 pm

Quote: lonstar70 @ Feb. 22 2013, 8:34 pm

>

> style="font-size: 10px;">>But I dont know many people in their forties that talk with such disrespect and angst


Well, I'm only 28 but I've seen a few at my job and at sci-fi conventions.


Actually, I get more respect from 20somethings somedays than the older customers I get in.


People all have angst and opinions on movies definitely brings it out.

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Feb. 23 2013, 11:31 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 13 2012, 2:46 pm

Quote: Beershark @ Dec. 13 2012, 2:18 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 13 2012, 9:42 am

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Dec. 13 2012, 9:31 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 13 2012, 7:19 am

>

>

>

>

>

>seriously?  we are supposed to be offended now by a director saying that characters have to believable? 

>

>

Dang... beat me to it!

 

  you gotta be quicker

You're both missing the point. If you read my ENTIRE post, you will see that I was making the point that Star Trek already had characters that were believable, grounded and well developed. He destroyed all that with his first attempt to re-invent Star Trek and NOW he's concerned with character developement. I thnk it really shows his arrogance.

now that's a matter of opinion isn't it?

really, no one is asking you to like the new movies, or even see them.  You have fun with your reruns.  Cause plenty of people are enjoying the new incarnation


True, plenty of people will enjoy this new incarnation, but plenty will also hate it and for good reasons, alot of us grew up with the Original series we expect a certain familiar aspect of it on the big screen, while alot of things were familiar in the film others were changed alot, Star Trek was more about loud explosions and evil people, it was about ideals concerning the human condition, JJ Abrams did none of this, he took an awesome character like Spock and turn him into a love sick weakling, fans were upset by this,the rest of the chacters were pale imitations of the original cast, even Chris Pine, so yes the movie did make money and the sequel will make money, but it won't be a huge hit like the first film, JJ Abrams formula for Star Trek is filled with flaws there's no magic between the characters and people notice this.      


Greatness comes to those who really want to do anything to get it.

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