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

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 23 2013, 12:28 pm

Hey Troll. I grew up with the original series and the 2009 movie is just fine. I know it commits the sin of letting Vulcans be less 2 dimensional but you'll get over it. Or you could hang yourself.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 23 2013, 8:11 pm

[quote]


 


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.      


[/quote]


This is where I must disagree. Spock is not a weakling, nor were the cast "pale imitations."


I found Spock wonderfully engaging as he struggled with his human side and his Vulcan side. We rarely saw it in TOS though it is often hinted at, especially in "Journey to Babel." He has a girlfriend and that makes him weak?


And Kirk, what about his journey to becoming a better person rather than a bar fly? Isn't that a commentary on the human condition? Isn't that the Roddenberry ideal of humanity evolving towards self-improvement?


Also, if Trek wasn't always about "evil guys" why are some of the classic episodes involve very evil people or at least villains? "Space Seed" (and its follow up "TWOK"), "The Enterprise Incident?" "Where No Man has Gone Before?"


All of those episodes involved a central villain, rather than the crew exploring humanity.


Even the pilot TNG episode had a central villain judging humanity for crimes.


Abrams Trek may have a different feel to it, but that is what Trek needed. Otherwise, it would have been more of Nemisis, or an "Enterprise" movie.


 

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Feb. 24 2013, 2:12 am

To begin with, it is perfectly believable that a 14 year old could have more maturity than a 42 year old.


Secondly, people are still complaining about the other movies, and compared to a 10-20 year interval, four years is next to nothing.


To the haters:


I don't like a lot of the stuff they have done with recent series of Doctor Who. Injecting all of that misplaced romantic tension into the relationship between the Doctor and his travelling companions has a genuine adverse effect on the quality of the show... but hey, you get over that, and it's still enjoyable enough.


Same with the Star Trek movie. It's pretty simple. If you get over it, you can enjoy it. If you can't get over it, don't watch it! Having a go at other fans because their tastes are different to yours (except in good fun) is totally unproductive and, dare I say, petty. (Same goes in the opposite direction. Haters can hate the movie as much as they like -- that's their opinion.)


Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations LLAP.


To the defenders:


Really really? Do you honestly expect that there would not be haters of this movie after four, ten, twenty, even thirty years? Same deal. Ad Hominem attacks get you nowhere. People do have their criticism of the movie, and that's fine. Want to know my impression of a "real fan"? Well -- tough titties -- I'm gonna tell you anyway!


A "real fan" is one who can enjoy something, warts and all, and is secure enough in their own fandom not to be offended by others' criticism.


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

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Feb. 24 2013, 7:44 am

^^^^^


Well said, well said.

I see more "defenders" getting more worked up over these "haters" than any of the haters ever did over the new movie.

It's sad to see your fellow Trekkers expend more energy over these group of guys than any of the haters ever did on hating the movie to begin with.


"Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool that follows?"

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 24 2013, 6:30 pm

Quote: Blockman @ Feb. 24 2013, 7:44 am

>

>^^^^^

>Well said, well said.

I see more "defenders" getting more worked up over these "haters" than any of the haters ever did over the new movie.

It's sad to see your fellow Trekkers expend more energy over these group of guys than any of the haters ever did on hating the movie to begin with.


"Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool that follows?"

>


I would rather have an interesting discussion over the good and bad in Abrams movie. The flame war is counterproductive and saying "Abrams is teh sucx" is very frustrating when all I want is a discussion about the more Trekki aspects of the new movie.

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 4:47 pm

Quote: OtakuJo @ Feb. 24 2013, 2:12 am

>

>To begin with, it is perfectly believable that a 14 year old could have more maturity than a 42 year old.

>Secondly, people are still complaining about the other movies, and compared to a 10-20 year interval, four years is next to nothing.

>To the haters:

>I don't like a lot of the stuff they have done with recent series of Doctor Who. Injecting all of that misplaced romantic tension into the relationship between the Doctor and his travelling companions has a genuine adverse effect on the quality of the show... but hey, you get over that, and it's still enjoyable enough.

>Same with the Star Trek movie. It's pretty simple. If you get over it, you can enjoy it. If you can't get over it, don't watch it! Having a go at other fans because their tastes are different to yours (except in good fun) is totally unproductive and, dare I say, petty. (Same goes in the opposite direction. Haters can hate the movie as much as they like -- that's their opinion.)

>Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations LLAP.

>To the defenders:

>Really really? Do you honestly expect that there would not be haters of this movie after four, ten, twenty, even thirty years? Same deal. Ad Hominem attacks get you nowhere. People do have their criticism of the movie, and that's fine. Want to know my impression of a "real fan"? Well -- tough titties -- I'm gonna tell you anyway!

>A "real fan" is one who can enjoy something, warts and all, and is secure enough in their own fandom not to be offended by others' criticism.

>


Please try to understand that some of us just can't "get over it'' after a build up of solid Trek continuity in the 1990's with TNG, DS9 and Voyager, alot of fans built up feelings for these series, and for JJ Abrams to come along and blast us with his off the wall version of Star Trek, it was like an insult, maybe 50 years from now some of us will except his version of Trek, but for now we just can't.


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

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 4:59 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Feb. 23 2013, 8:11 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>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.      

>

This is where I must disagree. Spock is not a weakling, nor were the cast "pale imitations."

I found Spock wonderfully engaging as he struggled with his human side and his Vulcan side. We rarely saw it in TOS though it is often hinted at, especially in "Journey to Babel." He has a girlfriend and that makes him weak?

And Kirk, what about his journey to becoming a better person rather than a bar fly? Isn't that a commentary on the human condition? Isn't that the Roddenberry ideal of humanity evolving towards self-improvement?

Also, if Trek wasn't always about "evil guys" why are some of the classic episodes involve very evil people or at least villains? "Space Seed" (and its follow up "TWOK"), "The Enterprise Incident?" "Where No Man has Gone Before?"

All of those episodes involved a central villain, rather than the crew exploring humanity.

Even the pilot TNG episode had a central villain judging humanity for crimes.

Abrams Trek may have a different feel to it, but that is what Trek needed. Otherwise, it would have been more of Nemisis, or an "Enterprise" movie.

 


Spock in Abrams movie was very weak, never should a disipline Vulcan fall into the arms of a HUMAN female in times of crisis..THe writting in the movie is very bad, not only is the time travel concept  is silly, a villian WASTED 25 years looking for Spock, so yeah there has been evil guys in Star Trek, but they had a purpose, and I hate to get into how wrong Uhura was portrayed in the movie, Uhura was always classy, not a bossy go getter..You mention Kirk, yeah he did evolve within the movie, though in a silly way, no matter how smart you are, no one can jump from cadet to captain of the flagship in that short time, and don't let me get started on Pike..But if you like the movie,  good for you.  


 


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

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 5:41 pm

1. What is it that people don't get about "alternate timeline"? They even spelled it out for everyone in the middle of the movie and the Prime universe is still chugging along.

2. The time travel bit was less silly than previously shown in Star Trek.

3. Of course the villain spent 25 years looking for Spock. He didn't have a reliable way to return to his timeline of origin and had believed that Spock was somehow responsible for the death of an entire world full of Romulans. What did you think he was going to do, become grand champion in the Alpha Quadrant Tennis League?

3. Your 2D vision of Vulcans as less than a group of diverse sentient beings with a high potential for individuality does not concern me. I like my Vulcans as non-robots even if that makes them less predictable and harder for somebody idolize.

You're entitled to your opinion on the quality of the writing but the movie was an overwhelming success with most people. That speaks louder than general whining.

4. You can jump into the Captain's seat of a Flagship if it's staffed by an inexperienced crew, your Captain was kidnapped and everyone just watch a lunatic attempt genocide by destroying a planet. Chaos breeds opportunity.

5. Uhura wasn't classy? That's the first time I've heard that bit of twaddle leveled at this successful film. Does her willingness to tell another person who's hitting on her to get lost offend you in some way?

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 8:54 pm



Quote:

Spock in Abrams movie was very weak, never should a disipline Vulcan fall into the arms of a HUMAN female in times of crisis.
.


I mean this question with sincerity but why? It is clear that they have a relationship, just like Sarek and Amanda did in “Journey to Babel” where Sarek clearly leaned  on his wife. Also, Sarek married Perrin, another human, later in his life and suffered a disease. Do you think that Sarek, one of the most successful Vulcans of his time, would not lean upon his human wife for support during difficult times?


Quote:

THe writting in the movie is very bad, not only is the time travel concept  is silly.
.


I’ll grant the writing needed some work but I will also grant real world issues getting in the way. Time travel, in general, is a silly concept, but Trek has always taken it with a bit of salt, either through the slingshot maneuver, through an ancient portal, alien influences and a host of other methods. Using a black hole is no more and no less sillier than slingshoting around the sun.


.

Quote:

., a villian WASTED 25 years looking for Spock, so yeah there has been evil guys in Star Trek, but they had a purpose, .
.


This is just my interpretation of the film, as it stood, but the Kelvin colliding with the Narada struck me as something that the Romulans couldn’t just walk away from with a shrug. I guess it didn’t bother me but I always took it that he was fixing his ship and calculating were Spock would emerged in time and space. Ayel, his right hand man, tells him they have arrived at the coordinates he calculated, so I don’t think he was just sitting around. But, this is just my interpretation.


I liked Nero as a villain and his purpose his vengeance. But, he isn’t cold and calculating like Khan or Chang. He is a mad man and that is what makes him fascinating.


.

Quote:

. and I hate to get into how wrong Uhura was portrayed in the movie, Uhura was always classy, not a bossy go getter.. .
.


She was classy when we saw her as and older and matured officer. I am certain that she had her growing pains as well, so being overconfident may simply be something to grow past. Of course, I don’t see it as wrong so much as different.


.

Quote:

.You mention Kirk, yeah he did evolve within the movie, though in a silly way, no matter how smart you are, no one can jump from cadet to captain of the flagship in that short time, and don't let me get started on Pike.. .
.


Actually, I can image that you can but that is a long, long discussion involving cited references, prior science fiction works, Star Trek’s original inspiration and military protocol.


Quote:

.But if you like the movie,  good for you.   .
.


I do like the movie and thank you. I also appreciate you listing your grievances and look forward to your response.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 9:13 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ Feb. 27 2013, 4:59 pm

>Spock in Abrams movie was very weak, never should a disipline Vulcan fall into the arms of a HUMAN female in times of crisis..THe writting in the movie is very bad, not only is the time travel concept  is silly, a villian WASTED 25 years looking for Spock, so yeah there has been evil guys in Star Trek, but they had a purpose, and I hate to get into how wrong Uhura was portrayed in the movie, Uhura was always classy, not a bossy go getter..You mention Kirk, yeah he did evolve within the movie, though in a silly way, no matter how smart you are, no one can jump from cadet to captain of the flagship in that short time, and don't let me get started on Pike..But if you like the movie,  good for you.  


The issue here is your comprehension skills and your over all knowlidge of Trek and its characters.


To start, Spock is a vulcan /human hibrid, so its no shock that his "disipline" wavers from time to time.As a matter of fact we saw pleanty of that in the originasl series.


Nero, the villian , didnt wait 25 years looking for Spock,, he was locked in a klingon prision all that time.


Original Uhura couldnt even speak Klingon after serving as commnuication officer for over 30 years..........how incompetent is that?At least Nu Uhura was portrayed as if she was good at her job.


And you really need to pay attention to what seen and said in the filmn, Kirk held the rank of Lieutenant, so Kirk went from Lieutenant to captain.


And please, go ahead and start on Pike, I for one would love to see how you fail in your observations.


 


Photobucket

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 9:45 am

Nothing classier than Uhura's fan dance or her hitting on scotty huh?  Seriously, I love what Uhura represented in the 60's television landscape, but her character wasn't exactly well developed. 


as for nero waiting 25 years?  that may seem like a long time to a human, do you think it's a long time for an alien species that lives as long as vulcan's and romulans?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 11:49 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Feb. 27 2013, 9:13 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ Feb. 27 2013, 4:59 pm

>

>Spock in Abrams movie was very weak, never should a disipline Vulcan fall into the arms of a HUMAN female in times of crisis..THe writting in the movie is very bad, not only is the time travel concept  is silly, a villian WASTED 25 years looking for Spock, so yeah there has been evil guys in Star Trek, but they had a purpose, and I hate to get into how wrong Uhura was portrayed in the movie, Uhura was always classy, not a bossy go getter..You mention Kirk, yeah he did evolve within the movie, though in a silly way, no matter how smart you are, no one can jump from cadet to captain of the flagship in that short time, and don't let me get started on Pike..But if you like the movie,  good for you.  

The issue here is your comprehension skills and your over all knowlidge of Trek and its characters.

To start, Spock is a vulcan /human hibrid, so its no shock that his "disipline" wavers from time to time.As a matter of fact we saw pleanty of that in the originasl series.

Nero, the villian , didnt wait 25 years looking for Spock,, he was locked in a klingon prision all that time.

Original Uhura couldnt even speak Klingon after serving as commnuication officer for over 30 years..........how incompetent is that?At least Nu Uhura was portrayed as if she was good at her job.

And you really need to pay attention to what seen and said in the filmn, Kirk held the rank of Lieutenant, so Kirk went from Lieutenant to captain.

And please, go ahead and start on Pike, I for one would love to see how you fail in your observations.

 

I'm still not sure where you got that he was a Lieutenant......He was made First Officer.....but that role carries no automatic promotion.


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 11:57 am

lyLegis exception to Captain becomes automatic in practical terms when your Captain's being held prisoner in the depths of a giant ship from an advanced time that can destroy an entire fleet without going down.

Beating said ship without getting destroyed while rescuing your imprisoned Captain also most likely looks good at your next review for promotion meeting. Hell, maybe Spock from the future even came to the Federation and said "he needs to be the captain of the Enterprise".

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

RecklessVulcan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 12:13 pm

Also, Star Trek wasn't really an adventure series. Don't get me wrong, it certainly had action, but, to me anyway, it was used more as a fun way to explore the universe and the philosiphy within it. And it already has well-developed characters that Abrams doesn't need to mess with. The very fact that he says action and adventure goes against everything Star Trek is about, at least in my eyes.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 12:34 pm

Quote: RecklessVulcan @ Feb. 28 2013, 12:13 pm

>

>Also, Star Trek wasn't really an adventure series. Don't get me wrong, it certainly had action, but, to me anyway, it was used more as a fun way to explore the universe and the philosiphy within it. And it already has well-developed characters that Abrams doesn't need to mess with. The very fact that he says action and adventure goes against everything Star Trek is about, at least in my eyes.

>


the movies should always be about action.  The small screen is the best way to do the human condition type of stories that star trek does so well.  The only real reason to make movies is to do the action that is too big for a small screen and too expensive for a tv budget


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