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

The destruction of Star Trek as we knew and loved it.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 04 2013, 11:54 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 03 2013, 8:51 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ May. 03 2013, 8:41 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 03 2013, 7:33 pm

>

>

>

>For one we want JJ Abams to repect Star Trek and not make it into some Flippant Joy ride to satisfy his own desires, make changes to the film but we wanted Trek changes not Abrams' changes...At least BattleStar Galactica made COOL changes.. There's nothing wrong with Cylon women OR ADAMA being Hispanic.

>

Exactly what did JJ change that you don't like? It looks to me like all the important elements are there, with the only real changes being cosmetic.

What he did that I like ? NOTHING ! read the thread Court is in Session.


Yeah, view my comments in that thread, but honestly, Trek needed changing. It was becoming a shadow of its former self, little more than a "fans only" club with no room for change.


Abrams made cool changes. Enterprise looks cooler, phasers look cooler and I like the uniforms.


Also, its funny to me how many older Trek fans I see or hear who like the Abrams movie. My dad, the last poster, a F/X guy from Starship Troopers all speak out in favor of this new movie. Some are more favorable of the movie than TNG   the horror


Its all the silly, young, guys who seem to define "Star Trek" as one thing and nothing else. Well, Roddenberry defined it as "science fiction action with social commentary."


Let's see:


Action? Check


Commentary? Check.


I'm onboard

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 05 2013, 12:27 am

Quote: xxburnITdownxx @ May. 03 2013, 3:53 am

>

>This wasnt like the rape that befell BattleStar Galactica where guys became girls, Cylons became chicks and Adama became hispanic.

>


Off topic, but technically speaking there weren't any Hispanic characters in BSG since they're all extraterrestrials.


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

Rambles

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this May. 07 2013, 7:26 am

I liked the 2009 Star Trek movie. It had a fast pace, interesting characters and lots of pew-pew space battle action.


 


However, I loved the Star Trek series. Not for its phaser rifles or the strange fact that the French-based Captain Jean Luc Picard came with an English accent but because it explored all the complexities and potential of humanity in a way no show ever did or has since.


 


Those who say JJ has rebooted the series, increased the fan-base and revived the chances of a TV series are 100 per cent correct.


 


But those who think any such series will be anything more than a weekly action-adventure IN SPACE are sadly mistaken. It doesn't take a University degree in marketing to realise that anyone wanting to rebirth a Star Trek TV show using the movies as a spring-board will need to use the same formulae that won the new fans in the first place. That means action, guns, sex and witty one-liners.


 


The reason why Star Trek survived for decades and inspired two generations of deeper thinking was because it was more than a sitcom/shoot-em-up in space. History is littered with the rubbery face-masks and discarded screenplays of sci-fi shows that were too simple. Even the more interesting ones that delved into the complex relationships of their crews failed to get spun-off the way Star Trek did.


 


The Start Trek I loved put a black man in charge of DS9 and showed us a world where noone around him gave a crap about his colour. It put a woman in charge of Voyager and made her a strong, yet nuanced Captain for whom the glass ceiling was so non-existant her ability to lead was never ever mentioned or questioned.


 


That is the Star Trek I mourn. A Star Trek we shall probably never see again. Instead, meat puppets wearing the uniform and shooting bad guys shall prance across my screen - a sad and constant reminder of what we've lost.

marain

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this May. 07 2013, 6:20 pm

YES!!!  THANK YOU!!!  Now at least I have a name to go with the faceless menace who did this to what used to be my absolute favorite series and creative concept.  I was watching the original Star Trek series back when each episode was brand new, so I have a lot of years of memories.  I even watched a lot of Enterprise, because I had always wanted to know how the Federation got started.  So when the movie about how Kirk and Spock and McCoy met came out, I couldn't wait to see it.  And I enjoyed it, right up to the moment they blew up Vulcan.  If this was about going back in time and altering a timeline, that would have been okay.  But since they did this BEFORE the time of the original series, a great many events basic to Star Trek never happened.  Spock never had a battle to the death with Kirk on Vulcan because of his Pong Far (hope I've spelled that right).  Kirk never separated Spock and McCoy by taking them to Vulcan in The Search For Spock.  Spock didn't have to decide whether to stay on Vulcan or rejoin Kirk on the Enterprise, because THERE WAS NO VULCAN.  Anything that ever had anything to do with Vulcan never happened.  And these are just the most obvious things-that-never-happened that occur to me right off here.  I'm sure if I rewatched the movie, I'd come up with a few more.  The point is, this JJ Abrams has arrogantly wiped out an entire body of work, contributed by countless professionals - not to mention the fan fiction - and declared that the story line this work was based on never happened.   Years ago, the people writing the tv series Dallas made tv history by waiting til the last episode of a season and saying that the whole previous season was just a dream and none of the suspenseful events actually happened.  Whether they just didn't know how to tie up the loose ends or just got lazy, they alienated a lot of Dallas fans who stopped watching the show altogether.  They also made a joke out of the show.  I don't know JJ Abrams' reason for doing what he's done to Star Trek, but I can't be the only long-time fan who's just done with it.  As far as I'm concerned, something I valued has been broken and can never be the same again.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this May. 07 2013, 6:32 pm

Quote: marain @ May. 07 2013, 6:20 pm

>

>YES!!!  THANK YOU!!!  Now at least I have a name to go with the faceless menace who did this to what used to be my absolute favorite series and creative concept.  I was watching the original Star Trek series back when each episode was brand new, so I have a lot of years of memories.  I even watched a lot of Enterprise, because I had always wanted to know how the Federation got started.  So when the movie about how Kirk and Spock and McCoy met came out, I couldn't wait to see it.  And I enjoyed it, right up to the moment they blew up Vulcan.  If this was about going back in time and altering a timeline, that would have been okay.  But since they did this BEFORE the time of the original series, a great many events basic to Star Trek never happened.  Spock never had a battle to the death with Kirk on Vulcan because of his Pong Far (hope I've spelled that right).  Kirk never separated Spock and McCoy by taking them to Vulcan in The Search For Spock.  Spock didn't have to decide whether to stay on Vulcan or rejoin Kirk on the Enterprise, because THERE WAS NO VULCAN.  Anything that ever had anything to do with Vulcan never happened.  And these are just the most obvious things-that-never-happened that occur to me right off here.  I'm sure if I rewatched the movie, I'd come up with a few more.  The point is, this JJ Abrams has arrogantly wiped out an entire body of work, contributed by countless professionals - not to mention the fan fiction - and declared that the story line this work was based on never happened.   Years ago, the people writing the tv series Dallas made tv history by waiting til the last episode of a season and saying that the whole previous season was just a dream and none of the suspenseful events actually happened.  Whether they just didn't know how to tie up the loose ends or just got lazy, they alienated a lot of Dallas fans who stopped watching the show altogether.  They also made a joke out of the show.  I don't know JJ Abrams' reason for doing what he's done to Star Trek, but I can't be the only long-time fan who's just done with it.  As far as I'm concerned, something I valued has been broken and can never be the same again.

>


The intention of the writers was that the new timeline runs alongside the old one as a parallel universe, rather than overwriting it as is usually the case. So all the events of the previous Trek productions still happened, just in a different universe than what JJ and company are working on.


"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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 07 2013, 8:09 pm

This is the whole reason why I am confused by the fan boy back lash.


Abrams didn't destroy TOS, or any other series-go to Netflix and watch them. Go to fanfiction.net and read your fiction. One of my favorite fan sites is starshipsaladin, which chronicles a TOS era Saladin class ship. Abrams has done nothing to diminish those works, anymore than the Mirror Universe diminished TOS stories. Nothing Abrams does takes away from TOS because it still exists. That is the whole point behind an alternate timeline. The writers even said that they didn't want to be bound by existing continuity because it would be too easy to step on toes or miss something. So, they went back and started a new timeline, but with characters we know.


I'm also saddened that people treat it as little more than action schlock film and don't bother delving in to the character arcs, the themes presented or challenges that the crew faces in order to come together in the crew we know in TOS.


I'll never claim that Abrams Trek is a perfect movie or that Into Darkness will be a perfect film. However, the idea that Abrams betrayed Trek, ruined it or otherwise destroyed the franchise seems more like misplaced rage to me. I mean, all the arguments levied against Abrams Trek could be presented against:


Nemesis


Insurrection


Enterprise


DS9


TNG (and many fans of TOS still don't like TNG)


even Wrath of Khan could fall under judgement for violating Trek since Roddenberry didn't like and it presents Starfleet as far more of a military establishment rather than the science and exploration agency Roddenberry envisioned.


You can't really have it both ways...

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this May. 08 2013, 7:28 am

Quote: wissa @ Apr. 25 2013, 9:34 am

Quote: xxburnITdownxx @ Apr. 25 2013, 2:42 am

>

>

>...seriously you guys have NO idea what youre talking about. None. I mean I have never seen a director find that fine line between nostalgia and technology better than J.J. Abrams he has given the film the look of Star Trek of the 60s while staying up to date with slick technology. The cast is hauntingly spot on...the future that it depicts is a believable one I can see us being there its...just...amazing work...and if there is a God in heaven J.J. will do Battlestar Galactica next...lord please please please.

>

I like the new guy. 


Me too wissa.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

Del_Duio

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 28

Report this May. 08 2013, 8:48 am

I made an account to post here.


I am a HUGE fan of Trek. Watched TOS reruns as a little kid, watched TNG when it was on, watched DS9 religiously (and still is the best series IMO), and etc. I've seen all the movies and though nothing will likely top WoK as the #1 ST movie I'd put the 2009 movie in at #2 with me. In fact, it's much much better than Nemesis and Insurrection. I saw it 4 yes FOUR times in the theater. Twice for myself and a couple times to show some of my friends who would never normally watch a ST movie just how great it was. I watched it with my 10 year old daughter and she loves it.


This is what creates new blood in the fandom. And why now the franchise might go on another 50 years.


J.J. did us all a giant favor by making the reboot and making it as successful as it was. Look at all the talk about Trek now- New YouTube trailers with millions of views. Tell me you saw this coming when J Lo's crap movie topped Nemesis at the Box Office way back when. You want to convict somebody? Convict the guy who gave the incredible TNG cast that terrible excuse of a send off and I'll sign that one lickity-split.


You know what I said to myself when they blew up Vulcan? "Holy sh*t!" I wasn't overly-pissed, didn't start up a new poll to try and hang J.J. or anything like that here. Once I realized how they had manufactured a new timeline in order to tell us all brand-new stories well honestly I thought it was pure genius!


I guess that's all. Live long and propser, people!


DXF Games: Hasslevania, Equin: The Lantern, ODW, Neil Peart Mission The Camera Eye! http://dxfgames.com

marain

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this May. 08 2013, 2:42 pm

I'm brand new here, so bear with me if I get this posting all wrong.  I'm responding to the person who responded to my post by saying that the new JJ Abrams movie represents just an additional Star Trek universe while the old one is still intact.  I understand the concept of multiple universes, but two problems:  One -  I must have missed the part where somebody explains this at the end of the film; did I go out for popcorn?  Two - unless the bean counters agree to spend their money on alternate New Trek Universe/Old Trek Universe productions, the new one is all we're ever going to have; how is that really different from the old one never happening?  Either way, there will be no more movies or series set in MY Star Trek, so it's just as gone.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 08 2013, 8:57 pm

Quote: marain @ May. 08 2013, 2:42 pm

> but two problems:  One -  I must have missed the part where somebody explains this at the end of the film; did I go out for popcorn? 


pleanty of fans have made this complaint, but I ask, what kind of explaintion would have satified you?


And the dialog between Nu Uhura and Nu Spock pretty much explains the issue anyway, not to mention the dialog betewwn both Spocks.


Two - unless the bean counters agree to spend their money on alternate New Trek Universe/Old Trek Universe productions, the new one is all we're ever going to have; how is that really different from the old one never happening?  Either way, there will be no more movies or series set in MY Star Trek, so it's just as gone.


theres always the novels


Photobucket

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 08 2013, 9:03 pm

Quote: marain @ May. 08 2013, 2:42 pm

>

>One -  I must have missed the part where somebody explains this at the end of the film; did I go out for popcorn?

>


There's no need to explain that explicitly, although Spock did talk about the alternate universe part way through the previous film. It's just a logical conclusion based on how, for example, other alternate universes work in Star Trek.


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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 08 2013, 9:12 pm

Here's the thing...the bean counters are still evaluating whether or not Star Trek is a money making brand.


Let us remember that Enterprise did poorly in ratings for almost its entire tenure, save the last season. Nemisis did so bad its almost famous for being sacrificed to a J'Lo romantic comedy. How much faith do you have in your brand if you opt to let it die?


Abrams himself is on record as stating that he would not have considered Star Trek viable if it were not for James Cawley and Star Trek: Phase 2 project demonstrating people still had an interest in the franchise.


I think that the Trek we came to know and love might come back, again, if the brand proves to be profitable outside the loyal, but relatively small, fan base. So far, Abrams has proven more profitable that any of the TNG era movies.


In addition, Spock says that they are in an alternate universe. Its when Kirk states that if Nero is from the future they need to act unpredictable. Spock responds by saying that Nero's incursion created an alternate set of events. The whole idea is just like the Mirror Universe, where events occurred differently than in the Prime universe. Its not a new concept to Star Trek.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 08 2013, 9:28 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 08 2013, 9:12 pm

>The whole idea is just like the Mirror Universe, where events occurred differently than in the Prime universe.

>Its not a new concept to Star Trek.


Neither of those statements is exactly correct.


 


Photobucket

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 08 2013, 9:38 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 08 2013, 9:28 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 08 2013, 9:12 pm

>

>The whole idea is just like the Mirror Universe, where events occurred differently than in the Prime universe.

>Its not a new concept to Star Trek.

Neither of those statements is exactly correct.

 


How so?

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 08 2013, 9:48 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 08 2013, 9:38 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 08 2013, 9:28 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 08 2013, 9:12 pm

>

>

>The whole idea is just like the Mirror Universe, where events occurred differently than in the Prime universe.

>Its not a new concept to Star Trek.

Neither of those statements is exactly correct.

How so?


Alright, lets break these statements down.


1]The whole idea is just like the Mirror Universe, where events occurred differently than in the Prime universe.


JJ's trek universe is unlike the MM universe because JJ's universe is a "NEWLY" created parrallel universe, created by changes made to the timeline.


The mirror universe, and the other paralklel universes we saw in the TNG episode "Parallels" were pre=exsisting universes that were not created by time travelling events.


2]Its not a new concept to Star Trek.


the idea of parrlrell universe is not new, but the creating of one because of changes to history is indeed a new concept for trek.


sure, we have seen time travel effect history, giving us alternate timnelines, but at the cost of "RE-WRITING" or erassing the history we knew.


JJ's concept differes in that it gave us a new timeline with out re-writting what we knew.....according to JJ anyway.


Photobucket

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: sonofspock1

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