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.

NCC-1864

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 60

Report this Aug. 23 2013, 7:51 pm

I am incredibly divided on this topic...I loved the movies for their fun and style quality, but I love trek for its substance and allegorical storytelling! I love the freedom of the new timeline but it cannot beat the prime! I love the pomp and circumstance of the new but cannot forget the enduring messages of the classic! I just think I have the perfect balance between the two and I just wish more people felt that way...but kudos to Quinto, Cumberbatch and Urban for magnificent jobs! I like the new movies but I cant forget what Trek really is and that is what is important to me

Dammit Jim I'm a trekkie, not a doctor!

sunbird0x0

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Aug. 24 2013, 5:09 pm

Well, for me, the only truly regrettable event in all the movies was the destruction of Data.  I think he should be resurrected from all his tiny little bits flung afar.  It is only right.  And the thug responsible for his demise should be given a ticket to klingon hell.

NCC-1864

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 60

Report this Aug. 29 2013, 1:23 pm

Well he was revived as B-4 so technically its alright....


Dammit Jim I'm a trekkie, not a doctor!

Captain Plunjer

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 33

Report this Aug. 29 2013, 4:56 pm

i could care less what Abrhams or any other director wants to do with the movies..... ive always felt that trek has fumbled there way through the cinemax .. as long as that leads to a real thought provolking intellectual star trek series similar to the 5 weve grow up on. 

Captain Plunjer

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 33

Report this Aug. 30 2013, 6:44 pm

as for Abrams ..... look hes only going to take trek so far.. his accomplishment to the reboot is his talent to give a movie that blockbuster feel... ultimatley thats the goal for this reboot... to get old and new trek fans back to the theatre.... but its been quite a long time since an original trek provolking script has been turned into a movie or a TV show .....


The movies since star trek 4 have been either movies that were horrid or retread ideas of trek 4's time travel ... hell even the premise of enterprise the TV series was not an original idea... 


the issue for trek fans is .... is there someone out there right now that has something new fresh and interesting to contribute to the series?.... 


 


 


 

moscampfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16

Report this Aug. 30 2013, 7:30 pm

I like the new Star Trek. Being an old Trekkie, I hope that the new treks keep the faith. Star Wars was that: wars.


Star Trek was filled with episodes that prevented wars by intelligent understanding. Abrams needs to keep the faith while serving a new generation of viewers that want fast action. If Star Trek becomes good guys against bad guys, it will lose it's meaning and devolve into the good/bad guy conflict clear in Star Wars, or any Cop show you'll watch on TV.


That's why Enterprise didn't work.


Someone thought war was a good reason for me to tune in next week.


 


 


Peace, Mo

grip_2_go

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this Sep. 05 2013, 3:32 pm

I've read this thread through pages and pages of responses. Some of them make a lot of sense, and many were quite frankly fruitless. I think the bottom line here is many things to many people.


To Paramount, Star Trek is, and always be, a giant cash cow. That's all they care about, and thanks to J.J. Abrahms less than stellar achievements, you'll most likely be getting a third installment of Trek. Good and bad there, depending on how it works out.


To the hardcore Trekkies, Star Trek was originally about innovation and thought. It offered a mind the chance to indulge in what could be, enveloped in fictional futures which craftily mirrored current real life situations. How did it do this?. Well as any good executive knows, you delegate. Roddenberry had a unique ability to allow great writers to adapt their stories to his universe.

Once Roddenberry died, his empire was taken over by Berman, Moore, and Braga (eventually). I believe up until Berman and Braga got rid of Moore they were doing an apt job of holding up the franchise. Once Moore was out, Berman and Braga reduced the franchise into a mediocre machine of soap operatic drama with actors wearing pizza on their foreheads. Neither of them actually had a clue as to what made good sci-fi.


I started losing interest somewhere between DS9 and Voyager. I believe I literally turned the corner upon hearing the theme song to Enterprise in episode 1. Paramount became desperate to reinvigorate the franchise and whomever was in control allowed the inmates to run the asylum. I finally signed off on TV Trek when they literally stole the story from Enemy Mine for an episode of Enterprise. Scott Bakulla and all the other actors deserved so much more than what they were handed. So Star Trek on TV died, Moore went on to create possibly the bestever Sci-fi reboot of it's time Battle Star.


Now it's 2009 and J.J Abrahms, who admitted to not being a ST fan has the reigns. His movie is initially a financial hit, which is all that Paramount cares about. To the hardcore Trekkies, (The ones who saved the franchise from destruction in the beginning) it's an insult. In what world does a cadet under threat of court martial,stow away and assume command of a federations flag ship in just hours?. The story lines are trite.7 main characters forced into positions of iconic status within cheap effects laden shortcuts laid out in poorly orchestrated scenarios. Eventual disaster being held off by cartoon style super hero antics over and over again. Friggin lens flare!. (In my opinion, the art direction sucked as well. The new enterprise looks like a dentists office from THX1138). Spock running around crying and sucking face like a hormonal teenager. It's all bad, but to the uninitiated it seems like what they've all been waiting for. People with half-plus a brain are insulted by the latest incarnation. People with half-less a brain are all jizzed by the shiny awesomeness of the cgi laden bad writing, direction, action sequences.


I won't even mention Into Darkness, other than to say that if you loved it, you are a cheap date. J.J. put even less thought into the making of that movie. The juxtaposition of the lead characters at the end was a work of art worthy of a fifth graders finger painting. Truly insulting. But Paramount made money, so now we have that to deal with.


So what do I want?.


I would love to see Trek return to television!. I have hope!. Perhaps a darker Trek. A federation torn by civil war where the Enterprise is on the rebel side. A move away from ridiculous tech based eleventh hour resolutions like interplanetary teleportation, and what ever else a feeble mind can come up with to solve insolvable  problems in mere seconds with CGI. But I don't hold out much hope for that. One can always dream though, which is what made Star Trek so popular with it's original fans. It offered hope.Helped one to dream. Dream that there would always be a better place to "Be" someday.The ball is your court now Paramount. You've wrangled in all sorts of new believers. Now use their brains. Hell, use yours and return the ST franchise to it's once grand status.


True Original Trekkie.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 3:01 am

Quote: leroybrock @ May. 09 2013, 6:17 pm

>

>The species in Star Trek shouldn't be so 2 dimensional that you can say "species X doesn't do tattoos". Billions of Romulans and no one does tattoos because they feel like it?


Just going back over some old posts.


I came across this one -- and felt compelled to quote it, not even because of Romulan tats, per se. But I think it's very importantly true that we should not expect every member of this species or that species to be like every other. Same goes for Klingons with face-piercings.


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

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 3:06 am

Quote: grip_2_go @ Sep. 05 2013, 3:32 pm

>

>People with half-less a brain are all jizzed by the shiny awesomeness of the cgi laden bad writing, direction, action sequences.

>I won't even mention Into Darkness, other than to say that if you loved it, you are a cheap date.

>


You had me agreeing with just about every point (to varying degrees) except for this one. So many people really need to understand that not everyone is going to feel the same way as them about any series or film, and liking what you hate / hating what you like is not a reflection of intellect.


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

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 4:17 am

When Abrams rebooted STAR TREK,
I had one requirement:


Justify my love of The Original Series.
He did it. He really did ...


grip_2_go

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 2:46 pm

[quote]


[quote]


People with half-less a brain are all jizzed by the shiny awesomeness of the cgi laden bad writing, direction, action sequences.


I won't even mention Into Darkness, other than to say that if you loved it, you are a cheap date.


[/quote]


You had me agreeing with just about every point (to varying degrees) except for this one. So many people really need to understand that not everyone is going to feel the same way as them about any series or film, and liking what you hate / hating what you like is not a reflection of intellect.


[/quote]


 


You are of course, correct. I apologize for that part of the post. I just feel so dissappointed by the latest Trek incarnation. It has no soul. It's like a play-doh press of Star Trek, devoid of intention,devoid of messages to think about. With no other purpose other than to make box office bucks. I'm glad that so many people find this incarnation entertaining, but this is not anything like your fathers Star Trek. Do I fear change, like most old people?. (I'm 51). No, I usually welcome it. But if your going to completely re-think an established fictional universe which was originally based on topics such as war and racism, at least try and adhere to the franchises tenets and make a difference with your film. I believe it can still be done. These latest Treks pander to the masses. That was what I intended to say. Thank you for pointing out my poor choice of words.It was never my intention to troll.

Captain Plunjer

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 33

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 4:34 pm

grip,


you used the right word when talking about the latest reboot movie ... 'entertaining' ....


but yes your absolutley right that it's not the type of movie id want to introduce new trekies too as an example of what trek actually is .... theres nothing that distingushes this latest movie from every other comic book remake over the past 10 years .... you could change the star trek crew and put in the fantastic 4 .. or the X men.. and it would be the same movie.


there are almost 30 full years (seasonns) of story telling about life in the future... so intricate and so indepth that real trek fans could feel comfortable being teleported to that century and feel like they understand where they are.... 


those feelings and qualities are not part of the new reboots .... its simply a entertaining 2 hour movie.


Im good with that though, as long as it creates a platform for new TV series for those that do want to be taken back to that place ... 


 

grip_2_go

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 5:44 pm

Let's be honest. All of Gene's episodes were not winners. But so many of them were that it made a difference. Enough of a difference that it turned an entire network around and offered it's viewers a whole new (mostly third) season after cancellation.Something unheard of at the time in network television. Plus a whole series of films, and subsequent series. These new films offer nothing more than poorly replicated versions of  their forerunners. They could have done so much more than just Parrot what made Star Trek great. J.J Abrahms is comnpletely clueless to the real message of Star Trek, no matter how much his movies make. And so are his writers..


You are correct when you say that they might as well have been writing bad Fantastic 4 or X-men scripts. I defy any one of the writers of the last two Star Trek movies to defend their creations on any other basis other than financial success.


I'm just sayin..


True Original Trekkie.

Captain Plunjer

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 33

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 6:35 pm

Grip,


They brought JJ in to trek for 1 quality of his ... his ability to make a movie look and feel like a blockbuster. That was the intent, and thats what they got... and to the ones that now run trek .. they have accomplished bringing the franchise back to prominance...  I wouldnt blame Abrams for anything... hes did what hes good at....  


Its really up to the trek writers ... weather its the ones that currently run the movies, the old writers of the trek series or new ones with great ideas to bring something new, thought provolking and interesting to the table... something that no one has stepped up and tried to do for quite some time.


 


 

grip_2_go

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 8:02 pm

Perhaps you are right.


I honestly hope he sees Star Wars more clearly though . I hope he Pays more attention to its core audience than he did with ours. I really do.

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