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.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Sep. 06 2013, 9:43 pm

Quote: grip_2_go @ Sep. 06 2013, 2:46 pm


>It was never my intention to troll.


It's all good. You don't strike me as the trolling type.

Anyway I have my nitpicks about the film, and there are other parts that I liked. Many of your criticisms of the film were quite valid, although I would not quite agree that it is soulless, or that it doesn't explore human issues. That is simply a point on which we differ.

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


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Sep. 08 2013, 4:22 am

I've not been on these boards for quite a while. The main reason for that is probably that there are so many Facebook Star Trek pages that one can rant on!!! But I thought I would revisit this forum to see how the dialogue was going on over here.

The strange thing about the NuTrek arguments and discussions is that everybody makes the same points to reflect their own views. I should tell you that the amount of hate mentioned everywhere is too strong and ridiculous a stance to take about JJA, Orci or whoever - but Trek fans being passionate about these things are not all going to agree. When reading various comments I was struck by how many I would make myself but for exactly the opposite reasons. Some people think some new Trek is better than no Trek at all. But to be honest I totally disagree. My dislike of this whole 'enterprise' with JJA at the helm is well considered and not rash. Weighing everything up at the end of the day I really wish he hadn't bothered and really hope his 3rd film will be the last we ever hear of him and his team when it comes to Star Trek.

I guess a lot of us are the older fans - and we can see this new thing might look like Trek, and sound like Trek but it isn't. It is merely wearing its clothes. It has none of the warmth, spirit, substance, philosophy or chemistry of the original. But perhaps this is because of the age we live in? Everything now is quick, disposable, temporary and bite-sized. The attention span of audiences these days would make 2001: A Space Odyssey a sure fire disaster at the cinema in 2013 - when in reality it was one of the most sublime sci-fi events ever. People want car-chases, explosions, speed-dating, and everything at breakneck pace. Well NuTrek gives them that - but THAT is not what Star Trek is really all about. Comparing NuTrek with TOS/movies is like comparing all these infantile boy bands with The Beatles.

There is something quite transparently shameful about JJA's approach to Trek. I'll give him 100% marks for his 'green' credentials - recycling everything he can find - but deduct about 99% for his magpie like tendency to plagiarise in such obvious fashion. Perhaps the most annoying thing about ST:ID is not only does it play fast and loose with the whole TWOK business but he blatantly rips off Godfather 3 with the conference scene. I think he either thinks we are too stupid to have watched 'serious' films and therefore we won't notice - or he just doesn't give a toss ...

to boldy go where no man has gone before


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 477

Report this Sep. 09 2013, 3:57 am

I thought ST:Into Darkness was embarrasing. But apparently some people liked it.

Susan Shalabi Molano

GROUP: Members


Report this Sep. 09 2013, 10:17 pm

The new into darkness (and i won't place spoilers here) is visually splendid, yes; fast and action packed, yes...but it's not Star Trek..It's NOT Star Trek as we know it...

The whole concept on which Rodenberry built the world of Star Trek is being undermined so that JJ's new invention can do well in the box office, and I think this is a shame

Characters are shallow and caricaturish. Relationships unconvincing in some pairs, and comic dialogue is silly and pointless at times.

I just saw it, and I did it twice, but couldn't quite follow through tyhe second time..My senses kept telling me that this beautifull eye candy is not star trek


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Sep. 09 2013, 11:40 pm

Ghostmojo: You make some interesting points, and although I don't agree 100% of course, I can see where you are coming from. The level of vitriole on the topic of the recent films has indeed arguably reached the level of ridiculous.

On the assertion that the recent films are not "Trek" enough (for my part I feel that Trek itself must adapt to stay relevant -- and the direction in which it adapts is bound not to please everybody... but more on that at some other point) I am curious to know what you think about the article below:

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


GROUP: Members


Report this Sep. 10 2013, 5:44 am

I read the story yesterday at work. I agreed with many points, and I believe I mentioned before that not all of Roddenberry's creations were great, but that enough of them were, which is why we still have such a devoted following. As to his assertion that the first half of STID was quite possibly the best Trek ever made, I tend to disagree.


                  The first Trek (09) was rushed and harried. I really don't think we needed to back story 7 major iconic characters. Their bonding seemd trite and forced, and made every situation seem overly contrived to achieve the writers goals. Now we have STID, I think at its core it tries really hard to be a better Trek, but in essence it lacks everything but luster. The writers don't seem too interested in established Trek lore and trivialize it's technology, and so resort to even crazier resolves, like interplanetary teleportation, super cool healing blood and other quick scene fixers.


                   Also I believe most of the actors are spot on with their characterizing of the crew, save for the overly hormonal and emotional Spock. and the under developed, but over used Chekov.I think we need to hire actual Sci-fi writers who grew up loving Trek to carry on with ST3. No doubt, thanks to J.J., Orci, and crew we have another Trek movie to look forward to,and I don't mind even if J.J. Produces it. So long as we move on from forced relationships and re-hashed story lines, and TIME TRAVEL!.

True Original Trekkie.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 387

Report this Sep. 15 2013, 12:24 am

This is the most ridiculous post, "JJ Abrams is a hack that is trying to destroy Star Trek on purpose

JJ has probably millions producing TV series and films. You saying he destroyed Star Trek on purpose, to what end? so he no one will hire him to direct or produce again? . MAKES A LOT OF SENSE..

Do studios keep hiring HACKs?

First Star Trek is not destroyed. We did not have any Star Trek before 2009. Because of the re-image we now have two sucessful films. Lets not continue to complain this move is not Star Trek. No fan can agree what this should be. Bottom line, were you entertained? I was. It was fun, it had humor, it had character moments, emotional moments, it had plot holes but the story is actually ibetter developed than some other previous films.

Re-image was needed and I am pleased with JJ Abrams version of Star Trek.


GROUP: Members


Report this Sep. 15 2013, 1:51 am

While i won't complain about any of the actors (who are not to blame and have done a great job, in fact i can see where Chris pine did more research).  Anywho, I do not particularly care for this polluted time line.  The only thing that will save this series is if he closes it out by correcting the time line. I cannot believe that Spock is not working on a way to save his planet and correct the time line.  It is illogical for the character of Spock to not be working towards this goal.  Another thing lost in these action movies are the usual moral lessons that accompanied all other Star Treks.  These new ones are nothing more than empty action flicks. While entertaining, they stand completely apart from the corpus of all previous works. I can enjoy them as such, but see them as apart from the rest and as diminished works. Weak in comparison to all other works, but good action flicks as action flicks go.  I hope this series gets its integrity back And gets fixed.  

Anime Odo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 209

Report this Sep. 15 2013, 8:59 pm

Startrek will never be the same again . . . . . . in a bad way!!!!!

"I don't believe in luck, but I appreciate the sentiment." - Odo


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1826

Report this Sep. 16 2013, 3:44 pm

Hi there Otakujo


Yes I read that comment you quoted. You really cannot miss any of this stuff if you visit the number of Star Trek pages on Facebook that I do!!!

I think Orci has made a bit of a fool of himself by and large. However, when it comes to the reportage you seem to get pundits who represent both views. But this guy's premise is widely and wildly off the mark in my view. He ends by claiming NuTrek has gone back to the roots of TruTrek. I think that is ridiculous. These guys just do not get it at all. In every sense NuTrek is a completely different animal that the original series and particularly the TOS-based films. All the negative comments I have read here (often intelligent and precise observations) I agree with. J.J.Trek is shallow - lacks substance - has no chemistry - expects too much of us in terms of filling in spaces in plots and relationships - is all bluster and no subtlety - is mainly second rate acting (Karl Urban aside) - is plagiaristic - and is basically Star Wars!!!

The scene when they are heading for Kronos (I have no problem with not saying Qu'onos or however the hell you spell it - by the way) is a case in point. Silly tete-a-tete between Spock and Uhura = Han & Leia with Kirk/Luke sarcastically chipping in - on their Millennium Falcon replacement squeezing between asteroids or whatever and so on ... don't you think we have been here before in a galaxy/franchise long ago and far far away?

It is shameless and speaks volumes about the cynical way the studios and the J.J.A. machine see us. We are just uber-nerds who can be forcefed cliched sci-fi 'car chases', explosions and of course the big bad ship at the end. Throw in a few pretty faces because Kirk is apparently an old dog (see job description) and we have Fast & Furious 6 meets Sex in the City meets Star Wars meets ... well it certainly ain't Star Trek. 

STINO - they call it. Star Trek in Name Only ... I'm afraid that is what we have on our hands ... very sad.

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