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.

SixOfSeven05

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23

Report this Feb. 14 2013, 5:31 pm

I Really don't see the point in this, I Actually enjoyed the 2009 reboot and i'vev been a trekkie for years. The only thing that matters to me, Is that new people have Discovered Star Trek through the Reboot.

JeremyRay

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 2:30 am

I just signed up because I halfway or a third of the way agree with the original poster.  I wouldn't call Abrams a hack, in fact I liked a lot of what he did with Star Trek.  Probably most of it.  It's not a movie that's beyond criticism however.  It often flies unnecessarily in the face of fans.  For example, Klingon "Warbirds"?  That grated on me and I think Abrams had better options.  I can understand how "D7/Ktinga" wouldn't be as exciting to throw at new people as "warbird," but "Klingon Battlecruiser" would have worked.  Using the better looking Bird of Prey model and saying "Klingon Birds of Prey" would have worked.  It's not an instance where you have to sacrifice the old fan to get the new fan.

Changing the Klingons - IMO making them look like bad Predator rip offs is a lose-lose for everyone.  You can't not be conscious of that as a director.  If the Klingons are going to wear masks they either have to be so cool they make the Predator mask look lousy, or they have to be drastically different.  They can't look like a poor imitation of what the Predator wears.  That's the absolute worst.

Changing the Romulans - Again it was possible to please the new fans and the old ones.  I thought the tattooed savages weren't as cool as the secretive political machinators of the tv shows, but if you tell me Nero's Romulans have PTSD and are degenerating back to the state of mind of Vulcan's pre-Surak period - now I'm interested.  Tell me that's where the tattoos and the spears came from.  I think we'd all like to see a bit more of that part of the Star Trek universe. 

The Narada - I guess Abrams didn't want to have Romulan warbirds in his movie when they were in the previous Trek movie (Nemesis).  As a fan though it seemed incredibly strange to have the Romulan Emperor flying a mining ship instead of a military vessel.  I mean, holy crap, the Xindi were breaking moons in the Enterprise era with a weapon that could fit inside the cargo hold of an Andorian ship.  All Nero needs to do is bore a little tunnel to the core of Vulcan - a Borg-ified Warbird isn't up to the task? 

I would have been much happier if Abrams had created a new generation of Warbird with the hollow biplane look of the D'Deridex.  I really don't think that would have turned off any new fans.

The new Enterprise - honestly, it does have some funky, awkward lines on it.  Abrams shoots it well and hides its flaws most of the time, but it is a poor update of the original.

New warp space effect - why?  It's not as cool as the old streaking star effect.  The old effect could be done better with current technology, but no radical change was necessary. 

My overall judgement is that the Abrams reboot was a mistake.  It's more stubbing your toe than shooting yourself in the foot, not a catastrophe by any means, but not necessary. 

It's not as good a movie as 2, 3, or 4, and it's not as good as Enterprise's 3rd or 4th seasons. 

The wrong conclusions were drawn from the failure of the bad Next Gen movies and Enterprise.  There was some goddawful writing in there, and that's it.  If Abrams could have directed a well written Next Gen movie, it would have made bank too.  It's not like Patrick Stewart isn't a better actor than Chris Pine (who isn't bad, but not in the same league as Stewart).  Or keep Pine and make him Captain of the E after Picard, or the F, or the J (We all want to see the J, c'mon!).

There's still plenty of stories to be told in the Prime universe.

One of the most valuable things about the Trek universe was its consistency across 4 tv series, the TOS and Next Gen movies, and however many games.  It's like a real other world.  Breaking that consistency upsets the illusion, it shouldn't have been done as casually as Abrams did it.  There were better options.

Ultimately I'd guess the movies will return to the Prime universe, and the Abramsverse will be regarded as a bit of an oddity.  I can't see it producing as many movies as the Prime universe.  Anybody want to guess how much life the Abrams timeline has in it?

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 5:05 am

The Klingon bird of prey made popular by Star Trek 3 was originally supposed to be a Romulan ship stolen by the Klingon same. The Romulan connection was dropped but the ship remained and this Romulan ship became the iconic Klingon ship. It has also been a wildly inconsistent ship through its life. http://www.ditl.org/pagarticle.php?ArticleID=23&ListID=Articles So shit happens, right?

I'm also glad that Nero had a tattoo. It's will established that Romulans are essentially Vulcans and I did not appreciate the bumpy forehead treatment they were getting in TNG. And bitching about spears while letting the Vulcans off for their ceremonial weapons and the Klingons off for theirs is a clear double standard.

The new warp effect is pretty cool, in my opinion, and the new transporter effect was pretty nice too.

I guess for breaking up consistency the idea of an alternate parallel time line is too much for some people even though the movie took a brief moment to tell you that that is exactly what's going on and reminds you that the prime universe is still slogging on.

It's high time for people to get the hell over it. If your fan fiction is so great stop whining and see about getting it published.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 10:48 am

Quote: JeremyRay @ Feb. 15 2013, 2:30 am

> It's not a movie that's beyond criticism however.  It often flies unnecessarily in the face of fans.  For example, Klingon "Warbirds"?  That grated on me and I think Abrams had better options.  I can understand how "D7/Ktinga" wouldn't be as exciting to throw at new people as "warbird," but "Klingon Battlecruiser" would have worked.  Using the better looking Bird of Prey model and saying "Klingon Birds of Prey" would have worked.  It's not an instance where you have to sacrifice the old fan to get the new fan.


I dont see an issue with his calling them "klingon war birds".


thats how they were call in the Enterprise series

The Narada - I guess Abrams didn't want to have Romulan warbirds in his movie when they were in the previous Trek movie (Nemesis).  As a fan though it seemed incredibly strange to have the Romulan Emperor flying a mining ship instead of a military vessel. 


Nero was a civilian, not the emperor


I mean, holy crap, the Xindi were breaking moons in the Enterprise era with a weapon that could fit inside the cargo hold of an Andorian ship.  All Nero needs to do is bore a little tunnel to the core of Vulcan - a Borg-ified Warbird isn't up to the task? 


It was a civilian ship that got modified, not a militery ship


Photobucket

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 2:52 pm

LOL


(gets more popcorn!)



 


WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 6:49 pm

I wouldn't call Abrams a hack, in fact I liked a lot of what he did with Star Trek.  Probably most of it.


We're going to remember this a little later on.


It's not a movie that's beyond criticism however.


No movie is.


For example, Klingon "Warbirds"?  That grated on me and I think Abrams had better options.  I can understand how "D7/Ktinga" wouldn't be as exciting to throw at new people as "warbird," but "Klingon Battlecruiser" would have worked.  Using the better looking Bird of Prey model and saying "Klingon Birds of Prey" would have worked.  It's not an instance where you have to sacrifice the old fan to get the new fan.


And they didn't.


Changing the Klingons - IMO making them look like bad Predator rip offs is a lose-lose for everyone.  You can't not be conscious of that as a director.  If the Klingons are going to wear masks they either have to be so cool they make the Predator mask look lousy, or they have to be drastically different.  They can't look like a poor imitation of what the Predator wears.  That's the absolute worst.


No one cares.


Changing the Romulans - Again it was possible to please the new fans and the old ones. 


As they did, correct.

The Narada - I guess Abrams didn't want to have Romulan warbirds in his movie when they were in the previous Trek movie (Nemesis).  As a fan though it seemed incredibly strange to have the Romulan Emperor flying a mining ship instead of a military vessel.


Romulan Emperor?!?!  He was a Captain of a Mining Ship.  He's a miner!


I mean, holy crap, the Xindi were breaking moons in the Enterprise era with a weapon that could fit inside the cargo hold of an Andorian ship.  All Nero needs to do is bore a little tunnel to the core of Vulcan - a Borg-ified Warbird isn't up to the task? 


As a miner, who used a mining vessel and not part of the Romulan Government, he wouldn't need a warbird.


New warp space effect - why?  It's not as cool as the old streaking star effect.  The old effect could be done better with current technology, but no radical change was necessary. 


Or Unnecessary either. You're really making arguments against anything.


My overall judgement is that the Abrams reboot was a mistake.  It's more stubbing your toe than shooting yourself in the foot, not a catastrophe by any means, but not necessary. 


So then how is it a "mistake?"  You're wrong of course, but please try to tell us.  You're confusing termonology around.


It's not as good a movie as 2, 3, or 4, and it's not as good as Enterprise's 3rd or 4th seasons. 


So anything other than that is a "mistake?"



The wrong conclusions were drawn from the failure of the bad Next Gen movies and Enterprise.  There was some goddawful writing in there, and that's it.  If Abrams could have directed a well written Next Gen movie, it would have made bank too.  It's not like Patrick Stewart isn't a better actor than Chris Pine (who isn't bad, but not in the same league as Stewart).  Or keep Pine and make him Captain of the E after Picard, or the F, or the J (We all want to see the J, c'mon!).


One of the most valuable things about the Trek universe was its consistency across 4 tv series, the TOS and Next Gen movies, and however many games.  It's like a real other world.  Breaking that consistency upsets the illusion, it shouldn't have been done as casually as Abrams did it.  There were better options.


Better for whom?  The fringe 2% of fans who think James Cawley is the Second Coming of Christ?

PowerKord

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 6:59 pm

Greetings!


I'm opposed to the inclusion of hip-hop in any Star Trek film. I'm hoping that JJ Abrams does not repeat the error in Darkness. I'm also opposed to the Spock-Uhura romance, and have a similar hope.


I've written an open letter to JJ Abrams regarding both of these issues. I strongly encourage Star Trek (and Star Wars) fans to carefully read www.OpenLetterToJJAbrams.net to familiarize yourselves with my arguments on both of these points, and to spread the word. Perhaps at this late date we can make a difference.


Additionally, would someone knowledgeable please tell me the best way to directly reach one or more of the principal makers of Darkness? Whether the writers or the director himself? What online boards do they visit? What is their contact information? If you are personally acquainted with any of them, would you be kind enough to forward the aforementioned URL to them?


Moreover, whom would I contact at Paramount or CBS that might be of relevance?


I'm a lifelong Trek (and Wars) fan, and take these issues very seriously.


Warm Regards,


vincent


PS. At the aforementioned website I list personal information such as my last name, state of residence, and email address. I've deliberately listed that information there, since I have control of that site, but not here in this forum. I respectfully request that any of you who may post here, about that site, not mention in your post here any of that personal information. Thanks!

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 7:05 pm

PowerKord, what are you doing there? Is that supposed to be poking fun at the anti-JJ loons, trolling, or you really just that far gone?

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Feb. 20 2013, 3:30 am

Quote: JeremyRay @ Feb. 15 2013, 2:30 am

>

>Changing the Klingons - IMO making them look like bad Predator rip offs is a lose-lose for everyone.

>


This change is barely anything compared with the changes to the Klingon appearance that happened between TOS and TNG.


As far as I can see, the only notable change is that they have helmets now. (Methinks they look more like Uruk Hai.)


But if people could accept the differences in Klingon appearance as they evolved through the initial Star Trek movies, they can surely accept the idea of Klingons with funky metal hats.


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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 21 2013, 10:27 pm

I honestly struggle with trying to understand why people say that Abrams is destroying Star Trek. Especially given the same reactions and accusations were leveled at Nicholas Meyer, who had admitted to being unfamilliar with Star Trek, steered it in a new direction from Roddenberry's vision established in TMP, and was praised for his success.


Now, i will never compare Trek 09 to The Wrath of Khan, anymore than I would compare anything to TWOK. TWOK was unique and worked because of different chemistry than what we have in Trek 09.


Is the movie perfect? No, as many have said in this thread. I just am curious why people insult Abrams but do not acknowledge that Meyers did the same thing.

johnd777

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1029

Report this Feb. 24 2013, 6:07 pm

Quote: ranicand @ Jan. 14 2013, 10:48 am

>I agree we needed a reboot and to be honest I think 2009 Trek got a lot of things right including the tone.

>It is the visuals that I did not like the real world locations that were used instead of proper sets.


I agree.


Change is never easy. I recall how Star Trek Enterprise was rebuffed by Trekkers for not being pre-TOS enough etc. Ignoring the brilliance of Berman and Braga. Why they did not publish the biggest answer to the challengers is that it is an altered timeline (by Star Trek First Contact) is beyond me. it might have shut some of the complainers up and we'd have had Star Trek on TV a few years longer.


NX 01 looked more or less like the few quick glimpses Cochrane had of the Enterprise E.


In the previous timeline, the Borg and humans did not have first contact until Q sent 1701E into the delta quadrant in the 24th Century. But in the alternate timeline there was a Borg incident in ENT in the arctic.


The Klingon transformation (no ridges to ridges) and the augments and mirror mirror were all brilliant and inspired. But by that time the boycotting fan base killed the show marketability. And when a show can't sell soap it dies... gets the axe.


IMHO snotty remarks about the reboot is what took it so long to be followed up by STID. Keep it up guys and gals and we'll have nothing but fan movies and books that contradict each other. 


 


 


.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Feb. 24 2013, 6:25 pm

Quote: johnd777 @ Feb. 24 2013, 6:07 pm

>Why they did not publish the biggest answer to the challengers is that it is an altered timeline (by Star Trek First Contact) is beyond me. it might have shut some of the complainers up and we'd have had Star Trek on TV a few years longer.


the reason why that wasnt done is bec ause theres no solid evidence that FC, caused a alternaste timeline.


In the previous timeline, the Borg and humans did not have first contact until Q sent 1701E into the delta quadrant in the 24th Century.


To begine with, it was the 1701D, not E


Also, 7 of 9 and her parents were assimulated by the Borg at least 10 before Picard encountered the Borg due to Q/s actions.


Photobucket

DrBashirIPresume

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Feb. 25 2013, 4:07 pm

Okay, just to put my two cents in there, JJ Abrams movie did suck, it sucked before it was even made because, well, the ST Universe didn't need to be re-made, and only an arrogant old sod like Abrams who, and I am quoting him here 'doesn't get' Star Trek, would ever think it did need to be.


Ironically (I think it's ironic, never sure if I am using that word right though) if the new Star Trek had been called anything else, if it had been sci-fi independent of this franchise, it might have stood up on it's own... As it was, it was just an offensive premise doomed to fail .


I doubt that there will ever be a new series now, the more succesful these new generation films are commercially the less viable television series look to the executives so, erm, really, all we can do is hope that the second installment is positively dreadful to make those exec's reconsider.


(Also, I know it's not awesome ettiquete to make your first post a real one, not an introduction one in the newbie boards, but I have been reading though these for ages, I don't feel like a newbie, and I doubt anyone really cares...).

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 25 2013, 6:25 pm

You're correct, noone cares. Troll.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Feb. 25 2013, 6:41 pm

Quote: DrBashirIPresume @ Feb. 25 2013, 4:07 pm

>

>I doubt that there will ever be a new series now, the more succesful these new generation films are commercially the less viable television series look to the executives so, erm, really, all we can do is hope that the second installment is positively dreadful to make those exec's reconsider.

>


I think it's the other way around. If Abrams' movies succeed, it shows the execs that there's a market for more Star Trek productions. If the Abrams movies fail, it could convince them that there's no hope of reviving the franchise and Star Trek is left to die.


"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

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

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