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.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 03 2013, 8:58 pm

Quote: SixOfSeven05 @ Mar. 03 2013, 8:20 pm

>What i hated the most, Was all the errors. How come one drop of the "Red Matter" was enough to consume an entire supernova, But all of it not enough to consume Two ships?


you speak of mistakes in the film, but then you prove that the only mitakes was in your understanding of things.


Think of the red matter like frozen orange juice, by itself its only 1 cup, but add 3 cups of water and the taste spreads out.


the red matter grew more powerful by the energy of the super nova


Why did Spock throw Kirk off the Ship? And not in the Brig?I Question New Spock's Logic.


Because he was very pissed off.His logic was compermized by seeing he mother die and his home destroyed.


And Coincidentally Kirk landed where (Prime) Spock and Scotty were Located? How is that Possible they saw Vulcan from Delta Vega? The only logical explanation is that they landed on Vulcans moon. Vulcan has no Moon.


Have you forgotton thast Vulcan had a sister planet,.We first saw it in ST The motion picture.


Romulos also has a sister planet, Remus.


Why are Romulans portrayed as Bumbling Retarded Buffons,


I didnt get that impression.


That's not even all.


So far you havent pointed out anything of worth


Photobucket

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 04 2013, 8:48 pm

I was never bothered by the "coincidence" of Kirk landing near Scotty or Spock. The computer was telling Kirk to stay in the pod, that there was a Starfleet outpost nearby. I honestly would expect an escape pod go towards the nearest Starfleet signal. That makes sense to me.


Red matter has never bothered me, any more than the treatment of black holes in the movie. I know strict harder science fiction fans would prefer a different disaster and I cannot fault them. However, Red Matter is not the problem with the potential threat to the galaxy. Red Matter just is technobable device.


The destruction of Vulcan being visible? I believe that is left open to interpretation as a possible effect from Spock's mind meld, rather than being specifically how the event happened.

lonstar70

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 72

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 8:06 am

Then dont watch it.

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 23 2013, 10:01 am

I think it's hard to say whether Abrams has ruined Trek yet. 


If you forget that all the Star Trek movies are Star Trek movies and just grade them on their merrits as movies, it seems a lot of people rank Star Trek (2009) highly.


I think it's a good movie in just that sense.


Personally, I don't prefer the Abrams alternate reality for Star Trek. However, I doubt that any established Star Trek fans who felt the same way about it as I do, quit the franchise altogether because of it. More than anything else, I think it has grown the fanbase.


It's a difficult question to answer, as to what might get another Trek series on the air again.


TOS was off the air after just 3 seasons. So if what originally worked didn't actually work... Do you see what I'm saying?


Plus, TNG was sort of to Star Trek what Doctor Who 2005 was to Doctor Who. So Trek has already had one magical rebirth...and some would argue several others.


I think it's not essentually ruined. The movies, even if you don't like them, the video games, the comic books...Star Trek has a large and already established fanbase. I think they are testing the waters all the time and experimenting with getting something they can be pretty sure will work, back on the air. After Nemesis and Ent, it's not an easy question for anyone to answer, not for Abrams or anyone else.


I think they let Abrams work outside the regular Trek universe so he could do something like he did, very fast, different, something that sucks you face-first from end to end. I don't think they'll necessarily stick with the idea. I don't know if it would even be possible to if they wanted to.

ProsperousOne

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 62

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 5:26 pm

Hi everybody.


I'm one of those that has a love-hate relationship with Star Trek 2009.  The cinematic genius was there in grand style, an honest-to-goodness feel for real space travel with the state of the art special effects.  I was actually expecting the film to be a story of how Kirk, Spock, McCoy and all got together and started their 5 year mission.  Needless to say, it didn't turn out that way, did it?  LOL    Trek purists wanted the timeline preserved because of all the stories that took place during TOS the TOS films such as The Voyage Home, for example.  With Spock Prime in the new universe, those events could still happen, because surely he would warn Kirk and Earth and the Federation when time comes so they can deal with it accordingly.  


 


I was a little disappointed with the timeline change, but if I said I'd never watch another Trek film because of the 2009 reboot, I'd be lying.  I'm really looking forward to STID 2013 to see what they have come up with.  


 


I'm just a little tribble in this great big world, so my opinion is just mine.  I'm just going to enjoy it as it is.  


 


Everyone have an amazing year!  

addderz

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 10:35 am

guys the fact of creating a alternaTE UNIVERSE  was to give star trek more breathing room to grow and culture many more generations of children that will open thier minds to the possabilties  jj abrams did a great job in direction of lighting  and shots  i think the cast did a great job to inturperate thier characters i thnk they did a greaqt job  pitty i woud of love to see how kirk went against the borg  lol

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 12:49 pm

Exactly. An alternate universe implies things will be DIFFERENT not the same. The idea that somehow, things must be exactly the same, same uniforms, same technology, same ship, is rather silly when Star Trek has been doing the same thing for years and has stagnated.


I'll not sure I get the whole "Its ruined Star Trek" argument." Like T'Paul said, they are testing waters, seeing what they can do with this franchise that really was dying. Enterprise and Nemesis really didn't bring in new fans and the older movies can be inaccessible.


I have been a Trek fan for years, but my wife couldn't get in to the Original or any of the movies. It wasn't her thing. But, Trek 09 gave her better insight in to this world and made it more accessible.


So, I'm not sure how Abrams ruined Trek by opening up new worlds and possibilities. If you don't like it, that's fine, and you are welcome to feel that way. But, I'm not sure doom and gloom about the Trek franchise is really warranted.

FluffyFox

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 3:52 pm

I found myself appreaciating that they had an original character from the series in it, but what really got to me was what they did to the enterprise herself. The attacks that the ship used was bad. I wanted to see continuous lasers not a scattershot. Also, the whole part with the core ejection. There is only one core not four or five!


I'd love to see a new series on tv but I'm hoping it doesn't get screwed up...all we can do is hope I suppose...


"Live long and don't piss me off!" =^..^=

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 7:23 pm

Quote: FluffyFox @ Mar. 27 2013, 3:52 pm

>

>There is only one core not four or five!

>


Why?

Livellios

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 7:02 am

My 2 Cents Worth


The one point I really have against JJ Ahbrams is that he said in an interview that the ST Universe as it stood did not allow him enough scope .... WTF


The ST from the TOS through to Enterprise has more than enough scope .... what was stopping him from moving the timeline to 50, 100 years into the future?  or as some posters have already said to the years before TOS? 


The idea of an alternate timeline / Universe is actually an extremely weak cop out it had been done to death in enough of the series and movies, that when I saw 2009 was an alternate timeline I was extremely disappointed.


Yes the re-boot was needed and yes on a number of levels the 2009 movie is good finiancally and for the franchise but on a purely ST level with its 40+ years of history and continuity it is hogwash. 


IMO his ego got in the way and basically he has put SW ideals and story telling into Star Trek.   I know many will disagree and that is fine but for him to pubically state he prefers Star Wars to Star Trek and that all the material that has happened before did not allow him enough scope is BS and an excuse not to try and make a great franchise even greater.


As a pure Sci-Fi fan I will see the next movie but on another level I am really disappointed he didn't take the challenge to make something happen within the ST Universe as it was.

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 8:14 am

Personally, I do not care if a particular director believes
that STAR TREK is foolish nonsense and says so, often
and publically! If he still takes it upon himself to then
transcend the format to a level of entertainment that is a
commercial and critical success, then he's right for the job!


I have seen some Fan-based STAR TREK projects and for all of
the hard-core enthusiasm and passion that these FANS have for the
franchise ... they have NO CLUE about writing scripts, staging scenes, 
cinematography, or artistry within a very limited budget. STAR TREK
Fan Films invariably end up looking bad and being predictably lame.


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 8:44 am

Quote: Livellios @ Mar. 28 2013, 7:02 am

>

>My 2 Cents Worth

>The one point I really have against JJ Ahbrams is that he said in an interview that the ST Universe as it stood did not allow him enough scope .... WTF

>The ST from the TOS through to Enterprise has more than enough scope .... what was stopping him from moving the timeline to 50, 100 years into the future?  or as some posters have already said to the years before TOS? 

>The idea of an alternate timeline / Universe is actually an extremely weak cop out it had been done to death in enough of the series and movies, that when I saw 2009 was an alternate timeline I was extremely disappointed.

>Yes the re-boot was needed and yes on a number of levels the 2009 movie is good finiancally and for the franchise but on a purely ST level with its 40+ years of history and continuity it is hogwash. 

>IMO his ego got in the way and basically he has put SW ideals and story telling into Star Trek.   I know many will disagree and that is fine but for him to pubically state he prefers Star Wars to Star Trek and that all the material that has happened before did not allow him enough scope is BS and an excuse not to try and make a great franchise even greater.

>As a pure Sci-Fi fan I will see the next movie but on another level I am really disappointed he didn't take the challenge to make something happen within the ST Universe as it was.

>


you know jj didn't write the movie, right?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Devinoni

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 57

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 9:59 am

We may or may not like JJ Abrams of Star Trek but we must recognize that:


1) it's a successful reboot of the franchize that can reignite the general publics (and perhaps tv networks) interest into ST.


2) the man was fair enough to not screw our familiar ST timeline, so he decided to put it into an alternate one. Not only does that shows respect for the already existing one, it also introduce ST to new possibilities.


And if somebody else had put ST into a alternate universe I'm sure people would have wined about the JJ Abrams-esque approach since the man has made a speciality out of alternate universing things up (so to speak).


 


3) I'm a doctor, not a film critic!


 


Make it so.

Mars2005

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 10:31 am

I have been a trek fan since 1966 and like all the series. I watched the first movie and thought it was a great copy of the original's feel. Lets see the whole movie and give it a chance.

Ashtimus_Prime

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Mar. 31 2013, 6:12 pm

Star Trek died in 2005 with the cancellation of Enterprise, a show that may not be popular, but as far as I'm concerned, was loyal to the franchise.

I simply just disregard Abrams' films as non-canon, that way I don't cry myself to sleep.

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