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

J.J. Abrams Proves Himself as the Saviour of Star Trek!

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 22 2013, 9:51 am

 A man who is not a Star Trek fan will not save the franchise.


I just noticed this quote and find it laughable, given Nicholas Meyer was NOT a Star Trek fan, at all. He was so unfamiliar with Star Trek that he had to gloss over all the episodes in a short time.


 


the thing I hate the most about these new movies is my fellow fans. If they love the movies that's great. I have no problem with that. But if you don't like the movie they jump all over you, call you a hater, or a rabid fanboy that can't be pleased, things like that. They can't simply say ok that's cool I liked it and you didn't, to each their own.


It's you ok that you don't like it. I'm fine with that


I just hope you can articulate why you don't like it and not hate on Abrams in the process.


I admit that I want Abrams Trek to fail because it's standing in the way of new, quality Trek that is forward moving. I would rather have no Star Trek than really bad Star Trek and will not swallow what JJ Abrams is feeding us.  Apparently, that makes me a horrible person.


To hate a man for his attempt at a movie makes me wonder for sure. See, Abrams Trek isn't standing in the way of good Trek, because the majority opinion is that it is good Trek. In addition, if Abrams bombs, Trek will be sheleved and left there. They won't see any reason to try again if the market receives it poorly. Especially given the tepid economy, studios are not willing to risk additional monies if they know something will not be successful and make a profit.


In addition, I would like to ask all those oppposed to Abrams Trek 3 reasons why it is "not Trek."


I have argued and argued, from historical documents and research, that GR's vision is preserved in Trek 09. There has been refutation of that arguement, and now I think it comes down to personal taste. Keep in mind that if you 100% are onboard with GR's vision then:


We would not have Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country


We would not have DS9


We would not have the Borg


Some, please, give me something to work with here. Simply calling it "not Star Trek" doesn't tell me anything.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 22 2013, 10:15 am

[quote]


the thing I hate the most about these new movies is my fellow fans. If they love the movies that's great. I have no problem with that. But if you don't like the movie they jump all over you, call you a hater, or a rabid fanboy that can't be pleased, things like that. They can't simply say ok that's cool I liked it and you didn't, to each their own.



 


It's you ok that you don't like it. I'm fine with that



 


I just hope you can articulate why you don't like it and not hate on Abrams in the process.[/quote]


this is another example...you say you're fine with me not liking the movie but you want me to defend my opinion, you want me to have a good reason for not liking it. My simply sayin that I didn't lke it wasn't good enough. I don't ask you to defend your opinion about the movie. And while I personally don't hate on Abrams, so what if I do? Why can't I hate on Abrams if I hated his movies?


I saw the first movie and didn't like it. I saw it the first time in an Imas theater and was almost physically ill from the camera movements. Since I had my eyes closed most of the move I went to see it in a regular theater later.


I didn't like the character development or lack thereof, or the design of the ship, or the plot, or the villian. I thought it was all action and no substance. The kind of summer action movie where you just sit back turn off your brain, eat popcorn and look at the pretty explosions. (which is fine on it's own, jus not what I want to see in a Star Trek movie) I think they took the character of kirk and made him a parody. He starts a bar fight and that essentiallay gets him into the academy. I didn't like the notion that a kid in the academy breaks a bunch of rules. but does a few good things and suddenly he can skip the rest of school, and becomes the captain of the Flagship, ignoring all the other officers in the chain of command that actually finished the academy and who would be next in line for the captain's chair.


 


how's that? Articulate enough without hating on Abrams for you?

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 22 2013, 11:41 am

this is another example...you say you're fine with me not liking the movie but you want me to defend my opinion, you want me to have a good reason for not liking it. My simply sayin that I didn't lke it wasn't good enough. I don't ask you to defend your opinion about the movie. And while I personally don't hate on Abrams, so what if I do? Why can't I hate on Abrams if I hated his movies?


I ask because I like discussion. You didn't have to answer


I have a tough time with hatred, because it, to me, defines a level of malice and ill will towards a person that, when it comes to a a movie, I have a hard time swallowing. It might be just me, but "hate" is such an overused word, that the original meaning is lost, yet people casually described their "hate" towards a person that strikes me as odd. Hate a movie? Sure, and I have. Hate a person? I have a hard time with that.


I saw the first movie and didn't like it. I saw it the first time in an Imas theater and was almost physically ill from the camera movements. Since I had my eyes closed most of the move I went to see it in a regular theater later.


My wife had a similar reaction and was physically sick, partially due to pregnancy but the movie didn't help. But, she watched it again and found it more enjoyable. However, I do sympathize.


I didn't like the character development or lack thereof, or the design of the ship, or the plot, or the villian. I thought it was all action and no substance. The kind of summer action movie where you just sit back turn off your brain, eat popcorn and look at the pretty explosions. (which is fine on it's own, jus not what I want to see in a Star Trek movie) I think they took the character of kirk and made him a parody. He starts a bar fight and that essentiallay gets him into the academy. I didn't like the notion that a kid in the academy breaks a bunch of rules. but does a few good things and suddenly he can skip the rest of school, and becomes the captain of the Flagship, ignoring all the other officers in the chain of command that actually finished the academy and who would be next in line for the captain's chair.


Well, you articulate it very well, and I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I also appreciate the fact that many, many people treat the movie as a popcorn movie, being little more than an action flick and you can turn your brain off and watch it.


I get that, but I don't see the movie that way. I feel that if you turn the brain off, you miss so much of the movie, the character development and themes that it diminishes the experience.


But, that's my opinion

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 22 2013, 1:12 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 22 2013, 11:41 am

>

>this is another example...you say you're fine with me not liking the movie but you want me to defend my opinion, you want me to have a good reason for not liking it. My simply sayin that I didn't lke it wasn't good enough. I don't ask you to defend your opinion about the movie. And while I personally don't hate on Abrams, so what if I do? Why can't I hate on Abrams if I hated his movies?

>I ask because I like discussion. You didn't have to answer

>I have a tough time with hatred, because it, to me, defines a level of malice and ill will towards a person that, when it comes to a a movie, I have a hard time swallowing. It might be just me, but "hate" is such an overused word, that the original meaning is lost, yet people casually described their "hate" towards a person that strikes me as odd. Hate a movie? Sure, and I have. Hate a person? I have a hard time with that.

>I saw the first movie and didn't like it. I saw it the first time in an Imas theater and was almost physically ill from the camera movements. Since I had my eyes closed most of the move I went to see it in a regular theater later.

>My wife had a similar reaction and was physically sick, partially due to pregnancy but the movie didn't help. But, she watched it again and found it more enjoyable. However, I do sympathize.

>I didn't like the character development or lack thereof, or the design of the ship, or the plot, or the villian. I thought it was all action and no substance. The kind of summer action movie where you just sit back turn off your brain, eat popcorn and look at the pretty explosions. (which is fine on it's own, jus not what I want to see in a Star Trek movie) I think they took the character of kirk and made him a parody. He starts a bar fight and that essentiallay gets him into the academy. I didn't like the notion that a kid in the academy breaks a bunch of rules. but does a few good things and suddenly he can skip the rest of school, and becomes the captain of the Flagship, ignoring all the other officers in the chain of command that actually finished the academy and who would be next in line for the captain's chair.

>Well, you articulate it very well, and I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I also appreciate the fact that many, many people treat the movie as a popcorn movie, being little more than an action flick and you can turn your brain off and watch it.

>I get that, but I don't see the movie that way. I feel that if you turn the brain off, you miss so much of the movie, the character development and themes that it diminishes the experience.

>But, that's my opinion

>


I don't hate JJ..I don't know him so how can I hate him. I dislike two movies that he made, that's it. I'm actually a big fan of some of his other work, I love some of the tv shows he does. I believe he's doing Revolution currently which I love.


There are definately some people that I can say that I hate...but I actually know them and they have personally done me wrong.


Personally I didn't turn my brain on I was trying very hard to find any character development and themes that were appealing to me but they weren't there.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 2:27 pm

If anything, one can hope they cast Summer Glau in the next movie.  That will get rid of NuTrek very fast.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 22 2013, 7:56 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 2:27 pm

>Personally I didn't turn my brain on I was trying very hard to find any character development and themes that were appealing to me but they weren't there.

>Like I said, it may be just me, I saw two major themes and found them enjoyable.

>

>If anything, one can hope they cast Summer Glau in the next movie.  That will get rid of NuTrek very fast.

>


I highly, highly doubt that. Summer Glau actually resonates very well with many scifi and Trek fans, so she has a built in fan base already. She is a Trek fan so I would imagine she would respond well to the offer.


So really, if they can't bring back Firefly, give Whedon the same cast members and Star Trek


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 23 2013, 5:00 am

Clearly you missed the joke.  Summer Glau is the harbinger of death for franchises.  I like her too, but if I worked on a TV show  and saw her coming I would throw things at her.  She kills TV shows. Maybe it will work in movies, too.

PicardNerd

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 58

Report this May. 23 2013, 2:50 pm

So we're just going to ignore how Abrams has made the new Trek mysognistic? It's even more sexist than TOS, which is quite a feat seeing as how it was made in the 60s. Not only that but Abrams has also stated that older Trek is too philisophical for his tastes. Basically going against the entire point of Trek.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 23 2013, 3:08 pm

Quote:

So we're just going to ignore how Abrams has made the new Trek mysognistic? It's even more sexist than TOS, which is quite a feat seeing as how it was made in the 60s. Not only that but Abrams has also stated that older Trek is too philisophical for his tastes. Basically going against the entire point of Trek.


Not on this board.  People will tsk tsk you and call you names for not liking a new Trek that has "changed and is modern" when you have a problem with NuTrek failing to uphold the good values of Star Trek, but when you site things like sexism (I think sexism is a term that applies here, misogyny is not the proper term IMO. There's not across the board hatred or violence against women.) people say "Trek has always had sexism in it, why change it?", so it's okay to perpetuate racism, sexism and sterotypes.


In other words, they will defend anything you criticize.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 23 2013, 8:13 pm

Quote: PicardNerd @ May. 23 2013, 2:50 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Clearly you missed the joke.  Summer Glau is the harbinger of death for franchises.  I like her too, but if I worked on a TV show  and saw her coming I would throw things at her.  She kills TV shows. Maybe it will work in movies, too.

>

Well, then Big Bang Theory is doomed

 

So we're just going to ignore how Abrams has made the new Trek mysognistic? It's even more sexist than TOS, which is quite a feat seeing as how it was made in the 60s. Not only that but Abrams has also stated that older Trek is too philisophical for his tastes. Basically going against the entire point of Trek.


Where has he stated that? I have heard several statements attributed to Abrams, including that he wanted to destroy Trek, that it is too philosophical and that he was just biding his time until Star Wars came around. I do lots of research, but all my sources indicate the opposite. 


Also, I'm trying to figure out how nuTrek is misogynistic or sexist


There were often deliberate attempts in other Treks to degrade, belittle or lower women, as well as some blatant racism. I'll not defend either, so much that I grow tired that Prime Trek can do something and it gets a pass-nuTrek does something and its offensive.


While I think that Abrams Trek has some problems, there is actually more to the female characters, specifically Uhura, than was often presented in TOS.


Also, Trek is more than a exercise in philosophy. If it was, then TMP would be top grossing, while TWOK would have received a pass in the box office.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this May. 23 2013, 11:42 pm

Where has he stated that? I have heard several statements attributed to Abrams, including that he wanted to destroy Trek, that it is too philosophical and that he was just biding his time until Star Wars came around. I do lots of research, but all my sources indicate the opposite.


The Daily Show


As for your 3 reasons:


1. Science-fantasy


Star Trek is not Star Wars.


2. Action


Star Trek is not Transformers/Batman/X-Men/etc.


3. Movie


Star Trek is not suited for the big screen.


 


Cutler: They don't have movies where you come from, do they?

Phlox: Well, we had something similar a few hundred years ago, but they lost their appeal when people discovered their real lives were more interesting.

jerryyand

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this May. 24 2013, 9:21 am

did star trek need saving? for those of us who lived through final frontier and kept watching well it doesn't get worse than that

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 24 2013, 11:09 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ May. 23 2013, 11:42 pm

>

>Where has he stated that? I have heard several statements attributed to Abrams, including that he wanted to destroy Trek, that it is too philosophical and that he was just biding his time until Star Wars came around. I do lots of research, but all my sources indicate the opposite.

>The Daily Show

>As for your 3 reasons:

>1. Science-fantasy

>Star Trek is not Star Wars.

>2. Action

>Star Trek is not Transformers/Batman/X-Men/etc.

>3. Movie

>Star Trek is not suited for the big screen.

>Cutler: They don't have movies where you come from, do they?

Phlox: Well, we had something similar a few hundred years ago, but they lost their appeal when people discovered their real lives were more interesting.

>


DT,


thanks for the link. Will look in to that.


Also:


1. Science fantasy can be more philosophical than science fiction can be...it just deals with broader themes.


2. GR billed Star Trek as "action adventure with social commentary" as well as a western. Action has been part of Trek from the beginning.


3. Then why did GR do a movie?

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this May. 25 2013, 4:32 am

Quote: jerryyand @ May. 24 2013, 9:21 am

>

>did star trek need saving? for those of us who lived through final frontier and kept watching well it doesn't get worse than that

>


Yessir, STAR TREK has been in desperate need of
saving, even before TFF. Unlike STAR WARS, where
every sequel was absolutely assured of raking in
billions, the STAR TREK movies never offered such
assurances and had to take a "wait-and-see" approach.


For the first time in over 4 and a half decades, STAR
TREK is actually competitive and out of the niche market.
And if ANY movie's director "betrayed" STAR TREK, it was
surely WILLIAM SHATNER with his surprisingly crass offering ...


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this May. 25 2013, 10:49 am

1. Science fantasy can be more philosophical than science fiction can be...it just deals with broader themes.

I agree, but you asked why "nuTrek" is "not Trek." Star Trek is not science-fantasy.

2. GR billed Star Trek as "action adventure with social commentary" as well as a western. Action has been part of Trek from the beginning.

Again, no argument there. But what it was billed as, what it actually was and what it eventually became are very different things. Star Trek, for the most part, is not action-driven or action-oriented.

3. Then why did GR do a movie?

For the same reason he did the series: to make money. However, there is a difference between making a movie for a quick profit and making a TV series which only pays off if people keep watching every week. It's like the difference between gambling and earning a paycheck.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9TREK

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