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

Court is in SESSION- To convict JJ Abrams of Trek Treason

Report this
Created by: He'sDeadJim6400

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 20 2013, 8:59 am

Quote:

If a Star Trek movie fails in this scenario, it WILL end the franchise.


 


And who's to blame for that? The so called "obsessive maniac"  fans who are saying that the emperor has no clothes on, or JJ Abrams for making a movie that failed and Paramount for putting him at the helm.


 


 


 

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 20 2013, 9:22 am

So, nobody who acts the way I called out will want to hear what I wrote above...and nobody who acts that way will look at themselves and see that what they are doing is "bad..." because in their minds, they're the white knights who are crusading for "real" Star Trek...so I'm not even really sure why I just wasted my time. I guess the hope is that even ONE such person reads this and thinks differently about their approach. But, I've been out here long enough to know that you don't get through to those folks....


I don't get it either, but I feel that the need to spread correct information regarding Abrams, rather than the half-truths I see here and on other boards need to be stopped. So, I'm with you, and will challenge others who insist that Abrams Trek has "ruined" Trek.


The surprising thing to me is the deliberate, often malicious misinformation that is spread about Abrams among Trek fans. Ideas like Abrams only did Star Trek to get Star Wars or Abrams wants to destroy Star Trek are just out and out wrong given his own statements and the timeline of events.


Its frustrating to me that such discussions are often mired by extreme emotions

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 20 2013, 9:32 am

If you think that Star Trek fans who dislike JJ Abrams are bad, then watch what happens is he screws up Star Wars, too.  They will essentially burn him down.  Hell, they crucified Lucas for the prequel trilogy and he created Star Wars.


...I've always liked Star Wars fans.


 


Essentially, what the diehards who dislked NuTrek, specifically STID, are saying is that they will not accept poor quality Trek for the sake of "keeping the franchise alive and making it mainstream".


There are those fans who are willing to bend over and take it from Abrams for the sake of being a "cool kid" and those who will not.


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 20 2013, 12:20 pm

[quote]


May. 20 2013, 3:59 pm


 


Quote:


If a Star Trek movie fails in this scenario, it WILL end the franchise.


 


 


 


 


And who's to blame for that? The so called "obsessive maniac"  fans who are saying that the emperor has no clothes on, or JJ Abrams for making a movie that failed and Paramount for putting him at the helm.


[/quote]


 


 


 


Ummm...yes. The "obsessive maniacs" are to blame if that happens. I think that was my whole point. 


 


Do you actually read what people write out here...? Do you take time to comprehend what's being said before you respond? It sure doesn't seem like it. 


 


I'm deeply sorry if you were bullied, excluded, or treated like crap at some point in your life for being a "nerd". But you know what, you behave pretty much the same way out here toward people. You're smarmy, rude and unpleasant, and everything is a conflict for you. You can't debate and you rarely EVER respond if someone backs you into the corner with a good point or facts, you just disapear as if the discussion never took place.


 


You're out here to fight with people. It's interesting, because usually (when ENT premiered, or when the 2009 movie hit) there are 6 or 7 people like you skulking around out here looking to be this way (rude, aggressive, unpleasant). But, now, it's basically just you. So, you stick out like a sore thumb.


 


I mean, HesDeadJim6400 is frigging crazy, but at least he's funny and has an interesting way of trying to make his points, and his heart is totally in the right place even though I disagree with him. I mean, I'd hang out with a guy like that at a bar or whatever and just debate until we can't see straight.


 


You on the other hand...  


 


 


 


 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 20 2013, 3:01 pm

Oh sorry I can't answer every post. I was doing real life things. But I forgot, you love to keep track of what I do and armchair analyze me and turn every post against me into a personal vendetta. I AM your JJ Abrams. You're pretty obsessed with tearing me down at every chance you get and keeping track of my activity.  In case you're wondering, I was at the gym all afternoon.  You might add that to your notes.


Boo hoo, you wouldn't want to drink with me.  I only drink with hot guys or those who have money.  I wouldn't drink with you either, so we're even.


So you don't like what I have to say, yet you say that if NuTrek fails, fans like me are to blame?  So we have power? Cool. I'm going to go wield and abuse it.  You're basically saying you're trying to silence people from being heard because they MAY ruin NuTrek's chances?  To quote Grumpy Cat "GOOD!"


And if I really had the power to make JJ Abrams fail, believe me, I would in a heartbeat.  I would erase it from canon, never to be seen again. 


Sorry, not sorry.


 


 


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 20 2013, 3:29 pm

In all the raving and ranting that has gone on about this subject since 2009, it seems to me the core issue is one of choice:
Would you rather have Trek continue in any form, even if some or all of the original characteristics, goals, visions are totally or partially compromised, or would you rather it was preserved in the pre 2009 incarnation?
This sums up the two camps doesn't it?
Personally, I don't want it to continue if the only future criteria for success is going to be profit.
Stick it. I will be happy watching the past glory.
If you are happy to accept any Trek rather than no Trek, that's your privelege.

By the way, thank you for suggesting I set myself on fire. That option hadn't occurred to me.
Although I must say, the somewhat less gaudy option of you putting your head down the toilet and pulling the chain had.

What other people think of you is none of your business.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 20 2013, 8:54 pm

Can we leave the personal attacks out of this, or is it way past that point now?


There are those fans who are willing to bend over and take it from Abrams for the sake of being a "cool kid" and those who will not.


I call this out because I am not "taking it from Abrams for the sake of being the cool kid." Ask my classmates-I was never the cool kid. I drew pictures of myself as a Starfleet officer in 6th grade. I still have a uniform my mom made me when I was 8. I have my dad's old cloth figures of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty and intend to add to that collection. "Cool" is not in my vocabulary.


I have argued that Abrams offers new, relevant social commentary and never get a rebuttal, ever. So, I rest on the fact that Abrams has actually followed the spirt of GR's vision and done a service for Trek.


Personally, I don't want it to continue if the only future criteria for success is going to be profit.


Unfortunately, even GR was beholden to the dollar. Sorry to break it to people. The only reason TWOK got made was because TMP actually made some money.


Also, for those arguing that if the movie flops (it won't but I'm sure we'll quibble) it will be the end of Abrams Trek career. For one, such an argument only factors in the quality of the movie, which critics seem to be enjoying and so do many audience members. It may not blow any records off the doors but between the domestic and international markets it will make plenty of profit, which means Trek will continue on, in some form.


Secondly, for those unfamiliar with how Hollywood works, allow me to share some information some friends shared with me. First of all, a movie rarely flops simply because it is a bad movie, though it does happen. However, marketing has a lot to do with it, and I  think some blame can be laid on the marketing department, the choice to release it internationally first, resulting in spoilers for the domestic market despite attempts to keep it a secret, and diminishing the potential impact.


Despite attempts to blame it all on Abrams and sacrifice him on the altar I think it is safe to say that there is more to it than the malicious attempts to smear him.


But again, I'm trying to discuss facts not emotions

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 20 2013, 9:27 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>This shouting is just so silly.  ITS ONLY A MOVIE.  As far as TV Trek is concerned, it's dead in the water unless somebody wants to undertake starting it all up again.  Maybe there is talk, I don't pay that close attention.  

>But as I said a few posts ago, TELEVISION WOULD DO THIS  NU TREK GOOD.  There were some egregious things which happened in the Star Trek Movies, and it wasn't til fall 1989 and the 3rd season of TNG that Star Trek entered a kind of golden age of constant high quality which would hold for the two franchises which followed it.  

>Movies cannot do what TV does, movies can only do what movies do.  THIS IS A MOVIE people, and not a bad one at all.   

>The Trek you all long for, the more deeply satisfying Trek, comes from television and the time and discipline needed to create and maintain an ongoing episodic show.  

>Go to the movies and enjoy what movies do.  This one is a great one, and the actors did just fine.  Have fun with it.  That's all.  

>


Quoted for effect. This warrants repeating.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 21 2013, 1:12 am

Quote: Somniac @ May. 20 2013, 3:29 pm

>Would you rather have Trek continue in any form, even if some or all of the original characteristics, goals, visions are totally or partially compromised, or would you rather it was preserved in the pre 2009 incarnation?

>This sums up the two camps doesn't it?

>


Not really.


For a simple reason:


There are many people who enjoy the J.J.Abrams Star Trek films, and who are still discerning viewers and not necessarily wanting it to continue "in any form". They just happen to enjoy these particular movies. (Also, the original characteristics, goals, and visions have been compromised at various points all the way through Star Trek's history. That's what happens when you bring new viewpoints into the mix, and sometimes can be good for the overall story. If it had stayed obsessively committed to only Roddenberry's original ideal, I doubt that Star Trek today would be half as compelling as it is.


Which is not to say that enjoying the new films is automatic acceptance of anything that happens. If anything, it's a matter of bringing more variety to Star Trek. You might not like it, but out there somewhere there are many people who have just as much right to enjoy the films. And as anderbilt rightly points out, being films, they were never going to have the same depth as is available to many more hours of television.


______________


Also, it is possible to dislike the films while still realising that Star Trek does remain preserved in the pre 2009 incarnation. JJAbrams et al. did not negate any previous incarnations of Star Trek and there is nothing to say that you can't hearken back to the originals as your particular idea of what Star Trek is. With or without JJAbrams, DS9 remains my favourite Trek series, and has not been sullied by the movies' existence. Nobody's telling you to burn your old Trek collection. They are even putting out TNG blu-ray. JJ Abrams is not threatening classic Trek.


It would insult the intelligence of many who just don't like the films to assume that everyone believes that the JJ-movies could somehow hurt the quality of previous incarnations of Trek. They are what they are, but love them or hate them, no doubt many people must realise that the films are something separate.


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

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 21 2013, 3:20 am

You're right of course about not being just 2 camps. I guess I was consciously ignoring people who have come right out and said they love the latest films.


My comment was aimed more at some fans who seem to believe that a sacrifice in quality, a compromise in character and a neglect of canon is worth bearing for the sake of the franchise continuing.


I do not believe it is.


I am certainly not assuming that  "everyone believes that the JJ-movies could somehow hurt the quality of previous incarnations of Trek."


There are obviously many people who do not believe that otherwise i would not be clashing heads with some.


I think my real problem is with contemporary audience taste or at least corporate purse string holders idea of their taste.


Most modern blockbuster cinema is a brainless, fx laden, shallow waste of money.


The move is towards blinding speed, empty hearts, crass dialogue, and hole ridden plots.


Prime Trek was of quality despite the motive of profit because there were producers, directors,stars who were prepared to fight and even deceive money men in order to still make something of value of a different kind.


That was because they knew there was an audience out there waiting for it.


Unfortunately that audience is now outnumbered by attention challenged thrill seekers.


No need to lecture me about how insulting that is. I'm perfectly aware that its an elitist pov.


For me Nu trek is a perfect example of an intelligent, meaningful, quality product diluted for mass taste.


A reboot is fine, great, bring it on. But only if it is as good or better. Otherwise it is better left alone.


I watch my DVD collection all the time and it only serves to accentuate the fall in quality of the latest films.


 


Maybe this thread would be better named "Modern blockbuster cinema is guilty of Trek treason."


.


 


 


What other people think of you is none of your business.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 21 2013, 9:03 am

I think there is an arguement to be made that cinema, in general, has diminished in terms of its overall quality and value. Generally speaking, I am not looking for deeper societal commentary from a movie like, for exampl, "Pacific Rim."


Now, you take Star Trek and it bings a whole set of expecations, namely commentary on the human condition or society. Here is where i break ranks with many Trek fans, and so, end up butting heads too.


I believe that Abrams has a commentary in Trek 09 and in Into Darkness. However, the problem is that I have seen is the quick, first impression reaction with little to no consideration as to what Abrams might be trying to do.


Maybe I read too much in to it, but even if GR's vision is put out there diluted, there is still a message there, and one that should provide more meanigful discussion that the usual "Abrams sucks"

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 21 2013, 9:57 am

So can you tell me what the message is? I'd really like to know.


What is Abrams trying to do?

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4022

Report this May. 21 2013, 11:01 am

Quote: Somniac @ May. 21 2013, 9:57 am

>

>So can you tell me what the message is? I'd really like to know.

>What is Abrams trying to say

>


you didn't notice any commentary on losing who you are in order to defeat the enemy?  In allowing a terrorist act to make you lose the principles  your country was founded on?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 21 2013, 1:24 pm

JJ Abrams plot is unsophisticated.  TWOK was a great movie because it focused on Kirk and company getting older and Kirk looking back on his life with a great many regrets, including not being there for David. His greatest mistake, neglecting to follow up on the Botany Bay, comes back to haunt him and destroys everything he loves over the course of two movies.   The loss of Spock is the loss of a friend of 15+ years.


We're supposed to believe that NuSpock would roar "Khaaaan" in agony in a cheesy shoehorned scene over someone that just a year before he was stranding on planets in escape pods.  It doesn't resonate as deep.


Kirk's defeated "No." and slumping is much more powerful.


So he microwave cooks the relationships to supposedly be as strong as in TWOK, trying to convince us that  this bond is as strong as the that drove Kirk to jeopardize his career in TSFS.


They clumsily portray Kirk's previously misunderstood pop culture image as a ladykiller without the depth and lonliness. He's not looking to connect on a personal level or any of the reasons that drove TOS Kirk, he's looking to get his d!ck wet, so much so that he drove Christine Chapel off the ship (sexual harrassment much?) and forgot her name, essentially making him Quagmire from Family Guy.  I'm surprised he didn't say "giggety".


JJ Abrams and company have little understanding of complicated story telling.  Everything is shallow and sophomoric.  It's style and no substance.


It's STINO.


Star Trek In Name Only


JJ Abrams is standing on the shoulders of giants, but pretending he made the climb himself.

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 21 2013, 1:35 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 21 2013, 1:24 pm

>

>JJ Abrams plot is unsophisticated.  TWOK was a great movie because it focused on Kirk and company getting older and Kirk looking back on his life with a great many regrets, including not being there for David. His greatest mistake, neglecting to follow up on the Botany Bay, comes back to haunt him and destroys everything he loves over the course of two movies.   The loss of Spock is the loss of a friend of 15+ years.

>We're supposed to believe that NuSpock would roar "Khaaaan" in agony in a cheesy shoehorned scene over someone that just a year before he was stranding on planets in escape pods.  It doesn't resonate as deep.

>Kirk's defeated "No." and slumping is much more powerful.

>So he microwave cooks the relationships to supposedly be as strong as in TWOK, trying to convince us that  this bond is as strong as the that drove Kirk to jeopardize his career in TSFS.

>They clumsily portray Kirk's previously misunderstood pop culture image as a ladykiller without the depth and lonliness. He's not looking to connect on a personal level or any of the reasons that drove TOS Kirk, he's looking to get his d!ck wet, so much so that he drove Christine Chapel off the ship (sexual harrassment much?) and forgot her name, essentially making him Quagmire from Family Guy.  I'm surprised he didn't say "giggety".

>JJ Abrams and company have little understanding of complicated story telling.  Everything is shallow and sophomoric.  It's style and no substance.

>It's STINO.

>Star Trek In Name Only

>JJ Abrams is standing on the shoulders of giants, but pretending he made the climb himself.

>


 


Cool story bro. We love that you have an opinion but your endless, useless, childish repetition of your opinion will not transmute it into a fact. 


Ethics are arbitrary.

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