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. 21 2013, 1:41 pm

If you're okay with simplistic, shallow Star Trek that stands in the way of a quality product being delivered, that's cool..."bro".


 


Personally, I have higher standards.

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 21 2013, 1:54 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 21 2013, 1:41 pm

>

>If you're okay with simplistic, shallow Star Trek that stands in the way of a quality product being delivered, that's cool..."bro".

>Personally, I have higher standards.

>


You have different standards. A quality product was delivered and there's nothing you can do to change that. You're part of a perpetually crabby minority that is just irritated that they didn't get their way.


You're not a real Star Trek fan. You're a crybaby who's desperately trying to convince other people to be unhappy with Star Trek. The only thing you've convinced people to be unhappy with is you. 


Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:21 pm

Keep insulting me personally. It's adherent to the board guidelines, I'm sure.   As a matter of fact, you can escalate the insults if you like. The other guy called me "smarmy". I think you might be able to top that. Please do. Please?


And I'm not a real Star Trek fan is the weakest thing that can be said about someone who despises NuTrek. It's a cheap shot with no force behind it.  


 


What you call quality I call mindless fluff.  And I am unhappy with the state of Star Trek.  If that supposed to be a revelation or an insult? Because it's neither.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:31 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.

>


and nothing about what I actuall said. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:35 pm

Ok, I'll respond.


Quote:

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?


No.


 


 

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:37 pm

The introduction of Khan into the storyline as a Federation Member is very intriging to say the least. With Admiral Marcus planting Khan into Star Fleet and even though Admiral Marcus was killed and Khan subdued there are very interesting questions that remain.


Are there splinter groups assigned by Admiral Marcus to monitor Khan at all times where a possible future rescue attempt of Khan will take place?


Admiral Marcus was holding Khan and his followers hostage but for what reason? Did Admiral Marcus intend to use them for motives other than developing weapons to be used against the Klingon Empire?


If so then it might be possible that Admiral Marcus did in fact have a hidden facility where he would have conducted advance experiments in creating the perfect soldier in a war with the Klingons.


Marcus was an Admiral who must have been in charge of some highly classified information relating to Khan otherwise Marcus would not have gone after Khan the  way that he did.


It could be that Admiral Marcus and possibly others in Star Fleet are involved in a conspiracy to end the diversity of Star Fleet where genetically superior humans would reign supreme in Star Fleet so that Star Fleet would be ruled by a King who would conduct war against all those who stood in the way of the goal of the Federation in conquering all of the empires within the Federation through use of armed conflict instead of the StarFleet Code of Ethics being used when engaging with new alien factions.


The Federation may be on its way for a full scale war if the answer is not discovered. A war that will destroy the Federation and its small collection of members permanently.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:44 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 21 2013, 2:35 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Ok, I'll respond.

> style="color: #6a6a6a; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">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?

No.

 

 


really?  you honestly didn't see that?  or you just won't admit it. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:47 pm

At first I thought JJ Abrahams was going to destroy the continuity of Star Trek but in this latest movie he has preserved the time line with very accurate details.


What I mean is since the Khan issue occurred before Star Fleet came into being and that the Neroo, ooo,,,ooo events occured after Star Fleet had come into being then Khan would still be around in the past future of the new timeline.


This also means that the V'ger incident along with the Whale Probe will also remain within the timeline because both events surrounding these events, the launching of the Voyager  Probe that became V'ger and the extinction of Humpbacked people also occurred before Star Fleet came into being which means that there will be at least two more movies surrounding these events which just from watching the first two new timeline movies the adventure should be exciting as it has just begun to say the least.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:53 pm

Quote:

really?  you honestly didn't see that?  or you just won't admit it.


What I saw was lazy writing and clumsy attempts to deliver a kinda sorta message.  But there was nothing elightening or poignant.  It was pretty much "DON'T DO STUFF CUZ...REASONS!"


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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 21 2013, 9:00 pm

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 do?

>


Abrams is trying to connect Trek to fans and nonfans alike. I have argued that Star Trek, prior to Abrams, was so thick in its own continuity that a nonfan could not enter it without feeling overwhelmed or intimidated by fans who were seasoned, knowledgeable and at times nitpicky. Hey, I am just as nitpicky as the next fan, and love technical details like "Starfleet Technical Manual" and "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" and the like. But, that level of information bars newcomers.


I often liken it to comic book fans. Many comics have histories that go back for decades and the continuity and stories are dense, thick, meandering stories, often written by different authors and make it difficult to get in to a particular character. Believe me, I've tried.


So Trek 09 comes along and its fun, actiony and a little silly at times (TOS had those moments too). What brought me into that movie (and my wife as well, who is not a Trek fan) is the relationships and how they grow. I think there is a message of family in Trek 09, specifically a family coming together and the importance of father figures. I think it shows Kirk coming from a broken home, and he is not a perfect man, but aimless. Spock is more the consummate officer, but unsure of his human half, a struggle seen in TOS.


These two are on opposite sides of the spectrum, until they are forced together. Like many mixed families, things are rocky, until they find common ground and BEGIN to build a relationship. At the end, it shows them becoming the family fans had known.


For me, the importance of family in that movie cannot and should not be overstated. The fact that fans and nonfans can enjoy it is icing on the cake for me, because it is selfish of me to sit there and define Star Trek as something particular, when there is so much diversity in the franchise already.

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 21 2013, 10:42 pm

JUDGE- ORDER IN THE COURT, THERE WILL BE ORDER IN THIS COURT ! This trial will continue...A charge has been DROP from Mr JJ Abrams, charge 15. stated that there was no reference to the prequel movie comic book, but the court has found out there WAS reference to the comic book, Mudd's shuttle was mention in the movie and a Female name mudd was in the comic book..However..


VOTES WILL BE COUNTED ON MAY 24-25, UNDECIDED VOTES WILL GO TOWARD A GUILTY VERDICT, IF HE IS FOUND GUILTY, HE NO LONGER HAS OUR TRUST OR SUPPORT FOR HIS STAR TREK, YOU HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE COURT TO SELL OR BURN THE 2009 TREK MOVIE.. IF ABRAMS IS FOUND TO BE INNOCENT, THEN WE SHALL SILENTLY AND RELUCTANTLY ACCEPT HIS STAR TREK AS PART OF THE FRANCHISE !


CLOSING STATEMENTS WILL BEGIN NOW, YOU SHALL STATE IF YOU FEEL MR JJ ABRAMS HAS HELP THE FRANCHISE OR HAVE RECKLESSLY DISTORTED THE STAR TREK LEGEND AND DID NOT PROVIDE US WITH THE RIGHT STAR TREK 


 


Greatness comes to those who really want to do anything to get it.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 21 2013, 11:11 pm

 


[/quote]


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?


[/quote]


Yes I got that and liked the idea. The plot was one of the things I liked. It seemed more in the tradition of Prime Trek analogy.


In fact STID would have been a much better first Nutrek film I thought.


The references were there and the initial drastic changes to situ and character seem to have been largely forgotten. (apart from some token bickering between Uhura and Spock and a casual reference to “New Vulcan"


No I thought you meant Abrams wider vision and intention for the franchise as a whole.


Given the fallback on Prime Trek references and storyline in STID, what was the purpose of such drastic changes in origin, background, and character in the first film when they seem to have been, for the most part ignored in the second?


It seems to me that the prequel (as I thought it was going to be) could have been revamped, updated, modernised, whatever, without making such drastic and for some, upsetting changes.


Which leads me back to my original impression of Abrams as a director. He is more concerned with creating hype at any cost to put bums on seats than with creativity or any loyalty to subject. This is a producers role not a directors.


His purpose was to appeal to a mass audience and pay any price to do it.


Once he had done that, he reverted to old themes and traditions to regain the ground lost with fans.


Quite naïve actually. 


 Shows his inexperience.


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

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 11:06 am

"distorted" is a very good way to put it.  It's also arguable that he misrepresented what Star Trek is to fans who have never seen it.  They may go into TOS or TNG expecting dazzling effects, pew pew! lasers and a loose cannon captain be disappointed. 

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 22 2013, 11:44 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 11:06 am

>

>"distorted" is a very good way to put it.  It's also arguable that he misrepresented what Star Trek is to fans who have never seen it.  They may go into TOS or TNG expecting dazzling effects, pew pew! lasers and a loose cannon captain be disappointed. 

>


Funny thing, that's what GR billed TOS as is action-adventure.


Abrams just modernized it.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 12:42 pm

I didn't say action adventure. I said "dazzling effects, pew pew! lasers and a loose cannon captain", of which TOS and TNG do not have.  No one said Star Trek didn't have action.  But it didn't rely on it like Abrams does. And the captain models in all of Star Trek are very far removed from NuKirk.

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