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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 04 2013, 11:39 pm



I have no problem continuing this discussion. I feel like people either love or hate Abrams Trek but they don’t think.


1.Spock and Uhura in love


No problem, what so ever with this one. Spock never had any romantic relationships in TOS, save for T’Pring, which was an arranged marriage. Beyond that, we never saw him in love, outside of alien influence.


 


In addition, I would like to point out that a Vulcan falling in love with a human is canon three times over.


2.No Gary Mitchell, Kirk's friend in his early career


Kirk didn’t go to the Academy at the same time. No reason to think he would meet Mitchell.


3.Not repecting the other Trek series Like TNG, DS9 and Enterprise


How so? TNG follows from some of the problems of unification that Spock was doing, Cardassians might have had earlier first contact, and Enterprise got a great shout out with Porthos. It doesn’t have to be the same dog. Archer could have just kept naming his dog Porthos. Or it could be stuffed.


4. Turning Engineering into a beer factory


I’ll agree that this is bad choice, but not treasonous.


5. Creating that ugly creature to assist Scotty 


As opposed to all the other ugly aliens we have seen…


6. those irritating LENS FLARES !


Cinematography choice-has nothing to do with Star Trek.


7. Horrible bridge design


Personal preference. The more I see it, the more I like it.


8. The foolish time travel alternate universe excuse to screw up Trek


Time travel is foolish in concept in general. Star Trek has used multiple ways of traveling through time. Why is this one more contemptible that others?


9. Instead of creating or helping to create a new Star Trek  series, he abandoned Trek to work on STAR WARS  ??


Maybe no one asked him? Why would Paramount bring on an expensive director/producer for a TV series?


10. Instead of having the Enterprise with seasoned adults, the ship is filled with silly cadets  teens


First of all, not teens, save for Chekov. McCoy is hardly a teen. Second of all, who was silly at any point?


11. Having the Enterprise assembled ON EARTH not in space.


All evidence in TOS points to the Enterprise being built on Earth.


12. turning  Chekov into an irritating little worm.


Personal choice. He wasn’t all that endearing in TOS at times either.


13. The stupid idea of making Kirk Captain too fast


Doesn’t bother me at all. I can explain in using continuity to back me up


14. Horrible Enterprise design


Personal taste. I hate Ent-D and NX series design


15. No mention of the movie prequel Star Trek comic book which has TNG in it.


Not considered canon like movies or TV shows are considered canon.


16. NO RESPECT for Star Trek CANON or CONTINUITY.


How so? He created a new timeline to respect continuity and not violate it.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 05 2013, 1:25 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 04 2013, 11:39 pm

>

class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; line-height: normal;">13. The stupid idea of making Kirk Captain too fast

class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; line-height: normal;">Doesn’t bother me at all. I can explain in using continuity to back me up

>
would you please do so


Photobucket

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 06 2013, 2:53 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ May. 04 2013, 8:11 pm

>

>1.Spock and Uhura in love

>I have no problem with this whatsoever.

>2.No Gary Mitchell, Kirk's friend in his early career

>As others have mentioned, it is alternate. Kirk may just not have met Gary Mitchell, or alternatively, there may be no reason to show Gary Mitchell. There are a lot of characters in TOS who don't make it into the film(s).

>3.Not repecting the other Trek series Like TNG, DS9 and Enterprise

>I don't think he has disrespected the later Trek series. He even connected the film to TNG in the sense that Spock was an ambassador on Romulus... That did not happen in original series.

>4. Turning Engineering into a beer factory

>Some would say that beer is good.

>5. Creating that ugly creature to assist Scotty 

>haha I actually liked "that ugly creature". He was a cynic through and through. Jem'hadar Mini-me or something. I suppose I can see why you don't like him and if he had been less of a cynic then he would have been like Jar Jar Binks. But he wasn't.

>6. those irritating LENS FLARES !

>Yeah. One thing I don't like is the intensity of sound and lighting that never lets up. It gets better on the small screen but does make the movie hard to watch.

>7. Horrible bridge design

>Doesn't worry me. If it had been designed like the '60s version, no-one would have accepted it.

>8. The foolish time travel alternate universe excuse to screw up Trek

>The old stuff still exists. It's not like he is responsible for a mass-burning of old Trek materials.

>9. Instead of creating or helping to create a new Star Trek  series, he abandoned Trek to work on STAR WARS  ??

>Come on you can't have it both ways. "JJ Abrams is horrible for Trek and now he's horrible because he won't stick around!" won't work.

>Actually it would be good to see a new face take up a new series, if that happens.

>10. Instead of having the Enterprise with seasoned adults, the ship is filled with silly cadets  teens

>Actually with the exception of Chekov and possibly Sulu, they aren't teens. Also, if you look at the real military -- a lot of soldiers have historically been in their late teens/early twenties; there are many stories of new recruits faking their ages to make themselves "older". But I'll grant that the idea of a bunch of cadets turning into the main bridge crew of the Enterprise (with "Cadet" Kirk as suddenly a Captain) is silly.

>11. Having the Enterprise assembled ON EARTH not in space.

>hmm.....

>12. turning  Chekov into an irritating little worm.

>What was he before?

>13. The stupid idea of making Kirk Captain too fast

>(above)

>14. Horrible Enterprise design

>Again, it wouldn't have worked at all to have repeated the original '60s design.

>15. No mention of the movie prequel Star Trek comic book which has TNG in it.

>That's just a comic book. Extra stuff, but doesn't need to be in the movie.

>16. NO RESPECT for Star Trek CANON or CONTINUITY.

>A lot of the things they mentioned were respecting the Star Trek canon. They're not going to make a lot of mentions of 24th century Trek because (apart from Spock and Nero) they're all 23rd century characters. Having Archer in there was kind of fun. The dog mentioned does not have to be Porthos either -- he is just "Admiral Archer's prize Beagle", which could just as easily be a different beagle. The alternate timeline idea makes it so that they don't have to be picky about continuity -- which is good. And besides that, Trek tv series broke continuity all the time!

>


Otakujo, clearly you are an intelligent young woman, but think about thiswould you leave Star Treks legacy in JJ Abrams hands ?all he is is a pawn for Paramount, Paraamount don't give a hill of beans about Star Trek all they see is Dallors $$$$, they want a hit, Abrams don't care about story or characters, who lives or who dies dosen't matter as long as the film is a hit, Star Trek means nothing to him, just a Paycheck, TOS was never a huge action show it was always the stories and characters that made Star Trek great, not huge special effects and action which will the only thing we'll remember about Into Darkness, so far from all indications this story is weak.  


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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 06 2013, 8:47 am

Roddenberry called TOS "an action show with social commentary." Read his original pitch to Desilu.


Star Trek clearly means something different to you than to many others. I still can't completely understand your complaints, when you look at the history of Star Trek. Curious if you cared for Nemisis?


Also, how do you know what Paramount and Abrams wants? Abrams cares more about the characters than most action movies, seeing as how Kirk actually has to face his consequences in the sequel, rather than it all being tied up nice and neatly at the end.


If Into Darkness bothers you so much, support fan productions, like "Farragut Films" or "The Newe Voyages." Those are made by fans for fans.


Also, what is your favorite Star Trek movie?

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 06 2013, 9:13 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 05 2013, 1:25 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 04 2013, 11:39 pm

>

>

class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; line-height: normal;">13. The stupid idea of making Kirk Captain too fast

class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; line-height: normal;">Doesn’t bother me at all. I can explain in using continuity to back me up

>
would you please do so


I'll try but original post was lost so hopefully I hit all the points.


My main point of reference for Starfleet cadets is what we see on screen, namely Wrath of Khan. Before that movie we never saw the Academy and only references to cadets. In WOK we see Saavik is a cadet, but holds the rank of Lieutenant J.G. While it is a crisis situation, Saavik is an active member of bridge crew, working with senior officers and treated as her rank would require. Not as a trainee, but as a lieutenant. In fact, her rank continues in to the next movie but she is no longer a cadet. Obviously, she graduated at Lieutenant J.G.


This contradicts the common argument now that cadets immediately graduate at Ensign grade.


In Trek 09, we see Uhura is also referred to as "Lieutenant" despite still being a cadet. She later is made a bridge officer, clearly able to step in the chain of command at her current rank. Again, there is no indication that her rank is dependent on her graduation from the Academy.


Someone once showed a screenshot of Kirk's name on the Transporter controls and his rank is shown as Lieutenant. So, he is not a green ensign, as many have claimed, but at least a Lieutenant JG with command school experience.


Once he is placed in the first officer's position, he is treated as a first officer. That is how a field promotion works. He is expected to carry himself with all the privileges and responsibilities of that position.


My final point is always keeping in mind that Starfleet was not intended to be a military organization, despite interpretations by Meyer and Moore. Therefore, expecting their ranks to work identically to any real world military is not going to give you the full picture because that is not how the organization was originally set up.


Hope that makes sense.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 06 2013, 1:13 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 06 2013, 9:13 am

>I'll try but original post was lost so hopefully I hit all the points.

>My main point of reference for Starfleet cadets is what we see on screen, namely Wrath of Khan. Before that movie we never saw the Academy and only references to cadets. In WOK we see Saavik is a cadet, but holds the rank of Lieutenant J.G. While it is a crisis situation, Saavik is an active member of bridge crew, working with senior officers and treated as her rank would require. Not as a trainee, but as a lieutenant. In fact, her rank continues in to the next movie but she is no longer a cadet. Obviously, she graduated at Lieutenant J.G.

>This contradicts the common argument now that cadets immediately graduate at Ensign grade.

>In Trek 09, we see Uhura is also referred to as "Lieutenant" despite still being a cadet. She later is made a bridge officer, clearly able to step in the chain of command at her current rank. Again, there is no indication that her rank is dependent on her graduation from the Academy.

>[b]Someone once showed a screenshot of Kirk's name on the Transporter controls and his rank is shown as Lieutenant.[/b] So, he is not a green ensign, as many have claimed, but at least a Lieutenant JG with command school experience.

>Once he is placed in the first officer's position, he is treated as a first officer. That is how a field promotion works. He is expected to carry himself with all the privileges and responsibilities of that position.

>My final point is always keeping in mind that Starfleet was not intended to be a military organization, despite interpretations by Meyer and Moore. Therefore, expecting their ranks to work identically to any real world military is not going to give you the full picture because that is not how the organization was originally set up.

>Hope that makes sense.


I wont say your argument doesnt make sense............but you really didnt use any canon/continuity to back up your claim.


For the record, I was the one that posted the pic of Kirks rank in the 09 film, and I've made the same arguments about starfleet not being exactly a militery and how we have seen cadets with officer ranks.


But none of that explains the rise to captain in such a short amount of time.


Photobucket

Utopia Planetia

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 88

Report this May. 06 2013, 7:20 pm

Quote: Gawain_VIII @ May. 04 2013, 1:50 am

>

>1.Spock and Uhura in love

>This is one of the things that I absolutely abhor about the reboot.  Spock/Chapel might have been acceptable, but still a long shot.  The totality of support of a prime universe Spock/Uhura connection consisted of Spock smiling while playing music FOR AN AUDIENCE while Uhura sang TO THE SAME AUDIENCE in the episode Charlie X.  There are a few other bits of "evidence" of this pairing in the TOS that some might cite, such as Spock complimenting Uhura's technical expertise in "Who Mourns for Adonis", but none of these even hint at any relationship beyond the fondness of professionals who work together in close proximity for an extended period of time.

>2.No Gary Mitchell, Kirk's friend in his early career

>This one I can forgive because Lieutenant Kirk met Cadet Gary Mitchell when Kirk was an instructor at the Academy--since the alternate timeline, Kirk skipped over the first 15 years of his career (skipping the Lieutenant rank completely) he was never an instructor, as such, never met Gary Mitchell.

>3.Not repecting the other Trek series Like TNG, DS9 and Enterprise

>I consider this one a non-issue.  Respect was there, at least in a cursory manner.

>4. Turning Engineering into a beer factory

>Yeah... I didn't like this.  Unfortunately, it's personal preference and can't be used as objective evidence against the reboot.

>5. Creating that ugly creature to assist Scotty

>This is an item which I feel is to Abrams's benefit. We saw very few aliens in TOS but we know they were there.

>6. those irritating LENS FLARES !

>This one is just bad cinematography.

>7. Horrible bridge design

>Not horrible... but not the Enterprise.

>8. The foolish time travel alternate universe excuse to screw up Trek

>This, I think, is the only way the reboot really could have worked given the requirement to "remove constraints" of 2 centuries of canon.

>9. Instead of creating or helping to create a new Star Trek  series, he abandoned Trek to work on STAR WARS  ??

>Star Wars was always his goal... I don't know if he abandoned Trek, but I'm fairly certain his attention was divided.

>10. Instead of having the Enterprise with seasoned adults, the ship is filled with silly cadets  teens

>On one side: Only Kirk, McCoy, and Uhura were clearly identified as cadets.  While it is likely that Sulu and Chekov were as well, we see no evidence of that.  For all we know, Lt. Sulu could have been a 3-year veteran having moved up through the Ensign and LtJG ranks.  However... I agree that the raw cadets should have been limited to the Ensigns, not the entire crew, as it appeared to have been.

>11. Having the Enterprise assembled ON EARTH not in space.

>A pet peeve which contradicts canon, but not a deal-breaker.

>12. turning  Chekov into an irritating little worm.

>I have to disagree with this one. The original Chekov was a little annoying at times too... the only difference is that now you notice it because he gets more face time and isn't the "stock/prop" reactionary type character he was during TOS.

>13. The stupid idea of making Kirk Captain too fast

>For me, this is the reboot's fatal flaw. Inexcusable.

>14. Horrible Enterprise design

>I don't like it, but all the essential elements are there.  It can be overlooked unless you're looking for reasons to hate it, in which case your mind was made up before it even came out.

>15. No mention of the movie prequel Star Trek comic book which has TNG in it.

>Irrelevant.  Other series never mentioned the comics or novels... why should this incarnation be any different?

>16. NO RESPECT for Star Trek CANON or CONTINUITY

>This really comes down to the end virdict.  Did he respect or did he not?  For me, it's a hung jury.

>


Fair assessment.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 06 2013, 8:04 pm

This thread is awesome because it is highly original and none of these things have been discussed before. Kudos for a fresh, eye-opening debate. I feel energized by the unique perspectives offered here.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 06 2013, 8:08 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 06 2013, 1:13 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 06 2013, 9:13 am

>

>I'll try but original post was lost so hopefully I hit all the points.

>My main point of reference for Starfleet cadets is what we see on screen, namely Wrath of Khan. Before that movie we never saw the Academy and only references to cadets. In WOK we see Saavik is a cadet, but holds the rank of Lieutenant J.G. While it is a crisis situation, Saavik is an active member of bridge crew, working with senior officers and treated as her rank would require. Not as a trainee, but as a lieutenant. In fact, her rank continues in to the next movie but she is no longer a cadet. Obviously, she graduated at Lieutenant J.G.

>This contradicts the common argument now that cadets immediately graduate at Ensign grade.

>In Trek 09, we see Uhura is also referred to as "Lieutenant" despite still being a cadet. She later is made a bridge officer, clearly able to step in the chain of command at her current rank. Again, there is no indication that her rank is dependent on her graduation from the Academy.

>[b]Someone once showed a screenshot of Kirk's name on the Transporter controls and his rank is shown as Lieutenant.[/b] So, he is not a green ensign, as many have claimed, but at least a Lieutenant JG with command school experience.

>Once he is placed in the first officer's position, he is treated as a first officer. That is how a field promotion works. He is expected to carry himself with all the privileges and responsibilities of that position.

>My final point is always keeping in mind that Starfleet was not intended to be a military organization, despite interpretations by Meyer and Moore. Therefore, expecting their ranks to work identically to any real world military is not going to give you the full picture because that is not how the organization was originally set up.

>Hope that makes sense.

I wont say your argument doesnt make sense............but you really didnt use any canon/continuity to back up your claim.

For the record, I was the one that posted the pic of Kirks rank in the 09 film, and I've made the same arguments about starfleet not being exactly a militery and how we have seen cadets with officer ranks.

But none of that explains the rise to captain in such a short amount of time.


Yeah, like I said, I lost the original post due to computer issues. However, part of the point I wanted to make is that Kirk's rapid promotion doesn't make sense if you treat Starfleet as the Navy. If you realize that Starfleet isn't a navy, isn't technically a military organization in Roddenberry's original vision, then the promotion is less offensive, in my opinion.


Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of continuity to show how promotion and the Academy works in TOS. So, I more or less drew inferences from what was presented.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 06 2013, 10:27 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 06 2013, 2:53 am

>

>Otakujo, clearly you are an intelligent young woman, but think about thiswould you leave Star Treks legacy in JJ Abrams hands ?all he is is a pawn for Paramount, Paraamount don't give a hill of beans about Star Trek all they see is Dallors $$$$, they want a hit, Abrams don't care about story or characters, who lives or who dies dosen't matter as long as the film is a hit, Star Trek means nothing to him, just a Paycheck, TOS was never a huge action show it was always the stories and characters that made Star Trek great, not huge special effects and action which will the only thing we'll remember about Into Darkness, so far from all indications this story is weak.  

>


Welcome to the world of Hollywood studio politics. That's how the studios were since the very beginning. Do you think they were any less money-focused in the sixties? Also, if not for the movie, there would be no Star Trek out at the moment. Fact is that no matter what any new movie/series does, there is no way that they can please everyone. And the alternative is no Star Trek.


Even if you hate JJ Abrams and believe he is the devil incarnate, his version of Trek is only one of many, and he is already moving on. Who knows how permanent or fleeting his influence will be (my guess is, mostly fleeting.) In all honesty I can't think of anyone involved in producing for Star Trek that I ever had a problem with.


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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 07 2013, 11:42 pm

Yeah, even Roddenberry was beholden to studios and their money. He actually removed the lyrics from the theme song of TOS to avoid paying royalties to the artist-really progressive of him


 

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 08 2013, 12:37 am

well that's one money based decision for which I do applaud Roddenberry--lol.


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

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 08 2013, 12:59 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 06 2013, 8:47 am

>

>Roddenberry called TOS "an action show with social commentary." Read his original pitch to Desilu.

>Star Trek clearly means something different to you than to many others. I still can't completely understand your complaints, when you look at the history of Star Trek. Curious if you cared for Nemisis?

>Also, how do you know what Paramount and Abrams wants? Abrams cares more about the characters than most action movies, seeing as how Kirk actually has to face his consequences in the sequel, rather than it all being tied up nice and neatly at the end.

>If Into Darkness bothers you so much, support fan productions, like "Farragut Films" or "The Newe Voyages." Those are made by fans for fans.

>Also, what is your favorite Star Trek movie?

>


True TOS series was pitch as an action show, but it was also to get Roddenberry's moral ideas out there, like war, racism, and sex. Notice how Different TNG is from TOS, I think TNG is really the way Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to be, like good drama and thought provoking stories, not just space battles and fist fights . 


My complaints are stated in this trial, What do Paramount want ? well for one thing, they want this movie to do well in the foreign  markets, that's why some of it takes place in London and they have a british actor Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead Star trek 2009 didn't really do that well overseas..


My favorite Star trek movie ? First Contact and Nemesis. the fan films are good too. 


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

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 08 2013, 1:15 am

The Prosecution will like to pose some valid questions for those who defend the accused..


1. Has Abrams version of Star Trek split the fan base as no other Trek movie has done before like   50/50 half hates it, half likes it ?


2. Could Mr. JJ Abrams USE  Star Trek to get to Star Wars ? Has he not stated he's is a "Star wars fan ", now that he's doing  Star Wars can such a person be loyal to Trek and guide the Trek franchise with loyalties divided ?


3. What new GOOD characters or ideas has Mr. Abrams gave to Star Trek in his 2009 movie to expand the Trek universe ? 


3. What Has Mr. Abrams done for the franchise other than his 2009 Trek movie ?


 


 


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

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 08 2013, 1:42 am

1. My impression is that it has split the fanbase in a way that every previous Star Trek instalment, including the movies, has before it. (with the possible exception of original series -- that being of course because it was the first and people who didn't like that simply didn't become Star Trek fans.) The difference is that now we have the internet.


2. Possibly he could, but that's called "building up a portfolio", which is what all artists, writers, and filmmakers must do in order to be successful.


3. He was employed specifically for the sake of the movie. But that doesn't make him guilty of anything. Everyone has to start somewhere.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso


It's a perfectly valid option, to decide you don't like the film, draw a line in the sand and say "Well ok I'll just watch stuff that I like. Let's see what comes next", and leave it at that. Plenty of people refuse to incorporate the events of Nemesis into their understanding of Star Trek -- and it's even easier to do with the most recent movie(s) because of the alternate timeline. You can say -- "Well that's not even happening to the characters I know and have come to like so much."


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

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