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

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 10 2013, 9:35 pm

[quote]


Quote:

1. "Why should we Question Abrams loyalty when few directors actually have stuck with Star Trek ?"  The answer is quite simple is JJ Abrams in charge of the Star Trek franchise  ?


no, he only incharge of making some films for paramount, CBS owns the rights to any tv series..


AHH, so you are saying JJ Abrams has no say whatsoever if CBS or Paramount creates a Star Trek TV series, so in essense he is not in charge of the ENTIRE Star Trek franchise, is this what you're saying ?


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

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 10 2013, 9:36 pm

Quote:

1. "Why should we Question Abrams loyalty when few directors actually have stuck with Star Trek ?"  The answer is quite simple is JJ Abrams in charge of the Star Trek franchise  ?


no, he only incharge of making some films for paramount, CBS owns the rights to any tv series


is he not reponsible for making movies and developing TV shows for said franchise ?,


no, he was only asked to develope films for paramount.CBS owns the rights to any tv series..


did Rick Berman the former producer of Star Trek did this and more ?,


Bermans job was to build the franchise.He wasnt a movie director.


The court would like to know What NEW projects has Abrams 2009 movie brought forth ?


Why Trek 2013 of course.


you really arent good at trhe "court" thing, you shoud drop it.


no one tried come out of left field and make something that didn't fit the Star Trek mold..


thats just your opinion.And the funny thing is that Geene rodenberry himself felt the The Wrath of Khan did not fit the "star trek mold" as he saw it.


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 10 2013, 9:58 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 10 2013, 9:35 pm

>It would seem more individuals dislike the movie, but are not vocal about it,


Now your just masking stuff up.


if they arent vocal about it how can you say more people dislike the film?


the answer is you cant tell if people like or diuslike the film untill they are vocal about it.


There were no new characters in Abrams 2009 movie,


you are completly wrong.


George Kirk, Wynona Kirk, Nero, the green cxhick, that little alien friend of Scotty's


True Abrams did save said franchise from media exile with one movie and if his next two movies do not perform well, then what?


then we will be in the same boat we were left in after the last 2 TNG films.


AHH, so you are saying JJ Abrams has no say whatsoever if CBS or Paramount creates a Star Trek TV series, so in essense he is not in charge of the ENTIRE Star Trek franchise, is this what you're saying ?


what I'm saying is that the rights to Trek are split.Paramount has films.........CBS has tv series


JJ was hired by Paramount to develope films.Now maybe if CBSwants to they might consult JJ, they may even be required to follow JJ's vision/universe, but JJ was onmly hired to make the films.


Not tv series, not novels, not comic books, not video games, not toys...etc,etc,etc


Photobucket

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 11 2013, 9:15 am

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 10 2013, 8:56 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>Objection ! the OP is not on trial

actully, by starting this thread, and opening it for public debate, you put your ideas and yourself on trial as well as the one you accused

In addition, you have yet to provide counterarguments to your own "charges."

Here's the thing, you present arguements and defend them. If not, well its hard to take it all seriously (actually it is hard to take seriously as it is-but I'm willing it play along).

My questions are as follow-

1. Why should we question Abrams loyalty when very few directors actually stuck around with Trek, at least when came to the movies. Nimoy and Meyers are really the only two that come to mind. And Nimoy only came back to Trek because they let him direct. So, who's loyalty should we question if even one of the primary actors left, and did not intend to come back?

2. I have asserted, multiple times, that Abrams is actually engaging in social commentatry, both in 09 and now in Into Darkness. How does that fit with the critique that it isn't Star Trek because Star Trek is part social commentary?

3. The view seems to be that the original Star Trek, as well as its various incarnations, can do no wrong. Yet, Abrams is guilty of a multitude of sins simply by virtue of not being fan. Isn't it contradictory to ingnore the faults of the originals and emphasize the faults of the new movies?

The Court recognize that JJ Abrams HIMSELF is not on trial, merely what he is doing to Star Trek is in question.

Do you Fireproof speak on behave of the defense ? If so these are your answers !

1. "Why should we Question Abrams loyalty when few directors actually have stuck with Star Trek ?"  The answer is quite simple is JJ Abrams in charge of the Star Trek franchise  ? is he not reponsible for making movies and developing TV shows for said franchise ?, did Rick Berman the former producer of Star Trek did this and more ?, you may recall after the success of Star Trek -The Voyage Home, That movie help to bring about the Tv show Star Trek-The Next Generation, Star Wars produced the animation "Clone Wars" after their movies.. The court would like to know What NEW projects has Abrams 2009 movie brought forth ? It seems Star Trek need someone to guide it more  than Star Wars at this point .

2. "Social Commentary" ? for over 45 years Star Trek was about social Commentary, obvious in most of it's films. Only one commentary was recognize in Star Trek 2009, it is that a rogue can turn out to be a hero in the end, any others ? Did the movie give us a positive vision of the future ? was StarFleet represented in it's greatest form ? No, most of it's leaders appear weak, the fleet rely on inexperienced cadets to deal with a major crisis, and to have  cadets who represent Star Fleet gang up and beat on one person is appalling . 

3. IS Abrams is guilty of not being a fan ? No he is not, Nick Meyer Director of Star trek 2 and 6 was also not a fan of Star Trek, it is what Abrams has done to Star Trek inspite of not being a fan, the direction he took and the reckless way he's done it.

All of the Trek incarnations had fault, yet they were always true Star Trek, no one tried come out of left field and make something that didn't fit the Star Trek mold..

The Court would like to recognize Star Trek Deep Space 9 a show that wasn't normal Trek, yet it was Star Trek in every sense with much social commentary, and dealt with every issue, racsim, sex and war. 

 


1. Then CBS needs to appoint someone to be in charge of the whole franchise, like Bennett was in the past. Abrams was hired to make movies, as Sto Vo Kor pointed out, not rebuild the franchise. I'll bet the studio is waiting to see if Trek is still viable as a franchise or if there isn't enough of a fan base to spend more money on. None of that falls under Abrams responsibility if the studio didn't ask him to do that.


2. If that is the only social commentary you came away with, then I don't fault you for not liking it. That's not what I walked away with and feel that Starfleet was shown being in need of changed, like Pike said. Starfleet was challenged in a way it had never been before and demanded a new approach to the crisis.


There were two themes that I saw in the movie, and think it has more social commentary than most people give it credit for, and Into Darkness will probably have even more.


3. Actually, not all Trek were true to the mold. Sto Vo Kor said it but it warrants repeating, Roddenberry hated the direction of Wrath of Khan, and disagreed with the changes made. TNG came from Voyage Home's success but also from Roddenberry's desire to show a different take as well as after the franchise proved viable.


Insurrection paints a rather grim picture as well, with forced relocation by Federation Council, Picard essentially going rouge himself and the rather arrogant vision of "rural simplicity."


Nemesis shows Picard willfully violating the Prime Directive to retrieve the parts of B4 by engaging in a fire fight with a prewarp civilization.


I think Trek 09 presented a different take on Star Trek, but not bad or anti-Trek.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 11 2013, 2:36 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 11 2013, 9:15 am

>I just have one thing to point out.....

>Nemesis shows Picard willfully violating the Prime Directive to retrieve the parts of B4 by engaging in a fire fight with a prewarp civilization.


to be 100% fair to Picard, we cant say for sure that the planet in question had a prewarp civilization that wasnt already contaminated by other warp capable peoples, like the romulans.


Photobucket

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 12 2013, 12:48 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 10 2013, 9:58 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 10 2013, 9:35 pm

>

>It would seem more individuals dislike the movie, but are not vocal about it,

Now your just masking stuff up.

if they arent vocal about it how can you say more people dislike the film?

the answer is you cant tell if people like or diuslike the film untill they are vocal about it.

There were no new characters in Abrams 2009 movie,

you are completly wrong.

George Kirk, Wynona Kirk, Nero, the green cxhick, that little alien friend of Scotty's

True Abrams did save said franchise from media exile with one movie and if his next two movies do not perform well, then what?

then we will be in the same boat we were left in after the last 2 TNG films.

AHH, so you are saying JJ Abrams has no say whatsoever if CBS or Paramount creates a Star Trek TV series, so in essense he is not in charge of the ENTIRE Star Trek franchise, is this what you're saying ?

what I'm saying is that the rights to Trek are split.Paramount has films.........CBS has tv series

JJ was hired by Paramount to develope films.Now maybe if CBSwants to they might consult JJ, they may even be required to follow JJ's vision/universe, but JJ was onmly hired to make the films.

Not tv series, not novels, not comic books, not video games, not toys...etc,etc,etc


 


This trial will procede, to answer questions


1. I am not "making stuff up"  when I say not vocal I mean there are people who don't post on message boards who  obviously hate the movie and some who likes it.


2. The Prosecution stands corrected Kirk's parents were new characters and that ugly creature who assist Scotty, though no new crew members are introduced .. So, we have concluded thus far that JJ Abrams has nothing to do with The Star Trek  franchise other than movies, no one is directing it, no one has a vision everything is just up in the air, Paramount rolls the dice and hopes for a hit movie.. 


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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 12 2013, 1:11 am

Welcome to Hollywood, sir.


People are kidding themselves if they think TOS wasn't constantly under the glass for budget reasons, if the only reason Wrath of Khan was greenlit was because TMP, for all its flaws, made money and if the 25th anniversary hadn't happen, Final Frontier would have been the last, because its budget was ridiculous. If you watch Assignment: Earth, you realize you are actually watching the pilot for a new series, which Roddenberry was hedging his bets on in case TOS was canceled.


The fact that Paramount is waiting to see if they have a hit before investing more money isn't surprising-it's smart. The only was Trek gets on the big screen is money and Paramount is skittish, like all studios, of flops. They can't afford them.


In addition, what had been added to Trek prior to Abrams movie? Abrams brought Trek back in to popular viewpoint, as well as brought more life blood to the franchise. We have an increase in books, comics and video games, all of which would not have happened without Star Trek 09.


I would say people have vision, but it is a wait and see game at the moment. Lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 12 2013, 1:17 am

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 12 2013, 12:48 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 10 2013, 9:58 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 10 2013, 9:35 pm

>

>

>It would seem more individuals dislike the movie, but are not vocal about it,

Now your just masking stuff up.

if they arent vocal about it how can you say more people dislike the film?

the answer is you cant tell if people like or diuslike the film untill they are vocal about it.

There were no new characters in Abrams 2009 movie,

you are completly wrong.

George Kirk, Wynona Kirk, Nero, the green cxhick, that little alien friend of Scotty's

True Abrams did save said franchise from media exile with one movie and if his next two movies do not perform well, then what?

then we will be in the same boat we were left in after the last 2 TNG films.

AHH, so you are saying JJ Abrams has no say whatsoever if CBS or Paramount creates a Star Trek TV series, so in essense he is not in charge of the ENTIRE Star Trek franchise, is this what you're saying ?

what I'm saying is that the rights to Trek are split.Paramount has films.........CBS has tv series

JJ was hired by Paramount to develope films.Now maybe if CBSwants to they might consult JJ, they may even be required to follow JJ's vision/universe, but JJ was onmly hired to make the films.

Not tv series, not novels, not comic books, not video games, not toys...etc,etc,etc

 

This trial will procede, to answer questions

1. I am not "making stuff up"  when I say not vocal I mean there are people who don't post on message boards who  obviously hate the movie and some who likes it.

2. The Prosecution stands corrected Kirk's parents were new characters and that ugly creature who assist Scotty, though no new crew members are introduced .. So, we have concluded thus far that JJ Abrams has nothing to do with The Star Trek  franchise other than movies, no one is directing it, no one has a vision everything is just up in the air, Paramount rolls the dice and hopes for a hit movie.. 

you are making stuff up because there is no way for you to know wether or not those people like or dislike the movie.


if they dont post on message boards, and dont give online reviews, and keep silent about it, how can you know wht they feel about the film


Photobucket

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 12 2013, 1:46 am

[quote]


[quote]


[quote]


[quote]


Quote:

Objection ! the OP is not on trial


actully, by starting this thread, and opening it for public debate, you put your ideas and yourself on trial as well as the one you accused


[/quote]


In addition, you have yet to provide counterarguments to your own "charges."


Here's the thing, you present arguements and defend them. If not, well its hard to take it all seriously (actually it is hard to take seriously as it is-but I'm willing it play along).


My questions are as follow-


1. Why should we question Abrams loyalty when very few directors actually stuck around with Trek, at least when came to the movies. Nimoy and Meyers are really the only two that come to mind. And Nimoy only came back to Trek because they let him direct. So, who's loyalty should we question if even one of the primary actors left, and did not intend to come back?


2. I have asserted, multiple times, that Abrams is actually engaging in social commentatry, both in 09 and now in Into Darkness. How does that fit with the critique that it isn't Star Trek because Star Trek is part social commentary?


3. The view seems to be that the original Star Trek, as well as its various incarnations, can do no wrong. Yet, Abrams is guilty of a multitude of sins simply by virtue of not being fan. Isn't it contradictory to ingnore the faults of the originals and emphasize the faults of the new movies?


[/quote]


The Court recognize that JJ Abrams HIMSELF is not on trial, merely what he is doing to Star Trek is in question.


Do you Fireproof speak on behave of the defense ? If so these are your answers !


1. "Why should we Question Abrams loyalty when few directors actually have stuck with Star Trek ?"  The answer is quite simple is JJ Abrams in charge of the Star Trek franchise  ? is he not reponsible for making movies and developing TV shows for said franchise ?, did Rick Berman the former producer of Star Trek did this and more ?, you may recall after the success of Star Trek -The Voyage Home, That movie help to bring about the Tv show Star Trek-The Next Generation, Star Wars produced the animation "Clone Wars" after their movies.. The court would like to know What NEW projects has Abrams 2009 movie brought forth ? It seems Star Trek need someone to guide it more  than Star Wars at this point .


2. "Social Commentary" ? for over 45 years Star Trek was about social Commentary, obvious in most of it's films. Only one commentary was recognize in Star Trek 2009, it is that a rogue can turn out to be a hero in the end, any others ? Did the movie give us a positive vision of the future ? was StarFleet represented in it's greatest form ? No, most of it's leaders appear weak, the fleet rely on inexperienced cadets to deal with a major crisis, and to have  cadets who represent Star Fleet gang up and beat on one person is appalling . 


3. IS Abrams is guilty of not being a fan ? No he is not, Nick Meyer Director of Star trek 2 and 6 was also not a fan of Star Trek, it is what Abrams has done to Star Trek inspite of not being a fan, the direction he took and the reckless way he's done it.


All of the Trek incarnations had fault, yet they were always true Star Trek, no one tried come out of left field and make something that didn't fit the Star Trek mold..


The Court would like to recognize Star Trek Deep Space 9 a show that wasn't normal Trek, yet it was Star Trek in every sense with much social commentary, and dealt with every issue, racsim, sex and war. 


 


[/quote]


1. Then CBS needs to appoint someone to be in charge of the whole franchise, like Bennett was in the past. Abrams was hired to make movies, as Sto Vo Kor pointed out, not rebuild the franchise. I'll bet the studio is waiting to see if Trek is still viable as a franchise or if there isn't enough of a fan base to spend more money on. None of that falls under Abrams responsibility if the studio didn't ask him to do that.


2. If that is the only social commentary you came away with, then I don't fault you for not liking it. That's not what I walked away with and feel that Starfleet was shown being in need of changed, like Pike said. Starfleet was challenged in a way it had never been before and demanded a new approach to the crisis.


There were two themes that I saw in the movie, and think it has more social commentary than most people give it credit for, and Into Darkness will probably have even more.


3. Actually, not all Trek were true to the mold. Sto Vo Kor said it but it warrants repeating, Roddenberry hated the direction of Wrath of Khan, and disagreed with the changes made. TNG came from Voyage Home's success but also from Roddenberry's desire to show a different take as well as after the franchise proved viable.


Insurrection paints a rather grim picture as well, with forced relocation by Federation Council, Picard essentially going rouge himself and the rather arrogant vision of "rural simplicity."


Nemesis shows Picard willfully violating the Prime Directive to retrieve the parts of B4 by engaging in a fire fight with a prewarp civilization.


I think Trek 09 presented a different take on Star Trek, but not bad or anti-Trek.


[/quote]


1. JJ Abrams job is to help rebuild the franchise, did he not start by redoing Star Trek with his alternate universe movie, Star Trek is still a viable franchise, but Abrams rather do Star Wars than help trek grow, the suits and CBS and Paramount knows nothing about Star trek, all they see is dallors,as long as JJ Abrams Trek movie makes money they keep him, but we also noted that Abrams dosen't and never cared about the franchise other than making money to do Star Wars.


2. Abrams version of Star Fleet is wreckless and immature, in TOS and TNG Star fleet was a future navy ran by real experienced officers,Mr. Spock for one, who had a disipline mind and as an Officer was never a love sick teenager falling in love with a human at a critical time, for some, this kills the character   never was Spock depicted so weak, the Captains never surrendered their ship to the first officer when met with a powerful opponent, Abrams has no vision for the future making his Star Trek unbelievable to many.


 


3. What do you mean by all Star trek were not true to the mold ? all of them were, there were stories that were out of the norm but TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise all incorporated valid Trek themes..THe court will like to address the ESSENCE of Star Trek- which can be define as a depiction of a BELIEVABLE future where man has cease from war, poverty and prejudice, to venture out into space and continue to better himself...If you saw two themes in the movie please tell us.


4. Instead of creating a new villian Abrams went back and re-created a villian from a past Trek movie, Star Trek was always about moving forward it is concluded the Mr Abrams has taken Star Trek Backward instead of building on TNG, DS9 and Voyager , he has given us a lesser  version of TOS, however it did make money, but inspite of that,the changes in the film were not good for Star Trek.  


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

darth_timon

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this May. 12 2013, 4:20 am

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 12 2013, 1:46 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>>1. JJ Abrams job is to help rebuild the franchise, did he not start by redoing Star Trek with his alternate universe movie, Star Trek is still a viable franchise, but Abrams rather do Star Wars than help trek grow, the suits and CBS and Paramount knows nothing about Star trek, all they see is dallors,as long as JJ Abrams Trek movie makes money they keep him, but we also noted that Abrams dosen't and never cared about the franchise other than making money to do Star Wars.

Do you think Paramount has ever viewed Star Trek as anything other than a means to make money? They'll not produce Trek without a valid reason (ie, profit). This has always been true.

2. Abrams version of Star Fleet is wreckless and immature, in TOS and TNG Star fleet was a future navy ran by real experienced officers,Mr. Spock for one, who had a disipline mind and as an Officer was never a love sick teenager falling in love with a human at a critical time, for some, this kills the character   never was Spock depicted so weak, the Captains never surrendered their ship to the first officer when met with a powerful opponent, Abrams has no vision for the future making his Star Trek unbelievable to many.

Starfleet officers as depicted in the original TOS timeline and especially in TNG onwards were usually incompetent, and about as far from a 'navy' as possible. Moreover, you're simply stating your personal opinions as fact- and using those for your 'charges'.


3. What do you mean by all Star trek were not true to the mold ? all of them were, there were stories that were out of the norm but TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise all incorporated valid Trek themes..THe court will like to address the ESSENCE of Star Trek- which can be define as a depiction of a BELIEVABLE future where man has cease from war, poverty and prejudice, to venture out into space and continue to better himself...If you saw two themes in the movie please tell us.

Kirk is out to better himself in these new films- that's obvious right away. He is riled by Pike's chat in the first film and wants to prove himself to be better than what he has become- and it's presented in a far better way than the tired, repeated formula that was old when VOY took it on.


4. Instead of creating a new villian Abrams went back and re-created a villian from a past Trek movie, Star Trek was always about moving forward it is concluded the Mr Abrams has taken Star Trek Backward instead of building on TNG, DS9 and Voyager , he has given us a lesser  version of TOS, however it did make money, but inspite of that,the changes in the film were not good for Star Trek.  


Star Trek has not moved forward for a long time. VOY overdid the Borg to death. ENT was stale and unimaginative. At least ST09 and STID have given us some vibrance and energy again. They haven't fallen for the same tired format as before. Much better than VOY, or ENT, or Nemesis, or Insurrection.


I am here to shake things up

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 12 2013, 6:14 am

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 12 2013, 1:46 am

>1. JJ Abrams job is to help rebuild the franchise, did he not start by redoing Star Trek with his alternate universe movie, Star Trek is still a viable franchise, but Abrams rather do Star Wars than help trek grow, the suits and CBS and Paramount knows nothing about Star trek, all they see is dallors,as long as JJ Abrams Trek movie makes money they keep him, but we also noted that Abrams dosen't and never cared about the franchise other than making money to do Star Wars.


as you said, JJ's job was to help rebuild the franchise............and thasts exacty whast hes done.


1 popular money msking film, a 2nd film that if the early reviews are to be tusted, will be just as popular.New fans, New toys, new videogames, new comics, JJs film helped all these things become reality.


and again, so what thast he wants to move on to star tek now thst its avalible, its not like he knew thst would happen when he signed up.and agin, only 2 past trek directors ever stuck around for more hen 1 film.


2. Abrams version of Star Fleet is wreckless and immature, in TOS and TNG Star fleet was a future navy ran by real experienced officers,Mr. Spock for one, who had a disipline mind and as an Officer was never a love sick teenager falling in love with a human at a critical time, for some, this kills the character   never was Spock depicted so weak, the Captains never surrendered their ship to the first officer when met with a powerful opponent, Abrams has no vision for the future making his Star Trek unbelievable to many.


 Your exasgerating, we ddnt see much of the fleet, so you really cant pass judgement on it as a whole.As for the enterprise, it was staffed with cadets because it was in space dock waiting to start a trasiing mission.But neros attack forced it into full service.


Pretty much the exact same thing thst happened in The wrath of Khan.


3. What do you mean by all Star trek were not true to the mold ?


You should read whats posted more carefully.What we're telling you is that he idea of treks "mold" is open to interpertation, ad that you are only sighting your personal opinion.


you say DS9 fit the mold, but geene would have never agreed with a 3 season war.geene would have never agreed with a starleet ship with a cloak.


Geene didnt feel the Wrath of Khan fit the trek mold, he also hated the new uniforms they used for the folling films


4. Instead of creating a new villian Abrams went back and re-created a villian from a past Trek movie,


again you are wrong.


Nero was a new vilian


Star Trek was always about moving forward 


then how do you explain the enterprise series, and geene himself wanted that one day, future film makers would take his work and retell the stories of the TOS cast for a new generation.


Photobucket

dregj

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 551

Report this May. 12 2013, 10:54 am

How can people be so desperate for star trek that theyd accept this rubbish with no humanity ,no story and a complete waste of effort from everyone involved.if you want a dumb action films watch steven segal not star trek.Star trek is "too cerebral" remember"

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 12 2013, 12:45 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 12 2013, 6:14 am

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 12 2013, 1:46 am

>

>1. JJ Abrams job is to help rebuild the franchise, did he not start by redoing Star Trek with his alternate universe movie, Star Trek is still a viable franchise, but Abrams rather do Star Wars than help trek grow, the suits and CBS and Paramount knows nothing about Star trek, all they see is dallors,as long as JJ Abrams Trek movie makes money they keep him, but we also noted that Abrams dosen't and never cared about the franchise other than making money to do Star Wars.

as you said, JJ's job was to help rebuild the franchise............and thasts exacty whast hes done.

1 popular money msking film, a 2nd film that if the early reviews are to be tusted, will be just as popular.New fans, New toys, new videogames, new comics, JJs film helped all these things become reality.

and again, so what thast he wants to move on to star tek now thst its avalible, its not like he knew thst would happen when he signed up.and agin, only 2 past trek directors ever stuck around for more hen 1 film.

2. Abrams version of Star Fleet is wreckless and immature, in TOS and TNG Star fleet was a future navy ran by real experienced officers,Mr. Spock for one, who had a disipline mind and as an Officer was never a love sick teenager falling in love with a human at a critical time, for some, this kills the character   never was Spock depicted so weak, the Captains never surrendered their ship to the first officer when met with a powerful opponent, Abrams has no vision for the future making his Star Trek unbelievable to many.

 Your exasgerating, we ddnt see much of the fleet, so you really cant pass judgement on it as a whole.As for the enterprise, it was staffed with cadets because it was in space dock waiting to start a trasiing mission.But neros attack forced it into full service.

Pretty much the exact same thing thst happened in The wrath of Khan.

3. What do you mean by all Star trek were not true to the mold ?

You should read whats posted more carefully.What we're telling you is that he idea of treks "mold" is open to interpertation, ad that you are only sighting your personal opinion.

you say DS9 fit the mold, but geene would have never agreed with a 3 season war.geene would have never agreed with a starleet ship with a cloak.

Geene didnt feel the Wrath of Khan fit the trek mold, he also hated the new uniforms they used for the folling films

4. Instead of creating a new villian Abrams went back and re-created a villian from a past Trek movie,

again you are wrong.

Nero was a new vilian

Star Trek was always about moving forward 

then how do you explain the enterprise series, and geene himself wanted that one day, future film makers would take his work and retell the stories of the TOS cast for a new generation.


 


1. Objection, the franchise has always had Star Trek comic books, video games and merchandise before Abrams movie came out, you will recall that the action figures and toys from Abrams' 2009 movie sold poorly.


2. That is a moot point, Roddenberry disagreed with alot of things concerning Trek, to the point upseting  writers causing them to leave the TNG in the middle of the first season, Rick Berman should recieve all credit for making Star Trek a huge success in the 1990's. 


3. For this film no new villian is created, the villian in Into Darkness is a copy of a previous villian.


4. Roddenberry probably did wanted future generations to retell TOS stories, but JJ Abrams isen't doing a good job of that, in his Trek movies the concept of good story telling and compelling drama and social commentary has been replaced by loud explosions immature characterizations and speedy action.  


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

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 12 2013, 12:53 pm

Quote: dregj @ May. 12 2013, 10:54 am

>

>How can people be so desperate for star trek that theyd accept this rubbish with no humanity ,no story and a complete waste of effort from everyone involved.if you want a dumb action films watch steven segal not star trek.Star trek is "too cerebral" remember"

>


Thank you.


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

darth_timon

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this May. 12 2013, 12:57 pm

This trial business is absurd. Star Trek is alive and kicking and fun for the first time in years. I'd much rather this than the tired, sterile mess that was Voyager, Enterprise and Nemesis.


I am here to shake things up

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