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. 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

darth_timon

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this May. 12 2013, 1:13 pm

What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that Star Trek films have always been more successul when action orientated. Just look at The Wrath of Khan, or First Contact, two of Trek's most successful films. Then you have The Voyage Home, which was much lighter in tone than most of the rest.


So if there happens to be a higher percentage of action in the films, so what? ST09 and STID are fun. A lot more enjoyable than the stale, walking-corpse that preceeded them. Nemesis was awful. Voyager and Enterprise were in steady decline throughout their runs, attempting to repeat TNG's formula but just coming across as arrogant, preachy and repetitive.


It's also worth noting that in this thread's poll, the majority don't buy into this 'treason' business.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 12 2013, 2:18 pm

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?

 

 

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.

 


I may be guessing here too but I'd say that of the people who don't say anything, there are equally representative measures (not necessarily equal measures, but representative) of people who like the new movies, don't like the new movies, don't feel particularly strongly one way or another but were reasonably entertained for two hours or so, aren't going to see the new movies, and couldn't care less about Star Trek to begin with.


I suppose if nothing else the new film/s have taken some heat off Nemesis... I mean, Insurrection... I mean, Generations... I mean, Final Frontier... oops. I mean The Motion Picture..........


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

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 12 2013, 4:51 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 12 2013, 12:45 pm

>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.


Yes they had those outlets.........and after Nemesis sales on comics,video games, novels and toys all dropped dramatically.Up untill Inssurection and Nemesis,,The Barns and Nobles in Manhatten used to have a full isle of TREK related books, Toys R Us in Times Square had a 7 peg section and a end cap devoted to Trek action figures,phasors,communicators and ships, and there were pleanty of trek comic books being released each week.......They even did a comic for starfleet academy.


After Insuurection and Nemesis all that chasnged, Barns and Noble redused Trek books to 1 shelf, Toys R us stop carring Trek toys all together, and comic after comic was csanceled do to poor sales.JJ's film brought back life to those branchs of the franchise.


So your objection doesnt have a leg to stand on.


And funny, you say the toys from the 09 film sold poorly..............but TRU is carring the toys from the new film as well, why would they do that if the last line faqiled?


2. That is a moot point,


then so is your opinion on the topic.


3. For this film no new villian is created,


Dude, do you just like looking wrong in every statement you post?Just like with most "2nd" films these days we are getting 2 villians.And 1 of them is indeed a newly created villian.


Admiral Marcus, of section 31, commander of the USS Vengence and the guy that set Khan free to do his dirty work.


You should really stop and think before you post anything.So far you have been wrong on most factual issues


4. Roddenberry probably did wanted future generations to retell TOS stories, but JJ Abrams isen't doing a good job of that,


in your opinion.


 


Photobucket

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4015

Report this May. 12 2013, 5:56 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ 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.


Yeah thanks.  Because it's not enough that the rest of the world gets to make disparaging remarks about trekkies, we like to get it from each other too. 



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4015

Report this May. 12 2013, 5:57 pm

Quote: darth_timon @ May. 12 2013, 1:13 pm

>

>What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that Star Trek films have always been more successul when action orientated. Just look at The Wrath of Khan, or First Contact, two of Trek's most successful films. Then you have The Voyage Home, which was much lighter in tone than most of the rest.

>So if there happens to be a higher percentage of action in the films, so what? ST09 and STID are fun. A lot more enjoyable than the stale, walking-corpse that preceeded them. Nemesis was awful. Voyager and Enterprise were in steady decline throughout their runs, attempting to repeat TNG's formula but just coming across as arrogant, preachy and repetitive.

>It's also worth noting that in this thread's poll, the majority don't buy into this 'treason' business.

>


I've always said the only reason to put star trek on the big screen is to do big action sequences and stories that are too big for a tv budget and a tv screen.  The more 'human condition' types of stories are best done on the small screen.



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 12 2013, 9:17 pm

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.


Someone really needs to stop the myth that the only reason Abrams did Star Trek was to get Star Wars. That line of garbage is not only wrong, but offensive because it spreads libel regarding JJ Abrams.


As I said, studios want to make a profit. If you don't like that, don't pay them. Go support Star Trek: New Voyages, Farrugutt Films and other fan based productions. They can't be for profit and may be closer to your vision of Star Trek.


Until you demonstrate an idea is financially viable, there is no point in producing more. That is the nature of business.


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.


Why does Spock and Uhura bother you so much that you must slander it? What was Spock raised with-a human mother or a Vulcan mother? What aspects of his psychology would be influenced by the human mother raising him? How weak is Sarek then (both Prime and Nu) if he married two human women?


The whole idea of a reboot is to depict the characters in new ways. Read Nimoy's interviews and realize that he approved of the path Quinto took, realizing a freash take on the character was a POSITIVE change.


Also, Roddenberry never envisioned Starfleet as a navy. That is also wrong.


 


 


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.


I would state that a belivable future can also be one of difficulty and hardship. Mankind has obviously ceased from war in Abrams Trek-internal war. External threats are still very viable and that is what Nero is to them. An external threat that came from nowhere and has the potential to destroy the entire Federation. What kind of Federation would exist if they were constantly afraid of an attack?


I'll tell you what kind-the Federation of DS9. Abrams themes are very similar to the arc in DS9.


As for the two themes I saw, they are very simple. One is about family, specifically fathers, and the other is logic vs. emotion.


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. 


Not good in what way? In bringing in more money you have potential for more and new movies or shows. Like I have said all along, Abrams has proven that Trek is still viable as a brand, and to a general audience, not just to a select number of fans and/or collectors.


Nero also was an original villian, one of the better villians I have seen in a Trek movie in a long time. I didn't even read "Countdown" to understand his motivation.


Abrams didn't need to build upon TNG, DS9 or VOY because all of those models have been done, tried and worn out. All of them fizzled at some point, and lost their momentum and ratings. DS9 was really the only one to finish strongly with the ending of the war and "spiritual" battle for Bajor completed.


I think that there is a quickness to judge negatively something new while looking through rose colored glasses at the old.


Many have argued it, but I'll not stop just because its been said. The fact of the matter was Star Trek was dying as a franchise. There were no new shows, no new movies and nothing new in the fandom. Fans had become a mockery of themselves, going to conventions and the like, but not really creating anything new, at least in the public eye.


Abrams brought fresh blood in to the franchise and gave us a fresh perspective. Is it for everyone? No, just like TOS isn't for my wife but Abrams Trek she finds enjoyable. But, I also am not a fan of Wrath of Khan-I think it is a well done movie, but it isn't one that I can sit down and watch over and over again.


Star Trek fandom is diverse and covers many different aspects of the human experience. Why should one vision prevail when even Roddenberry himself acknowledged that a time will come when it will change?

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 13 2013, 2:53 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ May. 12 2013, 2:18 pm

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?

 

 

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.

 

I may be guessing here too but I'd say that of the people who don't say anything, there are equally representative measures (not necessarily equal measures, but representative) of people who like the new movies, don't like the new movies, don't feel particularly strongly one way or another but were reasonably entertained for two hours or so, aren't going to see the new movies, and couldn't care less about Star Trek to begin with.

I suppose if nothing else the new film/s have taken some heat off Nemesis... I mean, Insurrection... I mean, Generations... I mean, Final Frontier... oops. I mean The Motion Picture..........


More insight from the always wise and lovely Otakujo, do you feel Abrams shouldn't be on trial for his immature Trek movies ?


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

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 13 2013, 3:26 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 12 2013, 4:51 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ May. 12 2013, 12:45 pm

>

>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.

Yes they had those outlets.........and after Nemesis sales on comics,video games, novels and toys all dropped dramatically.Up untill Inssurection and Nemesis,,The Barns and Nobles in Manhatten used to have a full isle of TREK related books, Toys R Us in Times Square had a 7 peg section and a end cap devoted to Trek action figures,phasors,communicators and ships, and there were pleanty of trek comic books being released each week.......They even did a comic for starfleet academy.

After Insuurection and Nemesis all that chasnged, Barns and Noble redused Trek books to 1 shelf, Toys R us stop carring Trek toys all together, and comic after comic was csanceled do to poor sales.JJ's film brought back life to those branchs of the franchise.

So your objection doesnt have a leg to stand on.

And funny, you say the toys from the 09 film sold poorly..............but TRU is carring the toys from the new film as well, why would they do that if the last line faqiled?

2. That is a moot point,

then so is your opinion on the topic.

3. For this film no new villian is created,

Dude, do you just like looking wrong in every statement you post?Just like with most "2nd" films these days we are getting 2 villians.And 1 of them is indeed a newly created villian.

Admiral Marcus, of section 31, commander of the USS Vengence and the guy that set Khan free to do his dirty work.

You should really stop and think before you post anything.So far you have been wrong on most factual issues

4. Roddenberry probably did wanted future generations to retell TOS stories, but JJ Abrams isen't doing a good job of that,

in your opinion.

 


1. Objection ! Trek comics and novels has been here BEFORE  Abrams' idiotic movie.. IDW has been making Trek comics since 2007 as your homework assignment the court ask you to look them up.The toys from the first movie were horrendous ToysR Us always had to mark them down so they can sell.


2. Listen to me, Marcus is not the main villian, Kahn is, and did JJ Abrams make up Kahn, NO, Kahn is from TOS, Nero was a weak villian, The point is Abrams could not create a villian on his own, better than a Kahn. 


3. The Court has thus far concluded JJ Abrams is not in Charge of the franchise yet, his movie is now representing the franchise, resulting in Trek being turned into a hyper teen driven bloated, noisy nut fest good story telling from this franchise is gone, replaced with immature dialog and loud explosions..


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

darth_timon

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this May. 13 2013, 4:04 am

Quote:

1. Objection ! Trek comics and novels has been here BEFORE  Abrams' idiotic movie.. IDW has been making Trek comics since 2007 as your homework assignment the court ask you to look them up.The toys from the first movie were horrendous ToysR Us always had to mark them down so they can sell.


 


Care to provide evidence for your claim that Trek merchandise from the new film had to be marked down? After all, isn't that what a prosecution does? Provide evidence?


 


Quote:

2. Listen to me, Marcus is not the main villian, Kahn is, and did JJ Abrams make up Kahn, NO, Kahn is from TOS, Nero was a weak villian, The point is Abrams could not create a villian on his own, better than a Kahn.


Matter of perspective and moving the goalposts too. Marcus was a new villain, no matter how you spin it. He was the one behind a lot of the mischief. He was trying to manipulate Khan AND Kirk. As for Nero being a weak villain- would the 'prosecution' kindly stop injecting personal opinions into this?


 


Quote:

3. The Court has thus far concluded JJ Abrams is not in Charge of the franchise yet, his movie is now representing the franchise, resulting in Trek being turned into a hyper teen driven bloated, noisy nut fest good story telling from this franchise is gone, replaced with immature dialog and loud explosions..


Your opinion does not make a conclusion. Talk about arrogant...


 


I am here to shake things up

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 13 2013, 5:22 am

I'm amazed that people are responding to this silliness.


Of course, most of you who are responding weren't here back in 2009 when, for months leading up to the May 8th release of that film, this same guy slammed, bashed, shot at, and $hit on everything about the new production. Every spoiler, every trailer, every snippit of data that was available was pooped on and ripped apart as "JJ Abrams idiot-fest with pretty actors, spitting in the face of Roddenberry's vision blah blah blah Picard is better and I am a true loyalist blah blah."


Then, the best part is that right after the movie came out, this same guy actually wrote a very good post (God, I'd love to find it) that basically said, "You know...I actually enjoyed the movie. It wasn't half as bad as I thought, and I admit that. I can see what Abrams was trying to do blah blah blah." Everyone answered him back, including me, and praised him for having the courage to eat his words and admit that he enjoyed it. 


About 3 days later, he was right back to his old bashing and bombastic foolishness, once he realized that it was no fun to admit what he did and it that is more fun to be irritating and over-the-top obnoxious like this post, playing the loyal "true" Star Trek fan.


So...it's fairly funny to see this again 4 years later.


 



Court adjourned?

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this May. 13 2013, 5:37 am

Yup Vger23, I remember it well.


I believe the court has been adjourned for about 4 years now.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 13 2013, 6:20 am

Quote: DS9_FOREVER! @ May. 13 2013, 5:37 am

>

>Yup Vger23, I remember it well.

>I believe the court has been adjourned for about 4 years now.

>


 


Great point!


You'll have to clue me in as to who you are sometime...I don't think there's many folks around from those days.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this May. 13 2013, 8:02 am

The idea that someone believes that they can "hold court" as if they have any authority over anything is delightfully mindless. The Mouthy Minority lost a long time ago.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam, Drunkin Druid, wissa

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