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

TL;DR One fan's point of view on the new Star Trek

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 16 2013, 5:16 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 16 2013, 3:08 pm

>

>What you call confrontational I call counter points and debating.  Condescending? Or expressing dislike for what I consder inferior Star Trek.

>It is possible to have a heated debate about the topic without it turning personal.  It's possible to differ in opinion without judging someone as a person. It's possible for someone to have a very strong opinon about something without being a troll.

>


 


You ask for people to react bitterly because you keep pounding and pounding on the same tired topics over and over again. Playing the victim is getting old, bunkey. You cry like you've been held down and trounced on by school yard (internet) bullies, but you keep sticking your neck out arguing the same stuff over and over again. 


If youre going to do that, you need to expect reaction. You need to expect challenge. 


I'd argue that it's what you're looking for, quite frankly. You seem like you thrive on these discussions. You play victim and act like the "good guy" and cry "foul" when someone comes out and mercilessly counter-punches or debunks or calls you out, though. Then all of a sudden, it's people stifiling your ability to debate, fans being mean, blah blah blah enough already. 


You're on a message board for Star Trek fans and you're relentlessly attacking Star Trek. Regardless of what piece of the pie you're attacking, you're going to get hammered on for that. 


So, either be a big boy and take it like a man when you post something controversial or get out and find someplace where you can commiserate in peace. People here are used to hashing it out. You're not going to get 30 people running to your defense telling you how right you are and coming up with plans for (gasp!) a petition to remove JJ Abrams from the face of the Earth.


 


Sorry dude. 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 16 2013, 6:49 pm

Do you feel better about yourself now? You're actively replying to all my posts trying to either shut me up or chase me off the board.   You will accomplish neither.  

jayson.deare

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this May. 17 2013, 3:07 pm

As an old fan I did see ST2009 which I enjoyed and was able to suspensd some disbelief as to some of the bad science etc in name of restarting a franchise. I will use my thoughts of new movie to try an explain what I feel a lot of old fans are thinking I just saw ST:ITD and the movie was ok but I hate to say it, it wasn't good. it's just more of the same stuff that we get shoveled our way every year by Hollywood. While Into Darkness was an enjoyable thrill ride there's just enough wrong with it for me to be glad that Abrams may be moving on two Star Wars or very sorry.

I could go on like a Fanboy about the things that irritate me and are utterly ignored by writers some that really make no logical sense but since I am a fan I will only list 4

1.) Transwarp Beaming please for the love of God get rid of this beaming across the galaxy BS who the hell needs a Starship when you can just beam on over

2.) No sense of Actual time passing at all even if it's just simulated or even remotely speed up. We warp from Quo'Nos to Earth in seconds just no...

3.) Why did they redesign the Klingons the new ones look like some Dessert thugs with the Piercings doesn't make sense also would not have been affected by Time Travel
4.) The promoting and demoting of anyone at random I mean common....

I think Star Trek needs some fresh blood again, I liked how we allude to the five year missions but I just felt that the heart of Star Trek was taken away and replaced with insert any Generic Action Movie here. The cast I love the idea of the reboot I love. While 2009 had a few plot holes I felt it was a stronger story and the whole time travel alternate reality thing can explain it away. I loved the first sequence of the movie it felt like I was watching some fun Star Trek Again, the morality of everything and Kirk changing his mind about the orders was very well done as well.

What i miss is the heart of Start Trek and the larger ramifications. Star Trek 6 we have politics, betrayal, friendship, action and in the end a new beginning. It was really something to see. I just hope that being out on this 5 year mission while give us something more than just a 2.5 hour action movie that can almost be done with "insert character name here" and not Kirk Spock, McCoy and the crew of the U.S.S Enterprise 1701.

I am pretty sure I could come up with a better story than this one in 5 minutes. In fact I will write a few plot points of one down. Based on the TOS Episode Arena more commonly known as the one with the Gorn

1.) Enterprise receives a distress signal and arrives on a decimated colony, the citizens that survive don't know why they were attacked.

2.) During the investigation the Enterprise and the planet are attacked by an unknown race the Gorn with Captain Kirk being taken prisoner

3.) The Gorn Captain challenges Kirk to a fight in an Arena, During the fight Kirk tries to better Understand the Gorn and why they attacked the Colony taken a cue from Into Darkness enter section 31

4.) After a short battle the Enterprise recovers Kirk who then sues to make a temporary alliance with the Gorn

5.) The Enterprise and the Gorn go after a rogue element of Starfleet Section 31 that is taken preventative action against a potentially hostile race with their dreadnought (Enter U.S.S Vengeance)

6.) Enterprise saves the day while forging a new alliance for the United Federation of Planets.

I know I pulled two elements from the new movie but heck this one seems a lot more like Star Trek with a lot more character to me. Anyhow let's hope the 3rd one finally gets it right I could excuse the first one as a new beginning but not the second....


 


Oh and one last thing how the heck is the Neutral Zone so close to Quo'Nos that you don't need to warp there sigh....

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 17 2013, 3:27 pm

>Could write a better story in 5 minutes.
>>Spends his time instead trying to ruin the enjoyment of real Star Trek fans on an internet forum.

I totally believe you. You're the next Ian Banks just biding your time until you dazzle the world with your eloquence, engrossing character dialogue, and intricate plots.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 17 2013, 3:36 pm

Quote: crellmoset @ May. 17 2013, 3:27 pm

>>Could write a better story in 5 minutes.

>>>Spends his time instead trying to ruin the enjoyment of real Star Trek fans on an internet forum.

>I totally believe you. You're the next Ian Banks just biding your time until you dazzle the world with your eloquence, engrossing character dialogue, and intricate plots.


 


Why do you have to argumentative with someone who's brand new? How is he ruining Star Trek for "real fans"? And what makes him not a real fan? Is it possible for another fan to ruin Star Trek for you?


He wrote  a simple review.  Simmer down.


You're automatically attacking another person for making a post that disagrees with your opinion.  Or do you plan on jumping down the throat of everyone who disagrees with you? 


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

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 17 2013, 3:43 pm

Quote: jayson.deare @ May. 17 2013, 3:07 pm

>

style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; color: #3f4549; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941);">1.) Transwarp Beaming please for the love of God get rid of this beaming across the galaxy BS who the hell needs a Starship when you can just beam on over

2.) No sense of Actual time passing at all even if it's just simulated or even remotely speed up. We warp from Quo'Nos to Earth in seconds just no...

3.) Why did they redesign the Klingons the new ones look like some Dessert thugs with the Piercings doesn't make sense also would not have been affected by Time Travel
4.) The promoting and demoting of anyone at random I mean common....

I think Star Trek needs some fresh blood again, I liked how we allude to the five year missions but I just felt that the heart of Star Trek was taken away and replaced with insert any Generic Action Movie here.

>


How do you make your writing bigger? (Very much appreciated, by the way -- eyesight not being quite what it used to be and all...)


I will answer some of your concerns briefly and quickly.


For 1 & 2, there are inklings of this happening in the tv series as well. (Perhaps not actually showing the journey as being that quick...) but Star Trek has been known in the past to make travel as short or long as suits the story. The episode Covenant (DS9) showed a device which could augment the distance of a beam-out to "up to three light years", according to Odo -- ok it's not as extreme as Earth to Q'onos but is an example of fitting the technology to the story. Beaming itself is a pretty unreal concept, when you really think about it, so I guess in a way how is the concept of long-distance (transwarp) beaming any less believable? (i.e., less believable than something that's never really been that plausible to begin with no matter how much it is simply accepted.)


3. A couple of possibilities: Like the whole ridges/no ridges thing, it's simply a makeup change (and a lot less radical than the change from TOS to TNG Klingons, on reflection.) Also -- we only saw one Klingon without his helmet. In Star Trek VI the Klingon general had an eye patch nailed to his face. If we had only seen him, would the question then have been "Why would Klingons have eye patches nailed to their faces?" We don't know how representative this one Klingon from ID is.


Also, even a variation on TOS Klingon outfits -- let's face it -- would not be the least bit menacing these days.


4. Yep, fair 'nuff.


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

karmaFire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 21 2013, 1:32 pm

When people argue over NuTrek vs Old Trek, most of the time they have not agreed on what they are arguing about. If the *most important thing* is to make money for the franchise & entertain people who like non-stop action & don't want to think, then Abrams NuTrek is a success, no question.

If the *most important thing* is staying true to Trek's ideals of an optimistic view of the future where humanity actually matures, shows that inspire us to become our best selves, NuTrek is a failure. NuTrek isn't optimistic or even true science fiction and these are the core values of Star Trek.


If you don't care about Trek's core values & you just want attractive people to be in a fast paced action movie, NuTrek rocks because it IS that and nothing more. Don't hand me some bull about it being a great story seeing Kirk & Spock young, dumb and stupid unless we see them get their heads handed to them for being driven by emotion, not intellect or cunning. Without real consequences, like say demoting Kirk for more than 2 minutes, it isn't a story of growth from boys into commanders. 


On the other hand, fans of NuTrek have a point that Star Trek's philosophy and view of the future is harder to turn into entertaining movies. It can be done and has been done, but the fact is that it works better in episodic format and that's part of why TOS and TNG were perfect on TV. When some of the episodes weren't great, they still made you think about something. Not every episode had to knock it out of the park. If you make a $175M movie, you have to knock it out of the park which means the studio plays it safe, and dumb action, effects galore with hot girls in lingerie sells. Real Star Trek is about taking risks and challenging the viewer's preconceptions which is not the easiest way to make $$.


So, perhaps Paramount doesn't have the balls to make something really good in the true spirit of Star Trek. Then the question is whether Trek-themed action movies that ignore the core values actually help anything. They help people sell movie tickets, toys and games. Do they stir up interest in Star Trek's opitimistic view of the future? Sadly, no. It gives a whole generation of new fans the idea that Star Trek is about chasing tail and blowing up stuff, nothing more. If it ended up drawing interest to optimistic Star Trek shows and books (both old and new), I will reverse my feeling that Abrams' NuTrek is a passing fancy that makes money and didn't help anything.


Roddenberry's idea to actually change the future by showing people NOW what we could become was an ambitious goal to do while staying entertaining. Until a studio is up to that challenge, maybe we don't need Star Trek movies at all.  There's tons of great books and TV episodes that already exist. Someone will doubtlessly make more.


 

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:26 pm

Honestly, I don't think any of the movies live up to the tv shows when it comes to the philosphical side of trek.  Nor should they even try.  The only reason to put star trek on the big screen is to do the big action and special effects that are too expensive for the small screen.  End of story.  Having said that though, there is just as much social commentary in this movie as there was in any of the other movies.  Whole lot more than in some.  


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 21 2013, 2:48 pm

But the movie does rely on SFX, which are very good (I just laugh at the brewery), which bears the question, could this product survive on the small screen without dazzling effects? One of the reasons TOS survived 47 years is that the stories were really good and inspite of the cheesy effects, they are strong.  How many "bottle" episodes could the writers pull off when they are forced to save money? Or, something like "Data's Day".  The structure that supports a successful movie doesn't mean it will be a good TV show.

CountJohn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 177

Report this May. 21 2013, 5:12 pm

If old Star Trek was a gourmet meal, new Star Trek is fast food. More people "like" it, but most forget it the next day, and the new "fans" gained aren't nearly as devoted. Not everyone will like the gourmet meal (which is fine) but the people who do will really, really, like it. I cut the first movie some slack because I liked the characters and in-jokes, but as for the new movie; well, let me out it this way, remember when everyone bashed Nemesis as a Wrath of Khan rip-off? At least it didn't take whole scenes from WOK and drop them into the movie. A lot of people have viewed the new films less critically than they have Star Trek releases in the past. I'm mainly hoping that we can get a good TV show out of this (with a totally different stable of writers running it) so for that reason I'm hoping the new movies do make lots of money.

karmaFire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 21 2013, 5:20 pm

Quote: wissa @ May. 21 2013, 2:26 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Honestly, I don't think any of the movies live up to the tv shows when it comes to the philosphical side of trek.


Agreed.


Nor should they even try.  The only reason to put star trek on the big screen is to do the big action and special effects that are too expensive for the small screen.  End of story.  Having said that though, there is just as much social commentary in this movie as there was in any of the other movies.  Whole lot more than in some.  


That's where we can agree to disagree. Effects and big action are the only way people make scifi lately. I'm sick of depressing stories of the future where humanity sucks and high-technology is overly designed & complex, as if 'Yeah, we're going to screw everything up in the future, but it will look whizzy!!' is the prevailing attitude. A big screen movie is a great place to showcase big action and effects, but, as they say at Pixar, story is king. Is the social commentary that terrorists feel they have a reason? Is that news? If the movie wanted to say something, they would've made the antagonist likeable, not a raving sociopath. A good guy driven to evil could mean something, but he's just a psycho. 


Audiences have been conditioned to want to be wowed, but is that really the only point of a big screen movie? The immersion and lack of distractions has always been magic. I hate NuTrek's look, but it's trying too hard and that makes it exactly like any other sci fi movie. I find it sad when people say the visual design and look of TOS were garbage. Even TOS fans are apologetic about it, but the design on TOS was unintentionally brilliant. They couldn't make it a 60s idea of high tech or 8s idea or 2013 idea of cool. It's look like there's barely anything going on that we call technology, it isn't *trying* to look cool. Everything just works. Kinda makes sense for hundreds of years from now and it's a design principle that's inspired a lot of great things. I like cool action scenes but they're trying to hard to be eye candy as if story was a lesser deliverable.


Khan was a really good story. Darkness is a greatest hits mixtape. It looks good, but it's best moments aren't its own. I'd be more forgiving if they did something original.


 


 


 

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this May. 21 2013, 6:19 pm

Old trek, new trek...


 


Sounds like the old days of the TOS'ers v TNG'ers


Or the 9'ers against everyone.


Or the Voyager/Enterprise folks against everyone else.


 


This movie has a very powerful message, it's too bad that they screwed up the ending so no one is talking about it.


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

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 21 2013, 10:33 pm

If nothing else the new movies have taken a bit of heat off Nemesis.


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

texashale_100000303951332

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 22 2013, 12:14 am

GalaxyQuest. Need I say more? Non-Trekkies see us a lunatics, because we take a tv show so seriously(says the guy who wore a uniform to school...) Between Trekkies, that's fine, but when it spills out beyond our community, it makes us all look like morons... Even within the community, we must not take ourselves so seriously. It's like arguing about whether tea is better than coffee... So, if you don't like the reboot, I can understand that. There are aspects of 11 that I didn't like and will bug me til I die, but it bothers me that they called the substance in Generations Trilitium, knowing that Trilitium was already used in TNG to refer to the waste product of the warp engines... Did I stop watching Star Trek? No... Do I still love it? Yes. Do I like the fact that I could notice the error? YOU BET! That is kinda what's cool. To know Star Trek better than the writers... :-) Please, don't let your world be so rocked by the reboot... Go see the movies, notice the flaws, and when you get out and go to Starbucks afterwards, point them out to your peepes and have a laugh about it. Call Abrams A Star Wars Wonk (because we all know he is...) and how  he is clueless about Trek. I don't think he'll care, he's laughing to the bank... But you can feel better knowing that you noticed his flaw. Hell, come over here and tell us all about it! We can laugh along with you at their Trek incompetence, and we all will! Lets just stop this divisive BS. There is already too much of that in the real world, don't you think? Trek is supposed to tear down walls, not build them...

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 10:41 am

Personally, I'm okay with being stereotyped as a lunatic Trekkie who takes Star Trek too seriously, because in real life, I don't fit the profile.  I have a lot of fringe interests that people who meet me are surprised at (happily I outgrew my social awkwardness when I was in my 20s) and my ability to nerd debate.  But I own my nerd badge.  I'm happy with it.


I did see the movies..online.  So Abrams can suck it.


 

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