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

Boycotting Into Darkness does nothing but hurt the future of Star Trek

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this May. 22 2013, 6:32 am

Quote: Somniac @ May. 22 2013, 3:54 am

>

>I've been to see it and to be honest, I think Trek's time is gone. There is no room in modern culture for optimism and a positive view of the future. Into Darkness says TPTB know this. Trek always been about hope  that humankind can elevate itself to something better, free of selfishness, greed and ignorance.

>I am 61 years old and for me in 2013, that hope is dead.

>Successful SF in the cinema these days iseither  about personal power, dominance and might. (Avengers, Ironman etc) or it is Dystopian.

>I would rather see it end.

>


That is exactly why we should be fighting to keep Trek alive. There is hope for a better future, but for it to happen we need to believe it's possible. As long as Trek exists, that possibility - however slim it may be - continues to exist.


If there's one thing this world need right now, it's idealism.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4022

Report this May. 22 2013, 7:18 am

Quote: E!!i @ May. 22 2013, 4:03 am

>

>I have to say I first had the same meaning that it isn't the "real" Star Trek and didn't want to watch the new movies but my boyfriend forced me to do it and now I'm really happy I did it and I can only recommend everybody to do the same!

>
Glad to hear you were open minded enough to give it a chance. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 7:46 am

Quote: Somniac @ May. 22 2013, 3:54 am

>I've been to see it and to be honest, I think Trek's time is gone. There is no room in modern culture for optimism and a positive view of the future. Into Darkness says TPTB know this. Trek always been about hope  that humankind can elevate itself to something better, free of selfishness, greed and ignorance.

>I am 61 years old and for me in 2013, that hope is dead.

>Successful SF in the cinema these days iseither  about personal power, dominance and might. (Avengers, Ironman etc) or it is Dystopian.

>I would rather see it end.


I agree. I enjoy my dystopias as much as anyone, Terminator, Aliens, BSG 2004, but I also enjoy uplifting, feel good franchises that make me feel happiness and optimism like Star Trek and Star Wars


There's a trend with making All The Things dark and gritty.  Witness the Man of Steel trailer complete with Inception horns.  The Wonder Woman TV series (that thakfully got shelved) also saw a depressing, emo Diana.  


Honestly, All Good Things must come to an end.  Not everything lasts forever. Star Trek is a singular phenomenon.  It's a TV show that got canceled and spawned an empire. 47 years later people are still talking about it.  Maybe it's just run out of steam.


Honestly, it's like a beloved pet.  You can't keep it around for your own sake if the more humane thing to do would be to put it to sleep.


 


People think fans who dislike JJ Abrams Trek are obsessed, but who's more in denial, those who would rather let Star Trek go, or those who cling to it, refusing to allow it to rest and latching on to anything with the Star Trek name, no matter how subpar.  You can't keep putting the paddles to a corpse.


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

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 22 2013, 8:53 am

Quote: rocketscientist @ May. 21 2013, 10:26 pm

>

>Y'know, I don't think people should feel obligated to spend money to see a movie they just are not interested to see, ST fans or not.  I mean, I didn't watch ENT.  I gave it a few episodes and if completely failed to catch my interest.  It probably was no worse than, and possibly better than, VOY but at that point I was so burned out on B & B ST that I just could not get into ENT. 

>Abrams ST09 was just great, warts and all.  Yeah, there are some things I wished they had done differently in the film, but, on the whole, I loved it, primarily because I really felt it captured what I loved about TOS all over again.  That feel, or tone, was something that I had missed for a long time.  I was glad to see those characters reborn so well.

>So, just like me with ENT, I don't blame any other fans of other parts of the franchise for sitting STID out, particularly if they saw ST09 and disliked it.  IMO, it'd be foolish and irrational of them to spend their money and time to see something they know they won't like. 

>


I agree with this. We would be sheep if we all just flocked to the theater to see a movie simply because it has the words Star Trek in the title.


 


Personally I did see the first one and didn't care for it. I saw it in a large screen Imax theater and had to close my eyes for most of the movie because the camera movement was making my physically ill. After that I saw it in a regular theater and didn't care for the movie.


With the second movie, I've read spoilers about the plot, I've seen the trailers, and have no interest in seeing it. i'm not going to go spend $30 on a movie just because the words Star Trek are in the title.


Maybe when it's available in Red Box I'll rent it for $1

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 22 2013, 10:00 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 7:46 am

>

>I agree. I enjoy my dystopias as much as anyone, Terminator, Aliens, BSG 2004, but I also enjoy uplifting, feel good franchises that make me feel happiness and optimism like Star Trek and Star Wars

>There's a trend with making All The Things dark and gritty.  Witness the Man of Steel trailer complete with Inception horns.  The Wonder Woman TV series (that thakfully got shelved) also saw a depressing, emo Diana.  

>Honestly, All Good Things must come to an end.  Not everything lasts forever. Star Trek is a singular phenomenon.  It's a TV show that got canceled and spawned an empire. 47 years later people are still talking about it.  Maybe it's just run out of steam.

>Honestly, it's like a beloved pet.  You can't keep it around for your own sake if the more humane thing to do would be to put it to sleep.

>People think fans who dislike JJ Abrams Trek are obsessed, but who's more in denial, those who would rather let Star Trek go, or those who cling to it, refusing to allow it to rest and latching on to anything with the Star Trek name, no matter how subpar.  You can't keep putting the paddles to a corpse.

>


Yep. Speaking of dystopias, which I also love, have you seen Oblivion? Not a big Cruise fan but I liked it.


Dark is done so much better in other films than Trek could ever hope to do. It goes against the whole ethos it seems to me.


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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 22 2013, 10:08 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 7:46 am

>

>Honestly, All Good Things must come to an end.  Not everything lasts forever. Star Trek is a singular phenomenon.  It's a TV show that got canceled and spawned an empire. 47 years later people are still talking about it.  Maybe it's just run out of steam.

>Honestly, it's like a beloved pet.  You can't keep it around for your own sake if the more humane thing to do would be to put it to sleep.

>People think fans who dislike JJ Abrams Trek are obsessed, but who's more in denial, those who would rather let Star Trek go, or those who cling to it, refusing to allow it to rest and latching on to anything with the Star Trek name, no matter how subpar.  You can't keep putting the paddles to a corpse.

>


I thought you said Trek wasn't dead, and that 4 years withouot it on a screen, big or little, we still had Star Trek?


Here's my thing. First of all, as a Trek fan, I know I can be obssesive, and given the reactions on this board, thre are several fans who exhibit the same qualities


So, I have argued that Trek might be dead and that we need to let it go, but was told "No, its fine. It still has cultural impact."


Watching Abrams bring Trek in to the mainstream makes me inclined to agree, as I see him commenting on the human condition as well as a more flawed, and not perfect or ideal. There are ideals there, yes, but like DS9, those ideals are challenged and put to the test, rather than left alone or assumed to be perfect.


One of my favorite commentators, SFDebris, made an observation regarding humans in TNG. Humans in first season TNG were presented a humanity perfected, and the  unspoken statement-that anything else is flawed.


That is why I liked Abrams Trek-I find the characters very compelling and human. They are not perfect, but they do strive to be better.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 10:24 am

I, personally, don't believe Star Trek will ever die with the fans.  But the production of new Trek will dry up, whch some fans refer to as "death".   And the fans need to keep it "alive" no matter what.   To me, the lack of new Trek doesn't equal death, but to some fans it does, so I was referring to it in their terms.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 22 2013, 10:28 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 10:24 am

>

>I, personally, don't believe Star Trek will ever die with the fans.  But the production of new Trek will dry up, whch some fans refer to as "death".   And the fans need to keep it "alive" no matter what.   To me, the lack of new Trek doesn't equal death, but to some fans it does, so I was referring to it in their terms.

>


That makes a lot more sense. Thank you for the clarification

cher.pennock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this May. 22 2013, 11:42 am

they did an amazing job of casting the young characters.  Very much enjoyed the first new movie.  haven't seen the new one yet but plan on going next week to the city and am really looking forward to it.  Everyone i talked to who has seen it already says its awsome.  can't wait!

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 2:09 pm

Quote:

Yep. Speaking of dystopias, which I also love, have you seen Oblivion? Not a big Cruise fan but I liked it. Dark is done so much better in other films than Trek could ever hope to do. It goes against the whole ethos it seems to me.


It takes a lot for me to watch Tom Cruise, but I have it on my "To Watch" list,


I think I recall Gene Roddenberry giving interviews pre-TNG about why TNG was an optimistic look at the future was because there was so much negativity in sci fi films.  IN the 80s we had Mad Max, Blade Runner, Terminator and Aliens. Even V was depressing.  So he wanted to get away from the post nuclear images that were all over media.


If STID wanted to send a message, it was lacking.  The message was that maybe NuKirk could stop acting like an asshat and grow up, not that humanity  had evolved past self destructive behaviors (which is why Section 31 always stuck in my craw in DS9) as a whole.


 


That message is what Abrams has missed entirely.


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

AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this May. 22 2013, 4:41 pm

So much of Star Trek's history and series are bad. Bad writing, and bad acting. Fans who believe they hold themselves to a higher standard are idiots mostly because they have sucked up every turd dropped by the former holders of the keys using the latest guise of that being the ALL POWERFUL PRIME TIME LINE...yeah, right.


Any way, those same fans are the ones who have choked he life out of the franchise with an almost single minded mindlessness.


This is a never ending cycle for Star Trek.


Gene Roddenberry is turning in his grave...not over this new film, but over the very fan base that worship his creation.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 22 2013, 8:27 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 2:09 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Yep. Speaking of dystopias, which I also love, have you seen Oblivion? Not a big Cruise fan but I liked it. Dark is done so much better in other films than Trek could ever hope to do. It goes against the whole ethos it seems to me.

It takes a lot for me to watch Tom Cruise, but I have it on my "To Watch" list,

I think I recall Gene Roddenberry giving interviews pre-TNG about why TNG was an optimistic look at the future was because there was so much negativity in sci fi films.  IN the 80s we had Mad Max, Blade Runner, Terminator and Aliens. Even V was depressing.  So he wanted to get away from the post nuclear images that were all over media.

If STID wanted to send a message, it was lacking.  The message was that maybe NuKirk could stop acting like an asshat and grow up, not that humanity  had evolved past self destructive behaviors (which is why Section 31 always stuck in my craw in DS9) as a whole.

 

That message is what Abrams has missed entirely.


An idealized future is nice, but worthless if there is no challenge of those ideals. A great question that DS9 asked regarding the Federation is how does the Federation, built upon mutual respect and trust fight against an enemy that literally could be infiltrating them and turning friends against each other. The rampant paranoia that would have come from such a threat would threaten the very fabric of Federation society.


Similarly, I feel that the Narada incursion would have created a similar paranoia and fear of attack from an unknown Romulan ship that outclasses them. I could see a similar situation arising as with the Dominion War and the threat of the Founders.


Section 31 is one answer to the threat, an attempt to protect the Federation using any means necessary. While I disagree with their mission, it certainly reflects a very human tendency.

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this May. 22 2013, 9:47 pm

I was one who thought Star Trek 2009 was just an ok movie. But I went and saw Into Darkness anyway and I absolutely LOVED it! I think Into Darkness is WAY better than 2009. I will still watch it just because I love Trek and I have to see everything Trek, but also if I don't like a movie, that doesn't mean I won't like the next one, it means I didn't like THIS one. But I really didn't hate 2009, I just wasn't crazy about it. But Into Darkness has totally changed my view of Abrams Trek. I think it's a fantastic move. I think fans need to lighten up about Abrams Trek.


This is isn't classic Trek and it isn't supposed to me. These new Abrams movies are remakes. New re-imaginings of Star Trek. It doesn't change anything that was done before. I still prefer classic Trek and I watch it all the time. But there's no reason not to enjoy these new remakes. They are still quite good.

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this May. 23 2013, 4:20 am

Quote: Sora @ May. 22 2013, 9:47 pm

>

>I was one who thought Star Trek 2009 was just an ok movie. But I went and saw Into Darkness anyway and I absolutely LOVED it! I think Into Darkness is WAY better than 2009. I will still watch it just because I love Trek and I have to see everything Trek, but also if I don't like a movie, that doesn't mean I won't like the next one, it means I didn't like THIS one. But I really didn't hate 2009, I just wasn't crazy about it. But Into Darkness has totally changed my view of Abrams Trek. I think it's a fantastic move. I think fans need to lighten up about Abrams Trek.

>This is isn't classic Trek and it isn't supposed to me. These new Abrams movies are remakes. New re-imaginings of Star Trek. It doesn't change anything that was done before. I still prefer classic Trek and I watch it all the time. But there's no reason not to enjoy these new remakes. They are still quite good.

>


Glad you enjoyed it Sora.


What did youo think of the ending?


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

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 23 2013, 4:45 am

The idea of Star Trek, though, is that humanity would have grown out of the tendencies that cause things like Section 31. We'd matured, evolved. It was a recurring theme in TNG.  The idea that Federation and Starfleet officers involved in covert black ops that are neither sanctioned or condemned but allowed to operate because people look the other way is hideous.  DS9 did indeed challenge some utopian ideals, but it never threw them out the window.  But I hated Section 31.  Especially in DS9.  ENT was a little more believable if Section 31 was a hold over from the global wars, like a KGB operative that is still worried about the Cold War. 

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