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

A true Star Trek Fans honest and as neutral take on the JJ movie debate


GROUP: Members


Report this Jun. 30 2013, 11:10 am

"You have given a new insight though. The fact that JJ is a SW fan boy says it all. He has done what he did on purpose out of complete disrespect for our beloved Star Trek. I know many SW fan boys that have nothing but disregard for Star Trek. So now I understand better that what was done was done to change Star Trek into a new SW series Minus the force(for now I can see Spock developing some force like powers to add salt to injury)."


I a gree 100% with you as well. Most Star Wars fans love to dis Star Trek (they are jealous we are smarter!) 

So it is clear I did not make up the quotes in case someone should ask 

go to


Go to Personal Quotes (which, by the way starts out saying "Star Wars (1977) is probably the most influential film of my generation")

Then at the bottom you will find the full quote, but of interest is the fourth from the bottom paragraph and then the closing line. not tht the reading in between isn't educational about his ego

"When I was a kid and saw Star Wars (1977) for the first time it blew my mind and around the same time I had friends who were huge fans of Star Trek and I don't know if I was smart enough to get it, or patient enough. What I loved about Star Wars (1977) was the visceral energy of it, the clarity of it, the kind of innocence and big heart of it. Star Trek always felt a little bit more sophisticated and philosophical, debating moral dilemmas and things that were theoretically interesting, but for some reason I couldn't get on board. It really took working with all these guys and actually working on Star Trek for me to fall in love with that.

'Looking back on my childhood, I have a list of things that are massively important to me. Without question, 'Star Wars' was on the list, and 'Star Trek' was not."



To boldly go.....

GROUP: Members


Report this Jun. 30 2013, 12:16 pm

You give me hope wikedclyde. 


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 503

Report this Jun. 30 2013, 3:47 pm

I've been a fan of Star Trek for going on thirty years now.  I've enjoyed all of the series and the movies from the "Roddenberry universe."  This is really how I see it - J J Abrams did a complete reboot with an "alternate reality" so to speak.  The second movie was a little better than the first.  I think he had a better feel for the characters; they seemed a little more like the TOS characters as I know them.  Watching the Abrams Trek movies, there is a different feel.  All of the character names are the same, it's still starfleet and the federation, and it's still the Enterprise, but it is not the same feel I get from the Star Trek I've come to love.  I don't see this changing either.  The thing that most annoyed me about the second movie was the copying of Spock's death scene in too much detail and applying it to Kirk.  If they'd just written, "I have been and always shall be your friend", it would have been touching, but I thought it had gone overboard even before Spock yelled, "Khan, Khan!"

While the Abrams Trek is less cerebral, it does not completely ignore ethical/philosophical issues.  The main one for the second movie is the question, "Do we go so far to protect ourselves that we lose ourselves?"  The first one really doesn't have one at the core.  It is primarily about character introduction and personal self-discovery and loss.   I suspect the third one will be about conflict with the Klingons, but if Abrams brings in Organians to fix everything, then I'm walking out of the theater. 

The bottom line is when I think of Star Trek, I still think of the "Roddenberry universe."  It will be that which I celebrate when I attend conventions because Abrams' version has not captured my imagination in the same way.  So, should he have even made this reimagined version?  Probably not.  Some things do the job the first time and they don't need to be redone. 




GROUP: Members


Report this Jun. 30 2013, 7:04 pm

I also find the Spock-Uhura relationship a bit hard to swallow. In the original stories (ie: up untill JJ's), it took Spock a while to acceept his human side and feelings ( his father married a human because as a diplomat, "it was the logical thing to do"). I don't think Pike said 800, but " a hundred lives". Given that the Kelvin was destroyed and other crew members, besides Kirk's father were killed, any future timeline would suffer subtle and profound effects (re: "City on the Edge of Forever" -one of the best from TOS).  

                                     I wasn't too happy with engineering. It lacked the high tech appearence of the rest of the ship. It would be interesting to see if  Kirk and Marcus get together and produce David. It seems JJ just watched the movies and TOS.

Even with it's flaws, Igive the reboot a thumbs up.

Vulcan merchant

GROUP: Members


Report this Jun. 30 2013, 8:29 pm

All hail David J. Skipper. Thats what I would say, even If dont agree with every point you make, but that´s the beauty of us (true) Trekkies, we disagree while agreeing. I am most thankfull for wicked clydes posting, it gives me hope that younger generations will appreciate Star Trek for its content and not for its explosions.

Let me fill in my two cents :

- First of all I agree with the opinion that these new movies are an abomination, even an insult, a spit in the face to every loyal fan.

- Second of all, Jocat is not completely wrong. At least something was created. The Trek was prolonged, and it gives us the posibility to talk about it. Hell, it even brings young lads like Clyde into the universe making him a true convert. That aspect had fully escaped my grasp.

- The next few I will not number : I think that Montalban was and is an exellent way of portraiting Khan, a man, who by name is King, who sees himself as a true leader. Nevertheless. Benedict Cumberbatch is an exellent actor as well. I just saw the first of those Sherlock movies and I am pretty much impressed by his acting. He even gained a lot of weight an muscles (even if you can only appreciate it when comparing him to the sherlock movies) to fit in to the role. Would there have been no Khan before, I think Cumberbatch would have been a good villain. But again, JJ spits in the face of loyal fans raping the legacy of Khan, thinking he is larger than Star Trek, larger than SciFi, he might even think he is the present pope of scifi .. well, he may be the evil emperor.

- The idea of setting up the new movies as part of the alternate reality that was already created in TOS would have been a great idea. I enjoyed the episodes of TOS a lot, the ones featured in DS9 I think were great; even if Enterprise did not have the acceptance it should have had in my opinion, I think the episodes concerning the vile humans of the alternate reality are great. JJ just rapes the franchise and thinks he is doing the world a favour.

- Yes. For a Vulcan Spock is ridicously often in love, be it by alien spores or mind control. Still, those are alterations of his true self, which is a selfconcious and selfcastrating Vulcan. Why the heck would JJ think it is ok to mess around with that. Another slap in the face ... actually the new movies are Star Trek snuff movies ... wow, just had the idea, but I think I will memorize that. Maybe the third film will be called : Star Strek, the full Snuff Movie.

- While I had problems with the Klingon looks I actually redeemed myself, since it was correctly said, that in the movies the Klingons were already being shown with crests that were very symmetrical. I still have a problem with the history behind. If the crests were lost by consequence of genetic experiments, then how could it be that they reappear so quickly (within Kirks lifespan) and without anyone bothering. The DS9 episode with Trials and Tribbelations shows that the humans are astonished by seing Klingons without crests. So either JJ for once created a brillant escape goat in setting up a state where the crested Klingons may only be a kind of planetary special policeforce or any kind of socialy fringed task force , forced to use masks not to bother the ruling non-crest-elite, before the great uprising and reinstatement of the crested folk. He may however just have landed a lucky shot inbetween all his misfortunated atempts to reboot the Trek.


Admiral Jimmy

GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 01 2013, 7:28 am

I liked Into Darkness best 3d movie i ever saw, but the 2009 Star Trek was abselutely horrible. Spok is best without emotios, emotional vulcans are dangerous.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this Jul. 01 2013, 2:24 pm

People frequently have marathons these days. No one watches one episode a day. It's common for people to jump into a series face first and watch a whole season in a weekend.  Star Trek TOS could be watched in two months if you watched 5 episodes a day, lol.

I caught up with Dexter seasons 1-5 in one bleary eyed week. Granted it's  only a 12 episode season but I watched 60 episodes in about a week.

Vulcan merchant

GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 01 2013, 5:12 pm

Maybe a fan-lynchmob should bind JJ into a chair while every single episode of every single Star Trek series is shown. Could be a scene from family guy : Some caped guys kidnap and blindfold him. Later he is being forced to watch the entire series ... after the deed is done he is let free. Crying and weeping he shouts out his final words "What have I done?!" kneels down and opens his gut with a sword.

Vulcan merchant

GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 01 2013, 5:14 pm

Concerning 3D movies, I haven´t seen the 3D version of any of the new movies, but I am guessing Avatar beats the crap outta both.

Fleet Admiral Braxton

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 288

Report this Jul. 01 2013, 5:46 pm

The way I see it,David, Is Since This Is,By definition,SCIENCE FICTION, It Is Just a Waste of Time And effort For Who we Call 'Purists' To Dissect The JJ Films Every chance they get; Why? Because Those of us With COMMON SENSE Know That No matter What New Twists That Are Added To Each Film/Charachter/Storyline, It Has Been,And, Will always Be Part Of The Vision Of Mr. Gene Roddenberry, A Man Who Understood Himself, How Fiction Works. Therefore, We Will Enjoy it For what It Is,And NOT Hate It For what it isn't; After All, The Same Debate Flared When Ronald D. Moore, A Trek Writer Himself, Brought Us the Re-Imagined Battlestar Galactica Ten Years Ago; People Didn't Understand it At First, But, When The Haters Started to Pay Attention, It was Better than the Original; So, All it takes is Patience; The Haters will eventually come Around.

Vulcan merchant

GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 01 2013, 6:04 pm

I will continue to use every chance I get not to playerhate, but to point out that the way has been lost and that if we continue to accept the downfall of this franchise we will loose the very soul of Star Trek. I´m glad you mention Battlestar Galactica, I think the remake to be one the finest series ever made. There was nothing to get used to but the introduccion of a new interpreatation of the material. The plot was fantastic and the actors were outstanding. But here there is no way to "come around". The actors may be ok, but the content went far off of what Star Trek was supposed to be. Or is your logic that if you are raped constantly at some point you just "come around"? Be so kind to point out what was good about those movies instead of just saying that one only needs patience to become used to crap.



GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 01 2013, 8:00 pm

Totally agree with most of your assessment. Was it a good movie? in my opinion, yes. Was it a Star Trek movie? not even a little bit. was very disappointed in all the time line/character issues. 


Vulcan merchant

GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 01 2013, 8:23 pm

As I said, the movie itself was not too bad. Again, as a standalone, as a scifi movie not affiliated with Star Trek. But it puts the focus into the superficious satisfaction of our action based needs. That is not what Star Trek is about, or at least it is not what I understood Star Trek wanted to tell us. If the message was all along that eventually us haters will come around with everything CBS throws at us, I have been barking up the wrong tree for so many years I could have used developing the keen sence of being tamed and domesticated as "Fleet admiral Braxton" seems to want us to do.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1102

Report this Jul. 02 2013, 2:32 pm

Hey all haven't posted here in forever. Like 4 years. I stopped soon after Star Trek 2009 because of all the 50-60 year olds on this board that let their love of Kirk and Spock blind them from what an absolutely poor film it was.

First off, great post by the OP - and I want to add something on that I think he really hit on the head - Nimoy.

Nimoy went on file saying he would only be in a film as Spock if it was a good story, and added something to the Spock character. Like I had said before, Trek 2009 was a poor film with a poor story IMO. I understand that Abrams needed a Spock sendoff to give this franchise credibility, so fine. I can say I could creatively disagree with Nimoy on that but see the importance of it.

Nimoy's appearance in this film did NOTHING to move along the story, and served only to remind people that Khan was bad. It was an absolutely worthless cameo, and the only reason why he's doing it now (and I think even in the last film) is for his Texas sized ego and $$$. There is no reason Spock prime should have been in this movie, and it comes across as cheap and irrelevant. The guy's a fraud. I have no problem with him saying he's doing it for money/ego, but don't act like some holier than thou artist. Ridiculous.

"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here - this far, no farther! And I will make them pay for what they've done."

GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 02 2013, 2:43 pm

Quote: Fleet Admiral Braxton @ Jul. 01 2013, 5:46 pm


>, It Has Been,And, Will always Be Part Of The Vision Of Mr. Gene Roddenberry



Wow.  You are clearly what I meant by "poser."  If you think Rodenberry would have allowed this to happen after all the success he had with TNG you have no idea what you are talking about.  Go hang out in the at a Star Wars site, I think you will find their acceptance of no story continuity, and crappy plots very appealing. 

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