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

Do we still have ranks? Can we still move up in rank?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Aug. 11 2013, 7:01 pm

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 10 2013, 5:04 pm

>And I get that Star Trek is special and has good messages that can help your life and what not. I've had experiences like that myself. But my view on this, and perhaps it's both right and wrong, is that yeah Star Trek is special, and it's more than just a tv show to me as a fan, and to others as fans, but at the end of the day, a tv show is what Star Trek is. As much as I might want to pretend that Star Trek is real, it's not. It's fiction, it's fantasy. It means a great deal to me, it does, but how can I get offended for them making a remake? Or reboot, or whatever you want to call it?
I've been thinking about this for a little bit and then it dawned on me something that Roddenberry said.... he wasn't doing science fiction - he was doing a modern-day story, using science fiction.  This is why there are about a million scifi shows out there, but almost none of them are as important to us as Star Trek.  And then when we compare Prime Trek vs. JJ Trek....

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Aug. 12 2013, 9:10 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Aug. 11 2013, 7:01 pm

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 10 2013, 5:04 pm

>

>And I get that Star Trek is special and has good messages that can help your life and what not. I've had experiences like that myself. But my view on this, and perhaps it's both right and wrong, is that yeah Star Trek is special, and it's more than just a tv show to me as a fan, and to others as fans, but at the end of the day, a tv show is what Star Trek is. As much as I might want to pretend that Star Trek is real, it's not. It's fiction, it's fantasy. It means a great deal to me, it does, but how can I get offended for them making a remake? Or reboot, or whatever you want to call it?
I've been thinking about this for a little bit and then it dawned on me something that Roddenberry said.... he wasn't doing science fiction - he was doing a modern-day story, using science fiction.  This is why there are about a million scifi shows out there, but almost none of them are as important to us as Star Trek.  And then when we compare Prime Trek vs. JJ Trek....


 


Yeah, and my take is that you are implying that JJ Trek is just another scifi movie, nothing more? Whereas original 1966-2005 Star Trek was always about something and trying to say something?


Live Long and Prosper

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Aug. 12 2013, 9:29 am

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 12 2013, 9:10 am

>Yeah, and my take is that you are implying that JJ Trek is just another scifi movie, nothing more? Whereas original 1966-2005 Star Trek was always about something and trying to say something?
Yep.  When I watch JJ Trek, what's the message?  Yea, there's lots of action with a ship named Enterprise and captain named Kirk, but what else?


And my wife and I watched the original "The Parent Trap" last night and it dawned on me that I wasn't making clear my view of the difference between a remake and a reboot.  A remake is telling the same story again, just with new actors, timeline and small modifications - like remaking the 1961 "The Parent Trap" in 1998 - pretty much the same show.  With a reboot, they're making significant changes - hence the alternate timeline with JJ Trek.

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Aug. 12 2013, 2:20 pm

Wow yeah that is a really good comparison. I agree, but I also disagree. If there was just Star Trek 2009, than I would 100% agree, however with Star Trek Into Darkness, was that not basically Wrath of Kahn remade with a 2013 feel and style? I mean yeah there are some differences, but these new movies feel like it's TOS all over again but now with modern special effects and modern filming and story telling, instead of the 60's stuff.

rob39874

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 142

Report this Aug. 13 2013, 3:40 am

Star Trek Into Darkness is just wrath of khan with a shoddy storyline and quite frankly something that could have been a awesome story was made really cheesy and pointless. Especially the kirk death scene was trying to play to the old fans and actually angered them more and when Spock yelled Khaaaaaaan a little part of me died. I will not watch another JJ trek film as quite frankly both films have been on par with Star Trek V and that is saying something. I'm all for bringing new fans into the fold but I think after the JJ trilogy is ended I thin Star Trek will become another dead franchise. Watchable only by reruns on tv and netflix

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Aug. 13 2013, 11:39 am

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 12 2013, 2:20 pm

>

>Wow yeah that is a really good comparison. I agree, but I also disagree. If there was just Star Trek 2009, than I would 100% agree, however with Star Trek Into Darkness, was that not basically Wrath of Kahn remade with a 2013 feel and style? I mean yeah there are some differences, but these new movies feel like it's TOS all over again but now with modern special effects and modern filming and story telling, instead of the 60's stuff.

>
To me, it's a complete rewrite.  And remember, it's based off the 2009 reboot - hence Kirk's promotion from cadet to captain and then demotion...  Basically, the only thing we can correlate between 2013 and ST2 is that there are some names that are the same, Spock/Kirk dying from radiation from saving ship and KAAAAAAHHHHHHNNN.


Now, I don't think anyone minds the new special effects, ship, filming, etc., but I think they could have added to Star Trek instead of rebooting it into an alternate timeline.  If they're trying to bring in new fans, I think it confuses them.  If you read these boards and look for new fans due to the JJ Trek, you'll see that they point out things like this.

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Aug. 13 2013, 2:19 pm

Quote: rob39874 @ Aug. 13 2013, 3:40 am

>

>Star Trek Into Darkness is just wrath of khan with a shoddy storyline and quite frankly something that could have been a awesome story was made really cheesy and pointless. Especially the kirk death scene was trying to play to the old fans and actually angered them more and when Spock yelled Khaaaaaaan a little part of me died. I will not watch another JJ trek film as quite frankly both films have been on par with Star Trek V and that is saying something. I'm all for bringing new fans into the fold but I think after the JJ trilogy is ended I thin Star Trek will become another dead franchise. Watchable only by reruns on tv and netflix

>


 


Wow, I didn't realize that fans felt this way about the new movies. Back when it was just Star Trek 2009, fans were pretty much calling JJ Abrams the Jesus of Star Trek who was here to save us. Many fans thought 2009 was best ever they'd ever seen. I personally wasn't super crazy about Star Trek 2009 but it did grow on me. But I also view them as separate things. I say that everything Original Series all the way through Enterprise is all one massive story that should be watched together as viewed as one entity, and that Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness is it's own new separate series. I will say that I absolutely loved Into Darkness, and I have been a fan most of my life. Granted I'm only 24, but I became a fan when I was 9. Now I will say that I was not into TOS or Enterprise until much later. I started getting into those when I was about 17 or 18. So I don't know if that would have any impact on why I might feel differently? But I thought it was a great movie, but I'm slowly hearing that many people didn't like it. But I've also found that very few fans like ALL of Star Trek. Most of the fans I have personally interacted with often only like one or two series and say the rest of them are all terrible, or only like a handful of the films say the rest are terrible. I can watch anything that's Star Trek and love it, but that's just me I guess.


 


I do hope that you are wrong about the franchise becoming "dead" again. It was considered dead in 2005 when Enterprise ended and the Star Trek Experience was taken down, and the interest for Star Trek just seemed to have disappeared, and the new movies brought people old and new back to Star Trek and so I am thankful for that at the very least.


Live Long and Prosper

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Aug. 13 2013, 2:28 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Aug. 13 2013, 11:39 am

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 12 2013, 2:20 pm

>

>

>Wow yeah that is a really good comparison. I agree, but I also disagree. If there was just Star Trek 2009, than I would 100% agree, however with Star Trek Into Darkness, was that not basically Wrath of Kahn remade with a 2013 feel and style? I mean yeah there are some differences, but these new movies feel like it's TOS all over again but now with modern special effects and modern filming and story telling, instead of the 60's stuff.

>
To me, it's a complete rewrite.  And remember, it's based off the 2009 reboot - hence Kirk's promotion from cadet to captain and then demotion...  Basically, the only thing we can correlate between 2013 and ST2 is that there are some names that are the same, Spock/Kirk dying from radiation from saving ship and KAAAAAAHHHHHHNNN.

Now, I don't think anyone minds the new special effects, ship, filming, etc., but I think they could have added to Star Trek instead of rebooting it into an alternate timeline.  If they're trying to bring in new fans, I think it confuses them.  If you read these boards and look for new fans due to the JJ Trek, you'll see that they point out things like this.


 


Really? Wow, I've seen alot of people who go and watch Abrams Trek ONLY. Some people say all of the Star Trek before Abrams was crap and they refuse to watch it. They say only the new stuff is good. I haven't seen anybody that really appeared confused. Everybody is different I guess.


Live Long and Prosper

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Aug. 13 2013, 4:59 pm

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 13 2013, 2:28 pm

>Really? Wow, I've seen alot of people who go and watch Abrams Trek ONLY. Some people say all of the Star Trek before Abrams was crap and they refuse to watch it. They say only the new stuff is good. I haven't seen anybody that really appeared confused. Everybody is different I guess.
Yep - we're all different.  JJ focused on action, which was much better than the prime timeline, but sadly the story suffered.  I would have preferred that JJ add something to the Star Trek universe, not split it.

rob39874

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 142

Report this Aug. 14 2013, 3:08 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Aug. 13 2013, 4:59 pm

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 13 2013, 2:28 pm

>

>Really? Wow, I've seen alot of people who go and watch Abrams Trek ONLY. Some people say all of the Star Trek before Abrams was crap and they refuse to watch it. They say only the new stuff is good. I haven't seen anybody that really appeared confused. Everybody is different I guess.
Yep - we're all different.  JJ focused on action, which was much better than the prime timeline, but sadly the story suffered.  I would have preferred that JJ add something to the Star Trek universe, not split it.


I would much have preferred it stayed in the prime universe as well byt Abrams wanted to carve his own image into trek and IMO opinion has destroyed the vision of Roddenberry. In defense of Star Trek 2009 was not bad in terms of it being a reboot I just thought the storyline was poor and made Captain Kirk rather than someone who was admired into a punk which I didnt like and also showed Spock being more emotional than his Prime counterpart even before his planet was destroyed. I wasn't to keen on this but watched the film anyway on DVD and thought this is just the first movie so it id going to be a issue as characters settle into the role and establish the story


Which is why I went to see STID I was excited about the movie as the trailer looked great albeit a bit more action packed than I would have liked but thought this would have some of the kirk/spock/mccoy dynamic and when I founf out it was a khan in the film and a British Khan I was disheartened but decided to see it thinking they may have done something different.


I was dissapointed there was no dynamic between the three characters Spock and Kirk still were butting heads. Uhura and Spock seemed to still have there awkward relationship which makes me like those tweo characters less. Yes give them a relationship but not make it awkward and why not give Spock a relationship with Nurse Chapel as that would be a shout to the original universe and would make it more plausible. A woman like Uhura prime or new would not want a automaton like Spock as a partner so the realtionship doesnt work IMO.


Khan did not seem to use his enhanced braidn and seemed to rely on brute force which was in sharp contrast to Khan Prime and made him more villianous that Montelbaums character,which made me think he's just like any other bad guy rather than the best star trek TOS villian created (Not counting Klingons)


Sora I also hope I am wrong and there is another series made preferably without JJ at the helm and bak in the prime universe because while new trek is bringing new trekkies in. New Trek is losing the fans that made trek so popular in the first place and quite frankly there is  more of us than there is new trekkies.


So JJ can keep he lens flares, flashing lights and poor scripts and take them to the star wars universe and I will be loving to hear the cries of dismay when he starts to ruin another big sci fi franchise. 

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Aug. 14 2013, 6:03 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Aug. 13 2013, 4:59 pm

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 13 2013, 2:28 pm

>

>Really? Wow, I've seen alot of people who go and watch Abrams Trek ONLY. Some people say all of the Star Trek before Abrams was crap and they refuse to watch it. They say only the new stuff is good. I haven't seen anybody that really appeared confused. Everybody is different I guess.
Yep - we're all different.  JJ focused on action, which was much better than the prime timeline, but sadly the story suffered.  I would have preferred that JJ add something to the Star Trek universe, not split it.


Yeah I agree with that. Speaking for action alone, the new movies are superior, but as far deep story telling goes, original Trek has the new Trek beaten easy. But hey there's still at least one more movie, assuming they don't decide to do more, so maybe this 3rd or 13th movie will surprise everyone and may use the action but also tell a great story at the same time. Personally, I am going to keep my hopes up and believe that they can and will deliver an awesome 3rd movie.


Live Long and Prosper

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Aug. 14 2013, 6:28 pm

Quote: rob39874 @ Aug. 14 2013, 3:08 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Aug. 13 2013, 4:59 pm

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 13 2013, 2:28 pm

>

>

>Really? Wow, I've seen alot of people who go and watch Abrams Trek ONLY. Some people say all of the Star Trek before Abrams was crap and they refuse to watch it. They say only the new stuff is good. I haven't seen anybody that really appeared confused. Everybody is different I guess.
Yep - we're all different.  JJ focused on action, which was much better than the prime timeline, but sadly the story suffered.  I would have preferred that JJ add something to the Star Trek universe, not split it.

I would much have preferred it stayed in the prime universe as well byt Abrams wanted to carve his own image into trek and IMO opinion has destroyed the vision of Roddenberry. In defense of Star Trek 2009 was not bad in terms of it being a reboot I just thought the storyline was poor and made Captain Kirk rather than someone who was admired into a punk which I didnt like and also showed Spock being more emotional than his Prime counterpart even before his planet was destroyed. I wasn't to keen on this but watched the film anyway on DVD and thought this is just the first movie so it id going to be a issue as characters settle into the role and establish the story

Which is why I went to see STID I was excited about the movie as the trailer looked great albeit a bit more action packed than I would have liked but thought this would have some of the kirk/spock/mccoy dynamic and when I founf out it was a khan in the film and a British Khan I was disheartened but decided to see it thinking they may have done something different.

I was dissapointed there was no dynamic between the three characters Spock and Kirk still were butting heads. Uhura and Spock seemed to still have there awkward relationship which makes me like those tweo characters less. Yes give them a relationship but not make it awkward and why not give Spock a relationship with Nurse Chapel as that would be a shout to the original universe and would make it more plausible. A woman like Uhura prime or new would not want a automaton like Spock as a partner so the realtionship doesnt work IMO.

Khan did not seem to use his enhanced braidn and seemed to rely on brute force which was in sharp contrast to Khan Prime and made him more villianous that Montelbaums character,which made me think he's just like any other bad guy rather than the best star trek TOS villian created (Not counting Klingons)

Sora I also hope I am wrong and there is another series made preferably without JJ at the helm and bak in the prime universe because while new trek is bringing new trekkies in. New Trek is losing the fans that made trek so popular in the first place and quite frankly there is  more of us than there is new trekkies.

So JJ can keep he lens flares, flashing lights and poor scripts and take them to the star wars universe and I will be loving to hear the cries of dismay when he starts to ruin another big sci fi franchise. 


 


You raise some very valid points here. But many of your points, particularly dealing with the straight up behavioral changes of the characters, is the main reason why I call Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness the Star Trek Remakes, not the Star Trek Reboots. Star Trek The Next Generation worked more as a "Reboot" to the Original Series than Star Trek 2009 does in my opinion. 2009 doesn't feel like a reboot, it feels like a remake. They have gone back to the beginning, to TOS, recasted all the characters, and have re-written Star Trek, and from the context of being a remake that doesn't bother me. Because often many subtle changes or even not so subtle changes are made in remakes. I wouldn't mind it if after one more movie, if they do a new trilogy in this new universe of the TNG crew, and make a remake trilogy of all of the series. I think that would be pretty awesome.


 


And yeah I couldn't care less about what JJ does to Star Wars lol I'm not a Star Wars fan at all. Star Wars is ok, but I just don't get what the fuss is all about. But from my understanding about 90% of Star Wars fans hate the prequels already, I'm sure they will hate the sequels just as much ROTFL


Live Long and Prosper

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Aug. 15 2013, 10:15 am

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 14 2013, 6:28 pm

>You raise some very valid points here. But many of your points, particularly dealing with the straight up behavioral changes of the characters, is the main reason why I call Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness the Star Trek Remakes, not the Star Trek Reboots. Star Trek The Next Generation worked more as a "Reboot" to the Original Series than Star Trek 2009 does in my opinion. 2009 doesn't feel like a reboot, it feels like a remake. They have gone back to the beginning, to TOS, recasted all the characters, and have re-written Star Trek, and from the context of being a remake that doesn't bother me. Because often many subtle changes or even not so subtle changes are made in remakes. I wouldn't mind it if after one more movie, if they do a new trilogy in this new universe of the TNG crew, and make a remake trilogy of all of the series. I think that would be pretty awesome.
With that explanation, you're describing more of a reformat and installation of a new operating system (like going from Windows to Linux.)

queenuhura

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 114

Report this Aug. 19 2013, 8:11 am

Quote: Sora @ Aug. 09 2013, 2:59 pm

>

>We used to start as Ensign when signing up, and when you logged in, you would have your account photo and rank written out and shown when you logged in. But now all you see is your user name. I have been Commander for quite some time, which is fine, it's a pretty high rank, and I know it would take alot to make it to Captain, however, I really haven't seen anyone advance in rank anymore since this change occurred. I see more Ensigns now than ever before. And making it to Lieutenant Junior Grade is pretty easy, and I really don't see any Lieutenants anywhere anymore. Are our ranks locked down now for some reason?

>


Ive been promoted to Lieutenant. I find this interesting and confusing. I have been a member on this site less than two months and only have 50 posts. I did post some pix from the Las Vegas con, but I cant see that uploading only eight photos would bump me ahead of members with thousands of posts. Not complaining really, Im just saying. 


*Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations* *Live Long and Prosper*

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Aug. 19 2013, 9:46 am

Quote: queenuhura @ Aug. 19 2013, 8:11 am

>Ive been promoted to Lieutenant. I find this interesting and confusing. I have been a member on this site less than two months and only have 50 posts. I did post some pix from the Las Vegas con, but I cant see that uploading only eight photos would bump me ahead of members with thousands of posts. Not complaining really, Im just saying. 
Remember, it's a combination of posts, pix & comments.  Even if someone has a lot of posts, but they don't add pix or comments, they don't get promoted.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9_FOREVER!

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