Because some films just can't be bashed enough...

[Blip]

USS_Triumphant wrote:

---

What does it mean that that was the first thing I noticed?

[BolianAdmiral]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Just keep reminding yourself one of two things:

1) This film is evil, and anyone who enjoys it is also evil,

or

2) This film is orgasmic, and anyone who rejects it is an evil moron.

Obviously, those are the only two choices, right?

Me, I really, really dislike the movie at its core, even though there were bits and pieces of it which I did like. I had high hopes initially, and got more "down" on it as more of the bad (IMHO) choices became public... and all the more so as the reasons BEHIND those choices were made public.

Abrams simply doesn't get Star Trek. Much as he didn't get "Superman." Any of you ever see the Abrams-written script he came up with for his "Superman" movie? Again, it shows a complete lack of respect for the core elements of the source material.

While I can't immediately find the scanned posting of his Superman script, here's a bit from "Ain't it Cool" reviewing it. Obviously, a lot of personal stuff in here which you can just scan over, but pay attention to the basics of the script.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=13350

Awful... just awful. And that's pretty much the same approach Abrams took with Trek... keep a few visibly-recognizable surface elements, but deeply change the central tenets. THAT is what I dislike about the new movie, ultimately. It's not the same... it's not even close... it's a "changeling," pretending to be something which it isn't... and something which it really almost OPPOSES.

^

This.

I couldn't even finish the first part of the Superman review, it was so awful. But then again, JJ gave us Cloverfield, which also sucked major balls. That's because JJ's not a character person... he's a total Michael Bay hack, who depends on blinding overuse of lens flares, and nonstop frenzied action, camera moves, and overly-hyper characters to make his films. There is no true substance in anything he or Bay does.

Singer nailed Superman, and IMO, Superman Returns was just awesome... brilliantly awesome, because Singer got Superman, and honored the mythos. I don't agree with the author of that article, though, that Marvel has better superhero movies... quite the contrary... most of Marvel's films suck arse. The only two Marvel films I've seen that I truly enjoyed on every level, were the first two Spider-Man flicks, because they were not overly-complicated or busy, and they were about the people, and not so much about mindless action and vehicles/gadgets. All in all, so far DC has given us FAR superior superhero films... Batman Begins, Superman Returns, and The Dark Knight... all films that worked, because they were about the people... the core of the characters, and not about huge battles and vehicles, etc.

When it comes to Superman, I don't ever want to see JJ in control of it, OR Tim Burton for that matter... both people have NO place in the Superman universe. When it comes to Trek, I never want to see JJ do another Trek film, either. But, it's Hollywood, so I'm sure we'll see another one from him.

[Tom Servo]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Just keep reminding yourself one of two things:

1) This film is evil, and anyone who enjoys it is also evil,

or

2) This film is orgasmic, and anyone who rejects it is an evil moron.

Obviously, those are the only two choices, right?

Me, I really, really dislike the movie at its core, even though there were bits and pieces of it which I did like. I had high hopes initially, and got more "down" on it as more of the bad (IMHO) choices became public... and all the more so as the reasons BEHIND those choices were made public.

Abrams simply doesn't get Star Trek. Much as he didn't get "Superman." Any of you ever see the Abrams-written script he came up with for his "Superman" movie? Again, it shows a complete lack of respect for the core elements of the source material.

While I can't immediately find the scanned posting of his Superman script, here's a bit from "Ain't it Cool" reviewing it. Obviously, a lot of personal stuff in here which you can just scan over, but pay attention to the basics of the script.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=13350

Awful... just awful. And that's pretty much the same approach Abrams took with Trek... keep a few visibly-recognizable surface elements, but deeply change the central tenets. THAT is what I dislike about the new movie, ultimately. It's not the same... it's not even close... it's a "changeling," pretending to be something which it isn't... and something which it really almost OPPOSES.

No, the point is that Abrams got Star Trek EXACTLY the way he needed to get it. He took something that had become niche, and made it a profitable and a commercial success again, along with keeping intact the magic and fun of TOS. There is nothing to get about Star Trek...it is what it is, and it's when people try to hold it up on a pillar of greatness, that it starts to suffer, and become too self important. Im not saying TOS didnt have a good message, or broke ground in some very important moral areas, but I just have to at the people who hold it up to some god worship. It seems people are pissed because Abrams didn't hold it up to that godliness, and just made a fun, exciting, successful, and character driven movie that was loved by many, many people.

I love how people compare Abrams to Bay...Star Trek to Transformers. Tell me this then? Why was Star Trek almost universally praised by critics, while Transformers 2 was completely destroyed by them? Obviously Transformers lacked something Star Trek didn't.

Oh well. The movie is getting a sequel, possibly more. And they will probably outperform this one. I guess I'll have to suffer as more great Star Trek is created.

I guess thats what this comes down to. This is Star Trek now. Some love it, some hate it, but it is what it is, and no amount of complaining about it is gonna change that. Im glad I enjoyed it, and Im ready to go on another ride.

[Jamee999]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Just keep reminding yourself one of two things:

1) This film is evil, and anyone who enjoys it is also evil,

or

2) This film is orgasmic, and anyone who rejects it is an evil moron.

Obviously, those are the only two choices, right?

Me, I really, really dislike the movie at its core, even though there were bits and pieces of it which I did like. I had high hopes initially, and got more "down" on it as more of the bad (IMHO) choices became public... and all the more so as the reasons BEHIND those choices were made public.

Abrams simply doesn't get Star Trek. Much as he didn't get "Superman." Any of you ever see the Abrams-written script he came up with for his "Superman" movie? Again, it shows a complete lack of respect for the core elements of the source material.

While I can't immediately find the scanned posting of his Superman script, here's a bit from "Ain't it Cool" reviewing it. Obviously, a lot of personal stuff in here which you can just scan over, but pay attention to the basics of the script.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=13350

Awful... just awful. And that's pretty much the same approach Abrams took with Trek... keep a few visibly-recognizable surface elements, but deeply change the central tenets. THAT is what I dislike about the new movie, ultimately. It's not the same... it's not even close... it's a "changeling," pretending to be something which it isn't... and something which it really almost OPPOSES.

Abrams may not have got your Star Trek, but don't be so arrogant as to presume he didn't get anyone's Trek.

[Captain Robert April]

He got the non-fan's idea of Star Trek, which doesn't extend much further than surface details.

As far as the core elements of the real thing, like addressing social issues, intelligent storytelling, scientific plausibility, not assuming that the audience is composed of mouth-breathing morons, on that front JJ failed miserably.

[Gep Malakai]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

As far as the core elements of the real thing, like addressing social issues, intelligent storytelling, scientific plausibility, not assuming that the audience is composed of mouth-breathing morons,...

[middyseafort]

Gep Malakai wrote:

---

I'm not fond of the new film, and even I find this childish.

I am fond of the new film, and I welcome well-reasoned critique of it. However, this is just another childish attempt to stir the excrement.

[Tom Servo]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

He got the non-fan's idea of Star Trek, which doesn't extend much further than surface details.

As far as the core elements of the real thing, like addressing social issues, intelligent storytelling, scientific plausibility, not assuming that the audience is composed of mouth-breathing morons, on that front JJ failed miserably.

Im a fan of Star Trek, and he nailed it. You don't speak for all of us, even though Im sure you think you do...

Even though the more and more I hear from you, the more I am so glad the movie was a success, and you'll be seeing more and more of it for years to come.

[Cary L. Brown]

Tom Servo wrote:

---

Im a fan of Star Trek, and he nailed it. You don't speak for all of us, even though Im sure you think you do...

Even though the more and more I hear from you, the more I am so glad the movie was a success, and you'll be seeing more and more of it for years to come.

C'mon... say what you really mean. Couching your "fuck you" comments in that sort of pseudo-subtle wordsmithing gamesmanship doesn't fool anyone.

You're one of those folks who deeply, passionately enjoys watching other folks made unhappy, it seems. There are about a half-dozen of them on here... and all but one of them seem to enjoy (on this BBS, at least) tweaking people who didn't care for the new movie in the same gloaty, snarky manner as you tend to do.

There are folks on here I disagree with on central issues, but we actually DISAGREE. That means that we can argue, and debate, without taking any personal glee in trying to "hurt" the other party. We don't necessarily equate someone disagreeing with our position as an attack on ourselves. However, there are others on here who refuse to keep the focus on issues, and instead almost universally direct the attacks towards the person, rather the issue. I really wish you guys would knock it off.

But ya know what? You're free to post that sort of stuff. Just realize, 99% of the folks on here see right through your B.S.

Now...

I think this thread is sorta pointless... but I don't object to it any more than anyone should have objected to "V" last night. Oh, wait... the producer and head writer of "V" have been fired over the political subtext of the show... and I'm sure that after the four episodes which they made are over, the rest of the series will suddenly transform into something entirely different, though with the same "surface features."

Which, again, is what I object to with ST'09. It sorta-kinda "looks the same" but it's not the same deep down.

And for those of you who claim that there IS no "deep down," well, it's fine for you to only see surface glitz. The world is full of people who never read deeper into anything than "ooooh, cool 'splosions," after all, and they deserve their entertainment too. But just because you seem not to be aware of anything deeper in "Trek" than that doesn't mean that there isn't anything there.

When you attempt to make it out that those of us who DO see more depth to Star Trek than you do are "making it all up" or "self-deluding" or "being arrogant" or whatever... I wonder if you realize what that says about you?

Four and a half decades worth of people have been fans of this show... for the very reason that we have seen greater depth to it than the overwhelming majority of other entertainment. NOT because it has "kewl 'splosions," but because MANY of us see a lot of depth to it.

And MANY of us, albeit not "all of us," feel that the depth that is at the core of what we love about Star Trek was totally lost in this movie.

You never saw it, so you don't miss it. Fine. Good for you. But stop insulting the rest of us who don't agree with you.

[BolianAdmiral]

You're right... I don't speak for everyone. I speak for myself, and it's my constitutional right to do so. So, I will keep doing it.

[BK613]

Wow there are days when this place reminds me of Usenet and alt.startrek.

As for the movie, there were parts I liked and parts I found disappointing and silly.

-The story and script needed a bit more polish. And I simply didn't buy any of the ending after the jjprise arrives at Titan.
-The science was positively silly in places, what I like to call comic book physics.
-The visual effects were disappointing in that I expected more than what we got after the welder teaser.

[Tom Servo]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

C'mon... say what you really mean. Couching your "fuck you" comments in that sort of pseudo-subtle wordsmithing gamesmanship doesn't fool anyone.

You're one of those folks who deeply, passionately enjoys watching other folks made unhappy, it seems. There are about a half-dozen of them on here... and all but one of them seem to enjoy (on this BBS, at least) tweaking people who didn't care for the new movie in the same gloaty, snarky manner as you tend to do.

There are folks on here I disagree with on central issues, but we actually DISAGREE. That means that we can argue, and debate, without taking any personal glee in trying to "hurt" the other party. We don't necessarily equate someone disagreeing with our position as an attack on ourselves. However, there are others on here who refuse to keep the focus on issues, and instead almost universally direct the attacks towards the person, rather the issue. I really wish you guys would knock it off.

But ya know what? You're free to post that sort of stuff. Just realize, 99% of the folks on here see right through your B.S.

Now...

I think this thread is sorta pointless... but I don't object to it any more than anyone should have objected to "V" last night. Oh, wait... the producer and head writer of "V" have been fired over the political subtext of the show... and I'm sure that after the four episodes which they made are over, the rest of the series will suddenly transform into something entirely different, though with the same "surface features."

Which, again, is what I object to with ST'09. It sorta-kinda "looks the same" but it's not the same deep down.

And for those of you who claim that there IS no "deep down," well, it's fine for you to only see surface glitz. The world is full of people who never read deeper into anything than "ooooh, cool 'splosions," after all, and they deserve their entertainment too. But just because you seem not to be aware of anything deeper in "Trek" than that doesn't mean that there isn't anything there.

When you attempt to make it out that those of us who DO see more depth to Star Trek than you do are "making it all up" or "self-deluding" or "being arrogant" or whatever... I wonder if you realize what that says about you?

Four and a half decades worth of people have been fans of this show... for the very reason that we have seen greater depth to it than the overwhelming majority of other entertainment. NOT because it has "kewl 'splosions," but because MANY of us see a lot of depth to it.

And MANY of us, albeit not "all of us," feel that the depth that is at the core of what we love about Star Trek was totally lost in this movie.

You never saw it, so you don't miss it. Fine. Good for you. But stop insulting the rest of us who don't agree with you.

Get off the moral high horse there bucko...I wasn't the one who created the thread just to bash the film, and I wasn't the one who continues to talk down to the film, and those who like it, every chance they get...

But hey, I won't lie, I loved the fact that the film was a success, both financially and with the critics and non fans because:

A. It means more is coming...

B. It was a total pie in the face to those who bashed it when it was announced, bashed it while it was made, made brilliant predictions about how badly it was going to perform, and bashed it when it came out.

I don't get all the energy put into bashing this film. I thought the Star Wars prequels were awful, terrible films...you don't see me attack them, and their fans in every thread that they're mentioned in. You don't like it, fine, I really don't care if you did or not.

Still, you are the one who seems to think that the new film was "kewl 'splosions" as you put it. Well just as much as I can't seem to see the deep, deep message behind TOS, you evidently can't see anything in the new film besides some pretty VFX, despite the fact that it was almost universally reviewed in a positive light because it was NOT just a VFX fest.

If I want a turkey sandwich, I get a turkey sandwich. If I want to watch TOS, I'll watch TOS. If I want something a little different, with a little different feeling, but still the same fun and adventure that TOS brought, with a modern twist, I'll watch the new film. Im sorry JJ didn't go and make the TOS copy you all wanted to see, but he didn't...get over it. He changed things yes...some of them bad, some good. However, one can't deny this film did EXACTLY what franchise needed to be a viable commercial property again.

[Ptrope]

Because some threads just have no business in this forum ... an frankly aren't worth moving to another. If I could, I think I'd give everyone who participated in this one a spam warning, at the very least, but I think the best thing to do is close it and say, "Knock it the f*** off!" Geez, people, grow up!