STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS - Page 3

Shazam! · December 19 2009, 12:50 PM

Dusty Ayres wrote:

Because most of these so-called 'fans' think that they can. But instead of shutting up and just doing so, they vent their spleens online everyplace they can-possibly because they know and fear that if they did write one and submit it, it might be rejected (even though they did everything they were supposed to do in order to submit it.)

Did the blogger say that he could? The idea that you're not allowed to not like a piece of creative art unless you've tried to create it yourself is mental.

Thus, articles like this, all of which bring to mind the old saying 'Those who can, do, and those who can't, review'. Or in this case, bitch like babies needing their bottles. As one poster put it, they hate success, and they are also resentful because it wasn't their success, but somebody else's.

The blogger appears to be extremely pleased for the New Voyager guys.

Temis the Vorta · December 19 2009, 10:22 PM

I don't get arguments like that. Abrams has done exactly what he needed to do: jettison the unworkable aspects of Star Trek (eg, Uhura's useless role, the preachy staleness of TNG), keep the stuff that works beautifully (eg, keeping most of the characters pretty much the same; hanging onto the unique cross between naive idealism and imperialistic arrogance that makes the Federation and Starfleet so popular with us all); and even added a couple intriguing twists (Spock/Uhura, the destruction of Vulcan) to kick the whole story into a higher orbit.

Abrams has succeeded, artistically and financially. Nothing else much matters but I suppose the bitterness fiesta must go on...

Admiral Buzzkill · December 19 2009, 11:43 PM

They've turned Trek into something sexy, edgy, flawed and totally unfamiliar...they can blame [Abrams] for making it impossible to go back.

Damn straight. Three cheers for J.J. Abrams.

I am sick unto death of fans who critique, "advise," exaggerate their importance and suggest that they can do better while putting forth limited effort at best.

Franklin · December 20 2009, 12:05 AM

They've turned Trek into something sexy, edgy, flawed and totally unfamiliar...they can blame [Abrams] for making it impossible to go back.

Sexy: Bill Theiss designs were not sexy? Mini-skirts were not sexy?
Edgy: It's a relative term but in 1966, one year after the Civil Rights Act passed, there were women and minorities seen in positions of power on the show. For example, we think nothing of seeing Richard Daystrom being black, today. Back then, who knows what some people thought about a black actor playing a brilliant computer scientist?
Flawed: The third season is not called the "turd" season by some for nothing.

Totally unfamiliar: As opposed to the look of TMP compared to TOS? Or TWOK compared to TMP or TOS?

As far as not being able to go back goes, no. Shatner and Nimoy are nearly octogenarians. Kelley is gone. Doohan is gone. So much of the TNG time period has been used up there's nothing new to go back to.

Admiral Buzzkill · December 20 2009, 12:09 AM

Who wants to go back? Really?

Rush Limborg · December 20 2009, 12:09 AM

^AND the Supreme Court has made it clear...the Prime Universe still exists, just in an alternate reality.

The two timelines simply diverged and...

Ah, whatevah.

I am not Spock · December 20 2009, 01:40 AM

It's brought back Trek from oblivion, how is that a bad thing?

AnyStar · December 20 2009, 01:45 AM

I am not Spock wrote:

It's brought back Trek from oblivion, how is that a bad thing?

i think differently, this isnt trek. its something new, something different the only thing trek about it is the names

Rush Limborg · December 20 2009, 01:54 AM

^Funny...that's what folks thought about TNG...and DS9...and so on....

iguana_tonante · December 20 2009, 01:57 AM

BriGuy wrote:

I'm disturbed by the apparent boiler-plate insults, chiding and belittling many of you have for anyone who dares question the movie. Gives the impression gushing praise is all that's allowed here. [...]

Every time I come into this forum I see few if any new threads. I'd think there'd be tons. Maybe it's this "love it or we'll call you names" mentality that is silencing discussion.

It's perfectly ok around here not to like the movie. We have several posters here that didn't like the movie, have said so, and then moved on.

The problem was with some people that went over and over and over again writing nothing but pages after pages about how every single thing about the movie was bad, terrible, lazy, unholy and evil.

We are not talking about "meh-it-sucked" criticism. We are talking about "foaming-at-the-mouth-writing-hundred-thousands-words-rants" criticism. It became a little stale after a while. Probably it's not fair to people coming and offering honest-to-God-criticism to get bashed now, but just so you understand where some people are coming.

Rush Limborg · December 20 2009, 02:00 AM

^Exactly.

I myself have a beef with the new Chekov--who has CURLY HAIR, for crying out loud, to say nothing of his goofy voice (voice, not accent, BTW).

That being said, I loved the movie for what it was. Just sayin.

EliyahuQeoni · December 20 2009, 05:38 AM

Rush Limborg wrote:

^Funny...that's what folks thought about TNG...and DS9...and so on....

Heck, its what I still think about TNG, Ds9 and so on

Aragorn · December 20 2009, 06:26 AM

notte_silente wrote:

It's perfectly ok around here not to like the movie. We have several posters here that didn't like the movie, have said so, and then moved on.

The problem was with some people that went over and over and over again writing nothing but pages after pages about how every single thing about the movie was bad, terrible, lazy, unholy and evil.

We are not talking about "meh-it-sucked" criticism. We are talking about "foaming-at-the-mouth-writing-hundred-thousands-words-rants" criticism. It became a little stale after a while. Probably it's not fair to people coming and offering honest-to-God-criticism to get bashed now, but just so you understand where some people are coming.

What? You don't like all the self-fulfilling prophecies made before, during and after the movie's release that involves constantly moving the goalposts back?

Admiral Buzzkill · December 20 2009, 06:31 AM

AnyStar wrote:

I am not Spock wrote:

It's brought back Trek from oblivion, how is that a bad thing?

i think differently, this isnt trek. its something new, something different the only thing trek about it is the names

Nah, I've been watching this stuff for forty years. This is definitely Star Trek.

Chrisisall · December 20 2009, 06:41 AM

BriGuy wrote:

Every time I come into this forum I see few if any new threads. I'd think there'd be tons. Maybe it's this "love it or we'll call you names" mentality that is silencing discussion.

I bought the DVD- I like it a lot. But it's not REAL Trek. It's NuTrek. And I can deal.

December 19 2009, 10:22 PM	#32
Temis the Vorta Fleet Admiral Location: Tatoinne	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS I don't get arguments like that. Abrams has done exactly what he needed to do: jettison the unworkable aspects of Star Trek (eg, Uhura's useless role, the preachy staleness of TNG), keep the stuff that works beautifully (eg, keeping most of the characters pretty much the same; hanging onto the unique cross between naive idealism and imperialistic arrogance that makes the Federation and Starfleet so popular with us all); and even added a couple intriguing twists (Spock/Uhura, the destruction of Vulcan) to kick the whole story into a higher orbit. Abrams has succeeded, artistically and financially. Nothing else much matters but I suppose the bitterness fiesta must go on...

December 20 2009, 12:09 AM	#35
Admiral Buzzkill The Man Location: Defying Gravity	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS Who wants to go back? Really? __________________ I had steak and a loaded baked potato for dinner on Sunday. As a steak I enjoyed it a lot, but as macaroni and cheese I thought it was disappointing.

December 20 2009, 12:09 AM	#36
Rush Limborg Vice Admiral Location: The EIB Network	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS ^AND the Supreme Court has made it clear...the Prime Universe still exists, just in an alternate reality. The two timelines simply diverged and... Ah, whatevah. __________________ "I have been wounded but not yet slain. I shall lie here and bleed awhile. Then I shall rise and fight again." "Forget it, Jake...it's Chinatown."

December 20 2009, 01:40 AM	#37
I am not Spock Commodore Location: Australia	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS It's brought back Trek from oblivion, how is that a bad thing? __________________ It's a FAAAAKKKEEE! Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight

December 20 2009, 01:54 AM	#39
Rush Limborg Vice Admiral Location: The EIB Network	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS ^Funny...that's what folks thought about TNG...and DS9...and so on.... __________________ "I have been wounded but not yet slain. I shall lie here and bleed awhile. Then I shall rise and fight again." "Forget it, Jake...it's Chinatown."

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

December 20 2009, 02:00 AM	#41
Rush Limborg Vice Admiral Location: The EIB Network	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS ^Exactly. I myself have a beef with the new Chekov--who has CURLY HAIR, for crying out loud, to say nothing of his goofy voice (voice, not accent, BTW). That being said, I loved the movie for what it was. Just sayin. __________________ "I have been wounded but not yet slain. I shall lie here and bleed awhile. Then I shall rise and fight again." "Forget it, Jake...it's Chinatown."