RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,070
Posts: 5,397,888
Members: 24,732
Currently online: 555
Newest member: phurren

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 19 2009, 12:50 PM   #31
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Dusty Ayres wrote: View Post
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.

Last edited by Shazam!; December 19 2009 at 01:04 PM.
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2009, 10:22 PM   #32
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
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...
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2009, 11:43 PM   #33
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

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.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 12:05 AM   #34
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

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.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 12:09 AM   #35
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Who wants to go back? Really?
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 12:09 AM   #36
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
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."
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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
I am not Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 01:45 AM   #38
AnyStar
Captain
 
AnyStar's Avatar
 
Location: Orbiting Planet Plastic
Send a message via Yahoo to AnyStar
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

I am not Spock wrote: View Post
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
__________________
Dear Internets...
AnyStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 01:54 AM   #39
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
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."
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 01:57 AM   #40
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

BriGuy wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 02:00 AM   #41
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
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."
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 05:38 AM   #42
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
^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
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 06:26 AM   #43
Aragorn
Admiral
 
Aragorn's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

notte_silente wrote: View Post
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?
Aragorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 06:31 AM   #44
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

AnyStar wrote: View Post
I am not Spock wrote: View Post
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.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2009, 06:41 AM   #45
Chrisisall
Commodore
 
Chrisisall's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

BriGuy wrote: View Post
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.
Chrisisall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
bloggers, fandom, star trek (2009 film)

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.