Abrams Commits To Direct

[Jeff O'Connor]

Tidus79001 wrote:

---

It is insulting that J.J. Abrams felt that it was necessary to appeal to a new or casual fan that generally would have no interest in Star Trek in the first place.

It's insulting that you'd have preferred the film performed dreadfully and effectively killed Trek's chances at any sort of non-lit revival in the next 15 years.

[Jeff O'Connor]

This isn't about what you specifically want, Tidus. This is about what people in general want. Oftentimes those two don't always intersect. It's happened to me before and I'm sure it's happened to you before, too.

So if nuTrek isn't for you then back away from it. Don't waste your life talking about how insulted you are by it -- it's been over two years since the eleventh film premiered, surely you've said everything there is to say on it by now?

Why don't you stay calm, watch the old Trek you knew and loved and play FFX HD when it comes out. That is where your user name is from, right?

ETA: And if I'm correct and that's where your user name is from then allow me to paint you a colorful metaphor -- I thought FFX-2 was the most offensive sequel I've ever gone near. AbramsTrek may not be a sequel but it's clearly a relevant connection because you're reacting similarly to how I did with X-2. So what did I do? I vented a while and then just ignored the game. I now play FFX every two years or so and never touch X-2. For me, it didn't happen. Easy peasy.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Tidus79001 wrote:

---

“Abrams Trek” does not represent the fans that made Star what it was prior his hijacking the entire Star Trek universe.

It pleases me, and I've been a Trek fan since 1966.

BTW, what Trek was "prior to his hijacking it" was...canceled.

Tidus79001 wrote:

---

It gives me great pain to say this but I would rather see Star Trek die...

Outvoted at the box office by those of us who still enjoy it, I'm afraid.

[Tidus79001]

Jeff O'Connor wrote:

---

It's insulting that you'd have preferred the film performed dreadfully and effectively killed Trek's chances at any sort of non-lit revival in the next 15 years.

I am entitled to my opinion on the film. Sorry that you cannot handle & accept a dissenting view about the "Abrams Trek" universe. Last time I checked I lived in a free country where freedom of speech is still alive. I will speak my mind anytime I want regardless of if certain people like it or not. You don’t have the monopoly on pro “Abrams Trek” being the only point of view allowed. Get over yourself .

Never did I say that I wanted J.J. Abrams to fail in making a new film. Lets see what I really said shall we?

Tidus79001 wrote:

---

I don’t dislike that Paramount decided to go back & revisit The Original Series, and it isn’t really even the actors that bother me. This issues that I have with the film are that I felt that the film was somewhat shallow & unbelievable, nor did I see that it held true to the same ideals that Gene Roddenberry envisioned in Star Trek.

I dislike the liberties that they took with the franchise. My list of annoyances with the film include Vulcan being destroyed, the Spock/Uhura relationship, the “we are in a new timeline now” thing to justify those changes, bad CGI, goofy cornball comedy i.e. Kirk’s hands & lips swelling up making him look like a cartoon character, Scotty getting stuck inside of a water pipe & being bounced around as if he were in a pinball machine, and the superfluous scene of Kirk getting it on with Uhura’s roommate (I am not a prude, but I don’t feel that this scene added anything to the film, and was just a cheap way to include scantly clad bodies just for sex appeal).

I would have been fine with them telling new stories about Kirk & his crew that didn’t conflict with everything that was already established. Also I would have been fine with stories about either Captain Pike & his crew, or Captain April & his crew.

Hmmmmm, now that doesn’t sound like I wanted the film to fail. I said that instead of making it shallow he should have respected what was already established in Star Trek instead of conflicting with everything that was already established.

Jeff O'Connor wrote:

---

This isn't about what you specifically want, Tidus. This is about what people in general want. Oftentimes those two don't always intersect. It's happened to me before and I'm sure it's happened to you before, too.

So if nuTrek isn't for you then back away from it. Don't waste your life talking about how insulted you are by it -- it's been over two years since the eleventh film premiered, surely you've said everything there is to say on it by now?

Why don't you stay calm, watch the old Trek you knew and loved and play FFX HD when it comes out. That is where your user name is from, right?

ETA: And if I'm correct and that's where your user name is from then allow me to paint you a colorful metaphor -- I thought FFX-2 was the most offensive sequel I've ever gone near. AbramsTrek may not be a sequel but it's clearly a relevant connection because you're reacting similarly to how I did with X-2. So what did I do? I vented a while and then just ignored the game. I now play FFX every two years or so and never touch X-2. For me, it didn't happen. Easy peasy.

Childish attacks from a childish person are my feeling about your attacks upon me.

[Jeff O'Connor]

Oh, we're playing the personal attacks card? I was trying to be civil. Fine, be miserable.

[Gojira]

Tidus79001 wrote:

---

I feel the same way that Roy Disney did when he described Disney as having lost its soul. I can't help but feel the same way about Star Trek with the state of things in relating to all things Star Trek.

I am disappointed by the direction that Star Trek has moved in since the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. First Kathryn Janeway is killed off & replaced by some new faceless replacement. Then J.J. Abrams turned Star Trek into something shallow that doesn’t stay true to the ideals that Gene Roddenberry established for the franchise. The film plot felt very shallow & was just another excuse for gratuitous use of CGI that looks like every other movie that Hollywood produces these days. It felt like Star Trek: 90210 to me (lots of pretty faces just in the film, and unnecessary scenes of people getting it on for sex appeal which does nothing to add to the story).

“Abrams Trek” does not represent the fans that made Star what it was prior his hijacking the entire Star Trek universe. It is insulting that J.J. Abrams felt that it was necessary to appeal to a new or casual fan that generally would have no interest in Star Trek in the first place. Where does that leave lifelong Star Trek fans such as me, who have actually helped shape Star Trek over the years by investing much of my time & money?

I have been a Star Trek fan for most of my life & I feel like Star Trek has been hijacked by people who do really care about it & are only just interested in milking the franchise for money regardless of how badly they destroy/ruin the Star Trek that lifelong fans created

Ever since Paramount decided split the franchise rights with CBS the entire franchise has taken a direction that deeply saddens me. Since that split the entirety of Star Trek has been treated with disrespect (in the books, films, and especially by J.J. Abrams).

It gives me great pain to say this but I would rather see Star Trek die rather then see its Legacy continue to be destroyed/ruined & tarnished by those who only are interested in milking the franchise for every penny they can bleed out of it until the point in which they decide to just leave it on the side of the road to wither & die.

I don’t dislike that Paramount decided to go back & revisit The Original Series, and it isn’t really even the actors that bother me. This issues that I have with the film are that I felt that the film was somewhat shallow & unbelievable, nor did I see that it held true to the same ideals that Gene Roddenberry envisioned in Star Trek.

I dislike the liberties that they took with the franchise. My list of annoyances with the film include Vulcan being destroyed, the Spock/Uhura relationship, the “we are in a new timeline now” thing to justify those changes, bad CGI, goofy cornball comedy i.e. Kirk’s hands & lips swelling up making him look like a cartoon character, Scotty getting stuck inside of a water pipe & being bounced around as if he were in a pinball machine, and the superfluous scene of Kirk getting it on with Uhura’s roommate (I am not a prude, but I don’t feel that this scene added anything to the film, and was just a cheap way to include scantly clad bodies just for sex appeal).

I would have been fine with them telling new stories about Kirk & his crew that didn’t conflict with everything that was already established. Also I would have been fine with stories about either Captain Pike & his crew, or Captain April & his crew.

I completely disagree with this. I loved the movie and have been a fan since 1975. The franchise had grown stale Enterprise under performed and was canceled Nemesis (an ok Star Trek movie) also under performed at the box office. Star Trek needed a fresh approach and something new. JJ Abrams revived a dying patient and Star Trek now has new life.

[Jeff O'Connor]

New life it wouldn't have been granted if it weren't for a big, full-blown mainstream approach to the flicks. A lot of folks just don't seem to realize that. And if they'd genuinely be happier with no chances for any sort of future Trek installments then that's certainly their prerogative.

[Tidus79001]

Jeff O'Connor wrote:

---

Oh, we're playing the personal attacks card? I was trying to be civil. Fine, be miserable.

It was you who attacked me. I didn't attack anyone. I am sorry you feel attacked by me defending myself. Here please accept my sincerest apologies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qlXMA0v-WA

[Jeff O'Connor]

I'm 99% positive that link will be a waste of time.

Apart from responding to your sense of feeling insulted with my own sense of feeling insulted, I didn't attack you personally. Maybe someone can intervene here and call me out on this -- I've got the flu, after all, I could be missing something crucial -- but I'm pretty sure I was quite polite beyond that.

I suggested alternative routes that could help you cope with the alleged loss of something you're passionate about. Which isn't even true anyway because you'll always have everything that came before the new films. You then told me to get over myself, went with the tired "I live in a free country" routine that really has very little to do with the internet, labeled me as childish and now you're linking me to something that's fairly likely quite silly.

[Tidus79001]

Jeff O'Connor wrote:

---

I'm 99% positive that link will be a waste of time.

Apart from responding to your sense of feeling insulted with my own sense of feeling insulted, I didn't attack you personally. Maybe someone can intervene here and call me out on this -- I've got the flu, after all, I could be missing something crucial -- but I'm pretty sure I was quite polite beyond that.

I suggested alternative routes that could help you cope with the alleged loss of something you're passionate about. Which isn't even true anyway because you'll always have everything that came before the new films. You then told me to get over myself, went with the tired "I live in a free country" routine that really has very little to do with the internet, labeled me as childish and now you're linking me to something that's fairly likely quite silly.

No Jeff this conversation with you is a waste of time. In the words of Seven of Nine "This lesson is terminated".

[Jeff O'Connor]

Well aren't you a silly star player indeed.

[JarodRussell]

Dennis wrote:

---

BTW, what Trek was "prior to his hijacking it" was...canceled.

What's the difference between Enterprise getting cancelled and four years later being followed by a movie... and Star Trek 2009 coming out and four years later being followed by a sequel?

Between cancelling and new movie was nothing. And between new movie and sequel is... nothing?

[Jeff O'Connor]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

What's the difference between Enterprise getting cancelled and four years later being followed by a movie... and Star Trek 2009 coming out and four years later being followed by a sequel?

Between cancelling and new movie was nothing. And between new movie and sequel is... nothing?

The success of the film is pivotal to the potential for other licensed avenues in the years to come. Granted, it could be a while. But having the franchise end on a downer note like ENT's ratings is definitely not something that would appeal to investors curious to see if Trek can ever do well on the small screen again.

[milo bloom]

sonak wrote:

---

wow, a potential four and a half year gap between movies is just ridiculous

Seriously, this.

Even the SW films were every three years.

After the first one did so much better than expected, the sequel should have been immediately green-lit for release within 2 years, and we should be talking about the third film now and if we'll finally get Trek back on TV where it belongs.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

What's the difference between Enterprise getting cancelled and four years later being followed by a movie... and Star Trek 2009 coming out and four years later being followed by a sequel?

Uh...well, for starts just the fact that because the first Abrams movie was a success the studio is doing a second movie in the same setting with the same cast and crew.

Hope you're not waiting on the next Star Trek: Enterprise show or movie, or anything. That's the difference between failure and success.

If your question is meant to be "what's the difference in the rate of supply of new product between failure and success" then the answer is: you're getting a new movie, period. Failure = no new Trek, at all.

None of that is unclear, is it?

milo bloom wrote:

---

Seriously, this.

No, a longer gap should work out fine. People may not get tired of this version as quickly as they did the last if they have to wait a little longer.

I doubt that there will be another four-year gap after this one, though.