RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,229
Posts: 5,438,280
Members: 24,957
Currently online: 565
Newest member: zanejc

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 27 2011, 01:34 AM   #181
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
All that picture does is insult the oldmanprise by making her out to be incontenent, well done. *claps slowly*
And then there's that ugly ship underneath it.

Am I doing this right?
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 02:04 AM   #182
Tom Servo
Commodore
 
Tom Servo's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The Castellan wrote: View Post
I'm getting tired of this "flagship" nonsense. Plus does want want a "flagship" to be run by JJ Kirk?

Personally, JJ just said it was so big because he wanted it to sound cool...., excuse me, ...."kewl". That, or to make up for some sort of shortcoming.

But, here's something I posted in my art thread, and I think it's an excellent way to improve the JJPrise.
I really don't understand the personal attacks on JJ Abrams, just because he didn't make a Trek film the way YOU would have.

It's cause of that reaction that I LOVE the fact that the film was a commercial, and critical success, and was well received by the public, moreso then any other Trek film. And they they are making another.
__________________
"I like this ship! It's exciting!"-Scotty "Star Trek"

Member of Red Sox Nation
Tom Servo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 03:56 AM   #183
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
All that picture does is insult the oldmanprise by making her out to be incontenent, well done. *claps slowly*
You don't remember those bumper stickers of Ford's pissing on Chevy's that were common in the 1990's? Same thing.

It's like I'd be doing the same on Dick Cheney's or Mike Malen's grave, not because of incontinence, but simply showing I got no respect for those guys.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 04:01 AM   #184
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Tom Servo wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post
I'm getting tired of this "flagship" nonsense. Plus does want want a "flagship" to be run by JJ Kirk?

Personally, JJ just said it was so big because he wanted it to sound cool...., excuse me, ...."kewl". That, or to make up for some sort of shortcoming.

But, here's something I posted in my art thread, and I think it's an excellent way to improve the JJPrise.
I really don't understand the personal attacks on JJ Abrams, just because he didn't make a Trek film the way YOU would have.

It's cause of that reaction that I LOVE the fact that the film was a commercial, and critical success, and was well received by the public, moreso then any other Trek film. And they they are making another.
Seeing as how this one got dumbed down to appeal to the Joe sixpack crowds, by making Trek into a mindless popcorn action flick, I would not call it a success. To me, success is more of attitude rather than aptitude. Like if a guy sells out in order to make it big, I'd not call him a winner, I'd call him a loser. And with Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass mainstream folks who watch Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, TMZ and other rubbish, I don't exactly call that a success....just sanitized, sterilized, pasturized and homogenized to make ole' Joe Sixpack and Plain Jane happy.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 04:06 AM   #185
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The JJprise suited the rest of the mess loosely called a film. The nice re-imagining we've seen upthread deserves far better than what else was in ST09. Indeed if such a design had been used it would have further underscored how poor the rest of the film was.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 04:09 AM   #186
Tom Servo
Commodore
 
Tom Servo's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The Castellan wrote: View Post
Tom Servo wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post
I'm getting tired of this "flagship" nonsense. Plus does want want a "flagship" to be run by JJ Kirk?

Personally, JJ just said it was so big because he wanted it to sound cool...., excuse me, ...."kewl". That, or to make up for some sort of shortcoming.

But, here's something I posted in my art thread, and I think it's an excellent way to improve the JJPrise.
I really don't understand the personal attacks on JJ Abrams, just because he didn't make a Trek film the way YOU would have.

It's cause of that reaction that I LOVE the fact that the film was a commercial, and critical success, and was well received by the public, moreso then any other Trek film. And they they are making another.
Seeing as how this one got dumbed down to appeal to the Joe sixpack crowds, by making Trek into a mindless popcorn action flick, I would not call it a success. To me, success is more of attitude rather than aptitude. Like if a guy sells out in order to make it big, I'd not call him a winner, I'd call him a loser. And with Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass mainstream folks who watch Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, TMZ and other rubbish, I don't exactly call that a success....just sanitized, sterilized, pasturized and homogenized to make ole' Joe Sixpack and Plain Jane happy.
If it was that dumbed down, how was it one of the best reviewed films of the year? This wasn't Transformers, where critics thought it was shit, but it made $500 million dollars. Those people, who you know, have studied film, and review it for a living, loved it. Or are they all just Joe Sixpack now, and YOU know something they all don't about film?
__________________
"I like this ship! It's exciting!"-Scotty "Star Trek"

Member of Red Sox Nation
Tom Servo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 04:54 AM   #187
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Tom Servo wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post
Tom Servo wrote: View Post

I really don't understand the personal attacks on JJ Abrams, just because he didn't make a Trek film the way YOU would have.

It's cause of that reaction that I LOVE the fact that the film was a commercial, and critical success, and was well received by the public, moreso then any other Trek film. And they they are making another.
Seeing as how this one got dumbed down to appeal to the Joe sixpack crowds, by making Trek into a mindless popcorn action flick, I would not call it a success. To me, success is more of attitude rather than aptitude. Like if a guy sells out in order to make it big, I'd not call him a winner, I'd call him a loser. And with Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass mainstream folks who watch Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, TMZ and other rubbish, I don't exactly call that a success....just sanitized, sterilized, pasturized and homogenized to make ole' Joe Sixpack and Plain Jane happy.
If it was that dumbed down, how was it one of the best reviewed films of the year? This wasn't Transformers, where critics thought it was shit, but it made $500 million dollars. Those people, who you know, have studied film, and review it for a living, loved it. Or are they all just Joe Sixpack now, and YOU know something they all don't about film?
I don't read/watch film reviews.

Plus seeing as how popcorn action flicks are what masses watch, it's a no brainer.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 05:11 AM   #188
Tom Servo
Commodore
 
Tom Servo's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The Castellan wrote: View Post
Tom Servo wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post

Seeing as how this one got dumbed down to appeal to the Joe sixpack crowds, by making Trek into a mindless popcorn action flick, I would not call it a success. To me, success is more of attitude rather than aptitude. Like if a guy sells out in order to make it big, I'd not call him a winner, I'd call him a loser. And with Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass mainstream folks who watch Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, TMZ and other rubbish, I don't exactly call that a success....just sanitized, sterilized, pasturized and homogenized to make ole' Joe Sixpack and Plain Jane happy.
If it was that dumbed down, how was it one of the best reviewed films of the year? This wasn't Transformers, where critics thought it was shit, but it made $500 million dollars. Those people, who you know, have studied film, and review it for a living, loved it. Or are they all just Joe Sixpack now, and YOU know something they all don't about film?
I don't read/watch film reviews.

Plus seeing as how popcorn action flicks are what masses watch, it's a no brainer.
So instead of arguing the point, you ignore it? You still haven't shown how it was dumbed down for the masses, despite the fact that you INSIST it was.

And going by this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...grossing_films

In the top ten of the highest grossing films of all time, I count...two...popcorn action flicks, and that is if you include Avatar in that category of film.

Your argument isn't based in reality. Sorry.
__________________
"I like this ship! It's exciting!"-Scotty "Star Trek"

Member of Red Sox Nation
Tom Servo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 05:40 AM   #189
AmbassadorKosh
Lieutenant
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Tom Servo wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post
Tom Servo wrote: View Post

If it was that dumbed down, how was it one of the best reviewed films of the year? This wasn't Transformers, where critics thought it was shit, but it made $500 million dollars. Those people, who you know, have studied film, and review it for a living, loved it. Or are they all just Joe Sixpack now, and YOU know something they all don't about film?
I don't read/watch film reviews.

Plus seeing as how popcorn action flicks are what masses watch, it's a no brainer.
So instead of arguing the point, you ignore it? You still haven't shown how it was dumbed down for the masses, despite the fact that you INSIST it was.

And going by this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...grossing_films

In the top ten of the highest grossing films of all time, I count...two...popcorn action flicks, and that is if you include Avatar in that category of film.

Your argument isn't based in reality. Sorry.
Really The Castellan has a good point. Mindless, generic "popcorn" movies do well. JJ's Star Trek was meant for the masses that aren't serious fans of Trek and in that regard it did very well. However, to many of the serious Trek fans this movie was an utter abomination and in that regard it was a failure. I've never watched it and never will, just seeing the promos made me think "Yuck!". I won't however disregard it's success on a general level, I just keep in mind that it's really not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.
AmbassadorKosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 06:12 AM   #190
Tom Servo
Commodore
 
Tom Servo's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

AmbassadorKosh wrote: View Post
Tom Servo wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post

I don't read/watch film reviews.

Plus seeing as how popcorn action flicks are what masses watch, it's a no brainer.
So instead of arguing the point, you ignore it? You still haven't shown how it was dumbed down for the masses, despite the fact that you INSIST it was.

And going by this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...grossing_films

In the top ten of the highest grossing films of all time, I count...two...popcorn action flicks, and that is if you include Avatar in that category of film.

Your argument isn't based in reality. Sorry.
Really The Castellan has a good point. Mindless, generic "popcorn" movies do well. JJ's Star Trek was meant for the masses that aren't serious fans of Trek and in that regard it did very well. However, to many of the serious Trek fans this movie was an utter abomination and in that regard it was a failure. I've never watched it and never will, just seeing the promos made me think "Yuck!". I won't however disregard it's success on a general level, I just keep in mind that it's really not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.
Whats a Trek movie in the true sense of the term? Who and what determines this? Does it have to bomb at the BO to be a true Trek film?

In your guys' personal canon, fine, you have all the right to say that this isn't a real trek film, just as much as I would have the right to say that TOS isn't part of my Star Trek canon (it is, but just for example). However, to those that matter, i.e. Paramount, the people making the decisions, and the rest of the universe, this film as as "true" Trek as TNG is.

And I disagree with the idea that this was an abomination to serious Trek fans. Most Trek fans I know loved the film, and it's a small minority of fans who feel that they were wronged in some way, that are the most vocal detractors of it.
__________________
"I like this ship! It's exciting!"-Scotty "Star Trek"

Member of Red Sox Nation
Tom Servo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 06:59 AM   #191
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

AmbassadorKosh wrote: View Post
Tom Servo wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post

I don't read/watch film reviews.

Plus seeing as how popcorn action flicks are what masses watch, it's a no brainer.
So instead of arguing the point, you ignore it? You still haven't shown how it was dumbed down for the masses, despite the fact that you INSIST it was.

And going by this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...grossing_films

In the top ten of the highest grossing films of all time, I count...two...popcorn action flicks, and that is if you include Avatar in that category of film.

Your argument isn't based in reality. Sorry.
Really The Castellan has a good point. Mindless, generic "popcorn" movies do well. JJ's Star Trek was meant for the masses that aren't serious fans of Trek and in that regard it did very well. However, to many of the serious Trek fans this movie was an utter abomination and in that regard it was a failure. I've never watched it and never will, just seeing the promos made me think "Yuck!". I won't however disregard it's success on a general level, I just keep in mind that it's really not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.
That's what I mean, Servo. Kosh pretty much found the words I was looking for. For a dedicated, serious Trek fan, this was not a Trek film....just an action popcorn flick with "Star Trek" slapped onto it to sell a cookie cutter product. Just because it did well with the masses, does not mean it's a success, not for dedicated Trek fans like Kosh and myself.
I only watched it because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, and possibly in a different thread, because some guy I knew who was working with the filmmakers to help make the DVD showed me an unfinished copy, with just the film and not special features (though the options screen was there, it would do nothing if you highlighted 'extras' and hit play), about a week or so before the film hit the theaters. I was not too keen to see it, but it would have been the height of rudeness to refuse the offer, especially since he got the disk personally for me to watch. And what I saw was, as Kosh said, not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.

Another example of a film not being what it was said to be are these: The Fourth Kind and 2012. As a Ufologist and paranormal investigator, The Fouth Kind was HIGHLY exaggerated regarding UFO's and alien abduction, same goes for 2012, since as I studied so much material, it too, is no where even close to what study shows. Both these films were merely made to make money off legitimate topics to an audience who either never even heard of the topics, or using cheesy, b movies as reference.

And at least with Avatar, there was some thought in the story shown....not much, but more than what JJ Trek had.
To me, JJ Trek is no different than then hundreds of generic science fiction action films being pumped out back in the early 1980's, just this one having a much larger budget.

So, Kosh pretty much said a good deal.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 07:15 AM   #192
Tom Servo
Commodore
 
Tom Servo's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The Castellan wrote: View Post
AmbassadorKosh wrote: View Post
Tom Servo wrote: View Post

So instead of arguing the point, you ignore it? You still haven't shown how it was dumbed down for the masses, despite the fact that you INSIST it was.

And going by this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...grossing_films

In the top ten of the highest grossing films of all time, I count...two...popcorn action flicks, and that is if you include Avatar in that category of film.

Your argument isn't based in reality. Sorry.
Really The Castellan has a good point. Mindless, generic "popcorn" movies do well. JJ's Star Trek was meant for the masses that aren't serious fans of Trek and in that regard it did very well. However, to many of the serious Trek fans this movie was an utter abomination and in that regard it was a failure. I've never watched it and never will, just seeing the promos made me think "Yuck!". I won't however disregard it's success on a general level, I just keep in mind that it's really not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.
That's what I mean, Servo. Kosh pretty much found the words I was looking for. For a dedicated, serious Trek fan, this was not a Trek film....just an action popcorn flick with "Star Trek" slapped onto it to sell a cookie cutter product. Just because it did well with the masses, does not mean it's a success, not for dedicated Trek fans like Kosh and myself.
I only watched it because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, and possibly in a different thread, because some guy I knew who was working with the filmmakers to help make the DVD showed me an unfinished copy, with just the film and not special features (though the options screen was there, it would do nothing if you highlighted 'extras' and hit play), about a week or so before the film hit the theaters. I was not too keen to see it, but it would have been the height of rudeness to refuse the offer, especially since he got the disk personally for me to watch. And what I saw was, as Kosh said, not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.

Another example of a film not being what it was said to be are these: The Fourth Kind and 2012. As a Ufologist and paranormal investigator, The Fouth Kind was HIGHLY exaggerated regarding UFO's and alien abduction, same goes for 2012, since as I studied so much material, it too, is no where even close to what study shows. Both these films were merely made to make money off legitimate topics to an audience who either never even heard of the topics, or using cheesy, b movies as reference.

And at least with Avatar, there was some thought in the story shown....not much, but more than what JJ Trek had.
To me, JJ Trek is no different than then hundreds of generic science fiction action films being pumped out back in the early 1980's, just this one having a much larger budget.

So, Kosh pretty much said a good deal.

To YOU, and Kosh, fine it wasn't a real Trek film. But there are lots of other SERIOUS Trek fans, myself included, who thought it was perfectly in line with what we have seen before, and even shockingly, improved upon some aspects.

Comparing it to 2012 and The Fourth Kind is comparing apples and oranges. 2012 used the supposed 2012 Mayan legend as an excuse for Roland Emmerich to blow some stuff up. You could removed the 2 or 3 Mayan references in that movie, and still have the exact same film. As for The Fourth Kind, it took some police reports and supposed UFO incidents, and blew them up to such a point where it it really had nothing to do with the actual event it was supposedly based of off. However both of these films are based off of things, that in some manner, exist in reality, whether it just be hearsay, or legend.

Star Trek is a COMPLETELY FICTIONAL work. Therefore, JJ had no need to go upon what was seen before. There was no historical record he had to base it off of. He wasn't twisting an actual incident. He took a franchise that was DEAD, trimmed off a shitload of fat called canon, recast some iconic roles, and repackaged the whole thing in a manner that was accessible to a worldwide audience, not just a small group of hardcore fans, while keeping the fun and spirit of TOS intact.

And as a hardcore Trek fan, I thank him for it, and hope we get a lot more like it in the future.
__________________
"I like this ship! It's exciting!"-Scotty "Star Trek"

Member of Red Sox Nation
Tom Servo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 07:16 AM   #193
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Sorry, Serious, dedicated Trek fan right here. I think it was a trek film and better than at least 4 other trek films that we have seen.

So please, kindly refrain from trying to speak for the entirety of trek "serious" fandom.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 08:19 AM   #194
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The '09 film wasn't the worst thing ever. It was better than most Trek films.

The ship, however, is ungainly in proportion.

The parts of it that look good are TOS and TMP. The parts of it that look bad are distortions of that pattern.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 08:26 AM   #195
Broccoli
Vice Admiral
 
Broccoli's Avatar
 
Location: Broccoli
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

I personally enjoy how the people who have hardcore hatred of the film and refused to pay money to see it somehow all managed to see it for free. I remain dubious of these claims.

Anyway, on topic: lets face it, the design of the ship had no impact on the movie's success. They could have been flying around on the original design, a different design, Picard's ship, or a giant orange and the movie would have still done as well as it did.
__________________
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens
Broccoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 08:55 PM.

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