15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

[mos6507]

"if a movie was written to make perfect sense and timing, the movie would probably be pretty boring."

Does anyone have an example of a movie that was made "boring" specifically by making sense and not having plot-holes?

[Therin of Andor]

Mach5 wrote:

---

It's like they were disappointed that so many people turned their backs on their one true messiah Gene Roddenberry.

Even Majel and Rod approved of JJ's film!

BTW, this happened both in 2001 (ENT) and in 2009 (ST XI). History literally repeated itself.

Check out "The Best of Trek". Some fans hated every single change in ST:TMP, too, and many of those were Roddenberry's doing. They wrote extensively about all of their peeves throughout 1980.

Further back, they were also peeved by TAS.

[Mach5]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Even Majel and Rod approved of JJ's film!

Yeah, good luck telling them that.

mos6507 wrote:

---

"if a movie was written to make perfect sense and timing, the movie would probably be pretty boring."

Does anyone have an example of a movie that was made "boring" specifically by making sense and not having plot-holes?

Sure. 2001. Plebeians bitch about not being able to sit through it all the time.

[mos6507]

Mach5 wrote:

---

Sure. 2001. Plebeians bitch about not being able to sit through it all the time.

Was 2001 originally conceived to be exciting and was rendered boring by removing the plot-holes?

I think the implication is that plot-holes are the inevitable byproduct of action stories. I think they are the byproduct of writers taking lazy shortcuts to infuse a plot with action and drama, but not that it is inevitable.

Aliens I think is a good example of an action movie that is not chock full of plot holes, or at least if it does have them, they are pretty hard to detect.

[Mach5]

mos6507 wrote:

---

I think the implication is that plot-holes are the inevitable byproduct of action stories. I think they are the byproduct of writers taking lazy shortcuts to infuse a plot with action and drama, but not that it is inevitable.

Absolutely agreed.

mos6507 wrote:

---

Aliens I think is a good example of an action movie that is not chock full of plot holes, or at least if it does have them, they are pretty hard to detect.

I rewatched the director's cut about a month ago, and just like you said, if it does have them, I didn't notice.

Plot holes in ST XI, or even worse - Prometheus, are basically in your face.

Still, I enjoyed Star Trek, and Prometheus annoyed the living shit out of me.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Check out "The Best of Trek". Some fans hated every single change in ST:TMP, too, and many of those were Roddenberry's doing. They wrote extensively about all of their peeves throughout 1980.

Further back, they were also peeved by TAS.

Wrath of Khan, too! Don't forget "Indiana Skywalker Meets the Son of Star Trek" in Best of Trek #7:

Wrath of Khan, on the other hand, is a shoot-'em-up in the style of Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark - very thrilling the first time you see it, but not much left for a second viewing...

...by the time of Wrath of Khan, the Federation appears to have been overwhelmed and drastically altered by some cataclysm - possibly revolution...

...the Enterprise has become, for all intents and purposes, a battleship...

...a wife and child, of course, who are promptly produced (out of thin air), providing [Kirk] with new (and boring) preoccupations...

...For the first time, Nimoy has been miscast as Spock...

...the Star Trek figures, as scripted, are unrecognizable...

...the conclusion is inevitable; No respect for the characters as characters was operating here. If, in the overall interests of a flashy production, the heroes had to be undignified, so be it.

We're stuck in a time loop, people!

[Satyrquaze]

Some Trek fans do have a certain propensity to whine and complain about any new being introduced to "their" fandom.

Given some of the complaints I've seen over the last few years, I'm sure there were fans out there who refused to admit that someone else could have captained Enterprise prior to Kirk when "The Menagerie" first aired.

[Galileo7]

Sindatur wrote:

---

IMHO, the biggest problem with the 2009 Film was that there was so much Introduction that needed to be done, there wasn't a whole lot of time for all this deep Characterization. I believe, though it will still almost certainly be an intense action flick, we'll get much more indepth character stuff with Star Trek Into Darkness.

Agree.

[J. Allen]

SeerSGB wrote:

---

Not only just now posts it on the 'net, but it passes for a "headline" regarding 'Trek. Enough so, ever Trek board and fansite out there--it seems--is reporting on it

I used to dislike the '09 movie with a passion. Had issues with trying to make it all work in "canon" and all that old noise. Still don't like the Engine Room set. But you know what, I actually enjoy it as a fun little popcorn-flick on it's own merits. I stopped worrying about how it was supposed to fit with the older stuff, took it for its own thing, and moved on. I still think it's more action and style over substance and story, but that's okay; sometimes that's all someone needs out of a movie.

See, I loved the movie, and still do, but I went in for similar reasons. I had been burned out on Star Trek, and my thoughts were "help me love Trek again". I came out of that theater feeling like a new fanboy, feeling the same way I did when TNG premiered (having been raised on TOS, I was thrilled to death when the promos ran). Trek was alive and relevant again!

[Set Harth]

serenitytrek1 wrote:

---

According to him, JJ destroyed Star Trek and he demands that we boycott the 09 film.

I'll get right on that.

[Mach5]

Rainbow Dash wrote:

---

See, I loved the movie, and still do, but I went in for similar reasons. I had been burned out on Star Trek, and my thoughts were "help me love Trek again". I came out of that theater feeling like a new fanboy, feeling the same way I did when TNG premiered (having been raised on TOS, I was thrilled to death when the promos ran). Trek was alive and relevant again!

Pretty much the same here.

I don't mind the alternate universe thing, and I don't mind all the flashy action sequences and all, but I really would like the sequels to take themselves a bit more seriously. Some of the best hours of old Trek have been childish, sure (ST IV still my favorite Trek movie), but some serious drama from now and then couldn't hurt.

Abrams didn't destroy Star Trek. He gave it new life, and as much as I still (and always will) prefer the old one, I'm anxious to see what JJ does next. When ST XI end credits rolled, the first thing on my mind was - "MORE!"

[SeerSGB]

Rainbow Dash wrote:

---

See, I loved the movie, and still do, but I went in for similar reasons. I had been burned out on Star Trek, and my thoughts were "help me love Trek again". I came out of that theater feeling like a new fanboy, feeling the same way I did when TNG premiered (having been raised on TOS, I was thrilled to death when the promos ran). Trek was alive and relevant again!

If they kept this take on the characters strictly in movies, I could follow a film-franchise of this type of Trek. I don't think I"d like it--or that it'd work--on a weekly TV level.

[The Keeper]

New and different incarnations of Trek have always caused fractures in the fanbase. Everyone has their own opinion of what ST is and how it should be presented.

Some people bitched and eventually abandoned it with TAS. Others hung on but couldn't take changes in TMP, Others hung on but couldn't take changes in STII. Others hung on but couldn't take changes in STIII. Others hung on but couldn't take changes in STIV. Others hung on but couldn't take changes in STV. Others hung on but couldn't take changes in TNG. Etc, etc, etc.

The truefans keep hanging on instead of getting hung up.

[Temis the Vorta]

Sigh.

Gone was the techonbable, morality tales about what makes us human and canon. In its place we got ACTION, cheesy nostalgic one liners and a wafer thin plot, in other words, a movie for the modern casual audience.

For the ten billionth time, this is the difference between TV and movies, generally. Hasnt everyone noticed by now that a successful summer flick has got to be mainly action? With two hours to work with, how much time is there going to be to develop character or theme? Yes, it's a movie for the modern, casual audience. Every successful movie is. The alternative is to make a movie that is a financial failure, and drives a stake through Star Trek's heart.

The Star Trek with all that good character stuff and ideas is TV Trek. To have any hope of getting Trek back on TV, the next movie must be a hit, too. So go to the next movie ten times and tell everyone you know to go at least once. Give Bob Orci as much ammo as possible when he walks into Moonves office next summer for the pitch because it's going to be a tough sell even under the best conditions.

And even then, it will probably be animated.

[JarodRussell]

Mach5 wrote:

---

Sure. 2001. Plebeians bitch about not being able to sit through it all the time.

2001 doesn't make perfect sense and doesn't have perfect timing.