15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

[CaptainStoner]

I didnt care for some of the forced plot points either. It was ugly, but it went from A to B, and now Kirk is captain of the enterprise, and I'm ready to forget the shortcomings of ST09 and experience the next film on its own. I'm looking forward to seeing the cast reprise their roles, and hopefully a trek movie that doesnt involve a crazy bad guy trying to destroy a planet.

[John Mason]

now now ... one should keep an open mind... I do think he should try to adhere to canon ....

[ichab]

Let me see: Before the reboot, Star Trek was dead. Enterprise was cut short due to low ratings and Nemesis tanked at the box office. I'd say Berman and Braga had already succeeded in ruining and destroying Star Trek. Anyone that doesn't like the new direction of the franchise has hundred of episodes and ten films to satisfy their cravings for the old timeline. Millions of dollars in box office returns says this reboot is the future. Get over it.

[teacake]

IT IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE.

[JRoss]

doubleohAHHHHHH!!!!! wrote:

---

Shock of shocks, there is a Trek fan out there (just one!) who had the balls to not only dislike JJ Abrams 2009 film Star Trek, but also took it upon himself to outline in nauseating detail (and poor spelling and grammar by the way) his fifteen (fifteen!) reasons why.

Frankly, I'm surprised that no one in the past three years has brought any of these issues up. Food for thought, to be sure.

Your thoughts?

Too long; didn't read.

[mos6507]

I personally find those who say "it made a lot of money, get over it" to be more annoying than someone who makes what I feel to be a thoughtful (albet emotional) dissertation of why a movie sucks.

If you want to defend a movie, please try to use some other criteria besides box office receipts. We all know plenty of good movies fail at the box office and plenty of bad movies make money. It's boring to use the "it made money" excuse.

I would argue that the demographic that liked JJ Trek is probably the least capable of defending the movie based on its intrinsic merits and most likely to reach for the "it made a lot of money" excuse.

[DonIago]

And yet, somehow, that still strikes me as being a more credible argument than "Abrams destroyed Star Trek!!!" with one movie.

[J. Allen]

mos6507 wrote:

---

I personally find those who say "it made a lot of money, get over it" to be more annoying than someone who makes what I feel to be a thoughtful (albet emotional) dissertation of why a movie sucks.

If you want to defend a movie, please try to use some other criteria besides box office receipts. We all know plenty of good movies fail at the box office and plenty of bad movies make money. It's boring to use the "it made money" excuse.

I would argue that the demographic that liked JJ Trek is probably the least capable of defending the movie based on its intrinsic merits and most likely to reach for the "it made a lot of money" excuse.

Your argument would be in error, especially when people in this very thread have given their reasons as to why they like the movie, and many of those reasons are more than just "it made money".

[Gov Kodos]

Rainbow Dash wrote:

---

Your argument would be in error, especially when people in this very thread have given their reasons as to why they like the movie, and many of those reasons are more than just "it made money".

Yeah. Star Trek was a great space opera piece of fun from beginning to end. It gave a starting story for Kirk and Spock that showed how these two so well complemented each other and did it in a non-stop roller coaster ride. No Star Trek movie has given that to the general audience, fun, that's what people pay ticket prices for.

JJ didn't worry about the 'Star Trek Vision Thing', good for him. The TV shows, and the movies labored under that and squelched out any kind of real joie de vivre for being meaningful and came up with stale boring stories. Star Trek under JJ worried about telling a fun story rather than worry about The Vision Thing, and I hope he does so with the next film, too. I am tickled pink to have Kirk and the gang back on screen in fine, fun, larger than life stories.

[ichab]

mos6507 wrote:

---

I personally find those who say "it made a lot of money, get over it" to be more annoying than someone who makes what I feel to be a thoughtful (albet emotional) dissertation of why a movie sucks.

If you want to defend a movie, please try to use some other criteria besides box office receipts. We all know plenty of good movies fail at the box office and plenty of bad movies make money. It's boring to use the "it made money" excuse.

What's boring is the belief that a movie which was a hit with critics and audiences needs defending.

I would argue that the demographic that liked JJ Trek is probably the least capable of defending the movie based on its intrinsic merits and most likely to reach for the "it made a lot of money" excuse.

The movie enjoys a 95% rating on rottentomatoes.com. These are critics that make a living turning movies inside out in order to find something to gripe about. The majority liked it. There's nothing wrong with being the minority opinion. I can't stand Avatar yet millions of people loved it. But I would never presume to think that those who like Avatar don't have solid reasons.

I still fail to see how the movie ruined the Star Trek franchise. Before the movie, Trek was D-E-A-D. It was so dead that Paramount didn't even bother celebrating the 40th anniversary. How can you ruin what was already a lifeless corpse?

[Therin of Andor]

ichab wrote:

---

The majority liked it. There's nothing wrong with being the minority opinion.

Exactly. But the "it made lots of money" factoid is simply a tangible piece of evidence that something about this movie excited general audiences and had them telling their friends, and coming back for more viewings themselves.

I can't stand Avatar yet millions of people loved it. But I would never presume to think that those who like Avatar don't have solid reasons.

I certainly enjoyed my time in the cinema with it, and I really don't begrudge people loving it. It did surprise me that the story was essentially a live-action/CGI remake of the animated "FernGully: The Last Rainforest".

I still fail to see how the movie ruined the Star Trek franchise.

It didn't!

[Set Harth]

ichab wrote:

---

How can you ruin what was already a lifeless corpse?

By putting Kirk's mother in the wrong place, that's how!

She was supposed to be in the kitchen. Or something.

[CommanderRaytas]

teacock wrote:

---

IT IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE.

It's hyperbole time!

[M'Sharak]

mos6507 wrote:

---

I personally find those who say "it made a lot of money, get over it" to be more annoying than someone who makes what I feel to be a thoughtful (albet emotional) dissertation of why a movie sucks.

If you want to defend a movie, please try to use some other criteria besides box office receipts. We all know plenty of good movies fail at the box office and plenty of bad movies make money. It's boring to use the "it made money" excuse.

If the argument consists of "it made a lot of money, get over it" and nothing more, then yes, it's pretty weak and likely to be annoying when presented. Granted.

However...

mos6507 wrote:

---

I would argue that the demographic that liked JJ Trek is probably the least capable of defending the movie based on its intrinsic merits and most likely to reach for the "it made a lot of money" excuse.

Do you really believe that unqualified statements about "the demographic that liked JJ Trek" are in some way superior to or more satisfying than the "it made a pile of money" ones? Which demographic would that be? (Feel free to cite evidence in support of your position.*)


.

(* ...but please, please, please: don't bring the "Young ADD people like JJ-Trek; older, more sensible and mature people prefer Real Trek™" canard - that one's lame and never did work.)

[Kruezerman]

I want to meet this so called "ADD Generation" I'm apparently apart of. Sounds like a good party.