RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,906
Posts: 5,330,846
Members: 24,558
Currently online: 544
Newest member: laurah2215

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 November 1 2012, 10:11 PM   #181
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Sure, they could start their own little angry blogs, but how many will read those?
Apparently the original poster?

I don't know what one should expect if they drudge this stuff up and post a thread about it.
To be fair, that "15 Reasons" thing was posted as an article on an established entertainment news site by someone who would appear to have been a regular contributor.

(Granted, the line dividing "entertainment news website" from "blog" is often narrow and just as often pretty blurry, but WhatCulture.com has been around for a few years and their articles do frequently trend at Reddit and similar places where movies/TV, gaming and other nerd culture intersect. Also: "dredge".)
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2 2012, 02:31 AM   #182
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

And here I'm thinking "drudge" has become a verb meaning dredge but referencing Matt Drudge the dredger.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 2 2012, 09:01 PM   #183
Lord Garth
Captain
 
Lord Garth's Avatar
 
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

doubleohAHHHHHH!!!!! wrote: View Post
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?
Some good points in there. Some of it I agree with and some of it I disagree with.

The big hands and brewery in engineering were minor. The bigger problems were Spock's abandoning Kirk and Kirk leap-frogging to Captain. Spock shouldn't be so emotional or should at least be in denial and more embarrassed about it. Hard to claim you have no emotion after you're passionately kissing Uhura and not going through Pon-Farr. Nero was two-dimensional.

I don't have a problem with Chekov being a talented genius because that's the only way he could be there at 17 if he had to be. Red Matter makes as much sense as Genesis, to be fair. Kirk's birth was a good scene.

I'm completely indifferent about the rest of his points.

I like the film but not enough to defend it at every turn. It's okay, I enjoyed it, but there isn't too much replay value for me. After 2009, I've only rewatched it once and I don't feel a burning urge to revisit it again anytime soon.

Though it's not ST XI, I think not even revealing who the villain is for STID even at this late point is a bit much. We knew a lot further in advance that Bane was going to be the villain for TDKR. It wouldn't hurt anything to say if it's Khan, Gary Mitchell, or someone else. How would that impact the film making a few hundred million dollars? It doesn't. And it's not the same thing as leaking a full synopsis, a beat-by-beat treatment, or a copy of the script.
Lord Garth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2 2012, 09:47 PM   #184
StarMan
Vice Admiral
 
StarMan's Avatar
 
Location: ... in another place.
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Lord Garth wrote: View Post
[I like the film but not enough to defend it at every turn. It's okay, I enjoyed it, but there isn't too much replay value for me. After 2009, I've only rewatched it once and I don't feel a burning urge to revisit it again anytime soon.
I feel much the same, Lord Garth. On occasion I have revisited scenes that stood out for me. That's been about it.
__________________
Let's rock!
StarMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 03:28 AM   #185
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Lord Garth wrote: View Post

Though it's not ST XI, I think not even revealing who the villain is for STID even at this late point is a bit much. We knew a lot further in advance that Bane was going to be the villain for TDKR. It wouldn't hurt anything to say if it's Khan, Gary Mitchell, or someone else. How would that impact the film making a few hundred million dollars? It doesn't. And it's not the same thing as leaking a full synopsis, a beat-by-beat treatment, or a copy of the script.
But why does Abrams have to do what everyone else does? How does not knowing have an impact on the film's potential to make a few hundred million dollars?

The film is more than six months away. And for it to do anything close to the previous film's numbers at the box office, the vast bulk of the audience will have to be people who are unlikely to recognize any "villain" from the series. As such, telling us now or in three months is irrelevant from a marketing perspective (those who would care about the villain's identity will go see the film regardless of when they find out who it is).

I understand (though I don't share) the frustrations of those who want to know now about the villain of the film. But I have yet to find any compelling arguments regarding the potential for success or failure, commercially speaking, of the film based on the timing of the announcement of the villain's identity.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 03:36 AM   #186
Lord Garth
Captain
 
Lord Garth's Avatar
 
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Ovation wrote: View Post
But I have yet to find any compelling arguments regarding the potential for success or failure, commercially speaking, of the film based on the timing of the announcement of the villain's identity.
I can't make a compelling argument for it because that's not the argument I was making.

What I was asking was how would announcing who the villain is would hurt. Not exactly the same as saying announcing who the villain is would increase profit or that it would succeed or fail based on that.

Ovation wrote: View Post
And for it to do anything close to the previous film's numbers at the box office, the vast bulk of the audience will have to be people who are unlikely to recognize any "villain" from the series. As such, telling us now or in three months is irrelevant from a marketing perspective (those who would care about the villain's identity will go see the film regardless of when they find out who it is).

This is true. I won't deny you have a point. As a counter-point on the other hand though, and going back to TDKR, who in the vast bulk of that film's audience knew who Bane was?

Last edited by Lord Garth; November 3 2012 at 03:57 AM.
Lord Garth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 02:23 PM   #187
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Lord Garth wrote: View Post
This is true. I won't deny you have a point. As a counter-point on the other hand though, and going back to TDKR, who in the vast bulk of that film's audience knew who Bane was?
Indeed, if anything, General Audience might have been apprehensive upon learning Bane was to be the central villain of the movie. "Wasn't Bane the sidekick in Batman & Robin? What the hell is Nolan thinking? I don't want to be reminded of that. Just leave Schumacher's movies buried and forgotten."

Still, at this point, we know Darkness's villain will have to be announced soon enough. At the very least, the comic prequel which begins in January is going to feature him. Movies which have comic prequels always introduce the villain in them.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 03:13 PM   #188
Robert_T_April
Captain
 
Robert_T_April's Avatar
 
Location: Yesterday's Enterprise
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Great job putting together this list as many, many valid points were made.
I really enjoyed this movie regardless and am excited at the fact that the possibilities are endless now if the ensuing installments are done right.

My biggest problem was the gaping hole in the whole Nero story. Very unrealistic that he was captured and improsoned by Klingons, only to escape to his intact ship and destroy 40+ Klingon ships???..ridiculious. The Kobayashi Maru test could have been done a little less arrogantly.

But, as far as Kirk being promoted about 10 plus years ahead of where he did in the original timeline, was somewhat believable. Thanks to Nero, several Federation ships were destroyed which accelerated Kirk's promotion due to the shorteage of viable command prospects. And young Kirk did demonstrate exceptional leadership. And remember, he is about 10 years younger, as is Spock than the characters we was TOS. So the immaturity and lack of dicsipline and seasoning is going to show.
I only hope that moving forward, these characters start maturing into the characters that I grew up with. I'm really looking forward to 'Into the Darkness' and hope Abrams doesn't drop the ball.
Robert_T_April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 06:02 PM   #189
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Seeing the Jokerization of film vilains lately (it's kinda an in-thing now, latest example is Skyfall), I wonder if the next Abramstrek is going to do the same.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 06:22 PM   #190
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Oh goody, another "JJ raped my childhood" thread.

:reading:

...

:Roll Eyes:

"Nero sucked! I must know who the next villain is!"

...



It's still not Khan or Mitchell.
newtontomato539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 07:08 PM   #191
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Gallifrey Falls
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Robert_T_April wrote: View Post
And young Kirk did demonstrate exceptional leadership.
Not to mention literally saving the Earth.
__________________
"In the future... do I make it?"
"No."
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 09:55 PM   #192
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Seeing the Jokerization of film vilains lately (it's kinda an in-thing now, latest example is Skyfall), I wonder if the next Abramstrek is going to do the same.
I hope not. Never something I cared for. Nero's angry trucker deal was a nice change.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 10:16 PM   #193
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

Lord Garth wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
But I have yet to find any compelling arguments regarding the potential for success or failure, commercially speaking, of the film based on the timing of the announcement of the villain's identity.
I can't make a compelling argument for it because that's not the argument I was making.

What I was asking was how would announcing who the villain is would hurt. Not exactly the same as saying announcing who the villain is would increase profit or that it would succeed or fail based on that.

Ovation wrote: View Post
And for it to do anything close to the previous film's numbers at the box office, the vast bulk of the audience will have to be people who are unlikely to recognize any "villain" from the series. As such, telling us now or in three months is irrelevant from a marketing perspective (those who would care about the villain's identity will go see the film regardless of when they find out who it is).

This is true. I won't deny you have a point. As a counter-point on the other hand though, and going back to TDKR, who in the vast bulk of that film's audience knew who Bane was?
To be fair to you (and I could have been clearer), I was using your post as a springboard to discuss other points raised in this thread and elsewhere. I don't think it would hurt anything to know who the villain is. It's simply that I don't care enough to know right now for it to matter to me (nor do I think it would matter to enough people to affect box office receipts).

I enjoyed the last film (as I have, by and large, enjoyed each Trek film--I view Trek, much as I view Bond films, primarily for their links to my youth when I discovered each "franchise"). I have my favourites and recognize, from a more detached, critical perspective, that several of the films and series are open to legitimate criticism. At the end of the day, though, I do not hold Trek up to some pedestal of "great art". It has always (since 1973--and I've seen every iteration of Trek on screen, several to many times, in case someone wants to paint me as outsider), to me, been an amusing diversion with a few moments of tangential cultural relevance, nothing more. The last film ranks highly as an amusing diversion and I fully expect the next one to be similarly entertaining. I don't demand much more from it (or Trek in general) than that.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2012, 10:38 PM   #194
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Seeing the Jokerization of film vilains lately (it's kinda an in-thing now, latest example is Skyfall), I wonder if the next Abramstrek is going to do the same.

sorry, but what does this mean?
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2012, 12:51 AM   #195
Lord Garth
Captain
 
Lord Garth's Avatar
 
Re: 15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

newtontomato539 wrote: View Post
"Nero sucked! I must know who the next villain is!"
Actually, no. I'm sorry but I don't have to know. This doesn't even register on my list of priorities. Or, to put it more clearly: I really don't actually give that much of a shit.

Since I'm the one who brought it up, I thought I should clarify it. There's a distinct difference between it would be nice to know and having to know. Not the same thing.

I had some time to kill so I made a post on TrekBBS, having a discussion about Star Trek. That's as far as it goes. I think it's the reason most, if not all, people originally registered here in the first place.

It's still not Khan or Mitchell.
And that's fine if it's not.

While we're at it, and I know you're talking about the thread in general:

Oh goody, another "JJ raped my childhood" thread.
I never cared for the "raped my childhood" phrase. It's an insult to people who actually have been raped to joke around about it in another context. And I wish people would stop using that expression.

Do you know people who have been raped? I do. It's not something to joke about. It can be a harsh world out there, where terrible things happen. Things much worse than what does or doesn't happen in a movie.

Next time, you might want to reconsider the way you step into a thread where people are just having a conversation.

Last edited by Lord Garth; November 4 2012 at 01:17 AM.
Lord Garth 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 01:50 AM.

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