RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,908
Posts: 5,330,917
Members: 24,558
Currently online: 607
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 April 18 2013, 04:39 PM   #91
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

Bad Boys II is about friendship, loyalty and the importance of family.

This shit is easy.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 04:51 PM   #92
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Bad Boys II is about friendship, loyalty and the importance of family.

This shit is easy.
"The Cage" is about voyeuristic aliens trying to force a virile human male to mate in captivity. Almost sounds like a Cinemax movie, when you think about it . . . .

Take it from a professional blurb writer, you can make almost anything sound trashy or highbrow, if you've got an agenda or an axe to grind.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; April 18 2013 at 05:07 PM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 10:34 PM   #93
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

ssosmcin wrote: View Post
I'm not sure Trek '09 had anything larger to think about
Nature vs Nurture. One Kirk grows up with a father's influence, one without. One Spock grew up with a father who stayed distant, and the other loses his mother earlier. Plenty to "think about".
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 10:50 PM   #94
Danger Ace
Commander
 
Danger Ace's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Stone's comments aside, though, what has this article to say on the subject of "Star Trek sustainability" (while omitting any mention of Trek whatsoever)? What's your take on what the article says?
I have to say that I felt I was pretty clear in the post you quoted. The article was about, in principle, the chase for mass audience approval at the expense of all else wherein I extrapulated that to my fears regarding Abrams' involement with "Star Trek." So I have to confess there seems to be a certain ad hominem feel to your response.

Why all of the Bold and Italics formatting tags? If you're going to quote a passage from an article, simply place it in one set of QUOTE tags to set it off from your own remarks; it's a pain to have to edit all of that unnecessary garbage out.
This is I do not ultimately feel is ad hominem because I agree that it was a poor formatting choice on my part. It was done out of an innocent experiment in trying something different. I do, however, disagree as to the severity of inconvienence it caused and feel in choosing to focus on this minutiae rather than the substance of I what wrote to put it on the ad hominem bubble.
__________________
Yours Truly,
Vic Falcone
Danger Ace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 01:46 AM   #95
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Stone's comments aside, though, what has this article to say on the subject of "Star Trek sustainability" (while omitting any mention of Trek whatsoever)? What's your take on what the article says?
I have to say that I felt I was pretty clear in the post you quoted.
I disagree. The piece was pretty fluffy, giving almost no clue as to the nature of "the most challenging comments" supposed to have been made by Stone, and citing only a couple of statements by the two other directors mentioned as present at the panel. I'd have liked to see you tie it more securely to Star Trek specifically, rather than simply alluding to it as "timely" and then changing the subject to something not actually addressed by the article at all.

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
The article was about, in principle, the chase for mass audience approval at the expense of all else...
That's nice, but again: what has it to do with Star Trek and this movie?

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
wherein I extrapulated that to my fears regarding Abrams' involement with "Star Trek."
You "extrapulated". Is that the same thing as "making up a load of bollocks with the intent to bait or provoke others" with passages such as these?
your post wrote: View Post
It is surprising and frustrating that some here want a Trek feature that is no different than G.I. Joe II or Fast and Furious VI. Star Trek, to me, is more than just naming a spaceship Enterprise and slapping pointy-ears of someone and calling them Spock.

In the end, "fans" of "Star Trek" will get what they deserve rather than what they want. How high can the bar of quality really be raised if the bar of expectation is set at the relatively low level of one CGI'ed action sequence after another.

The best of Treks managed to strive for balance and variety. It is a waste of its genius to limit it to the telling of just one type of story. Too many seem all too willing to equivocate away any standard of excellence beyond that of the special effects. That is sad and ultimately suicidal for the franchise many professed to love.
(emphasis mine)

That's borderline trolling right there, dear boy, and it ought to stop.

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
So I have to confess there seems to be a certain ad hominem feel to your response.
Balderdash. You don't get to play the victim card - not with the list of cautions you've racked up in less than a month's membership.

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
Why all of the Bold and Italics formatting tags? If you're going to quote a passage from an article, simply place it in one set of QUOTE tags to set it off from your own remarks; it's a pain to have to edit all of that unnecessary garbage out.
This is I do not ultimately feel is ad hominem because I agree that it was a poor formatting choice on my part. It was done out of an innocent experiment in trying something different. I do, however, disagree as to the severity of inconvienence it caused and feel in choosing to focus on this minutiae rather than the substance of I what wrote to put it on the ad hominem bubble.
What substance? Propping up a link and a near-meaningless quote at the top before veering off into a muddle of taunts, clichés and empty phraseology which everyone here has heard dozens of times before? That's not substance, and it got as much focus as it merited.

You want to think a little more toward honest participation in discussion and not nearly so much about trying be "provocative". Really.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 03:06 PM   #96
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

davejames wrote: View Post
I don't see a problem. These movies only come along every 3 or 4 years, so there's plenty of time for audiences to decompress and get ready for the next one.

Of course unlike others here, I don't see these movies as a bunch of mindless, Michael Bay-style action spectacles anyway. As "frenzied" as they may be, I still think Abrams manages to make them about a thousand times more engaging and compelling than the typical Bay movie.
THIS, although I like the Michael Bay Transformers movies.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 03:25 PM   #97
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

Xaios wrote: View Post
Third Nacelle wrote: View Post
Yes, but even the bad ones held onto what Trek is: a cerebral science fiction series for people who like to think.
Let me summarize how "cerebral" each and every Trek movie 1 through 10 was:

- TMP: Aliens are hard to understand, maybe shooting at them isn't the best first reaction.
- Wrath of Khan: Seeking vengeance leads to nothing good. Basically Moby Dick in space, but with an aging subplot.
- Search for Spock: Man playing God, science gone amok.
- The Voyage Home: Environmentalism.
- The Final Frontier: Televangelists are bad.
- The Undiscovered Country: Racism is bad.
- Generations: Honestly, I don't even know.
- First Contact: Moby dick, again.
- Insurrection: Placating the majority at the expense of the minority is bad.
- Nemesis: Nature vs. Nurture.

None, literally none of these concepts are difficult to grasp if you're above the age of 10. Just because concept is worth understanding and building a story around doesn't make it particularly deep, or revelatory.

No, when the TOS and TNG movies were at their best were when the characters came face to face with their own mortality, and when they learned a thing or two about their place in the cosmos. This is something that ST09 had as well, while simultaneously dispensing with the pointless and transparent so-called "cerebral" elements that were never all that cerebral to begin with.
THIS.

Actually, the message of Generations is that aging and dealing with mortality is not bad, and is a part of our existence that we have to deal with.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 11:29 PM   #98
CaptainStoner
Knuckle-dragging TNZ Denizen
 
CaptainStoner's Avatar
 
Location: Hill dweller
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

There really is no "Abrams Star Trek"
hence
it will endure as well as the rest of the franchise, being cut of the same cloth.
CaptainStoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 09:31 AM   #99
Danger Ace
Commander
 
Danger Ace's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
[I disagree.
And that's fine. I am open to discussing all facets of what I've said - without hostility of course.

I'd have liked to see you tie it more securely to Star Trek specifically, rather than simply alluding to it as "timely" and then changing the subject to something not actually addressed by the article at all.
Just because the article did not specifically say "Star Trek" within it? That strikes me as not a very sound argument as, again, the article, by my interpretation, spoke of the danger of films becoming unrelentlying superficial due to the suits chasing the dragon of mass appeal - which today translates to giving folks 90+ minutes of bombastic CGI action. These films and the ideology that drives them seem to come at the exprense of directors who are actually trying to say something.

Then I, in my extrapolation, put forth the opinion of how that mirrors my fears of Abrams shepherding of the Trek franchise.

I pause to note that I have clearly said it is my opinion. My opinion on this is in no small part rooted in fear and paranoia (meaning that I've acknowledge it is not 100% rational - but most fears aren't). So I have been honest and sincere in expressing my heartfelt thoughts on this matter.

That's nice, but again: what has it to do with Star Trek and this movie?
To restate:

The previews of "Star Trek Into Darkness" leads me to feel it will be yet another high-octane, almost non-stop blast of CGI'ed action in hopes of duplicating this franchises success from 2009 by giving us a very similar film.

Big Picture:

The basic fear expressed by Stone and others is that the studios chase of the mainstream blockbuster leads to a diminished diversity in filmmaking.

As it applies to "Star Trek:"

I fear that because this upcoming films seems to be a twin of the previous one that Abrams in looking to deliver a second blockbuster is diminishing the variety of stories that Trek will be allowed to tell by reducing it to one basic formula.

In doing that, Paramount will adopt his formula as an unalterable templete, and I would hate for that to happen as the franchise I have enjoyed since the beginning told a variety of stories in a variety of ways.

At this point, I fear J.J. Abrams has rebooted "Star Trek" minus the "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" - again, based on the previews of this film giving me the impression that it will be largely the same sort of spectacle of the 2009 film (which, btw, I loved, but would be saddened if that was all we got in Trek films from here on out).

You "extrapulated". Is that the same thing as "making up a load of bollocks with the intent to bait or provoke others" with passages such as these?(emphasis mine)
I plead guilty to it being just as much "a load of bullocks" as anyone else's opinion or postings in this forum.

That's borderline trolling right there, dear boy, and it ought to stop.
Someone putting forth something you (and perhaps everyone else) disagrees with is not "trolling" - not even close.

I have been open, honest and sincere in this discussion. I have been more than willing consider what you and others have to say. Even in this response I am without anger and intend no insult. Of course I would very much like to provocate thought but not ire.

Balderdash. You don't get to play the victim card - not with the list of cautions you've racked up in less than a month's membership.
So am I too understand your real objection to my post is due to reasons other than its content and without regard to its merits/demerits?

That is a bit dishonest and disengenous on your part then and an admission of committing ad hominem attacks on me - that is trolling (by you).

I will say this though:

Yes, I have made a few missteps though I have also been praised a time or two as well.

Having said that, I have clearly been forthright and upstanding in my discussions here.

What substance? Propping up a link and a near-meaningless quote at the top before veering off into a muddle of taunts, clichés and empty phraseology which everyone here has heard dozens of times before? That's not substance, and it got as much focus as it merited.
Again, you appear to be attacking my post for reasons of vendetta rather than as part of a sincere desire to discuss.

I think it is evident that even if my fears turn out to be justified that some here have expressed they do not see it as a problem -They would unabashedly embrace such an Abram's doctrine and that saddens me. I simply believe that a "more of the same" ideology is the antithesis of what "Star Trek" is and was created to represent.

You want to think a little more toward honest participation in discussion and not nearly so much about trying be "provocative". Really.
I do not believe there has been any instance in this thread of my being dishonest. I have responded to your posts politely. I have thoughtfully considered your points. I have agreed with bits of somethings you've put forth. I have even adopted some changes based on your suggestions and input. How have I been a villian in this thread?
__________________
Yours Truly,
Vic Falcone

Last edited by Danger Ace; April 20 2013 at 07:39 PM.
Danger Ace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 07:42 PM   #100
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

^ At times like this, and in forums like this, I wish that somebody like Peter Jackson or the famous JMS was the franchise runner for Star Trek so that the fandom would be pleased, but the problem is, one man won't leave New Zealand to make films and the other is considered a washed-up has-been by those who wield power in the film industry. A tragedy, really, as both men know how to bring gravitas, intelligence and heart to a sci-fi/fantasy movie.

As much as I'd like these two to be making Star Trek, reality tells me that Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman are the ones to be doing it, and they've done a great job (so far.)
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 07:46 PM   #101
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

Nah, even they have their critics. There'd still be a legion of fans pointing out what they did wrong and why. And since I've no love for JMS's work in general or B5 in particular, I might be one of them.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 08:15 PM   #102
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

^I'll bet you $10.00 that JMS & Jackson wouldn't be getting half of the acid being spat at them as Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman have had; fans would be saying how intelligent a Star Trek movie/TV show is.

To that end, I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of, say, the novel The Galactic Whirlpool instead of another thriller for the third (and it seems last) movie. But, a thriller is what we'll be getting, it seems.

BTW, even socialists had a problem with the 2009 movie: Star Trek: Boldly going where no man has gone before, again

Last edited by Shaka Zulu; April 21 2013 at 04:08 AM.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 08:28 PM   #103
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
^I'll bet you $10.00 that JMS & Jackson wouldn't be getting half of the acid being spat at them as Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman have had; fans would be saying how intelligent a Star Trek movie/TV show is.

To that end, I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of the novel The Galactic Whirlpool instead of another thriller for the third (and it seems last) movie. But, a thriller is what we'll be getting, it seems.

BTW, even socialists had a problem with the 2009 movie: Star Trek: Boldly going where no man has gone before, again
You underestimate the fannish mindset. Haters will rise to the top. Even now there are folks who shudder at the prospect of a JMS helmed Star Trek. (hey I'm one of them).

I haven't read the The Galactic Whirlpool in decades. Without clicking the link I don't even recall what its about. Though having clicked the link I see a role for Levar Burton, that might get him to shut up,
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 08:45 PM   #104
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

^Okay (with all apologies for asking again), why so much hatred for Babylon 5 by you? Also, why so much hate for LeVar?
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 08:47 PM   #105
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
^Okay (with all apologies for asking again), why so much hatred for Babylon 5 by you?
I shudder too at the thought of Trek helmed by JMS and it has nothing to do with Babylon 5. It has to do with the pitch that made it to the internet that was plain terrible.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ 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 03:08 AM.

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