RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,351
Posts: 5,502,815
Members: 25,121
Currently online: 661
Newest member: MsMarrielle

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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 > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 23 2013, 01:42 PM   #16
WhateverMan
Ensign
 
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

BillJ wrote: View Post
The "Abrams movies are dumb action flicks" chant gets tiresome. Anyone whose watched them without preconceived notions about what Star Trek is, knows this simply isn't true.

The Abrams films hold up quite well when compared with what the franchise has produced before.
The simplest answer to this is "No". I watched these films without any expectations of what I wanted them to be. These are stupid action films, which is why many Trekkies call them stupid action films. Because they are... Stupid... Action... Films.

I'm not patronizing you or trying to be a douche, but I'll try to explain my opinion in more details...

Why are they stupid action films, you may ask? Where's my proof? First off, I'll agree that these new Star Trek films are very little departure from most of the TNG films which were also mostly stupid nonsense. The 2009 film was an acceptable action film, but the stupid aspects of it were so many that I can't see how it can be considered Star Trek. The look is sort of right, but the feel is wrong. The emphasis is on the physical, not the cerebral. The characters are all hyper charged for the sake of stereotyping. Uhura is promoted to the third main character, a change I will never forgive. Her character is terrible and completely out of sync with her original counterpart and the Spock-Uhura relationship is boring and bereft of all chemistry. Poor Bones has been demoted to nothing.

All this aside, Into Darkness was a new level of awful. All it did was rip off from all other Star Trek films into a convoluted stupid mess. The laziness of the writing, the stupidity of the story (super blood that brings people back from the dead??????????) and the endless references (rip offs) were just cheap and unnecessary. Why not make a very good original story with interesting developments which makes the audience think? The reason is obvious, because these films are made to only make money. There is no real interest in making a good movie with an interesting story, just something safe that will make money. Which is why they used all the cheapest tricks to draw in all the Star Trek nerds to see it. I was one of them.

With The Butler, Into Darkness is the worst film I've seen in theater this year.
WhateverMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 02:16 PM   #17
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

WhateverMan wrote: View Post
The characters are all hyper charged for the sake of stereotyping.
They're simply younger versions of the characters we saw in TOS. How dare they actually show people who will grow and change. I know I'm the same exact person I was ten years ago. How about you?

Uhura is promoted to the third main character, a change I will never forgive.
How dare they upgrade her from "Hailing frequencies open" and "Captain, I'm scared".

Her character is terrible and completely out of sync with her original counterpart and the Spock-Uhura relationship is boring and bereft of all chemistry.
Go watch early TOS and you'll see exactly where the idea comes from.

Poor Bones has been demoted to nothing.
I'm not for shoe-horning characters into the spotlight just because I like the character. The last two movies haven't needed McCoy to be front and center so he hasn't been.

All this aside, Into Darkness was a new level of awful. All it did was rip off from all other Star Trek films into a convoluted stupid mess. The laziness of the writing, the stupidity of the story (super blood that brings people back from the dead??????????) and the endless references (rip offs) were just cheap and unnecessary. Why not make a very good original story with interesting developments which makes the audience think? The reason is obvious, because these films are made to only make money. There is no real interest in making a good movie with an interesting story, just something safe that will make money. Which is why they used all the cheapest tricks to draw in all the Star Trek nerds to see it. I was one of them.
You do know that both TOS and TNG had episodes that brought folks back from the dead? TNG has an episode where Crusher brought three people back who had been dead for three-hundred years.

I'm sure you believe that Roddenberry and Berman were making Trek for free from the goodness of their hearts and that Paramount gave all profits to the Little Sisters of the Poor?

What non-sense. Star Trek has always had money as its driving purpose. Studios don't invest tens to hundreds of millions of dollars into a product just for the hell of it.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"

Last edited by BillJ; September 23 2013 at 05:14 PM.
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 03:09 PM   #18
Isolinear
Lieutenant Commander
 
Isolinear's Avatar
 
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

For me the 90's was definitely the Golden Age of Star Trek. Starting with TNG season 3, Star Trek became really good, and stayed that way for most of the ninetees. However, with ST:Insurrection and VOY season 6, it's almost like the writers were on autopilot by then.

I still liked VOY, and ENT was ok, but there were far more boring episodes than good ones. And ST:Nemesis was a major disappointment. I think that movie sealed the fate of the franchise, and we're lucky we got ENT Season 3 and 4 as a farewell gift.

I see JJTrek as the flower on Trek's tombstone, a nice gesture to remind us of the good old days. But it will quickly wither away.
Isolinear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 03:26 PM   #19
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

Berman Trek lives and dies by 'The Best of Both Worlds". That moment, that summer of 1990, was the height of Modern Trek. Everything else that came after it in the Berman Era built off that moment. Period.

Trek began to wane in popularity by TNG's 7th Season. Personally, I loved DS9. But I cannot ignore the fact that less people were interested in Trek. Berman Trek had great moments in the 90s, but it was hardly "forward thinking". The shows had the same pacing, music and style. The stories were, for the most part, blocked out the same and became bland. It became "Star Trek paint-by-numbers". Good, but like pizza is good. By ENT, Berman Trek was stagnant.

Like him or hate him, Abrams brought life back to Trek, like Harve Bennett did with TWOK.
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 03:40 PM   #20
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

The 90's was Trek's most prolific period, where they churned out the most episodes, movies, novels, comics and toys - but I see it as an era of creative stagnation. It was the era of "canon" where imagining a vast universe was replaced with TPTB telling us what to think - the novels don't count, none of the old manuals or timeline books count, the Original Series doesn't really count wherever there were conflicts with anything new. It was the era of meaningless babytalk techbabble solutions, incomprehensible inch-thick technical manuals and novels written under the most ridiculous contraints imaginable. DS9 borrowed heavily from Babylon 5. The Voyager actors were told that the ship was the star of the show, not any of them. Considering all of that. it's amazing how much enjoyable content was created.

Give me the 60's series, the 80's movies and the rebooted ones over the 90's any day. Relatable, fun characters and adventure in a colourful universe. I love it
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 04:10 PM   #21
Viper78
Lieutenant Commander
 
Viper78's Avatar
 
Location: Scotland
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

Opus wrote: View Post
Berman Trek lives and dies by 'The Best of Both Worlds". That moment, that summer of 1990, was the height of Modern Trek. Everything else that came after it in the Berman Era built off that moment. Period.

Trek began to wane in popularity by TNG's 7th Season. Personally, I loved DS9. But I cannot ignore the fact that less people were interested in Trek. Berman Trek had great moments in the 90s, but it was hardly "forward thinking". The shows had the same pacing, music and style. The stories were, for the most part, blocked out the same and became bland. It became "Star Trek paint-by-numbers". Good, but like pizza is good. By ENT, Berman Trek was stagnant.

Like him or hate him, Abrams brought life back to Trek, like Harve Bennett did with TWOK.
Abrams has breathed life back into Star Trek but I wouldn't call trying to reinvent old characters & rehashing old stories from previous movies as "forward Thinking". I would say there was a lot more originality from the Trek in the 90's compared to what we have seen in the last 2 films.
__________________
IF IN DOUBT, FLAT OUT!!!
Colin McRae 1968-2007

Last edited by Viper78; September 23 2013 at 05:08 PM.
Viper78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:04 PM   #22
oddsigve
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Norway
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

WhateverMan wrote: View Post
The 90's was the peak of Star Trek, but I would argue it also had the best of Star Trek but also some of the worst. I think this "Golden Age" will never be brought back or revived, for I think J.J. Abrams movies are pretty embarrassing, especially Into Darkness. They aren't Star Trek for me, they're dumb action movies, which is fine except I'm not looking for dumb action in Star Trek.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
oddsigve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:20 PM   #23
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

Action is fine in Trek so long as there's a purpose to it. TNG, by it's movie days, wasn't immune to the dumb action syndrome either. Unless you call a 60 year old man in a dune buggy chase with space orcs, quality writing.

The 90's were the golden age of Trek to me as well, it's the stuff I grew up on. TNG was a hit every week. DS9 was the high water point of the franchise to me in terms of quality. Voyager was good, but used technobabble and rehased TNG styles way too much, the TNG movies were rather hit or miss, mostly miss, and Enterprise... well that was the show I quit watching in season 2. A pity, if they had the quality of writing they had in seasons 3 and 4, the show might've made it.

Honestly I think people were just burnt out on Trek by the early 2000's. Not the hardcore fans, but the casual viewers who do make up most of the income. So it's not a bad thing we went a few years without any to revitalize interest. I just wish the NuTrek was more than we've seen right now. Mindless action does seem to describe it at times.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:20 PM   #24
WhateverMan
Ensign
 
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

BillJ wrote: View Post
WhateverMan wrote: View Post
The characters are all hyper charged for the sake of stereotyping.
They're simply younger versions of the characters we saw in TOS. How dare they actually show people who will grow and change. I know I'm the same exact person I was ten years ago. How about you?

Uhura is promoted to the third main character, a change I will never forgive.
How dare they upgrade her from "Hailing frequencies open" and "Captain, I'm scared".



Go watch early TOS and you'll see exactly where the idea comes from.

Poor Bones has been demoted to nothing.
I'm not for shoe-horning characters into the spotlight just because I like the character. The last two movies haven't needed McCoy to be front and center so he hasn't been.

All this aside, Into Darkness was a new level of awful. All it did was rip off from all other Star Trek films into a convoluted stupid mess. The laziness of the writing, the stupidity of the story (super blood that brings people back from the dead??????????) and the endless references (rip offs) were just cheap and unnecessary. Why not make a very good original story with interesting developments which makes the audience think? The reason is obvious, because these films are made to only make money. There is no real interest in making a good movie with an interesting story, just something safe that will make money. Which is why they used all the cheapest tricks to draw in all the Star Trek nerds to see it. I was one of them.
You do know that both TOS and TNG had episodes that brought folks back from the dead? TNG has an episode where Crusher brought three people back who had been dead for three-hundred years.

I'm sure you believe that Roddenberry and Berman were making Trek for free from the goodness of their hearts and that Paramount gave all profits to the Little Sisters of the Poor?

What non-sense. Star Trek has always had money as its driving purpose. Studios don't invest tens to hundreds of millions of dollars into a product just for the hell of it.

With The Butler, Into Darkness is the worst film I've seen in theater this year.
[/QUOTE]


Watch out, you're almost putting words in my mouth. I have no illusions about the profitability of Star Trek, but there exist ways to be true to the source and make money. Something which I don't feel Abrams has done. It's completely fine to like these films, but they should called what they are. I sort of liked the 2009 movie, but it still isn't a great movie and certainly not a good Star Trek movie.

I can't see how Into Darkness can be considered a good movie. It's awful Star Trek and it's awful as a plain movie. And yes there have been some revivals in Star Trek, but never done as stupid as Into Darkness. They use the genetically engineered blood as a magic serum to cure death. Now they can literally cure almost everything at all times. To quote a greater critic than myself: "Plot convenience equals Movie suck." Most movies use this to some degree, but Into Darkness was nothing but this.

I'm familiar with the Spock/Uhura thing from TOS, but it doesn't change the fact how chemistry free and boring they were in the film. I'm also familiar with character arcs, but having characters with no nuances and subtleties is childish. I'll agree that Spock was by far the most wholesome character in the new films and has more complexity than anyone else. But he still pales to the original Spock.

I think you enjoy Into Darkness for all the same reasons I hate it. But let's not kid ourselves, I enjoy a lot of crappy movies, but I never forget they suck. I guess time will tell how Into Darkness will be regarded in the future by fans and non fans alike. So I'm not saying my opinion is holy and written in stone for all eternity.
WhateverMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:28 PM   #25
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

BillJ wrote: View Post
The "Abrams movies are dumb action flicks" chant gets tiresome. Anyone whose watched them without preconceived notions about what Star Trek is, knows this simply isn't true.

The Abrams films hold up quite well when compared with what the franchise has produced before.

agreed-also,Trek has done straight action stuff from long before Abrams came along


"Balance of Terror"
"Best of Both Worlds"


Wrath of Khan
Star Trek First Contactn
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:29 PM   #26
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

I generally agree with the OP in that the 90s were a "Golden Age"-type heyday and there was a lot of Trek, but I don't necessarily think that everything we got during the modern era was awesome, and indeed as time went on the franchise began to look more and more threadbare.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:30 PM   #27
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

WhateverMan wrote: View Post
...
All I can say is go look at the poll, done here in the Trek XI+ forum:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=209857

56% of poster here gave it an 'A-' or better.

Or Rotten Tomatoes, where 91% of viewers out of 231,000 gave it an average rating of 4.3 stars:

__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:33 PM   #28
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

I love it when people bring out the "other people think I'm right" argument when discussing what's good or not. Just silly, unless you actually think people are as a whole mindless sheep going with the herd without thinking for themselves.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:42 PM   #29
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

R. Star wrote: View Post
I love it when people bring out the "other people think I'm right" argument when discussing what's good or not. Just silly, unless you actually think people are as a whole mindless sheep going with the herd without thinking for themselves.
No, people being "mindless sheep going with the herd" is the argument trotted out against popular opinion.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 05:44 PM   #30
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

R. Star wrote: View Post
I love it when people bring out the "other people think I'm right" argument when discussing what's good or not. Just silly, unless you actually think people are as a whole mindless sheep going with the herd without thinking for themselves.
I believe in proving or disproving statements with facts and numbers:

WhateverMan wrote:
These are stupid action films, which is why many Trekkies call them stupid action films. Because they are... Stupid... Action... Films.
Judging by the results gathered on this board, many Trekkies do not feel that the Abrams films are "Stupid... Action... Films." Out of 668 votes, 530 ranked the movie a 'B-' or better.

For me personally, I like the film and that didn't change when 100 Trekkies in Las Vegas voted it the worst Trek movie ever.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
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 05:03 AM.

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