RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,173
Posts: 5,435,450
Members: 24,943
Currently online: 526
Newest member: Chriss

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 September 24 2013, 04:49 PM   #46
Bad Thoughts
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Yanks wrote: View Post
Anji wrote: View Post
Ah, hem. The "butthurt" chiming in here.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we're not pissed just disappointed.

Was there really a reason to pull those characters from TWOK?

Abrams didn't seem like he wanted to continue to grow the franchise, but merely take advantage of its successful moments and capitalize on it for his own benefit.

Disappointing.

Glad he went over to Star Wars.
Don't think it's a "JJ" thing at all.

The writers provide the tree, JJ just decorates it.
Another word is usually used when screenwriters and directors become involved in each other's work: producer.
Bad Thoughts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 04:52 PM   #47
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: Transexxual...Transylvania
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Who cares?
__________________
Here's proof that I can write something without using the word f**k.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 05:46 PM   #48
Yanks
Fleet Captain
 
Yanks's Avatar
 
Location: NX01 Bridge
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Who cares?
About what?
__________________
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
- Evolution of the Solar System, NASA 1976, H. Alfvén & G, Arrhenius, p. 257.
Yanks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 06:58 PM   #49
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
The creators started that divide with all their bashing against old Trek. "Not you father's Trek", those "Nacelles Monthly subscriber" remarks, the constant justifications for the fast paced style with "old Trek was lame and boring", and all that shit.
...

When Bad Robot said "This is not your father's 'Star Trek'", they weren't dissing the old one. They were telling the new demographic that the new films would have something for them, as well as their Dads.
The "not your father's... " tagline was also confined to a single TV spot which appeared very late in the promo campaign, less than a month before the movie's general release. I think it first aired during a sporting event of some kind, playing to an audience not typically courted for Star Trek or SF genre entertainment.

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post

So what other "bashing" did I miss, or misunderstand?
The "Nacelles Monthly" quip wasn't bashing, either - just more of Abrams explaining that he was making a movie targeted for a wider audience, so that he wouldn't necessarily be focusing on this or that <tech> detail to the degree that a "hardcore Trek fan" might want to see.
L.A. Times interview wrote:
GB: You know that no matter what you do, you’ll get an earful from hardcore fans.

JJA: The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of “Star Trek” who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren’t what what they want. But I can’t make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do. And yet, the movie at its core is not only inspired by what has come before, it’s deeply true to what’s come before. The bottom line is we have different actors playing these parts and from that point on it’s literally not what they’ve seen before. It will be evident when people see this movie that it is true to what Roddenberry created and what those amazing actors did in the 1960s. At the same time, I think, it’s going to blow people’s minds because its a completely different experience than what they expect.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/uncat...trek-direc/#/0
Trying to make anything mentioned in Jarod's post out to be bashing is to be reaching too far.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 07:13 PM   #50
Jax
Admiral
 
Jax's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Awesome Possum wrote: View Post
The upset fans are a loud minority, the majority seem to enjoy the movie.
The best thing Paramount can do is ignore us because some of us will never be happy. They could rebuilt the original sets, clone the actors and write the greatest hours of television ever seen by human eyes and a small group of fans could find something to complain about. They don't want to happy, they're miserable about something and want to drag everyone down to their level. It's sad, pathetic and annoying. Thankfully the majority of them are confined to the internet, much like that giant head that claimed to be God.
This

IMO the reason Star Trek will never make a successful return to TV in the near future is because of the rabid fanbase, it can make your project a success but its too dam hard to please.
__________________
If Fidelity to freedom and democracy is the code of our civic religion then surely the code of our humanity is faithful service to that unwritten commandment that says we shall give our children better than we ourselves received
Jax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 07:24 PM   #51
Yanks
Fleet Captain
 
Yanks's Avatar
 
Location: NX01 Bridge
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
The creators started that divide with all their bashing against old Trek. "Not you father's Trek", those "Nacelles Monthly subscriber" remarks, the constant justifications for the fast paced style with "old Trek was lame and boring", and all that shit.
...

When Bad Robot said "This is not your father's 'Star Trek'", they weren't dissing the old one. They were telling the new demographic that the new films would have something for them, as well as their Dads.
The "not your father's... " tagline was also confined to a single TV spot which appeared very late in the promo campaign, less than a month before the movie's general release. I think it first aired during a sporting event of some kind, playing to an audience not typically courted for Star Trek or SF genre entertainment.

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post

So what other "bashing" did I miss, or misunderstand?
The "Nacelles Monthly" quip wasn't bashing, either - just more of Abrams explaining that he was making a movie targeted for a wider audience, so that he wouldn't necessarily be focusing on this or that <tech> detail to the degree that a "hardcore Trek fan" might want to see.
L.A. Times interview wrote:
GB: You know that no matter what you do, you’ll get an earful from hardcore fans.

JJA: The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of “Star Trek” who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren’t what what they want. But I can’t make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do. And yet, the movie at its core is not only inspired by what has come before, it’s deeply true to what’s come before. The bottom line is we have different actors playing these parts and from that point on it’s literally not what they’ve seen before. It will be evident when people see this movie that it is true to what Roddenberry created and what those amazing actors did in the 1960s. At the same time, I think, it’s going to blow people’s minds because its a completely different experience than what they expect.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/uncat...trek-direc/#/0
Trying to make anything mentioned in Jarod's post out to be bashing is to be reaching too far.
Agree completely!!
__________________
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
- Evolution of the Solar System, NASA 1976, H. Alfvén & G, Arrhenius, p. 257.
Yanks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 07:31 PM   #52
Yanks
Fleet Captain
 
Yanks's Avatar
 
Location: NX01 Bridge
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Bad thoughts wrote: View Post
Yanks wrote: View Post
Anji wrote: View Post
Ah, hem. The "butthurt" chiming in here.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we're not pissed just disappointed.

Was there really a reason to pull those characters from TWOK?

Abrams didn't seem like he wanted to continue to grow the franchise, but merely take advantage of its successful moments and capitalize on it for his own benefit.

Disappointing.

Glad he went over to Star Wars.
Don't think it's a "JJ" thing at all.

The writers provide the tree, JJ just decorates it.
Another word is usually used when screenwriters and directors become involved in each other's work: producer.
Well, if you listen to Orci's latest podcast. (See Trekmovie) he indicates to the contrary.

That's where I got the Christmas Tree saying.
__________________
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
- Evolution of the Solar System, NASA 1976, H. Alfvén & G, Arrhenius, p. 257.
Yanks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 07:35 PM   #53
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

I do think there's a bit of truth to both sides of the argument--Star Trek XII isn't above some criticism, but it's also been the subject of some bandwagon bashing too. But it's kinda the course for all Trek productions with both fans and vocal detractors.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 07:38 PM   #54
Yanks
Fleet Captain
 
Yanks's Avatar
 
Location: NX01 Bridge
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
I do think there's a bit of truth to both sides of the argument--Star Trek XII isn't above some criticism, but it's also been the subject of some bandwagon bashing too. But it's kinda the course for all Trek productions with both fans and vocal detractors.
So true.

I had a big problem with the "Khan superblood" thing, but thinking it over I've tamed my "beast"

Still not there concerning the death scene though...
__________________
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
- Evolution of the Solar System, NASA 1976, H. Alfvén & G, Arrhenius, p. 257.
Yanks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 07:50 PM   #55
Khan444
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

The thing is, there would be NO Star Trek right now if it weren't for JJ. Enterprise was the first TV series since TOS to be cancelled, and Nemesis bombed critically and financially. The franchise was DEAD, no one wanted to greenlight Star Trek projects for a decade. JJ not only resurrected the franchise, but made millions of NEW people into Star Trek fans. That is an accomplishment worthy of note.
Khan444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 07:57 PM   #56
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Shazam! wrote: View Post
But Harve Bennett didn't write Star Trek II : /
Last time I checked, the writing credits of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan were:

Story by Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards
Screenplay by Jack B. Sowards
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 08:14 PM   #57
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Jax wrote: View Post
IMO the reason Star Trek will never make a successful return to TV in the near future is because of the rabid fanbase, it can make your project a success but its too dam hard to please.
I've got to agree with you there.

A movie blockbuster can happen even if the hardcore minority of Trek's fans are pissed. STiD is proof of that.

But a TV show can only survive if it has a fanbase that is loyal. Trek fans are so splintered, they couldn't even agree on...

... Hell! They couldn't agree on a damn thing...

So - New movie in 2016, but no chance of a new series within the next decade I'd say.
__________________
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 24 2013, 08:48 PM   #58
Khan444
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

I seem to remember a report that JJ wanted to do a new TV series that would run alongside the movies, but that the studio said no. I'm not sure if that's true, but it sounds like something that JJ would do.
Khan444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 08:50 PM   #59
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Khan444 wrote: View Post
I seem to remember a report that JJ wanted to do a new TV series that would run alongside the movies, but that the studio said no. I'm not sure if that's true, but it sounds like something that JJ would do.
It was a video game.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2013, 09:01 PM   #60
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Khan444 wrote: View Post
I seem to remember a report that JJ wanted to do a new TV series that would run alongside the movies, but that the studio said no. I'm not sure if that's true, but it sounds like something that JJ would do.
Kurtzman and/or Orci have mentioned wanting to do a Series, but, no rejection or approval (Or for that matter a Solid pitch) has been confirmed by anyone

Many of us have theorized that the most likely scenario, would be after STiD proved to be a success (Which it now has), that a Series (Probably animated, not Live Action) would be greenlighted, so that it would be able to premiere shortly after the next movie premieres. No indication that this is going forward at this point, though. (Which would also be a 50th Anniversary Celebration, as well, hopefully)
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur 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 01:46 PM.

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