RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 146,328
Posts: 5,766,581
Members: 25,926
Currently online: 454
Newest member: haase65

TrekToday headlines

Two New ThinkGeek Trek-themed Items
By: T'Bonz on Jul 2

July-August 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Jul 2

Pegg: Star Trek Beyond Scary
By: T'Bonz on Jul 2

San Diego Comic-Con Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 1

Nimoy Memories From Friends and Family
By: T'Bonz on Jul 1

Stewart: It’s in My Genes
By: T'Bonz on Jun 30

Star Trek Beyond
By: T'Bonz on Jun 30

Trek-themed Car Accessories
By: T'Bonz on Jun 29

First Three 2016 Trek Novel Details
By: T'Bonz on Jun 29

Spock Documentary Close To Funding Goal
By: T'Bonz on Jun 29


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 December 25 2009, 06:36 PM   #61
Valin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Helium, Barsoom
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Dennis wrote: View Post
AnyStar wrote: View Post
I am not Spock wrote: View Post
It's brought back Trek from oblivion, how is that a bad thing?
i think differently, this isnt trek. its something new, something different the only thing trek about it is the names

Nah, I've been watching this stuff for forty years. This is definitely Star Trek.
I've only been watching it for 39 years; I agree that it's Star Trek.
__________________
"Live long and prosper."
-Abraham Lincoln to the train conductor at Gettysburg, PA Novemember 1863
Valin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2009, 07:20 PM   #62
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
Location: The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

^I've been watching it for...eh, since childhood.

I have seen every single episode of TOS, TNG, and DS9, along with a decent amount of ENT and VOY. I have seen every movie, and a handful of TAS.

This. Movie. Is. Star Trek.

Period.
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2009, 08:30 PM   #63
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

BillJ wrote: View Post
They wasted an extraordinary cast on a pretty poor script. So much of it just makes you roll your eyes.
It does? I don't recall that.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2009, 08:40 PM   #64
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Uk
View startrekrcks's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Why do people think differently about it it is Star Trek you must have expected much more.
startrekrcks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2009, 09:16 PM   #65
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
Location: The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

^I think the purists were wanting another Gene Roddenberry....
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 25 2009, 09:23 PM   #66
Aragorn
Admiral
 
Aragorn's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Devon wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
They wasted an extraordinary cast on a pretty poor script. So much of it just makes you roll your eyes.
It does? I don't recall that.
If he said you rolled your eyes it means you did, damnit!
Aragorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2009, 04:57 AM   #67
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
^I think the purists were wanting another Gene Roddenberry....
No. I wanted something fun... and smart... that respected what had come before. J.J. Abrams got a lot of things right in the re-boot but the script wasn't one of them.

- Dialogue was clunky
- Red Matter was a terrible plot device
- Script depended on a ton of coincidence to move forward

Plus there were moments that essentially felt like snippets of TOS episodes were copy and pasted into the script.

There are elements of TOS that make it feel like a fleshed out universe that this movie lacks. One is the evolution of the crew. We went from The Cage to Where No Man Has Gone Before to The Corbomite Maneuver that allowed us to see both young Kirk and young Spock grow together and we see characters come and go before we get the main seven together. This movie has none of this. Let's mash these seven characters together when it really makes no sense that three of them would go to the academy, all graduate in three years (Kirk, McCoy, Uhura and Cupcake). Is the academy that easy? That Spock in this timeline is a full Commander (and XO) when he was only a Lieutenant in the original timeline. That they would find Scotty on an ice planet and he would within a few hours have clearances of a top of the line starship. Poor helmsman McKenna that just happens to come down with lung worm to open a chair for Sulu. And that Chekov is a completely different character.

It was too forced. It feels a lot like TNG movies having Worf inexplicably show up everytime there is an emergency or the later TOS films where the crew has served together for thirty years.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2009, 03:36 PM   #68
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Uk
View startrekrcks's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

well sorry you feel that way about the movie but I have to disagree this movie did do a lot of things right, didn't the actors capture the spirit and essence of what came before by the original actors.
startrekrcks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2009, 04:15 PM   #69
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

startrekrcks wrote: View Post
well sorry you feel that way about the movie but I have to disagree this movie did do a lot of things right, didn't the actors capture the spirit and essence of what came before by the original actors.
I'm guessing this is pointed at me sooo...

J.J. Abrams got a lot of things right in the re-boot but the script wasn't one of them.
Guess this part of my post was ignored.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2009, 04:57 PM   #70
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

BillJ wrote: View Post
No. I wanted something fun... and smart... that respected what had come before.
We got it.

J.J. Abrams got a lot of things right in the re-boot but the script wasn't one of them.
Go to the credits and tell us who the writers are.

- Dialogue was clunky
You mean it wasn't stiff and boring like previous Trek.

- Red Matter was a terrible plot device
Oh yes, the devastation that a plot device like tons of other plot devices in Star Trek brought.

- Script depended on a ton of coincidence to move forward
As all scripts do, but not on the level that you are mistaken.

Let's mash these seven characters together when it really makes no sense that three of them would go to the academy, all graduate in three years (Kirk, McCoy, Uhura and Cupcake).
Show us why.

Is the academy that easy?
People can graduate college in three years if they work hard and don't take summers off, you tell us.

That Spock in this timeline is a full Commander (and XO) when he was only a Lieutenant in the original timeline.
Good for him.

That they would find Scotty on an ice planet and he would within a few hours have clearances of a top of the line starship.
And? I think you're seeing impossibilities where there are none.

Poor helmsman McKenna that just happens to come down with lung worm to open a chair for Sulu.
And?

And that Chekov is a completely different character.
Not completely different, just useful.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2009, 05:25 PM   #71
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

At Devon:

1. No, you really don't get it. You seem to want people to come in here and gush about how great this film is.

2. Who hired said writers? You guessed it! J.J. Abrams.

3. No the dialogue was dire. The best line in the film came from marketing chopping up the written dialogue.

4. Agreed Star Trek has had a ton of bad plot devices over the years. It still doesn't excuse the current one.

5. The script jumps from one coincidence to the next at break neck speed. Right up there with Bad Boys.

6. Isn't one of the things that makes Kirk special is that he is able to do it in three?

7. Didn't look like Kirk was really all that interested in studying. How do we know that the Kobayashi Maru was the only thing he cheated on?

8. So what did he do to earn the promotion and be XO of the flagship only a few years out of the academy? Of course this isn't a problem for people who look the other way when Cadet Kirk is made captain of the same flagship.

9. If I hadn't already seen so many impossibilities already this one probably wouldn't have stuck out like a sore thumb.

10. No need to discuss the issue if you don't have a problem with it. I don't need the cast of seven rammed down my throat to get that it's Star Trek.

11. Different character. Chekov is 22 in 2266, this character was 17 in 2258. Which even in Trek's convoluted timeline makes him a completely different character.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!

Last edited by BillJ; December 26 2009 at 05:41 PM.
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2009, 05:27 PM   #72
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
Location: The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

I WILL say that the new Chekov strikes me as a bit of a goofball.

That being said, that's about my ONE complaint with the film.

As for the dialogue, it was a THOUSAND times better than the dialogue of Revenge of the Sith, I can tell you that.

But then, you can say that about MOST films, anyway....
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2009, 07:13 PM   #73
pookha
Admiral
 
pookha's Avatar
 
Location: pookha
View pookha's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

a canon that was adhered to strictly.
ah heck no.

all the way back to tos the writers at times would fidget with or ignore fanon or even canon.

one of the reasons the writers did what they did was not only make the future a suprise(we no longer know the exact fate of the characters but to not be driven crazy by a very contradictory canon.
__________________
avatar by
?
pookha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2009, 10:55 PM   #74
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
Location: The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Now...out of the three "Great Birds" (Roddenberry, Berman, and Abrams), WHICH ONE was the most concerned about staying true to canon?

Here's a hint: It wasn't Roddenberry.
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2009, 12:10 AM   #75
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: A boat on a river
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

BillJ wrote:
2. Who hired said writers? You guessed it! J.J. Abrams.
Did he? I thought they were a package deal.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
bloggers, fandom, star trek (2009 film)

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 09:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.