RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 142,221
Posts: 5,548,865
Members: 25,259
Currently online: 538
Newest member: fundone2000-MA

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges
By: Michelle on Jan 24

Urban in Aquaman?
By: T'Bonz on Jan 23

Pegg Co-writing Star Trek 3
By: T'Bonz on Jan 22

Stewart Narrated NASA Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Jan 21

Star Trek 3 Filming To Begin
By: T'Bonz on Jan 21

IDW Publishing Trek Comics For April 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jan 20

Star Trek-Planet of the Apes #2
By: T'Bonz on Jan 20

Clark Details Trek Books
By: T'Bonz on Jan 20

Takei To Appear On Wits
By: T'Bonz on Jan 20

Retro Review: Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang
By: Michelle on Jan 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 14 2011, 05:59 PM   #46
Jeff O'Connor
Commodore
 
Jeff O'Connor's Avatar
 
Location: Tampa, FL
View Jeff O'Connor's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to Jeff O'Connor Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Jeff O'Connor
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

malchya wrote: View Post
I, for one, am thrilled to hear the news. Was Abrams Trek perfect? Nope. Did it exactly coincide with my personal "vision" of what Trek is or should be? Not even close. Did I enjoy the film despite the differences between the released product and my own view of where I would like Trek to go? Yes.
__________________
Star Trek
1966-
Jeff O'Connor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 06:14 PM   #47
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
It's like Star Trek Nemesis all over again!

That's a bit extreme...
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 06:23 PM   #48
ManOnTheWave
Rear Admiral
 
ManOnTheWave's Avatar
 
Location: ManOnTheWave
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Awesome.
__________________
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
ManOnTheWave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 06:30 PM   #49
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Jon1701 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
wow, a potential four and a half year gap between movies is just ridiculous
There was 4 years between Back to the Future and parts II & III.

Seemed to work out okay.
And we just got new sneakers out of it, too!
__________________
“You do not use science in order to prove yourself right, you use science in order to become right.”
Cyke101 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 06:52 PM   #50
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Tidus79001 wrote: View Post
“Abrams Trek” does not represent the fans that made Star what it was prior his hijacking the entire Star Trek universe. It is insulting that J.J. Abrams felt that it was necessary to appeal to a new or casual fan that generally would have no interest in Star Trek in the first place. Where does that leave lifelong Star Trek fans such as me, who have actually helped shape Star Trek over the years by investing much of my time & money?
I don't mean to sound cynical, but Star Trek always involved money. Why was TOS canceled? Money issues. Why was TMP made instead of a TV show? To cash in on Star Wars. Why was it followed by five movies? Because TMP made a ton of money. Why did we get coinciding spinoffs (TNG/DS9, DS9/VOY)? So that Paramount could cover the market. For that matter, why did we get four consecutive TV shows? Again, for money. Why did Paramount stop making movies after Nemesis, and why was Enterprise canceled? Because they either lost or didn't make enough money.

The primary reason why a show or film is made isn't to spread a message or vision, but to make money. The message or vision are important sure, and they're needed to draw and keep the audience, as well as to form the story. But above all else, Hollywood's an industry. Whether you like the product or not, that's up to you and that's perfectly fine if you don't. But Paramount ended Trek pre-Abrams because it simply wasn't attracting the audience it used to, and they decided it was best to spend their money elsewhere. It wasn't some personal attack on you or other Trekkies, it was a business decision.

I don’t dislike that Paramount decided to go back & revisit The Original Series, and it isn’t really even the actors that bother me. This issues that I have with the film are that I felt that the film was somewhat shallow & unbelievable, nor did I see that it held true to the same ideals that Gene Roddenberry envisioned in Star Trek.
To be honest with you, despite the "negative" aspect of XI's mainstream appeal (and the only negative I see is this type of projected, imaginary exclusionism), I believe overall it had much more to do with classic Trek than Nemesis. I believe it also had more in common than DS9 or VOY did most of the time as well (but in this case, it helped those shows).

It's somewhat ironic that Roddenberry made Trek to be accessible for nearly everyone, but the ones that most often invoke his name do so because they don't want it to be for everyone ("Where's MY Trek? Why should it appeal to the masses? Why does money have to matter?"). The proof is in the numbers: XI was successful. But changes are always necessary, and the previous spinoffs showed that, while not all major changes were necessarily successful, they still happened because of perceived necessity and the need to adapt to a changing audience.
__________________
“You do not use science in order to prove yourself right, you use science in order to become right.”
Cyke101 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 07:15 PM   #51
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Tidus79001 wrote: View Post
LOKAI of CHERON wrote: View Post
<snip>
I am not the only person who doesn't prefer "Abrams Trek". Just because the board is mostly pro "Abrams Trek" doesn't mean that other fans out there don't feel the same way I do. There are plenty of fans out there who I have seen express the same dissatisfaction as myself who aren't on this board.
No, you're not the only one. There are plenty of others who have expressed varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the last movie. Some of them still post in this forum, and even manage to be friendly to those with whom they disagree.

Tidus79001 wrote: View Post
Attempts to try to make me feel marginalized in my views on "Abrams Trek", or on any of my views have & will always fail miserably.
Sorry, not seeing that in this thread, but I am seeing someone working a little too hard at playing the victim. Drop that (and the melodramatic display of outrage, while we're at it) and we might just be able to get down to some reasonable and productive discussion about Trek.

Tidus79001 wrote: View Post
Jeff O'Connor wrote: View Post
Tidus79001 wrote: View Post
<snip>
<snip>
I am entitled to my opinion on the film. Sorry that you cannot handle & accept a dissenting view about the "Abrams Trek" universe. Last time I checked I lived in a free country where freedom of speech is still alive. I will speak my mind anytime I want regardless of if certain people like it or not. You don’t have the monopoly on pro “Abrams Trek” being the only point of view allowed. Get over yourself .

Never did I say that I wanted J.J. Abrams to fail in making a new film. Lets see what I really said shall we?

Tidus79001 wrote: View Post
<snip>
Hmmmmm, now that doesn’t sound like I wanted the film to fail. I said that instead of making it shallow he should have respected what was already established in Star Trek instead of conflicting with everything that was already established.

Jeff O'Connor wrote: View Post
This isn't about what you specifically want, Tidus. This is about what people in general want. Oftentimes those two don't always intersect. It's happened to me before and I'm sure it's happened to you before, too.

So if nuTrek isn't for you then back away from it. Don't waste your life talking about how insulted you are by it -- it's been over two years since the eleventh film premiered, surely you've said everything there is to say on it by now?

Why don't you stay calm, watch the old Trek you knew and loved and play FFX HD when it comes out. That is where your user name is from, right?

ETA: And if I'm correct and that's where your user name is from then allow me to paint you a colorful metaphor -- I thought FFX-2 was the most offensive sequel I've ever gone near. AbramsTrek may not be a sequel but it's clearly a relevant connection because you're reacting similarly to how I did with X-2. So what did I do? I vented a while and then just ignored the game. I now play FFX every two years or so and never touch X-2. For me, it didn't happen. Easy peasy.
Childish attacks from a childish person are my feeling about your attacks upon me.
I'm also not seeing any attacks upon you, though your labeling of Jeff as a "childish person" is getting a lot closer to a personal attack than I really like to see in here; do try to be more careful about that. It's true that Jeff's initial response to your little diatribe could perhaps have been more carefully considered, but I think he explained himself well enough and quite civilly in his subsequent post, a civility which you neglected to return in kind. Again, do try to be more careful about that.

Tidus79001 wrote: View Post
Jeff O'Connor wrote: View Post
Oh, we're playing the personal attacks card? I was trying to be civil. Fine, be miserable.
It was you who attacked me. I didn't attack anyone. I am sorry you feel attacked by me defending myself. Here please accept my sincerest apologies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qlXMA0v-WA
Jeff O'Connor wrote: View Post
I'm 99% positive that link will be a waste of time.

Apart from responding to your sense of feeling insulted with my own sense of feeling insulted, I didn't attack you personally. Maybe someone can intervene here and call me out on this -- I've got the flu, after all, I could be missing something crucial -- but I'm pretty sure I was quite polite beyond that.

I suggested alternative routes that could help you cope with the alleged loss of something you're passionate about. Which isn't even true anyway because you'll always have everything that came before the new films. You then told me to get over myself, went with the tired "I live in a free country" routine that really has very little to do with the internet, labeled me as childish and now you're linking me to something that's fairly likely quite silly.
Kind of silly, I guess, and perhaps not a complete waste of time, but I'm really not sure I saw the point of it.

Tidus, you're welcome to participate here, as is everyone, but I think you'd find it a great deal more enjoyable and more productive if you'd get rid of that big chip on your shoulder. We're really not such bad folks, after all. Some of us don't even like the movie all that much.
__________________
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 14 2011, 07:41 PM   #52
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Jon1701 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
wow, a potential four and a half year gap between movies is just ridiculous
There was 4 years between Back to the Future and parts II & III.

Seemed to work out okay.

that's because they were making parts two and three together and releasing them back to back.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 07:46 PM   #53
Squiggy
Rampant Sexist
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Up Squiggy's Coal Chute.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

sonak wrote: View Post
Jon1701 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
wow, a potential four and a half year gap between movies is just ridiculous
There was 4 years between Back to the Future and parts II & III.

Seemed to work out okay.

that's because they were making parts two and three together and releasing them back to back.
They could've done it in 1986. There wasn't any need to wait 4 years. In the BttF timeline it all takes place the same week.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 08:44 PM   #54
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: North America
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

malchya wrote: View Post
I, for one, am thrilled to hear the news. Was Abrams Trek perfect? Nope. Did it exactly coincide with my personal "vision" of what Trek is or should be? Not even close. Did I enjoy the film despite the differences between the released product and my own view of where I would like Trek to go? Yes.
This expresses my feelings pretty well, too.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 08:46 PM   #55
milo bloom
Fleet Captain
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Location: The varied and beautiful Chicagoland suburbs.
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

sonak wrote: View Post
Dennis wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post

What's the difference between Enterprise getting cancelled and four years later being followed by a movie... and Star Trek 2009 coming out and four years later being followed by a sequel?
Uh...well, for starts just the fact that because the first Abrams movie was a success the studio is doing a second movie in the same setting with the same cast and crew.

Hope you're not waiting on the next Star Trek: Enterprise show or movie, or anything. That's the difference between failure and success.

If your question is meant to be "what's the difference in the rate of supply of new product between failure and success" then the answer is: you're getting a new movie, period. Failure = no new Trek, at all.

None of that is unclear, is it?

milo bloom wrote: View Post

Seriously, this.
No, a longer gap should work out fine. People may not get tired of this version as quickly as they did the last if they have to wait a little longer.

I doubt that there will be another four-year gap after this one, though.

I don't agree with this. There's no Star Trek on TV right now, so there's no real risk of "over-saturation," like when there was two TV series and a movie series going on at the same time. Also, TWOK-TVH came out every two years and were all big hits.

There's no other new Trek competing with these movies right now. Long delays between them are more likely to crush momentum than they are to whet the appetite.

That's the point I meant to make, but it slipped my mind. Abrams' film caught lightning in a bottle. It caught a lot of people by surprise, and I'm afraid they've missed their opportunity. The next movie may very well be just as good (or better), but I'm just not confident that the crowds will turn out for it like they did the first one.
__________________
'Tis a lie! Thy backside is whole and ungobbled, thou ungrateful whelp!
milo bloom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 09:00 PM   #56
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Dennis wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
There's no other new Trek competing with these movies right now. Long delays between them are more likely to crush momentum than they are to whet the appetite.
Really? This forum has remained remarkably active for the last two years.

I don't think the market will bear any more Star Trek than it will any other franchise film series, and they don't need to be diluting it by putting it back on TV right now. Three years would probably be better than four, and I imagine that's what we'll see next time.

Yet...somehow the CSI zombie shambles on. Go fig.

I love the new film. And TrekLit rules. And I've been a fan since the mid 70s.

Change is the order of things, people.
__________________
__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

Last edited by stonester1; September 14 2011 at 09:39 PM.
stonester1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 09:31 PM   #57
Desert Kris
Lieutenant Commander
 
Desert Kris's Avatar
 
Location: Here and there.
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Tidus79001,

I get what you are saying to a certain extent; if there was a disconnect with the new movie for you then there's nothing that can be done. To a certain extent, Star Trek already had died a small death, and you don't have to like or accept the new movie. Perhaps eventually ST will re-emerge in a form closer to what you would like to see.

I think you drew reactions because of what some people describe as "entitlement." Your comment that you had invested time and emotional energy, that connects you to it, by the time and effort you chose to invest in it. I can only speak from personal experience, but when I get too defensive about something, eventually I am no longer defensive about it but in fact actively in attack mode, sometimes without even realizing it.

Yes, we all know we're entitled to free speech, short of verbal, personally targeted attacks. Nothing new under the sun. And I don't think anyone is trying to marginalize your opinion. Seriously, I come onto the forum and sometimes despair about how much "nitpicking" I perceive the new movie is receiving. I can personally pinpoint a couple of oddities with the movie, but there were other activities that the movie inspired me too that I felt were going to be more productive and interesting.

Before any hints came out about the sequel to it, I made sure that I took extensive notation on all the possible story-related ramification that occurred to me, stemming from the narrative of the new movie. I did this to mine the story potential out of what was presented, and explore the narrative avenues that opened up and of interest to me. I then jotted down some ideas about a third potential continuity that I could create from scratch, inspired by the movie, but for the purpose of using it as a setting for roleplaying gaming. Even though there have been plenty of other hints at alternative ST continuity in the past (Prime Directive RPG, The Final Reflection, your pick of certain comic book stories), the new movie makes those alternatives more concrete in a way. The new movie was a gift to story telling, or a new way to play with the toys in the toy store, depending on your perspective; both concepts are starting to blur for me after reading G.I. Joe comics. There are 5 or 6 different versions of G.I. Joe, and I still felt like it would be fun to come up with my own version as well.

The disconnect you feel with Star Trek (2009) sounds similar to the disconnect I experienced with the Star Wars prequel movies; so I turned away from them for a while, but privately. I read old SW books and comics. I wrote out 60+ pages worth of story outlines and character notes as a project to recapture my own ideas on what I thought the adventures of Anakin Skywalker, The Clone Wars Wars, The Fall of the Old Republic and the Rise of the Empire was going to be like, as a counter-tale to the narrative of the prequel movies. After a time, I eventually ended up throwing in one or two characters from the prequels into my own project, because they fit in, in a "reimagined" capacity.

From a cynical perspective, sure, all these successful fictional universes are for making money for corporations. But humans have always been telling stories, and we all have different ideas about what we would do with the story if we got our hands on it.
Desert Kris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 09:46 PM   #58
nickyboy
Fleet Captain
 
nickyboy's Avatar
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

This is great news.
__________________
"Now if this cross examination is over, I'd like to take a crap"

Romo Lampkin - The Son Also Rises
nickyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 10:19 PM   #59
Nero's Shadow
Captain
 
Nero's Shadow's Avatar
 
Location: Into Darkness !!!
Send a message via Yahoo to Nero's Shadow
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

Yeah read the story today it's great news JJ is on board to direct he's the man to make it work....... Hopefully the story is just as good as the director !!!! Because JJ can't be beaten !!! So phasers on stun warp factor one and he's dead jim !!!!
__________________
That green blooded son of a bitch !!!!
Nero's Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2011, 10:50 PM   #60
Garak
Talk to me, like lovers do
 
Garak's Avatar
 
Re: Abrams Commits To Direct

I think Star Trek 2 will be even better than Star Trek 1.

Now that we've gotten those pesky origin stories out of the way we can focus on the way better looking Enterprise and her crew's adventures, which really is what the vast majority of true fans want.

Hopefully JJ brings his up tempo, distinct style back in full force and we're treated to the adventure of a lifetime that will further make us forget how bland and boring the old Trek was in comparison.
__________________
Ice up son, ice up.
Garak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
abrams, director, trek xii

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 09:55 PM.

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