Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by serenitytrek1, Feb 22, 2013.
You seriously don't read your posts before clicking the submit button?
I uh, honestly don't understand your point.
Your posts are full of derision for those who actually like the movie and are perfectly fine with the path Abrams has taken. Yet you act like the injured party over and over again.
Rubbish. You won't be followed around the forum and crudely heckled for liking the movie. It certainly seems to appeal to a certain type of fan sadly.
I answer posts that interest me personally, whether they be by you or someone else.
And, I hope your not insinuating that I'm following you around?
Well I'm not spitting on you for it, but I would say you're looking for your prefernence in the wrong place. Trek is intelligent within it genre, which is action-adventure. I like "The Cage", too. But remember, while NBC respected its qualities, they rejected it. "Star Trek" was sold to them as an action-adventure series and that's what they wanted to see. As action-adventure, it's been pretty well done.
Maybe what you're saying is Trek is best left to TV. Have the four or five episodes of phaser battles and hand-wringing villains, then sneak in a more thougtful or deeper-themed episode. Like sneaking vegetables into the pizza sauce. But popular culture, where Trek belongs, is not the place to nourish your mind. You'll end up malnourished. It's a place to treat yourself to some delicious high quality junk food. Go elsewhere for your nourishment.
I'd say one other thing, in my opinion, if the order of the first two Trek movies had been TWOK then TMP, TMP may have mortally wounded the franchise. TMP was a commercial success because while it was hardly a bad movie, it also had all the hype of being the first "Star Trek" movie, and fans simply had to go see it. Some loved it; others, as well as general audiences, not so much. It certainly didn't create new fans. Bear in mind while it made money, it still underperformed for what was expected of it, and the budget for TWOK was smaller as a result.
The more hardcore an Abrams fan is, the more abhorrent their behaviour seems to devolve to. I'd repeat what another poster said about those with Abrams avatars but I'd probably get a bollocking.
It's always the danger of having a cult of personality though really. Read Frank Herbert's Dune for more information.
did we really need it spelled out in the thread title that Levar Burton played Geordi LaForge? Wouldn't anyone posting on this message board already know this?
Harrison looks like a terrorist with a political agenda. I am pretty sure he will be more complex than Nero and his motivations won't be explained in a comic.
I've yet to see a pro-Abrams fan stoop to the lows that you have in order to try and prove a point.
You may want to go back and review your own posts.
I appreciate that sci-fi literature is of far more merit than Star Trek, as are shows like Babylon 5 and Neon Genesis Evangelion which take a far more ideas driven approach.
But even if it has to be action/adventure, it doesn't have to be fucking stupid action/adventure. The Trouble With Tribbles and Wrath of Khan are excellent scripts despite being adventure stories instead of science-fiction ones. Best of Both Worlds and Call to Arms are blockbuster action but smartly written. There's no excuse.
There also seems to be a cult of personality around The Roddenberry. Not poking at anyone with a stick here. Not making personal accusations. Not making a value judgement. Just making an empirical statement based on forty years of being a Trek fan.
Yes there is, it was the first movie. The second one will be more complex and spend more time exploring ideas.
On that I agree whole-heartedly. We just draw our lines in different places and have different expectations going in.
Personally, I don't want my intelligence insulted, either. If I think STID is stupid, I'll certainly say so. But I'm also not expecting my horizons to be expanded when I go to see an action-adventure flick like STID, or even a comedy for that matter. It's where one sets the bar, I guess. That's cool.
I think the cult of Gene Roddenberry died when TNG S1 sucked donkey dick.
Gene L. Coon, Harlan Ellison, Michael Piller and Ira Steven Behr are the writers you're more likely to see me jizz about. Though I'm sure some nice chap will be along shortly to say Orci and Kurtzman are better because Transformers 2 and Star Trek 2009 made more money.
You're sure of that? When has that ever happened? Ironically, the only person around here who has articulated that kind of thought is you.
I think if we're all honest here, we've all seen a shitload of stupid Star Trek over the years. Is Abrams the smartest Trek I've ever seen? No. Is it the dumbest Trek I've ever seen? Not by a long shot.
Every Star Trek show has those few episodes where you wonder what the fuck everybody was thinking. Even Deep Space 9 had shit like Profit and Lace, in one of the show's best seasons no less.
The difference is we didn't have Profit and Lace as the flagship installment of the franchise in absence of everything else.
I have no love for NEM, INS, ENT or VOY. Yet, I have successfully been able to avoid being chased around this message board or heckled by those who've enjoyed these incarnations of Trek.
From the reading of your posts, it might have more to do about the tone of your posts about those who enjoyed the last Trek movie and the frequency of posting on things you so dislike all the time that causes this. You get what you give.
I've read quite a bit of SF and no I don't.
You're in a forum about Star Trek, specifically one about the newer films. People are going to comment on what you say about them. No one is following you, they are just posting in the same threads as you.
Separate names with a comma.