Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by The Overlord, Sep 15, 2013.
They wanted to, but Adele wasn't available.
So you only like because other people do?
Hmmm.... I like or dislike something because I like or dislike it. I don't really care what "the critics" say.
I read reviews because I appreciate different perspectives, but I too like to make up my own mind. Just like I made my mind about Bridesmaids 45 minutes in when I decided that this critically acclaimed pile of unfunny already killed too many of my brain cells and pressed the stop button.
In the past I've spoken up on this forum regarding my disdain for Abrams and his whole reboot concept. I continue to fail when attempting to find any real talent there, on the contrary, I continue to see more and more hype. The guy lacks originality. Roddenberry, for all his faults, created Star Trek out of fresh ideas built on previous success (putting the popular westerns of the time in a new venue). Abrams has NO new ideas, just rehash of the old (even the lens flares are old, it's just that most directors attempted to avoid camera aberrations that exposed the medium to the audience, breaking the third wall as it were). He turns canon on its head, that's all. That doesn't take talent for anything other than the ability to manipulate the expectations of others. When perusing the comments of this thread it's deja vu all over again, "how can we redo movie whatever?" "How can we use the Klingons, Borg, Dominion, Phineas and Ferb?" "Maybe Sulu should have a crush on Chekov." etc. I'll be impressed with Abrams if he ever develops a truly original idea regarding Trek. It can happen. Q, the Borg, DS9 are all examples of original and good ideas that developed into canon. When Abrams or any of the writers can find a way to bring new life to Trek without resurrecting characters or concepts then they can be said to have made a truly original contribution.
Thus ended the rant...
You've never seen Forbidden Planet, have you? Or read Hornblower for that matter.
Don't take quotes out of context for the convenience of your argument. What did I write IMMEDIATELY after what you hand picked for your response?
Something about westerns.
Someone needs to go watch Forbidden Planet.
Been there, done that, currently using the t-shirt to wash my car.
The safest thing to say is that Roddenberry didn't create Star Trek in a vacuum.
Or maybe a vaccuum is exactly where he created it. He sucked up a little Forbidden Planet, a little Horatio Hornblower, a little bit of Westerns and threw in skimpy outfits on alien babes
Wait, Roddenberry was king of recycling. The Motion Picture was a remake of The Changling, Riker and Troi were refried Decker and Illia, Q was Trelane and the second episode of TNG was a blantant remake of a TOS episode.
Roddenberry did it out of artistic integrity. Abrams does it because he's a hack.
You just keep telling yourself that.
I think The Wormhole was being a touch sarcastic.
After some of the things I've heard on this site, it can be hard to tell
It's worthy of praise as it made Trek very accessible and relevant in 2013. The box office and non-trekkie critics reflect that.
To re-launch Trek with those high budgets in the way how you are familiar with Trek back in 1994-1999 would further make Trek so elite, inaccessible and even unpalatable beyond repair.
It seems that there are some who rather Trek die with it's limited appeal because it worked OK in their day and to their own tastes of relentless technobabble and cheesy exchange of dialog than to attract and inspire many more people who could like Trek and become life long fans themselves.
Separate names with a comma.