Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by LtChange, May 26, 2014.
That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking.
If the TNG "reboot" was in the NuTrekverse then a bleak and war-torn Yesterday's Enterprise-style future might be just what they'd face. Seeing as how the NuTOS characters don't have much in the way of maturity or common sense, a war started then could still be going on by the time of a 20-something crew of the E-D are on the scene (where female skants are little more than micro miniskirts and tubetops).
I love that some people never miss an opportunity to bash the Abrams movies.
No, he doesn't look at all "decrepit" and isn't "scary" - not even remotely. He looks like a 73 year old man in pretty good shape to my eye.
I remember JJ Abrams talking about how his wife had input into how nuUhura should be characterized. Then look at the end result: An arrogant nagging bitch. lol
Then the nuTrek version of Carol Marcus: tits!!!
If you look at TOS, Uhura was an integral part of the crew with no need to antagonize any of the male crew, and was very sweet.
I sometimes wonder if there's another version of STID I didn't see?
I sometimes wonder if there's another version of Star Trek: The Original Series I didn't see? The one I saw only had Uhura in about half the episodes and usually her speaking parts consisted of "Hailing frequencies open". Not sure I'd define that as "integral".
Thanks, I love being able to bash NuTrek whenever possible
Its always good to know who to blame for destroying such a lovely and dignified character.
That sums up the character pretty succinctly
If the idea of a rebooted TNG is just another tiresome attempt to return to the oldTrek universe then no - no TNG revival, ever.
The world has moved on.
Yep, that pretty much sums you up. Thanks for the clarification.
That description of the character portrayed by Zoe Saldana in STID is so misinformed and just plain wrong it borders on the ridiculous. As for your attribution of "blame" - see my comment above.
Really, what's your problem? She wears the same uniform as the other female officers and has, horror of horrors - breasts. Maybe she should pad them down?
It's almost like those two movies are receiving the exact same level of examination and commentary as the ten movies that came before them.
Yeah, I know I constantly see people coming into the 'Future of Trek' forum just for the sake of bashing The Final Frontier and Nemesis. I know I regularly head into the Voyager forum so I can take pot shots at Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
I think there was some potential with Carol, I liked her conflict with her father, and her shrieking horror at being beamed off the Enterprise against her will was one of my favorite and most memorable parts of the movie.
But the most memorable thing about her for many people was that awkward scene where she stripped down to her underwear in front of Kirk as blatant fan service. Any issue I have with that is with the director though, not the actress. This was just part of the problem the movie had with misogyny, the other really painful moment was discovering Chapel left the Enterprise after a one night stand with Kirk that he didn't even remember. A shabby way to treat a beloved character, and it didn't do Kirk's characterization any favors either.
I think that says more about the people watching the movie than the movie itself.
Yeah, it's almost exactly the same except that it's not at all true.
Aside from that little detail...
Nichelle Nichols disagrees, and her opinion will always be worth more than that of all the angry fanboys in the world combined.
You're right, TFF receives far more criticism that either of the Abrams movies.
Not just the future of trek forum, but really all the forums (in turn) sees all the movies and all the TV shows taken apart and examined in detail.
That you enjoyed the last two movies is fine, what is confusing is this (apparent) position on your part that those two movies can't be subject to the same discussion, praise and yes condemnation that all other aspects of Trek receives from the people on this site.
Most folks just note that it sucked and then get on with the business of living.
Something the complainers/"critics" of Abrams's movies ought to consider.
I know you only mentioned STID. I include them both really.
She meets Kirk for the first time. Kirk greets her with a "hey you must be new! what's your name?"
Her reply (yes I'm paraphasing): "You're a really smart guy considering you're a hick who only fucks farm animals"
Kirk accepts this like simply a "bitch shield" and plays it off with "well, not only! like it's the most normal thing in the world. Even if she didn't like Kirk, or assumed he was a womanizer (when at this point in time she has zero evidence of this), a non bitch would have been polite and just mutter the standard "I have a boyfriend" or "I'm really not interested thank you"
Then when Kirk finds out she's dating Spock, she gives him the "fuck you, you pig" look.
Then in STID, half the movie is spent with her bitch nagging Spock that he's not "emotional". Hello lady, he's a Vulcan!!!!
Her general facial expression in both movies is the constant "perma-scowl" for no reason other than this is how a tough as nail woman is being portrayed in nuTrek.
What she looks like has no bearing on anything.
The fact that she was used as a blatant angle in the advertising of the movie by heavily promoting the "underwear" scene simply because she has a hot body means her whole purpose in the movie was to show her stripped to her undies, and the rest of her character is an afterthought. Really her two attributes were "She's got a hot body guys!!" and "She's Admiral Marcus' daughter" (I'm not really sure what that second fact did for the movie)
STXI was pretty good even if there were some pretty nasty plot holes and conveniences. It was a fun movie to watch, which is what the TNG movie forgot to be.
I will always praise ST5 also because it was also a fun movie (most of the negativity towards it is because of subpar FX work, which is a shame really)
I will always ferociously attack Nemesis because it was a shit depressing movie, even if the FX work was pretty good.
I'm sure she got payed for her opinion. I'm sure she wouldn't say anything negative to the hand that feeds her.
I liked both JJ Abrams movies (even if the second was a little duller) but I will still rip apart stupid shit in the story if it deserves it.
In a general sense, I get pissed when I want to enjoy a show/movie because I like its premise, and/or like the storywriting so far, but skews away from that good storyline for some retarded reason.
I could give 5 fucks about anything Star Wars. I liked the original movies, and I liked some of the enhanced version's new material (and hated other material). But I just don't care enough about the franchise to make a big fuss.
I still haven't seen Phantom Menace. I have zero desire to see it.
I saw AOTC and liked the Corruscant scenes, hated everything else.
Star Trek on the other hand, is something that in general terms I like. So if a Star Trek movie was shit, it stings pretty badly because I wanted to like it.
Generations and Nemesis are the two biggest culprits. They are unredeemable. ST5 would improve twice as much if someone decided to do a "TMPE" re-edit, re-creating all the FX, so theoretically, a very redeemable film.
Separate names with a comma.