The "It's not Star Trek" thread

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by el_flesh, May 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    It felt more like Star Trek (at least the TOS variety of Star Trek) than VOY, most on ENT, Nemesis, Insurrection, and -- at times -- Generations.

    It is certainly different than much of the brand of Star Trek spawned by TNG, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. That's not an indictment on the quality of TNG -- I liked a lot of TNG. However, the variety of Star Trek we have had in the last 10 years (a variety which is a direct descendant of TNG) was pretty poor.

    So, yeah, it's not like TNG Star Trek, but it is like TOS Star Trek.
     
  2. DeafPoet

    DeafPoet Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    I anticipated that the movie would illicit a lot of new registrations to the board, but why do the most vocal of them always have to be victims of "Childhood Rape"?
     
  3. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    Wrath of Khan, TUC and First Contact are the best Star Trek films and they were full of action. I am sick of people saying it isn't Star Trek, every Star Trek series was there to make money for them. Is Voyager, and is horrible acting/writing Trek because they have an episode that involves them fighting a technobabble singularity?
     
  4. Squiggy

    Squiggy FrozenToad Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Location:
    Trump Tower
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    Sorry, but you're not Paramount. They decide what is and is not Star Trek, not you. Not me. Not any of us.


    This is Star Trek.
     
  5. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    I mean Insurrection/TMP are probably the closet to an actual episode of their respective series and they both SUCK MAJOR DONKEY BALLS.
     
  6. DiSiLLUSiON

    DiSiLLUSiON Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    Yes, but you must understand; those fans who believe this isn't Star Trek have a very good reason too: They didn't saw it. They closed their eyes, by random chance, at exactly the moment the title came on screen. Just as when any badge, uniforms, ships and characters came on screen. It's not as if they didn't want to see them.
     
  7. iguana_tonante

    iguana_tonante Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Italy, EU
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    From Iowa.

    Now we need a King Leonidas photoshop.
     
  8. Flamegrape

    Flamegrape Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    Is this a Star Trek forum? Or is this /b/? Judging from all the vicious responses to the OP, I can't tell.
     
  9. el_flesh

    el_flesh Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    there was "Star Trek" pasted on a feminist story I read years ago, sanctioned by Paramount to be published, and it sure wasn't "Star Trek".

    As for the 'cows' concept - that would be people who want nothing but action sequences strung together, who don't give a whit about the science part, who want nothing but a formula attached to a script and nothing original in it, who don't want to think when they go to a movie (or watch TV), who go around claiming McDonald's is better than any 5 star restaurant...y'all understand what I mean???
    Kids haven't finished school, they don't have a critical eye developed yet. You can't fault them for this.
    Adults, on the other hand, who went to the movie only because it was action action action, and only liked it because of that, and who only want to see that because that's what's hot nowadays...come on! Have a little thoughts of your own inside your head! Don't just take whatever Hollywood shoves down your gullet and claim it's delicious!

    These are the people who go around insulting Star Trek, making jokes like "they'll insert all the 3 hours from the cutting room floor for classic Trekkies to slow the movie down"...well if you don't like Star Trek as it was before this movie, go see Star Wars, Robocop, Terminator or AvP instead. Now there's nothing left of classic Trek to be made anymore.

    It's all been homogenized to the same formula. Because Paramount cares for nothing more than a quick $.

    Now I'm telling you guys. Call it what you want. Let Paramount call it what they want . IT ISN'T STAR TREK. I know what is and isn't for me, and this is NOT Star Trek. You think it is, fine. Think what the hell you want. You're NOT changing my mind. Period. Go chew your cud.
     
  10. CommanderRaytas

    CommanderRaytas Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Location:
    Intergalactic Planetary Planetary Intergalactic
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    In best Romulan tradition I'll have to add...

    ...IT'S REEEEAAAAAL!

    *ahem*
     
  11. DiSiLLUSiON

    DiSiLLUSiON Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    All right, but then your premise is wrong. You said this movie was made for "cows" (for financial reasons), but by your definition of "cows", this movie wasn't made for them at all. If it was, it would have failed utterly, since "cows" don't like the drama, intriguing storytelling and moral themes like Star Trek has.
     
  12. RogueFive

    RogueFive Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Location:
    Mach5
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    • Federation? - CHECK
    • Vulcan? - CHECK
    • Kirk?- CHECK
    • Spock? - CHECK
    • USS Enterprise NCC 1701? - CHECK
    • Star Fleet? - CHECK
    • San Francisco - CHECK
    • Romulans - CHECK
    • Kobayashi Maru test - CHECK
    • Green Orion Woman - CHECK
    • 47 - CHECK
    • "I'm a doctor, damn' it, not a..."- CHECK
    • stardates - CHECK
    • "Live Long & Prosper" - CHECK
    • phasers - CHECK
    • photons - CHECK
    • warp - CHECK
    • beaming - CHECK
    • Admiral Archer - CHECK...

    • STAR TREK? - CHECK!
     
  13. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    But what about me? I liked this movie AND many of the Star Trek movies before this movie (TWOK, TUC, FC, TVH, and even TSfS)...

    ...so what should I go see? Please advise.



    (by the way -- The original Star Wars and the first Robocop were very good).
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  14. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    Well, it is STAR TREK. but maybe it is not the Star Trek that El Flesh like. So... my sugestion is rather than saying that this "Star Trek" is not your "Star Trek" then why not do this:

    1. Buy a Handy cam
    2. Buy Star Trek costumes
    3. Buy the old Enterprise toy
    4. Bring your friends and ask them to impersonate Klingons and Romulans
    5. Make the script yourself
    6. And then make your adorable 'Star Trek' by yourself.

    I'm sure you will love it more than the Paramount Star Trek, because the Paramount Star Trek is not yours, but your own Star Trek is yours.

    Sorry for Trolling, but it is the best sugestion for people who don't like Abram Star Trek. If they don't like it, just make it themselves. I'm sure the Abram's Star Trek haters can make a decent low budject movie for themselves to enjoy
     
  15. RobertScorpio

    RobertScorpio Pariah

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    So true....to say it isn't TREK and then spew that kind of nonsense is utterly revealing. Oh well..one less person in line next time. Which means there will be 585 in line instead of 586...whoopdy dooo..

    Rob
     
  16. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia, Kelvin timeline
    Re: It's not Star Trek.

    Mmm-hm.

    Well, since we're not likely to get a better response than this one right here:

    ... I think we'll call this one done.

    [​IMG]

    Oh... wait-

     
  17. RAnthony

    RAnthony Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    Star Trek, 1966-2009, R.I.P. (!Spoilers!)

    From Rant(hony)-ings: Star Trek, 1966-2009, R.I.P.

    For the record, I should have stuck to my guns. But I didn't. I caught J.J. Abrams' Star Trek (from here on out to be known as Abramstrek, for brevity's sake) a few days back. By the time it was over, I knew that the universe had changed.

    Abrams said he was creating a film that was entertaining, and true to his word, it is. From the initial scenes of the massive Romulan ship appearing and spawning an alternate timeline (this is not a spoiler, this happens two minutes into the film. Spoilers ahead though, be warned) when it engages in a fierce battle with a clearly more archaic Federation vessel, to the final scenes with a triumphant Captain James T. Kirk at the helm of his (way too shiny) Enterprise, this blockbuster is most definitely entertaining.

    It's just not Star Trek.

    A good portion of the audience applauded at the end of the film. The group I went with all enjoyed it (ages 10, 18 and 55. Definitely the target audience) I even found myself enjoying it. But just as the re-launch of Lost in Space (the film I was most reminded of viewing this one) redefined (in a good way, in my opinion) what Lost in Space was about, Abramstrek has redefined what Star Trek is about, and something significant has been lost in translation.

    It isn't a problem with the cast, they all performed admirably. It isn't a problem with the dialog, a good portion of which seemed to be lifted word for word from previous episodes and movies. I think the problem is that Star Trek has always been more than just entertainment to me (no matter how many times I repeated the mantra "it's just entertainment, don't take it seriously") and to see it "dumbed down" to the level of blockbuster entertainment (a process started several films ago) leaves me feeling a bit hollow.

    I find myself at a loss now. Unlike many fans, I'm not insulted by the content of the film. I just can't grasp what it is that the vast majority of the fans and viewing public see in the film. It's first weekend returns exceeded all other Star Trek films to date, even adjusted for inflation.
    Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): $11,926,421 (opening weekend)/ $82,258,456 (cume)
    Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): $14,347,221 / $78,737,310
    Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984): $16,673,229 / $76,389,860
    Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): $16,881,888 / $109,713,132
    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): $17,375,648 / $52,210,049
    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): $18,162,837 / $74,888,996
    Star Trek: Generations (1994): $23,116,394 / $75,671,125
    Star Trek: First Contact (1996): $30,716,131 / $92,027,888
    Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): $22,052,836 / $70,187,658
    Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): $18,513,305 / $43,126,129

    Adjusted for inflation:
    Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): $34,668,706 (opening weekend)/ $239,115,674 (cume)
    Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): $35,038,451 / $192,290,437
    Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984): $35,629,102 / $163,237,856
    Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): $32,671,686 / $212,328,919
    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): $31,267,457 / $93,951,918
    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): $30,976,050 / $127,720,425
    Star Trek: Generations (1994): $39,707,107 / $129,980,545
    Star Trek: First Contact (1996): $49,896,339 / $149,493,266
    Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): $33,761,058 / $107,451,468
    Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): $22,918,195 / $53,387,173
    (numbers compiled by Daniel Garris)
    (From Boxoffice: The History of 'Trek')

    I've read dozens of posts in support of the film on Trekbbs. Fans are dragging their friends out to watch it; in much the same fashion as if the average American needs to be convinced to chew bubblegum. Abramstrek is bubblegum. I don't see the point in promoting bubblegum; people will chew it anyway.

    No, I don't like the film. If you really want to know why read through...

    !Spoiler Alert!

    Paramount finally gets it's way and removes those pesky Vulcans that are so hard to understand and write for (logic, what's that?) by having Vulcan destroyed by an artificially generated black hole (the explanation for which would be technobabble, had they only attempted to explain it) thus insuring that the only Vulcan they will have to write parts for in the future is the half-Vulcan Mr. Spock, who seems to have a lot more trouble restraining emotion in this universe.

    Uhura in essence sleeps her way onto the bridge of the Enterprise by having a relationship with Mr. Spock, who is not only one of her professors, but also a superior officer. The moral issues of this arrangement are never questioned, leading me to wonder if we haven't somehow stumbled into the Mirror, Mirror universe (Sylar, is that you?) where that type of behavior is run of the mill.

    James T. Kirk becomes captain of the Enterprise largely influenced by the career of his father. In this alternate timeline, the now fatherless Kirk (dad being killed in the opening sequence of the film. The com conversation between the two parents, as George Kirk is about to be killed, being one of the silliest parts of the film) still becomes captain of the Enterprise; proving the modern belief that fathers are irrelevant in the scheme of things, and can be disposed of with no ill effects for any required plot device.

    Then there's the running gag of Bones McCoy infecting the recently reprimanded Kirk with a mock disease in order to smuggle him on the Enterprise. This leads to a subsequent series of injections in order to cure him of humorous side effects. Or the transwarp beaming accident that leaves the recently found Scotty floating in engine coolant until conveniently rescued by Kirk through an inexplicably placed access hatch in the coolant tube. both situations so clearly contrived as to almost be cringe-level uncomfortable for me.

    I could go on, but I won't.

    !End Spoiler Alert!

    I can't help but wonder what Leonard Nimoy (whom I will hold blameless) saw in this film to recommend his tacit approval and his venerable image to it. Spock prime stands in sharp contrast to the new cast, carrying with him into history a mantle of respect this revisioined Star Trek will never achieve. Because unlike Star Trek and it's 42 years of history, Abramstrek is just entertainment.

    With this film, Paramount can pat itself on the back for finally successfully milking this franchise the way it wanted to when the property was acquired with Desilu Productions. Like so many entertainment properties (Lost in Space, the Brady Bunch, Bewitched, the Flintstones, etc.) before it, sucked dry of nostalgia dollars, Star Trek can be safely shelved in long term storage, probably never to be heard from again.

    If there is any mercy in this Mirror, Mirror universe, it won't be. Rest In Peace Star Trek. Say hi to Gene for me.
     
  18. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere Land
    Re: What's the Big Lesson in STXI?

    the white half gave the bail out's and the black half is giving health care and regulation so that the black half won't get exploited again:)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.