What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy)"?

[HIjol]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

Boy, lots of (unintended?) content in this Thread to ponder. Fans, Facebook, Salamanders, Horsies and JJ. I guess I would use "fan" with a lower case "f" to describe myself, but I agree with Martok with the use of the word, "Love", to describe my feeling for this Thing we are here for in the ST Threads.

I have spent lots of time and effort,
laughter and tears
wonder and awe,
all 5 Senses,
a fair amount of dough,
made room in my house and my head- and my heart
rearranged schedules,
and traveled, sometimes often and far,

for my "Love" of Star Trek.

Sort of like what you do in a relationship.

Bet a lot of you all have, also!

That was beautiful HIjol!

I could imagine Gary Mitchell quoting that for Dr. Dehner.

Thank you, Marsden. That is one of the nicest things anybody has said to me about Star Trek, here or elsewhere...ever...

 

[HIjol]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

But when they try to misrepresent their opinions as facts, and try to push of their dogma that JJ Abrams is the anti-Christ of Star Trek, and that only Prime Trek is the "real Star Trek", that's when any respect I might have for them goes out the nearest airlock.

Hear, hear!

Well said, My Friend!

 

[martok2112]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

But when they try to misrepresent their opinions as facts, and try to push of their dogma that JJ Abrams is the anti-Christ of Star Trek, and that only Prime Trek is the "real Star Trek", that's when any respect I might have for them goes out the nearest airlock.

Hear, hear!

Well said, My Friend!

Thank you both!

And you wrote some beautiful words, friend HIjol!

 

[fireproof78]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

But when they try to misrepresent their opinions as facts, and try to push of their dogma that JJ Abrams is the anti-Christ of Star Trek, and that only Prime Trek is the "real Star Trek", that's when any respect I might have for them goes out the nearest airlock.

Hear, hear!

I agree 100%.

My whole point is simply the idea of discussion. If you don't like the Abrams films, that's fine and go right ahead.

But my frustration comes from the tribal-ism and the lack of discussion once something is painted as "not Star Trek." The same thing happens if it is labeled as a "mindless action movie." To me, those arguments shut down conversation and any salient points get ignored.

I guess it disappoints me that there are many things to enjoy and discuss about Abrams Star Trek films that get missed because of those labels.

 

[Campe]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

The state of Trek fandom is in terrible shape at the moment.

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy when it comes to some who don't like the Abrams films. When people say such things as "I have no problem trolling JJ fans as they are not real Star Trek fans anyway" or speaking as Roddenberry/Berman Trek as "the One True Trek," it just makes me very apprehensive to label myself as a fan. It all comes down to the idea you don't have to like someone or their opinions, but you should respect them. I'll admit it. I'm not always great at that but I do try.

As you say, there are a lot of things to discuss and whether or not you like everything about them, Star Trek 2009 is a fun sci-fi/action film that does, in many ways, harken back to the original series. It has some ridiculous science moments, but then again -- technobabble. I could do without the Khan stuff in Into Darkness but it was an interesting commentary on the militarization of the United States and brings the question to the forefront: Should we trust our leaders?

Call Orci a truther, I don't care. I'm not a huge fan of his anyway. But he and Kurtzman and Lindelof did ask the question. It's there. Those against it just can't see the forest from the trees.

I'm not sure if I've said it in this thread or another but I will admit: I think Pegg's great. Lin is saying all of the right things. But I am apprehensive about this new film. Who knows if this is going to work or not? But I'm not about to call it the next Trek V before I see it. Not before I see a still. Not before I see the first trailer. But I will reserve judgment until the moment I walk out of the theater.

In the end though, I too am to the point where I wonder: Is it worth being called a fan if we all get wrapped in with these fanatics? There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[martok2112]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

But when they try to misrepresent their opinions as facts, and try to push of their dogma that JJ Abrams is the anti-Christ of Star Trek, and that only Prime Trek is the "real Star Trek", that's when any respect I might have for them goes out the nearest airlock.

Hear, hear!

I agree 100%.

My whole point is simply the idea of discussion. If you don't like the Abrams films, that's fine and go right ahead.

But my frustration comes from the tribal-ism and the lack of discussion once something is painted as "not Star Trek." The same thing happens if it is labeled as a "mindless action movie." To me, those arguments shut down conversation and any salient points get ignored.

I guess it disappoints me that there are many things to enjoy and discuss about Abrams Star Trek films that get missed because of those labels.

I would say that it wouldn't shut down conversation if the poster had genuine points to support why they would say that such a film is just a "mindless action movie". But if all they have to say is: "It is just a mindless action movie... 'nuff said." then it does become banality, and unworthy of trifling with any attempt at discussion. Such a person has already made up their mind, and there's no reasoning with them. All that such folk are seeking to do is piss down your neck, and then try to tell you "it's only warm rain."

I love discussing a film's flaws, as long as the discussion is meaningful, and can be seen from both sides. When it becomes a matter of someone who says: "God, no, it's an unforgivable flaw, and no amount of painting it in a good light will make me see it as otherwise!", then it no longer bears discussion, and such folk will generally be dismissed as malcontents that lack a capacity for reason when someone does try to explain why the flaw isn't as bad as the malcontent seems to think it is. Malcontents take the fun out of discussion, and thus become someone with whom it is undesirable to continue any sort of dialogue.

We all know there are plenty of folk out there who dislike the JJ Abrams movies. There are plenty of folk out there who dislike certain aspects of prior Trek films and shows. That's all well and good. They just shouldn't try to tell those of us who enjoy much more out of Trek than they allow themselves that the Trek we enjoy, somehow, isn't Trek by their dogmatic standards.

It's funny. You figure if you get enough reasonable folk together and have a concensus about why certain aspects of Trek are just as valid as others, then the malcontents would just skitter back into the shadows and under the rocks from which they crawled.

But no. Malcontents will still be around to remind the rest of us why the Trek we like is not "valid" Star Trek... or is just not Star Trek at all. (And the mallies have practically no evidence to support their whinings.)

The state of Trek fandom is in terrible shape at the moment.

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy when it comes to some who don't like the Abrams films. When people say such things as "I have no problem trolling JJ fans as they are not real Star Trek fans anyway" or speaking as Roddenberry/Berman Trek as "the One True Trek," it just makes me very apprehensive to label myself as a fan. It all comes down to the idea you don't have to like someone or their opinions, but you should respect them. I'll admit it. I'm not always great at that but I do try.

As you say, there are a lot of things to discuss and whether or not you like everything about them, Star Trek 2009 is a fun sci-fi/action film that does, in many ways, harken back to the original series. It has some ridiculous science moments, but then again -- technobabble. I could do without the Khan stuff in Into Darkness but it was an interesting commentary on the militarization of the United States and brings the question to the forefront: Should we trust our leaders?

Call Orci a truther, I don't care. I'm not a huge fan of his anyway. But he and Kurtzman and Lindelof did ask the question. It's there. Those against it just can't see the forest from the trees.

I'm not sure if I've said it in this thread or another but I will admit: I think Pegg's great. Lin is saying all of the right things. But I am apprehensive about this new film. Who knows if this is going to work or not? But I'm not about to call it the next Trek V before I see it. Not before I see a still. Not before I see the first trailer. But I will reserve judgment until the moment I walk out of the theater.

In the end though, I too am to the point where I wonder: Is it worth being called a fan if we all get wrapped in with these fanatics? There is a huge difference between the two.
__________________

Well told!

 

[Karzak]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

The state of Trek fandom is in terrible shape at the moment.

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy when it comes to some who don't like the Abrams films. When people say such things as "I have no problem trolling JJ fans as they are not real Star Trek fans anyway" or speaking as Roddenberry/Berman Trek as "the One True Trek," it just makes me very apprehensive to label myself as a fan. It all comes down to the idea you don't have to like someone or their opinions, but you should respect them. I'll admit it. I'm not always great at that but I do try.

As you say, there are a lot of things to discuss and whether or not you like everything about them, Star Trek 2009 is a fun sci-fi/action film that does, in many ways, harken back to the original series. It has some ridiculous science moments, but then again -- technobabble. I could do without the Khan stuff in Into Darkness but it was an interesting commentary on the militarization of the United States and brings the question to the forefront: Should we trust our leaders?

Call Orci a truther, I don't care. I'm not a huge fan of his anyway. But he and Kurtzman and Lindelof did ask the question. It's there. Those against it just can't see the forest from the trees.

I'm not sure if I've said it in this thread or another but I will admit: I think Pegg's great. Lin is saying all of the right things. But I am apprehensive about this new film. Who knows if this is going to work or not? But I'm not about to call it the next Trek V before I see it. Not before I see a still. Not before I see the first trailer. But I will reserve judgment until the moment I walk out of the theater.

In the end though, I too am to the point where I wonder: Is it worth being called a fan if we all get wrapped in with these fanatics? There is a huge difference between the two.

Common sense in these forums is a priceless commodity. I thank you for sharing this brilliantly insightful and more importantly reasonable (also a characteristic sorely lacking in fadom these days) assessment of things. Agreed, 1000%.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

First of all, Voyager itself is somewhat guilty of my overall complaint regarding NuTrek -- if you have to go to the worst episode of the least successful Trek series to defend Abrams, I rest my case. Secondly, ANY television series (Star Trek included) is going to have misfires. What I'm talking about is OVERALL intention and execution. Classic Trek, Next Gen, DS9, and (most of) the classic films exhibit relatively consistent, solid, meritorious efforts. Certainly not perfect, but I'm happy to cut Trek slack here and there -- you really have to.

Interesting.

However, when it comes to motion picture "events" budgeted at $150+ million dollars a piece, I would like to see more consideration for my intelligence and aesthetic taste than Willy Wonka water pipes or black holes that need "help" drilling down to the center of a planet. And these are not isolated quibbles. For both Abrams films, the list is nearly endless -- almost every scene contains some kind of shocking, pull you out of the picture, breakdown of logic. And just to be fair, I have many of the same criticisms for the Next Gen films, although not quite to the same extreme.

Some believe (and will defend) the erroneous notion that if the production was a big budget, so-called "event" film, then it should remove all responsibility in creating a coherent, intelligence-respecting story that does not dip to the level of an episode of Go-Bots. Film is not alien to big budget hits with serious, intelligent scripting on the opposite side of Transformers...or NuTrek..but I predict someone will say that's never...ever happened.

...or some will take a ride down ad hominem lane, which only shines the light on their inability to defend bad films.

 

[Campe]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

Well told!

Common sense in these forums is a priceless commodity. I thank you for sharing this brilliantly insightful and more importantly reasonable (also a characteristic sorely lacking in fadom these days) assessment of things. Agreed, 1000%.

Aw... Thank you both.

 

[martok2112]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

Although "good films" are subjective to each and every person who views them, if you get a majority that says "that was a good film", then it was likely a good film. And among that set are many intelligent people.

If a majority says it was a bad film, then it was likely a bad film. Again, many among such a set are intelligent people.

But between both sets, regardless of intellect are just a group of folk who simply want to be entertained.

I consider myself a fairly intelligent individual. There are many things I am often (and quite horribly) wrong on. But when it comes to movies and shows and video games, all I ask is to be entertained. Star Trek, through the years and various incarnations, has done this plentifully.

Long live Star Trek, be it Gene Roddenberry's, Rick Berman's, or JJ Abrams'. I hope that Justin Lin and Simon Pegg can add to that line up.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

Although "good films" are subjective to each and every person who views them, if you get a majority that says "that was a good film", then it was likely a good film. And among that set are many intelligent people.

If a majority says it was a bad film, then it was likely a bad film. Again, many among such a set are intelligent people.

But between both sets, regardless of intellect are just a group of folk who simply want to be entertained.

I consider myself a fairly intelligent individual. There are many things I am often (and quite horribly) wrong on. But when it comes to movies and shows and video games, all I ask is to be entertained. Star Trek, through the years and various incarnations, has done this plentifully.

Long live Star Trek, be it Gene Roddenberry's, Rick Berman's, or JJ Abrams'. I hope that Justin Lin and Simon Pegg can add to that line up.

Indeed.

I keep checking out another FB page in the same vein, and the picture of what GR's Trek was versus Abrams Trek, and just because there is social commentary there, but it isn't for everyone.

Regardless, I'll freely admit my taste in movies is odd, to put it politely. I like Chronicles of Riddick, don't really care for Fight Club, think Tron: Legacy is a pretty fun film, and Die Hard to be kind of overrated.

That said, I can find entertainment in many films, but don't see films the same way others do.

 

[Campe]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

I find the new Trek films entertaining. With a little bit of a social message behind them. At the end of the films, I was riveted by them both. They're not great films, no. But they are fun, entertaining romps. That's all they need to be.

Trek will return to TV someday. And when it does, I hope that these fans get what they want. Other than a return to the Primeverse. No thank you.

 

[BillJ]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

I find the new Trek films entertaining. With a little bit of a social message behind them. At the end of the films, I was riveted by them both. They're not great films, no. But they are fun, entertaining romps. That's all they need to be.

I guess this confuses me? How are these not great films if you were riveted by both and found them fun and entertaining. I see this a lot and am guilty of it to a degree myself. Excusing films that I find fun and exciting for not being great films.

If I'm a filmmaker, I think that is exactly what I would want to hear from my audience for a film in the mold of Star Trek past and present. Or are we, collectively, working from the angle that sci-fi, action-adventure movies simply cannot be "great films"?

 

[Marsden]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

I wonder if that's being judgemental about what's "good" and what you enjoy?

For example, TFF was not a good movie, but I enjoy it, to an extent. But I wouldn't charge in if someone says it's a stinker.

For the new films, I just didn't enjoy.

I'm not really concerned with if they were "good" in that sense or not.

I admit it, I know my tastes tend toward the more reserved end of things anymore, maybe if I was ten I would absolutely love the new films. But they just didn't appeal to me. I also have some other opinons about them I'm not going to bring up again, because I've mentioned them already.

So good has become such a subjective term that it's not the simple word it used to be.

 

[Campe]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

^ More or less this. I find the new films good, not great. But I do enjoy them quite a bit. I do find them action-packed and riveting, and I'd watch them again and again and again. But if I was to rate them, it's unlikely a Trek movie would ever fall into 4-5 stars on my scale. That's what I consider a great film. Trek 09 would get a 3.5 and Into Darkness, a 3. Still very solid. Just not what I consider great.

 

[martok2112]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

When it comes to art, good and bad have always been, and ever thus will be subjective terms. One man's Picasso will be another man's Piesosciutto. (and vicey versey).

Again, most of us are rational enough to remember that whether we love the movies, hate them, or fall somewhere in the broad spectrum of in-between, we are expressing our opinions. There's nothing bad or wrong about that.

Just watch out for the Star Trek Zealots who will try to convince you that you are the infidel if you fall anywhere on the remotely sunny side of opinion when it comes to the Abrams films. For in their parents' basements that have been converted to holy shrines to the "Prime" Universe, they call for fatwahs against the "unwashed masses".

That's why churches like "Our Star Trek (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy)" rarely stand for long. Because even among themselves, they will argue exactly why the 2009 movie was supposedly blasphemy. They wouldn't be able to agree on exactly why, no matter how hard they try.

Why?

Because Star Trek is so varied a thing that it truly is hard to nail down just what makes it so special to so many. And it is so special to so many because it appeals to so many different people with so many different favorite flavors.

They will try to convince you that it is a group of elements that in truth only represents a smallish fraction of the overall appeal of Star Trek, but that those elements are the only things that matter when it comes to Star Trek. But even among their fundamentalist sects, they'll fuss, argue and fight over which is the better trait.

And then they'll try to convince "the infidels" and themselves that they are right and righteous in their so-called facts.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

In addition, the amount of reality bending that must be engaged in is amazing to me.

It is one thing to not like a film, and I know many, intelligent individuals, who simply don't like Abrams Trek. Totally fair. However, the insistence that Bad Robot would expend the money, time and resources to fabricate a lie regarding producing a film, in addition to how the film succeeded is astounding to me.

You can bend reality, but you cannot bend it infinitely.

 

[Campe]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

In addition, the amount of reality bending that must be engaged in is amazing to me.

It is one thing to not like a film, and I know many, intelligent individuals, who simply don't like Abrams Trek. Totally fair. However, the insistence that Bad Robot would expend the money, time and resources to fabricate a lie regarding producing a film, in addition to how the film succeeded is astounding to me.

You can bend reality, but you cannot bend it infinitely.

Exactly. Bad Robot is in the business of making movie. Not playing a con game. It just goes to show these people behind this movement have nothing better to do.

And I'll admit... I'm probably just as guilty because I engage them.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

In addition, the amount of reality bending that must be engaged in is amazing to me.

It is one thing to not like a film, and I know many, intelligent individuals, who simply don't like Abrams Trek. Totally fair. However, the insistence that Bad Robot would expend the money, time and resources to fabricate a lie regarding producing a film, in addition to how the film succeeded is astounding to me.

You can bend reality, but you cannot bend it infinitely.

Exactly. Bad Robot is in the business of making movie. Not playing a con game. It just goes to show these people behind this movement have nothing better to do.

And I'll admit... I'm probably just as guilty because I engage them.

I'm right there with you. But, I want a discussion, and it frustrates me because it will never happen, and that's it.

I'd like to think I would understand, but even in my younger days of dealing with the Star Wars prequels and all the venom those films received, and my own personal retcons of those films, I'm still amazed by the vitriol at Abrams.

Oh well. I'm probably giving it too much attention.

 

[martok2112]

Re: What happened to "Our Star Trek Page (The 2009 Movie Was Blasphemy

Campe, Fireproof, I agree with you both.

I think the next time some blowhard comes around wanting to mindlessly rant about how folk are in the wrong for enjoying a fresh take on Star Trek as JJ Abrams and Bad Robot provided, we should simply ignore them. To dignify their horse-hockey with a response when we know such folk cannot see reason is just to enable them to keep it up.

Ignored long enough, trolls will eventually go away.... fade into obscurity.