The First Trailer
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
That's my number one criticism about this. Why do they feel the need to blast that ship apart in almost every movie? No respect for its status as a character on the show?
And the motorcycle...
So, they are NOT NuTrekkies? Please explain. Trekkies from before Abrams love the older Trek before Abrams, and many of them like the new films. The NuTrekkies diss the older Trek as being "boring" full of "technobabble", but some of them like the older Trek. Why am I okay with all of these scenarios but you are not?
I am one of those who hates the NuTrek. I have my reasons for that. If the guy next to me likes NuTrek, fine. I am not going to attack him/her for liking it, but by the same token don't try and convince me that I should like the new movies cause I just don't. Why do YOU have a problem with that?
The motorcycle...that one gets me. It must have been on the ship. I'm thinking that part of the ship survived destruction, which would explain how Spock and Kirk are shown energizing from the planet to a transporter pad. Perhaps the bike was in the cargo hold? Where would the gas come from, and the tires and battery? We know it's gas powered because of the sound the engine makes.
Ahem
May I suggest why you're having so much trouble convincing anyone when you're arguing from that premise? Most people here do appreciate 'scifi from when sci fi was still science fiction.'
Did you read the comment I was responding to? Context is everything. It has nothing to do with anything, like the comment I responded to. Please read it.
It doesn't matter if you're a blue blob of goo from Jupiter. You're using obtuse rhetoric to make passive-aggressive barbs. You're essentially saying, "If you like nuTrek, you're not a real Star Trek fan." Attacking is exactly what you're doing.
So your question is: if there was no Star Trek in the trailer, would it feel like Star Trek? No, and neither would any other trailer for any other franchise.
It's _one_ trailer, people. It can be dissapointing but let's not lose perspective.
You thought it was mad mad because there's a motorcycle?
Seriously, guys: perspective.
That's the thing dude...I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am voicing my opinions. You seem to have an issue with the fact that my opinions differ from yours. And I am ghoing to point out that science fiction pre-NuBSG was a whole different thing than after that (2004). Why is that a problem for you to admit? Hell, I know that entertainment and popular media was much different for my dad than it was for me. I did not live in his era, even though I can listen to the radio dramas and see the black and white shows he used to watch. I did not like his westerns! And he saw the original Star Trek as being a western wannabe in space and I can see why. This is much the same to me.
Why would you assume those things aren't already on the motorcycle?
Roddenberry sold it as Wagon Train to the Stars. What exactly would you expect?
Oh please...I am not saying any such thing, YOU ARE. I have made myself clear on how I feel about NuTrek and NuTrek fans, without attacking anyone. You are attacking ME.
In Science-Fiction, "vintage" means "in the present or past of the audience."
If he's going to be gone from home for five years, why wouldn't he bring something with him he loved?
Overmind said:
You're voicing opinions about other people.
Again, the issue is not that you don't like the movie. The problem is that you're pulling the exact same stunt as those who say things like 'Trekkies are fated to die virgins.'
Now bring on the defence: 'But it's different when I make snap judgements based purely on someone liking a piece of media. ...'
Similar threads
