Why it is important some people are unhappy
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
Glad to see you're wising up.
But seriously, we'll know whether the movie is 'good' or not by whether or not people are watching it 40 years from now.
---------------
You don't even KNOW my point of view on this. But, hey, thanks for the ad-hominem attack. You've gone a long way to proving my point, time after time after time after time after time.
Honestly, my primary concern is getting Star Trek out of the coma it's been in since 2005 and off life-support again. Even if Trek XI sucks, I want it to be a big hit, because if it does well, then the probability of future Trek productions that I will like being made increases dramatically.
Abrams has a LONG history as a Warsie. If this comment was in isolation, you would have more of a point. The guy does not like Star Trek, and still, in his current interviews, illustrates that point. His goal isn't to honor the original Star Trek, but make his own. Now, that's a valid way to go about things, and it may work at the end of the day, but please try to understand why people who LIKED the original Trek are irked by the attitude.
(Moreso that a number of so-called fans now find it very much en vogue to not only pile the hate on TOS, but anyone who ever liked it as well.)
And, yes, there's plenty of silly in TOS, I've never denied that. But are you really going to tell me that LOST and Heroes aren't silly? :P Honestly, why is JJ being held up as a god when the BEST thing he's done is embarassing to the Sci-Fi channel? :P
Blue_Ranger
Lieutenant
Not really, since I have been attacked over and over and this is the first personal attack posted. But believe what you want.
it is a fact that Star Trek fans are thought of as 30 years living in their parents' basement debating phaser power levels and ship designs. The Trek XI forum is proving these people exist. And these are the people Shatner told to "Get A Life" in the 80s.
He was right. It's a tv show. Don't get a heart attack because things were changed.
But here's the thing. from what I'm seeing, there's a small number of fans here that are 'in a bunch' over it.. there's a larger number who, oddly enough, are getting verbally abused, harassed, and punished for simply saying that there are things that they don't like about it.
The truth is, the 'ardent supporters' of this movie are far, far worse about their treatment of other posters, that the other way around. And, despite what you may say, without even knowing what my position was, you decided to personally attack me twice over it.
And as for those people who think 'Star Trek' and think of 30 year old virgins, do you REALLY think they're going to go "I can see Kirk's Pecker in this scene! THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR ME!"? Just asking.
Hold on. Because he's a fan of Star Wars, that means that he doesn't like Star Trek? Because he's able to look at TOS with a critical eye, that means he doesn't like it?
Show me the quote where he says he dislikes Star Trek. Not one where he claims he wasn't a fan -- I'm not a fan of Mad Men, but that doesn't mean I dislike it. Show me one where he says he dislikes it.
And even if he did, so what? Nicholas Meyer disliked TOS but created two of the greatest TOS movies ever.
You're reading motives into him that just aren't there, first off. And secondly, Star Trek is all about change. Maybe you should live up to what your beloved show is about and stop clinging to the past.
No, I'm not. And I'm sure that Abrams wouldn't, either. In fact, those shows illustrate the point perfectly: TOS, like Lost and Heroes today, worked when it was produced. As it got older, though, the silly parts became more apparent. Ergo, for the program to remain relevant if they make new works based upon it, the work has to be re-interpreted.
I have no doubt that if Lost is around in 40 years and someone wants to make a film based on it, they're going to have to completely re-interpret the whole thing. And I hope they do so and I hope it works well.
I don't hold Abrams up to be a god. I don't even like the new Enterprise. But A) I think a willingness to take creative chances is better than clinging to the past, and B) Lost has consistently been one of the best-performing shows on network television for four years now, which is exactly the kind of popularity Trek needs if it's going to be permanently revived from its coma that began in 2005.
No no, you don't understand. He's not a Star Wars fan, he's a self-proclaimed Warsie. Believe me, in my time on the Bioware boards, I learned what this meant, and it's an ugly, ugly thing.
And, I've talked about this before. The difference is how you approach it. Meyer looked to see what people liked in TOS, and worked from that. Abrams is coming from what people liked about the prequel Star Wars trilogy, and Battlestar Galactica, etc, and going from there. Abrams' approach may not be invalid, but it has nothing for me.
And yet ANOTHER ad homimem. Seriously, do you not see how often you do this? How insanely insulting and hateful you are to your 'fellow fans' who have ONLY expressed misgivings and opinions based on what they've seen?
Seriously, why should I give a rat's ass about what you like and want to see in the film when the response you give to anyone who disagrees with you is pretty much a big ass middle finger?
Hold on.
So, because of what other people have done, you're going to assume the worst about this guy? Because other Star Wars fans are jackasses, you're going to assume that anyone who uses the term "Warsie" must be a jackass, too?
First off, I don't agree with your premise. I think he's starting from what people liked about TOS, cutting out the parts of TOS that don't, in his opinion, work anymore, and then injecting thematic elements from other works to try to inject new life into his re-interpretation of TOS. It's the same basic process that people who re-interpret and re-adapt classic works have used for centuries, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Abrams has said, time and again, that he's trying to capture the essential optimism about the future that characterized TOS. He's trying to make optimism cool again. That's why I think he gets TOS and why he, like Meyer, will probably produce a good Trek film.
But if you really think he just hates it and is trying to take away everything that's good about it? Then stop bitching about it.
Seriously. Go away.
You don't even KNOW what the movie's actually going to be like, and you're already dissing it? You're making assumptions on the basis of next to no evidence and using that to tear a guy you've never even met down and to insult his work. That's just irrational. If you don't like it, why are you spending so much mental energy on it? Just pop in your TOS DVDs and enjoy.
I'd be happy not to except that anyone who doesn't hate anything that's new has had to deal with plenty of people calling us "stupid" or "drooling masses."
And why do you have such an easy time launching ad hominem attacks against JJ Abrams but whine when people lobby them at you?
With your low post count it would seem to indicate that you're rubbing people the wrong way.
Not really. I believe you're thinking about the Trek Tech forum.
---------------
No. You're assuming that I didn't communicate with JJ Abrams at that time.
And show me, explicitly, where I've done that. I have said that you cannot, and will not, stop with the personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, and you sure as hell are doing that.
I've never made a personal attack against JJ Abrams (except the 'Warsies' bit, which he openly cops to). I've disagreed with his choices. And, to be honest, he's far, far more gracious to even the most rabid anti-fans than you are to anyone who dares stray from the dogma.
No. Let's get very specific here:
I'm not attacking people for straying from dogma. I'm attacking people for ADHERING to dogma.
"TOS did it better!" is dogma. "We should use the TOS Enterprise" is dogma. "Nothing should ever be re-interpreted" is dogma.
I get very irritated and frustrated by people who are unwilling to accept the idea of taking creative chances because, in my opinion, that unwillingness to accept change, that desire to cling to the past, is what killed Star Trek, slowly but surely, under Rick Berman.
So if it feels like I'm attacking you, that's why. Because I think that the underlying motivation you're exhibiting in your arguments would be fundamentally damaging to art, to creativity, and to the ability of Trek to survive if the creators of Star Trek adopted it.
Wrong. Because I never said that, and you've been completely and unable to resist attcking me personally in every single post thus far, on several threads.
Let me put this straight to you. I'm far, far more upset about you and your behaviour to your fellow fans than I am about the changes being made in the movie. I'm far more disturbed by the willingness that YOU show to demonize and alienate your fellow fans over a disagreement at what would OBVIOUSLY be a controversial set of choices in order to defend a movie that - to throw this back on you - you haven't actually seen either.
Trek died under Berman because it sucked. And it sucked so bad that Berman tried to take out every 'sweeps week' trick he could think of to save it - except for good storytelling. That was the one thing he wouldn't do. Trek wasn't stale. How could it be? The setting is 'the future, and the universe'. How the HELL can that be limiting?
This is what you're refusing to get. I'm not disliking this movie because it's 'different'. I'm disliking it because it looks like crap. It's got every single stupid 'sweeps week' cliche in it already, and that's just the teaser! Every bad Sci-Fi Channel stereotype was been paraded for everyone to see. The bad 'side-view sex scene', the cast of 90210 as all the leads, the 'angsty hot-roddin' main character, etc etc etc... this movie, on its own merits, looks like shit. In fact, I think it's shit for the exact same reasons I think most of VOY, ENT, and Nemesis were shit.
I'm not saying this as a Sci-Fi or Trek fan. I'm saying this as a movie fan. It looks like one of those 'formulated blockbusters' that no one winds up liking and the studio heads scratch their heads thinking "did we not show enough penis in that sex scene?" That's how it looks to me, right now, with what's released. And, with that much damage done, to me, it's going to be a LOT of work to make me want to see it as a movie, much less a Sci-Fi movie, and much less a Trek movie.
Hope this helps.
Dude, you deliberately misquoted Abrams by falsely attributing a statement to him that he never said. You characterized him as someone who dislikes Star Trek on the basis of no evidence. You persistently tore the guy down on no basis whatsoever.
And you're going to whine because someone else pointed out to you that your fundamental motivation has been a desire to cling to the past?
Get over it.
And you still can't stop, can you?
And show me when I've EVER said "I expect this movie to look like the 1960s" ... not once. But you constantly attribute that to me in order to justify your continued personal demonization of me.
So you are actually lying in order to personally defame me in order to defend a movie that you haven't seen because some people might not like what they've seen of it.
So tell me, which one of us really has an issue?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Without redesigning the old Enterprise does have that 1960s-look. And that is what you want.
Look at these:
Every last one of those quotes from you, Vance, indicates a reluctance to accept change and a desire to see something that's not different from what TOS was like.
Do not launch an ad hominem attack against someone for his purported motives and then expect someone else (whether your victim or not) not to come and attack your motives in return.
No. I said that I didn't like this redesign, and that the TOS-R one looked better. This doesn't elminate the possibility of a 'new' design that I actually would have liked. It's just that this one just ain't it.
Again, pay attention to what the words actually SAY. You have a serious issue with that.
And you're full of crap, Sci.
Let's LOOK at what I said.
A) Trek is in a disasterous state as a franchise and a LOT is being asked of this movie. This is different than the condition the Transformers brand was under when it's second movie came out. Points of fact. It had NO BEARING on the quality or content of the movie itself.
B) Abrams is a self-proclaimed Warsie. He is. Point of fact. I haven't enjoyed professionally dealing with Warsies and how they handle non-Star Wars material. This does include Abrams himself in this regard. Abrams HAS insulted Trek and its fans multiple times. He has. Point of fact.
C) I stated that Abrams has been far more gracious to his 'detractors' than most of the fanbois here have been. While this should be just an anecdotal observation, I think we can also put this into the 'point of fact' column.
D) At no time, in ANY of the above posts, did I say or even imply that I wanted the 1960s back. So, as a point of fact, you are lying.
So, again Sci, I'm actually ashamed of you. I mean this, sincerely. You're exactly the type of 'fanboi' that you claim to hate so much. You're the one who is unwilling to accept 'outside your dogma' and are willing to literally hate people for simply not liking what they've seen so far.
What's next, Sci? Internet Stalking? Physical Violence? I'm honestly not really sure with you. You're willing to declare 'enemies' so freely based on the most assinine of reasons, where exactly is it going to stop? I'm not going to hate you for liking this movie. But you're sure as hell not extending anyone ELSE that courtesy.
