I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

[cmdrbolly]

And you come along and try and use this 'filmmaking has gone downhill since 1979' crap to justify your dislike of STXI. That's such hogwash it's scary. If you don't like the film, great! I just don't see the need to try and rewrite film history in order to justify your reasons for doing so.

It's not my "rewriting film history". That's your fallacious tendency for resorting to melodrama, again.

Rather, it's my ..... hold on for this one ..... SUBJECTIVE OPINION, which everybody is entitled to and naturally has.

'Course, I was being a little facetious about it, but only a little. Good filmmaking abounds today just as surely as yesteryear. Recently, I have been stunned by the likes of "The Wrestler" and "There Will Be Blood", and, more specifically, in the area of family entertainment, I found "WALL-E" totally captivating.

My comment was a stab at a noticeable decline in a certain kind of film -- at least, a decline I personally feel has taken place. The likes of "Superman Returns", "Iron Man" and now this new "Star Trek" don't remotely match the hype, in my opinion. I would even say, to a lesser degree, the same is true, again, for me, personally, of "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight Returns", even the "Lord of the Rings" pictures. It's too detailed to get into now, but the "magic" isn't there, for me. This is in marked contrast to the 70's, where I can look back and admire pictures from all over, across all genres. I gave 1979 partly for it being tied to TMP and partly for it being the last year of a particular decade I hold in high esteem.

But the thing under discussion here is JJ Abrams' "Star Trek", not my film tastes or reasoning. Avoiding any undue offence, I wonder what it is that you're doing in a thread like this? If you don't like people criticising this movie, this isn't the best place to be. Read the opening post again. The topic starter is looking for people dissatisfied with STXI, not fans of it. Seems like you're only going to get wound up rubbing shoulders with dissenting views (relative to your own) in here. There are plenty of other threads that would suit you better.

Cryogenic: Now you're just trying to be cute. Decrying the standards of filmmaking since, coincidentally enough, the time STMP came out in order to take a swipe at Abrams is not resorting to some 'fallacious melodrama'? Puh-lease.

As for the decline in the affect and effect a 'certain kind of film' has on you, could it be that maybe they haven't changed, but you have? Perhaps it's a sign that you should no longer be lining up to watch these cinematic confections. Hey, maybe you're all grown up.

I came to this thread precisely because I wanted to read about what worked and what didn't for each person - not some precious twaddle about how Abrams' lack of cinematic chops pales in comparison to Wise's. Come to think of it, I'd even take that, if it were a real discussion, and not some excuse for a cheap shot at Abrams.

Gap Malakai's descriptions of why it didn't ultimately work for him are great. The First two acts working but the 3rd act letting him down is a good description of his personal experience of the film. That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for. Not some bullshit teeth gnashing about 'lousy direction' or 'lazy writing'. Because the Trek universe reeks of both.

 

[plynch]

I'll give you one reason I don't like the new film ...

Spend a few seconds looking at each image. Let your mind feast a little.

I seriously thought you were going to talk about the fact that in the top one they're individuals, and in the bottom they look like fascists: high collars, uniformity. And I am NOT a JJ hater just so you all know, tho the movie wasn't really to my tastes. But very military looking in spite of the chain of command plotholes others have beat to death.

 

[Qonos]

It was the death of the old trek, and the birth of the new. I'm just not sure the old trek needed to die.

It's too late. It was dead already.

Not everyone would agree with that.

And those who don't are fools, Star Trek while in Berman and BRagas hands was a horse beaten till it was dead, then beaten more till it was glue, then to make a pinata that was beaten some more till it broke and it didn't poor out candy just mind-numbing technobabble.

What TOS succeeded in was telling stories that needed to be told for it's time with light-hearted fun, not what TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise had become which was usually taken and Deus Ex Machina'd away at the end by it being a dream, Time Travel, Wesley's GOTW, or some other quick fix senerio.

Why do people always feel the need to think about entertainment. The reason I stopped watching Trek (Voyager and Ent) is because I had to think to hard to find the fun, now the fun is back. It's fun again and the brains are still their but when the message slows the show down then it's something that's not needed TOS didn't have that problem, many of it future incarnations though did.

 

[Qonos]

I'm not really that bitter, I've just been looking for an excuse to use that analogy for a while

Then find something to use it on where it actually fits..

Cause it's not the case here.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I seriously thought you were going to talk about the fact that in the top one they're individuals, and in the bottom they look like fascists: high collars, uniformity.

That's the red color of the uniforms talking, probably, since it's always been associated with love, but also blood and facist regimes.

 

[TheGodBen]

Why do people always feel the need to think about entertainment.

Well, roughly 5 million years ago a group of apes broke off from the rest and ended up becoming human beings rather than chimpanzees. There's not much of a distinction beyond the hair-loss, but there is enough.

Your statement is ridiculous, thinking has been a part of entertainment for millennia. Many people enjoy a nice game of chess from time to time, some people enjoy documentaries so much that there are channels devoted to individual subjects, and some people, such as sad bastards like me, enjoy listening to a political debate. I'm not opposed to mindless entertainment, but the key to good mindless entertainment is that it turns your brain off for you and for a minority of people this film did not manage to do that.

 

[VonHelton]

So...what say you, denizens of the Trek XI forum? Am I alone on this?

Yep, pretty much.

Those of us with a disssenting view are labelled "troll" & banned from the forum. The reason many of you don't know who I am is because I was banned from this board by mods with a god complex. Instead of banning the people who attacked me, they banned *ME* instead.

The only reason I returned was so I could gloat a little bit, and hopefully awaken some of you from your slumber.

I was watching Star Trek before many of you were even BORN, but yet I'm a troll? Go fuck yourselves.

Many of you, including some mods, don't even know what Trek is about, and therefore cannot fathom how royally JJ fucked this up.

If those of you with more than 2 brain cells would stop & think for a second, you might wonder why Paramount would give Star Trek to someone who in the past addmitted he *HATED* Trek.....

TO KIL IT.

Why wasn't Manny Coto, or someone who loved Trek given the job? The answer is so fucking obvious, a moron could figure it out with one hand tied behind his back.

TO KILL IT.

JJ is *ON RECORD* saying he hated Trek & was never a Trekker, but I'm a "troll" for pointing that out?

GO GET STUFFED!

But is it a good movie? Yes, it is. One of the best action movies I've seen in a long time, but it is *not* Trek.

Many will point to the huge sales that this movie has generated, but that's because it's a good action movie, not because it's Trek.

This movie *obliterates* any & all previous Treks, due to the actions of Nero. Billions on Vulcan alone have DIED. Many billions more will die due to the changing of the time line.

In this timeline, there will probably not be a TNG, DS9 or Voyager, simply because the people who shaped those events, many of whom were from Vulcan, now no longer EXIST.

Some of you might bring up the talk of a sequel......Don't bother. I've seen many movies that had higher grosses than this one, yet they got no sequel.

The memorable moments of Spock on his homeworld of Vulcan can now never happen, irrevocably changing Trek FOREVER.

A bunch of 20 somethings hopping around the galaxy blowing shit up is not Star Trek.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

 

[VonHelton]

Well, roughly 5 million years ago a group of apes broke off from the rest and ended up becoming human beings rather than chimpanzees.

Really? How that "missing link" coming along?

 

[Gepard]

Yep, pretty much.

Those of us with a disssenting view are labelled "troll" & banned from the forum. The reason many of you don't know who I am is because I was banned from this board by mods with a god complex. Instead of banning the people who attacked me, they banned *ME* instead.

The only reason I returned was so I could gloat a little bit, and hopefully awaken some of you from your slumber.

I was watching Star Trek before many of you were even BORN, but yet I'm a troll? Go fuck yourselves.

Many of you, including some mods, don't even know what Trek is about, and therefore cannot fathom how royally JJ fucked this up.

If those of you with more than 2 brain cells would stop & think for a second, you might wonder why Paramount would give Star Trek to someone who in the past addmitted he *HATED* Trek.....

TO KIL IT.

Why wasn't Manny Coto, or someone who loved Trek given the job? The answer is so fucking obvious, a moron could figure it out with one hand tied behind his back.

TO KILL IT.

JJ is *ON RECORD* saying he hated Trek & was never a Trekker, but I'm a "troll" for pointing that out?

GO GET STUFFED!

Yes, with an attitude like this, I can clearly see that it's other people who are the problem. Verily, good sir, you have convinced me.

But is it a good movie? Yes, it is. One of the best action movies I've seen in a long time, but it is *not* Trek.

Many will point to the huge sales that this movie has generated, but that's because it's a good action movie, not because it's Trek.

This movie *obliterates* any & all previous Treks, due to the actions of Nero. Billions on Vulcan alone have DIED. Many billions more will die due to the changing of the time line.

In this timeline, there will probably not be a TNG, DS9 or Voyager, simply because the people who shaped those events, many of whom were from Vulcan, now no longer EXIST.

Some of you might bring up the talk of a sequel......Don't bother. I've seen many movies that had higher grosses than this one, yet they got no sequel.

The memorable moments of Spock on his homeworld of Vulcan can now never happen, irrevocably changing Trek FOREVER.

A bunch of 20 somethings hopping around the galaxy blowing shit up is not Star Trek.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Aaaaand...you missed the point of my OP. I found it to be fine Trek; just not a very good movie. I'm less interested (actually, not interested at all) in how the film contradicts this or that element of the old continuity. I care about it telling a good story. Did it? Most people seem to think it did. I'm less convinced of that.

 

[Qonos]

Why do people always feel the need to think about entertainment.

Well, roughly 5 million years ago a group of apes broke off from the rest and ended up becoming human beings rather than chimpanzees. There's not much of a distinction beyond the hair-loss, but there is enough.

Your statement is ridiculous, thinking has been a part of entertainment for millennia. Many people enjoy a nice game of chess from time to time, some people enjoy documentaries so much that there are channels devoted to individual subjects, and some people, such as sad bastards like me, enjoy listening to a political debate. I'm not opposed to mindless entertainment, but the key to good mindless entertainment is that it turns your brain off for you and for a minority of people this film did not manage to do that.

No Chess is not entertainment. I play chess against formidable opponents because I wish to stregthen my cognative abilites. I watch Mythbusters because I want to think and see what works and what doesn't it's also not entertainment I'm feedng my curiosity, learning something new. When I want entertainment, when I want to escape from the tedious of day to day that's when I pop in movies. I guess that's why I can like movies like Student Bodies, and also be enthralled in a movie like The Secret life of Walter Mitty. Because I don't look for the holes in the story I let myself enjoy it.

 

[Thrawn]

But, realistically, Paramount doesn't care about those fans. Paramount wants the mass market fans, and this movie is getting them. So this is the path they will take, and if they lose some long-term supporters? Well too bad, but they don't really care.

This is a better way of putting things than I have. I've said a lot will ride on the next movie, and your above point is why. Star Trek will lose some longterm fans, or at least the long term fans that didn't like Star Trek 2009 will not return for a sequel.

And if the sequel sucks, then the mass market fans will depart and how dead will Star Trek be then? Will anyone ever want to bring it back if that happens?

Right.

Essentially, what Paramount has done is break up with their long term wife to chase after a young hot girl. And for now, they are thrilled because the young hot girl love love LOVES them. But the wife was extremely loyal and stuck with them through a lot of crap. The young hot girl is fickle and not likely to do the same. If they screw up the sequel, the young hot girl will not hesitate to dump them for the next big thing, and they will likely be left with neither.

Just... no.

Every fanbase I've ever been a part of has had shit like this before EVERY season, movie, book, whatever. "I'll forgive this one, because it had to accomplish X, but if the next one isn't exactly what I (and thus the True Fans) want, it's over for the whole franchise."

Get over yourself.

 

[Peter the Younger]

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

LIGHTEN UP, VONHELTON!

 

[Sky]

No Chess is not entertainment.

Actually, for me, chess is entertainment. As are other strategic board games, reading, watching documentary films and watching movies.

 

[Feofilakt]

I seriously thought you were going to talk about the fact that in the top one they're individuals, and in the bottom they look like fascists: high collars, uniformity.

That's the red color of the uniforms talking, probably, since it's always been associated with love, but also blood and facist regimes.

What the fuck? Not really. Gray, brown, and black have more fascist connotations than orange/red. The uniforms do look a little too militaristic, and the uniformity is reminiscent of "Armor" or "Starship Troopers", not a state with secular humanist ideals.

There are ways of conveying discipline without hard-nosed militarism.

 

[superdeluxe]

The only reason I returned was so I could gloat a little bit

What are you gloating about?

 

[Thrawn]

Yeah. Putting cadets in identical uniforms is so anti-secular humanism.

What the HELL people. This is the kind of criticism we're making?!

 

[Qonos]

No Chess is not entertainment.

Actually, for me, chess is entertainment. As are other strategic board games, reading, watching documentary films and watching movies.

I consider entertainment anything that lets me not use my brain, which was entertainment's original intent, a distraction from the daily woes, from the plauges of the world (Literally) and from the minutia of ones daily work tasks. It has of course evolved and what you find entertainment may make your brain work, but I find I focus on my jobs better when I don't stress the old supercomputer too much.

I also come away with alot more of my entertainment when I don't strain to find every little thing wrong with it. Which your brain naturally wants to do because people love solving mysteries and when you explain the magician's trick it isn't quite as magical anymore is it.

 

[Sky]

I consider entertainment anything that lets me not use my brain, which was entertainment's original intent, a distraction from the daily woes, from the plauges of the world (Literally) and from the minutia of ones daily work tasks. It has of course evolved and what you find entertainment may make your brain work, but I find I focus on my jobs better when I don't stress the old supercomputer too much.

Yeah, but my daily work is making images. For me, using my brain differently - for chess, for example - is entertainment. I am not looking to get better at it, necessarily; I don't compete, or mind that much if I lose, but I do like to play and talk about it.

YMMV.

(Edit: Oh, and I'm a bit disturbed by the notion that you can only be entertained if you turn your brain off..)

 

[Feofilakt]

Yeah. Putting cadets in identical uniforms is so anti-secular humanism.

What the HELL people. This is the kind of criticism we're making?!

Ever read Armor? Starship troopers? The feeling I get from that image is somewhere between Armor and Starship Troopers, not Trek. There is a militaristic bent to the uniforms and presentation that seems a little alien to the universe

You can have uniforms without being so damn martial about it. That was my point.

 

[Jamie H]

[


Just... no.

Every fanbase I've ever been a part of has had shit like this before EVERY season, movie, book, whatever. "I'll forgive this one, because it had to accomplish X, but if the next one isn't exactly what I (and thus the True Fans) want, it's over for the whole franchise."

Get over yourself.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying.

By alienating a portion of your fanbase, you remove the safety net. Star Trek survived through many BAD movies (especially V) because of a loyal fan base that was willing to say "yeah, that sucked, but maybe the next one will be good".

This time, there isn't really a "next one". If you are someone who isn't really interested in this new alternate reality, there may never BE a "next one". There is literally no chance they will make a compelling film in the Trek Prime universe for probably at least 10 years, if not 20 or more, or even ever.

Star Wars has essentially survived 3 rather bad films in a row, with fans coming back over and over to see if they have managed to get it right yet. Why? Because it is Star Wars and when Star Wars is good, it is awesome. But good or bad, the films have always remained Star Wars, with characters and story lines that span the entirety of the series. That makes it must-see viewing every time a movie comes out, even if the movie isn't the best. You don't want to miss out on what happened in the Star Wars storyline.

With the new Alternate Trek have that kind of staying power? Sure, it is super cool to love it right now, but 1 underperforming film has been more than enough to kill off other franchises. Will enough people really care about what happens in this alternate time-line to come back if a stinker gets made in there? Maybe we won't have to find out becasue all the movies will rock, but the law of averages says that isn't likely to be.