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

[cmdrbolly]

Excuse me, but if you yell at me for kicking my dog while you're doing the same, then you can be only one thing - (a) a hypocrite (b) a bloody idiot or (c) One of the Star Trek nutters presently railing against STXI.

Who said anything about blindly accepting the flaws of STXI? I'm talking about blindly accepting the bullshit that is most of Star Trek, and then trying to claim some intellectual high ground in order to dismiss STXI. The large majority of the ST universe is warmed-over, ham-fisted, sermonizing crap. Most of the roles are inhabited by B grade actors who could never have any other sort of career outside of Trek; acting in stories and spewing lines written by pretty average writers ( 'cept maybe Ellison ); directed by, with few exceptions, journeymen hacks. That's the objective truth. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with liking, even loving their output. But please, have some freaking perspective here.

Again, please show me one example where i have said that previous Star Trek was perfect? I am judging the new film on the exact same standards i have judged every previous film i have seen. Nemesis does not hold up to scrutiny in anyway, shape or form. And dont get me started on Generations.

Nor have i said there is anything wrong with liking their output,if you like the new film fantastic, good for you, i just take exception to the notion that those who dont like the new film are blistering idiots unable to let go of the past.

And you will notice, i didnt resort to personal insults about your mental status whilst replying to your post. But hey im just "a nutter" who didnt like the new film. Or a bloody idiot

Geezus you're missing my bloody point. ALL the previous films were crap. I liked a few of them, but they were c-r-a-p. I didn't say you were a blistering idiot for hating the new film - I'm just saying that holding up the old shit as if it was so much better is blisteringly, disingenuously idiotic.

The last ST film that had any ambition was STMP, and even then its only ambition was to rip off 2001.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Excuse me, but if you yell at me for kicking my dog while you're doing the same, then you can be only one thing - (a) a hypocrite (b) a bloody idiot or (c) One of the Star Trek nutters presently railing against STXI.

Who said anything about blindly accepting the flaws of STXI? I'm talking about blindly accepting the bullshit that is most of Star Trek, and then trying to claim some intellectual high ground in order to dismiss STXI. The large majority of the ST universe is warmed-over, ham-fisted, sermonizing crap. Most of the roles are inhabited by B grade actors who could never have any other sort of career outside of Trek; acting in stories and spewing lines written by pretty average writers ( 'cept maybe Ellison ); directed by, with few exceptions, journeymen hacks. That's the objective truth. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with liking, even loving their output. But please, have some freaking perspective here.

Again, please show me one example where i have said that previous Star Trek was perfect? I am judging the new film on the exact same standards i have judged every previous film i have seen. Nemesis does not hold up to scrutiny in anyway, shape or form. And dont get me started on Generations.

Nor have i said there is anything wrong with liking their output,if you like the new film fantastic, good for you, i just take exception to the notion that those who dont like the new film are blistering idiots unable to let go of the past.

And you will notice, i didnt resort to personal insults about your mental status whilst replying to your post. But hey im just "a nutter" who didnt like the new film. Or a bloody idiot

Geezus you're missing my bloody point. ALL the previous films were crap. I liked a few of them, but they were c-r-a-p. I didn't say you were a blistering idiot for hating the new film - I'm just saying that holding up the old shit as if it was so much better is blisteringly, disingenuously idiotic.

The last ST film that had any ambition was STMP, and even then its only ambition was to rip off 2001.

And again you are missing my point, i am NOT holding up the old stuff as being better. Saying that the old stuff is crap however, does not mean we shouldnt excuse the flaws of the new film.

 

[cmdrbolly]

Great post, Butters. I like your stated mission to poke holes in the silly idea that ST is 'intellectual'/'cerebral'.

Funny, I don't see many of the 'true' fans taking the bait though. Perhaps deep down they recognize much of Trek for the twaddle it is.

Thank you.

Is it ironic that here I am, challenging the views of those who hate this film, when I didn't think it was that special anyway? I just want to live in a world where all men can enjoy trek as equals free from the stigma of quasi-intellectual dogma.

Oddly enough, that's also the case with me. I didn't think this new film was brilliant by any stretch of the imagination. But reading the bullshit from the haters here makes me want to take the piss out of them.

 

[Cryogenic]

Excuse me, but if you yell at me for kicking my dog while you're doing the same, then you can be only one thing - (a) a hypocrite (b) a bloody idiot or (c) One of the Star Trek nutters presently railing against STXI.

Who said anything about blindly accepting the flaws of STXI? I'm talking about blindly accepting the bullshit that is most of Star Trek, and then trying to claim some intellectual high ground in order to dismiss STXI. The large majority of the ST universe is warmed-over, ham-fisted, sermonizing crap. Most of the roles are inhabited by B grade actors who could never have any other sort of career outside of Trek; acting in stories and spewing lines written by pretty average writers ( 'cept maybe Ellison ); directed by, with few exceptions, journeymen hacks. That's the objective truth. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with liking, even loving their output. But please, have some freaking perspective here.

Again, please show me one example where i have said that previous Star Trek was perfect? I am judging the new film on the exact same standards i have judged every previous film i have seen. Nemesis does not hold up to scrutiny in anyway, shape or form. And dont get me started on Generations.

Nor have i said there is anything wrong with liking their output,if you like the new film fantastic, good for you, i just take exception to the notion that those who dont like the new film are blistering idiots unable to let go of the past.

And you will notice, i didnt resort to personal insults about your mental status whilst replying to your post. But hey im just "a nutter" who didnt like the new film. Or a bloody idiot

Geezus you're missing my bloody point. ALL the previous films were crap. I liked a few of them, but they were c-r-a-p. I didn't say you were a blistering idiot for hating the new film - I'm just saying that holding up the old shit as if it was so much better is blisteringly, disingenuously idiotic.

The last ST film that had any ambition was STMP, and even then its only ambition was to rip off 2001.

All the previous films were most assuredly NOT crap -- at least, not to millions of fans who have their favourites, as well as people with an appreciation for the Science Fiction/Fantasy field.

"The Wrath Of Khan" is often spoken highly of, as are, to varying degrees, the other pictures of the original series, barring V (normally). I also consider "The Motion Picture" a major work of cinematic art and am very fond of the next seven, to one extent or another.

Anyone who actually derides three decades of Star Trek film history to prop up Abrams' entry is seriously misguided. Do you realise what you're saying about his movie?

Great post, Butters. I like your stated mission to poke holes in the silly idea that ST is 'intellectual'/'cerebral'.

Funny, I don't see many of the 'true' fans taking the bait though. Perhaps deep down they recognize much of Trek for the twaddle it is.

Thank you.

Is it ironic that here I am, challenging the views of those who hate this film, when I didn't think it was that special anyway? I just want to live in a world where all men can enjoy trek as equals free from the stigma of quasi-intellectual dogma.

Oddly enough, that's also the case with me. I didn't think this new film was brilliant by any stretch of the imagination. But reading the bullshit from the haters here makes me want to take the piss out of them.

Which makes you an intolerant slimeball, amongst much else.

Incidentally, why is everyone swearing on the forum, these days? Must be the zeitgeist. I guess Abrams was right to throw in words like "bastard" and "whore".

 

[Silent_Bob]

Which makes you an intolerant slimeball, amongst much else.

Incidentally, why is everyone swearing on the forum, these days? Must be the zeitgeist. I guess Abrams was right to throw in words like "bastard" and "whore".

To be fair, Kirk was spouting bastard left right and center long before J.J came along. He just used to restrict it to Klingons. As for the comments on Cmdrbolly, dont bother resorting to insulting him, its not worth getting hassle from the mods, just add him to your ignore list.

 

[cmdrbolly]

And again you are missing my point, i am NOT holding up the old stuff as being better. Saying that the old stuff is crap however, does not mean we shouldnt excuse the flaws of the new film.

Who said anything about excusing the flaws in the new one? So far, the bulk of what I've read from the nutters here have been 'flaws', meaning stuff they'd subjectively gloss over in the previous body of film/tv shows in the Trek canon. Weak plot? Check! Shitty science? Check! Massive coincidences? Check!

If those failings evoke such anger and disdain in these people, then they should hate all of Trek, not just this new entry. Just be fair, that's all.

 

[3D Master]

This is complete bullshit. A great fantastic SF movie with action does not need to be reduced to an empty pile of shit SFX scene after SFX scene strung together with jokes that has not a single little bit of intelligence and heart to it.

Don't believe me? Go watching The Terminator and Terminator 2. Universally heralded as some of the greatest movies ever. And why? Because they're not Commando. Commando is nothing but empty action fest. The Terminator and Terminator 2 have stories to tell. They action packed, and yet, there's enough time to delve into multiple layers of themes, genuine characters, character interaction, and shitloads of intelligence.

But Star Trek is nothing like that. It doesn't even come close.

A movie that appeals to the "purists" can be made that is also a fantastic movie on its own. There is no need for another Insurrection, nor this pile of shit they turned out.

Bullshit to you to.

What you hold there in the angry teeth of your foaming rabid mouth is an opinion that you have every right to hold. But, as with your case, opinions can be wrong.

It's in your case that the opinion is wrong.

Trek is so diverse in its portrayal that its hard to pin down what it is anymore. We're the last films Trek, as you understand trek to be? If so why?

Nemesis was about revenge, lots of revenge, so much revenge you can't miss it, and anger and a few other stuff. But it was utter crap.

Was Insurrection trek? With it message of standing up for whats right, david against goliath? Or was in some shit about some minor power corrupting the principles of the federation for some unproven technology to reach an end that could just be acheived by just visiting the damn planet for a week or so. And it was utter crap.

Insurrection was indeed a movie that deserved Star Trek. It wasn't exactly superb, it should have been a lot more, but it was Star Trek.

First Contact was the best Star Trek IMO.

Nemesis was a horrific movie, Enterprise the series, from beginning to end was just as bad. Voyager was only barely better.

How far back do you have to go before you find an installment that deserves the name? And how many people would actualy want more of that version.

The new film is doing very well, a lot of people like it, and a few of the faithful don't. So what, you've had Trek for 40 years and it got stale, time to sacrafice your trek for the greater good.

Once again; . Did I anywhere say anything about producing the same thing all over again? Of course not. Quite the contrary. In fact, I've been saying on here FOR YEARS even before Enteprise finally, mercifully was put out of commission, that Star Trek needed to change, that Star Trek got stale, that it was just weak retreats, and that there was no risk or challenge anywhere. That's it's just studio bosses dumbing everything down.

That of course does not mean, that any change, is automatically good; as the pile of shit we got aptly showed. What JJ did, was take everything that was good about Star Trek, even at its worst and abysmal - and toss it out the window. Then take everything that was bad about Star Trek, embrace it whole heartily and boost it new heights, making it even worse than it ever was before.

Young minds fresh ideas. If the masses want mindless action, not that Star Trek quite deserves that label, then I'm affraid that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or weren't you paying attention.

In case you didn't pay attention, but STIII and STIV told you the opposite - the needs of the few or the one exceed the names of the many. And this is true. How could you possible do the many right, if you can't even do right to one? This is what that whole "innocent until proven guilty" is based upon. I believe the quote goes: "I rather put twenty criminals on the street, than put even one innocent man in prison."

The problem is though; there are no fresh ideas. Star Trek isn't fresh; it's just more stale, meaningless, SFX reels strung together by juvenile jokes. It's a parody of itself. JJ Abrams produced Galaxy Quest 2, and slapped Star Trek on it. In fact, Galaxy Quest deserves the title Star Trek more than JJ's shit.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Who said anything about excusing the flaws in the new one? So far, the bulk of what I've read from the nutters here have been 'flaws', meaning stuff they'd subjectively gloss over in the previous body of film/tv shows in the Trek canon. Weak plot? Check! Shitty science? Check! Massive coincidences? Check!

If those failings evoke such anger and disdain in these people, then they should hate all of Trek, not just this new entry. Just be fair, that's all.

I assume you werent here during the release of Nemesis then. If you think the negative response to XI is hate, you obviously werent.

XI simply had too many flaws for me to look past, the plot holes were gaping, a lot of it didnt make any sense and was too coincidental to be excused. There were some redeeming aspects to the film, which is why i have repeatedly said i dont hate the film, i just dont like it, but most of the previous films had much more in their favour than against.

 

[cmdrbolly]

Which makes you an intolerant slimeball, amongst much else.

Incidentally, why is everyone swearing on the forum, these days? Must be the zeitgeist. I guess Abrams was right to throw in words like "bastard" and "whore".

Hahahaaaa..'intolerant slimeball'. What's so intolerant about discussing the folly of a segment of the Trek population who just got pwned by Abrams and the new film?

 

[cmdrbolly]

Who said anything about excusing the flaws in the new one? So far, the bulk of what I've read from the nutters here have been 'flaws', meaning stuff they'd subjectively gloss over in the previous body of film/tv shows in the Trek canon. Weak plot? Check! Shitty science? Check! Massive coincidences? Check!

If those failings evoke such anger and disdain in these people, then they should hate all of Trek, not just this new entry. Just be fair, that's all.

I assume you werent here during the release of Nemesis then. If you think the negative response to XI is hate, you obviously werent.

XI simply had too many flaws for me to look past, the plot holes were gaping, a lot of it didnt make any sense and was too coincidental to be excused. There were some redeeming aspects to the film, which is why i have repeatedly said i dont hate the film, i just dont like it, but most of the previous films had much more in their favour than against.

Ah, now you see that sorta sounds reasonable. All the films are flawed. It's just that we are willing to overlook some flaws while others stick out like sore thumbs *to us*. It's a balance and a subjective one at that.

What I've found offensive is the kind of sort of pseudo-intellectual rationalization for hating STXI - as if there were some objective reason for hating it.

 

[cmdrbolly]

All the previous films were most assuredly NOT crap -- at least, not to millions of fans who have their favourites, as well as people with an appreciation for the Science Fiction/Fantasy field.

"The Wrath Of Khan" is often spoken highly of, as are, to varying degrees, the other pictures of the original series, barring V (normally). I also consider "The Motion Picture" a major work of cinematic art and am very fond of the next seven, to one extent or another.

Anyone who actually derides three decades of Star Trek film history to prop up Abrams' entry is seriously misguided. Do you realise what you're saying about his movie?

Whaat? Now who's being ridiculous? None of the Star Trek films, short of the weakly grasping STMP, were Sci Fi films. They were adventure flicks in space garnished with a bit of twaddle to make mouth breathers feel 'intellectual'.

As for being 'spoken highly of' - well, that's no better than saying that STXI is 'great' based on box office and reviews. Or are we back to the old saw of, ' My opinion is better than your opinion'? I mean, if it's consensus opinion you're talking about, then the new movie's pretty much made its case, hasn't it?

You've clearly missed my point - I'm not 'deriding 30 yrs of Trek film history to prop up' STXI . I'm deriding propping up 30 yrs of dismal Trek history to deride the new Trek entry.

 

[exodus]

1. Sulu with a Katana = ?!?!?!?!?!?
2. Sulu with a Katan = COME ON = REALLY = RETARDED

Have you seen TOS?

Whilst the fencing was in character, i dont like the use of the Katana. It felt like a step back to me, from the point made in TOS - Sulu used a foil, rather than a japanese weapon, implying that ethnicity did not dictate your culture. A Katana just felt cliched - he's asian = katana.

Yes, but if you watch how he uses it it was defensively, jerky & unsure. Which shows while he may have been a fencer, he wasn't skilled enough to use the Katana. The cliche ususally is if he had been skilled in it's uses.

Cmdrbolly, while your writing style is "robust", I do kinda agree with you. None of the films besides the original have been thought provoking or intelligent. While they are sci-fi(only because it take place on a spaceship in outer space) for the most part all they are were action films. While many rave about WOK, IMO Khan never did anything that was truly threatening. He mostly did allot of posturing, never proving he was superior.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think the rationale was more along the lines that a katana or saber looks badass and dangerous and lends itself (at least in terms of movie fight choreography) to a more athletic fighting style than an epee.

Why either would be preferable in a life-or-death situation to a ray-gun is another question. Let's face it, Romulan climbs out of that hatch and Sulu has a ray-gun trained on him we've got a real short fight.

 

[Cryogenic]

All the previous films were most assuredly NOT crap -- at least, not to millions of fans who have their favourites, as well as people with an appreciation for the Science Fiction/Fantasy field.

"The Wrath Of Khan" is often spoken highly of, as are, to varying degrees, the other pictures of the original series, barring V (normally). I also consider "The Motion Picture" a major work of cinematic art and am very fond of the next seven, to one extent or another.

Anyone who actually derides three decades of Star Trek film history to prop up Abrams' entry is seriously misguided. Do you realise what you're saying about his movie?

Whaat? Now who's being ridiculous? None of the Star Trek films, short of the weakly grasping STMP, were Sci Fi films. They were adventure flicks in space garnished with a bit of twaddle to make mouth breathers feel 'intellectual'.

1) ST: TMP did not, and does not, "weakly grasp" at anything. It is an incredibly mature, elegant and deep motion picture.

2) The rest may broadly be characterised as "adventure flicks in space", but they weren't "garnished with a bit of twaddle". TMP remains the only one with a truly stirring set of ideas and cinematic expression to match, but the others make many salient points on themes like mortality, human folly, obsession, prejudice, friendship and growth.

Your exteremely overbearing need to aggressively put down an entire canon of films, made by hundreds of incredibly talented individuals, whose efforts have enriched (and continue to enrich) the lives of many, is sad.

If Star Trek XI entertains people, more power to it. But it is an incredibly superficial piece of cinema, far inferior to even the worst of the preceding Trek movies, in my opinion.

 

[exodus]

All the previous films were most assuredly NOT crap -- at least, not to millions of fans who have their favourites, as well as people with an appreciation for the Science Fiction/Fantasy field.

"The Wrath Of Khan" is often spoken highly of, as are, to varying degrees, the other pictures of the original series, barring V (normally). I also consider "The Motion Picture" a major work of cinematic art and am very fond of the next seven, to one extent or another.

Anyone who actually derides three decades of Star Trek film history to prop up Abrams' entry is seriously misguided. Do you realise what you're saying about his movie?

Whaat? Now who's being ridiculous? None of the Star Trek films, short of the weakly grasping STMP, were Sci Fi films. They were adventure flicks in space garnished with a bit of twaddle to make mouth breathers feel 'intellectual'.

1) ST: TMP did not, and does not, "weakly grasp" at anything. It is an incredibly mature, elegant and deep motion picture.

2) The rest may broadly be characterised as "adventure flicks in space", but they weren't "garnished with a bit of twaddle". TMP remains the only one with a truly stirring set of ideas and cinematic expression to match, but the others make many salient points on themes like mortality, human folly, obsession, prejudice, friendship and growth.

Your exteremely overbearing need to aggressively put down an entire canon of films, made by hundreds of incredibly talented individuals, whose efforts have enriched (and continue to enrich) the lives of many, is sad.

If Star Trek XI entertains people, more power to it. But it is an incredibly superficial piece of cinema, far inferior to even the worst of the preceding Trek movies, in my opinion.

In all fairness, isn't your last statement doing exactly what you accused cmdrbolly of in the paragraph before it?

 

[Borgminister]

If Star Trek XI entertains people, more power to it.

Exactly--it sets the stage for an even better follow up.

But it is an incredibly superficial piece of cinema, far inferior to even the worst of the preceding Trek movies, in my opinion.

Yup--Kirk's father's sacrifice in the face of certain death, Pike's mentoring of Kirk as father figure, Spock's profound loss of his mother and home planet--superficial as hell.

So funny how it is so binary to many who so passionately expound their views here; the truth often lies in between, and so it is with this movie.

Successfully (re)introducing the public to the world of Star Trek so entertainingly and still incorporating signature Trek values is a major accomplishment on the part of all concerned.

The next movie can go deeper--I just hope it doesn't get ploddingly pedantic and sink again in the process.

 

[cmdrbolly]

Whaat? Now who's being ridiculous? None of the Star Trek films, short of the weakly grasping STMP, were Sci Fi films. They were adventure flicks in space garnished with a bit of twaddle to make mouth breathers feel 'intellectual'.

1) ST: TMP did not, and does not, "weakly grasp" at anything. It is an incredibly mature, elegant and deep motion picture.

2) The rest may broadly be characterised as "adventure flicks in space", but they weren't "garnished with a bit of twaddle". TMP remains the only one with a truly stirring set of ideas and cinematic expression to match, but the others make many salient points on themes like mortality, human folly, obsession, prejudice, friendship and growth.

Your exteremely overbearing need to aggressively put down an entire canon of films, made by hundreds of incredibly talented individuals, whose efforts have enriched (and continue to enrich) the lives of many, is sad.

If Star Trek XI entertains people, more power to it. But it is an incredibly superficial piece of cinema, far inferior to even the worst of the preceding Trek movies, in my opinion.

In all fairness, isn't your last statement doing exactly what you accused cmdrbolly of in the paragraph before it?

LOL! Oopsie, Cryogenic. Hoist with your own petard much?

Right on, Exodus.

 

[Ryan S]

Cut the budget and just WRITE something worth watching.

I'm of the opinion that they could've cut 1/2 of the budget, and thus most of the beautiful but ultimately pointless CGI, and just written something fresh and compelling and logical. A strong character driven story that preserved the core elements of ST would have worked. I'm not a writer (like that's not obvious from my posts) so I don't claim it's a easy task but I think it would have been a better apporach to 'rebooting' the franchise. Of course it was never meant to be, Paramount wanted a big money summer popcorn flick at any cost and they got.

 

[Borgminister]

Re: Cut the budget and just WRITE something worth watching.

Would've cut half the gross, too...

The characters have been introduced in an entertaining way, paving the way for having your cake and eating it too.

 

[exodus]

Re: Cut the budget and just WRITE something worth watching.

I'm of the opinion that they could've cut 1/2 of the budget, and thus most of the beautiful but ultimately pointless CGI, and just written something fresh and compelling and logical. A strong character driven story that preserved the core elements of ST would have worked. I'm not a writer (like that's not obvious from my posts) so I don't claim it's a easy task but I think it would have been a better apporach to 'rebooting' the franchise. Of course it was never meant to be, Paramount wanted a big money summer popcorn flick at any cost and they got.

What you're asking for are the exact reasons nobody outside the die hard fan base likes Trek. The majority find Trek boring and wish Trek did have more action. Paramount knows Trek needs to find a audience outside the fanbase because purist are abandoning Trek. Paramount believes Trek and whatever it's about should be shared by all, not just the fans.

Is it wrong to have a fun action film if it draws new people in to go back & discover the deeper meaning Trek does have? Would it for once be nice to talk Trek with other people outside of a message board where only fans gather?