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

[SheliakBob]

Let's see...

The Powers That Be make a policy decision that caters to traditional enemies at the expense of those who have served the Cause for their entire careers. Their decision leaves those who disagree with it out in the cold, in hostile territory, with no back up or rescue in sight. The outraged and baffled former loyalists see the current policy as a violation of everything The Cause has been about since the beginning. Unable to accept this betrayal, unwilling to just submit to their new masters and to the enemies all around them, they band together to wage a covert war of resistance, or sheer survival, because that is the only way they can preserve their identities as loyalists to a cause that has abandoned them, and keep their own vision of the dream alive.

hmm.
Welcome to the Maquis, boys!
I say we arm those old courier ships and take it to the Cardie bastards!
And don't trust that Tuvok guy. I have a "feeling" about him.
...
...
mind you. I don't think this ends very well for us, now that I think about it...
sigh.

 

[3D Master]

None of those people will go back and discover the deeper meaning of Trek. Hell, even while watching the new "summer popcorn flick" they happily continue deriding the old Trek and fans of old Trek, and how much superior the empty SFX scene after SFX scene strung together by humor is to the "old boring stuff". Do you really think people like that, are now going back to see he old stuff? And hell, IF at least continuity was kept, there might have been SOME incentive the watch "the old boring stuff", to figure out what else happened to these characters, but with the old blatant alternat timeline they don't even need to do that, because all of that did NOT happen to the characters.

I can only speak from my own personal experance on this. The majority of people I know who are fans and/or have more than just a passing fimilarity with did became so due to the film(s), then went back to enjoy the shows. So I don't believe "none" of them will.

Old movies, yes. Because they are movies made with the same sensibility, intelligence, and themes as the other movies and the series.

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

...and if they just like it for the SFX, then so what? It's clear we all like things for different reasons. So me personally, I don't care why they liked it, I just enjoy the fact they did.

What else is there to like in this movie. It's nothing but SFX and lame jokes.


Oh, and this rather sums up my and others' point: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

 

[exodus]

None of those people will go back and discover the deeper meaning of Trek. Hell, even while watching the new "summer popcorn flick" they happily continue deriding the old Trek and fans of old Trek, and how much superior the empty SFX scene after SFX scene strung together by humor is to the "old boring stuff". Do you really think people like that, are now going back to see he old stuff? And hell, IF at least continuity was kept, there might have been SOME incentive the watch "the old boring stuff", to figure out what else happened to these characters, but with the old blatant alternat timeline they don't even need to do that, because all of that did NOT happen to the characters.

I can only speak from my own personal experance on this. The majority of people I know who are fans and/or have more than just a passing fimilarity with did became so due to the film(s), then went back to enjoy the shows. So I don't believe "none" of them will.

Old movies, yes. Because they are movies made with the same sensibility, intelligence, and themes as the other movies and the series.

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

...and if they just like it for the SFX, then so what? It's clear we all like things for different reasons. So me personally, I don't care why they liked it, I just enjoy the fact they did.

What else is there to like in this movie. It's nothing but SFX and lame jokes.


Oh, and this rather sums up my and others' point: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

Yes, heaven forbid anybody like something for different reasons.

Seeing Trek as just entertainment!!
*GASP*
This must be the cause of the ecomonic decline.

 

[anothertrekfan]

3d master still trying to get his point across?

 

[exodus]

3d master still trying to get his point across?

WE ARE BORG!

YOU MUST COMPLY!

 

[TheGodBen]

Let's see...

The Powers That Be make a policy decision that caters to traditional enemies at the expense of those who have served the Cause for their entire careers. Their decision leaves those who disagree with it out in the cold, in hostile territory, with no back up or rescue in sight. The outraged and baffled former loyalists see the current policy as a violation of everything The Cause has been about since the beginning. Unable to accept this betrayal, unwilling to just submit to their new masters and to the enemies all around them, they band together to wage a covert war of resistance, or sheer survival, because that is the only way they can preserve their identities as loyalists to a cause that has abandoned them, and keep their own vision of the dream alive.

hmm.
Welcome to the Maquis, boys!
I say we arm those old courier ships and take it to the Cardie bastards!
And don't trust that Tuvok guy. I have a "feeling" about him.
...
...
mind you. I don't think this ends very well for us, now that I think about it...
sigh.

I am not spending 7 years on a ship under the command of Janeway! Just... no! Frankly, I'm not senior officer material and I fear that she'll just use me as a redshirt. I don't want to be famous for dying a pointless and easily avoidable death.

 

[Qonos]

[

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.

Rarther than repost the whole post...

I found the jokes funny, mostly, but I've got to query your assertion that its meaningless.

Its a film, a story, a tale of how our team got together. You talk of layers of meaning, of intelligence, but where?

What you might see as layers of meaning, I might call patronising pap. What you might call shit loads of intelligence, I might say 'where'?

Please show me when Trek was Trek. Show me the layers of themes, the deep meaning, the real charaters and this all important intelligence.

Gimme five intelligent stories with these multilayered themes.

Let me begin by saying - you have a point. A point I've often made myself. Trek is not Shakespeare and it's depth is pop at best. But, once upon a time it was good science fiction, mostly of the HG Wells, rather than Asimov/ Heinlein school.

As for 5 intelligent stories, well time constrains me to only three, but there are more:

Th Enemy Within - a surprisingly sharp Jungian look at human psychology. Kirk is split into Ego and Shadow. Making the point that every good man has a savage inside capable of criminal acts, the show does not roundly condemn that side of ourselves, instead the final conclusion is that the Shadow holds vital parts of a person's strengths. That was then and still is relatively complex for filmed entertainment.

This Side of Paradise - beginning with the premise we all fantasize about - wouldn't it be great if we were perfectly happy and healthy, this episode advances a relatively simple idea of the Protestant work ethic (Sandoval's angst that they haven't accomplished anything on the colony), but character bits bring complexity to the concept as Spock, to be himself, must give up bliss, and Kirk and McCoy reference Genesis with the conclusion that humanity chooses to challenge itself by doing things like going into space - this is a subtle criticism of the very Protestantism that supplies the episode's other theme. Humanity is not damned to suffering by God, humanity chooses struggle because it creates growth.

And here's one of Trek's cheesiest episodes displaying hidden depths

The Way to Eden explores charismatic leaders and counter culture movements. Our hero is cast as an uptight, rule-following, military jarhead by the space hippies - Kirk is the representative of conventional society. As the charismatic leader is shown to have led his followers down the primrose path and to be dangerously contagious himself, it might seem this tale is a simplistic condemnation of counter culture ideas. Except Spock reaches - and represents a dedication to a spiritual idealism and quest for a better society regardless of outer differences, like flowerchild outfits and military uniforms.

This is Trek's strength, not some super intellectualism, but being able to explore interesting societal and psychological themes in the midst of multicolor adventure. Abrams' Trek got the multicolor adventure right (sort of, it's still a fundamentally flawed plot structure and thus not a great movie), he just forgot to have any interesting ideas at all, other than the most rote buddy movie, I love you, Man, bromance bs.

And I found that this movie depicted what can happen when you are obsessed. Obsession and it's downfalls is a very real life problem today. Spock was obsessed with controlling his emotions, it led to him becoming unstable because he felt that no matter how strong the emotion was he could surpress it, but in the end when it came down to his Mother (even when the young vulcans were taunting his he lost it when they said something about his mother) Kirk used this as a trigger for his emotions when his mother died, pushing the issue where we found that Spock was obsessed with surpressing his emotions.

Nero's Obsession with Spock and his revenge on all who allowed Romulus to be destroyed. He could have easily taken the ship to Romulus and given the Red matter to the Romulans, but he didn't he was chasing his white whale, he was making it known that he would be the one to destory the federation and save Romulus from it's fate in the future.

A second story in the whole thing was Finding one's true purpose. Kirk as many "Genius" rated people have been known to be was quite rebellious in his younger years. Coupled by the fact that he had no father figure to guide him because his father was killed (It also shows the importance of a strong mentor) Kirk entered the academy later.

So this Star Trek did have elements of the Morality plays that we know from the original, they just weren't Socially ground breaking, like "Let this be your last battlefield" (Racism) or Space Seed (How Eugenics could end up biting humanity in the ass.)

BTW it's not Ego and Shadow, it's Ego and ID.

The Id comprises the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains the basic drives. The id acts as a pleasure principle: if not compelled by reality it seeks immediate enjoyment.[3] It is focused on selfishness and instant self-gratification. Personality, as Freud saw it, was produced by the conflict between biological impulses and social restraints that were internalized.[4][5] The Id is unconscious by definition. In Freud's formulation,

So the dark Kirk was the ID while the good Kirk still retained the Ego and Super-Ego.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

And I found that this movie depicted what can happen when you are obsessed. Obsession and it's downfalls is a very real life problem today. Spock was obsessed with controlling his emotions, it led to him becoming unstable because he felt that no matter how strong the emotion was he could surpress it, but in the end when it came down to his Mother (even when the young vulcans were taunting his he lost it when they said something about his mother) Kirk used this as a trigger for his emotions when his mother died, pushing the issue where we found that Spock was obsessed with surpressing his emotions.

I would argue that Spock was struggling between two worlds and his story had nothing to do with obsession. We never see him obsessed with controlling his emotions, only struggling with the disdain other Vulcans heaped upon him for his human side.

Nero's Obsession with Spock and his revenge on all who allowed Romulus to be destroyed. He could have easily taken the ship to Romulus and given the Red matter to the Romulans, but he didn't he was chasing his white whale, he was making it known that he would be the one to destory the federation and save Romulus from it's fate in the future.

Nero's "obsession" consisted of about four bad lines and a lot of shots of his badass ship. Compare his "obsession for revenge" with the treatment of revenge obsessions in TWOK and First Contact. Were they deep? Not particularly, but both had some emotional weight. Nero's "obsession" was a plot device that was barely fleshed out, leaving it flaccid at best and ridiculous at worst.

A second story in the whole thing was Finding one's true purpose. Kirk as many "Genius" rated people have been known to be was quite rebellious in his younger years. Coupled by the fact that he had no father figure to guide him because his father was killed (It also shows the importance of a strong mentor) Kirk entered the academy later.

How did Kirk find his true purpose? What fundamental things in his personality were awakened by his experiences in the course of this story? We see Pike tell him he should be wishing for more... and that's it.

So this Star Trek did have elements of the Morality plays that we know from the original, they just weren't Socially ground breaking, like "Let this be your last battlefield" (Racism) or Space Seed (How Eugenics could end up biting humanity in the ass.)

They just weren't there, or if they were there (Nero's revenge obsession) they were so shallowly treated, they were meaningless.

BTW it's not Ego and Shadow, it's Ego and ID.

The Id comprises the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains the basic drives. The id acts as a pleasure principle: if not compelled by reality it seeks immediate enjoyment.[3] It is focused on selfishness and instant self-gratification. Personality, as Freud saw it, was produced by the conflict between biological impulses and social restraints that were internalized.[4][5] The Id is unconscious by definition. In Freud's formulation,

So the dark Kirk was the ID while the good Kirk still retained the Ego and Super-Ego.

No. That's Freudian psychological theory. Freud, as you point out, splits the personality into three aspects. The Enemy Within demonstrates Jung's theory (which I specified in my original post), which separates the Self into two aspects, the I (commonly called the Ego) and the Shadow. Ego represents the moral, positive parts of the personality, which are acknowledged and accepted by the conscious mind - idealism, mercy, intellect. The Shadow represents the disowned parts of the personality - all the things one thinks they are not - brutality, excess - and here's the kicker that is demonstrated in The Enemy Within, the Shadow holds buried power that is denied by the conscious mind until Shadow is integrated into the whole Self. The Enemy Within demonstrates Kirk coming face to face with his Shadow and integrating both its strengths and its horrors into his whole self, thus channeling his Shadow for use by his conscious personality, something that defines him as a hero - the ability to apply force or mercy as needed.

 

[Qonos]

And I found that this movie depicted what can happen when you are obsessed. Obsession and it's downfalls is a very real life problem today. Spock was obsessed with controlling his emotions, it led to him becoming unstable because he felt that no matter how strong the emotion was he could surpress it, but in the end when it came down to his Mother (even when the young vulcans were taunting his he lost it when they said something about his mother) Kirk used this as a trigger for his emotions when his mother died, pushing the issue where we found that Spock was obsessed with surpressing his emotions.

I would argue that Spock was struggling between two worlds and his story had nothing to do with obsession. We never see him obsessed with controlling his emotions, only struggling with the disdain other Vulcans heaped upon him for his human side.

Nero's Obsession with Spock and his revenge on all who allowed Romulus to be destroyed. He could have easily taken the ship to Romulus and given the Red matter to the Romulans, but he didn't he was chasing his white whale, he was making it known that he would be the one to destory the federation and save Romulus from it's fate in the future.

Nero's "obsession" consisted of about four bad lines and a lot of shots of his badass ship. Compare his "obsession for revenge" with the treatment of revenge obsessions in TWOK and First Contact. Were they deep? Not particularly, but both had some emotional weight. Nero's "obsession" was a plot device that was barely fleshed out, leaving it flaccid at best and ridiculous at worst.



How did Kirk find his true purpose? What fundamental things in his personality were awakened by his experiences in the course of this story? We see Pike tell him he should be wishing for more... and that's it.

So this Star Trek did have elements of the Morality plays that we know from the original, they just weren't Socially ground breaking, like "Let this be your last battlefield" (Racism) or Space Seed (How Eugenics could end up biting humanity in the ass.)

They just weren't there, or if they were there (Nero's revenge obsession) they were so shallowly treated, they were meaningless.

BTW it's not Ego and Shadow, it's Ego and ID.

The Id comprises the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains the basic drives. The id acts as a pleasure principle: if not compelled by reality it seeks immediate enjoyment.[3] It is focused on selfishness and instant self-gratification. Personality, as Freud saw it, was produced by the conflict between biological impulses and social restraints that were internalized.[4][5] The Id is unconscious by definition. In Freud's formulation,

So the dark Kirk was the ID while the good Kirk still retained the Ego and Super-Ego.

No. That's Freudian psychological theory. Freud, as you point out, splits the personality into three aspects. The Enemy Within demonstrates Jung's theory (which I specified in my original post), which separates the Self into two aspects, the I (commonly called the Ego) and the Shadow. Ego represents the moral, positive parts of the personality, which are acknowledged and accepted by the conscious mind - idealism, mercy, intellect. The Shadow represents the disowned parts of the personality - all the things one thinks they are not - brutality, excess - and here's the kicker that is demonstrated in The Enemy Within, the Shadow holds buried power that is denied by the conscious mind until Shadow is integrated into the whole Self. The Enemy Within demonstrates Kirk coming face to face with his Shadow and integrating both its strengths and its horrors into his whole self, thus channeling his Shadow for use by his conscious personality, something that defines him as a hero - the ability to apply force or mercy as needed.

But Kirk never disowned his Savage side infact in one episode he admitted that humans had a savage side but that they could control it (I believe the episode with the entity that fed on hostile emotions) SO it wasn't Jung's Shadow it was infact Freuds ID because the second Kirk wasn't really evil he was infact just instictual (Like trying to get self-gratification out of Yomand Rand) The Id, Ego, and Super-ego are aware of each other. Realistically how could we say it was a Shadow when we've seen Kirk be demanding and strong when he needed to be before the episode in question. Kirk was a fully intergrated personality quite confident with himself and the fact that the "Good" Kirk could still be strong without the "Evil" Kirk proved that.

You may disagree with me, but the way I saw this movie was Trek and like you I've watched a lot of Trek. How I interpret it may seem wrong to you, but that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Having been a person who was picked on and had anger issues it does become an obsession to not lose your cool infront of your tormentors because you know that's what they want and if they get that they win.

I guess we just have different life experiances and we both get different things out of trek. Which doesn't make each of us wrong it only makes us have a different perspective.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

But Kirk never disowned his Savage side infact in one episode he admitted that humans had a savage side but that they could control it (I believe the episode with the entity that fed on hostile emotions)

Actually that episode is A Taste of Armeggedon, which happens after The Enemy Within. And in The Enemy Within, Kirk says he saw "a part of myself no man should ever see".

SO it wasn't Jung's Shadow it was infact Freuds ID because the second Kirk wasn't really evil he was infact just instictual (Like trying to get self-gratification out of Yomand Rand) The Id, Ego, and Super-ego are aware of each other. Realistically how could we say it was a Shadow when we've seen Kirk be demanding and strong when he needed to be before the episode in question. Kirk was a fully intergrated personality quite confident with himself and the fact that the "Good" Kirk could still be strong without the "Evil" Kirk proved that.

We see Kirk be fully integrated after The Enemy Within. And trying to rape someone isn't "instinctual", it's savage and evil. It's the brutal side of Kirk's active sex drive, but a side that he is not likely to acknowledge as an acceptable part of himself. If the episode's goal was to demonstrate Freud's theory, why wasn't Kirk split into three parts, rather than two? What part of Freud's theory says that the ID has hidden power that includes decisiveness and leadership qualities? That is a fundamental part of the idea of the Shadow.

You may disagree with me, but the way I saw this movie was Trek and like you I've watched a lot of Trek. How I interpret it may seem wrong to you, but that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Having been a person who was picked on and had anger issues it does become an obsession to not lose your cool infront of your tormentors because you know that's what they want and if they get that they win.

I guess we just have different life experiances and we both get different things out of trek. Which doesn't make each of us wrong it only makes us have a different perspective.

I wasn't saying you were wrong. I said I would argue a different point. I appreciate your politeness - it's nice to be reminded that it's possible to have a civilized disagreement around here.

 

[ST-One]

Old movies, yes. Because they are movies made with the same sensibility, intelligence, and themes as the other movies and the series.

If only... TWOK managed to get the TOS-feel across very well... Star Trek manages that even better.

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

No, that is not what this movie is saying. Not at all.
This film is recapturing what made TOS so great.

What else is there to like in this movie. It's nothing but SFX and lame jokes.

Then you haven't seen the same movie as I have.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

I have no idea were you get that opinion from, the movie is relaunching the franchise, which i might add was dead and buried, i saw nothing but original Trek and its values of friendship, hope and man kind having a future, and a bright one at that....just because they used present day tools and technology to do that does not mean they where showing a finger at the original..

What else is there to like in this movie. It's nothing but SFX and lame jokes.

This movie addeds meat to our favorite character in a big way, its expanded our onscreen knowledge of our fave Trek character, Kirk born in battle, Spocks torment as a child, The kobayashi maru, Kirks parents, Spocks parents, spocks loss, spocks human side, Starfleet, the enterprise getting built, how Kirk got the Enterprise......Leonard Nimoy.

I for one can quite easily accept a few changes in Trek canon, which i take with a pinch of salt anyway, how people can justifiably grumble about canon when the people making the show all those years ago had no idea Star Trek would be here over 40 years later, and people would be taking what happened on screen then as a factual record to judge all subsequent Trek on.

 

[aeriolewinters]

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

Wrong. The previous movies have contained alot of mumbo jumbo about pseudo-science that was not believable anyways. Star Trek at it's purest is an expression of Optimism at the event of Tragedy, Light glimmering within a seemingly dark universe. Not this "pseudo-science" that TNG, Voyager, and DS9 reeked of. No, Star Trek was simply created for us to create a future brighter than we could ever imagine.

The sole reason of Nimoy joining the reboot is simple: People have forgotten what Star Trek stood for. Star Trek was never about mumbo-jumbo that only the exclusive could understand, Star Trek is a symbol of Hope in times of desperate need of it.

 

[Silent_Bob]

a future brighter than we could ever imagine.

Because of the lens flares.

 

[3D Master]

Old movies, yes. Because they are movies made with the same sensibility, intelligence, and themes as the other movies and the series.

If only... TWOK managed to get the TOS-feel across very well... Star Trek manages that even better.

Not at all.

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

No, that is not what this movie is saying. Not at all.
This film is recapturing what made TOS so great.

If the movie itself isn't saying it, it's the people who made it, and all the press with their bullshit about old fans and why presumably they don't like the new movie, and all the idiots who've watched it.

What else is there to like in this movie. It's nothing but SFX and lame jokes.

Then you haven't seen the same movie as I have.

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

I have no idea were you get that opinion from, the movie is relaunching the franchise, which i might add was dead and buried,

And it's doing so by saying the franchise that came before is dull and not worth watching.

i saw nothing but original Trek and its values of friendship, hope and man kind having a future, and a bright one at that....just because they used present day tools and technology to do that does not mean they where showing a finger at the original..

What bright future? All I see is a horrifying dystopian future. Building a ship in space is a. more cost effectively, b. more efficient, c. the last two doubly so as all the space docks, space stations, (and with it space hotels, and space tourism) should be around for several centuries, and d. SAFER.

The only way for a ship to be built on the ground is if c. isn't true, and the people are either:

1. totally apathetic to space, no care to go there, live there, do any tourism there, and not even work there. Thus the government had to build the thing on the ground to get people to go there.

2. have an irrational fear and complete wrong idea about how dangerous or rather not space is; making the future humanity either uneducated morons, or deliberately miss-educated victims.

3. a combination of both.

All three scenarios, incidentally would produce a humanity that would never boldly go where no human had gone before, and would never build a Federation.

It would also be a dystopian horror that I don't want to get anywhere near to.

What else is there to like in this movie. It's nothing but SFX and lame jokes.

This movie addeds meat to our favorite character in a big way, its expanded our onscreen knowledge of our fave Trek character, Kirk born in battle, Spocks torment as a child, The kobayashi maru, Kirks parents, Spocks parents, spocks loss, spocks human side, Starfleet, the enterprise getting built, how Kirk got the Enterprise......Leonard Nimoy.

I for one can quite easily accept a few changes in Trek canon, which i take with a pinch of salt anyway, how people can justifiably grumble about canon when the people making the show all those years ago had no idea Star Trek would be here over 40 years later, and people would be taking what happened on screen then as a factual record to judge all subsequent Trek on.

Nope. The movie adds nothing to our favorite characters, it puts in front of us brand new characters that just happen to be carrying the same name. They are, however, completely different characters in an alternate that barely have anything to do with our favorite characters.

Kirk born in battle - bullshit.

Kirk's Kobayashi Maru is utter ridiculousness. The way our actual Kirk did it, was not outright cheating but taking the Maru test multiple times over trying to crack it and eventually reprogramming the scenario because he refused to accept there was a no-win scenario. He was commended for it for originally thinking. He did not do it because he was a rule breaking asshat.

The Enterprise getting built - horrifyingly wrongly. (See above.)

Kirk got the Enterprise through serving on multiple ships slowly getting promoted from ensign to lieutenant, to lieutenant-commander, etc. to finally captain. He got the ship because he was assigned to it, like any other captain getting assigned to a ship. In the movie, he basically hijacked the ship with "the crew" conveniently being there at the same time totally unrealistically, because it is supposedly "destiny" (even though the so-called "destiny" is completely different and thus not destiny at all from the way he really was meant to get it.)

Thus putting stake through the heart of Star Trek, which is secular humanism. We achieve more, because WE work hard and struggle to get there, and because WE work to change the world. Not because some thing from on high like a god or destiny forces us to get there. It takes the positive message of Star Trek, rips it to shreds and tosses it out the window.

Spock's loss? You mean like Vulcan and his parents? You mean the planet we didn't see any of the iconic cities being destroyed of, basically making it look like meangingless barely inhabited planet? The "loss" that only moments after we got more jokes to trivialized it? Comparing that to oBSG casino-planet scenario that everyone's diriding, it makes oBSG look like nBSG in comparison. Great going; the crew is bunch of asshats that happily joke moments after billions of people died. Apparently it doesn't matter, it's only Vulcans that died, not humans. Oh, well, joke away, nothing important here.

Yeah, again, dystopian horror that I don't want to get anywhere near.

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

Wrong. The previous movies have contained alot of mumbo jumbo about pseudo-science that was not believable anyways. Star Trek at it's purest is an expression of Optimism at the event of Tragedy, Light glimmering within a seemingly dark universe. Not this "pseudo-science" that TNG, Voyager, and DS9 reeked of. No, Star Trek was simply created for us to create a future brighter than we could ever imagine.

The sole reason of Nimoy joining the reboot is simple: People have forgotten what Star Trek stood for. Star Trek was never about mumbo-jumbo that only the exclusive could understand, Star Trek is a symbol of Hope in times of desperate need of it.

Star Trek is about showing us the secular humanist ideal: we improve ourselves, get better, stop killing each other, build a better place. And that includes science, it is an integral part of Star Trek and any good Science Fiction story. It's not called SCIENCE Fiction for nothing.

The movie however did the exact opposite. It took the heart of Star Trek, and drove a stake through it.

 

[ST-One]

If the movie itself isn't saying it, it's the people who made it, and all the press with their bullshit about old fans and why presumably they don't like the new movie, and all the idiots who've watched it.

Then you either haven't seen the film or you are one of us 'idiots'.

And it's doing so by saying the franchise that came before is dull and not worth watching.

No, that's just you saying it.

What bright future? All I see is a horrifying dystopian future.

Wrong.

Building a ship in space is a. more cost effectively, b. more efficient, c. the last two doubly so as all the space docks, space stations, (and with it space hotels, and space tourism) should be around for several centuries, and d. SAFER.

You can't possibly know this.

The only way for a ship to be built on the ground is if c. isn't true, and the people are either:

1. totally apathetic to space, no care to go there, live there, do any tourism there, and not even work there. Thus the government had to build the thing on the ground to get people to go there.

2. have an irrational fear and complete wrong idea about how dangerous or rather not space is; making the future humanity either uneducated morons, or deliberately miss-educated victims.

3. a combination of both.

All three scenarios, incidentally would produce a humanity that would never boldly go where no human had gone before, and would never build a Federation.

Funny though that these humans are doing just that.

It would also be a dystopian horror that I don't want to get anywhere near to.

I don't think you actually know what a Dystopia is.

Kirk born in battle - bullshit.

So, were and when is James T. (or is it R.?) Kirk born then?

Kirk's Kobayashi Maru is utter ridiculousness. The way our actual Kirk did it, was not outright cheating but taking the Maru test multiple times over trying to crack it and eventually reprogramming the scenario because he refused to accept there was a no-win scenario. He was commended for it for originally thinking.

Mhmmm... sounds an awfull lot like how it was depicted in the movie.

The Enterprise getting built - horrifyingly wrongly. (See above.)

Yeah, whatever.

Thus putting stake through the heart of Star Trek, which is secular humanism. We achieve more, because WE work hard and struggle to get there, and because WE work to change the world. Not because some thing from on high like a god or destiny forces us to get there. It takes the positive message of Star Trek, rips it to shreds and tosses it out the window.

You are talking out of your ass again.

Spock's loss? You mean like Vulcan and his parents? You mean the planet we didn't see any of the iconic cities being destroyed of, basically making it look like meangingless barely inhabited planet? The "loss" that only moments after we got more jokes to trivialized it?

What jokes, mhmm?

Star Trek is about showing us the secular humanist ideal: we improve ourselves, get better, stop killing each other, build a better place. And that includes science, it is an integral part of Star Trek and any good Science Fiction story. It's not called SCIENCE Fiction for nothing.

The movie however did the exact opposite. It took the heart of Star Trek, and drove a stake through it.

In the very first Trek-episode ever shown on TV, the alien is killed.
So, yeah...

 

[Butters]

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

What bright future? All I see is a horrifying dystopian future.

and

It would also be a dystopian horror that I don't want to get anywhere near to.

What did I miss? The only glimpse of normal society was the bar scene, and that showed us that in the future, beer still exists, and the fuck ugly monstrous alien freaks make me look like a stud! How can that ever be bad?

 

[Gepard]

What did I miss? The only glimpse of normal society was the bar scene, and that showed us that in the future, beer still exists, and the fuck ugly monstrous alien freaks make me look like a stud! How can that ever be bad?

But there's a cop! With a helmet! Who refers to people as "citizen!" Clearly, this is a dystopian nightmare worthy of Huxley. The Great Bird would not approve.

 

[Silent_Bob]

What bright future? All I see is a horrifying dystopian future.

and

It would also be a dystopian horror that I don't want to get anywhere near to.

What did I miss? The only glimpse of normal society was the bar scene, and that showed us that in the future, beer still exists, and the fuck ugly monstrous alien freaks make me look like a stud! How can that ever be bad?

Maybe its because everything of importance on Earth has been relocated to Iowa. I know i dont want to live there.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Old movies, yes. Because they are movies made with the same sensibility, intelligence, and themes as the other movies and the series.

If only... TWOK managed to get the TOS-feel across very well... Star Trek manages that even better.

Not at all.

If the movie itself isn't saying it, it's the people who made it, and all the press with their bullshit about old fans and why presumably they don't like the new movie, and all the idiots who've watched it.






And it's doing so by saying the franchise that came before is dull and not worth watching.

What bright future? All I see is a horrifying dystopian future. Building a ship in space is a. more cost effectively, b. more efficient, c. the last two doubly so as all the space docks, space stations, (and with it space hotels, and space tourism) should be around for several centuries, and d. SAFER.

The only way for a ship to be built on the ground is if c. isn't true, and the people are either:

1. totally apathetic to space, no care to go there, live there, do any tourism there, and not even work there. Thus the government had to build the thing on the ground to get people to go there.

2. have an irrational fear and complete wrong idea about how dangerous or rather not space is; making the future humanity either uneducated morons, or deliberately miss-educated victims.

3. a combination of both.

All three scenarios, incidentally would produce a humanity that would never boldly go where no human had gone before, and would never build a Federation.

It would also be a dystopian horror that I don't want to get anywhere near to.

Nope. The movie adds nothing to our favorite characters, it puts in front of us brand new characters that just happen to be carrying the same name. They are, however, completely different characters in an alternate that barely have anything to do with our favorite characters.

Kirk born in battle - bullshit.

Kirk's Kobayashi Maru is utter ridiculousness. The way our actual Kirk did it, was not outright cheating but taking the Maru test multiple times over trying to crack it and eventually reprogramming the scenario because he refused to accept there was a no-win scenario. He was commended for it for originally thinking. He did not do it because he was a rule breaking asshat.

The Enterprise getting built - horrifyingly wrongly. (See above.)

Kirk got the Enterprise through serving on multiple ships slowly getting promoted from ensign to lieutenant, to lieutenant-commander, etc. to finally captain. He got the ship because he was assigned to it, like any other captain getting assigned to a ship. In the movie, he basically hijacked the ship with "the crew" conveniently being there at the same time totally unrealistically, because it is supposedly "destiny" (even though the so-called "destiny" is completely different and thus not destiny at all from the way he really was meant to get it.)

Thus putting stake through the heart of Star Trek, which is secular humanism. We achieve more, because WE work hard and struggle to get there, and because WE work to change the world. Not because some thing from on high like a god or destiny forces us to get there. It takes the positive message of Star Trek, rips it to shreds and tosses it out the window.

Spock's loss? You mean like Vulcan and his parents? You mean the planet we didn't see any of the iconic cities being destroyed of, basically making it look like meangingless barely inhabited planet? The "loss" that only moments after we got more jokes to trivialized it? Comparing that to oBSG casino-planet scenario that everyone's diriding, it makes oBSG look like nBSG in comparison. Great going; the crew is bunch of asshats that happily joke moments after billions of people died. Apparently it doesn't matter, it's only Vulcans that died, not humans. Oh, well, joke away, nothing important here.

Yeah, again, dystopian horror that I don't want to get anywhere near.

This movie, however, that revels in saying, "All the previous stuff was boring, and slow, and bad, but I'm flashy and spiffy" not really.

Wrong. The previous movies have contained alot of mumbo jumbo about pseudo-science that was not believable anyways. Star Trek at it's purest is an expression of Optimism at the event of Tragedy, Light glimmering within a seemingly dark universe. Not this "pseudo-science" that TNG, Voyager, and DS9 reeked of. No, Star Trek was simply created for us to create a future brighter than we could ever imagine.

The sole reason of Nimoy joining the reboot is simple: People have forgotten what Star Trek stood for. Star Trek was never about mumbo-jumbo that only the exclusive could understand, Star Trek is a symbol of Hope in times of desperate need of it.

Star Trek is about showing us the secular humanist ideal: we improve ourselves, get better, stop killing each other, build a better place. And that includes science, it is an integral part of Star Trek and any good Science Fiction story. It's not called SCIENCE Fiction for nothing.

The movie however did the exact opposite. It took the heart of Star Trek, and drove a stake through it.

All your opinion, and i respect your right to have that opinion, but its certainly not mine, and judging by the success of the movie there are quite a few who would also disagree with you.

Although i don't know whether to congratulate you on your self imposed loss, or feel sorry that you wont be enjoying the Trek ride anymore.

Oh well, all the more Trek for me then.