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

[Butters]

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

As one who promotes the deep meaningfulness of trek and the lessons therin, I am puzzled by your approach to these discussions. Perhaps there are a few episodes that I missed, the ones where Kirk defeated an enemy by angrily repeating the same unique opinion, ignoring all arguments against, until everyone else went to the pub.

I can understand his heated tone Butters. It is incredibly frustrating to be constantly told anyone who dislikes the new film is wrong because the rest of Star Trek has the same problems. I fail to see how this should be an excuse for the new film. If they had to do a reboot then is it too much to ask for a good one?

I dont care about canon. There i've said it. To me the story comes first, and if the canon stops you telling a good story, drop it. The problem with the new Trek film is that it doesnt tell a good story. It has every flaw that Nemesis had.

And i left feeling the exact same way as i did after seeing Nemesis - that with a different director and editor we could have had something great. The only reason that i will watch a sequel is because the potential for great Star Trek was present in the new film, it really was, they just didnt make the most of it.

But thats the point. Hate the film for whatever reasons, but angrilly calling it not Trek because of such and such. All the films had incredibly weak elements, all had plot contrivances, contradictions, co-incidences, crap jokes, continuity errors, canon violations and dubious casting. But they all had something likable, on some level too. None of this makes the film good either.

It is not that it's a crime to hate the new film, but if your sole reasons also apply to everything that has gone before then your argument collapses. How can one possibly like trek if the stated reasons for hating this film are not only endemic, but often defining features within the franchise.

 

[Feofilakt]

Hmmm... I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess I disagree across the board. I thought it was a great story, well acted, well directed. I thought they ran the board with this one. Along with TMP and TWOK, this is far and away my favorite Star Trek film.

You are not really a high cinema kind of guy, are you?

I can enjoy Kieslowski, Nick Zedd, and Guy Debord just as much as I can Steven Spielberg. So to answer your question, no.

You can appreciate Debord and you like this movie? Surely you jest, this sort of LCD garbage is part of what was described in The Society of the Spectacle.

I dunno if I would place Zedd in the same sentence as Debord though.

 

[urbandk]

You are not really a high cinema kind of guy, are you?

I can enjoy Kieslowski, Nick Zedd, and Guy Debord just as much as I can Steven Spielberg. So to answer your question, no.

You can appreciate Debord and you like this movie? Surely you jest, this sort of LCD garbage is part of what was described in The Society of the Spectacle.

I dunno if I would place Zedd in the same sentence as Debord though.

You can enjoy Debord without agreeing with his silliness. That stuff is so pretentious and overwrought that it satirizes itself.

Debord and Zedd not mentioned in the same sentence? It goes like this: Debord ---> Lydia Lunch ---> Zedd. Not hard.

 

[Silent_Bob]

But thats the point. Hate the film for whatever reasons, but angrilly calling it not Trek because of such and such. All the films had incredibly weak elements, all had plot contrivances, contradictions, co-incidences, crap jokes, continuity errors, canon violations and dubious casting. But they all had something likable, on some level too. None of this makes the film good either.

It is not that it's a crime to hate the new film, but if your sole reasons also apply to everything that has gone before then your argument collapses. How can one possibly like trek if the stated reasons for hating this film are not only endemic, but often defining features within the franchise.

The problem with that argument however, is it assumes that the flaws are as severe in all previous films as well. Most people can admit every Star Trek film without exception has had problems. But for the most part not this many problems or to this severity, with the exceptions being the films most regard as the dregs of the franchise - Insurrection, Nemesis, Final Frontier.

And these failings, in my opinion, are compounded by the lazy direction and frankly odd editing decisions made by J.J. Scenes that contributed to the plot and closed some of the plot holes were cut in favour of a car chase? Is that not what everyone criticized Nemesis for?

The new film is superior to some of the Star Treks, even the most devout anti-JJverse poster can surely admit that, but it is far, far from the perfect masterpiece that many claim it to be.

But its good to have someone actually argue their case for once,Butters, rather than resort to telling me i'm an idiot for not loving the film, so

 

[Butters]

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

But thats the point. Hate the film for whatever reasons, but angrilly calling it not Trek because of such and such. All the films had incredibly weak elements, all had plot contrivances, contradictions, co-incidences, crap jokes, continuity errors, canon violations and dubious casting. But they all had something likable, on some level too. None of this makes the film good either.

It is not that it's a crime to hate the new film, but if your sole reasons also apply to everything that has gone before then your argument collapses. How can one possibly like trek if the stated reasons for hating this film are not only endemic, but often defining features within the franchise.

The problem with that argument however, is it assumes that the flaws are as severe in all previous films as well. Most people can admit every Star Trek film without exception has had problems. But for the most part not this many problems or to this severity, with the exceptions being the films most regard as the dregs of the franchise - Insurrection, Nemesis, Final Frontier.

And these failings, in my opinion, are compounded by the lazy direction and frankly odd editing decisions made by J.J. Scenes that contributed to the plot and closed some of the plot holes were cut in favour of a car chase? Is that not what everyone criticized Nemesis for?

I agree largely with everything you're saying.

However:

The new film is superior to some of the Star Treks, even the most devout anti-JJverse poster can surely admit that, but it is far, far from the perfect masterpiece that many claim it to be.

I can't see the most devout anti-JJverse poster accepting anything about this film until all the facts have been catalogued, rationalised and published in an updated Encyclopedia, and another devisive new film has superceded it with even more abhorations. By which time, this current film will have been reclassified as the 'Dogs Bollocks' along with everything else that carries the name Star Trek, and epitimises everything the latest film in the series could never hope to be.

Its not a great film no, but its no less trek than the rest.

But its good to have someone actually argue their case for once,Butters, rather than resort to telling me i'm an idiot for not loving the film, so

I does me best

 

[3D Master]

Its impossible to argue with this without an accusation of baiting but I'll try anyway by asking if theres any precedent for 3D Master changing an opinion?

As one who promotes the deep meaningfulness of trek and the lessons therin, I am puzzled by your approach to these discussions. Perhaps there are a few episodes that I missed, the ones where Kirk defeated an enemy by angrily repeating the same unique opinion, ignoring all arguments against, until everyone else went to the pub.

I'm pretty sure Kirk argued multiple super computers into oblivion.

But thats the point. Hate the film for whatever reasons, but angrilly calling it not Trek because of such and such. All the films had incredibly weak elements, all had plot contrivances, contradictions, co-incidences, crap jokes, continuity errors, canon violations and dubious casting. But they all had something likable, on some level too. None of this makes the film good either.

It is not that it's a crime to hate the new film, but if your sole reasons also apply to everything that has gone before then your argument collapses. How can one possibly like trek if the stated reasons for hating this film are not only endemic, but often defining features within the franchise.

Except that the reasons do NOT apply to previous Trek, except those that I have equally dismisses (and hell, even those have it, as opposed to this new pile.)

The reasons I've stated are, not endemic, and are NOT defining features within the franchise.

The franchise, not even at its most horrible, were ever empty, meaningless piles of shit. This new movie is.

 

[Butters]

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

Its impossible to argue with this without an accusation of baiting but I'll try anyway by asking if theres any precedent for 3D Master changing an opinion?

As one who promotes the deep meaningfulness of trek and the lessons therin, I am puzzled by your approach to these discussions. Perhaps there are a few episodes that I missed, the ones where Kirk defeated an enemy by angrily repeating the same unique opinion, ignoring all arguments against, until everyone else went to the pub.

I'm pretty sure Kirk argued multiple super computers into oblivion.

Well in that case I stand corrected. Shout away.

But thats the point. Hate the film for whatever reasons, but angrilly calling it not Trek because of such and such. All the films had incredibly weak elements, all had plot contrivances, contradictions, co-incidences, crap jokes, continuity errors, canon violations and dubious casting. But they all had something likable, on some level too. None of this makes the film good either.

It is not that it's a crime to hate the new film, but if your sole reasons also apply to everything that has gone before then your argument collapses. How can one possibly like trek if the stated reasons for hating this film are not only endemic, but often defining features within the franchise.

Except that the reasons do NOT apply to previous Trek, except those that I have equally dismisses (and hell, even those have it, as opposed to this new pile.)

The reasons I've stated are, not endemic, and are NOT defining features within the franchise.

The franchise, not even at its most horrible, were ever empty, meaningless piles of shit. This new movie is.

My knowledge of crap trek is limited because I tend to forget the details of the trash but erm:

TNG: Masks
VOY: Threshold
ENT: These are the Voyages

Indeed, any episode that result in a reset, and there are many, is empty meaningless shite because none the portrayed events actually transpire. There is just too much of trek that has some element of bullshit, like the endless hologram/holodeck trash. The fictional particle saviour of the week etc. Sound in space, child genii, children on star ships, command staff on the front line, bad science, mirror universes, transporter doubles. I could go on for hours.

As for whats missing? That heart, the morality of TOS? Well, I a familiar team at the start of their adventures. If its the morality thats missing for you, go to church and be preached at. This is entertainment.

I'm just saying that theres far worse in the franchise than this new segment.

 

[3D Master]

Its impossible to argue with this without an accusation of baiting but I'll try anyway by asking if theres any precedent for 3D Master changing an opinion?

As one who promotes the deep meaningfulness of trek and the lessons therin, I am puzzled by your approach to these discussions. Perhaps there are a few episodes that I missed, the ones where Kirk defeated an enemy by angrily repeating the same unique opinion, ignoring all arguments against, until everyone else went to the pub.

I'm pretty sure Kirk argued multiple super computers into oblivion.

Well in that case I stand corrected. Shout away.

I don't shout, I argue, I discuss, I reason. But I do not shout.

But thats the point. Hate the film for whatever reasons, but angrilly calling it not Trek because of such and such. All the films had incredibly weak elements, all had plot contrivances, contradictions, co-incidences, crap jokes, continuity errors, canon violations and dubious casting. But they all had something likable, on some level too. None of this makes the film good either.

It is not that it's a crime to hate the new film, but if your sole reasons also apply to everything that has gone before then your argument collapses. How can one possibly like trek if the stated reasons for hating this film are not only endemic, but often defining features within the franchise.

Except that the reasons do NOT apply to previous Trek, except those that I have equally dismisses (and hell, even those have it, as opposed to this new pile.)

The reasons I've stated are, not endemic, and are NOT defining features within the franchise.

The franchise, not even at its most horrible, were ever empty, meaningless piles of shit. This new movie is.

My knowledge of crap trek is limited because I tend to forget the details of the trash but erm:

TNG: Masks
VOY: Threshold
ENT: These are the Voyages

Indeed, any episode that result in a reset, and there are many, is empty meaningless shite because none the portrayed events actually transpire. There is just too much of trek that has some element of bullshit, like the endless hologram/holodeck trash. The fictional particle saviour of the week etc. Sound in space, child genii, children on star ships, command staff on the front line, bad science, mirror universes, transporter doubles. I could go on for hours.

As for whats missing? That heart, the morality of TOS? Well, I a familiar team at the start of their adventures. If its the morality thats missing for you, go to church and be preached at. This is entertainment.

Uh, the church? That's the last place I want to go, or where you could go to get something that is in line with Star Trek. What's missing is the very heart of Star Trek: secular humanism. There is no fate, no destiny, no higher power - it's us that needs to do things on our own. As opposed to, be promoted from cadet to captain because destiny made it so. This is the core of Trek, and it's gone - the church you can only find something practically opposite of what secular humanism and Star Trek is all about.

I'm just saying that theres far worse in the franchise than this new segment.

Nope - that's the most horrifying part. No matter how horribly bad Star Trek got in the past - this is worse.

 

[Borgminister]

I'll just go ahead and say it: I LOVE Star Trek...

 

[cmdrbolly]

I'll just go ahead and say it: I LOVE Star Trek...

Too bad for 3DMaster, but 'Humans make the most illogical decisions.'

 

[Borgminister]

I'll just go ahead and say it: I LOVE Star Trek...

Too bad for 3DMaster, but 'Humans make the most illogical decisions.'

Indeed.

Like purchasing TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT on DVD.

 

[Gepard]

It has "canon" violations, just like the rest.
It has action sequences and humour.
It has name dropping
It has ridiculous science to advance the story
It is star trek.

And that's all Star Trek is? Canon violations, action, humour, name-dropping and bad science? It is impossible to ignore the fact that all of these things have played a role in some Star Trek productions, but so too have good stories, compelling villains, interesting themes, and much much more. These are things which were missing from this movie, and they are as much a part of the fabric of Star Trek as the things that you have listed.

I'm not saying this movie isn't a part of Star Trek, it has the title and that's all it needs to qualify, but that doesn't stop it from being a bad movie.

^I love how the reasonable posts are being completely ignored so Butters and 3D Master can continue to snipe at each other.

 

[RoJoHen]

I can understand his heated tone Butters. It is incredibly frustrating to be constantly told anyone who dislikes the new film is wrong because the rest of Star Trek has the same problems. I fail to see how this should be an excuse for the new film. If they had to do a reboot then is it too much to ask for a good one?

I dont care about canon. There i've said it. To me the story comes first, and if the canon stops you telling a good story, drop it. The problem with the new Trek film is that it doesnt tell a good story. It has every flaw that Nemesis had.

And i left feeling the exact same way as i did after seeing Nemesis - that with a different director and editor we could have had something great. The only reason that i will watch a sequel is because the potential for great Star Trek was present in the new film, it really was, they just didnt make the most of it.

Hmmm... I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess I disagree across the board. I thought it was a great story, well acted, well directed. I thought they ran the board with this one. Along with TMP and TWOK, this is far and away my favorite Star Trek film.

You are not really a high cinema kind of guy, are you?

When the hell did Star Trek become "high cinema?"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Hmmm... I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess I disagree across the board. I thought it was a great story, well acted, well directed. I thought they ran the board with this one. Along with TMP and TWOK, this is far and away my favorite Star Trek film.

You are not really a high cinema kind of guy, are you?

When the hell did Star Trek become "high cinema?"

Oh, that was a pretty generic put-down from Feofilakt; it translates as "I have no reply to that."

 

[Renvar]

I watched the movie yesterday. My first thought was, "WTF, VULCAN NOOOO!!" My second thought was, ok they made it all better because its not our universe. My third thought was...wait I'd better stop. I had too many thoughts that have already been talked to death in this thread.

I think the problem with Star Trek is that it has so much to live up to. Abrahms basically took what worked in Serenity and transplanted it into the Star Trek mythos. Now, will that make a great action-packed movie? Certainly. Will it make a great Star Trek movie? That's where we start to head into gray area.

I was sitting in the theater watching the credits, and I happened to notice that the list for the digital graphics artists was enormously gigantic. It filled up the entire screen with names for roughly 4 seconds of scrolling. I turned to my brother and said, "Yknow, I wonder which the production crew got more peeved at: when an actor couldn't make it to film, or when a digital artist called in sick? My money's on the latter."

What we also had to understand about the characters is that, thanks to this alternate timeline/universe stuff, these are no longer the TOS crew that we've come to love. They're essentially old characters being rebooted and reforged into something completely different. Because of this, I think we as a fanbase were expecting a lot more character development than we saw in the film. I was pretty saddened that many of the bridge officers fell back into supporting character rolls after their introduction scenes, especially McCoy and Scottie, who became little more than comic relief after they were almost obligitorially ushered in.

I forget who said they felt like this movie was a fast talking car salesman, all lights and flash with no real meat behind it, but I think that is a perfect metaphor for this film.

 

[freak]

I know this is gonna sound like the blonde in me but, when did Trek become so debatable and controversal between posters?? My thoughts go as this: like the movie if you want to like it..dislike it if that's your choice. It's called having an opinion. Of course I had issues with the movie as well(who wouldn't?) but I don't ram it into the ground. That's not logical.

 

[RoJoHen]

I know this is gonna sound like the blonde in me but, when did Trek become so debatable and controversal between posters??

Since the dawn of the internet message board.

 

[Gepard]

I know this is gonna sound like the blonde in me but, when did Trek become so debatable and controversal between posters??

Since the dawn of the internet message board.

Hell, since the dawn of Star Trek, if comments made by the old timers are to be believed.

 

[Silent_Bob]

I know this is gonna sound like the blonde in me but, when did Trek become so debatable and controversal between posters??

Since the dawn of the internet message board.

Hell, since the dawn of Star Trek, if comments made by the old timers are to be believed.

Archaeologists have recently translated the oldest known cuneiform tablet from the middle Levant after many years of research. Apparently it reads
"No you idiot! Picard was far superior to Kirk STFU".

 

[Qonos]

I realize some Star Trek Fans want these wide arching deeper themes to be developed upon. Some message they can point to when they talk about the movie with like minded individuals. That's all well and good, but I think you have to balance that with setting up the new universe and telling the journey of the story.

Why? When has Star Trek intentially dropped the ball like that before? Just look at The Cage, it managed to tell a story with an overarching theme even while it built the Star Trek universe around it, and the same can be said of WNMHGB. All of the Trek pilots laid the groundwork for the new series while still developing themes, from the bad (Encounter at Farpoint) to the brilliant (Emissary). Even the pilot of Enterprise had an overarching theme about Archer's prejudice towards Vulcans, so if Brannon Braga can balance the necessity of setting-up the universe while still trying to tell a story then Orci and Kurtzman have no excuse.

Wait the Cage, Which NBC told Roddenberry Go back and Reshoot?

That THE CAGE???

If it did such a great job the first time Why wasn't it picked up..

Why make WNMHGB?