• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

i wish abrams had made a post ds9/voy movie isntead!

Shazam!, while Sector 7 may not have been strictly adhering to the "Comments to PM" directive, posts like this:

Wag the finger at the hater, warning to the responder. It is business as usual on TrekBBS. Since this will not change any time soon, I shall take my leave of you.
LOL

this:
How many 'Star Trek fans in general' have you met and asked about this movie?
73,9187

this:
Well, it's official: This topic has now degenerated into nothing more than a stupid little pissing match between a few members. Let's see if we can conclude it. OK?

The OP (who has actually not even responded once to his own post, making me think that he probably didn't even care a whole lot about what he was asking), stated that he wished Abrams made a post-TNG movie instead of a TOS movie, and several people chimed in stating that this would have probably been a bad idea.

End of discussion.

(P.S. No, I don't really believe this will be the end of the discussion. I totally feel more pissing coming on).
My, that is a terribly tall horse you appear to be riding in on.

this:
My, that is a terribly tall horse you appear to be riding in on.

See, I told you...:rolleyes:
Yeah, you're totally proving that games of 1up manship are beneath you.

and this:
Yeah, you're totally proving that games of 1up manship are beneath you.

See, what you're so blatantly trying to do here is to make me start an argument with you to make yourself look better. Or maybe you just get off on starting arguments. Well pal, that's not going to happen. Bye, Shazam.
kidsthesedays.jpg

...are just baiting, intended only to wind people up, and they add nothing of value to the discussion. Knock it the fuck off now, and I don't want to see any more of it from you.


Everyone else, let's get back to the topic, if there's anything really left of it to talk about.
 
Modern Trek sucks yet you want to follow the path blazed by Modern Trek? (right it can be "saved" by "good" writing. ;) )

Yes, it could be saved by better writing. Nemesis wasn't a bad movie because it was a "modern Trek" movie. It simply was a bad movie because its scripted and direction sucked big time.

And ENT was a prequel, remember?
He said most of Modern Trek sucked, so I was wondering why anyone in charge would want to follow its path.

"Good" writing is different than good writing. ;)

Did I indicate that I had forgotten ENT was a prequel? Though it, like most Trek shows, is a remake of TOS to some degree.
 
Well, it's official: This topic has now degenerated into nothing more than a stupid little pissing match between a few members. Let's see if we can conclude it. OK?

The OP (who has actually not even responded once to his own post, making me think that he probably didn't even care a whole lot about what he was asking), stated that he wished Abrams made a post-TNG movie instead of a TOS movie, and several people chimed in stating that this would have probably been a bad idea.

End of discussion.

(P.S. No, I don't really believe this will be the end of the discussion. I totally feel more pissing coming on).

It's actually even simpler than that. Whether or not a post-TNG movie would have worked is beside the point. The entire thread could simply be reduced to

"Well, he didn't, so get over it."
 
If I asked you how many people you had ever spoken to about a particular movie could you provide a figure? It was a silly question and deserved a silly answer.

Also, Dukhat barging in with his size 14s and insulting everyone in the thread whilst looking down his nose wasn't on and I let him know it.

If any of it was out of line, I apologise.

startrekrcks said:
JJ Abrams was great for making Trek cool why can't you accept this film
Why can't you accept that there are people who didn't like the movie and wish to spend their time discussing said fact?
 
showing viewers how the original “Starship Enterprise” crew of Capt. James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock, “Bones” McCoy and all the others from the television show (1966-69) first met.
What I've always found amusing about this description is that it's entirely inaccurate because the movie isn't about how the crew originally met at all.

Sure, but at least it was made by people who set out to make something that looked to the future but embraced the past at the same time. I'm not a big Abrams fan, but I can't say that he didn't give a shit about making something that was both a good film and a good Star Trek adventure at the same time.
Aside from objectifying women, how did the movie embrace the past at all?

You're wrong. I see very few action movies; they generally don't interest me.
And I have seen plenty of action movies, so I would know, which means I'm not wrong.

This was a great Star Trek movie, better than all but one or two of the previous ones.
Actually, no, it's only better than the about 2-3 of the previous movies.

Hence the term "partial". Anyway both Phase II and TMP were "reboots" and remakes to some degree.
Not really, since they were actually spin-offs that were supposed to be follow-ups to the original. I've seen that argument made before, but not only is it stretched beyond the breaking point, but it still in no way justifies remaking everything the way this movie did.

Has BSG been sited as why they did it? I enjoyed most of NuBSG, though it kind of lost its way towards the end.
They haven't specifically cited it, but it isn't exactly rocket science to figure it out, especially since fans have been moaning and groaning that Star Trek should be rebooted, too, since it worked for BSG. And in point of fact I liked the new BSG, too, at least for its first season. Of course the original BSG was only a little over a season long.

Modern Trek sucks yet you want to follow the path blazed by Modern Trek? (right it can be "saved" by "good" writing. ;) )
That's because not all of it sucks. I was referring more to VOY and ENT. DS9 is actually the best series as far as I'm concerned. But even VOY and ENT started out with great concepts that ended up getting ruined by bad writing, bad production decisions, and executive meddling from UPN.

So he like Star Wars better at least he liked Star Trek . There have been directors who had no clue about Trek until they got the job. And they put their own stamp on it (Nick Meyers for one).
And yet Nick Meyers didn't try to turn Star Trek into Star Wars and managed to not completely destroy everything that came before his movies.

TDTESS din't hit the right notes with enough people. Popularity is all that matters, because it translates into $$$$$$. Like it or not moviemaking is a busniness and Star Trek is a product.
So? That doesn't make it not suck. If anything you're proving my point about how horribly wrong things can go because of that viewpoint.

Star Trek in all its post TOS incarnations has been a "remake from decades past" since TAS.
No, not really. A spin-off that continues the same storyline or takes place within the same continuity doesn't count as a remake.

JJ Abrams was great for making Trek cool why can't you accept this film.
Because JJ Abrams isn't great and the new movie isn't cool, that's why.
 
Well, it's official: This topic has now degenerated into nothing more than a stupid little pissing match between a few members. Let's see if we can conclude it. OK?

The OP (who has actually not even responded once to his own post, making me think that he probably didn't even care a whole lot about what he was asking), stated that he wished Abrams made a post-TNG movie instead of a TOS movie, and several people chimed in stating that this would have probably been a bad idea.

End of discussion.

(P.S. No, I don't really believe this will be the end of the discussion. I totally feel more pissing coming on).

It's actually even simpler than that. Whether or not a post-TNG movie would have worked is beside the point. The entire thread could simply be reduced to

"Well, he didn't, so get over it."

Well said. :)
 
Disillusioned said:
Nerys Myk said:
Hence the term "partial". Anyway both Phase II and TMP were "reboots" and remakes to some degree.

Not really, since they were actually spin-offs that were supposed to be follow-ups to the original. I've seen that argument made before, but not only is it stretched beyond the breaking point, but it still in no way justifies remaking everything the way this movie did.
YOu got to stop taking things so literally. Look for qualifiers like "Some degree" and "partially". Anyone who knows the history of TNGs development will understand what I'm getting at. Anyone looking at the characters and settings in DS9, VOY and ENT will understand too.

Not a stretch at all. Success breeds immitation and revival. Success is all the justification anyone needs. Nothing succeeds like success. ;)





Has BSG been sited as why they did it? I enjoyed most of NuBSG, though it kind of lost its way towards the end.

They haven't specifically cited it, but it isn't exactly rocket science to figure it out, especially since fans have been moaning and groaning that Star Trek should be rebooted, too, since it worked for BSG. And in point of fact I liked the new BSG, too, at least for its first season. Of course the original BSG was only a little over a season long.

So the connection is just in your head? ( was it a blond woman?)

If they were looking at BSG, they might have taken a different tack. The dark, gloomy and eventually unlikable atmophere thar permeated that show. Instead they went in the opposite direction. And fans were clamoring for a "dark Trek" too. (Thank god they didn't listen)

And I'm no expert, but I'm not sure Movie studios like to follow the lead of TV.(Exception made for movies fom TV shows) In my experience it works the other way around.

Modern Trek sucks yet you want to follow the path blazed by Modern Trek? (right it can be "saved" by "good" writing.
)

That's because not all of it sucks. I was referring more to VOY and ENT. DS9 is actually the best series as far as I'm concerned. But even VOY and ENT started out with great concepts that ended up getting ruined by bad writing, bad production decisions, and executive meddling from UPN.
So two shows and 10 seasons, out of four shows and 24 seasons equals "most"?

DS9 is a fine show. It ranks just behind TOS as my favorite. But comes in dead last in representing what Star Trek is about from ideological standpoint and even format/setting.



So he like Star Wars better at least he liked Star Trek . There have been directors who had no clue about Trek until they got the job. And they put their own stamp on it (Nick Meyers for one).

And yet Nick Meyers didn't try to turn Star Trek into Star Wars and managed to not completely destroy everything that came before his movies.
Not Star Wars, he had his own "agenda". Others have hilighted how his vision was different that GRs in both TOS and TMP, so I'm not going to rehash it.
"Destroy" ? Sorry but all my DVDs are still on the shelf and I can order books set in the "Prime Universe" at anytime.

TDTESS din't hit the right notes with enough people. Popularity is all that matters, because it translates into $$$$$$. Like it or not moviemaking is a busniness and Star Trek is a product.

So? That doesn't make it not suck. If anything you're proving my point about how horribly wrong things can go because of that viewpoint.
"Suck" is a relative term.

Horribly wrong? Its a movie not an accident. No lives were lost. No one was hurt or injured.

The movie made money for the studio and people enjoyed it. Whats wrong about that again?


Star Trek in all its post TOS incarnations has been a "remake from decades past" since TAS.

No, not really. A spin-off that continues the same storyline or takes place within the same continuity doesn't count as a remake.
Expand beyond your literalism.
 
Jeez I hope not, I hope everyone has a ready mind and open attitude towards the next film.:vulcan:
I did about this movie and it still failed. Just because someone doesn't like a movie doesn't mean it was a matter of them not having "an open mind" about the movie. It just means they didn't like the movie and you can usually trust them to explain why they didn't like it.

yeah beating a dead horse like we know there are people that dislike the movie why go on and on.
Because we have an opinion and we have every bit as much of a right to go on and on about it as the people who like it.

Ou got to stop taking things so literally. Look for qualifiers like "Some degree" and "partially".
Doesn't matter, those shows simply aren't what you're trying to make them out to be. This movie is literally a reboot, the spin-offs are not.

Anyone who knows the history of TNGs development will understand what I'm getting at. Anyone looking at the characters and settings in DS9, VOY and ENT will understand too.
I understand GR wanted to distance TNG from TOS because of changes he wanted to make in the philosophy of the show. This changes nothing, however.

Not a stretch at all. Success breeds immitation and revival. Success is all the justification anyone needs. Nothing succeeds like success. ;)
And success or lack of success isn't necessarily an indication as to quality.

So the connection is just in your head? ( was it a blond woman?)

If they were looking at BSG, they might have taken a different tack. The dark, gloomy and eventually unlikable atmophere thar permeated that show. Instead they went in the opposite direction. And fans were clamoring for a "dark Trek" too. (Thank god they didn't listen)

And I'm no expert, but I'm not sure Movie studios like to follow the lead of TV.(Exception made for movies fom TV shows) In my experience it works the other way around.
Or they just looked at a science fiction franchise that was successfully rebooted and said, "that's a great idea; we should do that!"

So two shows and 10 seasons, out of four shows and 24 seasons equals "most"?
And now you're the one taking things to literally. The shows which I thought were overall pretty good had some stinkers, too, and even shows I didn't much care for, like ENT, still had some good episodes in them. Where are you even trying to go with this? This has nothing to do with continuing with what's been established and just making some good decisions and writing good episodes and movies.

DS9 is a fine show. It ranks just behind TOS as my favorite. But comes in dead last in representing what Star Trek is about from ideological standpoint and even format/setting.
Which turned out to not be a bad thing, and is a great example of how the franchise could have been expanded to appeal to a broader audience if it hadn't been shown Saturday nights at midnight.

Not Star Wars, he had his own "agenda". Others have hilighted how his vision was different that GRs in both TOS and TMP, so I'm not going to rehash it.
I've heard them, but aside from some stupidity related to comedy relief and a couple continuity issues he made what are the two best movies in my opinion by going the Horatio Hornblower route.

"Destroy" ? Sorry but all my DVDs are still on the shelf and I can order books set in the "Prime Universe" at anytime.
:rolleyes: I've seen this one plenty of times before, too. Again, you are being too literal here. When one mentions this, they do not literally mean their DVDs are being destroyed, they mean any chance of future additions to the franchise are effectively destroyed, and that this movie and the rest of the franchise are incompatible. And while I can certainly watch my DVDs anytime I want, there will come a time that will get pointless because the only thing watching them over and over again will accomplish is that I'll have memorized them all.

"Suck" is a relative term.
Yet accurate.

Horribly wrong? Its a movie not an accident. No lives were lost. No one was hurt or injured.

The movie made money for the studio and people enjoyed it. Whats wrong about that again?
What it's done to the franchise and the fandom.

Expand beyond your literalism.
No can do. Sorry, but you're trying to make something it's not when you try to say the movies and other shows are reboots.
 
Doesn't matter, those shows simply aren't what you're trying to make them out to be. This movie is literally a reboot, the spin-offs are not.
You just dont get it. Yes the current movie is a reboot. The other show were attempts to recreate the "magic" of TOS and TNG. So they are in a "sense" partial reboots. TNG was a reboot of the TOS concept. Having it take place in the "future" is not that different that placing a new version of Star Trek in an "alternate universe.
I understand GR wanted to distance TNG from TOS because of changes he wanted to make in the philosophy of the show. This changes nothing, however.
Change the show's philosophy? Sound like a reboot to me.

And success or lack of success isn't necessarily an indication as to quality.
Nope, but it does indicate it worked.


Or they just looked at a science fiction franchise that was successfully rebooted and said, "that's a great idea; we should do that!"
Till that they said they did its just speculation.


And now you're the one taking things to literally. The shows which I thought were overall pretty good had some stinkers, too, and even shows I didn't much care for, like ENT, still had some good episodes in them. Where are you even trying to go with this? This has nothing to do with continuing with what's been established and just making some good decisions and writing good episodes and movies.
Thing is they probably thought they were making good movies. I hope no one goes into a project wanting to make a bad movie or TV show. (Max Bialystock excepted). I'm sure many involved thought they were doing good work. And thing is a good product will not always produce the type of returns need for success. When you have a product that produces diminishing returns as DS9, VOY, ENT and the TNG movies did, you take a long hard look at that product and make some decisions. They did and decided a TOS reboot was the way to go.


Which turned out to not be a bad thing, and is a great example of how the franchise could have been expanded to appeal to a broader audience if it hadn't been shown Saturday nights at midnight.
Where I lived it was on primetime during the week. Such it the life a a syndicated show. It was also the begining of the decline of Trek in the ratings. (Hey Dennis where is that chart? ;) ) So the TNG audience, which represented the apex of TV-Treks ratings, didn't follow the franchise to DS9. Again diminishing returns.

TNG was something special, Trek may never succeed at that level on TV again. And hopefully it will never bomb at the theatre as the TNG movies did either.


I've heard them, but aside from some stupidity related to comedy relief and a couple continuity issues he made what are the two best movies in my opinion by going the Horatio Hornblower route.
But the Star Wars route is "bad"?

I watched TOS when growing up and TWOK was not TOS, but it is a favorite of mine.


:rolleyes: I've seen this one plenty of times before, too. Again, you are being too literal here. When one mentions this, they do not literally mean their DVDs are being destroyed, they mean any chance of future additions to the franchise are effectively destroyed, and that this movie and the rest of the franchise are incompatible. And while I can certainly watch my DVDs anytime I want, there will come a time that will get pointless because the only thing watching them over and over again will accomplish is that I'll have memorized them all.
I know that, it's the meme I can't resist. It serves as a nice counterpoint to the hyperbole and hysteria.

Incompatibilty is practically a frachise given. That some of it is compatable at all is nothing short of a miracle.

Look at this way, someday the TNG/DS9/VOY continuity may comeback. As I said before, Hollywood likes to recycle.


Yet accurate.
You must be using a definition of "'accurate" I don't know, because opinion and accurate are not synonyms.


What it's done to the franchise and the fandom.
It revived the franchise and shown that fandom is as divisive as ever, same as it been for over thirty years.


o can do. Sorry, but you're trying to make something it's not when you try to say the movies and other shows are reboots.
Partial reboots in a certain sense. Think about it. Look at each show and compare it to TOS. Think some more.
 
Last edited:
Disillusioned posted:

I'm saying fans of this movie like mindless action movies.

I posted in reply:

You're wrong. I see very few action movies; they generally don't interest me.

To which Disillusioned replied:

And I have seen plenty of action movies, so I would know, which means I'm not wrong.

I'm a fan of this movie, and I don't like mindless action movies. Disillusioned, OTOH, does like - or at least sees - "plenty" of such mindless action movies, and is not a fan of this Trek movie.

Which means, of course, that Disillusioned is wrong in asserting that "fans of this movie like mindless action movies." His own follow-up statement contradicts the assertion.

DS9 is the only modern Trek series which is not, in some sense, a reboot or return to TOS.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top