Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

[startrekrcks]

well they know what sells and what people enjoy from a movie and at last a Trek movie that caters to a wider audience not just Trek fans you may not like it but I sure do.

 

[Devon]

JJ Abrams doesn't "get" Star Trek by any stretch of the imagination. Neither do his two pet writers. They know the surface and the cliches, they don't know the heart and soul of the thing.

That is so very true. I knew that as soon as I first heard about the alternate timeline BS. They have no clue.

Nope, they have a clue. Sorry.

They made a summer popcorn flick called "Star Trek". That's all.

Already ahead of most Trek.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It all comes down to ones relative tolerance for shlock. In some cases, I have no problem with shaky plots and questionable science; like I've said before, I'm a big fan of the movie "Tank Girl" and other denizens of the B-Movie category.

Star Trek, on the other hand, is supposed to at least try to maintain a higher standard than the typical Michael Bay Explodapalooza.

Hardly a fair comparison; Michael Bay seldom puts more thought into his films than "need more pyro, need more guns, let's do a cool rotating camera thing with lots of talking and shooting..." based on the back stage material, JJ was going for Scifipalooza with lots of cool special effects and awe-inspiring visuals, exotic aliens, flashy colors and compelling characters. The amount of concentration they put into the alien character designs, for example, reflects a degree of care that has been absence from Trek since at least the early days of TNG.

Sorry, but you just listed the same things Michael Bay is going for when he directs his movies. I personally found the characters in Star Trek just as compelling as the characters in Transformers. And the amount of concentration they put into the Transformer designs reflects nothing or what?

I never said Transformers didn't have some spectacular technical designs, did I?

As far as Star Trek, I mainly have in mind the amount of work they put into alien makeup for Nero and Spock and Spock. It was suggested that the appearance of a character evolved in parallel with his personality and motivation (Mickey Rourke had something similar in mind when he insisted that Whiplash should have a pet bird). That comes through in the film; it's alot more color than the last three Trek films could boast IMO.

 

[JarodRussell]

Hardly a fair comparison; Michael Bay seldom puts more thought into his films than "need more pyro, need more guns, let's do a cool rotating camera thing with lots of talking and shooting..." based on the back stage material, JJ was going for Scifipalooza with lots of cool special effects and awe-inspiring visuals, exotic aliens, flashy colors and compelling characters. The amount of concentration they put into the alien character designs, for example, reflects a degree of care that has been absence from Trek since at least the early days of TNG.

Sorry, but you just listed the same things Michael Bay is going for when he directs his movies. I personally found the characters in Star Trek just as compelling as the characters in Transformers. And the amount of concentration they put into the Transformer designs reflects nothing or what?

I never said Transformers didn't have some spectacular technical designs, did I?

You said that Michael Bay puts no thoughts into his movies and that JJ Abrams in contrast does, and then you listed character design as one example why. So yes, you basically implied that Transformers didn't have spectacular designs.

As far as Star Trek, I mainly have in mind the amount of work they put into alien makeup for Nero and Spock and Spock. It was suggested that the appearance of a character evolved in parallel with his personality and motivation (Mickey Rourke had something similar in mind when he insisted that Whiplash should have a pet bird). That comes through in the film; it's alot more color than the last three Trek films could boast IMO

I don't think I get what you're saying. The make up for Nero and Spock? The design of Nero's make up was "Uh, we need him to look badass... Badass? Bald with tattoos! That's BADASS!" (and very stereotypical and cliché), and Spock's make up is from 1966, a black wig and pointed ears.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

JJ Abrams doesn't "get" Star Trek by any stretch of the imagination. Neither do his two pet writers. They know the surface and the cliches, they don't know the heart and soul of the thing.

That is so very true. I knew that as soon as I first heard about the alternate timeline BS. They have no clue.

Nope, they have a clue. Sorry. .

Nope. They are totally clueless about Star Trek. They know all about whiz bang, stuff go boom, popcorn flicks that make money by catering to the short attention span generation. But Star Trek? No. Sorry. They missed the bus.

They made a summer popcorn flick called "Star Trek". That's all.

Already ahead of most Trek.

Not necessarily. Abramstrek was all flash and zero substance. Gaping plotholes and stuff going kaboom doth not a Star Trek movie make.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Gaping plotholes and stuff going kaboom doth not a Star Trek movie make.

you have seen Star Trek V?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Gaping plotholes and stuff going kaboom doth not a Star Trek movie make.

you have seen Star Trek V?

Ooooh. Okay. STXI was maybe just a tad better than STV. STV was bad. So very very bad. I guess every movie franchise has a stinker every so often. Star Trek apparently has STV and STXI. Two out of eleven ain't bad.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't think I get what you're saying. The make up for Nero and Spock? The design of Nero's make up was "Uh, we need him to look badass... Badass? Bald with tattoos! That's BADASS!" (and very stereotypical and cliché), and Spock's make up is from 1966, a black wig and pointed ears.

And so ends my assumption that you actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Gaping plotholes and stuff going kaboom doth not a Star Trek movie make.

you have seen Star Trek V?

Ooooh. Okay. STXI was maybe just a tad better than STV. STV was bad. So very very bad. I guess every movie franchise has a stinker every so often. Star Trek apparently has STV and STXI. Two out of eleven ain't bad.

I take it you also avoided watching First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

you have seen Star Trek V?

Ooooh. Okay. STXI was maybe just a tad better than STV. STV was bad. So very very bad. I guess every movie franchise has a stinker every so often. Star Trek apparently has STV and STXI. Two out of eleven ain't bad.

I take it you also avoided watching First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis?

Actually, I thoroughly enjoyed First Contact. Insurrection was watchable. And Nemesis wasn't too terribly bad. Star Trek V, Generations, and STXI are pretty much the only three Trek movies that I don't enjoy watching...well, I guess I should say three out of eleven.

 

[Captain Robert April]

So, comparing one turkey to other turkeys means.....what, exactly?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Ooooh. Okay. STXI was maybe just a tad better than STV. STV was bad. So very very bad. I guess every movie franchise has a stinker every so often. Star Trek apparently has STV and STXI. Two out of eleven ain't bad.

I take it you also avoided watching First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis?

Actually, I thoroughly enjoyed First Contact. Insurrection was watchable. And Nemesis wasn't too terribly bad. Star Trek V, Generations, and STXI are pretty much the only three Trek movies that I don't enjoy watching...well, I guess I should say three out of eleven.

Which essentially means that STXI is a Star Trek movie you didn't happen to enjoy. That doesn't tell us anything about the production crew, it tells us plenty about your personal tastes.

But as I said upthread, the subtext of most of these complaints is a writ of "I could have done better."

 

[I-Am-Zim]

So, comparing one turkey to other turkeys means.....what, exactly?

I'm not really comparing turkey to turkey. I'm just saying that any franchise with multiple movies is going to have a stinker in the bunch.

 

[JarodRussell]

I don't think I get what you're saying. The make up for Nero and Spock? The design of Nero's make up was "Uh, we need him to look badass... Badass? Bald with tattoos! That's BADASS!" (and very stereotypical and cliché), and Spock's make up is from 1966, a black wig and pointed ears.

And so ends my assumption that you actually know what you're talking about.

Maybe you can enlighten me. What's so amazing about Nero's and Spock's make up? I find Nero's make up uncreative (it's like the stereotypical scar on Colonel Quaritch's head in Avatar).

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I take it you also avoided watching First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis?

Actually, I thoroughly enjoyed First Contact. Insurrection was watchable. And Nemesis wasn't too terribly bad. Star Trek V, Generations, and STXI are pretty much the only three Trek movies that I don't enjoy watching...well, I guess I should say three out of eleven.

Which essentially means that STXI is a Star Trek movie you didn't happen to enjoy. That doesn't tell us anything about the production crew, it tells us plenty about your personal tastes."

Actually, I never said I didn't enjoy STXI. Believe it or not, I did. It was a fun movie. It got started kinda slow, but the pacing got better. As far as generic sci-fi summer popcorn flicks go, it was pretty good. But as a Star Trek TOS-era movie, not so much. To me, it didn't capture the essence of TOS. That is purely subjective and your mileage may vary on that issue. The SFX were top notch (except for those horrid lense flares), the soundtrack was pretty good (could have been better), and the acting was pretty good (especially Karl Urban). The story and plot, on the other hand, left much to be desired. As far as the production crew? I don't know any of them personally, so I am not really qualified to tell anyone anything about them.

But as I said upthread, the subtext of most of these complaints is a writ of "I could have done better."

Actually, I never said "I could have done better". I'm not a writer. Nor am I creative enough to come up with a movie. I have, however, said that the movie could have been better. Much better. If the right team were writing it.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I don't think I get what you're saying. The make up for Nero and Spock? The design of Nero's make up was "Uh, we need him to look badass... Badass? Bald with tattoos! That's BADASS!" (and very stereotypical and cliché), and Spock's make up is from 1966, a black wig and pointed ears.

And so ends my assumption that you actually know what you're talking about.

Maybe you can enlighten me. What's so amazing about Nero's and Spock's make up? I find Nero's make up uncreative (it's like the stereotypical scar on Colonel Quaritch's head in Avatar).

Didn't you notice it? Nero's innovative makeup was patterned after Darth Maul! That took some serious creativity!

 

[Pauln6]

Actually, I never said "I could have done better". I'm not a writer. Nor am I creative enough to come up with a movie. I have, however, said that the movie could have been better. Much better. If the right team were writing it.

Yeah I don't think any major alterations to the plot were needed, just little tweaks here, often just a few lines of dialogue, and there to plug the plot holes.

Nero could have been a more credible villain if he'd gathered a rebel force with various races during his 25 year exile rather than just one uber powerful ship but other much smaller tweaks could have improved the film.

 

[startrekrcks]

I-Am-Zim we have heard this all before but please don't bash down people that do love Abrams Trek to stop liking it.

 

[Pauln6]

I-Am-Zim we have heard this all before but please don't bash down people that do love Abrams Trek to stop liking it.

It's not a question of like or dislike; it's a question of 'would have liked it more.'

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't think I get what you're saying. The make up for Nero and Spock? The design of Nero's make up was "Uh, we need him to look badass... Badass? Bald with tattoos! That's BADASS!" (and very stereotypical and cliché), and Spock's make up is from 1966, a black wig and pointed ears.

And so ends my assumption that you actually know what you're talking about.

Maybe you can enlighten me. What's so amazing about Nero's and Spock's make up?

There's nothing amazing about the makeup. What impressed me (after reading/watching backstage materials for the film) was the amount of thought that went into them. Of particular importance was Nimoy's input in (re)designing Spock's ears. He apparently made a big deal out of the fact that the style and shape used in TOS didn't carry over into later productions and JJ gave him alot of say in the final design (more, I gather, than he enjoyed in previous films). Likewise, out of the concept designs for the Future Romulan design it was intended to make Nero's Romulans a distinct sect/clan from any other Romulan group seen before, so there were variations on tatoo design and placement and other identifying marks that (according to JJ) would have been scars from body-sculpting "Rite of Passage" type rituals. Some of the concepts that didn't make it through were rather ghastly; they had the actors try a number of others that turned out to be less suitable or too complicated.

And there's also the little matter of Nero's ear being clipped, an allusion to 25 years of hardship at Rura Penthe.