"I like the new movie better..."

[number6]

I didn't see that movie.

The "90210" reference is, BTW and despite the minimal existence of a current spinoff, more than a decade out of date. It's lame and makes the user appear somewhat of a follower and out of touch.

I'd suggest you work on some variation using the "Twilight" movie series as the jumping-off point. It will be no more original, but won't look quite so clueless.

For those that didn't get it, like Dennis, the 90210 reference was made because of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY


I know you're a very old man, but I figure you've heard of youtube.

The video was made after some "fans" made snarky comments about it being 90120 in Space, not before.

And yes some of us old timers have heard of youtube. A lot of people post a lot of stupid irrelevant shit there.

 

[Alex1939]

As opposed to the TrekBBS where everything is really really seriously important?


And uh, I'm pretty sure I saw that video BEFORE the movie ever released. Isn't every clip in it from the trailer? Actually it even says November, 2008.



Remember to laugh once in awhile. I liked nuTrek, did not love it, but I can laugh at the 90210 clip. It was clever and does fit. Also calling Spock, Sylar was excellent.

But hey, I know this thread is serious business and you guys need to get off by putting down people that criticize this movie, so hate on ya old geezers! I will not get off your lawn, however.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY

Seen it. That's your defense?

 

[number6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY

Seen it. That's your defense?

Pretty weak one at that.

 

[Alex1939]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY

Seen it. That's your defense?

Yep

See, you said I made a reference that was a decade out of date, but was actually referring to the youtube clip. Also StarTrek09, StarTrek90210.

Sorry to get you so upset. Hope you didn't have to change the Depends.

 

[Warped9]

I didn't see that movie.

The "90210" reference is, BTW and despite the minimal existence of a current spinoff, more than a decade out of date. It's lame and makes the user appear somewhat of a follower and out of touch.

I'd suggest you work on some variation using the "Twilight" movie series as the jumping-off point. It will be no more original, but won't look quite so clueless.

For those that didn't get it, like Dennis, the 90210 reference was made because of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY


I know you're a very old man, but I figure you've heard of youtube.

I've never seen before but it does make its point well enough.

 

[YARN]

Troll thread is still trolling?

Too bad that I've missed all the scintillating discussion here.

 

[zar]

Abrams wasn't interested in making Star Trek. He wanted something more like Star Wars but dressed passingly as Trek---he essentially says that flat out on the dvd. And so a lot of other folks seem to like the SW treatment. A lot of those that made the film popular couldn't tell you what Star Trek was if their life depended on it. They thought it looked familiar enough and that was good enough for them.

See, here's the core problem that is dividing the fans. Everyone keeps saying it's all subjective, but this isn't. This is openly admitted by the creators and it's quite noticeable when watching the movie. You can love this movie or you can hate it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's really a Star Wars movie about Star Trek characters, with a sprinkling of fan-recognizable references throughout. That's not to say you're not a "true fan" if you like it, because of course one can be a fan of Star Trek and Star Wars styles simultaneously.

 

[sonak]

Wow, I'd never seen that quote before. I have the DVD, but haven't bothered to watch the commentary. You're right though, that quote pretty much does make some of the disappointed fans' points for them.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

See, here's the core problem that is dividing the fans.

Nothing's "dividing the fans" any more than they're ever divided. A few fans really, really don't like the movie and are constant in their complaints about it. The vast majority of Trek fans like it. One can scarcely even call that much of a schism; nothing is ever universally popular.

Everyone keeps saying it's all subjective...

Yes, it is.

This is openly admitted by the creators and it's quite noticeable when watching the movie. You can love this movie or you can hate it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's really a Star Wars movie about Star Trek characters...

No, it's not, nor have the creators "admitted" it. The most that Abrams has said is that he was more of a SW fan and wanted to bring some of that to this movie...which is not what you're claiming. So no, that's not "subjective" - it's simply wrong.

It's way past time someone was allowed to approach these movies as movies rather than exaggerated, expensive versions of television episodes. These folks did, which is why their movie is the most successful Trek movie.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

glitch post...reposted below

 

[PorthosShadow]

Wow, I'd never seen that quote before. I have the DVD, but haven't bothered to watch the commentary. You're right though, that quote pretty much does make some of the disappointed fans' points for them.

I think it was either Roberto Orci or Alex Kurtzman who said the same thing. That they wanted to bring a bit of Star Wars into Star Trek which isn't a terrible thing unless your one of those who think you have to like or the other but I digress. The one thing that Star Wars does well is big epic space battles which isn't something Star Trek doesn't tend to do on a grand scale.

The big action sequences in Star Trek were really good and so the comparison to Star Wars isn't really that out of line.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think it was either Roberto Orci or Alex Kurtzman who said the same thing. That they wanted to bring a bit of Star Wars into Star Trek which isn't a terrible thing unless your one of those who think you have to like or the other...

Exactly. Carrying on like that's "making a Star Wars movie" out of Star Trek is somewhere beyond just desperate.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

JJ's Trek would have been BETTER if it had not gone for "hip" with so-called "modern" pacing, camera work, etc.

You really should stop quoting from that Onion-video.

What are you talking about?

By what measure are these things bad film making?
You can like or dislike the use of lens flares in that film (they didn't bother or distract me from anything).
'Spinning axis fx shots'... I guess you are referring to the space-shots where the free-spinning camera indicates that there (unlike most of the older Trek or most other SciFi-films) is no 'up' and 'down' in space?
How is that 'bad film making'?

It's bad filmmaking because you don't spend a ton of money on your sets and then wash out large sections of them with lens flares (and not even naturally occuring ones at that, as is shown in the "making of" videos. Flares jar the viewer out of the moment and are needlessly distracting. That's why most cinematographers go out of their way to AVOID lens flares.

And the space FX shots when they went into "spin mode" were simply nauseating. The viewers can't orient themselves to the scene or it's contents. It's unneccessary, and only done for visual "shock value".

Too much of JJ Trek simply screamed "Look at what WE changed!" That's why a lot of fans were put off in whole or in part...too much "change for change's sake".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's some sad shit. Good thing for the trekkies there appears to be a bloodbank nearby.

 

[zar]

Nothing's "dividing the fans" any more than they're ever divided. A few fans really, really don't like the movie and are constant in their complaints about it. The vast majority of Trek fans like it.

Now look, all I said was that the fans were divided, which is undeniably true. I never said it was the first time they've been divided, and I never said anything about which percentage of fans were for and against. Now you're making vague and baseless claims about "the vast majority" which, for one, can never be proven, and two, have absolutely no bearing on the original point I was making.

Everyone keeps saying it's all subjective...

Yes, it is.

I'm new here -- does Dennis always take others' quotes out of context to make smartass replies?

This is openly admitted by the creators and it's quite noticeable when watching the movie. You can love this movie or you can hate it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's really a Star Wars movie about Star Trek characters...

No, it's not, nor have the creators "admitted" it. The most that Abrams has said is that he was more of a SW fan and wanted to bring some of that to this movie...which is not what you're claiming. So no, that's not "subjective" - it's simply wrong.

Yes, it has been unambiguously stated that they are trying to make Trek more like Wars. I think it's plenty noticeable and whether it is to you or not, they obviously did their job: the movie was popular with Star Wars fans who hadn't liked Trek thus far.

I think it was either Roberto Orci or Alex Kurtzman who said the same thing. That they wanted to bring a bit of Star Wars into Star Trek which isn't a terrible thing unless your one of those who think you have to like or the other but I digress.

Right, and like I posted previously, I'm not one of those. I enjoy Star Wars as well as Trek, but I realize they are distinct... and they should stay that way.

As a production, it was impressive. If this effort had instead been applied to creating Star Wars Episode 7, I reckon it would have been the best Wars film yet, and even more successful than Trek XI was.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

That's some sad shit. Good thing for the trekkies there appears to be a bloodbank nearby.

I'd worry more about the Stormtroopers...everyone knows THEY can't hit the broad side of a Star Destroyer...

Zar...enable PM on your account and I'll answer the questions you posed above...

 

[Captain Mike]

That's some sad shit. Good thing for the trekkies there appears to be a bloodbank nearby.

Man Dennis! That is just sssooo hilarious,.anything to keep the flames agoing...

 

[Pauln6]

Star Wars is a great action adventure but it is written for children. The politics and relationships are very basic. I think some people talk about the new movie dumbing down because they worry about obvious plot holes and the unrealistic way that the Federation acts and reacts. To me this is really evidence that they downgraded the age group that they were pitching at.

Earlier Trek had its own share of silliness but I think it was written for adults and children just enjoyed the elements that they could understand. My own view is that they should work hard to retain that dynamic - it's what has given the Simpsons such longevity. Pitch for adults with elements that the children will enjoy and it should stand up to closer scrutiny.

Having said that, most horror films are not aimed at children and they have idiotic plots so what the hell am I talking about?

Dennis is like Yoda (only taller). He will test your resolve but you must not give in to the Dark Side. And when you look back on his responses, you will see wisdom in his words - or possibly in the words of those who rise up to take the bait. It keeps things lively.

 

[ST-One]

JJ's Trek would have been BETTER if it had not gone for "hip" with so-called "modern" pacing, camera work, etc.

You really should stop quoting from that Onion-video.

What are you talking about?

That piece of satire would go right over your head anyway.

It's bad filmmaking because you don't spend a ton of money on your sets and then wash out large sections of them with lens flares (and not even naturally occuring ones at that, as is shown in the "making of" videos. Flares jar the viewer out of the moment and are needlessly distracting. That's why most cinematographers go out of their way to AVOID lens flares.

Film sets are usually not built so that you can admire them in detail (people run in front of them all the time - such waste of money).
BTW, your movie would have a problem if the most interesting thing about it would be the set design... oh, right, you are a TMP-fan?

And the space FX shots when they went into "spin mode" were simply nauseating. The viewers can't orient themselves to the scene or it's contents. It's unneccessary, and only done for visual "shock value".

Not 'the viewers'. Just you.

Too much of JJ Trek simply screamed "Look at what WE changed!" That's why a lot of fans were put off in whole or in part...too much "change for change's sake".

There is no such thing as 'change for change's sake'.
It's just something people blurt out when they don't like something that has changed.
Basically, it's an empty, bullshit phrase.