15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

[M'Sharak]

Copy/pasting a set of screencaps someone made at the time that first appeared:

The Onion News Network folks doctored it somewhat, but it's pretty clear from the icons down the left side, a few visible usernames, and other details what their source images were.

The thread titles in the clip are exaggerated. The Onion writers undoubtedly drew upon some of our more... special contributors.

I remember some of the titles from that period (and some of the screeds which were posted beneath) - they really weren't exaggerating all that much. We had some angry, angry people then, as well as some who went just as far in the other direction.

Those were interesting times, those were.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"if a movie was written to make perfect sense and timing, the movie would probably be pretty boring."

Does anyone have an example of a movie that was made "boring" specifically by making sense and not having plot-holes?

The actual principle involved here is that no text can survive a hostile reading. There are extraordinarily few successful films that can't be picked apart on the basis of logic and common sense, not to mention plausibility - if a critic chooses to do that out of dislike for the film.

"Casablanca" is a mess. That said, most people who've seen it don't seem to care for some odd reason.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Something looks eerily familiar here...

Freeze at 1:17.

I've seen this a few times and I never noticed that it said Trekbbs, probably because I didn't know what that was until about 2 months ago. I just figured they made up the name. Was it really like that in '09? I know that Trekmovie is like that, but I haven't seen much of that behavior here so far.

The thread titles in the clip are exaggerated. The Onion writers undoubtedly drew upon some of our more... special contributors.

Thanks for the info. Yes, those and others I'd assume.

Copy/pasting a set of screencaps someone made at the time that first appeared:

The Onion News Network folks doctored it somewhat, but it's pretty clear from the icons down the left side, a few visible usernames, and other details what their source images were.

Okay from this one I can tell with the top part that they are poking fun at Trekmovie, A Source For Some Things Trek. And I"m not trying to be mean with that; it's just true. Seriously, T'Bonz does better by herself than the whopping 16 people they have listed as staff contributors on their about page. It is what it is.

The forum part looks kind of like the bbs board style though, unless Trekmovie had a forum at one point.

EDIT: I didn't count the 3 global contributors and a few others, so its:

8 Editors
8 Reviewers
3 Contributors
3 Global Contributors

Which makes 22 people on the written content staff. There are also 3 artists listed.

I don't want to take away credit where it is due.

The thread titles in the clip are exaggerated. The Onion writers undoubtedly drew upon some of our more... special contributors.

I remember some of the titles from that period (and some of the screeds which were posted beneath) - they really weren't exaggerating all that much. We had some angry, angry people then, as well as some who went just as far in the other direction.

Those were interesting times, those were.

I can only imagine.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

And we can look fwd to those golden days all over again!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I signed up to TrekBBS when the very first picture of the new Enterprise was released. My first post was something like "I like it. I wonder what Matt Jefferies [the original Enterprise designer, who died in 2003] would have thought?" and somebody immediately replied something like, "He would have slit his wrists!"

It was a war zone.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

HAHAHAHAHA

 

[malchya]

I followed the link and had an overwhelming sense of "been there, done that." Really? Three years in and all you could do was rehash everything that has been beaten to death on this and every other Star Trek forum? Sigh.

Not, you'll please note, that I disagree with most of his complaints. They pretty much follow my issues with the film. The difference is that I enjoyed the bloody thing! I was at a point in my life where I just couldn't engender any enthusiasm for Trek. I actually thought I had put all of the technobabble nonsense out of my life for good. Enter J.J.

I loved the film. Despite the fact that I think it is the worst of all the Trek films saving IV. (I really, REALLY hate that one...but I still watch it). It had plot holes you could toss a galaxy through, design and aesthetic issues that make it look like their conceptual staff were all about 11 and the single most absurd location ever used for part of a star ship. I still came out pumped and excited, my enthusiasm for things Trek reborn with a new fervor. Thank you, J.J.

I can't explain this well. My daughter caught me watching '09 a couple of nights ago and asked me "Why? This movie sucks!" and I had to answer, "Yep. But I LOVE it anyway!"

 

[Mach5]

the single most absurd location ever used for part of a star ship

I presume you're talking about the brewery.

IIRC, one of the sets used for Kelvin actually had visible concrete walls.

 

[F. King Daniel]

the single most absurd location ever used for part of a star ship.

Is it really? Because to me it looked just like the engineering section from The Original Series, made much bigger and more complex.

I remember in I think it was "Court Martial" or "The Enemy Within", where the engineering levels are described as a maze - but their search of that maze was limited to sneaking around the same two large tanks along one wall of their engine room set again and again.

 

[Set Harth]

2001 doesn't make perfect sense

Examples?

I can't explain this well. My daughter caught me watching '09 a couple of nights ago and asked me "Why? This movie sucks!" and I had to answer, "Yep. But I LOVE it anyway!"

I'm intrigued. If you love things that suck, do you hate things that don't suck?

 

[Garak]

That's actually quite interesting.

 

[6079SmithW]

the single most absurd location ever used for part of a star ship.

Is it really? Because to me it looked just like the engineering section from The Original Series, made much bigger and more complex.

Thank you for the comparison. Every time someone complains about something in the movie not matching what we saw before it turns out that the same thing was actually present or had precedent in TOS or the movies.

 

[DonIago]

Of course, by this definition my grandparents' basement could pass as an Engine Room.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I thought it looked a lot more like a real engine room than anything we saw in TOS.

 

[doubleohfive]

I thought it looked a lot more like a real engine room than anything we saw in TOS.

I thought it looked cool. A deep, intricate and detailed set.

 

[serenitytrek1]

That's actually quite interesting.

Impressive...Most Impressive

 

[Sindatur]

Of course, by this definition my grandparents' basement could pass as an Engine Room.

By all means, post a comparative like the one KingDaniel posted, and we'll happily judge the legitimacy of that statement

 

[DonIago]

Heh, I would, but my mom and her sister got this crazy notion into their heads about selling my grandparents' house after they'd passed away some years back.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

The author is absolutely correct about the entire fiasco from the moment Spock jettisoned Kirk to the moment Kirk and Scott beamed back. The entire Delta Vega side trip was shoehorned, badly written, and ill thought out for reasons I can't state better than the author.

I don't know about anything else, but I dropped about $10 bucks to see this and it was pretty mediocre to be sure. I'm not talking about ship lengths, ill placed lighting on the ship, breweries, or affairs. Just saying it wasn't much better than Speed II. And to nip this in the bud too - IMO all the TNG movies sucked too except Insurrection, which should have been a TV episode anyway.

I went to the theater to watch Trek '09, but with the new Trek movie, I'll probably go back to what I was doing from ST7 on -- waiting for it to come out on Netflix. Not terrible movies, just not really better than much else that's out there, and not even as good as a lot. I'll definitely be going to the theater for the Hobbit though.

I guess what I don't understand, and probably won't because it's all subjective opinion anyway --- why people think Trek '09 is great. It's okay.

 

[Set Harth]

I'll probably go back to what I was doing from ST7 on -- waiting for it to come out on Netflix.

Wow, for ST7 that must have been a long wait.