15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

[M'Sharak]

Sure, they could start their own little angry blogs, but how many will read those?

Apparently the original poster?

I don't know what one should expect if they drudge this stuff up and post a thread about it.

To be fair, that "15 Reasons" thing was posted as an article on an established entertainment news site by someone who would appear to have been a regular contributor.

(Granted, the line dividing "entertainment news website" from "blog" is often narrow and just as often pretty blurry, but WhatCulture.com has been around for a few years and their articles do frequently trend at Reddit and similar places where movies/TV, gaming and other nerd culture intersect. Also: "dredge".)

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

And here I'm thinking "drudge" has become a verb meaning dredge but referencing Matt Drudge the dredger.

 

[Lord Garth]

Shock of shocks, there is a Trek fan out there (just one!) who had the balls to not only dislike JJ Abrams 2009 film Star Trek, but also took it upon himself to outline in nauseating detail (and poor spelling and grammar by the way) his fifteen (fifteen!) reasons why.

Frankly, I'm surprised that no one in the past three years has brought any of these issues up. Food for thought, to be sure.

Your thoughts?

Some good points in there. Some of it I agree with and some of it I disagree with.

The big hands and brewery in engineering were minor. The bigger problems were Spock's abandoning Kirk and Kirk leap-frogging to Captain. Spock shouldn't be so emotional or should at least be in denial and more embarrassed about it. Hard to claim you have no emotion after you're passionately kissing Uhura and not going through Pon-Farr. Nero was two-dimensional.

I don't have a problem with Chekov being a talented genius because that's the only way he could be there at 17 if he had to be. Red Matter makes as much sense as Genesis, to be fair. Kirk's birth was a good scene.

I'm completely indifferent about the rest of his points.

I like the film but not enough to defend it at every turn. It's okay, I enjoyed it, but there isn't too much replay value for me. After 2009, I've only rewatched it once and I don't feel a burning urge to revisit it again anytime soon.

Though it's not ST XI, I think not even revealing who the villain is for STID even at this late point is a bit much. We knew a lot further in advance that Bane was going to be the villain for TDKR. It wouldn't hurt anything to say if it's Khan, Gary Mitchell, or someone else. How would that impact the film making a few hundred million dollars? It doesn't. And it's not the same thing as leaking a full synopsis, a beat-by-beat treatment, or a copy of the script.

 

[StarMan]

[I like the film but not enough to defend it at every turn. It's okay, I enjoyed it, but there isn't too much replay value for me. After 2009, I've only rewatched it once and I don't feel a burning urge to revisit it again anytime soon.

I feel much the same, Lord Garth. On occasion I have revisited scenes that stood out for me. That's been about it.

 

[Ovation]

Though it's not ST XI, I think not even revealing who the villain is for STID even at this late point is a bit much. We knew a lot further in advance that Bane was going to be the villain for TDKR. It wouldn't hurt anything to say if it's Khan, Gary Mitchell, or someone else. How would that impact the film making a few hundred million dollars? It doesn't. And it's not the same thing as leaking a full synopsis, a beat-by-beat treatment, or a copy of the script.

But why does Abrams have to do what everyone else does? How does not knowing have an impact on the film's potential to make a few hundred million dollars?

The film is more than six months away. And for it to do anything close to the previous film's numbers at the box office, the vast bulk of the audience will have to be people who are unlikely to recognize any "villain" from the series. As such, telling us now or in three months is irrelevant from a marketing perspective (those who would care about the villain's identity will go see the film regardless of when they find out who it is).

I understand (though I don't share) the frustrations of those who want to know now about the villain of the film. But I have yet to find any compelling arguments regarding the potential for success or failure, commercially speaking, of the film based on the timing of the announcement of the villain's identity.

 

[Lord Garth]

But I have yet to find any compelling arguments regarding the potential for success or failure, commercially speaking, of the film based on the timing of the announcement of the villain's identity.

I can't make a compelling argument for it because that's not the argument I was making.

What I was asking was how would announcing who the villain is would hurt. Not exactly the same as saying announcing who the villain is would increase profit or that it would succeed or fail based on that.

And for it to do anything close to the previous film's numbers at the box office, the vast bulk of the audience will have to be people who are unlikely to recognize any "villain" from the series. As such, telling us now or in three months is irrelevant from a marketing perspective (those who would care about the villain's identity will go see the film regardless of when they find out who it is).

This is true. I won't deny you have a point. As a counter-point on the other hand though, and going back to TDKR, who in the vast bulk of that film's audience knew who Bane was?

 

[The Wormhole]

This is true. I won't deny you have a point. As a counter-point on the other hand though, and going back to TDKR, who in the vast bulk of that film's audience knew who Bane was?

Indeed, if anything, General Audience might have been apprehensive upon learning Bane was to be the central villain of the movie. "Wasn't Bane the sidekick in Batman & Robin? What the hell is Nolan thinking? I don't want to be reminded of that. Just leave Schumacher's movies buried and forgotten."

Still, at this point, we know Darkness's villain will have to be announced soon enough. At the very least, the comic prequel which begins in January is going to feature him. Movies which have comic prequels always introduce the villain in them.

 

[Robert_T_April]

Great job putting together this list as many, many valid points were made.
I really enjoyed this movie regardless and am excited at the fact that the possibilities are endless now if the ensuing installments are done right.

My biggest problem was the gaping hole in the whole Nero story. Very unrealistic that he was captured and improsoned by Klingons, only to escape to his intact ship and destroy 40+ Klingon ships???..ridiculious. The Kobayashi Maru test could have been done a little less arrogantly.

But, as far as Kirk being promoted about 10 plus years ahead of where he did in the original timeline, was somewhat believable. Thanks to Nero, several Federation ships were destroyed which accelerated Kirk's promotion due to the shorteage of viable command prospects. And young Kirk did demonstrate exceptional leadership. And remember, he is about 10 years younger, as is Spock than the characters we was TOS. So the immaturity and lack of dicsipline and seasoning is going to show.
I only hope that moving forward, these characters start maturing into the characters that I grew up with. I'm really looking forward to 'Into the Darkness' and hope Abrams doesn't drop the ball.

 

[JarodRussell]

Seeing the Jokerization of film vilains lately (it's kinda an in-thing now, latest example is Skyfall), I wonder if the next Abramstrek is going to do the same.

 

[newtontomato539]

Oh goody, another "JJ raped my childhood" thread.

:reading:

...

:Roll Eyes:

"Nero sucked! I must know who the next villain is!"

...



It's still not Khan or Mitchell.

 

[Set Harth]

And young Kirk did demonstrate exceptional leadership.

Not to mention literally saving the Earth.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Seeing the Jokerization of film vilains lately (it's kinda an in-thing now, latest example is Skyfall), I wonder if the next Abramstrek is going to do the same.

I hope not. Never something I cared for. Nero's angry trucker deal was a nice change.

 

[Ovation]

But I have yet to find any compelling arguments regarding the potential for success or failure, commercially speaking, of the film based on the timing of the announcement of the villain's identity.

I can't make a compelling argument for it because that's not the argument I was making.

What I was asking was how would announcing who the villain is would hurt. Not exactly the same as saying announcing who the villain is would increase profit or that it would succeed or fail based on that.

And for it to do anything close to the previous film's numbers at the box office, the vast bulk of the audience will have to be people who are unlikely to recognize any "villain" from the series. As such, telling us now or in three months is irrelevant from a marketing perspective (those who would care about the villain's identity will go see the film regardless of when they find out who it is).

This is true. I won't deny you have a point. As a counter-point on the other hand though, and going back to TDKR, who in the vast bulk of that film's audience knew who Bane was?

To be fair to you (and I could have been clearer), I was using your post as a springboard to discuss other points raised in this thread and elsewhere. I don't think it would hurt anything to know who the villain is. It's simply that I don't care enough to know right now for it to matter to me (nor do I think it would matter to enough people to affect box office receipts).

I enjoyed the last film (as I have, by and large, enjoyed each Trek film--I view Trek, much as I view Bond films, primarily for their links to my youth when I discovered each "franchise"). I have my favourites and recognize, from a more detached, critical perspective, that several of the films and series are open to legitimate criticism. At the end of the day, though, I do not hold Trek up to some pedestal of "great art". It has always (since 1973--and I've seen every iteration of Trek on screen, several to many times, in case someone wants to paint me as outsider), to me, been an amusing diversion with a few moments of tangential cultural relevance, nothing more. The last film ranks highly as an amusing diversion and I fully expect the next one to be similarly entertaining. I don't demand much more from it (or Trek in general) than that.

 

[sonak]

Seeing the Jokerization of film vilains lately (it's kinda an in-thing now, latest example is Skyfall), I wonder if the next Abramstrek is going to do the same.

sorry, but what does this mean?

 

[Lord Garth]

"Nero sucked! I must know who the next villain is!"

Actually, no. I'm sorry but I don't have to know. This doesn't even register on my list of priorities. Or, to put it more clearly: I really don't actually give that much of a shit.

Since I'm the one who brought it up, I thought I should clarify it. There's a distinct difference between it would be nice to know and having to know. Not the same thing.

I had some time to kill so I made a post on TrekBBS, having a discussion about Star Trek. That's as far as it goes. I think it's the reason most, if not all, people originally registered here in the first place.

It's still not Khan or Mitchell.

And that's fine if it's not.

While we're at it, and I know you're talking about the thread in general:

Oh goody, another "JJ raped my childhood" thread.

I never cared for the "raped my childhood" phrase. It's an insult to people who actually have been raped to joke around about it in another context. And I wish people would stop using that expression.

Do you know people who have been raped? I do. It's not something to joke about. It can be a harsh world out there, where terrible things happen. Things much worse than what does or doesn't happen in a movie.

Next time, you might want to reconsider the way you step into a thread where people are just having a conversation.

 

[Lord Garth]

Okay, wow. That was a potential thread-killer/mood-killer, I wrote up above.

So, to break the ice...

... Budweiser is a good company to invest stock in. It's still going strong 250 years from now!

Nokia. Either they have a retro-tune theme going on or they've kept the same sound for a quarter of a milennium. Either way, invest in them too. I have a Nokia myself. I'm not a shareholder though.

 

[JarodRussell]

Okay, wow. That was a potential thread-killer/mood-killer, I wrote up above.

See, the thing with your rape comment is... "thread-killer" and "mood-killer" are similarly offensive expressions. It's an insult to people who actually lost someone in killings and murder. Killing of a human being is much worse than killing a thread or a mood.

Another terrible expression for example is "this thread just got nuked". A blatant insult to everyone who got nuked (or rather lost loved ones), for example, in Hiroshima.

Or "this thread is a trainwreck". Is it really?

 

[Lord Garth]

Okay, wow. That was a potential thread-killer/mood-killer, I wrote up above.

See, the thing with your rape comment is... "thread-killer" and "mood-killer" are similarly offensive expressions. It's an insult to people who actually lost someone in killings and murder. Killing of a human being is much worse than killing a thread or a mood.

Another terrible expression for example is "this thread just got nuked". A blatant insult to everyone who got nuked (or rather lost loved ones), for example, in Hiroshima.

I should've seen that one coming.

 

[doubleohfive]

Okay, wow. That was a potential thread-killer/mood-killer, I wrote up above.

See, the thing with your rape comment is... "thread-killer" and "mood-killer" are similarly offensive expressions. It's an insult to people who actually lost someone in killings and murder. Killing of a human being is much worse than killing a thread or a mood.

Another terrible expression for example is "this thread just got nuked". A blatant insult to everyone who got nuked (or rather lost loved ones), for example, in Hiroshima.

Or "this thread is a trainwreck". Is it really?

Yes and no.

Given the frequency and singular humiliation and horrific experience rape undeniably is, and without subtracting from the other scenarios you are bringing up, I think Lord Garth makes an excellent point.

Likening these other scenarios --however horrible they are-- is disingenuous to the very real possibility (and, sadly, likelihood) that there are members here on this board or even in this thread who have been raped.

In other words, you're picking at straws to make a minor point, Jarod. "Rape my childhood" is a horrible, offensive way to describe something as trivial as a fucking movie. Going off the deep end and trying to implicitly justify it because there are other comparisons and expressions that others use citing other terrible occurrences, as if it somehow should negate how horrible the "rape" analogy is, is insensitive, needlessly fickle, and honestly, moronic.

 

[bbailey861]

Conveniently, Trek '09 also received critical acclaim.

Exactly. But even if it hadn't, so what? If I like a film, I don't give a damn whether it got critical acclaim or not. That should not be amongst the criteria for anyone's enjoying a film, book, music, whatever.

Exactly right. This is all that matters. If enough people like the movie to make the franchise money and keep it viable then it shall continue. In this case, apparently enough people - myself included - liked what J.J. did to Trek. Was Trek dead - no, I don't think so; certainly tired and resting, but Abrams gave it enough of a kick to wake it up and get a lot more people interested in it than there were before. I have been with Trek since the beginning and simply see this as another chapter - a very exciting chapter of Star Trek's life. J.J. by no means ruined Trek. He gave it a hell of a shot in the arm and introduced a whole new audience to it. Was it perfect, no, but perfect to everyone is something it could never be. It was new, fun, and exciting. I am pleased overall with all the casting that was done and with the story - although I would have loved an extra 30-45 minutes to fill in some stuff. I look forward to seeing where this journey is headed.

The bottom line is if you liked it, great. Get in line along with me and see the next one. If you didn't like it, fine too, don't spend any money to see the next one. If continually griping about it makes you feel good, fine, keep doing that, too.

In the end, it'll be the box office results - likely driven a lot by word of mouth - that'll determine if the ship keeps flying.