Defending J.J. Abrams (rant) (Spoilers)

[Konata Izumi]

The parts with glorified excess violence (& angriness) in Star Trek are a result of writers failing to come up with anything halfway decent, so they just go "conflict lol", and it almost works. I couldn't watch Voyager past the first 3 episodes, and The Undiscovered Country had become a bit aimless in the prison planet segment, and then they ended it with lots of shooting. Now it almost looks like Orci&Kurzman are going the Berman&Braga route, but they at least came up with some pretty original and good things in the 09 movie.

 

[JarodRussell]

The parts with glorified excess violence (& angriness) in Star Trek are a result of writers failing to come up with anything halfway decent, so they just go "conflict lol", and it almost works. I couldn't watch Voyager past the first 3 episodes, and The Undiscovered Country had become a bit aimless in the prison planet segment, and then they ended it with lots of shooting. Now it almost looks like Orci&Kurzman are going the Berman&Braga route, but they at least came up with some pretty original and good things in the 09 movie.

The new films are exactly what you criticize, and intentionally so.

 

[Opus]

Trek couldn't succeed without -

Gene Roddenberry
Nick Meyer
Harve Bennett
The Original Series Cast
a starship
Rick Berman

... or something...

 

[BillJ]

The parts with glorified excess violence (& angriness) in Star Trek...

I'm still wondering where these parts are at? Where there's violence and emotion there is usually a reason for that violence and emotion, much like TOS. You know, the one that these movies are actually based on.

Besides, I'd rather there be an excess of violence and emotion as opposed to everyone walking around like they're on twenty-milligrams of Xanax all the time.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Agree.

I think this begs the question of what Star Trek (and eventually Star Wars) will be without Abrams at the helm. Trek needed Abrams, but can another take up the franchise and continue the success he's brought?

No, he is the only person in all time and space that could do that.

Trek didn't need Abrams, but it did need a breath of fresh air.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Besides, I'd rather there be an excess of violence and emotion as opposed to everyone walking around like they're on twenty-milligrams of Xanax all the time.

makes you start to understand why Kirk and Spock thought there was something not quite right with all those utopianish societies they kept running into, doesn't it.

 

[BillJ]

Besides, I'd rather there be an excess of violence and emotion as opposed to everyone walking around like they're on twenty-milligrams of Xanax all the time.

makes you start to understand why Kirk and Spock thought there was something not quite right with all those utopianish societies they kept running into, doesn't it.

It is funny that TOS spent so much time fighting against utopian societies then TNG had the Federation as one.

 

[Konata Izumi]

The parts with glorified excess violence (& angriness) in Star Trek...

I'm still wondering where these parts are at? Where there's violence and emotion there is usually a reason for that violence and emotion, much like TOS.

Beyond the three dots you might find where these parts are, and an unfortunate creative reason for all this casual emoting.

Besides, I'd rather there be an excess of violence and emotion as opposed to everyone walking around like they're on twenty-milligrams of Xanax all the time.

It's the type that should usually be actively avoided though, so the Vulcans and later TNGs had a point, despite getting rid of a bit more than necessary.

As for TOS, they were defending themselves with kung-fu, or tragically out of their minds. Things were executed with elegant simplicity, and the show was able to stretch to calmer moments too. Within an episode, quality over quantity. McCoy was the most hostile of the protagonists, but he was the king of self-control compared to the Voyagers (did they ever calm down though? I heard something about episode 6 (or was it 3 already??), but surely they just aim the conflict somewhere else to keep the writing style the same?).

 

[Konata Izumi]

Sorry for the passive aggression though.
I dislike impulsive aggression.

 

[James]

This board seems to be VERY pro Abrams from what I've read.

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete. The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

 

[Gojira]

This board seems to be VERY pro Abrams from what I've read.

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete. The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

I am a long time TOS fan and I do not think it is obsolete. I am also a huge JJ Abrams fan and think he has done a wonderful job with Star Trek.

 

[James]

This board seems to be VERY pro Abrams from what I've read.

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete. The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

I am a long time TOS fan and I do not think it is obsolete. I am also a hugge JJ Abrams fan and think he has done a wonderful job with Star Trek.

Hugge? Apparently Abrams doesn't inspire proper grammar. Maybe you should stick to Abrams Trek only.

 

[SeerSGB]

This board seems to be VERY pro Abrams from what I've read.

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete. The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

Did I miss a report on CNN about ESA or NASA discovering giant space amoebas? Or that there was a giant space faring bugle snack heading our way.

As for morals: What I learned was that a ship of 400 people from an advanced civilization were worth more than a planet of primitives or any planet where the government didn't line up perfectly with Kirk's opinion.

I love TOS, it's my fav of the series, but at the end of the day it's as much fluff as any of the other entries in the franchise. And, yeah, remastering or not, it looks dated and campy to modern (see: younger) audiences.

 

[Gojira]

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete. The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

I am a long time TOS fan and I do not think it is obsolete. I am also a hugge JJ Abrams fan and think he has done a wonderful job with Star Trek.

Hugge? Apparently Abrams doesn't inspire proper grammar. Maybe you should stick to Abrams Trek only.

It was a typo that I corrected. Why are you flamming me?

 

[BillJ]

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete. The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. But what else is new?

I like the Abrams films though I think they have flaws and am a huge fan of Star Trek: The Original Series which I started watching in 1975.

So you can take and cram your generalizations. Mmkay?

 

[F. King Daniel]

This board seems to be VERY pro Abrams from what I've read.

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete.

I love the original series.

The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world

I thought it was a fun action-adventure show, but whatever.

plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

Examples, please.

 

[M'Sharak]

This board seems to be VERY pro Abrams from what I've read.

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete. The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

I am a long time TOS fan and I do not think it is obsolete. I am also a hugge JJ Abrams fan and think he has done a wonderful job with Star Trek.

Hugge? Apparently Abrams doesn't inspire proper grammar. Maybe you should stick to Abrams Trek only.

Okay, your first post I might have let slide, assuming snark rather than intent to bait. Your second post is making it much more personal and the baiting more pointed; that will earn you a warning for trolling.

Comments on this should be taken to PM.

Re: this bit...

This board seems to be VERY pro Abrams from what I've read.

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS.

You'll want to take that up in the Questions, Suggestions & Feedback forum. We don't do name changes in this one.

 

[austen_pierce]

This board seems to be VERY pro Abrams from what I've read.

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete.

I love the original series.

The classic version of Star Trek is superior to this new version in every way, the classic had life lessons and philosophy that could be applied to the real world

I thought it was a fun action-adventure show, but whatever.

plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

Examples, please.

I think (but obviously can't confirm) that the astronomy reference has to do with the naming of the stars and planets in TOS.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You are absolutely right on that one. They should change the name to JJTrekBBS. They are so pro Abrams it's not funny, to them the classic trek is old and obsolete.

I love the original series.
I thought it was a fun action-adventure show, but whatever.

plus it had a scientific system based on real astronomy.

Examples, please.

I think (but obviously can't confirm) that the astronomy reference has to do with the naming of the stars and planets in TOS.

But they flipped the Bayer designation for Ceti Alpha. It should be Alpha Ceti.

 

[thumbtack]

the classic trek is old and obsolete.

Yes, but still entertaining in an old and obsolete kind of way.

Except for Voyager and Enterprise, which were not entertaining even before they became old and obsolete.