15 Reasons JJ "Ruined & Destroyed" Star Trek

[F. King Daniel]

How do you beam aboard a ship at warp, if that ship has been traveling at warp for probably hours and is light years away? Transporting while its at warp isn't the problem, the distance is.

Long range "subspace beaming" was introduced in the Next Generation episode "Bloodlines". As in STXI, it was a minor adjustement to the transporter, very rarely used due to the danger factor.

What about giving a cadet, who hasn't graduated from the academy and doesn't even have a commission yet, command of one of your most important starships?

Although he hadn't yet graduated, Kirk was a lieutenent (as was Uhura), like Saavik in STII. Still an insane leap, though. I imagine Old Spock probably had a little something to do with it.

Or a starfleet officer marooning a person on a ball of ice, instead of sticking the person in the brig? I don't think starfleet supports jettisoning insubordinate crewmen on dangerous worlds/moons.

Actually, marooning stowaways is explicitly said to be allowed by Starfleet regulations in one of the early New Frontier novels. Although the point in the movie was to show that Spock had been emotionally compromised by the death of his mother and destruction of his planet.

What about the fact that they apparently installed steam engines, complete with hundreds of pipes, in their starships?

There were dozens of pipes in the TOS engine room. This Enterprise is a lot bigger, and it's engineering section is too. And what do you think they keep behind the walls and under the floors of all those "neater" engine rooms in other Treks? Certainly not machinery and pipes

Why did spock bring what looks like enough mysterious "red matter" to blow up every planet in the federation, if he just needed a small drop to stop the explosion?

Perhaps it's only stable enough for transit in larger amounts? Or that Spock didn't know how much would be needed until he got there?

How does a sun go nova out of nowhere, anyway?

Because it's Star Trek! We've seen dozens of similar things over the years.

Ok, I think I need to end my post now. I'm really starting to lose it. I think I've gotten a lot of my anger out of my system now. For a few hours, atleast

Maybe you'll have a little more once you've read this

 

[Kruezerman]

I think they are lying, just so they don't seem like such hacks. "Oh, see, we like Star Trek, too" to try to get in with actual Star Trek fans. Its possible they're not lying, but if they're not then that just means they're fans who happen to be horrible Star Trek fanfic writers who got hired to actually do a movie based on the franchise. I can see a studio hiring people like that, especially after they worked on the "amazing" Transformers movies. Wether they are lying (I think this is more likely), or are actually just fans who suck at writing Star Trek, the fact remains is that they wrote the worst Star Trek thing to ever see official release.

Well we, Paramount, the public, the banks, the film critics, and the majority of Trek fans disagree. Vehemently.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Tell us what you really think.

...that was made by people who weren't even aware that Star Trek existed before some morons hired them to make the movie.

You mean like Harve Bennett (STII) and Nicholas Meyer (STVI)?
And, for that matter, Stuart Baird (STX)?

I'm not saying everyone who has made a good star trek movie/worked on good parts of the series need to have been involved/watching it since the 60's, its just that I don't think Abrahms even knew the franchise existed, based off how horrible the movie is. To be fair, the same goes for the writers, and I just found out that the writers also wrote Transformers (the first one together, and #2 with a third guy). Suddenly, everything I posted comparing it to Transformers makes even more sense. I was just comparing the audience for both, but I never imagined the first two Transformers movies and Abram's abomination share the same writers. I figured the writers were hacks, but I didn't know it was that bad.

I'm surprised they could only think of 15 reasons

Honestly, I hate the 2009 movie more than any other movie I've ever seen (with the possible exception of The Dark Knight). I wish nothing but failure for JJ Abrahms, he's a complete hack. Compared to the 2009 movie, ST5: TFF and Insurrection were cinematic masterpieces. It just sucks that my favorite franchise has been utterly destroyed, atleast when it comes to movies/TV. We'll never get a good movie, or a normal TV show, ever again.

There, there... everything's going to be all right.

I get worked up when it gets to Abrams horrible monstrocity. I could rant for hours about why I hate it. I try to just ignore it, but now and then I just have to let my anger out

Looks at forum name. Wonders if "ignoring" has a hitherto unknown meaning.

 

[Amaris]

I think they are lying, just so they don't seem like such hacks. "Oh, see, we like Star Trek, too" to try to get in with actual Star Trek fans. Its possible they're not lying, but if they're not then that just means they're fans who happen to be horrible Star Trek fanfic writers who got hired to actually do a movie based on the franchise. I can see a studio hiring people like that, especially after they worked on the "amazing" Transformers movies. Wether they are lying (I think this is more likely), or are actually just fans who suck at writing Star Trek, the fact remains is that they wrote the worst Star Trek thing to ever see official release.

Reality disagrees. Don't get me wrong, you are quite free to strongly dislike this movie, the writers, and anyone else you feel like disliking, but the reality is that the movie did very well, and is liked by the majority of Star Trek fans, including fans who grew up watching The Original Series.

I started out watching TOS when I was 4, back in 1984, and I loved that show with all of my heart. I could quote entire episodes, at 4 years of age. When TNG premiered, I was hooked permanently. I love Star Trek. I have scads of knowledge regarding the subject. I have so many favorite characters, and I love so many episodes across every series.

I love the 2009 movie. It pays a wonderful homage to the original series, and is a labor of love, and I can see it in every frame. Are there nonsensical moments? Sure. Science that doesn't work? Yep. Is it any different than any other Trek series or movie in that regard? Nope.

It is quite clear to me that the writers are fans, and that they wanted to do justice to the original characters. It is also quite clear that J.J. Abrams puts his whole heart and soul into his movies, including this one, and it shows. Whether you like it or not is your business, but you have no ground on which to stand when it comes to questioning their sincerity.

In all honesty, I put more trust and faith in a group of directors and writers who show enthusiasm and dedication to the franchise as a whole, than I do fans who are so negative and dour as to nearly remove all joy from the discussion.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I want Star Trek to be sci fi, not a mediocre action movie that was made by people who weren't even aware that Star Trek existed before some morons hired them to make the movie.

Um, JJ Abrams' first experience with "Star Trek" was the ST:TMP gala premiere at the Smithsonian.

And Bob Orci, the co-writer, has been a "Star Trek" fan all his life. He seeded the movie with references from numerous "Star Trek" novels he'd read as a teen.

No big fan of Star Trek could write this garbage

So how do explain the majority of big Star Trek fans - some of us are right here - who had a great time watching this so-called "garbage"? Not to mention Leonard Nimoy and Majel Barrett, who could both easily have ignored this movie rather than throw their enthusiastic support behind it.

Are we perhaps not true fans because we enjoyed a movie that was not meeting your narrow specifications of what makes a good "Star Trek" movie?

 

[serenitytrek1]

I dont get this whole JJ destroying trek...just how did he do that?

Trek 09 if the highest grossing trek film even when adjusted by inflation.

Trek 09 is highly critically acclaimed...this is somthing that the next generation couldn’t even achieve as only first contact received great reviews

trek 09 created a legion of new fans...since 2009 it is has been ranked 6th on fanficition.net movie section

Just how did JJ destroy trek?

even the diehard star wars fans all agree that the 09 film is superior to all the star wars prequels.

 

[F. King Daniel]

"People can be very frightened of change."

 

[M'Sharak]

I dont get this whole JJ destroying trek...just how did he do that?

Trek 09 if the highest grossing trek film even when adjusted by inflation.

Trek 09 is highly critically acclaimed...this is somthing that the next generation couldn’t even achieve as only first contact received great reviews

trek 09 created a legion of new fans...since 2009 it is has been ranked 6th on fanficition.net movie section

Just how did JJ destroy trek?

even the diehard star wars fans all agree that the 09 film is superior to all the star wars prequels.

Please don't spam.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I love the 2009 movie. It pays a wonderful homage to the original series, and is a labor of love, and I can see it in every frame.

One of my first impressions was, "I feel absolutely catered to." The more Trek you know the more you are rewarded by the richness in this movie, everything from the obvious tribble to Quinto's slightly hunched way of standing. It catered to me who has been Trek saturated for decades and it also blew away complete newbies as a great movie. I know quite a few people who are now working their way through varying Trek series for the first time because of ST:XI.

 

[Therin of Andor]

One of my first impressions was, "I feel absolutely catered to." The more Trek you know the more you are rewarded by the richness in this movie, everything from the obvious tribble to Quinto's slightly hunched way of standing. It catered to me who has been Trek saturated for decades and it also blew away complete newbies as a great movie.

Absolutely. I went with a small theatre party of friends, some of whom were lapsed diehard TOS fans, some TNG-only fans and one who, like me, became a Trek fan as a result of TAS and TMP (and we spent the early 80s working backwards). Few of them had followed VOY or ENT. The difference for me was that my enjoyment of the ST franchise had not waned, although I'd struggled with early DS9 and early VOY.

"I feel absolutely catered to" says it all.

My fellow TMP fan was totally won over by the Kelvin prologue. She said, as the opening credit sequence started, "How come JJ has already made me care about characters we've never even met before?"

I know quite a few people who are now working their way through varying Trek series for the first time because of ST:XI.

Again, absolutely. Just as I did way back in 1980.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I didnt care for some of the forced plot points either. It was ugly, but it went from A to B, and now Kirk is captain of the enterprise, and I'm ready to forget the shortcomings of ST09 and experience the next film on its own. I'm looking forward to seeing the cast reprise their roles, and hopefully a trek movie that doesnt involve a crazy bad guy trying to destroy a planet.

 

[John Mason]

now now ... one should keep an open mind... I do think he should try to adhere to canon ....

 

[ichab]

Let me see: Before the reboot, Star Trek was dead. Enterprise was cut short due to low ratings and Nemesis tanked at the box office. I'd say Berman and Braga had already succeeded in ruining and destroying Star Trek. Anyone that doesn't like the new direction of the franchise has hundred of episodes and ten films to satisfy their cravings for the old timeline. Millions of dollars in box office returns says this reboot is the future. Get over it.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

IT IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE.

 

[JRoss]

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?

Too long; didn't read.

 

[mos6507]

I personally find those who say "it made a lot of money, get over it" to be more annoying than someone who makes what I feel to be a thoughtful (albet emotional) dissertation of why a movie sucks.

If you want to defend a movie, please try to use some other criteria besides box office receipts. We all know plenty of good movies fail at the box office and plenty of bad movies make money. It's boring to use the "it made money" excuse.

I would argue that the demographic that liked JJ Trek is probably the least capable of defending the movie based on its intrinsic merits and most likely to reach for the "it made a lot of money" excuse.

 

[DonIago]

And yet, somehow, that still strikes me as being a more credible argument than "Abrams destroyed Star Trek!!!" with one movie.

 

[Amaris]

I personally find those who say "it made a lot of money, get over it" to be more annoying than someone who makes what I feel to be a thoughtful (albet emotional) dissertation of why a movie sucks.

If you want to defend a movie, please try to use some other criteria besides box office receipts. We all know plenty of good movies fail at the box office and plenty of bad movies make money. It's boring to use the "it made money" excuse.

I would argue that the demographic that liked JJ Trek is probably the least capable of defending the movie based on its intrinsic merits and most likely to reach for the "it made a lot of money" excuse.

Your argument would be in error, especially when people in this very thread have given their reasons as to why they like the movie, and many of those reasons are more than just "it made money".

 

[Gov Kodos]

I personally find those who say "it made a lot of money, get over it" to be more annoying than someone who makes what I feel to be a thoughtful (albet emotional) dissertation of why a movie sucks.

If you want to defend a movie, please try to use some other criteria besides box office receipts. We all know plenty of good movies fail at the box office and plenty of bad movies make money. It's boring to use the "it made money" excuse.

I would argue that the demographic that liked JJ Trek is probably the least capable of defending the movie based on its intrinsic merits and most likely to reach for the "it made a lot of money" excuse.

Your argument would be in error, especially when people in this very thread have given their reasons as to why they like the movie, and many of those reasons are more than just "it made money".

Yeah. Star Trek was a great space opera piece of fun from beginning to end. It gave a starting story for Kirk and Spock that showed how these two so well complemented each other and did it in a non-stop roller coaster ride. No Star Trek movie has given that to the general audience, fun, that's what people pay ticket prices for.

JJ didn't worry about the 'Star Trek Vision Thing', good for him. The TV shows, and the movies labored under that and squelched out any kind of real joie de vivre for being meaningful and came up with stale boring stories. Star Trek under JJ worried about telling a fun story rather than worry about The Vision Thing, and I hope he does so with the next film, too. I am tickled pink to have Kirk and the gang back on screen in fine, fun, larger than life stories.

 

[ichab]

I personally find those who say "it made a lot of money, get over it" to be more annoying than someone who makes what I feel to be a thoughtful (albet emotional) dissertation of why a movie sucks.

If you want to defend a movie, please try to use some other criteria besides box office receipts. We all know plenty of good movies fail at the box office and plenty of bad movies make money. It's boring to use the "it made money" excuse.

What's boring is the belief that a movie which was a hit with critics and audiences needs defending.

I would argue that the demographic that liked JJ Trek is probably the least capable of defending the movie based on its intrinsic merits and most likely to reach for the "it made a lot of money" excuse.

The movie enjoys a 95% rating on rottentomatoes.com. These are critics that make a living turning movies inside out in order to find something to gripe about. The majority liked it. There's nothing wrong with being the minority opinion. I can't stand Avatar yet millions of people loved it. But I would never presume to think that those who like Avatar don't have solid reasons.

I still fail to see how the movie ruined the Star Trek franchise. Before the movie, Trek was D-E-A-D. It was so dead that Paramount didn't even bother celebrating the 40th anniversary. How can you ruin what was already a lifeless corpse?