Abrams: Star Trek Into Darkness Problems

[Squiggy]

1. "JJTrekkers" here also like TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT.

2. People who like nuTrek aware well aware that people dislike it. Any time an announcement regarding it happens they crawl out of the woodwork and proclaim that it will fail.

3. People who like nuTrek also fine with people not liking it. However we're not fine with people making stuff up about it. I just like arguing made up things with facts in general.

4. Try not to be so derogatory about "JJTrekkers". You're in a forum dedicated to it.

In other words, when you're a guest at someone's house, don't shit on the floor.

 

[Paradise City]

1. "JJTrekkers" here also like TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT.

2. People who like nuTrek aware well aware that people dislike it. Any time an announcement regarding it happens they crawl out of the woodwork and proclaim that it will fail.

3. People who like nuTrek also fine with people not liking it. However we're not fine with people making stuff up about it. I just like arguing made up things with facts in general.

4. Try not to be so derogatory about "JJTrekkers". You're in a forum dedicated to it.

In other words, when you're a guest at someone's house, don't shit on the floor.

I'll do what I've been doing. I'll deliver criticism that I think is merited and won't be shut down by people who dislike having their views tested and whom have a low tolerance for anything other than sterile cheerleading.

 

[M'Sharak]

Some people don't like these films. It's time for JJTrekkers to come to terms with that reality.

Everyone who's spent much time in this forum is well aware that some people don't like the movies. People have been announcing same in here since before the 2009 movie had finished production, so really, it's no secret to anyone at this late date. And most people are willing to accept that - even to engage in friendly discussion of reasons why.

Perhaps, though, we could get back to talking about the movies and not so much about what it's supposedly time for this or that group of fans to do (or not do, as the case may be)?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The starship resizing is very niche but I'm not sure I've met actually met a fan who jettisoned the films for that reason. Not that I bother reading convos of that kind. That BC was miscast as Kahn though is very legitimate debating point.

I keep picturing Benecio Del Torro in that role and thinking that Abrams made a HUGE mistake choosing Calculon instead. Khan was always a larger-than-life character, but that doesn't justify larger-than-life ACTING.

Some people don't like these films. It's time for JJTrekkers to come to terms with that reality.

So what you're saying is:

Got it.

I'll do what I've been doing. I'll deliver criticism that I think is merited and won't be shut down by people who dislike having their views tested and whom have a low tolerance for anything other than sterile cheerleading.

You have every right to voice your opinion, and we have every right to 1) burry you up to your neck in counter-opinion and 2) gleefully mock the logical errors that lead you to form that opinion in the first place.

Do not share your opinion if you are uncomfortable with that opinion being criticized.

Also, do not cast Calculon in the role of Khan if you want your viewers to take him seriously as a villain.

 

[Terok Nor]

Can't you just dislike Star Trek Into Darkness because you thought it sucked?

Star Trek 2009 was a pretty decent movie with a lot going for it. I've only seen it twice but I'm sure I'll watch it again a few more times before I'm shot into deep space in a torpedo coffin. I have absolutely no desire to watch Into Darkness ever again. I hated the story, I hated Cumberbatch as Khan, Pegg was even more annoying as Scotty than the first movie, Section 31 was covered already in Deep Space Nine, Khan was certainly done better in TOS and TWOK, the Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaan scene was embarrassing, Carol Marcus wasn't a patch on the original version from TWOK, Sulu has no personality, Uhura is nothing at all like the old Uhura, the Enterprise bridge looks like an Apple store (also true of the first movie), the Klingons looked ridiculous, Bones was severely underused, the action scenes went on too long, the "mystery" about Khan's identity was pointless and at the end of it all there was nothing in this movie that lived up to the premise of the first one. Nothing substantial that we hadn't seen before in a previous incarnation of Star Trek happened in this movie. What happened to the new universe being full of endless possibilites now that decades of continuity have been put to bed? The first thing they do is Section 31, Khan, Carol Marcus and a badly judged homage to Spock's death in TWOK.

Those are my own personal issues with the movie. Nothing anyone says about other Star Trek movies being crap is going to make me or anyone else who didn't like Into Darkness start loving that movie. I actually like Pine, Quinto and Urban in the roles they play. They've done a brilliant job taking over those characters. My issue is with the film itself. Star Trek Beyond sounds like an improvement from what I've read. I would rather watch any of the first 10 Star Trek movies than Into Darkness. It's not that I'm overlooking the flaws of those movies (Insurrection and Nemesis are appalling for a start) but having the familiarity of Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, Doohan and so on from The Original Series and Stewart, Spiner, Frakes, Dorn, et al from The Next Generation is always going to trump recasts of Kirk, Spock, etc. set in an alternate universe. Particularly given the fact this was only the 2nd movie from this cast. The chemistry between Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly was enough to save even the worst Star Trek episodes and movies. Sadly Bones has been replaced with a very different Uhura in the new movies and the chemistry of that dynamic is not quite as appealing to me. I think there is some merit in the suggestion people make allowances for things they don't like in movies or tv shows they do like. I've already given an example actually. I hate Pegg's version of Scotty and the look of the Enterprise bridge but I didn't let those things turn me off Star Trek 2009. Sadly, Into Darkness turned me off completely. If I want to see Khan I'll watch Space Seed or TWOK. Personally I'm not a fan of reimagined versions of characters if they stray too far from the originals. Pine's Kirk, Quinto's Spock and Urban's McCoy have just the right mix of the old characters and their own takes on those characters. Cumberbatch's Khan was Khan in name only. Same thing with Carol Marcus.

I've gone off on a tangent now but I'm just trying to explain how someone can dislike a movie for their own reasons and not because they're out to ruin it for other people who do like the movie. Sometimes a movie just sucks. What people will excuse in something they hold dear like, for example, a movie starring the original crew that may be subpar and objectively not as well written or acted as Into Darkness, may not extend to the new movies. The nostalgia is there or else Star Trek wouldn't still be here but it takes time for a new cast to earn the sort of affection the old cast have. Just ask The Next Generation crew. They were hated until The Best Of Both Worlds. It's even harder for the JJ Abrams cast because they're playing characters who are already loved and are unlikely to ever live up to them. This is why I prefer it when Star Trek creates new crews. You can compare Kirk to Picard and so on but they're not the same character. Pine's Kirk is so he'll never escape Shatner's shadow the way Picard did.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Can't you just dislike Star Trek Into Darkness because you thought it sucked?

Of course you can. But that would be a subjective personal opinion you have little hope to persuade others to believe, let alone embrace with enough zeal to join you in your hatred.

I mean, how could you hope to convince us "JJ Trekkers" the error of our ways and rid of us our delusions with an argument as subjective and ambiguous as "I thought it sucked?"

Those are my own personal issues with the movie. Nothing anyone says about other Star Trek movies being crap is going to make me or anyone else who didn't like Into Darkness start loving that movie.

Thank you for sharing.

I've gone off on a tangent now but I'm just trying to explain how someone can dislike a movie for their own reasons and not because they're out to ruin it for other people who do like the movie.

But those are two completely different things, aren't they? And they're approached two completely different ways.

I don't like Stargate SG-1. I actually HATE that show, and any attempt to watch it makes me thirsty and irritable. I have at times had fans of the show goad me into watching it "C'mon, just give it a chance, you haven't gotten to the really cool episodes yet! You haven't see the Guauld! You haven't seen the Asgardians! What about the replicators?" And each time they suck me back into it I think:

And maybe once or twice a year I might feel the temptation to pop over to the Stargate forum and register my displeasure to the tune of:

"I hate this show and I don't understand what anyone sees in it. That is all."

But do I dog the Stargate forums, posting long-winded rants about all the things that are wrong with Stargate, throwing in subtle digs pointing out how shallow and childish Stargate fans are for liking such a badly-written cliche-heavy shitfest that makes "Time Tunnel" look like Emmy material? No I do not. Because that would be moronic.

It is fine to have an opinion.
It is fine to EXPRESS an opinion.
It is NOT fine to run around constantly jerking your opinion off in everyone else's eye as if they really REALLY need to know why you hated the movie and why their not hating the movie reflects poorly on them as people. It was just a nuisance when it first started, but eight years later, those who engage in such behavior can rightly expect to be mocked and ridiculed for such behavior. For which they should, IMO, count themselves as thankful; in most forums, they would just get banned for trolling.

 

[Terok Nor]

Can't you just dislike Star Trek Into Darkness because you thought it sucked?

Of course you can. But that would be a subjective personal opinion you have little hope to persuade others to believe, let alone embrace with enough zeal to join you in your hatred.

I have no desire for others to join me in my dislike of Into Darkness. I couldn't give a crap if anyone agrees with me or not

I mean, how could you hope to convince us "JJ Trekkers" the error of our ways and rid of us our delusions with an argument as subjective and ambiguous as "I thought it sucked?"

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I never called you a JJ Trekker either. Also, I explanined in my post why I think the movie sucked

Those are my own personal issues with the movie. Nothing anyone says about other Star Trek movies being crap is going to make me or anyone else who didn't like Into Darkness start loving that movie.

Thank you for sharing.

You're welcome

I've gone off on a tangent now but I'm just trying to explain how someone can dislike a movie for their own reasons and not because they're out to ruin it for other people who do like the movie.

But those are two completely different things, aren't they? And they're approached two completely different ways.

I don't like Stargate SG-1. I actually HATE that show, and any attempt to watch it makes me thirsty and irritable. I have at times had fans of the show goad me into watching it "C'mon, just give it a chance, you haven't gotten to the really cool episodes yet! You haven't see the Guauld! You haven't seen the Asgardians! What about the replicators?" And each time they suck me back into it I think:

And maybe once or twice a year I might feel the temptation to pop over to the Stargate forum and register my displeasure to the tune of:

"I hate this show and I don't understand what anyone sees in it. That is all."

But do I dog the Stargate forums, posting long-winded rants about all the things that are wrong with Stargate, throwing in subtle digs pointing out how shallow and childish Stargate fans are for liking such a badly-written cliche-heavy shitfest that makes "Time Tunnel" look like Emmy material? No I do not. Because that would be moronic.

It is fine to have an opinion.
It is fine to EXPRESS an opinion.
It is NOT fine to run around constantly jerking your opinion off in everyone else's eye as if they really REALLY need to know why you hated the movie and why their not hating the movie reflects poorly on them as people. It was just a nuisance when it first started, but eight years later, those who engage in such behavior can rightly expect to be mocked and ridiculed for such behavior. For which they should, IMO, count themselves as thankful; in most forums, they would just get banned for trolling.

I think you might need to distance yourself from the internet if you're having such strong aggressive feelings about Stargate. It's just a tv show.

"I hate this show and I don't understand what anyone sees in it. That is all."

Is another variation of "it sucks" but without any explanation of why you think it sucks. I still have absolutely no idea why you hate Stargate so much as you haven't provided any explanation beyond the fact it makes you angry.

I'll grant you my post was long winded. I said as much when I referred to it as a tangent. Can you point me in the direction of where I trolled the forum questioning the intelligence and taste of those who like the Abrams Star Trek movies. I liked Star Trek 2009!

Seems to me you've put 2 and 2 together and made 5. Disliking Into Darkness does not equate to blanket hatred of all things NuTrek. I hate Insurrection and Nemesis. Does that mean I hate Star Trek : The Next Generation? Of course it doesn't. I actually said that Star Trek Beyond sounds good!

I think it's you who have come to this forum with an agenda. An agenda to belittle and discredit anyone who doesn't like the JJ Abrams movies. You've become so blinded by this agenda that you see any criticism of these movies as an attempt to destroy them. You clearly did not read my post properly or else you skimmed it. My bet is you saw red when I expressed my dislike of Into Darkness
and ignored the fact I like Star Trek 2009. If anyone has a problem here it's you. It's a shame Counselor Troi isn't still practicing. You could do with her help.

Good day to you

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Can't you just dislike Star Trek Into Darkness because you thought it sucked?

Of course you can. But that would be a subjective personal opinion you have little hope to persuade others to believe, let alone embrace with enough zeal to join you in your hatred.

I have no desire for others to join me in my dislike of Into Darkness. I couldn't give a crap if anyone agrees with me or not

Cool! That makes total sense to me!

Surely you'll just leave it at that and not dip into severely misplaced self-righteous indignation for no good reas...

I think it's you who have come to this forum with an agenda. An agenda to belittle and discredit anyone who doesn't like the JJ Abrams movies...

... eh, nevermind.

 

[Paradise City]

Some people don't like these films. It's time for JJTrekkers to come to terms with that reality.

So what you're saying is:

Got it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm cool with people who like the films. People can be found that like everything under the sun. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to stop testing people, now and again. Make people do a little bit of work for their love.

You have every right to voice your opinion, and we have every right to 1) burry you up to your neck in counter-opinion and 2) gleefully mock the logical errors that lead you to form that opinion in the first place.

Do not share your opinion if you are uncomfortable with that opinion being criticized.

Oh, I'm having fun on this thread, testin' boundaries taking people out of their comfort zones, shakin' people up a bit and as long as one's expressed positions are sincere, then I can sit back and enjoy the uncomfortable reaction that ensues. Some people rise to my challenge, others chuck vacuous memes at me. Either way, it's just more fun for me.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We seem to be arriving at the point that a major problem with Star Trek Into Darkness is an entrenched fanbase showing eight unbroken years of hostility and/or passive aggressivism towards anyone who approves of the franchise. It is, in a sense, a "heckler" problem.

Some people don't like these films. It's time for JJTrekkers to come to terms with that reality.

So what you're saying is:

Got it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm cool with people who like the films.

Clearly you're not, because:

I'm not going to stop testing people, now and again. Make people do a little bit of work for their love.

What's it to YOU if other people's personal preferences are justified or not? You are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else on this board.

Oh, I'm having fun on this thread, testin' boundaries taking people out of their comfort zones, shakin' people up a bit...

Yes, in most places that's called "trolling."

But far be it for me to interrupt your fun. Please do carry on.

 

[M'Sharak]

We seem to be arriving at the point that a major problem with Star Trek Into Darkness is an entrenched fanbase showing eight unbroken years of hostility and/or passive aggressivism towards anyone who approves of the franchise. It is, in a sense, a "heckler" problem.

But we're supposed to be talking about the movies, and not about the fans. If you wish to write critiques of fan groups, then I'd urge you to put those in a blog, rather than here.

Oh, I'm having fun on this thread, testin' boundaries taking people out of their comfort zones, shakin' people up a bit...

Yes, in most places that's called "trolling."

(emphasis mine)

Let's just say that there acceptable ways of going about the sort of thing Paradise City describes, and there are unacceptable ways. In my opinion, he's been doing a pretty good job of keeping it on the acceptable side of the line.

If you happen to feel otherwise, what you should not do is to make insinuations concerning trolling in the open thread. That's not your job, and in-thread is never the place for anyone who's not assigned to moderate the forum in question. You know this, of course, but I'll remind you of it again here, and direct your attention instead to the 'Notify Moderator" button. Perhaps I've pointed it out before; it looks like this -->

.


Now, then - shall we all discuss the movies, and leave off with digs at fans with whom we might disagree?

 

[Overgeeked]

Some people don't like these films. It's time for JJTrekkers to come to terms with that reality.

Everyone who's spent much time in this forum is well aware that some people don't like the movies. People have been announcing same in here since before the 2009 movie had finished production, so really, it's no secret to anyone at this late date. And most people are willing to accept that - even to engage in friendly discussion of reasons why.

Really? Where? Not on a single thread in this sub that I've seen. Other subs, maybe, but not here. Even the mildest criticism is seen as a brazen attack that must not be allowed to stand.

 

[M'Sharak]

Some people don't like these films. It's time for JJTrekkers to come to terms with that reality.

Everyone who's spent much time in this forum is well aware that some people don't like the movies. People have been announcing same in here since before the 2009 movie had finished production, so really, it's no secret to anyone at this late date. And most people are willing to accept that - even to engage in friendly discussion of reasons why.

Really? Where? Not on a single thread in this sub that I've seen. Other subs, maybe, but not here. Even the mildest criticism is seen as a brazen attack that must not be allowed to stand.

Not even close to being true.

But this forum, and this thread, are not the place for that discussion.

As I said upthread (more than once) in this forum we're talking about the movies, and not about the fans. We should get on with that now.

 

[fireproof78]

I always find it interesting about the Abrams films because I really like them, but acknowledge their flaws. For me, the flaws don't inhibit my enjoyment of the films.

I get that people don't like them, and that's fine. There are those who like films that I just don't care for, and films that I love that are generally regarded as bad films.

However, if there is a criticism of the film that I disagree with, or don't see the film the same way, I think that's great grounds for discussion.

I don't see Kirk and Spock as bad guys, but they don't always do good things. The morality of the new films does not feel on the nose as in TOS, but that is ok by me. I don't watch Star Trek to learn about morality-I watch it for the characters

In any case, if I express my opinion, it is not meant as a personal attack, nor do I regard negative opinions of the Abrams films (or whatever media is being discussed) as personal attacks.

I can respect differing opinions, but I'll usually voice my disagreement

 

[Khan 2.0]

STID retrospect article
http://www.gamesradar.com/it-just-me-or-does-star-trek-darkness-need-no-apologies/

 

[Jeyl]

STID retrospect article
http://www.gamesradar.com/it-just-me-or-does-star-trek-darkness-need-no-apologies/

I think it's just them, but that's only because I wouldn't use 'apologies' in this context. Any filmmaker who admits that mistakes were made at least implies that they're open to improvements. And while I understand why many movie goers and fans like this film, I feel that it doesn't really do anything to warrant this kind of respect. The film just doesn't do anything to make itself feel like an important part of Star Trek. Since Star Trek Beyond is not going to follow up on anything that was unique to STID, you could easily just go from Trek09 into Beyond without missing anything. And that's one of my biggest problems with the film. it doesn't do anything.

 

[Malaika]

It's OK to dislike the reboot. The haters are a tad forceful with their opinions though, in a way it seems like they resent people liking these movies and try to change their minds. I lost the count of how many articles I read where in the comments section someone claims you can't be a real fan if you like the reboot (and yet, these so called self professed 'real fans' who keep preaching about tos canon always say things that make ME question if they actually watched the old thing or they just read urban legends about it and repeat them) We basically have our own version of the star wars fans who can't accept anyone liking the prequel movies.
I'm also sick and tired of certain people (including articles) putting all trek fans in the same box, pretending that when they are criticizing these movies they are talking on the behalf of all trek fans when, in reality, they are only speaking for one vocal side of the fandom that is a minority in terms of the general audience of these movies, including the pre-existing trek fans.
As someone who likes these movies it makes me bitter that I get the feeling that maybe even the team behind them might be too influenced by the online response and as a result, a lot of the reboot's potential is completely wasted. Even the new movie maybe was essentially made to hopelessly placate the reboot haters (or at least it seems to me that the team is trying, so far, to make tos purists believe the movie was made for them) who won't like this reboot regardless. In a way, the issues stid had are for the most part stuff that the writers maybe put to pander to the tos elitists (e.g., making the Kirk/Spock friendship front and center relying too much on tos in spite of what could be more realistic for this version of the characters, using fans' fav villain, all the tos nods etc) who complained about the first movie having too many 'new' things . Yet, the reboot haters now criticize the movie precisely because of those elements.
The reboot can't win for certain people: as soon as the writers add 'new' things and change the tos status quo a bit, they complain it's not like the old thing and that in order to be real trek(TM) the characters should be carbon copy of the old ones. Yet, the moment writers put tos nods or make some things similar, the same people complain that the writers should do new stuff and they are 'lame' because they copy tos.

Nimoy once said that making a movie thinking too much about what the 'fans' will think is a big mistake and he was absolutely right.

Back to the topic, I stand by my opinion that Abrams is too hard on himself. Stid had issues but it is not a bad movie nor failure especially for trek standards (e.g., the reception for the old movies)

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

It's OK to dislike the reboot. The haters are a tad forceful with their opinions though, in a way it seems like they resent people liking these movies and try to change their minds. I lost the count of how many articles I read where in the comments section someone claims you can't be a real fan if you like the reboot (and yet, these so called self professed 'real fans' who keep preaching about tos canon always say things that make ME question if they actually watched the old thing or they just read urban legends about it and repeat them) We basically have our own version of the star wars fans who can't accept anyone liking the prequel movies.
I'm also sick and tired of certain people (including articles) putting all trek fans in the same box, pretending that when they are criticizing these movies they are talking on the behalf of all trek fans when, in reality, they are only speaking for one vocal side of the fandom that is a minority in terms of the general audience of these movies, including the pre-existing trek fans.
As someone who likes these movies it makes me bitter that I get the feeling that maybe even the team behind them might be too influenced by the online response and as a result, a lot of the reboot's potential is completely wasted. Even the new movie maybe was essentially made to hopelessly placate the reboot haters (or at least it seems to me that the team is trying, so far, to make tos purists believe the movie was made for them) who won't like this reboot regardless. In a way, the issues stid had are for the most part stuff that the writers maybe put to pander to the tos elitists (e.g., making the Kirk/Spock friendship front and center relying too much on tos in spite of what could be more realistic for this version of the characters, using fans' fav villain, all the tos nods etc) who complained about the first movie having too many 'new' things . Yet, the reboot haters now criticize the movie precisely because of those elements.
The reboot can't win for certain people: as soon as the writers add 'new' things and change the tos status quo a bit, they complain it's not like the old thing and that in order to be real trek(TM) the characters should be carbon copy of the old ones. Yet, the moment writers put tos nods or make some things similar, the same people complain that the writers should do new stuff and they are 'lame' because they copy tos.

Nimoy once said that making a movie thinking too much about what the 'fans' will think is a big mistake and he was absolutely right.

Back to the topic, I stand by my opinion that Abrams is too hard on himself. Stid had issues but it is not a bad movie nor failure especially for trek standards (e.g., the reception for the old movies)

Hear Hear.

 

[Longinus]

I'm with you about it being subjective. It's when people trot out "Cumberbuttons was white! Why is he playing a Indian Sikh!??!??!?" even though they LOVED the Mexican guy who played him.

That's not the same. Not even remotely. Montalbán was progressive casting for the sixties. But STID failed to be inclusive even by 60's standards.

Whitewashing like this is not acceptable for any movie or TV show, but it is particularly embarrassing for a film with words 'Star Trek' in its name.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Perhaps Cumberbatch as Khan will become more controversial in years to come. Was it that hard to get Benico Del Toro or Javier Barhem or Edgar Ramirez etc? And an explanation in an obscure comic doesn't really cut it ( needed to be in the movie.)