Forum for haters of JJ's Star Trek

[UFO]

...

Nimoy's likability certainly did take a hit! That is part of STXI tainting previous Trek. It was completely unnecessary. I used to think he had more class. As you can tell, I'm over it now though.

I understand after reading the initial conversation that the likability thing was indeed in reference to the SNL skit. So what does that have to do with STXI? Sounds like you were talking about the movie.

Ah, I see. When I said: "That is part of STXI tainting previous Trek." I meant in a consequential fashion. Ie. That he was on SNL promoting the movie which he wouldn't have been had it not been made. Also that his comments in the skit detracted from my enjoyment of seeing his character on screen generally, if you understand what I mean.

My attempts to seperate the skit from the film were:

Post #60: "My objection to Nimoy's comment is not directly related to my complaints about STXI, except to say both lacked something I would have hoped for."
　
Post #67: "His being in the film is a separate issue ..."

 

[controlfreak]

I have no issue with Nimoy being involved in any Star Trek project he wishes.. His presence alone adds a greater dimension of dignity and reverence to the screen.

 

[CaptPapa]

I'm not bashing the new movie - and certainly not JJ Abrams. I thought the movie was a good, exciting, one-off story - much like Mirror, Mirror.
My problem is the idea of taking the whole franchise (canonically) off in an alternate-universe direction. As I said, I see (wanted to see) the movie as a one-off, what-if, story. Good, even very good - once, and not to be repeated. To me, continuing in this direction is just a cheap, unimaginative way to tell different stories about familiar characters to a captive audience. Everyone knows that millions of Trekkies will show up at the theater to see any Star Trek movie. If you make it loud and fast (don't forget plenty of blood), then millions of other slam-bang SFX junkies will also go to see it. Voila, instant hit. If you do that too much (read more than once) then discerning viewers will recognize it for what it is and turn away.
Okay, done.

 

[Set Harth]

I can't remember the last time I saw blood in a movie. Damn PG-13.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm not bashing the new movie - and certainly not JJ Abrams. I thought the movie was a good, exciting, one-off story - much like Mirror, Mirror.
My problem is the idea of taking the whole franchise (canonically) off in an alternate-universe direction. As I said, I see (wanted to see) the movie as a one-off, what-if, story. Good, even very good - once, and not to be repeated.

That would contradict the only good reason for doing the movie at all.

 

[FarStrider]

My problem is the idea of taking the whole franchise (canonically) off in an alternate-universe direction. As I said, I see (wanted to see) the movie as a one-off, what-if, story. Good, even very good - once, and not to be repeated.

The Supreme Court and Paramount never hid their intentions to make more than one Star Trek movie. . . it was announced before the first frame of film was shot that the actors were all signed to a 3 movie deal, and Paramount hoped that the first movie would be successful enough to build a franchise on (Which was NOT a given, considering how the franchise was practically dead at the time, and every message board was dedicated to how bad the new movie was going to be).

To me, continuing in this direction is just a cheap, unimaginative way to tell different stories about familiar characters to a captive audience.

Human beings have been telling and retelling the same stories with familiar characters to a captive audience since story telling began. . . Ever hear of the "Hero with a Thousand Faces?" Ever notice the fact that Greek vs. Roman Gods and heroes are basically the same stories with just the names changed to protect the innocent. . . how many times have we seen Batman's origin story? or Spider-man's? and Star Trek has never been any different than any other story. . . Changeling vs. TMP, anyone? Naked Time vs. Naked Now? Amok Time vs. Code of Honor? Why does every iteration of Trek have a "Spock" character? Because people like and respond to familiar characters in different yet the same stories. . . Heck, even Star Trek books (which aren't canon). . .tell different stories about familiar characters to a captive audience. Star Trek has been doing that for as long as it has been a franchise. . where have you been?

Everyone knows that millions of Trekkies will show up at the theater to see any Star Trek movie. If you make it loud and fast (don't forget plenty of blood), then millions of other slam-bang SFX junkies will also go to see it. Voila, instant hit. If you do that too much (read more than once) then discerning viewers will recognize it for what it is and turn away.
Okay, done.

Everyone doesn't know that millions of Trekkies will show up at the theater to see any Star Trek movie. "Millions of Trekkies" didn't show up for "Insurrection" and and they definitely didn't show up for "Nemesis" in the theaters, and they couldn't keep the franchise from dying on TV with "Enterprise". Also, most stories on the big screen are going to be louder and faster with better special effects than a similar story on television (except for the ill-fated "TNG" movies, which were made on the cheap, and looked it.) And what blood was there in ST09? Even the genocide was pretty bloodless. . .

And "discerning" viewers? Snerk. . . Why do you think "The Avengers" made over $200 million in its first weekend? Familiar characters, maybe? Why do they keep making Transformers movies? Why is Spider-man getting a reboot less than 10 years after the last reboot? No one is making Star Trek from the goodness of their hearts to lead the world to a higher plane. . . even Gene Roddenberry made TOS because he wanted to make money, and even he knew (and wanted) someone new to eventually remake Star Trek for the next generation. . . Which is what Paramount is doing right now. . .

Okay, done.

~FS

 

[horatio83]

Yep. If you dare to claim that the movie works in many way and features great actors, an exciting and emotional story, lovely effects and so on but dare to point out that it was slightly fluffy and stupid the fanboys will get mad at you.

Are you under the impression that this is why some posters are weary of you? It's not.

I am not here to please you and nobody forces you to read my posts if you cannot stand them. I stopped skipping over your "this movie is perfect and if you dare to point out that it isn't 100% perfect I am going to insult you" nonsense a long time ago.

 

[Gov Kodos]

http://rehashresistance.freeforums.org/star-trek-2009-sucks-f3.html

Is this for real?

And here are the top 100 reasons why STXI sucks (lots of f-words, very little imagination): http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/full-100-reasons-star-trek-xi-sucks.html

Suffice to say, these people are not fans of JJ Abrams' Star Trek!

That's a lot of effort to expend on something one dislikes. STXI was great fun. It put my favorite crew back on the bridge of the Enterprise, and I am looking forward to the next movie. Something that wasn't happening with the last few outings.

 

[UFO]

http://rehashresistance.freeforums.org/star-trek-2009-sucks-f3.html

Is this for real?

And here are the top 100 reasons why STXI sucks (lots of f-words, very little imagination): http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/full-100-reasons-star-trek-xi-sucks.html

Suffice to say, these people are not fans of JJ Abrams' Star Trek!

That's a lot of effort to expend on something one dislikes. ... .

While I can't be sure of the reasons behind their endeavours, as I've tried to explain previously, its probably more a matter of protesting the downgrading of something they do like. Look at it this way: If STXI was an original film with no back story or history, they probably wouldn't have set up a forum to point out its flaws, assuming they would even dislike it as much as they do now.

It's hard to say for sure, but I don't believe I would have thought as little of it, had it been a new stand-a-lone movie. For example I would doubtless view the Star Fleet organisation as being pretty stupid and with poor standards of discipline (the film's society, what little we see, would also just be a carbon copy of today rather than an interesting optimistic future) but at least such faults wouldn't be undermining something of value to me. Its a shame too because it wouldn't have taken that much to fix the worst of those problems.

 

[-Brett-]

http://rehashresistance.freeforums.org/star-trek-2009-sucks-f3.html

Is this for real?

And here are the top 100 reasons why STXI sucks (lots of f-words, very little imagination): http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/full-100-reasons-star-trek-xi-sucks.html

Suffice to say, these people are not fans of JJ Abrams' Star Trek!

Crude, barely coherent, obnoxious, and low brow complaints about how crude, barely coherent, obnoxious, and low brow the movie was. Admittedly, the movie was all of those things, but pointing it out by saying "fuck fuck shit ass prick fuck" is kind of funny and ironic.

 

[Shazam!]

I like how when the movie came out, anyone caught bad mouthing it was told to go and start their own forum.

I guess they did, but being the elistist assholes that we are we couldn't just let them be now, could we..

 

[M'Sharak]

Yep. If you dare to claim that the movie works in many way and features great actors, an exciting and emotional story, lovely effects and so on but dare to point out that it was slightly fluffy and stupid the fanboys will get mad at you.

Are you under the impression that this is why some posters are weary of you? It's not.

I am not here to please you and nobody forces you to read my posts if you cannot stand them. I stopped skipping over your "this movie is perfect and if you dare to point out that it isn't 100% perfect I am going to insult you" nonsense a long time ago.

Now that we've established beyond reasonable doubt the extent to which you two deeply care for each other, can we stop with the personal swipes, please? I said back here that I hoped people would be able to keep things in perspective; if that turns out to be impossible, then this thread will most likely be closed.

I like how when the movie came out, anyone caught bad mouthing it was told to go and start their own forum.

I know, right? Because that's totally the way it happened here.

Only not really.

I guess they did, but being the elistist assholes that we are we couldn't just let them be now, could we..

Hey, hey - you can't just go throwing around words like "elistist" in that manner. People might take offense!


Now... Carl Spock says calm down.

Everybody reach?​

 

[Therin of Andor]

But you have to admit, that anyone here who says anything even remotely perceived as negative towards the new movie, risks getting gang banged here.

Really, it always feels the opposite to me. Even worse if you admit that ST:TMP and JJ's movie are one's two favourite films of all time.

 

[DonIago]

Are the pilot episodes of each series your favorites as well?