I don't care anymore, and neither does anyone else.

[USS Mariner]

I don't care anymore, and nobody else cares (that I don't)

I find that I have no interest in seeing this in theaters. From what I've seen and heard, this film is probably going to make a lot of people happy and make insane amounts of money for Paramount and the Trek Franchise.

However, the recent photos and EW article confirm what I've suspected most about this film and about JJ's involvement: No one involved in this film believes in any part of "Star Trek," from the original to it's later spin-offs.

This film is coming across as nothing more than an excuse to re-use the name, iconography and the pull of a "modern" director and producer to get the franchise to be "in" again.

I have an unending love for the original series, so if I'm biased, then so be it. However, JJ also claims this, as well as almost everyone else working on the film. He claims the utmost respect and admiration for what Roddenberry, Coon, and Jefferies created in 1964-1969, and said that he was going to translate that to the screen for today's audiences.

Why then, I ask, does this appear to be exactly like every "modern" sci-fi and pop action movie that's been coming out as of late? Why did you take so much time to create a respectful and imaginative take on Kirk's uniforms, and yet throw everything else out and instead create an environment that doesn't appear as if they should inhabit the same universe? Why bother with keeping any of the tropes of the original (humanoid aliens, "clean" sets and vehicle design, colored tunics, miniskirts) when you outright claim that this isn't going to be anything like what has come before, except in "spirit?"

Why do you outright proclaim that this "isn't for Star Trek fans" and is instead for "movie fans?" That's demeaning, especially for a large group of fans who've kept this franchise going for arguably far longer that it should have. Has our judgment become that worthless to you and Paramount, but yet you know that our devotion to Trek is going to force us into theaters as we've done in the past?


I know that hordes of people are going to blast this response as the reason that Abrams made this film the way he did, and that complains of this nature are immature and mindless, and that I should instead not only wait for the trailer, but watch this on opening day like I had initially planned before this press release came out.

You know what? I'd love to, but I want to be treated as if I'm worth more than my ticket price. If you want to make something that is respectful to Star Trek's "spirit," make your own damn film.

 

[Dar70]

Well I really dont know what you expected.They werent going to use 1960's sets. Yes the bridge could have been a little more colorful but its nice. Im going to watch this for the story and not worry about visual continuity.

 

[USS Mariner]

Well I really dont know what you expected.They werent going to use 1960's sets. Yes the bridge could have been a little more colorful but its nice. Im going to watch this for the story and not worry about visual continuity.

Read a book.

 

[Dar70]

I didnt say I wasnt going to enjoy the visuals as they are, just that I wasnt going to worry about how they compare to the original visuals. The story comes before that. Again I dont know what you expected. You should never have even given this film your possible consideration in the first place. You HAD to have know it was going to be using vastly different sets.

 

[Qonos]

I find that I have no interest in seeing this in theaters. From what I've seen and heard, this film is probably going to make a lot of people happy and make insane amounts of money for Paramount and the Trek Franchise.

However, the recent photos and EW article confirm what I've suspected most about this film and about JJ's involvement: No one involved in this film believes in any part of "Star Trek," from the original to it's later spin-offs.

This film is coming across as nothing more than an excuse to re-use the name, iconography and the pull of a "modern" director and producer to get the franchise to be "in" again.

I have an unending love for the original series, so if I'm biased, then so be it. However, JJ also claims this, as well as almost everyone else working on the film. He claims the utmost respect and admiration for what Roddenberry, Coon, and Jefferies created in 1964-1969, and said that he was going to translate that to the screen for today's audiences.

Why then, I ask, does this appear to be exactly like every "modern" sci-fi and pop action movie that's been coming out as of late? Why did you take so much time to create a respectful and imaginative take on Kirk's uniforms, and yet throw everything else out and instead create an environment that doesn't appear as if they should inhabit the same universe? Why bother with keeping any of the tropes of the original (humanoid aliens, "clean" sets and vehicle design, colored tunics, miniskirts) when you outright claim that this isn't going to be anything like what has come before, except in "spirit?"

Why do you outright proclaim that this "isn't for Star Trek fans" and is instead for "movie fans?" That's demeaning, especially for a large group of fans who've kept this franchise going for arguably far longer that it should have. Has our judgment become that worthless to you and Paramount, but yet you know that our devotion to Trek is going to force us into theaters as we've done in the past?


I know that hordes of people are going to blast this response as the reason that Abrams made this film the way he did, and that complains of this nature are immature and mindless, and that I should instead not only wait for the trailer, but watch this on opening day like I had initially planned before this press release came out.

You know what? I'd love to, but I want to be treated as if I'm worth more than my ticket price. If you want to make something that is respectful to Star Trek's "spirit," make your own damn film.

He's trying to make a viable Star Trek movie for the masses and take the franchise mainstream. Much like Bay, Orci and Kurtzman did with Transformers. HOW is this not a good thing? How does this not benefit the spirit of Star Trek? He may actually do something that NO other Trek Film has been able to do... Make a substantial amount of money.

Face it after Enterprise, (No matter how many people say they liked it) Trek is on it's last legs and needs a new fresh outlook. The direction it took in Voyager and Enterprise(the only reason Enterprise lasted so long is that it started out on UPN, which gave it a final chance after a licence fee drop) drove lots of fans away. If Abrams keeps to the spirit of the original and makes a viable movie that gets fans and non fans in the seats then more power to him. You haven't seen the film yet your ready to dismiss it. This is the attiude that gets harped on. No one is asking you to like it, just reserve judgement till after you've seen it. Seeing as you're already set in your judgement, i doubt you will.

 

[Saga]

to judge a film based only on a few pictures is not logical.

 

[Aragorn]

Sounds more like a self-fulfilling prophecy where no matter what we are shown next, it'll fit right in line with whatever he set out to believe to begin with.

Besides, what more needs to be said after a subject line where he tried to speak on behalf of everyone else?

 

[USS Mariner]

I find that I have no interest in seeing this in theaters. From what I've seen and heard, this film is probably going to make a lot of people happy and make insane amounts of money for Paramount and the Trek Franchise.

However, the recent photos and EW article confirm what I've suspected most about this film and about JJ's involvement: No one involved in this film believes in any part of "Star Trek," from the original to it's later spin-offs.

This film is coming across as nothing more than an excuse to re-use the name, iconography and the pull of a "modern" director and producer to get the franchise to be "in" again.

I have an unending love for the original series, so if I'm biased, then so be it. However, JJ also claims this, as well as almost everyone else working on the film. He claims the utmost respect and admiration for what Roddenberry, Coon, and Jefferies created in 1964-1969, and said that he was going to translate that to the screen for today's audiences.

Why then, I ask, does this appear to be exactly like every "modern" sci-fi and pop action movie that's been coming out as of late? Why did you take so much time to create a respectful and imaginative take on Kirk's uniforms, and yet throw everything else out and instead create an environment that doesn't appear as if they should inhabit the same universe? Why bother with keeping any of the tropes of the original (humanoid aliens, "clean" sets and vehicle design, colored tunics, miniskirts) when you outright claim that this isn't going to be anything like what has come before, except in "spirit?"

Why do you outright proclaim that this "isn't for Star Trek fans" and is instead for "movie fans?" That's demeaning, especially for a large group of fans who've kept this franchise going for arguably far longer that it should have. Has our judgment become that worthless to you and Paramount, but yet you know that our devotion to Trek is going to force us into theaters as we've done in the past?


I know that hordes of people are going to blast this response as the reason that Abrams made this film the way he did, and that complains of this nature are immature and mindless, and that I should instead not only wait for the trailer, but watch this on opening day like I had initially planned before this press release came out.

You know what? I'd love to, but I want to be treated as if I'm worth more than my ticket price. If you want to make something that is respectful to Star Trek's "spirit," make your own damn film.

He's trying to make a viable Star Trek movie for the masses and take the franchise mainstream. Much like Bay, Orci and Kurtzman did with Transformers. HOW is this not a good thing? How does this not benefit the spirit of Star Trek? He may actually do something that NO other Trek Film has been able to do... Make a substantial amount of money.

Face it after Enterprise, (No matter how many people say they liked it) Trek is on it's last legs and needs a new fresh outlook. The direction it took in Voyager and Enterprise(the only reason Enterprise lasted so long is that it started out on UPN, which gave it a final chance after a licence fee drop) drove lots of fans away. If Abrams keeps to the spirit of the original and makes a viable movie that gets fans and non fans in the seats then more power to him. You haven't seen the film yet your ready to dismiss it. This is the attiude that gets harped on. No one is asking you to like it, just reserve judgement till after you've seen it. Seeing as you're already set in your judgement, i doubt you will.

Thanks for the judgement. What's the sentence?

I wanted a fresh outlook on the series, but I didn't expect it to be this full of itself.

To be fair, when I seen Quantum of Solace, that will be the deciding factor as to whether or not I see this thing in theaters. Right now, however, I don't see that happening.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Why do you outright proclaim that this "isn't for Star Trek fans" and is instead for "movie fans?" That's demeaning, especially for a large group of fans who've kept this franchise going for arguably far longer that it should have. Has our judgment become that worthless to you and Paramount, but yet you know that our devotion to Trek is going to force us into theaters as we've done in the past?

Our devotion is what led Trek down to the gutters in the first place. Too much importance on too much things and the writer's inability to do something daring and interesting in fear of driving the Trek core away. in the end it drove them away, along with any possible new fans.

You know what? I'd love to, but I want to be treated as if I'm worth more than my ticket price. If you want to make something that is respectful to Star Trek's "spirit," make your own damn film.

And they did, which will make this "damn film" even more successful than all other Trek movies previously combined. Damn, I hope it does! It'll shut the cranky old bastards up once and for all.

 

[Koinek]

Well I really dont know what you expected.They werent going to use 1960's sets. Yes the bridge could have been a little more colorful but its nice. Im going to watch this for the story and not worry about visual continuity.

Read a book.

Ummm....no. It's about re-imagining the visualization in regards to the story which is far more important. I'm sorry but the believability of those 1960s sets went away when a computer didn't need 1000 sq. feet to house.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Well I really dont know what you expected.They werent going to use 1960's sets. Yes the bridge could have been a little more colorful but its nice. Im going to watch this for the story and not worry about visual continuity.

Read a book.

Ummm....no. It's about re-imagining the visualization in regards to the story which is far more important. I'm sorry but the believability of those 1960s sets went away when a computer didn't need 1000 sq. feet to house.

Or that cardboard, though shiny, doesn't look aesthetically pleasing as plastics and metal.

 

[Koinek]

^BTW, I hear those newfangled "computer graphics" may kill our miniature models business.


Look Mariner, if you're sure you're going to hate the movie, then you will. our mind will shut out any of the good stuff with all the pre-conceived notions you build for yourself. Go to it with an open mind and you might just like it.

 

[Qonos]

I find that I have no interest in seeing this in theaters. From what I've seen and heard, this film is probably going to make a lot of people happy and make insane amounts of money for Paramount and the Trek Franchise.

However, the recent photos and EW article confirm what I've suspected most about this film and about JJ's involvement: No one involved in this film believes in any part of "Star Trek," from the original to it's later spin-offs.

This film is coming across as nothing more than an excuse to re-use the name, iconography and the pull of a "modern" director and producer to get the franchise to be "in" again.

I have an unending love for the original series, so if I'm biased, then so be it. However, JJ also claims this, as well as almost everyone else working on the film. He claims the utmost respect and admiration for what Roddenberry, Coon, and Jefferies created in 1964-1969, and said that he was going to translate that to the screen for today's audiences.

Why then, I ask, does this appear to be exactly like every "modern" sci-fi and pop action movie that's been coming out as of late? Why did you take so much time to create a respectful and imaginative take on Kirk's uniforms, and yet throw everything else out and instead create an environment that doesn't appear as if they should inhabit the same universe? Why bother with keeping any of the tropes of the original (humanoid aliens, "clean" sets and vehicle design, colored tunics, miniskirts) when you outright claim that this isn't going to be anything like what has come before, except in "spirit?"

Why do you outright proclaim that this "isn't for Star Trek fans" and is instead for "movie fans?" That's demeaning, especially for a large group of fans who've kept this franchise going for arguably far longer that it should have. Has our judgment become that worthless to you and Paramount, but yet you know that our devotion to Trek is going to force us into theaters as we've done in the past?


I know that hordes of people are going to blast this response as the reason that Abrams made this film the way he did, and that complains of this nature are immature and mindless, and that I should instead not only wait for the trailer, but watch this on opening day like I had initially planned before this press release came out.

You know what? I'd love to, but I want to be treated as if I'm worth more than my ticket price. If you want to make something that is respectful to Star Trek's "spirit," make your own damn film.

He's trying to make a viable Star Trek movie for the masses and take the franchise mainstream. Much like Bay, Orci and Kurtzman did with Transformers. HOW is this not a good thing? How does this not benefit the spirit of Star Trek? He may actually do something that NO other Trek Film has been able to do... Make a substantial amount of money.

Face it after Enterprise, (No matter how many people say they liked it) Trek is on it's last legs and needs a new fresh outlook. The direction it took in Voyager and Enterprise(the only reason Enterprise lasted so long is that it started out on UPN, which gave it a final chance after a licence fee drop) drove lots of fans away. If Abrams keeps to the spirit of the original and makes a viable movie that gets fans and non fans in the seats then more power to him. You haven't seen the film yet your ready to dismiss it. This is the attiude that gets harped on. No one is asking you to like it, just reserve judgement till after you've seen it. Seeing as you're already set in your judgement, i doubt you will.

Thanks for the judgement. What's the sentence?

I wanted a fresh outlook on the series, but I didn't expect it to be this full of itself.

To be fair, when I seen Quantum of Solace, that will be the deciding factor as to whether or not I see this thing in theaters. Right now, however, I don't see that happening.

Your sentence is to watch all the TOS Episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" 100 times.... Wait that's against the geneva convention, but it is the worst TOS episode ever IMHO...

As to the Full of itself statement. The one who was full of himself was Berman who decided He was the god master of Trek after Gene passed on. I'm willing to give Abrams a chance, we've moved away from the dark oppressive look of Voyager and Enterprise. Star Trek was never supposed to be gritty, it's supposed to be vibrant and full of life. TOS and TNG were and I see this attempt trying to do that. This movie has to stand on some confidence to be a serious attempt at re-invigorating the franchise. The way your talking about the movie though is like he's taken your best friend out back and shot him dead. Meanwhile he's really trying to put his arms around your choking, gasping friend and give him the himlick to save his life.

The current state of Trek is that if this movie isn't successful, the Trek could be shelved for a long long time, and I'm sorry it won't be Abrams, Orcis, or Kurtzman's fault.

We've become a cynical bunch, wanting to be spoon fed what WE think Trek is and as I found once again using Transformers as and example is that the fans don't know what they want exactly because given what we think we want we find faults with it because it's "Not like we remember"

Sorry to say but it's never going to be like we remember. Gene's gone, and no man can invision it the same way. My attempt at Trek would be different from yours, no less right or wrong, just different. IDIC, isn't that part of Trek?

 

[USS Mariner]

^Alright, then why bother with all the "nods" to the original when it's not going to be the same thing? Does he have confidence issues or something?

 

[donners22]

The revised title for this thread is much more accurate.

 

[scotthm]

Re: I don't care anymore, and nobody else cares (that I don't)

I find that I have no interest in seeing this in theaters.

OK.

the recent photos and EW article confirm what I've suspected most about this film and about JJ's involvement: No one involved in this film believes in any part of "Star Trek," from the original to it's later spin-offs.

How do you conclude this? When the movie comes to DVD, just sit through it with your eyes closed and see if it sounds like Star Trek.

Why bother with keeping any of the tropes of the original (humanoid aliens, "clean" sets and vehicle design, colored tunics, miniskirts) when you outright claim that this isn't going to be anything like what has come before, except in "spirit?"

Why do you outright proclaim that this "isn't for Star Trek fans" and is instead for "movie fans?"

I would assume that it's for marketing purposes. I don't see anything wrong with that. I also don't see anything wrong with you skipping this movie if it offends you. I chose not to go to the theaters to see Nemesis, so I know how you feel, but I plan on seeing this one on the big screen.

---------------

 

[Dar70]

^Alright, then why bother with all the "nods" to the original when it's not going to be the same thing? Does he have confidence issues or something?

There are going to be certain things that will be similar to the original. Things that are expected.(IE Yellow, Blue and Red uniforms) But again did you really think this was going to look exactly like the original seriers?

 

[Qonos]

^Alright, then why bother with all the "nods" to the original when it's not going to be the same thing? Does he have confidence issues or something?

Well Orci and Kurtzman have already said they wanted to do a story about how the crew of the Original Enterprise came together. So you have to have certain elements. Remember the story wasn't Abrams' Idea it was the writers, who seem to know what they are doing. I mean they had a 700million dollar movie last year...

And alot of fans who thought they would screw it up ended up pleasantly surprised. Now is it going to be the Trek you love so much? No, it's going to be a modern take on what came before. Is that a confidence issue? No it has to do with today's tech, today's audaince and the hope of building the franchise back to the juggurnaut it was a few years ago when we had two Trek series on the air at the same time. Going back isn't always a cowardly move, especially since the Original series left alot to be explored. How many years were we into the five year mission when Trek began? How many more missions could we see. How many more stories are there to tell? It also gives us a chance to revist old friend, of course those old friends won't look exactly like they did when we first met them, but who does look exactly the same after they change and grow? It's still recognizable. The ships from what've seen look like ones from the past. The uniforms are a nice touch. The bridge? Maybe over the top, it may not be, all I'm saying is give it a chance... The original series wasn't initially given a chance, but look what it spawned on it's second life. Now we get a chance to help give it a third life... If the movie is good, I don't see any major problems. As I said in another thread, it's the spirit and the message of humanity overcoming it's faults and growing that is Star Trek.

 

[JuanBolio]

^Alright, then why bother with all the "nods" to the original when it's not going to be the same thing? Does he have confidence issues or something?

"The same thing"? How can it be the same? Its a different era of filmmaking, with different actors and a new story set at a different time in the Trek universe. How much the same do you need it to be?

I've seen TOS. I loved it. Same with just about all other Trek. We don't need SAME. We need NEW. We need DIFFERENT. We need UNEXPECTED.

To judge this film as unfaithful based on a handful of production stills is silly.

What exactly were you hoping for?

 

[USS Mariner]

Re: I don't care anymore, and nobody else cares (that I don't)

the recent photos and EW article confirm what I've suspected most about this film and about JJ's involvement: No one involved in this film believes in any part of "Star Trek," from the original to it's later spin-offs.

How do you conclude this?

They've gone out of their way to make this look nothing like any version of Star Trek. I'd be surprised if everything else were the same.

Why bother with keeping any of the tropes of the original (humanoid aliens, "clean" sets and vehicle design, colored tunics, miniskirts) when you outright claim that this isn't going to be anything like what has come before, except in "spirit?"

Why do you outright proclaim that this "isn't for Star Trek fans" and is instead for "movie fans?"

I would assume that it's for marketing purposes. I don't see anything wrong with that. I also don't see anything wrong with you skipping this movie if it offends you. I chose not to go to the theaters to see Nemesis, so I know how you feel, but I plan on seeing this one on the big screen.

---------------

I want to see Trek done well and intelligently. I just don't want it packaged in the same way as everything else in an attempt to be "modern." I don't want to be talked down to by the people who depend on my support of this film.

I'm glad you appear to understand this. Like the title says, nobody else cares.