In ST09, the MacGuffin was Red Matter. I really hope they find something more creative than other colors of matter...
Ideas You Hope To NEVER See In The New Films
- Thread starter Kamdan
- Start date
Personally I think having Spock flashback to standing over Kirk's grave in the last ST movie when talking to Pine/Kirkwould be moving, especially if done like it was written in Shatner's The Return. Those first few pages are to me some of the most moving passages in Star Trek writings.
To be fair, the introduction of "Red Matter" (as a plot device/McGuffin) is a common element in JJ Abrams' projects. Its a narrative technique thats worked for years in countless productions. We know what it does, do we really need to know how it exactly works? (because lets face it, the explanation would be lame) I really don't think that different colours of "Matter" will be introduced as that would be insulting and quite frankly lazy storytelling that has no place in any movie series.
Did I forget my <facetious> tags again? I wasn't actually serious, I highly doubt Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci are gonna do anything like that. 
I know, I was mainly jarring the point about how the "Red Matter" on the surface sounds like a plot device, but in actuality its simplicity works within the story. I did get carried away though, but that was mainly my annoyance at Smallville using different coloured Kryptonite constantly to drive the plot! 
RE: "older fans" Not all of us old Trekkers have sticks up our asses. Name any Trek episode/film and some hugh flaw(s) can be pointed out. If I dismissed every Trek which had something wrong with it my viewing options would be severely limited.
I don't want to see McCoy wearing a neckerchief.
I don't want to see McCoy wearing a neckerchief.
Uhura: "I'm pregnant!"
Spock: *raises eyebrow*
Kirk: *guilty glance at Uhura*
Spock: *raises eyebrow*
Kirk: *guilty glance at Uhura*
well it's your loss. And quite frankly a rather stupid reason not to give the movie a chance.
Trek needed a reboot. fact. the movie is good. fact.
does it stick to canon? no...but if it stuck entirely to canon there'd be no point in it or what they were trying to do. which is breath LIFE back into Star Trek.
and your excuse for wanting to read the book but not the movie is, no offense, stupid. You say you may enjoy the book because of the writer.....when the movie follows the same events and is in the same "universe." But you refuse to see the movie? whatever man.
blind hatred is never logical. And your reasons make no sense.
so, again, your loss. fact.
Space Hippies and anything resembling a "jam session"
William Shatner as Kirk.
Herbert!
It is also a common element in Star Trek films.
Kirk: Spock, it wasn't me! It was the...er...white matter...
The beauty of IDIC is that any imagined version of Star Trek at all can exist in whatever form the imaginer wants - whether on film, paper, fanfic sites, or just in the imagination. And we are all free to disagree with each other.You happen to think my opinion is incorrect? Fair enough, now thats out of the way lets talk about this so called "revisitionist crap".You're talking to somebody who doesn't consider the Enterprise series to be real Star Trek (yes, I saw as much of it as I could stomach before giving up in disgust). I am one of those "TOS purists" - but it's not the show that's being insulted by this revisionist crap, it's the show's history, and the older fans. And no opinion is pointless - not yours, and certainly not mine. I just happen to think yours is incorrect.
ENT was designed to give the franchise a much needed boost in ratings (VOY tanked towards the end) and rekindle interest. In order to make the show more appealing, the "Star Trek" part was initially dropped and more "casual" storyline elements were written into the show. Overall I enjoyed ENT and was disappointed when the show was cancelled. It had a lot of potential but it just wasn't able to break through. It is considered "canon" from the shows continunity and nothing done in ENT is inconsistent or revised in anyway (except the appearance of the Borg, but that was down to FC and as a result probably happened anyway).
I disagree with your statement about the show's history being insulted (and "older fans"). Star Trek is an ongoing franchise, it moves with the times while still containing the core elements of GR's original ideas. The show is very good at creating continunity, even though people bash it. As for older fans, its like senior citizens being reluctant about computers. Its ignorance plain and simple, you can still watch TOS and create your own continunity and whatever all you want, just don't come in and dismiss the newer stuff for reasons that quite frankly border on purist and ignorant terms.
You'll note that I'm not saying YOU have to not like the reboot. I'm just saying I didn't like what I read and saw of it.
As for computers... well, having computers in school was after my time. My first introduction to computers was in the '80s, in night classes at the local college. And it was my grandmother who urged me to take the classes - I would have been just as happy with a new typewriter!
Did I say I spoke for ALL "older fans"? No, I didn't. But I do speak for some. And the term "older fan" doesn't necessarily mean people who are grey-haired (getting a few myself, I've noticed). A 20-year-old who has been a fan for 10 years is an "older fan" in my opinion than a 50-year-old who has been a fan for just a few months.
No, it is not a "fact" that the nuTrek movie is good. It is your OPINION. Opinions are not the same things as facts. Unless, of course, they can be verified by the scientific method. Perhaps you could point me to the relevant peer-reviewed studies in the relevant journals?
Likewise, it is my OPINION that the nuTrek movie is crap. I'm entitled to this opinion, just as you're entitled to yours.
Have you ever read Alan Dean Foster's adaptations of the Animated Series? They don't just follow the script - Foster added to them (in fact, turned several of them into novel length stories). He fleshed out some of the action that was on the screen, and the reader was able to see why the characters said or thought what they did. This is why I would read the Foster adaptation. He can take any screen adaptation and make it better. And if he happened to include some way to justify all the silly tinkering to make the pieces and characters fit where original canon says they don't, I just might be persuaded to see the movie some day.
It's a certainty that your sitting there and calling me stupid isn't going to do the trick (btw, see the little pink icon below my username? I'm female, so please don't call me "man", 'k?).
The beauty of IDIC is that any imagined version of Star Trek at all can exist in whatever form the imaginer wants - whether on film, paper, fanfic sites, or just in the imagination. And we are all free to disagree with each other.You happen to think my opinion is incorrect? Fair enough, now thats out of the way lets talk about this so called "revisitionist crap".You're talking to somebody who doesn't consider the Enterprise series to be real Star Trek (yes, I saw as much of it as I could stomach before giving up in disgust). I am one of those "TOS purists" - but it's not the show that's being insulted by this revisionist crap, it's the show's history, and the older fans. And no opinion is pointless - not yours, and certainly not mine. I just happen to think yours is incorrect.
ENT was designed to give the franchise a much needed boost in ratings (VOY tanked towards the end) and rekindle interest. In order to make the show more appealing, the "Star Trek" part was initially dropped and more "casual" storyline elements were written into the show. Overall I enjoyed ENT and was disappointed when the show was cancelled. It had a lot of potential but it just wasn't able to break through. It is considered "canon" from the shows continunity and nothing done in ENT is inconsistent or revised in anyway (except the appearance of the Borg, but that was down to FC and as a result probably happened anyway).
I disagree with your statement about the show's history being insulted (and "older fans"). Star Trek is an ongoing franchise, it moves with the times while still containing the core elements of GR's original ideas. The show is very good at creating continunity, even though people bash it. As for older fans, its like senior citizens being reluctant about computers. Its ignorance plain and simple, you can still watch TOS and create your own continunity and whatever all you want, just don't come in and dismiss the newer stuff for reasons that quite frankly border on purist and ignorant terms.
You'll note that I'm not saying YOU have to not like the reboot. I'm just saying I didn't like what I read and saw of it.
As for computers... well, having computers in school was after my time. My first introduction to computers was in the '80s, in night classes at the local college. And it was my grandmother who urged me to take the classes - I would have been just as happy with a new typewriter!
Did I say I spoke for ALL "older fans"? No, I didn't. But I do speak for some. And the term "older fan" doesn't necessarily mean people who are grey-haired (getting a few myself, I've noticed). A 20-year-old who has been a fan for 10 years is an "older fan" in my opinion than a 50-year-old who has been a fan for just a few months.
No, it is not a "fact" that the nuTrek movie is good. It is your OPINION. Opinions are not the same things as facts. Unless, of course, they can be verified by the scientific method. Perhaps you could point me to the relevant peer-reviewed studies in the relevant journals?
Likewise, it is my OPINION that the nuTrek movie is crap. I'm entitled to this opinion, just as you're entitled to yours.
Have you ever read Alan Dean Foster's adaptations of the Animated Series? They don't just follow the script - Foster added to them (in fact, turned several of them into novel length stories). He fleshed out some of the action that was on the screen, and the reader was able to see why the characters said or thought what they did. This is why I would read the Foster adaptation. He can take any screen adaptation and make it better. And if he happened to include some way to justify all the silly tinkering to make the pieces and characters fit where original canon says they don't, I just might be persuaded to see the movie some day.
It's a certainty that your sitting there and calling me stupid isn't going to do the trick (btw, see the little pink icon below my username? I'm female, so please don't call me "man", 'k?).
I didn't call you stupid. if you read and comprehended what I said I said your reasons were stupid.
and it's your loss.
And it was more successful then almost any other trek movie ever was. Star Trek needed a reboot like this. I miss the old trek also..but the "I'd rather have no trek then this trek" is equally as dumb...especially since it's obvious old trek isn't going to cut it.
I'm not saying the new trek is superior. But it was needed. And is the only chance we'll get Trek again. So I'm perfectly happy with it.
maybe step down off your pedestal.
So you think it's my loss. You are entitled to think that. I'm entitled to disagree.
I don't measure the quality of a TV show by its ratings or a movie by how much money it makes. I measure its quality by how much I enjoy it.
Please don't put words on my keyboard. I never said I'd prefer no Trek. I'd prefer good Trek. However, that's not what Abrams gave us.
And what pedestal am I on? You're the one making this personal.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
