• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Ideas You Hope To NEVER See In The New Films

Ah, so that's it. How I say my opinion doesn't matter. It's that I say it at all.

You must have an awfully agreeable circle of friends, if you can't stand anybody whose opinions don't "fit in" with yours.
 
In this forum, most of the time discussions about movies go like this:

Poster 1: It was awesome!
Poster 2: It was great!
Poster 3: Amazing!!!
Poster 4: I didn't like it.
Poster 1: Why?
Poster 2: Why?!
Poster 3: WHY??!?!
Poster 4: Because [insert reasons]
Poster 1: You didn't get it.
Poster 2: You're in the minority.
Poster 3: You are totally uninformed.
Poster 5: You suck!
Poster 6: Leave him alone.
Posters 1, 2, 3, 5: Shut the hell up, 6!

And then a moderator comes in and either goes on a banning spree or closes the thread, and sometimes even both. Which doesn't help, because the very same thread gets reposted one or two weeks later and then the same thing happens all over again.
 
In my OPINION, the nuTrek stuff, what I've seen of it,

Which is very little as you admit (you're really devoting more time into this film just so you know.)

Therefore, if any more Star Trek movies are ever made, I would not like to see ANYTHING remotely like the Abramsverse stuff.

You haven't even seen anything remotely like the Abramsverse stuff, you haven't seen it.

I would, however, be open to something that was closer to the original material set out in TOS.

Is that better?

No.
 
The Abrams flick was poorly written! Whether you're pro-reboot or anti, that should not be a controversial opinion. It was just plain bad. The engine room was a fucking brewery. It had lame dialogue. It had poor characterization. It had lens flares. It was bad enough to be on MST3K! I refuse to jump on the "any new Trek is better than no new Trek" bandwagon, and this means I'm arrogant and/or have no taste? Fascinating. Guess I better get busy drinking the Kool-Aid---AbramsTrek 2 is on its way! TOS, TNG, and DS9 were smart TV----some of the Trek films were smart, too. AbramsTrek simply feels dumbed down, and I will not apologize for disliking that fact. Period. Have a nice day.
 
And you don't see anything wrong, or at least close-minded, with judging all possible future AbramsTrek on the merits of one film?

Would you judge TNG on the merits of Encounter at Farpoint?
 
The Abrams flick was poorly written! Whether you're pro-reboot or anti, that should not be a controversial opinion. It was just plain bad. The engine room was a fucking brewery. It had lame dialogue. It had poor characterization. It had lens flares. It was bad enough to be on MST3K! I refuse to jump on the "any new Trek is better than no new Trek" bandwagon, and this means I'm arrogant and/or have no taste? Fascinating. Guess I better get busy drinking the Kool-Aid---AbramsTrek 2 is on its way! TOS, TNG, and DS9 were smart TV----some of the Trek films were smart, too. AbramsTrek simply feels dumbed down, and I will not apologize for disliking that fact. Period. Have a nice day.
You didn't like the movie - so noted. There's nothing wrong with saying so, though, and it certainly doesn't require an apology; not as if you're the first to hold that opinion, after all. Not sure why you felt the angry and defensive verbiage was needed, though.


Now, perhaps we could all get back to talking about things we don't wish to see in the upcoming films? Khan, for example - I would rather they did not spend screen time revisiting that character or story, even if it's an alt version.

Next person: go!
 
And you don't see anything wrong, or at least close-minded, with judging all possible future AbramsTrek on the merits of one film?

Would you judge TNG on the merits of Encounter at Farpoint?

Making the decision to continue watching a show based on the pilot? Absolutely. If you don't like the pilot, you probably won't like the rest.

It would be a difference had the writing team changed, for example. But the people doing the next movie are the very same people that did Trek 2009. See what happened when they brought Meyer and Benett on board after The Motion Picture. A Star Trek II directed by Robert Wise would have been... I dunno. But it can also backfire, no doubt about that. Getting Stuart Baird and John Logan as "fresh blood", for example. Didn't work out too well.
 
How about Khan played by John Barrowman (of Dr Who and Torchwood)? He could even sing Lt Malcom McGyvers a showtune.
 
^No, Barrowman is being saved for the Abrams version of "Way to Eden". Wait till you see the screen test of him bald with hula-hoop ears!
 
Khan 2.0: "Search your feelings, Kirk.

You know this to be true.

I am your father!"

Kirk: "nnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OH!

Oh wait.

Right.

Mama had been banging some frozen Indian guy, the Kelvin found floating in space."
 
No more Spock temper-tantrums. He needs to channel his inner Old-Spock.

:p

I'll go for this, but only if Spock proves he can keep his cool by standing by as Kirk goes through ever personal or racial comment he ever made to drive Spock into a rage in the original show.

"Traitor for a race of traitors!"

"You belong in a circus! Right next to the dog-faced boy!"

"I'm sick of your half-breed interference!"
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top