• 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!

Justin Lin is directing Star Trek XIII

^ Exactly. Right now, the Big Three are Kirk, Spock, and Uhura, and I'm fine with that. Trying to expand a story artificially in order to accommodate everyone is how movies like Insurrection happen.
 
^ Exactly. Right now, the Big Three are Kirk, Spock, and Uhura, and I'm fine with that. Trying to expand a story artificially in order to accommodate everyone is how movies like Insurrection happen.

Or, just forgetting that a movie needs a solid script with strong characters, goals, and direction is how movies like Insurrection are made...;)
 
^ Exactly. Right now, the Big Three are Kirk, Spock, and Uhura, and I'm fine with that. Trying to expand a story artificially in order to accommodate everyone is how movies like Insurrection happen.

Or, just forgetting that a movie needs a solid script with strong characters, goals, and direction is how movies like Insurrection are made...;)

I think Michael Piller might have had a winner if Berman hadn't allowed Stewart and Spiner a say in the script. A huge missed opportunity.
 
^ Exactly. Right now, the Big Three are Kirk, Spock, and Uhura, and I'm fine with that. Trying to expand a story artificially in order to accommodate everyone is how movies like Insurrection happen.

Or, just forgetting that a movie needs a solid script with strong characters, goals, and direction is how movies like Insurrection are made...;)

Well... yeah. That too. :lol:

^ Exactly. Right now, the Big Three are Kirk, Spock, and Uhura, and I'm fine with that. Trying to expand a story artificially in order to accommodate everyone is how movies like Insurrection happen.

Or, just forgetting that a movie needs a solid script with strong characters, goals, and direction is how movies like Insurrection are made...;)

I think Michael Piller might have had a winner if Berman hadn't allowed Stewart and Spiner a say in the script. A huge missed opportunity.

Agreed. I love Stewart and Spiner, but I've found that actors shouldn't really have a huge say in how the script works. I mean, I agree with the idea of objecting to a certain action or philosophy that runs contrary to the character (for example, Data deciding that killing everyone's a great idea!), but aside from that, input should be very limited.
 
I'm reading a Facebook post by the Enterprise D bridge guys, about comparing the prime universe movies, and the Abrams films, and just reading it tells me the level of self deception with some of these people is off the scale.

It's this image:

10389660_824784260901759_8611323170623308585_n.jpg


You should read the responses. I swear it's like a Jonestown cult in places. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Disliking the movie is fine. People have different tastes. It's the slavish devotion, the denunciation of the sinner, the false doctrine, and that no TRUE devotee of Roddenberry (PBUH) would like J.J. Bink's fake-Trek.

:guffaw:


:guffaw:, :rofl: , :wtf: , :rolleyes:, and finally :confused: I mean really? Just, really?

I respect a lot of different opinions, and if this is what some believe, well, sobeit. And people don't have to like Abrams' Trek, they can even hate it if they want. Still, the above borders on delusional. That's just my opinion, of course. :)

In 2016, the 3rd movie must ensure everyone in the principal cast of 7 has more meaningful roles.

Hell no. If it fits naturally with the story, fine. But treating the second and third stringers as "equals" out of some sense of obligation, complete with line counts and time on screen charts to ensure parity for "the Big Seven"? Again, hell no!

I've always felt this. TOS trek was not an ensemble cast. TMP had very little for anyone other then Kirk, Spock, and McCoy to do. Same with TWOK. It really didn't start to look something like an ensemble until TSFS. Give everyone a meaningful moment and enhance Uhura's role, that's fine, but don't forget the two starring characters have always been Kirk and Spock, with McCoy thrown in for good measure.
 
Last edited:
^ Exactly. Right now, the Big Three are Kirk, Spock, and Uhura, and I'm fine with that. Trying to expand a story artificially in order to accommodate everyone is how movies like Insurrection happen.

Ever-so-slightly disagree. I just don't want them to forget anyone the way Insurrection forgot about Beverly :)

(or, rather, how every TNG movie forgot about Beverly!)

*ahem* But frankly, I thought ST09 did a great job of making sure each of the Big 7 had at least two moments to shine, even though the emphasis was clearly on three. The overall mission would have failed if one of them did. I also thought it was played better here than STID, or TUC for that matter. More screen time for the other 4 wouldn't hurt, but they shouldn't get equal time as the Big 7.
 
I'm reading a Facebook post by the Enterprise D bridge guys, about comparing the prime universe movies, and the Abrams films, and just reading it tells me the level of self deception with some of these people is off the scale.

It's this image:

10389660_824784260901759_8611323170623308585_n.jpg


You should read the responses. I swear it's like a Jonestown cult in places. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Disliking the movie is fine. People have different tastes. It's the slavish devotion, the denunciation of the sinner, the false doctrine, and that no TRUE devotee of Roddenberry (PBUH) would like J.J. Bink's fake-Trek.

I don't like to kick people while they are down, but they make it fun... but please feel free to post this to them (I am not part that group.)

response_zps7cd8ea6c.jpg



Edited: I went ahead and posted it.
 
I'm reading a Facebook post by the Enterprise D bridge guys, about comparing the prime universe movies, and the Abrams films, and just reading it tells me the level of self deception with some of these people is off the scale.

It's this image:

10389660_824784260901759_8611323170623308585_n.jpg


You should read the responses. I swear it's like a Jonestown cult in places. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Disliking the movie is fine. People have different tastes. It's the slavish devotion, the denunciation of the sinner, the false doctrine, and that no TRUE devotee of Roddenberry (PBUH) would like J.J. Bink's fake-Trek.

I don't like to kick people while they are down, but they make it fun... but please feel free to post this to them (I am not part that group.)

response_zps7cd8ea6c.jpg



Edited: I went ahead and posted it.

Tee hee!
 
Thanks! :D

This is why Galaxy Quest is considered great Star Trek. It's a meta example of the fandom in every way. Guy Fleegman may be my hero, after the great Alexander Dane, of course. ;)

Anyway, it's just so clear that these people have deceived themselves into a cycle of wishful thinking. Star Trek's not a poppy show about pewpewpew, it's a show about civic change, and deep social commentary! Yeah! And it's also about trailblazing humanity's future! I mean, look at what J.J. Abrams did! He made Kirk into a fistfighting, womanizing, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants character! He's practically a cowboy! Roddenberry would be rolling in his grave!
I remember Janeway saying many of those same things about Kirk, and even saying he would be tossed out of "today's" Starfleet

Indeed. Really, it depends upon what kind of flavor of Trek you want. I started out on TOS as a kid, and so the new movies are an extension of that era, with the benefit of modern technologies and sensibilities to make it more fully realized. Yet I also enjoy TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. This need to divide people into Real True™ and Obviously Fake™ is absurd. You can like all of it and be a fan, or only like one part of it, and be a fan.

People not liking the Abrams films? Cool with me, to each their own. Making up things about J.J. or the film itself in order to denigrate other fans? Now there's a problem. I also don't like outright lying, or purposeful ignorance. There are some who mistake my need to correct major misconceptions about a film as being against people who dislike the film, and it just isn't so.


Well said. I know I like a lot of films that people don't and don't like a lot films people do, but I certainly do not think that makes me a better (or worse, depending on your view) person because of that.

I don't expect everyone to like every iteration of Trek, but I don't think Abrams Trek somehow deserves to excluded for any meaningful discussion. But, that's just me.
 
I remember Janeway saying many of those same things about Kirk, and even saying he would be tossed out of "today's" Starfleet

Indeed. Really, it depends upon what kind of flavor of Trek you want. I started out on TOS as a kid, and so the new movies are an extension of that era, with the benefit of modern technologies and sensibilities to make it more fully realized. Yet I also enjoy TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. This need to divide people into Real True™ and Obviously Fake™ is absurd. You can like all of it and be a fan, or only like one part of it, and be a fan.

People not liking the Abrams films? Cool with me, to each their own. Making up things about J.J. or the film itself in order to denigrate other fans? Now there's a problem. I also don't like outright lying, or purposeful ignorance. There are some who mistake my need to correct major misconceptions about a film as being against people who dislike the film, and it just isn't so.


Well said. I know I like a lot of films that people don't and don't like a lot films people do, but I certainly do not think that makes me a better (or worse, depending on your view) person because of that.

I don't expect everyone to like every iteration of Trek, but I don't think Abrams Trek somehow deserves to excluded for any meaningful discussion. But, that's just me.

Exactly for both of you (well, all three). As I've said before, there is a lot of variance within the Trek storytelling universe. There's room for Abrams' Trek within that. There are some great stories in TOS, but can anyone seriously say they'd rather sit down to a double feature of "Spock's Brain" and "The Way to Eden" rather than watch STID? Or, maybe they'd want to munch popcorn to the Roddenberry stories "Spectre of the Gun" and "The Savage Curtain", instead. Anyone? That said, ST09 and STID may not rank as high with some as the better TOS episodes do, and at the storytelling level, there may be some room for debate. However, completely dismissing Abrams' Trek as unworthy to Trek is ridiculous, in my opinion.

IDIC exists within the Trek storytelling universe, too. Do we reach?
 
Last edited:
In 2016, the 3rd movie must ensure everyone in the principal cast of 7 has more meaningful roles.

Hell no. If it fits naturally with the story, fine. But treating the second and third stringers as "equals" out of some sense of obligation, complete with line counts and time on screen charts to ensure parity for "the Big Seven"? Again, hell no!

I didn't mean everyone should get equal screen time. Just more meaningful roles for the supporting cast.

Has McCoy cured an epidemic on a planet or the Enterprise yet?

Has Scotty performed a miracle repair?

Has Sulu lead an away team to get 'plot device item' to move the story along etc.

If Paramount wants the next movie to play even better internationally, it needs the story to allow each actor their couple of minutes in the spotlight.

And it only takes 2 female extras exchanging two lines, for the next movie to pass the Bechdel test.

Surely we can tick a few boxes along the away?

:)
 
In 2016, the 3rd movie must ensure everyone in the principal cast of 7 has more meaningful roles.

Hell no. If it fits naturally with the story, fine. But treating the second and third stringers as "equals" out of some sense of obligation, complete with line counts and time on screen charts to ensure parity for "the Big Seven"? Again, hell no!

I didn't mean everyone should get equal screen time. Just more meaningful roles for the supporting cast.

Has McCoy cured an epidemic on a planet or the Enterprise yet?

Has Scotty performed a miracle repair?

Has Sulu lead an away team to get 'plot device item' to move the story along etc.

If Paramount wants the next movie to play even better internationally, it needs the story to allow each actor their couple of minutes in the spotlight.

And it only takes 2 female extras exchanging two lines, for the next movie to pass the Bechdel test.

Surely we can tick a few boxes along the away?

:)

09 did that rather well. Maybe they should go back to a story like that :)
 
Ever-so-slightly disagree.

*Cyke101 was booted for promoting jj.*

I just don't want them to forget anyone the way Insurrection forgot about Beverly :)

(or, rather, how every TNG movie forgot about Beverly!)

*ahem* But frankly, I thought ST09 did a great job of making sure each of the Big 7 had at least two moments to shine, even though the emphasis was clearly on three. The overall mission would have failed if one of them did. I also thought it was played better here than STID, or TUC for that matter. More screen time for the other 4 wouldn't hurt, but they shouldn't get equal time as the Big 7.

That's fair. I think it worked in ST09 because as an origin story, fleshing out major and minor characters is a part of the game. I do agree about Beverly, though. That poor woman was neglected in the TNG films.

I don't like to kick people while they are down, but they make it fun... but please feel free to post this to them (I am not part that group.)

response_zps7cd8ea6c.jpg



Edited: I went ahead and posted it.

Ha! :lol:

Well said. I know I like a lot of films that people don't and don't like a lot films people do, but I certainly do not think that makes me a better (or worse, depending on your view) person because of that.

I don't expect everyone to like every iteration of Trek, but I don't think Abrams Trek somehow deserves to excluded for any meaningful discussion. But, that's just me.

Exactly. There's plenty of room for everyone.

Exactly for both of you (well, all three). As I've said before, there is a lot of variance within the Trek storytelling universe. There's room for Abrams' Trek within that. There are some great stories in TOS, but can anyone seriously say they'd rather sit down to a double feature of "Spock's Brain" and "The Way to Eden" rather than watch STID? Or, maybe they'd want to munch popcorn to the Roddenberry stories "Spectre of the Gun" and "The Savage Curtain", instead. Anyone? That said, ST09 and STID may not rank as high with some as the better TOS episodes do, and at the storytelling level, there may be some room for debate. However, completely dismissing Abrams' Trek as unworthy to Trek is ridiculous, in my opinion.

IDIC exists within the Trek storytelling universe, too. Do we reach?

We reach, brother. ⌂
 
In 2016, the 3rd movie must ensure everyone in the principal cast of 7 has more meaningful roles.

Hell no. If it fits naturally with the story, fine. But treating the second and third stringers as "equals" out of some sense of obligation, complete with line counts and time on screen charts to ensure parity for "the Big Seven"? Again, hell no!

I didn't mean everyone should get equal screen time. Just more meaningful roles for the supporting cast.

Has McCoy cured an epidemic on a planet or the Enterprise yet?

Has Scotty performed a miracle repair?

Has Sulu lead an away team to get 'plot device item' to move the story along etc.

If Paramount wants the next movie to play even better internationally, it needs the story to allow each actor their couple of minutes in the spotlight.

And it only takes 2 female extras exchanging two lines, for the next movie to pass the Bechdel test.

Surely we can tick a few boxes along the away?

:)
??Sulu had the sword fight in ST09 and commanded The Enterprise in STID.
McCoy brought Kirk back from the brink of death in STID after experimenting with the Tribble, as well as working with Carol Marcus on the Torpedo
Scotty had the whole scene on the moon with Keenser, and did the Transwarp Beaming in ST09, and had his bar scenes and then provided Support on The Vengeance in STID

There have been plenty of Moments to shine for the secondary characters
 
I'm still waiting for someone to give me some examples of his work that show he has an eye of personal moments or any kind of heart or emotion of any kind.

He clearly has an eye for action (but it's not like JJ didn't have that). This guys credits kind of scare me. He just doesn't seem capable of delivering the same level of content as ST09 and STID.

People complaining about how Trek is nothing but CGI and action may get their wish with this guy. Perhaps to the point where they will be begging for JJ to come back.

My opinion; he got it for two reasons fast and furious, and he's worked with orci and kurtzman on cbs's 2013 pilot, scorpion.
 
??Sulu had the sword fight in ST09 and commanded The Enterprise in STID.
McCoy brought Kirk back from the brink of death in STID after experimenting with the Tribble, as well as working with Carol Marcus on the Torpedo
Scotty had the whole scene on the moon with Keenser, and did the Transwarp Beaming in ST09, and had his bar scenes and then provided Support on The Vengeance in STID

There have been plenty of Moments to shine for the secondary characters

It seems incredibly odd how faulty the memory is of supposed fans of the franchise. How they forget (or ignore) the social commentary and how they forget (or ignore) that the secondary characters are given something to do in the Abrams films. Yet forget (or ignore) all the explosions, fist fights and other stuff that exist in all the Prime universe series that they complain about in the Abrams films.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to give me some examples of his work that show he has an eye of personal moments or any kind of heart or emotion of any kind.

He clearly has an eye for action (but it's not like JJ didn't have that). This guys credits kind of scare me. He just doesn't seem capable of delivering the same level of content as ST09 and STID.

People complaining about how Trek is nothing but CGI and action may get their wish with this guy. Perhaps to the point where they will be begging for JJ to come back.

My opinion; he got it for two reasons fast and furious, and he's worked with orci and kurtzman on cbs's 2013 pilot, scorpion.

I imagine Lin got the film because he knows how to work with ensemble casts and technically heavy films. Why would Paramount "fire" Orci then hire someone who he's worked with to direct?
 
I'm reading a Facebook post by the Enterprise D bridge guys, about comparing the prime universe movies, and the Abrams films, and just reading it tells me the level of self deception with some of these people is off the scale.

It's this image:

10389660_824784260901759_8611323170623308585_n.jpg


You should read the responses. I swear it's like a Jonestown cult in places. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Disliking the movie is fine. People have different tastes. It's the slavish devotion, the denunciation of the sinner, the false doctrine, and that no TRUE devotee of Roddenberry (PBUH) would like J.J. Bink's fake-Trek.

I don't like to kick people while they are down, but they make it fun... but please feel free to post this to them (I am not part that group.)

response_zps7cd8ea6c.jpg



Edited: I went ahead and posted it.



NICE.............:techman:

One of the things I hate in life is self imposed hypocrisy. JJ Trek especially the first film is the same as rodenberry's trek if you compress 22 episode per season to 1 film.

the only reasons why I did nit like into darkness was because of the reharshing of wrath of khan and some other things but aside from that JJ Abrams has not destroyed star trek.
 
I'm reading a Facebook post by the Enterprise D bridge guys, about comparing the prime universe movies, and the Abrams films, and just reading it tells me the level of self deception with some of these people is off the scale.

It's this image:

10389660_824784260901759_8611323170623308585_n.jpg


You should read the responses. I swear it's like a Jonestown cult in places. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Disliking the movie is fine. People have different tastes. It's the slavish devotion, the denunciation of the sinner, the false doctrine, and that no TRUE devotee of Roddenberry (PBUH) would like J.J. Bink's fake-Trek.

I don't like to kick people while they are down, but they make it fun... but please feel free to post this to them (I am not part that group.)

response_zps7cd8ea6c.jpg



Edited: I went ahead and posted it.

I agree with the general message, but, to be fair, a lot of those shots were from the movies, which Roddenberry had little or nothing to do with. (Heck, he was dead by the time the TNG movies were filmed). A more accurate caption would be "Prime Universe Star Trek."
 
Scotty had the whole scene on the moon with Keenser, and did the Transwarp Beaming in ST09, and had his bar scenes and then provided Support on The Vengeance in STID

I'd love for more McCoy and Sulu scenes, but if you told me 10-20 years ago that Scotty would join Kirk and Khan in a three-man fight to take over a starship, I would have laughed out of disbelief. It was oh-so-nice to see Scotty get down and dirty and get his punches in after all these years. Previously, he got to shoot an assassin, and ... what? Not since TOS did we see him in a fight scene.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top