• 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

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.

Obviously, you can pick different aspects of those 22 episodes per season. Abrams & Co went for the skirt chasing, campy humor and over the top action. But that's not to only way to look at it.

Under the requirement that Star Trek movies need to be big budget summer blockbusters, these are neccessary. I could also live with smaller productions that focus on characters and story, and not on eye candy.
 
What old Star Trek is, or isn't about, or the quality of it, has no bearing on my opinion of the last two films.

Aside from the first 40 minutes or so of ST09, these new movies have sucked. They're boring, dumb, and poorly written.

I like the premise of having an alternate timeline. It opens up a world of new possibilities and gives us a chance to see tons of new Trek created with out it being tied to a particular outcome. It's too bad they haven't been able to do anything with it yet.
 
What old Star Trek is, or isn't about, or the quality of it, has no bearing on my opinion of the last two films.
If the films had only been judged by their own merits, then you'd be absolutely right. But they aren't. From the word "go," people have judged them in comparison to the old ones and calling it "not real Star Trek." They've opened the line of questioning.

Aside from the first 40 minutes or so of ST09, these new movies have sucked. They're boring, dumb, and poorly written.
Except they aren't. You're welcome to think that way, but first give one logically sound reason why you do. Pro tip: You haven't yet. And I bet you can't.

Because any and every example of why nuTrek "sucks" that's ever been cited fails the selective recall conformation bias test. Every single one.
 
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."


them maybe people are not been fair and right to compare

two films made by JJ to 79 episodes of star trek.

you cant compare a tv show to a single film.

it is not an even plain field.

This is my 300TH post.:)
 
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."

I had to "dumb it down" for their audience over there. They think everything Pre-Abrams was "Roddenberry from beyond" apparently :lol:
 
Galaxy Quest got it right. Just sayin'.

I would agree. Galaxy Quest is better than most Trek movies.

Because any and every example of why nuTrek "sucks" that's ever been cited fails the selective recall conformation bias test. Every single one.

You can't compute whether a film is good or not purely based on a checklist of items like "explosions" and "revenge". It's all in the execution of those items and how that execution is subjectively perceived.

If it were just a matter of a checklist then every single version of a Shakespeare play ever staged should be liked equally. The story is written in stone. The elements are always the same. But the execution isn't always the same.

On that basis, if you want to do an A/B comparison, it's easy to cite some examples where classic Trek wipes the floor with JJ Trek. For instance, Spock's death in Khan vs. Kirk's death in JJ Trek. For my money, the story rationalization is not there. Having Spock get so emotional is not welcome bordering on camp. As far as just pure storycraft, it sucks. It rips you OUT of the picture whereas Spock's death in Khan drew you further in. So on the surface, there are all these similarities, and yet JJ Trek falls down on the execution.

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?

Because Hollywood directors are a tiny club and everyone pretty much knows and has worked with everyone else.
 
Last edited:
You should read the responses. I swear it's like a Jonestown cult in places.

It is starting to get silly.
Indeed it is. When you start getting into true visions and nobility, you're starting a religion, not watching a television show or series of movies.

They are also incredibly classy:

Para Mobius: If JJ caught on fire would not piss on him or Orci if was on a Star Trek shoot.... i will forward my request to all fans to this site so you can understand my stance.
Jesus Christ!

Holy...
I knew it. Para Mobius is a nutcase.
 
I had to read through that twice before I understood what he was saying. He is not a very stable or mentally healthy human being in the slightest.
 
This guy. Seriously.
Para Mobius said:
JJ Trek IS NOT successful, pure BS, it was denied a TV series from CBS as it has no product sales. The last movie cost Paramount 28% of their financial worth. They had to fire 110 people as damage control in summer of 2013. Most every company that is making products with Bad Robot has canceled. Orci the script writer and would be director for ST3 was fired by Paramount for writing a crappy script... the only reason the other 2 scripts and movies passed was the people at Paramount who created this crazy idea to take back the franchise were there, they now are fired. Paramount is a reluctant partner is making St3... it is only being made as the prior people at Paramount who granted Bad Robot a 3 movie contract extended in by a year before STID in 2012, if was not for this is no chance this movie would be being made and shoved down our throats in 2016 as a Gene tribute... and do not let the talking heads tell you otherwise, if the studios do not listen to us... and we will take the Roddenberry documentary along with logic of the 50 years to the press.... we will tank this movie so bad they will consider Nemisis a success story. The talking heads here representing Bad Robot are trying to tell you that you have no power, if this were REALLY the case JJTrek would be on CBS right now. We have the power, we make the decisions with our wallet.
They're gonna take the Roddenberry documentary (whatever the hell that is) as well as the "logic of the 50 years" (:cardie:) to the presses? Oh no we're doomed!

Also worth pointing out, I posted the ever-declining figures of Trek Prime awhile before being banned, they just replied that I was a Bad Robot plant and that the statistics falsified. When I posted corroborating statistics from a 1999 Trektoday article, they claimed this site was bought and paid for by Bad Robot.
Para Mobius said:
There is a list of about 8 names of people who have at points said they are either good friends with, working with, or have alliances to Bad Robot. I can go back and copy and paste the admissions. Bill Sweet and Jon X are among others on this list.
He's making a list and he's checking it twice!
 
??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.

My point was I think overall, most of the 12 movies to date were very enjoyable in large part because everyone in the cast got something to do.

I include WoK, SfS, TVH, UDC, G, FC, I and ST2009 amongst them.

The sort of movie that starts with you having a smile on your face, finishes with you exchanging high fives when the lights come back on.

:techman:

Not you saying 'is that it' to your buddy.
 
Because any and every example of why nuTrek "sucks" that's ever been cited fails the selective recall conformation bias test. Every single one.

You must think these movies are infallible timeless masterpieces. I mean if EVERY example of suckage in them can be quantifiably dismissed, then these films must be the epitome of perfection. No one that loves these films has any sort of bias at all.

Look here everyone! A big budget, special FX laden, summer action movie for the popcorn-eating masses, that doesn't suck in any way shape or form. In fact, every assertion of it's suckage been disproved!


These movies suck because they're boring and dumb.

I could criticize a script that panders to the established Trek fan base, or talk about the pathetically melodramatic interactions between Spock and his girlfriend, or how Kirk's death scene fails to generate tension, because at no point does most of the audience feel there's a real chance he could actually die for good.

BTW, a guy from the 1990's helps design a technologically advanced space ship 250+ years into the future. I'm sure this can some how be explained by the fact that he is a genetically-engineered human augment. Fantastic.

I could go on and on of course, but it's not actually these things that make the movie "bad." You can pick on nearly any movie for its plot holes, silliness, and implausibilities, but there's a qualitative threshold that exists before it becomes "dumb," and STID exceeds it. It's one notch above Power Rangers level script writing.
 
You must think these movies are infallible timeless masterpieces. I mean if EVERY example of suckage in them can be quantifiably dismissed, then these films must be the epitome of perfection.

This makes no logical sense at all, nor does it address what the previous poster actually said.
 
I was watching some classic TOS last night and I had to laugh at a few things

In I think the episode is "Shore Leave" - (the one with the fantasy planet that makes the things you think about) Kirk spends about 5 minutes having a fist fight with a robo-Finnegan, a yeoman gets her uniform oh so carefully torn, and then in the Organian episode, Kirk and Spock create some giant explosions, and fistfight some Klingons.

Lots of high minded philosophy in those episodes. Certainly could tell that Goddenberry was aiming for a cultural and philosophical masterpiece ;)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top