Reasons to be happy / not happy about a 4th film.
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
- Status
Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
I think it's hard for a non-fan to jump into any ongoing franchise that has a lot of characters and world rules with assumed knowledge of backstory and relationships - especially if there is not a simple ongoing story to hang it on. I think that eventually there was a lot of this stuff in the old movies that insiders, both fans and producers, weren't even conscious was there.
Related to this, I've been reading about all the new characters that are going to be introduced into the Marvel movies, and wondering if this will be what pops the superhero bubble. I know some fans think its cool when a couple of dozen characters are piled up in one epic story, but for outsiders it becomes just "a bunch of silly-looking people fighting for some reason".
I think it's hard for a non-fan to jump into any ongoing franchise that has a lot of characters and world rules with assumed knowledge of backstory and relationships - especially if there is not a simple ongoing story to hang it on. I think that eventually there was a lot of this stuff in the old movies that insiders, both fans and producers, weren't even conscious was there.
Related to this, I've been reading about all the new characters that are going to be introduced into the Marvel movies, and wondering if this will be what pops the superhero bubble. I know some fans think its cool when a couple of dozen characters are piled up in one epic story, but for outsiders it becomes just "a bunch of silly-looking people fighting for some reason".
Heck, almost anything can be titled, Tale.
It's a matter of taste, and we're not going to convert anyone. I love brownies unless they have walnuts or other "texture-changing-devices" in them. They don't belong there. Of course, that's the only kind others will eat.
Well think of it this way, Jell-O is to proper jelly what Miller Lite is to beer (not to try to start an argument, but it's true and everyone knows it is
).
It's jam, you philistines - JAAAAAAAMMM!
Jam is made from crushed fruit. Jelly is made from the juice of fruit. How is this on topic? Darned if I know. Just passing on information for life.
You have to hook in the metaphor or it doesn't work at all.
For example, what I got from JAAAAAAAMMM! was KAAAAAHHNNN!
Imagine the advertising displays this site will get if they put that in the next movie too.
You mean, KHAAAAAAAAAN, of course.
And you have not tasted Jello until you have tested the original Klingon jello, made from the blood of our enemies!
(I'm actually crushed that my earlier "lime soda" bit didn't catch on the way this Jello thing has . . . .)
Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
I liked the stuff in STID involving the repercussions of the destruction of Vulcan/attack on Earth by Nero and how that would potentially chance the path of the Federation moving forward. Marcus deciding along with some others that the Federation was too vulnerable in its current state and trying to do something about it was an interesting potential plotline that ended up becoming somewhat muddled by the end of the film. I wished they had focused more on those philosophical ideas of 'security vs. freedom', something that older ST films/shows focused more on and they came out for the better that way. It would have been interesting had they maybe decided to show in this timeline that due to the Federation being under greater threat, Section 31 and people like them decided to step more out of the shadows to change the course of the union itself. Instead it climaxes in a fistfight between Spock and Khan for whatever reason.
I'm hopeful now that Abrams is off doing Star Wars that we can move things a little bit closer to the original Prime universe, even if it's just a tiny bit. I'm glad to see that the main focus is going to be this alternate 5 year mission. Hopefully we get some new material and not more rehashing.
Yeah STID lost me when they decided to shove a very hamfisted remake of WoK onto the end of what had otherwise been a decent movie. But like you said, there was zero reason for 'Harrison' to turn out to be Khan. They should have just had him be one of the other people who were awoken from cryosleep. In 'Space Seed' he just so happens to be the guy who is accidentally awoken, but it would have been more interesting if Khan hadn't survived the years in stasis and instead another character became the leader of the Augments.
I liked the stuff in STID involving the repercussions of the destruction of Vulcan/attack on Earth by Nero and how that would potentially chance the path of the Federation moving forward. Marcus deciding along with some others that the Federation was too vulnerable in its current state and trying to do something about it was an interesting potential plotline that ended up becoming somewhat muddled by the end of the film. I wished they had focused more on those philosophical ideas of 'security vs. freedom', something that older ST films/shows focused more on and they came out for the better that way. It would have been interesting had they maybe decided to show in this timeline that due to the Federation being under greater threat, Section 31 and people like them decided to step more out of the shadows to change the course of the union itself. Instead it climaxes in a fistfight between Spock and Khan for whatever reason.
I'm hopeful now that Abrams is off doing Star Wars that we can move things a little bit closer to the original Prime universe, even if it's just a tiny bit. I'm glad to see that the main focus is going to be this alternate 5 year mission. Hopefully we get some new material and not more rehashing.
Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
Not to pick a fight but it is all about tone. Text has no tone. There is no vocal inflection, no eyes to give insight in to the poster's state of mind. Instead, I have blank text with which my mind fills in the gaps about the person and their emotional state.
Emoticons are poor for communicating tone. For instance, on another forum a poster told me "F* you, fireproof." If I didn't know the person, or it was in a different context, then that would be offensive. Because of the history there, it isn't.
"Rubbish" may not be a fighting word, in the real world. In the online world, where there are no visual cues, no tonal cues, and no relationship, then words can become very personal and very hurtful.
It may not be intended as hurtful, and that's understandable. But, that doesn't make it any more clear.
As for Abrams films, there has been several years of discussions and arguments back and forth, but sometimes the arguments amount to liltte more that "Abrams Trek sucks!" Throw in some some "true Star Trek" terminology and that was much of the arguments I encountered elsewhere.
I've said this before, but I find simplistic arguments like that to be discussion ending. There is no room for discussion, or exchange of ideas, simply the drawing of battle lines.
I have a very dry, sarcastic, sense of humor. I rarely use it in a forum context because it doesn't come across properly. I have no problem laughing at Star Trek, including Abrams, but much of the time, jabs at it, come across as humorless or angry.
This isn't to single one person out, because I've seen it all over, and know there are differences in fan opinions. Just frustrating to try and bridge that gap without being argumentative.
I agree with a good majority of your points, save for the fight with Khan and Spock at the end, and glad to see Abrams leave.
First of all, you don't pull on Superman's cape. You don't spit at a cop. You pull the mask on the old Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with...Spock:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Also, Abrams, while ultimately the final decision maker on the film, had others telling him to have Khan in this film, and was conceived as far back at the end of 09. Now, I agree that Cumberbatch would be good as just an argumented S31 agent, who goes rouge, but I won't hold his performance against him.
Allow me.
Basically 2 groups, those that either dont want a 4th movie, or care little or none for this alternate rubbish
And the second group is those that are upset with the first group for daring to have an opinion
On the other hand, let's be honest here. Are you really that surprised that some fans see phrases like "alternate rubbish" as fighting words?
On a STAR TREK message board? In the "Movies X+" forum?
If you swung by, say, the Voyager forum and dismissed the entire series as "rubbish," I suspect you would provoke a similar response!
I do not know you, and you may be one of the nicest people on here but if you think "alternate rubbish " are fighting words then you seriously need to get out in the real world and away from your computer.
Why would anyone be so insecure and feel threatened by what a stranger on the net thinks of these alternate movies ?
I accept your point in lambasting something just for the sake of it, but this thread is not about the love for these movies but a persons reason why he is not happy with the idea of a 4th movie....the clue is in the title.
I gave my reasons as to why I am not happy at the thought of a 4th one, and this seems to upset most of .the pro abrams fan, everything else has been a continuation of this , with what I thought was a bit of humor., alas apparently not.
Not to pick a fight but it is all about tone. Text has no tone. There is no vocal inflection, no eyes to give insight in to the poster's state of mind. Instead, I have blank text with which my mind fills in the gaps about the person and their emotional state.
Emoticons are poor for communicating tone. For instance, on another forum a poster told me "F* you, fireproof." If I didn't know the person, or it was in a different context, then that would be offensive. Because of the history there, it isn't.
"Rubbish" may not be a fighting word, in the real world. In the online world, where there are no visual cues, no tonal cues, and no relationship, then words can become very personal and very hurtful.
It may not be intended as hurtful, and that's understandable. But, that doesn't make it any more clear.
As for Abrams films, there has been several years of discussions and arguments back and forth, but sometimes the arguments amount to liltte more that "Abrams Trek sucks!" Throw in some some "true Star Trek" terminology and that was much of the arguments I encountered elsewhere.
I've said this before, but I find simplistic arguments like that to be discussion ending. There is no room for discussion, or exchange of ideas, simply the drawing of battle lines.
I have a very dry, sarcastic, sense of humor. I rarely use it in a forum context because it doesn't come across properly. I have no problem laughing at Star Trek, including Abrams, but much of the time, jabs at it, come across as humorless or angry.
This isn't to single one person out, because I've seen it all over, and know there are differences in fan opinions. Just frustrating to try and bridge that gap without being argumentative.
I agree with a good majority of your points, save for the fight with Khan and Spock at the end, and glad to see Abrams leave.
First of all, you don't pull on Superman's cape. You don't spit at a cop. You pull the mask on the old Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with...Spock:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Also, Abrams, while ultimately the final decision maker on the film, had others telling him to have Khan in this film, and was conceived as far back at the end of 09. Now, I agree that Cumberbatch would be good as just an argumented S31 agent, who goes rouge, but I won't hold his performance against him.
Last edited:
Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
See my sig. It provides for sarcasm.
Fixed that for you.
See my sig. It provides for sarcasm.
Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
But now it doesn't rhyme...
Also, I think you have one of the better sigs, as it covers a variety of topics.
But now it doesn't rhyme...
Also, I think you have one of the better sigs, as it covers a variety of topics.
And it's not "petty and juvenile" to disparage the fans who come here to say they don't like the movies? Neither the thread title nor even the forum title itself say that only pro-nuTrek opinions are allowed here.Exactly. Going to a forum with the purpose of disparaging the subject of that forum and its fans is petty and juvenile. Calling it "humor" doubly so.On the other hand, let's be honest here. Are you really that surprised that some fans see phrases like "alternate rubbish" as fighting words?Allow me.
Basically 2 groups, those that either dont want a 4th movie, or care little or none for this alternate rubbish
And the second group is those that are upset with the first group for daring to have an opinion
On a STAR TREK message board? In the "Movies X+" forum?
If you swung by, say, the Voyager forum and dismissed the entire series as "rubbish," I suspect you would provoke a similar response!
While I've said numerous times that I don't like the movies (for a lot of reasons), not once have I ever called anyone here stupid (or an equivalent adjective) for liking them. People like what they like, and if I can put up with people mocking and disparaging some of the TV shows, movies, and books I enjoy, why can't some of the nuTrek fans?
It doesn't. The basic idea is the same - astronauts find themselves in a future world where humans are regarded as little more than animals and apes rule. There's the good-hearted, intelligent chimpanzee character who befriends the astronauts and defies his own people to help them, and the gorilla and his soldiers whose job is to capture them. But the TV series differs in one important aspect: Humans are not treated quite as badly as in the movies, and they're not mute.
In one of the articles I read about the TV series many years ago, one of the people involved in making it said that they thought the guest stars might like to have some lines instead of not speaking at all.
Do not tell Greg Cox to get away from his computer. In fact, he should spend even more time at his computer, because he is one of the people who writes a lot of the better Star Trek novels, and there can never be enough of those.
Consider it mentioned. I like both, but it depends on the brand and ingredients.(I'm actually crushed that my earlier "lime soda" bit didn't catch on the way this Jello thing has . . . .)Heck, if I post that root beer is better than lime soda, I expect a vigorous debate on the subject. And if I refer to lime soda as "disgusting green swill" . . . well, I kinda figure people are going to challenge me on it.
Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
Again I agree with you, however it is not like I went into every thread in this section to slate abrams and all his movies, it was confined to this thread .
A thread specifically about why a 4th film would not be the wish of some.And yes I expect peoiple to debate and most have but some in here take any criticism as very personal.
I am not oner of these people that cries, gets personally offended, rubs to mods etc if someone says something I dont like, I not only like debate, I relish it, You seems to grasp this, howqever some have this insecure mentality where they expect anyone who disagrees with an abrams movie should not be allowed to state it, that is the issue I object to.
Fair enough. Then again, this is a discussion board and, as you said, nothing is more boring than a thread where everyone agrees with everybody. Including the Original Poster.
If you post that you don't want a fourth movie, you have to expect that people are going want to debate the topic. That's half the fun. It's nothing personal.
Heck, if I post that root beer is better than lime soda, I expect a vigorous debate on the subject. And if I refer to lime soda as "disgusting green swill" . . . well, I kinda figure people are going to challenge me on it.
Where it gets personal, as the moderator cautioned us, is when people start accusing others of having the wrong opinions for the wrong reasons.
As opposed to just debating the pros and cons of numbering sequels or whatever . ...
Again I agree with you, however it is not like I went into every thread in this section to slate abrams and all his movies, it was confined to this thread .
A thread specifically about why a 4th film would not be the wish of some.And yes I expect peoiple to debate and most have but some in here take any criticism as very personal.
I am not oner of these people that cries, gets personally offended, rubs to mods etc if someone says something I dont like, I not only like debate, I relish it, You seems to grasp this, howqever some have this insecure mentality where they expect anyone who disagrees with an abrams movie should not be allowed to state it, that is the issue I object to.
Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
I am reminded of a thread in the Next Generation forum of someone asking what episodes they should show a newbie so they were prepped for ``The Best Of Both Worlds''. I would say ``none'', but could be talked into showing ``Q Who'' or whichever one it was that introduced the Borg in the first place. I would not go so far as to include ``The Neutral Zone'' because even if it sets up the Borg stuff it utterly forgets to have anything happen.
I bailed out on the thread when someone suggested, as far as I could tell in earnest, that it was important to watch ``Where No One Has Gone Before'' so that it would be understandable why this Wesley kid was at the helm.
I am reminded of a thread in the Next Generation forum of someone asking what episodes they should show a newbie so they were prepped for ``The Best Of Both Worlds''. I would say ``none'', but could be talked into showing ``Q Who'' or whichever one it was that introduced the Borg in the first place. I would not go so far as to include ``The Neutral Zone'' because even if it sets up the Borg stuff it utterly forgets to have anything happen.
I bailed out on the thread when someone suggested, as far as I could tell in earnest, that it was important to watch ``Where No One Has Gone Before'' so that it would be understandable why this Wesley kid was at the helm.
I can't imagine Kirks angry racism in TUC would make a whole lotta sense if you haven't seen TSFS. Youd get the broad strokes (kid killed by Klingons), but not really grasp how unreasonable Kirks hatred war. I mean, it could come across as David a little kid being unjustly executed by the Klingon State in an enforced genocide or something.
INS had a similar deal. You'd understand that the Federation was at war, but the lack of any in depth information would make it difficult to grasp the stakes. Why the hell is the manufacture of white so important? Why does it matter that barely warp-capable civilisations are getting involved?
So I'd say there is some merit to prior Trek being a little too incestuous and fan-focused. Though it's not as terrible as all the Internet battles over continuity would suggest.
INS had a similar deal. You'd understand that the Federation was at war, but the lack of any in depth information would make it difficult to grasp the stakes. Why the hell is the manufacture of white so important? Why does it matter that barely warp-capable civilisations are getting involved?
So I'd say there is some merit to prior Trek being a little too incestuous and fan-focused. Though it's not as terrible as all the Internet battles over continuity would suggest.
He may not have been a little kid anymore, but he was unjustly executed...
I don't see how understanding any of that is even remotely necessary to understanding insurrection. The war was way, way, way in the background. They could've removed the whole 'Sona are a dominion ally' concept entirely and still made pretty much exactly the same movie.
David wasn't executed by anybody, he got stabbed during a fight. Saavik was the person about to be executed. But that's me being pedantic - both lead to the same place.
I know they could have cut out the alliance with the Dominion. But they didn't, and it's meant to be a big reveal. So big, that it causes Riker and Troi to go 'whaaaaa?' (followed by annoying flirting.) The Sona are not just douches, they're the enemy that's causing all the damage that the misguided admiral wants to fix!
...too bad for the majority of the audience who has no flipping clue what the exposition actually means. Without DS9's context, it could sound like they're horrified that the Sona are outer space gangbangers. They take over other people's neighbourhood, deal drugs, and posses illegal firearms!
I know they could have cut out the alliance with the Dominion. But they didn't, and it's meant to be a big reveal. So big, that it causes Riker and Troi to go 'whaaaaa?' (followed by annoying flirting.) The Sona are not just douches, they're the enemy that's causing all the damage that the misguided admiral wants to fix!
...too bad for the majority of the audience who has no flipping clue what the exposition actually means. Without DS9's context, it could sound like they're horrified that the Sona are outer space gangbangers. They take over other people's neighbourhood, deal drugs, and posses illegal firearms!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
