Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by WhateverMan, Sep 22, 2013.
I love the movies, I'm a avid reader so um, where do I fit in?
If you like the Abrams films you obviously live in a wood shed with outdoor "plumbing", reading only porn magazines.
Anything to convince you that 'people' don't all like the movie and thus they aren't that good
I don't think everyone likes the movies. That is an unrealistic expectation. But I do believe the vast majority of Trekkies do enjoy them to one degree or another and I believe the numbers from multiple sources bares that out.
I think it's great that there is a difference of opinion, it just seems like some here dislike the films due to the fact that they simply exist and are parroting points from a few people who are really, really unhappy that Abrams had the gall to go back to TOS.
That made me laugh
A STID fan bemoaning the borrowing of ideas...
That may be true, but for me I just didn't think all of the TWOK quoting worked in STID and I just couldn't enjoy the film after the yell. There were other moments that didn't help, but that was the main thing for me. I can't explain it, that was just my experience. I wish it wasn't, because I really loved the first half of the film. I'm sure if I didn't know TWOK by heart, I would have thoroughly enjoyed the film. I'm not a JJ hater or a parrot. In fact, I'm one of those weirdos who likes Spock+Uhura, lens flares, the effects and most of the acting. I'm hoping for a better experience next time. And I'm glad it was successful. I guess my point is not everyone who didn't like STID is a hater for the sake of hating.
Stay outta mah shed
Could you tell a Khan story, remaining true to his origins and the alternate reality premise, that was any less like Space Seed and Wrath of Khan than Into Darkness was?
1. Dispense with Khan.
2. Make the antagonist the product of 23rd century genetic engineering.
Then it's not a Khan story, but Trek's umpeenth Khan rip-off
Being blatant about it did not necessarily vindicate STID.
Indeed, if they really wanted a fresh perspective on Trek lore, they would almost need to dispense with Khan.
ETA: besides, we only really get TWOK clones in terms of the conflict dynamic. The augment/GE aspect isn't actually well explored in the movies, and only seldom in the series.
I didn't know 91% meant "all". Must be that 'New Math'.
Can't please all of the people all of the time. But they seem to be good to the vast majority. That's good enough in horseshoes, hand grenades and movies named 'Star Trek.
I certainly feel that: TNG, DS9, VOY are the best of Trek [and TV in general...]. Those three shows contain the best acting, the most intruiging storylines & the most mature writing.
So many hundreds of episodes is obviously going to produce some bad episodes, it is almost redundant to point that out. In fact, I think it is a credit to those three shows how FEW truly bad episodes they made.
For me, TOS is quite a poor show [I love it], it just isn't written well enough. ENT [which I also love] took far too long to get going and made too many daft mistakes.
TNG, DS9 & VOY are the pinnacle of the franchise.
Wow. I need a drink.
I notice a trend...the 'get off my lawn' boomers decry 'Berman trek' (which by its nature includes some roddenberry trek, rdm trek, ira trek, Jeri trek.....) because fundamentally they just have an attachment to Kirk as cowboy in space stereotypes. That's why the Abrams movies are ok by them, but this, rather definite golden age (front cover of time and Newsweek for generations? National newspapers here in the UK being part of hype machine for new films and series? Call it too much moneymaking if you like, but I even enjoyed the monthly trek hour on QVC back then.) Is decried for 'technobabble' and other bizarre slights, while the only true trek is one that ends with a fist fight in some sand. I read TOS before I saw it, so I can even think of things like 'spocks brain' in a positive light (the western episode however will always be s#!+ however, even blish can't save that) and I enjoyed STV more than is apparently allowed, helped no doubt by our delayed access to TNG over here meaning that, combined with age at the time, it's actually really good. (Its taken me till my thirties to realise how clumsy TUC is. At least we know shatner got budget screwed...) but the nineties kicked off with the 25th anniversary and all was good until just after the thirtieth. It's really only the star power strangulation killing the TNG movies and the poor idea that was enterprise, combined particularly with the change in mind set after 9/11 that killed trek...and here we are. Abrams makes star wars in treks clothing, but it's whizz bang fist fights again, and Kirk is what a particular generation knows, and never like those damned New treks (I once sat in a cinema trying to politely explain that TNG wasn't an English made remake of TOS just because Patrick Stewart was the captain. That guy was one of those earlier generation fans) so it's times to wheel out the insults last seen in 1987. I find it odd that for my generation of trek fans, and the dwindling numbers in the generation below, for whom the 90s was a golden era, TOS is respected and liked, just maybe not as much as our trinity of TNG, DS9 and VOY perhaps, and we loved the movies as much as any die-hard member of the Trimble era...but...Well, apparently respect doesn't flow both ways. Particularly when those who did love and there fore follow trek in this golden era (and by sheer virtue of number of hours watched, therefore arguably have more experience of trek and its nature) tend to dislike Abrams trek for being the big explosion mess that genuinely causes a negative emotional response for its way of riding rough shod over the franchise we loved, and get...bashed for having that opinion. I long for a golden era again, back in the proper trek universe, because my little boy already watches TNG and DS9 just like I watched TOS and mainly the movies on my dad's knee, and he one day will be building model starships just like me, and just like my dad in the sixties, and I hope he has a new bunch of tv shows to love whilst still respecting what came before. Something that he won't get from the abramsverse, or from people who believe that true trek has Kirk, , everything else is just inferior, liked by inferior people. (Personally I think 9/11 and its affect on the media and public perceptions had a massive influence on where trek went and where it is now, and not in a good way....but that defensive Boomer mentality from some people, very vocally, is hard to ignore)
Oh and to add, after my wall of text, I think you'll find DS9 and Babylon 5 (a) totally different beyond superficial similarities and (b) were in production at pretty much the same time, and identically rip each other off as much as some like to think (Babylon 5 being influenced by trek in general ins one areas is a different story, but as JMS put it, it's heavily mutated )
Poor me a double while you're at the bar, would ya?
If by pinnacle you mean saturation, sure maybe. But quality? Newp. And how do you say TOS is "poor"? By what criteria?
For a 'get off my lawn' type, my DVD shelf is surprising full of Trek that isn't The Original Series. Though TOS is my favorite by a rather large margin. The longer that Berman ran the franchise the duller it got. Even on DS9, it felt like a general malaise had set in and people were going through the motions.
The Abrams movies are okay by me for one simple reason: they're entertaining. They're a great tribute to Star Trek (the one from the 60's) and are forging an identity all their own at the same time.
I need something that's 100 proof to burn some of the things I've seen here from my brain.
Separate names with a comma.