You and me both.
Why does Abrams keeps giving the middle finger to Trek fans?
- Thread starter Danoz
- Start date
- Status
You and me both.
We wonder about the people in TNZ, too.
Seemed pretty obvious to me from the use of "TM" and the awesome phrase "blam blingity boom YAYYY."I'm pretty sure Devon posted that with tongue firmly planted in cheek. It's satire. I'm almost positive.Nobody can be that dense.
Paramount did it for money.
Gene Roddenberry aslo made some money from franchise. And I recalled seeing him complaining about making money from it.
That's it. I am only start a thread. Watch for it.
Wow.
J.: same message.
God, I hope so.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
A
Amaris
Guest
Good to see I'm not alone.
We wonder about the people in TNZ, too.
I'll take perplexed pity any day!
Yep. Once I went back and read every single post leading up to it, it clicked. I have an excuse. I was very, very tired. That being said, that's what I get for not reading context. For shame.
J.
Abrams wants to make a good movie? The nerve of the man.
I'm very, very happy we're all getting a new TREK film and that Paramount is making it one of its biggest releases for next year...but I can't shake the heebie-jeebies about the visual changes and leaks about continuity violations. As a lifelong fanatic of TREK I can't be blamed for being worried. I have such mixed feelings about this movie at times.
This makes me laugh. I'm sure he'd be satisfied with it making money; I doubt he has any artistic pretence -- at least I hope not...
Oh come on. Trying to make a good movie is like trying to bake a good cake. You don't need "artistic pretense" to try your best.
Abrams has certainly put his heart into this thing, which more than many other reasons allows me to be somewhat optimistic.
Transplanted from trekmovie.com, just in case a certain moderator gets delete-happy again...
* * * * * * *
303. Captain Robert April - December 2, 2008
If they’d just admitted from the get-go that this was going to be a ground floor reboot, there wouldn’t be nearly as much drama going on around here and other boards. The thing would be judged on its own merits and faults, without this implied threat to the already established continuity.
But this “not really a reboot” feldercarb, trying to reshuffle the deck while still claiming an attachment to what’s come before (and by doing so, overwriting it in the official record), THAT is where we start getting into “fightin’ words” territory.
Allow me to just be blunt: WHO IN THE HELL DO THESE BOZOS THINK THEY ARE!?! Not even Berman and Braga at their most arrogant ever thought they could pull off something this far off the mark! And I particularly resent being expected to just shut up, get in line, and hand over my money for a product that, to every indication I can see, has about as much resemblance to Star Trek as an old episode of “The Real McCoys”.
Uh uh. Doesn’t work that way anymore.
You want my money, JJ? You’re gonna have to earn it, and from where I’m sittin’, it’ll be a cold day in hell before I plunk down anything to see a show that played a pivotal role in forming my views of the world and my fellow life forms be treated like a ratty old dishrag.
PS: Maybe "The Real McCoys" is a bad example.
"F Troop" is probably more apt.
* * * * * * *
303. Captain Robert April - December 2, 2008
If they’d just admitted from the get-go that this was going to be a ground floor reboot, there wouldn’t be nearly as much drama going on around here and other boards. The thing would be judged on its own merits and faults, without this implied threat to the already established continuity.
But this “not really a reboot” feldercarb, trying to reshuffle the deck while still claiming an attachment to what’s come before (and by doing so, overwriting it in the official record), THAT is where we start getting into “fightin’ words” territory.
Allow me to just be blunt: WHO IN THE HELL DO THESE BOZOS THINK THEY ARE!?! Not even Berman and Braga at their most arrogant ever thought they could pull off something this far off the mark! And I particularly resent being expected to just shut up, get in line, and hand over my money for a product that, to every indication I can see, has about as much resemblance to Star Trek as an old episode of “The Real McCoys”.
Uh uh. Doesn’t work that way anymore.
You want my money, JJ? You’re gonna have to earn it, and from where I’m sittin’, it’ll be a cold day in hell before I plunk down anything to see a show that played a pivotal role in forming my views of the world and my fellow life forms be treated like a ratty old dishrag.
PS: Maybe "The Real McCoys" is a bad example.
"F Troop" is probably more apt.
I sincerely doubt that. Some people seem to enjoy the drama much more than they enjoy movies. They would just find another rationale for their complaints.
As I've said before. Some people just want to bitch.
Captain Robert April;2358314 Allow me to just be blunt: [B said:
Those 'bozos' are the ones who created half of the continuity problems in the first place, things changing between TOS and the Berman era and then conflicting again between different Berman shows.
I agree that the new 'bozos' should have been more honest, more we are keeping the core but changing facts around it would have been more accurate but then there would still be as much drama. People would still complain that the ship changed, moan they are using Phasers instead of lasers (which there is precedance to ignor lasers but Im not going into that again, they should use the ENT pilot plasma pistols) even the Kelvin which looks like a less adavnced and perfectly reasonable attempt at a TOS ship (never mind the glowy dish) doesnt get spared.
Admit it, you were, are and will moan anyway...but have fun doing so
3D Master
Rear Admiral
JJ was doomed from the beginning. So I think he made the right choice of trying to make the best possible movie that he can about Star Trek to appeal to the broadest possible audience, with the one central theme of Star Trek - optimism. Which I believe he's been described in the EW article as being a pretty big optimist. Which results in stuff like the Enterprise being built on planets. When people said no, he said "YES WE CAN!"
An optimist results in the Enterprise being built on a planet? No, a whining a pessimist is what results in an Enterprise being built planetside. If you were an optimist whole fleets of Starships would be built in a massive construction dock in space.
They should at least respect the subject or franchise though. Abrams doesn't.
JJ was doomed from the beginning. So I think he made the right choice of trying to make the best possible movie that he can about Star Trek to appeal to the broadest possible audience, with the one central theme of Star Trek - optimism. Which I believe he's been described in the EW article as being a pretty big optimist. Which results in stuff like the Enterprise being built on planets. When people said no, he said "YES WE CAN!"
An optimist results in the Enterprise being built on a planet? No, a whining a pessimist is what results in an Enterprise being built planetside. If you were an optimist whole fleets of Starships would be built in a massive construction dock in space.
They should at least respect the subject or franchise though. Abrams doesn't.
Optimistically, would the ship not be built where ever the heart desired? Its a bit pessimistic to think that humans in the future would have their activities dictated by any external consideration. Maybe they flipped a coin and space lost.
Why is this such a big deal for you? Its trivial.
As for Abrams not being a fan, good. It gives him a measure of objectivity so sadly lacking in certain quarters.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
JJ was doomed from the beginning. So I think he made the right choice of trying to make the best possible movie that he can about Star Trek to appeal to the broadest possible audience, with the one central theme of Star Trek - optimism. Which I believe he's been described in the EW article as being a pretty big optimist. Which results in stuff like the Enterprise being built on planets. When people said no, he said "YES WE CAN!"
An optimist results in the Enterprise being built on a planet? No, a whining a pessimist is what results in an Enterprise being built planetside. If you were an optimist whole fleets of Starships would be built in a massive construction dock in space.
They should at least respect the subject or franchise though. Abrams doesn't.
Optimistically, would the ship not be built where ever the heart desired? Its a bit pessimistic to think that humans in the future would have their activities dictated by any external consideration. Maybe they flipped a coin and space lost.
Why is this such a big deal for you? Its trivial.
As for Abrams not being a fan, good. It gives him a measure of objectivity so sadly lacking in certain quarters.
Where the heart demands it is in space, for a whole slew of reasons than just it's the cheapest and best way to do it. If we're not willing to go out there, to dream big and go after them, if we're not willing to work in space not even our essential back yard; why were we ever willing to get off the Earth to begin with? It is antithetical to everything that Star Trek represents.
And that makes it most certainly not trivial. It is the very heart of Star Trek, and one of the most important things in it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
