STONE HIM
Then put him in the pond! If he floats...he's an anti-Trek heretic!
And then, we burn him
But he turned me into a Regulan NEWT!
I got better.
Why does Abrams keeps giving the middle finger to Trek fans?
- Thread starter Danoz
- Start date
- Status
But he turned me into a Regulan NEWT!
I got better.
I have pretty much lost all interest in this movie. It looks like "enterprise" just on the big screen. I might borrow my neighbors DVD if he decides to rent it when it comes out on DVD.
For all my qualms and problems with the NCC-1701 redesign, she is much cooler and better looking than Archer's NX-01 from a century earlier.
Oh crap, it HAS been a while... maybe 0, 10 & 20. I've been busy dammit!
Uh oh....I bought a TOS-E model for $30 off amazon a while ago. Aside from my DVD's and a bunch of books, that's it.
*sweating profusely*
Erm...I'm not much of a theater person...
Crap, did I pass? Damn surveys. No "hangs out on the Trek internet boards" question?
It really depends on how canon the chocolate is.You know, if Hershey were doing a marketing survey and the only question their people asked was "do you like chocolate?" they'd have pissed their money away pretty uselessly.
Stop giving Trek fans the finger.
No, it's good storytelling. Not traditional trek, but no less smart.
For all my qualms and problems with the NCC-1701 redesign, she is much cooler and better looking than Archer's NX-01 from a century earlier.
Well, she should look a lot cooler and more advanced since she's a century later - and now she does. That's the new canon.
Well, let's be honest. Even the old 1960s TOS Enterprise with the old models and f/x techniques was a sexier, more beautiful ship than Archer's.I wouldn't really mind that. This does look much better, though.
For all my qualms and problems with the NCC-1701 redesign, she is much cooler and better looking than Archer's NX-01 from a century earlier.
Well, she should look a lot cooler and more advanced since she's a century later - and now she does. That's the new canon.
Not in all respects.
Well, let's be honest. Even the old 1960s TOS Enterprise with the old models and f/x techniques was a sexier, more beautiful ship than Archer's.
Well, she should look a lot cooler and more advanced since she's a century later - and now she does. That's the new canon.
The Dinky Starfleet toys were sexier than that ship.
Man I loved my Dinky Enterprise. I loved that it could stow the shuttle in the engineering section (accuracy be damned, it was fun) and fire the torpedo discs. Pew pew!
“We weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek. We were making a movie for fans of movies.”
I mean, fine, even the "I've never been a fan of Star Trek" comes into play here.
We all know what he's doing. Why does he need to throw it in our faces? I've come to understand the Star Trek that I know and love will be available to me in the future only in novel form-- but even with your "reimagining" of Trek, do you have to keep shitting on the life-long fans?
I'm admittedly still pretty excited about this movie because I have an open-mind, and I do "like movies." I loved Transformers, X-Men, the Incredible Hulk, and all the cheesy remakes plaguing our society
sigh. do you know what marketing is? he's saying that so people that normally wouldn't see a star trek movie will give it a chance. this is first and foremost a reboot of the franchise to entice more people and not strictly for current fans. i don't understand why people don't get that. he already knows that trek people will either give it a chance or not. that's not what they're after. believe it or not there's a certain image tied to star trek that doesn't appeal to most people and that's what he's trying to get away from and i applaud his efforts. i'm a huge trek fan and i don't mind him saying things like that because i understand what he's trying to do. just because he's doing this doesn't mean he's not a trek fan. the fact that he's given so much thought in trying to reinvigorate it shows that he's dedicated to try and make it not only a trek film but also a film that would appeal to a more broader audience. people just need to take a step back and look what he's really trying to do instead of taking every word at face value. same goes for the people who are harping about a reboot/remake. i am a huge x-men fan, but given the chance to remake the characters and the story, i'd do it so quite drastically. does that mean i don't like it? no, i just want a diff spin on things. it's called imagination. lay off the guy. he's doing a good job so far.
Re: Because Star Trek movies SUCK and LOOSE MONEY
I agreed up until this. They said the same thing about Enterprise. See how true that was? Star Trek is just too big of a name to die permanently.
Even if what you say was true, that's a lousy reason to support a show/movie. If it turns out to be shit, then it deserves to fail.
I agreed up until this. They said the same thing about Enterprise. See how true that was? Star Trek is just too big of a name to die permanently.
Even if what you say was true, that's a lousy reason to support a show/movie. If it turns out to be shit, then it deserves to fail.
I kissed a girl, and I liked it.
I kissed a girl, and I liked it.
I did more than kiss a girl..... and She liked it!!
Should we start citing threesomes? That'll thin the herd rather quickly.
Threesomes -- been there, done that. Next.
Enterprise was not bad. It was better than DS9 or Voyager. To me.
I certainly enjoyed it more than either of those two series, agreed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
