Why does Abrams keeps giving the middle finger to Trek fans?

[Butters]

But you still fail to answer the question...

Why should I spend money to watch something that looks bad to me just to say to a bunch of internet people that I actually saw it first?

Why not just say "looked like shit, didn't see it" and do something I'm more likely to enjoy instead?

Well thats the then point isn't it. Bitching I mean. Bitching about a film you have no intention of watching is more enjoyable than watching the film itself. And theres nothing else more enjoyable to do than that?

Also, I can't see any of the yaysayers worshipping anything to be honest. A lot of people are excited to see the film and are happy to speculate on what we'll see. Some of us may be extremely disappointed, while others pleasantly surprised.

Its ok to not like the trailer, or the new cast, or the new ship or whatever. But you can't hate, or love, the film until you've seen it, and you can't hope to defend that position.

The Yaysayers say give it a chance
The Naysayers say don't give it a chance. How does that work? How can someone professing to understand the true meaning of trek abide that attitude? The new ship looks funny to me, I admit, I have my reservations, but not enough to stamp my feet and cry 'NO'. Maybe if we had a list of things done wrong so us positivists can hate the film too?

This is my understanding of the hatred:

It looks different to what I know - so what? Its 2009 and aesthetics change
I don't like JJ Abrams other work- don't watch his other work, this is Trek, it might be different
Its appeals to ordinary film goers - pure snobbery, the proles couldn't possibly enjoy something good, therefore the film must be bad, snobbery.
The Enterprise was built in space - yeah, cos submarines are built underwater don't ya know, by scubamen.
But canon, continuity, the rich history - of contradictions and nonsense that really means nothing anyway. Let it go, it doesn't matter.

Are there anyother reasons? I'm sure there must be.

Oh, and as the personal attacks on Abrams and others with creative control, is it really surprising that they avoid places like this and place no value on the opinions expressed here? By all means, vent your anger, but don't expect to make a difference.

 

[3D Master]

To equate building a starship with a submarine is being an idiot with not even a shred of scientific understanding.

The simple fact is, the moment the Enterprise was built upon the ground, they took the heart of Star Trek, everything it is and stood for, cut it up in little pieces, spit on it, and danced on it singing the neener, neener song.

That alone, makes this movie an abomination, and nothing can save it.

 

[Butters]

To equate building a starship with a submarine is being an idiot with not even a shred of scientific understanding.

The simple fact is, the moment the Enterprise was built upon the ground, they took the heart of Star Trek, everything it is and stood for, cut it up in little pieces, spit on it, and danced on it singing the neener, neener song.

That alone, makes this movie an abomination, and nothing can save it.

No it doesn't.

 

[ST-One]

To equate building a starship with a submarine is being an idiot with not even a shred of scientific understanding.

The simple fact is, the moment the Enterprise was built upon the ground, they took the heart of Star Trek, everything it is and stood for, cut it up in little pieces, spit on it, and danced on it singing the neener, neener song.

That alone, makes this movie an abomination, and nothing can save it.

The 'heart of Star Trek' is the Enterprise being build in space?

 

[3D Master]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

 

[JoeZhang]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

 

[Vigilance]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

Abrams was also drawn to the uplifting nature of the story. "I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out right now," he said. "In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast. It was important to me that optimism be cool again."

Oddly enough, your opinion of everything is not universal. It's possible for Abrams to make a trek movie you don't like without destroying the heart of trek.

You are not the arbiter of trek, or optimism or anything else.

Your tastes are subjective.

 

[Devon]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

And that has nothing to do with where the ship is built no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[trekkerguy]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

What in the fuck?

Or it's possible that it's simply easier, safer or more economical in some ways.

Or perhaps it's a movie and sometimes it's better to write something into
the story for cinematic effect than for the sake of "canon" which by the
way has only established that in later periods some or a majority of ships
were built in space. It has never been shown or said that none are built
on the surface, and nothing on the subject was ever shown or said about
in the TOS or pre-TOS era.

It's also possible that in such an optimistic era it really doesn't matter...

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

And that has nothing to do with where the ship is built no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[Kryton]

The Finger...there's only ONE MAN who would DARE give me the finger! J.J. Abrams.

 

[M'Sharak]

To equate building a starship with a submarine is being an idiot with not even a shred of scientific understanding.

To continue finding ways of calling someone an idiot without using the words "you're an idiot" is going to bite you one of these times. I'd strongly recommend you simply stop it now.

The simple fact is, the moment the Enterprise was built upon the ground, they took the heart of Star Trek, everything it is and stood for, cut it up in little pieces, spit on it, and danced on it singing the neener, neener song.

Balderdash. That's complete nonsense.

That alone, makes this movie an abomination, and nothing can save it.

We get that you think that. We can practically recite it from memory; what may once have been an opinion has been repeated so many times that it's become no more than a tired harangue.

Saying, in essence, "I'm right, and you're all wrong" ad nauseam hasn't done the trick so far. Whom, exactly, do you think you're going to convince by beating that same drum, one more time? You're adding nothing new, and I honestly can't see what you hope to accomplish with this approach beyond simple aggravation of other posters.

Here's a suggestion: find something else to talk about. Find a topic in which the discussion isn't over for you with the very first sentence you write. Maybe it will make you happier in a way that this subject clearly does not.

 

[StarTrek1701]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

That's your opinion. Doesn't make it a fact at all. You have hang ups about your version of Trek, which is fine, but nobody cares about it anyways. I am more than happy that the irrational crazy fanatics wouldn't be going to the theatres so I'll be enjoying the movie with true Trek fans.

 

[3D Master]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

Abrams was also drawn to the uplifting nature of the story. "I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out right now," he said. "In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast. It was important to me that optimism be cool again."

Oddly enough, your opinion of everything is not universal. It's possible for Abrams to make a trek movie you don't like without destroying the heart of trek.

You are not the arbiter of trek, or optimism or anything else.

Your tastes are subjective.

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

That's your opinion. Doesn't make it a fact at all. You have hang ups about your version of Trek, which is fine, but nobody cares about it anyways. I am more than happy that the irrational crazy fanatics wouldn't be going to the theatres so I'll be enjoying the movie with true Trek fans.

It's not taste, it's cold hard fact. You might not like it, and put your fingers in your ears, and go, "I don't want facts to get in my way. I don't want facts to get in my way." But that doesn't mean it's not a fact. And whether or not Abrams THINKS he's producing a movie with "optimism" also doesn't matter.

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

And that has nothing to do with where the ship is built no matter how you try to spin it.

Oh, yes it is. And if you followed the discussion on the building on the ground vs in space, you'd know why. And you might want to ignore those facts, but that doesn't make them any less facts.

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

What in the fuck?

Or it's possible that it's simply easier, safer or more economical in some ways.

Again, we've explained this a hundred times over. NO, it's NOT easier, NOT safer, NOT more economical in ANY way.

Or perhaps it's a movie and sometimes it's better to write something into the story for cinematic effect than for the sake of "canon" which by the way has only established that in later periods some or a majority of ships were built in space. It has never been shown or said that none are built on the surface, and nothing on the subject was ever shown or said about in the TOS or pre-TOS era.

It's also possible that in such an optimistic era it really doesn't matter...

Canon has got nothing to do with it. Scientific knowledge, and logic DOES. Cinematic EFFECT does NOT trump this, if the result is an empty, meaningless pile of junk of a movie, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, attacking the very heart of everything that is Star Trek. Not canon: the HEART.

The simple fact is, the moment the Enterprise was built upon the ground, they took the heart of Star Trek, everything it is and stood for, cut it up in little pieces, spit on it, and danced on it singing the neener, neener song.

Balderdash. That's complete nonsense.

No, it isn't. It's a fact. You might want to ignore this fact, you might want to ignore the logic that's behind it, but that doesn't mean the fact and the logic went away.

That alone, makes this movie an abomination, and nothing can save it.

We get that you think that. We can practically recite it from memory; what may once have been an opinion has been repeated so many times that it's become no more than a tired harangue.

Saying, in essence, "I'm right, and you're all wrong" ad nauseam hasn't done the trick so far. Whom, exactly, do you think you're going to convince by beating that same drum, one more time? You're adding nothing new, and I honestly can't see what you hope to accomplish with this approach beyond simple aggravation of other posters.

Here's a suggestion: find something else to talk about. Find a topic in which the discussion isn't over for you with the very first sentence you write. Maybe it will make you happier in a way that this subject clearly does not.

This discussion wasn't over the very first sentence I wrote, I wouldn't be needing to write these sentences now would I? Besides, I didn't say "I'm right, and you're all wrong", I explained WHY. But some people are incapable of grasping logic and simply keep repeating false claims, as if no one has already refuted those claims and shown why the claims are false.

 

[trekkerguy]

 

[JoeZhang]

Can we slip "Conwin'd"! into the title of this thread?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I still can't understand a ST fan choosing not to see a new ST movie. Even the really substandard ST movies have been worth my price of admission on opening night, even if only so I have something to smirk about later.

I also can't understand why some people say there should be no more ST adventures at all, refusing to give this new one any chance - as if they can somehow preserve the ST that's already been made, or some bits of it, and keep it like a museum piece - because that decision would prevent me, and the rest of us, from seeing any more.

The thought that fans of ST really think that JJ Abrams is sitting in an office somewhere making rude gestures at them, actually or figuratively, is simply... bizarre.

 

[ST-One]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

 

[Bishbot]

The heart of Star Trek is an optimistic future where humanity has improved itself.

A future where the Enterprise has to be built on the ground, is either a future where 99% of humanity is uneducated and irrationally afraid of working in space, or where there is a collective apathy for anything related to space travel.

That would be a PESSIMISTIC future where humanity has REGRESSED to be even worse than we are now.

And thus the destruction of the very heart of Star Trek.

How often, when watching the series, did you stop to consider where The Enterprise was built? Almost never? Yes, I too assumed that the ship had been built in space, and, had I written this new film, would probably have had that be the case, but to suggest that such a trivial detail would ruin this one film, let alone the spirit of Star Trek itself is, to put it more mildly than it deserves, abject lunacy. The heart of Star Trek is what happens after the ship gets underway, not where it was built.

 

[Vigilance]

It's not taste, it's cold hard fact. You might not like it, and put your fingers in your ears, and go, "I don't want facts to get in my way. I don't want facts to get in my way." But that doesn't mean it's not a fact.

What fact is that?

I haven't seen you muster a single fact in your posts so far.

Please tell me, objectively, how your opinions are worth so much more than mine.

This discussion wasn't over the very first sentence I wrote, I wouldn't be needing to write these sentences now would I? Besides, I didn't say "I'm right, and you're all wrong", I explained WHY. But some people are incapable of grasping logic and simply keep repeating false claims, as if no one has already refuted those claims and shown why the claims are false.

Here's my claim:

Everything you post here is your fucking opinion, and everyone can disagree with you.

Nothing you have posted is fact.

Or logic.

You're being a child and throwing a temper tantrum and hoping that if you bluster long enough, hold your face till its red, all the adults in this conversation will give in and agree with you.

It's absurd.

And all it does is make you look like a spoiled child who can't wrap his special, pointed little head around the fact that people can come to different opinions than his, and have those differing opinions be just as legitimate.

 

[M'Sharak]

The simple fact is, the moment the Enterprise was built upon the ground, they took the heart of Star Trek, everything it is and stood for, cut it up in little pieces, spit on it, and danced on it singing the neener, neener song.

Balderdash. That's complete nonsense.

No, it isn't. It's a fact. You might want to ignore this fact, you might want to ignore the logic that's behind it, but that doesn't mean the fact and the logic went away.

There is neither fact nor logic anywhere in that statement. It is nothing more than an assertion of your opinion, and no insistence otherwise on your part will make it in any way fact or logic.

That alone, makes this movie an abomination, and nothing can save it.

We get that you think that. We can practically recite it from memory; what may once have been an opinion has been repeated so many times that it's become no more than a tired harangue.

Saying, in essence, "I'm right, and you're all wrong" ad nauseam hasn't done the trick so far. Whom, exactly, do you think you're going to convince by beating that same drum, one more time? You're adding nothing new, and I honestly can't see what you hope to accomplish with this approach beyond simple aggravation of other posters.

Here's a suggestion: find something else to talk about. Find a topic in which the discussion isn't over for you with the very first sentence you write. Maybe it will make you happier in a way that this subject clearly does not.

This discussion wasn't over the very first sentence I wrote, I wouldn't be needing to write these sentences now would I?

There is nothing you've written in this thread in the last couple of weeks which needed to be written.

Besides, I didn't say "I'm right, and you're all wrong"...

You're saying it now; you've said it several times in this very post. You say it in nearly every post you make.

... I explained WHY. But some people are incapable of grasping logic and simply keep repeating false claims, as if no one has already refuted those claims and shown why the claims are false.

You may have thought you were explaining why. You may even have cited facts which, properly presented, might have made a convincing argument. But presenting anything in the insulting, condescending tone which you bring to every discussion -- presenting anything in the relentless, aggressive, browbeating manner you consistently employ -- would make even the best, most unassailable argument sound like uniformly inarticulate yowling. And I don't think your argument has ever been the best or even remotely unassailable; challenges have been given to large parts of it and you have brushed these off in the same dismissive fashion you use all of the time. The overwhelming tone of it still boils down to "I'm right. You're wrong, and I think you're all idiots."

You might want to check that, because it isn't convincing anyone. It only makes you tedious.

Can we slip "Conwin'd"! into the title of this thread?

Naah, I think I'll just close it. We're long past done here.