No they don't just hate him because he changed Star Trek. But because he led Star Trek to a very different path und changed Star Trek INDEFINETLY.
It would be naive to think that the JJ movies don't have a lasting effect on the 'original' universe. The last Star Trek movie was a shiny, full-of-action, over the top teen movie that made a lot of people go to the cinema who never watched Star Trek before. It's only logical to expect the next JJ movie and a potential new series to be of the very same kind.
Most of what I liked about Star Trek in the past won't translate into a new movie or a new series. For me Star Trek is about social criticism, interesting technical and environmental phenomenons and the peaceful overcome of obsticles (despite the Dominon war). Nothing of this could be found in the last movie.
It's naive to think that an alternate universe version of Star Trek (which JJ's movie was), changes the original in any way, imo :rolleyes: There's a reason why they call it an alternate universe... because other than the cutoff point, they don't share much in common. The original goes in one direction in the timeline, while the new one continues at the same rate in time in a different direction.
Which is the point: the Star Trek that you love, still exists. The new Trek, embodied by this movie, will go on regardless. They're completely seperate, even as they're the same name of a franschise.
Blaming this new Trek to be changing Star Trek indefinitely, despite the fact that the original still exists and is untainted, because this movie is seperate from it... I find that illogical of many people, personally.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
someone that says they dont like star trek isnt the best person to make a trek film
He said that, but he played it up more than anything. Exaggerated, even He also said he'd never seen Nemesis because to him, Star Trek was about Kirk and Spock, and his general knowledge of ST made him the ideal person to bring a new film to a general audience.
Though he has admitted to liking Star Wars more as a child.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
It's naive to think that an alternate universe version of Star Trek (which JJ's movie was), changes the original in any way, imo :rolleyes: There's a reason why they call it an alternate universe... because other than the cutoff point, they don't share much in common. The original goes in one direction in the timeline, while the new one continues at the same rate in time in a different direction.
Which is the point: the Star Trek that you love, still exists. The new Trek, embodied by this movie, will go on regardless. They're completely seperate, even as they're the same name of a franschise.
Blaming this new Trek to be changing Star Trek indefinitely, despite the fact that the original still exists and is untainted, because this movie is seperate from it... I find that illogical of many people, personally.
This ^^
JJ has not come to your house and smashed your brand new copy of TNG on Blue Ray. All the Star Treks continue to exist in their original form in their original universe.
Would you say that "Yesterday's Enterprise" completely invalidates everything that went before? That was an alternate universe episode. Trek has done dozens of alternate universe episodes, none of which has ruined the entire franchise, nor do the new movies.
The great thing about Star Trek is that there is so much of it that it really can be all things to all people. Over the 46-year history of Star Trek there has been romance, social commentary, science, religion, humor, conflict, redemption, death, life, birth and ungodly amounts of great space battles. Doesn't matter what you're in the mood for, Trek has it.
For me it sort of comes down to this: if don't like the new movies, ain't nobody forcing you to watch them. If you're in the mood for something other than a rip-roaring space opera, there's plenty of Trek you can still watch.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I don't know what others think but I am not claiming that JJ has destroyed Star Trek, I enjoyed the film as an action flick, but what disappointed me and what is still disappointing me is that the films are becoming just that, action flicks. Lots a explosions, lots of special effects, I'm sure I will enjoy that in the next film, but brains are optional now, there is no more deeper meaning, no social commentary, nothing to make you think. A feast for the senses but zero calories for the brain, that's why it just doesn't feel like a Star Trek film.
And this is how it will be from now on, the original stories may continue to exist but there will be nothing of substance added. This new Trek is a dimwitted hyperactive descendant of the Trek I knew and enjoyed. I'll likely watch the new film and probably enjoy it as an action film, but it won't really be Star Trek to me.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Looks like JJ is bringing Batman into the Trek universe....:eek:
Or Neo has been Cloned and is bringing the people of Zion back to the surface - seriously they could just photo shop the title to "The Matrix - Reborn" and the internet would go wild.
They wouldn't give Frakes a show about Titan...but they thought that letting J.J. "no imagination" Abrams loose on the IP of the sainted Gene Roddenberry would be a good idea...at least I have my novels and STO to keep the real Star Trek alive...
I really dont see the problem, other than it steals the design from the dark night rises.
Half the franchise has has some evil force or megalomaniac trying to blow something up, or cause destruction or seek revenge. khan in II, the whale probe in VI, Soron in generations, the borg in first contact, shinzon in nemsis, nero in XI.
There are tons of evil creatures in every single series. we had an entire series in ds9 that was very focused on war and conflict. the crews family have been killed at times, crew members have suffered senseless deaths. planets have been destroyed, no one seems to mind all that, because that was old trek and that could do no wrong now?
i swear that its just people have taken a disliking to JJ. If this poster was being made under the former writers, and showed the borg standing over an assimilated earth, or the doomsday device hovering over a destroyed planet, everyone would be geeking out like there is no tomorrow. people seem to just want to hate on it now because its JJ. evident that some have concluded the film will suck based on a single picture, because it's not all roses and sunshine?
would you conclude ds9 sucked based on the damage done to starfleet academy by the breen, or tng by the battle at wolf 359? its a teaser to set up the conflict, the threat that must be stopped, like they have stopped a hundreds times before in every series.
there is this notion that star trek is about hope for the future. no, only the federation is about hope for the future. the rests of the galaxy is more often than not trying to destroy them. all those red shirts did not die in accidents.
There are other concerns and issues besides the terrible poster.
Yes, every movie had some evil or malevolent antagonist that had to be overcome. In the Search for Spock it was death itself, one could argue that it was blind faith in The Final Frontier and besides General Chang it was essentially fear or intolerance. Even in the newer films there were more abstract ideas that were used as obstacles to be overcome. Like revenge in Insurrection.
THAT's the main issue. All of the old films and series (with the exception of Enterprise in my opinion, sorry to any fans) had action and excitement, but they also had deeper themes and they actually made you think and reevaluate your own views and feelings. The show and films moved with the times and drew from the events that were occurring in the world at the time. All the "senseless" things in the other series and films were used either at the time or later on as ways of tackling pretty serious issues, usually to great effect (the death of Tasha Yar for example is used numerous times especially with Data, usually to discuss the ideas of loss, grief and the ability to cope after the death of a loved one, as well as Jack Crusher and Jennifer Sisko).
In fairness, I don't like Abrams, but not just because I didn't like Star Trek. Frankly I think he's a poor writer, director and whatever else he does. I find he has a serious lack of imagination and as a result continues to use the same idea over and over again without it ever developing into anything more. That is something that was never a problem with previous incarnations of Star Trek. Each episode was something interesting and new and different. Even if the idea had been used before it was usually given an interesting and creative twist.
Another thing that has always been present is a strong connection to culture, history and literature. Even in the films (the comparison that Lily draws between Picard and Captain Ahab in First Contact and Khan's last words, which are also from Moby ****, also vast amounts of Shakespeare and other very well known writers and poets) there is a connection with these things that points to the fact that humanity has become more enlightened. This was nowhere to be found in the 2009 film.
Star Trek has also been more lighthearted and humorous in all its previous forms. Abrams film just didn't have that. There were (bad) jokes, like Kirk's hands and tongue swelling up and the inexplicable transformation of Scotty into an incompetent buffoon...but that's not what I'm talking about. The only humour in the 2009 Star Trek was the Will Ferrell brand of obvious and over the top spit take inducing humour, which is fine in its place, but not so much in Star Trek. But the subtle and lighthearted feeling was not there.
Star Trek is, was and always should remain about hope for the future and for humanity. Yes, the galaxy was a rough place, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Borg, there were a lot of people out to get humanity. But humanity prevailed. No matter how dark things got we held to our principles (with a few exceptions to prove the rule) and came out stronger. There's a reason that the Klingons, Romulans and Borg are there and it's to show how we can be better. All those species are us at our worst, but the Federation and Starfleet are meant to show how good we can and should be. DS9 and Voyager got away from that a little, which is to be expecting since Gene was no longer around, but they still came back to that basic idea. In DS9 the Federation was pushed to its very limits but prevailed and in Voyager Janeway (almost always) stuck to the principles of the Federation instead of breaking with those principles even though it could have meant getting home faster.
People aren't judging it based purely on a poster and the fact Abrams is behind it. They're judging it on what they got last time. A lot of people were really disappointed because what they got was Star Trek stripped to its bare parts of space, ships and fighting, but all the heart was gone.
As an action oriented popcorn flick...okay I can accept it (even though I still thought it was terrible, just as a movie, even if it hadn't been a Star Trek movie) but as Star Trek I will never accept it, alternate timeline or not. I have to say that was the only saving grace (but hardly surprising since alternate realities seem to be Abrams bread and butter) since technically it doesn't effect the original timeline and allows for the prime universe to exist unchanged within the canon.
I didn't like the first one, I doubt I'll see this one and I can only hope that it ends soon and we get something that takes us back to what Star Trek was meant to be, although I fear that now that will be impossible.
If you liked the movie, that's fine, you're entitled to your own opinion and this wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. This is just my opinion of it and why I think other people have a problem with these new movies. It's not just because we don't like J.J...Star Trek has been around consistently, in one form or another, longer than pretty much any other series in history. It means a lot to a vast amount of people and you can't just radically change the substance of something like that without upsetting a lot of people.
EDIT: It depresses me that the name of a great piece of literature was starred out as an inappropriate word...See if you can spot it.
2002: Star Trek Nemesis debuts. It is, to say the least, a critical failure.
2001-2005: Star Trek Enterprise runs. It, too, does not attain anywhere near the praise of its predeccessors. (I loved it, personally, but that's irrelevant.)
Following ENT's cancellation, the Trek franchise remains stagnant for a good four years - a first since TNG started up. Then, JJ Abrams makes a movie of his own. It is, both commercially and critically, a monster success. Two sequels are planned. New fans pop up every day, many of whom quickly become hooked on TOS and the other classics.
My point is this: while the Abrams movie may not have been traditional, it quite probably saved the Star Trek franchise.
This new one promises to be dark. Earth is thrown into crisis. Kirk's family apparently die out. Things seem hopeless. But as Bane put it in the last Batman movie, "there can be no despair...without hope."
The theme so prevalent in classic Trek - an enlightened humanity that strives for a better future - might make a comeback. It could even be the entire theme of this next movie.
So don't condemn Star Trek Into Darkness yet. For all we know, it could be the one that brings AbramsTrek in line with that optimistic theme we all love so much.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
The Sexual Revolution ended 40 years ago and you guys lost. Accept it.
Ya and now we have so many wonderful STDs to enjoy.
That said, Star Trek has had plenty of scenes where various characters are getting intimate but never any sex scenes, it isn't needed, would only cheapen the story and would blow the hell out of the films rating.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
I mustn't be much of a Batman fan. My first thought when I saw that poster was "Did they photoshop the reapers out?" It reminds me very much of the visuals in the mass effect 3 intro.
My only hope for this one is a more coherent story that doesn't require further explanation in book/comic form and a much better motivation for the antagonist.
While the 2009 movie was technically decent (tolerable story, filming that is as good as any other movie in recent years, acting that is at least half good) the problems I am having with this is that it is like every other movie that has come out in the last five years. That is to say, filled with as many shootouts, explosions, people hanging off ledges, et cetera... that they can possible cram into 2-3 hours. If I want to watch what WWIII will probably be like, I will go watch some of the Terminator movies. As it is, when I watch Star Trek, that is what I expect to see. And as much as I would like to be optimistic about this next movie, realistically the odds that Abrams will actually try to appease us true Trek fans are highly improbable.
The problem that we are seeing with these new movies is the exact same issue we've been dealing with here in the STO community, that being that it only exists so someone can make money off of someone else. They do not truly care about the series or what anyone wants it to be, all they care about is how they can make the most money for the least effort.
All this being said, I will still probably be one of the first people in that theater watching Star Trek: Into Darkness. :P
The theme so prevalent in classic Trek - an enlightened humanity that strives for a better future - might make a comeback. It could even be the entire theme of this next movie.
The problem is that in 2009 (and likely in the sequel), Humanity is not depicted as striving for a better future, nor as enlightened as the TV series pointed out.
In the Abramverse it is just another futuristic Human military space organization.
That is the problem.
Ignum CampaignNWS-DBBV2EY9G "The quest for the Book of Ignum"
It is, both commercially and critically, a monster success.
you sure are talking about the 2009 jj s**t trek?
That was never considered a success.It was in meh category .Mean girls had better success than 2009 JJ Lens Flare Trek lol
Meh category is not a scuccess.20$ profit is not considered a success.
Comments
He is not meant to be khan either.
He leaps out on female crew and exposes his lense flare at them
(JOKE)
...okay looks like I need to go back and check the leaked intel. But I was sure this movie was to feature Khan.
I LOL'd at Flasher.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
Which is the point: the Star Trek that you love, still exists. The new Trek, embodied by this movie, will go on regardless. They're completely seperate, even as they're the same name of a franschise.
Blaming this new Trek to be changing Star Trek indefinitely, despite the fact that the original still exists and is untainted, because this movie is seperate from it... I find that illogical of many people, personally.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
/Please be Ben Finney.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
He never went
After all you can't transit a black hole
the entire JJ verse is based on impossible physics (Red matter?? )
so is beaming (as it is presented in trek), and many other "physics" stuff in star trek
Seen these new 3D printers??
wow whats with the leather fetish
i wish jj never got his hands on trek.
someone that says they dont like star trek isnt the best person to make a trek film
Though he has admitted to liking Star Wars more as a child.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
This ^^
JJ has not come to your house and smashed your brand new copy of TNG on Blue Ray. All the Star Treks continue to exist in their original form in their original universe.
Would you say that "Yesterday's Enterprise" completely invalidates everything that went before? That was an alternate universe episode. Trek has done dozens of alternate universe episodes, none of which has ruined the entire franchise, nor do the new movies.
The great thing about Star Trek is that there is so much of it that it really can be all things to all people. Over the 46-year history of Star Trek there has been romance, social commentary, science, religion, humor, conflict, redemption, death, life, birth and ungodly amounts of great space battles. Doesn't matter what you're in the mood for, Trek has it.
For me it sort of comes down to this: if don't like the new movies, ain't nobody forcing you to watch them. If you're in the mood for something other than a rip-roaring space opera, there's plenty of Trek you can still watch.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And this is how it will be from now on, the original stories may continue to exist but there will be nothing of substance added. This new Trek is a dimwitted hyperactive descendant of the Trek I knew and enjoyed. I'll likely watch the new film and probably enjoy it as an action film, but it won't really be Star Trek to me.
Or Neo has been Cloned and is bringing the people of Zion back to the surface - seriously they could just photo shop the title to "The Matrix - Reborn" and the internet would go wild.
There are other concerns and issues besides the terrible poster.
Yes, every movie had some evil or malevolent antagonist that had to be overcome. In the Search for Spock it was death itself, one could argue that it was blind faith in The Final Frontier and besides General Chang it was essentially fear or intolerance. Even in the newer films there were more abstract ideas that were used as obstacles to be overcome. Like revenge in Insurrection.
THAT's the main issue. All of the old films and series (with the exception of Enterprise in my opinion, sorry to any fans) had action and excitement, but they also had deeper themes and they actually made you think and reevaluate your own views and feelings. The show and films moved with the times and drew from the events that were occurring in the world at the time. All the "senseless" things in the other series and films were used either at the time or later on as ways of tackling pretty serious issues, usually to great effect (the death of Tasha Yar for example is used numerous times especially with Data, usually to discuss the ideas of loss, grief and the ability to cope after the death of a loved one, as well as Jack Crusher and Jennifer Sisko).
In fairness, I don't like Abrams, but not just because I didn't like Star Trek. Frankly I think he's a poor writer, director and whatever else he does. I find he has a serious lack of imagination and as a result continues to use the same idea over and over again without it ever developing into anything more. That is something that was never a problem with previous incarnations of Star Trek. Each episode was something interesting and new and different. Even if the idea had been used before it was usually given an interesting and creative twist.
Another thing that has always been present is a strong connection to culture, history and literature. Even in the films (the comparison that Lily draws between Picard and Captain Ahab in First Contact and Khan's last words, which are also from Moby ****, also vast amounts of Shakespeare and other very well known writers and poets) there is a connection with these things that points to the fact that humanity has become more enlightened. This was nowhere to be found in the 2009 film.
Star Trek has also been more lighthearted and humorous in all its previous forms. Abrams film just didn't have that. There were (bad) jokes, like Kirk's hands and tongue swelling up and the inexplicable transformation of Scotty into an incompetent buffoon...but that's not what I'm talking about. The only humour in the 2009 Star Trek was the Will Ferrell brand of obvious and over the top spit take inducing humour, which is fine in its place, but not so much in Star Trek. But the subtle and lighthearted feeling was not there.
Star Trek is, was and always should remain about hope for the future and for humanity. Yes, the galaxy was a rough place, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Borg, there were a lot of people out to get humanity. But humanity prevailed. No matter how dark things got we held to our principles (with a few exceptions to prove the rule) and came out stronger. There's a reason that the Klingons, Romulans and Borg are there and it's to show how we can be better. All those species are us at our worst, but the Federation and Starfleet are meant to show how good we can and should be. DS9 and Voyager got away from that a little, which is to be expecting since Gene was no longer around, but they still came back to that basic idea. In DS9 the Federation was pushed to its very limits but prevailed and in Voyager Janeway (almost always) stuck to the principles of the Federation instead of breaking with those principles even though it could have meant getting home faster.
People aren't judging it based purely on a poster and the fact Abrams is behind it. They're judging it on what they got last time. A lot of people were really disappointed because what they got was Star Trek stripped to its bare parts of space, ships and fighting, but all the heart was gone.
As an action oriented popcorn flick...okay I can accept it (even though I still thought it was terrible, just as a movie, even if it hadn't been a Star Trek movie) but as Star Trek I will never accept it, alternate timeline or not. I have to say that was the only saving grace (but hardly surprising since alternate realities seem to be Abrams bread and butter) since technically it doesn't effect the original timeline and allows for the prime universe to exist unchanged within the canon.
I didn't like the first one, I doubt I'll see this one and I can only hope that it ends soon and we get something that takes us back to what Star Trek was meant to be, although I fear that now that will be impossible.
If you liked the movie, that's fine, you're entitled to your own opinion and this wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. This is just my opinion of it and why I think other people have a problem with these new movies. It's not just because we don't like J.J...Star Trek has been around consistently, in one form or another, longer than pretty much any other series in history. It means a lot to a vast amount of people and you can't just radically change the substance of something like that without upsetting a lot of people.
EDIT: It depresses me that the name of a great piece of literature was starred out as an inappropriate word...See if you can spot it.
It has less to do with the American population and more to do with selling an international mass market product.
Everyone, in every country that has movie theatres, understands an explosion.
They understand chase scenes, and sex scenes.
No translation required.
And there is never any good reason for a Sex scene in trek (or indeed any other film)
Cut away to a fire place
a view of the stars
waves crashing on a shore
no one needs to see "kirk" getting down with the token Green chick
2002: Star Trek Nemesis debuts. It is, to say the least, a critical failure.
2001-2005: Star Trek Enterprise runs. It, too, does not attain anywhere near the praise of its predeccessors. (I loved it, personally, but that's irrelevant.)
Following ENT's cancellation, the Trek franchise remains stagnant for a good four years - a first since TNG started up. Then, JJ Abrams makes a movie of his own. It is, both commercially and critically, a monster success. Two sequels are planned. New fans pop up every day, many of whom quickly become hooked on TOS and the other classics.
My point is this: while the Abrams movie may not have been traditional, it quite probably saved the Star Trek franchise.
This new one promises to be dark. Earth is thrown into crisis. Kirk's family apparently die out. Things seem hopeless. But as Bane put it in the last Batman movie, "there can be no despair...without hope."
The theme so prevalent in classic Trek - an enlightened humanity that strives for a better future - might make a comeback. It could even be the entire theme of this next movie.
So don't condemn Star Trek Into Darkness yet. For all we know, it could be the one that brings AbramsTrek in line with that optimistic theme we all love so much.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
The Sexual Revolution ended 40 years ago and you guys lost. Accept it.
That said, Star Trek has had plenty of scenes where various characters are getting intimate but never any sex scenes, it isn't needed, would only cheapen the story and would blow the hell out of the films rating.
My only hope for this one is a more coherent story that doesn't require further explanation in book/comic form and a much better motivation for the antagonist.
And the Sexual Revolution BEGAN 40 years ago, it's hardly over.
Each generation thinks that the things they do in the privacy of their beds is new...
The only thing NEW, is that people now Actually Talk About what they do in bed, In Public.
Damn the Prudes, Full Speed Dr. OZ ahead.
I like that the poster doesn't really give away what the movie is all about, but hints at what might be.
Chick Flick that way
> link
The problem that we are seeing with these new movies is the exact same issue we've been dealing with here in the STO community, that being that it only exists so someone can make money off of someone else. They do not truly care about the series or what anyone wants it to be, all they care about is how they can make the most money for the least effort.
All this being said, I will still probably be one of the first people in that theater watching Star Trek: Into Darkness. :P
The problem is that in 2009 (and likely in the sequel), Humanity is not depicted as striving for a better future, nor as enlightened as the TV series pointed out.
In the Abramverse it is just another futuristic Human military space organization.
That is the problem.
"The quest for the Book of Ignum"
"I have seen your future. I have seen your end"
thankfully
but there is no need EVER for on screen sex or nudity in trek
and definately not for VULCANS getting it on with junior officers (a courtmartial offence in starfleet)
linking Spock to uhura is plain perverse
Vulcans do not "Flirt" nor do they harrass their students
you sure are talking about the 2009 jj s**t trek?
That was never considered a success.It was in meh category .Mean girls had better success than 2009 JJ Lens Flare Trek lol
Meh category is not a scuccess.20$ profit is not considered a success.