and yes he is her teacher he refers to her as his best student
of course spock in this film is insane but thats probably due to the deaths of billions of his people on Romulus (vulcans and romulans are the same species way back)
they basically made each character something they weren't
oh and yes he is a stoner (the Actor not the character) he was interviewed after "harold and kumar escape from guantalamo" and freely admitted to using weed when younger
and being put on the flag ship in a post you are not qualified for is promotion
Kissing? Seriously? KISSING?! Then most of the people on this board are TRIBBLE with that logic. Then you call a character a pothead because THE ACTOR said he smoked some reefer. What kind of logic is this?
No, warp drive was never a solid theory. It was pure invention, and Roddenberry never even worked out how it was supposed to function - in the words of Joe Straczynski, the ships moved at the speed of plot.
Miguel Alcubierre was inspired to work out his theory after watching Star Trek. Harold White refined it, because he really wants an FTL drive (although he states it will most likely be used for STL purposes first, assuming it works - for one, it would drastically reduce the amount of fuel needed for a trip, and for another, if it fails, it's easier to rescue a ship that's stranded halfway to Jupiter than one that's stranded halfway to Tau Ceti).
Phasers were pure invention - the physical basis for such a device was invented only a few years ago, and the result is still too massive to be man-portable (although the inventor has hopes).
Communicators were in fact the inspiration for cell phones, which is why most of the early models were flip-phones, like the flip-up antenna on TOS communicators.
And there's no good theory of physics to underlie transporters, although replicators at least have the dignity of being an obvious spinoff technology of transporters (all you need is the transporter pattern of what you want, and enough energy to beam it in).
Star Trek was never hard SF; it was never about the plausibility, but the adventure. (After all, in the episode with the mental hospital, how "plausible" is it that Spock couldn't figure out to just shoot both Kirks with his phaser on stun, and sort them out later, in sickbay if necessary? But that would have robbed the episode's climax of some of its power, and story has always come first.)
Okay, just for the record, Into Darkness was awesome. Anything else that people say is their opinion, IT'S STUPID, but that's just the way society is. Someone always disagrees. That's one reason why people don't like Abrams movies.
I really like it. Things are different, things are similar, and you can really see the progression in some characters. I believe as the franchise continues, Kirk will become more like Shatner's (but never quite the same), Spock will be VERY different, and everyone else will be there every step of the way. Why? Because they are friends. And that's what Star Trek was always about in TOS and it was conveyed very accurately in the new movies. So, I like it.
And I am only 15, and I like Both TOS and J.J.A. Would you believe it? only 15!
Yes, and most of it was awful. If you're referring to the scene where he bonks his head, that was not a case of him being funny but rather a case of the writers using him as a laughing stock. Quite the difference. And also why that was such a groan-inducing scene.
In ST'09, Pegg is a manic clown throughout. Part of that was Pegg himself, but mostly the part as was written.
And I disagree. 79 episodes; I don't feel like spending the time to go through the list, but I'm sure it's not even close to 1/4 of the time.
You and I just differ on this, I guess. I consider him comic relief because, with the exception of a few occasions, Scotty always had a humorous quip about the current situation. Sometimes it was very subtle humor, but it was humor nonetheless.
Chekov shown as a teeny bopper with a stupid accent
Sulu is the wrong nationality and shown as a complete moron
Scotty treated as comic relief and wrong accent
kirk is brutal sexist JERK with Iq of a cheese sandwich
Spock is muirderous sex maniac who is sexually harrassing a student
Uhura is shown as a TRIBBLE
mc coy is shown as incompetent , negligent and criminal
pike is shown as insane
they kill billions of people for no reason
play fast and loose with canon
mount rapid fire cannons on enterprise
engineering is a pumping station
Just to be fair the message coming from all these things is based on how our current view of the world is in movies and tv shows that people in college or straight out of college are sex crazed people. So it doesn't surprise me these things are presented in the movie. Obviously Uhura and Spock's relationship must end because they are no longer together in the normal star trek timeline but who knows as this is an alternate universe.
I know the what your saying definitely applies to the original series but I did very clearly specify in my post I was speaking about TNG on.
Then why are you bringing it up in a thread about a TOS reboot? TNG doesn't even enter into it - it's like trying to defend a hyperviolent rewrite of a TNG episode by pointing to the Dominion War.
Because if Gene Roddenberry was alive today he would not have approved of either movie on the grounds I put forth. He would not of allowed them to be made because of the things I mentioned.
Gene Roddenberry also did NOT approve of the story for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Because if Gene Roddenberry was alive today he would not have approved of either movie on the grounds I put forth. He would not of allowed them to be made because of the things I mentioned.
That's a very fine knife's edge you're riding there.
Gene Roddenberry was naturally very big with TMP's creation. It made money, but it definitely had flaws as a movie.
Because of this, the studio prevented GR from involvement with the sequel, The Wrath of Khan. That movie, to this date and even after Into Darkness, still stands as the best Star Trek movie done so far. The depiction from TWOK, like the famed uniforms, would carry through all the rest of the TMP movies, and even into several other ST TV episodes that flashback to that timeframe.
Now, I'm all for keeping true to Gene Roddenberry's basic theme to the franchise, but a little bit of deviation is in order at times. I'm not saying to "outright break the rules" or theme of the IP, but some deviation and change is in order.
Because if Gene Roddenberry was alive today he would not have approved of either movie on the grounds I put forth. He would not of allowed them to be made because of the things I mentioned.
So what? Gene no longer had that kind of control over any of the franchise by the time TNG hit what, season 3? Let alone DS9, Voyager or Enterprise.
It simply wouldn't have mattered.
For fun reference, check out Siegel and Shuster and the Superman movie. Or really any of the Marvel movies and how much influence Stan Lee has had.
I don't know what all the hate is for. I really don't. I just came back from seeing it in 3D. Oh my god, it was amazing.
The action was appropriate for the first time in Star Trek history. It felt like action that should be happening. "Harrison" (of whom we all know the true identity by now, surely, but I'm not a spoiler-man) was expertly played by Cumberbatch, and all the right nods to the franchise were there in the amounts that we wanted as fans. It did not rely so heavily on the source material that many elements were drawn from, and told the story in a way that has never been told before.
Characters were actually very thoroughly explored. Kirk's gung-ho attitude was frankly punished throughout the film, and all of his decisions met with consequences that outclassed him. This was the tempering Kirk was going to need that he did not get in the first film, and the timing was right for it to happen now. Not to mention the deeper relationship we felt but rarely saw between Kirk and his mentor, Christopher Pike, was brought more fully into the picture.
Spock's human/Vulcan struggle was not a surface detail either. The exploration of Spock's character was done with a lot of finesse and showed that he does in fact war with his decisions against his own nature.
The conflict between characters that we remember from the show were very soft and TV-tempered, and always seemed to mend rather easily. Not so here. I loved that there didn't seem to be a moment of peace as these characters continue to find their place. This crew didn't simply fall into place; they have to work at it to be able to cooperate fully, and I didn't see a hint of forced characterization.
True, in a few places, characters might have done or said something that felt a little out of character, but the situations and the intensity of the scenes allowed me to lift my disbelief just long enough to think "If I was there, would I be different?" I couldn't hate on much in this movie at all.
Having said that, I have gripes. Precisely 3 gripes.
1. Harrison beams from Earth to the Klingon Homeworld without the aid of a starship. Had to really try to suspend disbelief - but I managed to.
2. The film's subtitles spell Qo'Nos as "Kronos". However, I can accept the spelling as purely phonetic, and only there as a little helper for the uninitiated. New fans would probably look at Qo'Nos and wonder how the hell you say that.
3. Scotty and Kirk have a littler interstellar call using a regular flip open communicator. I can see Kirk being able to send a signal using the Enterprise's comm array tied into the communicators, but how would Scotty send one back from some weird club in San Francisco? Maybe Starfleet communicators are boosted by a comm array on Earth, or in orbit (we know that the devices can work ship to shore). Mmm... still. A little weird.
That's it. If that's the best points of contention that I can think of? Then Star Trek into Darkness is well on its way to being the biggest success Star Trek has ever enjoyed.
P.S. The Klingons weren't that bad. I thought the design was appropriate and they still looked pretty menacing. And how they sweep into battle is EXACTLY how I would expect them to. Q'apla has just become the new SEMPER FI.
Haters hate; real fans embrace. That's what Star Trek taught us; never sit still, embrace change. Try something new. Explore the unexplored. These styles and substances are either new, or a new face on a familiar idea. I look forward to JJTrek III. My thoughts on that are that it could involve an actual war with the Klingons.
Because if Gene Roddenberry was alive today he would not have approved of either movie on the grounds I put forth. He would not of allowed them to be made because of the things I mentioned.
Okay, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here and I hope that's not how this comes across, but I'm having trouble understanding your point. Truly. Here's how it has gone so far...
1. You said "beginning with TNG" Star Trek was about plausibility and used warp drives as an example.
2. Someone else pointed out that in TOS, warp drives were not based on science and were purely a plot device. The same point was made about transporters and phasers. They weren't based on science; they were added purely for story.
3. You then pointed out that you specifically said, "Starting with TNG."
4. That person then asked you why you were using TNG in an argument against a TOS reboot.
5. You said because it didn't hold true to his vision and then said Gene wouldn't have allowed it.
But... in number 2, it's specifically pointed out that Gene did allow it. It's not a guess on what he would have allowed. He did - in fact - allow it on TOS. And you acknowledged that, then countered by saying you were talking about TNG, not TOS.
But this is a reboot of TOS, which you yourself agree that Gene did allow the very things you're saying he wouldn't allow. So I don't understand how you're saying he wouldn't have allowed it when you acknowledge that he did allow it.... with TOS... which is what this is a reboot of.
Hopefully, I'm getting my point across here. Please forgive my poor wording. Do you understand why I'm confused?
Gene didn't like TWoK (written and directed by confessed non-fans), and had he had control at the time, it would not have been made.
I fail to see your point.
This guy, Nicholas Meyer, when he was hired to make the sequel for TMP, had little to no knowledge of Star Trek. Yet he gave the franchise The Wrath of Khan.
He also had hands in the other good movies of the TMP movie series: The Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country. Undiscovered Country was a good sendoff for the TOS Crew, and I really do wish the TNG Crew got something just as worthy, because Nemesis was something of a disappointment.
For a guy that started out with knowing little of ST, Meyer gave the franchise its best movie and a few other good ones to go with it.
I dunno, perhaps they have no imagination. Personally I feel every fictional universe can be adjusted to suit a certain perspective and I really can't see the harm in it.
People who rant and whine about the films or anything involving 'canon' I just think of the Church of Trek. I can just picture them behind the pedestal going completely nuts during a sermon like some sci fi TV Evangelist.
I kinda hope that we see some little Easter egg to trek in the upcoming star wars film, just to see the reaction...
They overly romanticize the older Trek works, which were, on the whole, mostly fairly bad. Only one TV series was reliably good through more than half of its run, every second movie was quite bad, with a few (The Final Frontier, Nemesis) being near-unwatchable. People tend to remember the high points - Undiscovered Country, First Contact, Measure of a Man, In the Pale Moonlight, In a Mirror Darkly - and forget the Spock's Brains and Thresholds and most of the run of Enterprises of the older works.
Quite frankly, the first Abrams film was well above the median in quality for Trek works, and Into Darkness was among the best films the franchise has seen. Cummerbatch and Quinto, in particular, blew away their roles, and the surprises are well pulled off. Plus... madcap messed-up First Contact/planetary survey at the beginning was wonderfully Star Trek, the image of Enterprise under the ocean was gorgeous, and the problems are solved through cleverness and investigation. Yes, there's phaser fire and fisticuffs, but those are less essential to the story being told than science and learning. In fact, when the protagonists resort to fisticuffs, it tends to be a mistake.
So... yeah. People forget how bad the original works tended to be, and want the new stuff to match exactly a romanticized idea of what Trek used to be. And, for every complainer, that idealized old Trek is DIFFERENT. Abrams couldn't possibly win with these people.
Because, in his own words, he does not like Star Trek and believes philosophy has no place in science fiction.
This says it all in a nutshell.
The modern J.J. Abrams' sci-fi is all about happy boom boom special effects and is nothing like the J.J. Abrams that created Lost. That's all well and good for a series like Star Wars where logic and reason are thrown out for action and space magic but it makes Star Trek bland and cookie cutter.
Into Darkness was a travesty. It had a trite plot with a use of Khan that makes no sense simply in order to tie it into TOS and it suffers from uninspired acting, both of which existed just to set up - you guessed it - happy boom boom special effects time.
Because, in his own words, he does not like Star Trek and believes philosophy has no place in science fiction.
I'm not saying you're incorrect here because I very easily could have missed something in interviews, etc, but I'd like to see something showing me where he said both of those things.
He said in an interview last week that he used to not like Star Trek, but when he got the job to direct these films he watched all of them and now he's a fan and "gets it." That was what he said in an interview I watched last week.
And Into Darkness has philosophy in it. You might not think it's done well, but social allegory and philosophical struggle is very blatant in that movie. If he doesn't think it belongs in sci fi, why would he include it in a sci fi movie he directed?
If you just mean that - in your opinion - he hates Trek and doesn't think philosophy belongs in sci fi, that's cool. It's your opinion.
But you said, "in his own words." Can you show me where he has said he still doesn't like Star Trek and where he has said philosophy has no place in sci fi?
JJ's main problem is that he keeps working with a trio of hack writers. Should Disney force a team who at least know how to use a keyboard to write instead of a dart and some postit notes, Star Wars might be watchable.
And really, Jesus Kahn blood will fit SW much better.
Is this where I need to point out there is no one "Scottish" accent?
Its like the some people thinking there's such thing as a "British" accent.
Basically if its not in the US, they dont care to learn about it.
I wouldnt be suprised.
So, pretty much every objection raised against Abrams other than "lens flare!" is a "sin" that can also be pointed out in the other movies, the various series, etc. (For the love of the Great Bird, folks, go on Netflix or something and watch all of TOS. You'll see that while many episodes were truly outstanding, many others were poorly-written hack jobs with morals that would seem obvious to a kindergarten student. It's in the nature of episodic TV.)
Like I said, I think some folks just carry a visceral hatred of Abrams from some of his other work, most notably the incredibly messed-up ending of Lost ("They're not dead, the Island isn't the Afterlife. Oh, wait, it totally is, and they totally are! Gotcha!").
Taken as generic sci-fi action flicks they are fine. But with these two films, JJ and cohorts have appealed to the lowest common denominator that just likes whizz bang action films.
It's perhaps what Trek needs to survive for the moment, but as a trekkie, I hope we get back to some stage what made the franchise great, that being deep and wonderful tales. The current films are simply not for the thinking man.
Also Pegg's accent is so bad...it's nowhere near Scottish.
If you've come to the forums to complain about the AFK system, it's known to be bugged at the moment.
I hope we get back to some stage what made the franchise great, that being deep and wonderful tales. The current films are simply not for the thinking man.
Like Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis?
Comments
Kissing? Seriously? KISSING?! Then most of the people on this board are TRIBBLE with that logic. Then you call a character a pothead because THE ACTOR said he smoked some reefer. What kind of logic is this?
Miguel Alcubierre was inspired to work out his theory after watching Star Trek. Harold White refined it, because he really wants an FTL drive (although he states it will most likely be used for STL purposes first, assuming it works - for one, it would drastically reduce the amount of fuel needed for a trip, and for another, if it fails, it's easier to rescue a ship that's stranded halfway to Jupiter than one that's stranded halfway to Tau Ceti).
Phasers were pure invention - the physical basis for such a device was invented only a few years ago, and the result is still too massive to be man-portable (although the inventor has hopes).
Communicators were in fact the inspiration for cell phones, which is why most of the early models were flip-phones, like the flip-up antenna on TOS communicators.
And there's no good theory of physics to underlie transporters, although replicators at least have the dignity of being an obvious spinoff technology of transporters (all you need is the transporter pattern of what you want, and enough energy to beam it in).
Star Trek was never hard SF; it was never about the plausibility, but the adventure. (After all, in the episode with the mental hospital, how "plausible" is it that Spock couldn't figure out to just shoot both Kirks with his phaser on stun, and sort them out later, in sickbay if necessary? But that would have robbed the episode's climax of some of its power, and story has always come first.)
I really like it. Things are different, things are similar, and you can really see the progression in some characters. I believe as the franchise continues, Kirk will become more like Shatner's (but never quite the same), Spock will be VERY different, and everyone else will be there every step of the way. Why? Because they are friends. And that's what Star Trek was always about in TOS and it was conveyed very accurately in the new movies. So, I like it.
And I am only 15, and I like Both TOS and J.J.A. Would you believe it? only 15!
HIPPIES. HIPPIES EVERYWHERE.
In ST'09, Pegg is a manic clown throughout. Part of that was Pegg himself, but mostly the part as was written.
--- And I disagree. 79 episodes; I don't feel like spending the time to go through the list, but I'm sure it's not even close to 1/4 of the time.
You and I just differ on this, I guess. I consider him comic relief because, with the exception of a few occasions, Scotty always had a humorous quip about the current situation. Sometimes it was very subtle humor, but it was humor nonetheless.
Just to be fair the message coming from all these things is based on how our current view of the world is in movies and tv shows that people in college or straight out of college are sex crazed people. So it doesn't surprise me these things are presented in the movie. Obviously Uhura and Spock's relationship must end because they are no longer together in the normal star trek timeline but who knows as this is an alternate universe.
Now what?
:rolleyes:
That's a very fine knife's edge you're riding there.
Gene Roddenberry was naturally very big with TMP's creation. It made money, but it definitely had flaws as a movie.
Because of this, the studio prevented GR from involvement with the sequel, The Wrath of Khan. That movie, to this date and even after Into Darkness, still stands as the best Star Trek movie done so far. The depiction from TWOK, like the famed uniforms, would carry through all the rest of the TMP movies, and even into several other ST TV episodes that flashback to that timeframe.
Now, I'm all for keeping true to Gene Roddenberry's basic theme to the franchise, but a little bit of deviation is in order at times. I'm not saying to "outright break the rules" or theme of the IP, but some deviation and change is in order.
So what? Gene no longer had that kind of control over any of the franchise by the time TNG hit what, season 3? Let alone DS9, Voyager or Enterprise.
It simply wouldn't have mattered.
For fun reference, check out Siegel and Shuster and the Superman movie. Or really any of the Marvel movies and how much influence Stan Lee has had.
I fail to see your point.
The action was appropriate for the first time in Star Trek history. It felt like action that should be happening. "Harrison" (of whom we all know the true identity by now, surely, but I'm not a spoiler-man) was expertly played by Cumberbatch, and all the right nods to the franchise were there in the amounts that we wanted as fans. It did not rely so heavily on the source material that many elements were drawn from, and told the story in a way that has never been told before.
Characters were actually very thoroughly explored. Kirk's gung-ho attitude was frankly punished throughout the film, and all of his decisions met with consequences that outclassed him. This was the tempering Kirk was going to need that he did not get in the first film, and the timing was right for it to happen now. Not to mention the deeper relationship we felt but rarely saw between Kirk and his mentor, Christopher Pike, was brought more fully into the picture.
Spock's human/Vulcan struggle was not a surface detail either. The exploration of Spock's character was done with a lot of finesse and showed that he does in fact war with his decisions against his own nature.
The conflict between characters that we remember from the show were very soft and TV-tempered, and always seemed to mend rather easily. Not so here. I loved that there didn't seem to be a moment of peace as these characters continue to find their place. This crew didn't simply fall into place; they have to work at it to be able to cooperate fully, and I didn't see a hint of forced characterization.
True, in a few places, characters might have done or said something that felt a little out of character, but the situations and the intensity of the scenes allowed me to lift my disbelief just long enough to think "If I was there, would I be different?" I couldn't hate on much in this movie at all.
Having said that, I have gripes. Precisely 3 gripes.
1. Harrison beams from Earth to the Klingon Homeworld without the aid of a starship. Had to really try to suspend disbelief - but I managed to.
2. The film's subtitles spell Qo'Nos as "Kronos". However, I can accept the spelling as purely phonetic, and only there as a little helper for the uninitiated. New fans would probably look at Qo'Nos and wonder how the hell you say that.
3. Scotty and Kirk have a littler interstellar call using a regular flip open communicator. I can see Kirk being able to send a signal using the Enterprise's comm array tied into the communicators, but how would Scotty send one back from some weird club in San Francisco? Maybe Starfleet communicators are boosted by a comm array on Earth, or in orbit (we know that the devices can work ship to shore). Mmm... still. A little weird.
That's it. If that's the best points of contention that I can think of? Then Star Trek into Darkness is well on its way to being the biggest success Star Trek has ever enjoyed.
P.S. The Klingons weren't that bad. I thought the design was appropriate and they still looked pretty menacing. And how they sweep into battle is EXACTLY how I would expect them to. Q'apla has just become the new SEMPER FI.
Haters hate; real fans embrace. That's what Star Trek taught us; never sit still, embrace change. Try something new. Explore the unexplored. These styles and substances are either new, or a new face on a familiar idea. I look forward to JJTrek III. My thoughts on that are that it could involve an actual war with the Klingons.
Okay, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here and I hope that's not how this comes across, but I'm having trouble understanding your point. Truly. Here's how it has gone so far...
1. You said "beginning with TNG" Star Trek was about plausibility and used warp drives as an example.
2. Someone else pointed out that in TOS, warp drives were not based on science and were purely a plot device. The same point was made about transporters and phasers. They weren't based on science; they were added purely for story.
3. You then pointed out that you specifically said, "Starting with TNG."
4. That person then asked you why you were using TNG in an argument against a TOS reboot.
5. You said because it didn't hold true to his vision and then said Gene wouldn't have allowed it.
But... in number 2, it's specifically pointed out that Gene did allow it. It's not a guess on what he would have allowed. He did - in fact - allow it on TOS. And you acknowledged that, then countered by saying you were talking about TNG, not TOS.
But this is a reboot of TOS, which you yourself agree that Gene did allow the very things you're saying he wouldn't allow. So I don't understand how you're saying he wouldn't have allowed it when you acknowledge that he did allow it.... with TOS... which is what this is a reboot of.
Hopefully, I'm getting my point across here. Please forgive my poor wording. Do you understand why I'm confused?
This guy, Nicholas Meyer, when he was hired to make the sequel for TMP, had little to no knowledge of Star Trek. Yet he gave the franchise The Wrath of Khan.
He also had hands in the other good movies of the TMP movie series: The Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country. Undiscovered Country was a good sendoff for the TOS Crew, and I really do wish the TNG Crew got something just as worthy, because Nemesis was something of a disappointment.
For a guy that started out with knowing little of ST, Meyer gave the franchise its best movie and a few other good ones to go with it.
I dunno, perhaps they have no imagination. Personally I feel every fictional universe can be adjusted to suit a certain perspective and I really can't see the harm in it.
People who rant and whine about the films or anything involving 'canon' I just think of the Church of Trek. I can just picture them behind the pedestal going completely nuts during a sermon like some sci fi TV Evangelist.
I kinda hope that we see some little Easter egg to trek in the upcoming star wars film, just to see the reaction...
I dunno, there's been Star Wars references in Trek for a while without people whining.
Quite frankly, the first Abrams film was well above the median in quality for Trek works, and Into Darkness was among the best films the franchise has seen. Cummerbatch and Quinto, in particular, blew away their roles, and the surprises are well pulled off. Plus... madcap messed-up First Contact/planetary survey at the beginning was wonderfully Star Trek, the image of Enterprise under the ocean was gorgeous, and the problems are solved through cleverness and investigation. Yes, there's phaser fire and fisticuffs, but those are less essential to the story being told than science and learning. In fact, when the protagonists resort to fisticuffs, it tends to be a mistake.
So... yeah. People forget how bad the original works tended to be, and want the new stuff to match exactly a romanticized idea of what Trek used to be. And, for every complainer, that idealized old Trek is DIFFERENT. Abrams couldn't possibly win with these people.
This says it all in a nutshell.
The modern J.J. Abrams' sci-fi is all about happy boom boom special effects and is nothing like the J.J. Abrams that created Lost. That's all well and good for a series like Star Wars where logic and reason are thrown out for action and space magic but it makes Star Trek bland and cookie cutter.
Into Darkness was a travesty. It had a trite plot with a use of Khan that makes no sense simply in order to tie it into TOS and it suffers from uninspired acting, both of which existed just to set up - you guessed it - happy boom boom special effects time.
I'm not saying you're incorrect here because I very easily could have missed something in interviews, etc, but I'd like to see something showing me where he said both of those things.
He said in an interview last week that he used to not like Star Trek, but when he got the job to direct these films he watched all of them and now he's a fan and "gets it." That was what he said in an interview I watched last week.
And Into Darkness has philosophy in it. You might not think it's done well, but social allegory and philosophical struggle is very blatant in that movie. If he doesn't think it belongs in sci fi, why would he include it in a sci fi movie he directed?
If you just mean that - in your opinion - he hates Trek and doesn't think philosophy belongs in sci fi, that's cool. It's your opinion.
But you said, "in his own words." Can you show me where he has said he still doesn't like Star Trek and where he has said philosophy has no place in sci fi?
And really, Jesus Kahn blood will fit SW much better.
Its like the some people thinking there's such thing as a "British" accent.
Basically if its not in the US, they dont care to learn about it.
I wouldnt be suprised.
Like I said, I think some folks just carry a visceral hatred of Abrams from some of his other work, most notably the incredibly messed-up ending of Lost ("They're not dead, the Island isn't the Afterlife. Oh, wait, it totally is, and they totally are! Gotcha!").
It's perhaps what Trek needs to survive for the moment, but as a trekkie, I hope we get back to some stage what made the franchise great, that being deep and wonderful tales. The current films are simply not for the thinking man.
Also Pegg's accent is so bad...it's nowhere near Scottish.
Like Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis?