I quote Nichelle Nichols here: ""Portraying Starfleet as a military organization flew in the face of everything Star Trek stood for [....] At one point I forcefully but tactfully reminded Meyer and Harve [Bennet] that Starfleet was the philosophical descendant of NASA, not the Air Force."
Then they should have not had military titles in the genera in the first place. I am an ex-Navy Air Traffic Controller. So, all the ranks in here are quite familiar to me. If they wanted to be like NASA,; they should have used title like Mission Commander, Mission Specialist, Payload Specialist, Astro Geologist ect.
I further ask why they had weapons? NASA space craft do not carry weapons of any kind. They should have two sides to the story. One military and one exploration. Maybe the military ship could have been an escort or something?
Aside from some unhinged trolls, we are all mature folks who realize
1) Abrams does not write a word of the story.
2) This is a different take on star trek: TOS.
3) A different take was needed, TNG was cancelled almost 20 years ago. Much of the plot and universe was made silly by poor movies with nonsensical plots such as Nemesis.
Every so often, you have to repackage things to bring in new fans, and something with as much potential as Star Trek should not be brushed under the rug and forgotten when it can still bring enjoyment to people who watch, and still make new fans. which is pretty cool.
I think we might be taking the word "ruined" too literally here. Especially on forums, we often focus more on words than meanings. I think that's what's happening here.
I loved the new movies. I grew up on TOS, liked TNG's stuff and even enjoyed Enterprise, so I'm pretty easy to please.
But when people say they think he "ruined" Star Trek, I don't think they mean it literally. I think they just mean the changes he made for these movies ruined any sense that these movies were Star Trek (for them).
I don't think anybody actually thinks he has single-handedly destroyed 45 years of entertainment. Basically, they're just saying they hated the new movies.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I've found that assuming the best usually makes life much more enjoyable.
I mean, everyone has their opinion, but why do people think JJ ruined Star Trek?
He can't ruin it, any more than previous people did. I consider Abrams' vision of the setting utter garbage, but the IP will be around long after he's gone. For myself, I hope he'll be gone soon. I never wanted Star Trek to become Saturday Matinee Pop-corn movies. And I certainly didn't need him to re-imagine stories that were imagined correctly the first time.
There are some major problems with this new movie, just like the last one, which highlights the fact that there is more action at the expense of substance and physics.
1) They didn't utilize the kahn character to his fullest, making him seem like a decent villian instead of the one man who could defeat kirk. (And remember kirk took on a god like being V'ger with almost unlimited power and a pure logical intellect the likes we never seen before, and managed to make V'ger "blink") The play between the hero's and kahn needed a more chess like quality in which each was having to out think an opponent who is smarter them themselves.
2) The admiral's actions are not those of a sane man. This story could have much more impact if the Admiral was shown to less of the standard villain and just on the wrong side of circumstance. Instead we are just given, bad guy is doing bad things by using flimsy justification. There could have been a much stronger moral fight between Kirk following procedure and doing what is best for the universe.
3) Why can't they use a "cold" fusion warhead on a torpedo with a altitude triggered fuse. Our first Nuclear bombs worked off of these, and you're telling me, that not only did kirk have to hide the ship under water, but also shuttle personnel into an active Volcano. the only thing that did make sense was Kirk steeling a relic to get the natives away from the base of the volcano.
4) If the Fight between the Vengeance and the Enterprise took place around the Moon, why did it fall into Earths gravity. And before anyone says that it been from the momentum of the ship leaving warp abruptly, the Enterprise was stable in space long enough to hover beside the Vengeance to launch two people out a garbage shoot, and it didn't start falling till Kahn starting shooting it again. This is as bad an error as having the Enterprise at high warp for quite a while, and then jettisoning Kirk onto a moon around Vulcan. (there was anywhere between 10 to 15 minutes of time where the ship was at warp. Enough to bring them out of visual range of Vulcan.) The Enterprise should have fallen towards the moon, or better yet, have the fight take place over earth to begun with.
3) And Kahn's magic blood. That guy must be immortal. Could even highlander kill Kahn? probably not, after all, his blood has resurrection abilities.
4) And new fans do not know this crew well enough to have the Kirk death scene be effective emotionally. Unlike Spock from the Wrath of Kahn, in which we had know the characters for years, these new characters are still forming their friends ship and so much of the weight of the first one is gone, as well as much of the meaning of Spocks death and his phrase, the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. This should have been saved for quite a bit later.
And there are far more examples. Fun, mindless action flicks, but not what star trek should have been, a fun space adventure that had action and made you think.
Imperial Secret Order. "we are the ones that maintain the balance of power in the universe. May our shadow never fall upon you."
I mean, everyone has their opinion, but why do people think JJ ruined Star Trek?
JJ Abrams doesn't respect Trek. His franchise "reboot" simply applied Trek names to the standardized Hollywood action template.
Classic Trek, regardless of the lower budgets and machismo, was always about interpersonal bonds and philosophical introspection. It was, under Roddenberry's stewardship, a unique blending of high concept drama and western mythos actioneer.
The vision both JJ Abrams, Orci and, now, Lindelof have is very much more banal, derivative and commercial : sex, violence and big explosions...wash, rinse, repeat. Can that be entertaining? Certainly! Does it engage the viewer on any level deeper than the average amusement park ride might? No.
Under JJ Abrams, Star Trek has become just another one of many summer action films. The original format sustained the various shows and movies for four decades. It seems unlikely the Abrams envisioned franchise will survive so long, or engender such fan loyalty.
For me, JJ has made Trek less appealing, less unique and less inspiring. Of course, the one good thing about the whole JJ Abrams experience is that it is completely apocryphal and non-canon. The one bone cast towards traditional Trek aficionados was that the Abrams timeline is an alternate, separate and unique aberration, which resulted from the Hobus supernova.
In that regard, I am very happy that STO is a product of the prime timeline, even if the STO story itself is non-canonical. Hopefully, one day, someone who values the Trek franchise as more than just a cash cow will be given the helm for a new series in the prime timeline.
I'm sincerely not trying to be confrontational here, but I'm genuinely surprised by the amount of people who seem to be willfully ignoring so many things about this new movie.
I'll concede that the 09 film complaints about subtext and character development are valid, but this new movie really seems to have listened to those complaints.
Sure, ST: ID has action and explosions, but it also has tons of character development and ethical dilemmas.
In this movie, Kirk is forced to face loss. He's forced to recognize that he is not invulnerable. He's forced to recognize that his cowboy attitude can be deadly to the people he loves. He actually faces consequences for the attitude he had in the first movie. And most importantly, Kirk finally understands sacrifice.
And Spock is forced to decide what's more important to him: friendship or duty. Spock also faces the reality that - since the destruction of his planet - he's no longer able to suppress his human side. He tries to remain wholly Vulcan and he fails.
That's character development. You might not like it or you might think it's weak, but it's just dishonest to pretend it isn't in this movie. It is.
And as far as the moral, cultural, and ethical dilemmas that people keep complaining are absent from this movie, I genuinely wonder if they've watched ID.
In this movie, Kirk has to choose between following orders or holding to the principles of the Federation. He has to decide whether or not killing a man without a trial is justified if that man's actions are evil enough.
The movie shows - in a very direct way - the consequences of not respecting the Prime Directive.
And there are no mustache twirling villains in this movie. Instead, it's three people doing what they believe is right. Kirk is defending his family. Harrison is defending his family. And Marcus is defending the Federation.
Again, you might have complaints about how developed these ethical issues are, but to deny they exist isn't either willful ignorance or blatant dishonesty.
Like I said, I totally get those complaints about the first film, but this film really does at least try to address it. I'm surprised by the amount of people who complain about this new movie by citing reasons that really only apply to the 09 film.
And for the record, I'm not saying this movie is perfect, or even great. Many of the other complaints about this movie are totally valid.
But the assertion that this movie doesn't have any character development and doesn't have any moral or ethical overtones is simply not true.
This movie has every bit as much of those things as Star Treks 3, 4, 5, and pretty much all of the TNG movies.
I think we might be taking the word "ruined" too literally here. Especially on forums, we often focus more on words than meanings. I think that's what's happening here.
I loved the new movies. I grew up on TOS, liked TNG's stuff and even enjoyed Enterprise, so I'm pretty easy to please.
But when people say they think he "ruined" Star Trek, I don't think they mean it literally. I think they just mean the changes he made for these movies ruined any sense that these movies were Star Trek (for them).
I don't think anybody actually thinks he has single-handedly destroyed 45 years of entertainment. Basically, they're just saying they hated the new movies.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I've found that assuming the best usually makes life much more enjoyable.
I don't think the reader should be blamed for the writers misuse of a word.
I don't think the reader should be blamed for the writers misuse of a word.
I'm not blaming the reader. I'm actually not blaming anybody. I was just clarifying what I think is the meaning so we wouldn't waste big long posts arguing against something they didn't even mean.
JJ Abrams doesn't respect Trek. His franchise "reboot" simply applied Trek names to the standardized Hollywood action template.
Classic Trek, regardless of the lower budgets and machismo, was always about interpersonal bonds and philosophical introspection. It was, under Roddenberry's stewardship, a unique blending of high concept drama and western mythos actioneer.
The vision both JJ Abrams, Orci and, now, Lindelof have is very much more banal, derivative and commercial : sex, violence and big explosions...wash, rinse, repeat. Can that be entertaining? Certainly! Does it engage the viewer on any level deeper than the average amusement park ride might? No.
Under JJ Abrams, Star Trek has become just another one of many summer action films. The original format sustained the various shows and movies for four decades. It seems unlikely the Abrams envisioned franchise will survive so long, or engender such fan loyalty.
For me, JJ has made Trek less appealing, less unique and less inspiring. Of course, the one good thing about the whole JJ Abrams experience is that it is completely apocryphal and non-canon. The one bone cast towards traditional Trek aficionados was that the Abrams timeline is an alternate, separate and unique aberration, which resulted from the Hobus supernova.
In that regard, I am very happy that STO is a product of the prime timeline, even if the STO story itself is non-canonical. Hopefully, one day, someone who values the Trek franchise as more than just a cash cow will be given the helm for a new series in the prime timeline.
There's no denying that this version of ST is more action-packed, but that doesn't mean it's any less valid, or that it does any less about exploring concepts like family (see Into Darkness). In fact, this quote does says it well:
Also, I think we (i.e. old coots like me) sometimes don't give young people enough credit.
I saw a Facebook post this week where a bunch of folks (mostly young) were discussing the new movie and they had a very in-depth and long debate about whether or not Kirk had the right to kill Harrison. One side was saying he was following orders and Harrison had to be stopped by any means while the other side was saying Kirk had a moral obligation to disobey orders and bring Harrison in for a trial.
Now, no matter what side of that debate you're on, I think the debates itself shows 2 things:
1. Kids aren't as shallow as we think
2. This movie did - on some level - make them go "hmmmm."
And I'm afraid you're wrong about two things.
All movies about ST, released by CBS/Paramount, ARE canon. There is no disputing that, or the fact that both versions are entirely separate.
And also, if JJ Abrams didn't respect ST, why are there so many nods to TOS elements? The redshirt gag used on Chekov in STID, and earlier Engineer Olson (who was wearing red) died first in ST2009. The Ceti creatures are referenced with their new versions, Sulu knows fencing (seen in 'The Naked Time'), Uhura knows somewhat-rusty Klingon in contrast to her counterpart having to use books to do the same... in fact, there's so many nods it's hard to keep track.
And as a matter-of-fact, pretty much ALL of Into Darkness was used as a homage to Wrath of Khan; there's too many nods that it can't be otherwise. And before you say it's a rip-off, NONE of the nods were done exactly the way they happened the first time. Even the famous wall-separation was done with Kirk and Spock reversed, and they did the same with the famous shout
So really, this new ST appeals to the masses, who are more into action and eye-candy than anything (it can't be said otherwise). But it does make them think on some level, and it does have character development, and that makes it just as valid as the older Star Trek. And personally, no amount of denial can change that
Plus, I'm not the only one who thinks so: see scruffyvulcan's second-to-last post above mine, along with cdrgadley's. Even qqqqii, who hates JJ Trek, shows that ST can't be ruined, just taken in new directions.
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 took me 2 years to watch the first JJ Trek. I could have borrowed it from work for free many times sooner, but I just couldn't bring myself to watch it at first. I finally did decide to watch it and like a I figured the story was absolutley horrible. Effects and actions seens were good, but I don't really care so much about that. I also didn't want to watch it on principle, as destroying the homeworlds of 2 major races is just stupid and messes up a lot of other stuff that uses the Star Trek IP like STO and other possible games and books.
I'll probably do the same with this current movie, I will just borrow the DVD for free eventually and watch it when STO is down. I won't spend a dime on JJ Trek.
Now if the next JJ Trek movie is about time traveling to stop the events from JJ Trek 1 from happening in the first place I will camp overnight in line to watch that.
It took me 2 years to watch the first JJ Trek. I could have borrowed it from work for free many times sooner, but I just couldn't bring myself to watch it at first. I finally did decide to watch it and like a I figured the story was absolutley horrible. Effects and actions seens were good, but I don't really care so much about that. I also didn't want to watch it on principle, as destroying the homeworlds of 2 major races is just stupid and messes up a lot of other stuff that uses the Star Trek IP like STO and other possible games and books.
I'll probably do the same with this current movie, I will just borrow the DVD for free eventually and watch it when STO is down. I won't spend a dime on JJ Trek.
Now if the next JJ Trek movie is about time traveling to stop the events from JJ Trek 1 from happening in the first place I will camp overnight in line to watch that.
Marc, when you watch it, I highly recommend that you watch it with an open mind.
I loved the 09 Trek, but I completely admit that many of the "there's no substance" complaints were valid. I defend that by saying it's because he really had to pack 40 years of character development into one movie (because this was a reboot, not a sequel), but the fact is, it doesn't matter why. That movie was light. It was great fun, but it was lighter than most Star Trek, TOS or after. I was fine with that and found it refreshing in an Indiana Jones kind of way, but I certainly don't fault others for feeling differently.
But I honestly felt this sequel really tried to address many of those complaints. Of course, he had to do it within the confines of a studio-ordered action movie, but he still managed to pack a lot of character development and moral allegory into this film. Because of the break-neck pacing of this movie, you really have to pay attention to get it all, but it's definitely there.
I had complaints about some of the homages, but honestly, this was the reboot I wish 09 had been.
Now, I'm not saying you'll love this movie (or even like it). I'm just saying if you go into it with an open mind that isn't predisposed to disliking it, you might be pleasantly surprised.
The feeling that Abrams has "ruined" Star Trek comes from the fact that his reboot is the only new Star Trek episodes/ films we are going to get in the foreseeable future.
the timeline has been erased. The history of the future has been rewritten. His version of Trek is could be any space adventure/action movie, but he has attached the Star Trek characters. While this may appeal to the new unitiated audience, it is a disappointment to the long time fans many of whom like myself watched TOS as it was first run, watched the following Treks as first run.
Before undertaking this "reboot" project, Abrams should have looked at the Doctor Who Franchise. The writers, producers and showrunners were able to reboot that long standing series without major disruptions in show canon, while still giving the stories and characters a fresh look. They were able to bring in new viewers with a new way of telling and showing the stories without disenfranchising the old fans of the show.
Going back to the original Enterprise crew for the "reboot" was a great idea. There were and are many stories and adventures that could have been told and made for great movies without changing the history.
1. Capt. Picard: "A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy."
VS
2. 8 year old Kirk driving a sports car, while his Nokia phone is ringing ...
-> That's why ... not to mention it seems they have to blow up at least one planet each movie :P
Patch Notes : Resolved an Issue, where people would accidently experience Fun.
the timeline has been erased. The history of the future has been rewritten.
No, it hasn't. Why do people keep insisting that this is the case when it's not? The TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY timeline is not erased in any way, shape, or form. See the TNG episode "Parallels" for further details and understanding. This isn't new knowledge - Abrams' Trek is an alternate reality. It's clearly stated in the movie and in other sources.
:rolleyes:
His version of Trek is could be any space adventure/action movie, but he has attached the Star Trek characters.
You could say that about any TNG movie.
While this may appeal to the new unitiated audience, it is a disappointment to the long time fans many of whom like myself watched TOS as it was first run, watched the following Treks as first run.
I'm also a long time fan. Been watching Star Trek since 1975. I'm fine with the reboot. It takes nothing away from the original material. Many aspects of Trek which are familiar in pop culture are highlights in the films, and it's one of the main reasons I enjoy them. I'll gladly take Abrams Trek over all the TNG movies and Enterprise, EASILY.
1. Capt. Picard: "A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy."
VS
2. 8 year old Kirk driving a sports car, while his Nokia phone is ringing ...
-> That's why ... not to mention it seems they have to blow up at least one planet each movie :P
Dune buggy chase and Troi mind-r4pe scene in the last TNG movie.
Dune buggy chase and Troi mind-r4pe scene in the last TNG movie.
- Nuff said
magic blood and magic black holes 2 way communicator that can contact some one from the Klingon home world all the way to sol system Vulcan didnt have moons and JJ did nuff said :rolleyes:
and to add ST nem was a fan made movie that some how got made cannon
Dune buggy chase and Troi mind-r4pe scene in the last TNG movie.
- Nuff said
Only if Picard bought the Dune Buggy with GPL from some shady Ferengi, to do bad product placement :P ... not sure what "mind r4pe" done by some Remans, has to do with anything from Picards & the Federation message ...
I'm not saying these things were good, but at least they didn't r4pe anything the Federation stands for ...
JJ's Federation is more like some weird cross-breed between "Starship Trooper's Earth Defence Force" and the "Ferengi Alliance"
Gene's ST Future was something to look forward too (while it will never happen) ... JJ's stuff is just depressing ... I guess i would just kill myself in that timelime :P (totally makes sense Kirk being some drunk slob there, though)
Patch Notes : Resolved an Issue, where people would accidently experience Fun.
What I find distressing is that so many people point out details and canon and technology and so forth.... and since when was ANY of that even the least bit consistent in TOS?
The focus of any great Star Trek is character. Yes, they're younger than they were, so they will be more green, a bit cockier, more adolescent, absolutely. If anything, its a refreshing new take on the characters, instead of the tired old Admiral desperately clinging to lost youth.
And canon... oh boy *facepalm*... canon doesn't even APPLY here. 1. because there was 20 years between the timeline disruption and the first movie, 2. ITS A REBOOT, GET OVER IT.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
Only if Picard bought the Dune Buggy with GPL from some shady Ferengi, to do bad product placement :P ... not sure what "mind r4pe" done by some Remans, has to do with anything from Picards & the Federation message ...
I'm not saying these things were good, but at least they didn't r4pe anything the Federation stands for ...
JJ's Federation is more like some weird cross-breed between "Starship Trooper's Earth Defence Force" and the "Ferengi Alliance"
Gene's ST Future was something to look forward too (while it will never happen) ... JJ's stuff is just depressing ... I guess i would just kill myself in that timelime :P (totally makes sense Kirk being some drunk slob there, though)
And this is exactly what Kirk tries to fix in Into Darkness, and why I feel they made a point in destroying Section 31 so we never hear of that abomination and insult to Gene's legacy ever again.
Just as REman mindr4pe didn't apply to the Federation, the Nerada's path of destruction had nothing to do with the Federation either. But it sure as hell scared them into thinking more militaristic. And for this, the Fleet Admiral is portrayed as the villain, and Kirk announces that even though war with the Klingons may be inevitable (remember, that war was still in TOS), it does not mean we should abandon our ideals. Personally, I think the message of Into Darkness is a return to ideals.
Now, I know you're going to point out all the shooting and stuff in Into Darkness, but as with any movie (including original Star Trek) its a means to an end, and whats important is the message at the end. The audience clearly sees the military-focused Starfleet is bad, which is why we accept Kirk's "return to ideals" speech at the end. It is in pure Star Trek form, telling a relevant message, in the guise of a sci-fi/action/adventure. Personally (considering what Berman did to DS9, VOY and ENT) I think Gene would be proud of Into Darkness.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
no its a summer blockbuster nothing more then that these movies are a hit for a month then your like star trek 09 who? oh them jj movies ppl need to open their eyes these movies are one hit wonders
and a month from now you find all that so called new life at you local dollar tree
no its a summer blockbuster nothing more then that these movies are a hit for a month then your like star trek 09 who? oh them jj movies ppl need to open their eyes these movies are one hit wonders
and a month from now you find all that so called new life at you local dollar tree
Exactly, I don't really need get over it ... I just don't care about it ... I'll might be watching it as what it is ... some Blockbuster Action Movie, I could enjoy with some Popcorn and a cuple of beers ... but it's not gonna be ST for me ...
Furthermore ... I don't really see the point posting in a Thread named "Why do people think JJ ruined ST" when you don't really care why people think that way ...
Now, I know you're going to point out all the shooting and stuff in Into Darkness, but as with any movie (including original Star Trek) its a means to an end, and whats important is the message at the end. The audience clearly sees the military-focused Starfleet is bad, which is why we accept Kirk's "return to ideals" speech at the end. It is in pure Star Trek form, telling a relevant message, in the guise of a sci-fi/action/adventure. Personally (considering what Berman did to DS9, VOY and ENT) I think Gene would be proud of Into Darkness.
Well ... if this stuff carries on to the next movie you might be right ... but I guess it's just some "I've learned something today" - Hollywood TRIBBLE which has absolutly no impact on the next movie ... I highly doubt they're gonna save Whales in the next one or something ... pretty sure the next evil Space Terrorists who wants to blow up planets and stuff, is just around the corner ...
Sure all that shooting might be the means to an end ... but there's a difference between 2 hours of explosions with some catchphrase at the end and i.E. Picard trying to secure humanity's future/First Contact while shooting some Borg on the Holodeck with a Tommy ...
Patch Notes : Resolved an Issue, where people would accidently experience Fun.
no its a summer blockbuster nothing more then that these movies are a hit for a month then your like star trek 09 who? oh them jj movies ppl need to open their eyes these movies are one hit wonders
and a month from now you find all that so called new life at you local dollar tree
If you say so. I found enough enjoyment in the 2009 Star Trek to purchase it on DVD several months after the "hit for a month" period ended. And I can also guarantee I will spend my hard earned money on Into Darkness too. I submit Into Darkness is a summer blockbuster in the same way Dark Knight was. Fit that bill to a T, but had something deeper to it that gave it life far beyond that (and no, I am not talking about the whole Heath Ledger thing).
What I don't get is.... why you said "No" specifically at "Its a reboot, get over it". Because it is, by very definition, a reboot. And besides, how was Wrath of Khan not a summer blockbuster? Or First Contact?
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
Sollvax...next time you have a thought ball it up REAL tight and put it somewhere no one will have to choke on its ignorance.
You've said a LOT of stupid things in this thread which is very on character for you, but I will say this: If you believe the MILLIONS of people who consume cannabis for various medical conditions are criminals for not chugging Big Pharma soft-kill then you are beyond ignorant and a trite little fascist. You do Henry Anslinger proud, I am sure you believe it causes blacks go out and seek teh TRIBBLE with white women too dontcha? You little Hearst wannabe. It must be sad to hate as much as you do and then to simultaneously be one of the most ignorant children around.
I somewhat pity you, but not much.
Anyway, like I was sayin', shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it. - Bubba
By saying that the time line hasn't been erased, and that the New Trek is an alternative timeline and the old timeline is intact misses the point.
With this new alternative timeline, years of history are now irrelevant, and no new stories that incorporate that history are anticipated, which basically has erased that timeline.
What made Star Trek special and set it apart from other space media, was that it was first a drama/story that happened to be set in the future in space travel. The back stories of the characters and their relationships gave the viewer a reason to be invested in these characters.
While many people like this reboot, the fact remains that there are many who believe that Abrams has fixed something that wasn't broken, and fixing something that is not broken can shorten its lifespan.
Comments
Then they should have not had military titles in the genera in the first place. I am an ex-Navy Air Traffic Controller. So, all the ranks in here are quite familiar to me. If they wanted to be like NASA,; they should have used title like Mission Commander, Mission Specialist, Payload Specialist, Astro Geologist ect.
I further ask why they had weapons? NASA space craft do not carry weapons of any kind. They should have two sides to the story. One military and one exploration. Maybe the military ship could have been an escort or something?
1) Abrams does not write a word of the story.
2) This is a different take on star trek: TOS.
3) A different take was needed, TNG was cancelled almost 20 years ago. Much of the plot and universe was made silly by poor movies with nonsensical plots such as Nemesis.
Every so often, you have to repackage things to bring in new fans, and something with as much potential as Star Trek should not be brushed under the rug and forgotten when it can still bring enjoyment to people who watch, and still make new fans. which is pretty cool.
If someone says that he "ruined" it...then they were never that big of star trek fans to begin with.
You either like the new JJ star trek...like I do...
...or you still prefer the old star trek.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I loved the new movies. I grew up on TOS, liked TNG's stuff and even enjoyed Enterprise, so I'm pretty easy to please.
But when people say they think he "ruined" Star Trek, I don't think they mean it literally. I think they just mean the changes he made for these movies ruined any sense that these movies were Star Trek (for them).
I don't think anybody actually thinks he has single-handedly destroyed 45 years of entertainment. Basically, they're just saying they hated the new movies.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I've found that assuming the best usually makes life much more enjoyable.
He can't ruin it, any more than previous people did. I consider Abrams' vision of the setting utter garbage, but the IP will be around long after he's gone. For myself, I hope he'll be gone soon. I never wanted Star Trek to become Saturday Matinee Pop-corn movies. And I certainly didn't need him to re-imagine stories that were imagined correctly the first time.
1) They didn't utilize the kahn character to his fullest, making him seem like a decent villian instead of the one man who could defeat kirk. (And remember kirk took on a god like being V'ger with almost unlimited power and a pure logical intellect the likes we never seen before, and managed to make V'ger "blink") The play between the hero's and kahn needed a more chess like quality in which each was having to out think an opponent who is smarter them themselves.
2) The admiral's actions are not those of a sane man. This story could have much more impact if the Admiral was shown to less of the standard villain and just on the wrong side of circumstance. Instead we are just given, bad guy is doing bad things by using flimsy justification. There could have been a much stronger moral fight between Kirk following procedure and doing what is best for the universe.
3) Why can't they use a "cold" fusion warhead on a torpedo with a altitude triggered fuse. Our first Nuclear bombs worked off of these, and you're telling me, that not only did kirk have to hide the ship under water, but also shuttle personnel into an active Volcano. the only thing that did make sense was Kirk steeling a relic to get the natives away from the base of the volcano.
4) If the Fight between the Vengeance and the Enterprise took place around the Moon, why did it fall into Earths gravity. And before anyone says that it been from the momentum of the ship leaving warp abruptly, the Enterprise was stable in space long enough to hover beside the Vengeance to launch two people out a garbage shoot, and it didn't start falling till Kahn starting shooting it again. This is as bad an error as having the Enterprise at high warp for quite a while, and then jettisoning Kirk onto a moon around Vulcan. (there was anywhere between 10 to 15 minutes of time where the ship was at warp. Enough to bring them out of visual range of Vulcan.) The Enterprise should have fallen towards the moon, or better yet, have the fight take place over earth to begun with.
3) And Kahn's magic blood. That guy must be immortal. Could even highlander kill Kahn? probably not, after all, his blood has resurrection abilities.
4) And new fans do not know this crew well enough to have the Kirk death scene be effective emotionally. Unlike Spock from the Wrath of Kahn, in which we had know the characters for years, these new characters are still forming their friends ship and so much of the weight of the first one is gone, as well as much of the meaning of Spocks death and his phrase, the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. This should have been saved for quite a bit later.
And there are far more examples. Fun, mindless action flicks, but not what star trek should have been, a fun space adventure that had action and made you think.
So please understand I'm not hating on Star Trek when I say I think we fans sometimes overstate the moral depth of Star Trek.
Sure, it had moral depth, but it wasn't nearly as pervasive as we sometimes make it seem.
The elements of friendship were far more integrated than the moral or cultural undertones of that show.
And often, the cultural messages were so shallow that I'd have preferred they just left them out and told a good adventure.
JJ Abrams doesn't respect Trek. His franchise "reboot" simply applied Trek names to the standardized Hollywood action template.
Classic Trek, regardless of the lower budgets and machismo, was always about interpersonal bonds and philosophical introspection. It was, under Roddenberry's stewardship, a unique blending of high concept drama and western mythos actioneer.
The vision both JJ Abrams, Orci and, now, Lindelof have is very much more banal, derivative and commercial : sex, violence and big explosions...wash, rinse, repeat. Can that be entertaining? Certainly! Does it engage the viewer on any level deeper than the average amusement park ride might? No.
Under JJ Abrams, Star Trek has become just another one of many summer action films. The original format sustained the various shows and movies for four decades. It seems unlikely the Abrams envisioned franchise will survive so long, or engender such fan loyalty.
For me, JJ has made Trek less appealing, less unique and less inspiring. Of course, the one good thing about the whole JJ Abrams experience is that it is completely apocryphal and non-canon. The one bone cast towards traditional Trek aficionados was that the Abrams timeline is an alternate, separate and unique aberration, which resulted from the Hobus supernova.
In that regard, I am very happy that STO is a product of the prime timeline, even if the STO story itself is non-canonical. Hopefully, one day, someone who values the Trek franchise as more than just a cash cow will be given the helm for a new series in the prime timeline.
I'm sorry my fellow Trekkie but that will never happen. Only people who have money and only see money will ever be able to have the final say.
The only thing I can suggest is making a kick starter page to make our 'own' Trek inline with what we see it TRIBBLE, just like JJ.
I'll concede that the 09 film complaints about subtext and character development are valid, but this new movie really seems to have listened to those complaints.
Sure, ST: ID has action and explosions, but it also has tons of character development and ethical dilemmas.
In this movie, Kirk is forced to face loss. He's forced to recognize that he is not invulnerable. He's forced to recognize that his cowboy attitude can be deadly to the people he loves. He actually faces consequences for the attitude he had in the first movie. And most importantly, Kirk finally understands sacrifice.
And Spock is forced to decide what's more important to him: friendship or duty. Spock also faces the reality that - since the destruction of his planet - he's no longer able to suppress his human side. He tries to remain wholly Vulcan and he fails.
That's character development. You might not like it or you might think it's weak, but it's just dishonest to pretend it isn't in this movie. It is.
And as far as the moral, cultural, and ethical dilemmas that people keep complaining are absent from this movie, I genuinely wonder if they've watched ID.
In this movie, Kirk has to choose between following orders or holding to the principles of the Federation. He has to decide whether or not killing a man without a trial is justified if that man's actions are evil enough.
The movie shows - in a very direct way - the consequences of not respecting the Prime Directive.
And there are no mustache twirling villains in this movie. Instead, it's three people doing what they believe is right. Kirk is defending his family. Harrison is defending his family. And Marcus is defending the Federation.
Again, you might have complaints about how developed these ethical issues are, but to deny they exist isn't either willful ignorance or blatant dishonesty.
Like I said, I totally get those complaints about the first film, but this film really does at least try to address it. I'm surprised by the amount of people who complain about this new movie by citing reasons that really only apply to the 09 film.
And for the record, I'm not saying this movie is perfect, or even great. Many of the other complaints about this movie are totally valid.
But the assertion that this movie doesn't have any character development and doesn't have any moral or ethical overtones is simply not true.
This movie has every bit as much of those things as Star Treks 3, 4, 5, and pretty much all of the TNG movies.
I don't think the reader should be blamed for the writers misuse of a word.
I'm not blaming the reader. I'm actually not blaming anybody. I was just clarifying what I think is the meaning so we wouldn't waste big long posts arguing against something they didn't even mean.
And I'm afraid you're wrong about two things.
All movies about ST, released by CBS/Paramount, ARE canon. There is no disputing that, or the fact that both versions are entirely separate.
And also, if JJ Abrams didn't respect ST, why are there so many nods to TOS elements? The redshirt gag used on Chekov in STID, and earlier Engineer Olson (who was wearing red) died first in ST2009. The Ceti creatures are referenced with their new versions, Sulu knows fencing (seen in 'The Naked Time'), Uhura knows somewhat-rusty Klingon in contrast to her counterpart having to use books to do the same... in fact, there's so many nods it's hard to keep track.
And as a matter-of-fact, pretty much ALL of Into Darkness was used as a homage to Wrath of Khan; there's too many nods that it can't be otherwise. And before you say it's a rip-off, NONE of the nods were done exactly the way they happened the first time. Even the famous wall-separation was done with Kirk and Spock reversed, and they did the same with the famous shout
So really, this new ST appeals to the masses, who are more into action and eye-candy than anything (it can't be said otherwise). But it does make them think on some level, and it does have character development, and that makes it just as valid as the older Star Trek. And personally, no amount of denial can change that
Plus, I'm not the only one who thinks so: see scruffyvulcan's second-to-last post above mine, along with cdrgadley's. Even qqqqii, who hates JJ Trek, shows that ST can't be ruined, just taken in new directions.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I'll probably do the same with this current movie, I will just borrow the DVD for free eventually and watch it when STO is down. I won't spend a dime on JJ Trek.
Now if the next JJ Trek movie is about time traveling to stop the events from JJ Trek 1 from happening in the first place I will camp overnight in line to watch that.
Marc, when you watch it, I highly recommend that you watch it with an open mind.
I loved the 09 Trek, but I completely admit that many of the "there's no substance" complaints were valid. I defend that by saying it's because he really had to pack 40 years of character development into one movie (because this was a reboot, not a sequel), but the fact is, it doesn't matter why. That movie was light. It was great fun, but it was lighter than most Star Trek, TOS or after. I was fine with that and found it refreshing in an Indiana Jones kind of way, but I certainly don't fault others for feeling differently.
But I honestly felt this sequel really tried to address many of those complaints. Of course, he had to do it within the confines of a studio-ordered action movie, but he still managed to pack a lot of character development and moral allegory into this film. Because of the break-neck pacing of this movie, you really have to pay attention to get it all, but it's definitely there.
I had complaints about some of the homages, but honestly, this was the reboot I wish 09 had been.
Now, I'm not saying you'll love this movie (or even like it). I'm just saying if you go into it with an open mind that isn't predisposed to disliking it, you might be pleasantly surprised.
the timeline has been erased. The history of the future has been rewritten. His version of Trek is could be any space adventure/action movie, but he has attached the Star Trek characters. While this may appeal to the new unitiated audience, it is a disappointment to the long time fans many of whom like myself watched TOS as it was first run, watched the following Treks as first run.
Before undertaking this "reboot" project, Abrams should have looked at the Doctor Who Franchise. The writers, producers and showrunners were able to reboot that long standing series without major disruptions in show canon, while still giving the stories and characters a fresh look. They were able to bring in new viewers with a new way of telling and showing the stories without disenfranchising the old fans of the show.
Going back to the original Enterprise crew for the "reboot" was a great idea. There were and are many stories and adventures that could have been told and made for great movies without changing the history.
VS
2. 8 year old Kirk driving a sports car, while his Nokia phone is ringing ...
-> That's why ... not to mention it seems they have to blow up at least one planet each movie :P
:rolleyes:
You could say that about any TNG movie.
I'm also a long time fan. Been watching Star Trek since 1975. I'm fine with the reboot. It takes nothing away from the original material. Many aspects of Trek which are familiar in pop culture are highlights in the films, and it's one of the main reasons I enjoy them. I'll gladly take Abrams Trek over all the TNG movies and Enterprise, EASILY.
- Nuff said
magic blood and magic black holes 2 way communicator that can contact some one from the Klingon home world all the way to sol system Vulcan didnt have moons and JJ did nuff said :rolleyes:
and to add ST nem was a fan made movie that some how got made cannon
system Lord Baal is dead
Only if Picard bought the Dune Buggy with GPL from some shady Ferengi, to do bad product placement :P ... not sure what "mind r4pe" done by some Remans, has to do with anything from Picards & the Federation message ...
I'm not saying these things were good, but at least they didn't r4pe anything the Federation stands for ...
JJ's Federation is more like some weird cross-breed between "Starship Trooper's Earth Defence Force" and the "Ferengi Alliance"
Gene's ST Future was something to look forward too (while it will never happen) ... JJ's stuff is just depressing ... I guess i would just kill myself in that timelime :P (totally makes sense Kirk being some drunk slob there, though)
The focus of any great Star Trek is character. Yes, they're younger than they were, so they will be more green, a bit cockier, more adolescent, absolutely. If anything, its a refreshing new take on the characters, instead of the tired old Admiral desperately clinging to lost youth.
And canon... oh boy *facepalm*... canon doesn't even APPLY here. 1. because there was 20 years between the timeline disruption and the first movie, 2. ITS A REBOOT, GET OVER IT.
And this is exactly what Kirk tries to fix in Into Darkness, and why I feel they made a point in destroying Section 31 so we never hear of that abomination and insult to Gene's legacy ever again.
Just as REman mindr4pe didn't apply to the Federation, the Nerada's path of destruction had nothing to do with the Federation either. But it sure as hell scared them into thinking more militaristic. And for this, the Fleet Admiral is portrayed as the villain, and Kirk announces that even though war with the Klingons may be inevitable (remember, that war was still in TOS), it does not mean we should abandon our ideals. Personally, I think the message of Into Darkness is a return to ideals.
Now, I know you're going to point out all the shooting and stuff in Into Darkness, but as with any movie (including original Star Trek) its a means to an end, and whats important is the message at the end. The audience clearly sees the military-focused Starfleet is bad, which is why we accept Kirk's "return to ideals" speech at the end. It is in pure Star Trek form, telling a relevant message, in the guise of a sci-fi/action/adventure. Personally (considering what Berman did to DS9, VOY and ENT) I think Gene would be proud of Into Darkness.
no its a summer blockbuster nothing more then that these movies are a hit for a month then your like star trek 09 who? oh them jj movies ppl need to open their eyes these movies are one hit wonders
and a month from now you find all that so called new life at you local dollar tree
system Lord Baal is dead
Exactly, I don't really need get over it ... I just don't care about it ... I'll might be watching it as what it is ... some Blockbuster Action Movie, I could enjoy with some Popcorn and a cuple of beers ... but it's not gonna be ST for me ...
Furthermore ... I don't really see the point posting in a Thread named "Why do people think JJ ruined ST" when you don't really care why people think that way ...
Well ... if this stuff carries on to the next movie you might be right ... but I guess it's just some "I've learned something today" - Hollywood TRIBBLE which has absolutly no impact on the next movie ... I highly doubt they're gonna save Whales in the next one or something ... pretty sure the next evil Space Terrorists who wants to blow up planets and stuff, is just around the corner ...
Sure all that shooting might be the means to an end ... but there's a difference between 2 hours of explosions with some catchphrase at the end and i.E. Picard trying to secure humanity's future/First Contact while shooting some Borg on the Holodeck with a Tommy ...
If you say so. I found enough enjoyment in the 2009 Star Trek to purchase it on DVD several months after the "hit for a month" period ended. And I can also guarantee I will spend my hard earned money on Into Darkness too. I submit Into Darkness is a summer blockbuster in the same way Dark Knight was. Fit that bill to a T, but had something deeper to it that gave it life far beyond that (and no, I am not talking about the whole Heath Ledger thing).
What I don't get is.... why you said "No" specifically at "Its a reboot, get over it". Because it is, by very definition, a reboot. And besides, how was Wrath of Khan not a summer blockbuster? Or First Contact?
Sollvax...next time you have a thought ball it up REAL tight and put it somewhere no one will have to choke on its ignorance.
You've said a LOT of stupid things in this thread which is very on character for you, but I will say this: If you believe the MILLIONS of people who consume cannabis for various medical conditions are criminals for not chugging Big Pharma soft-kill then you are beyond ignorant and a trite little fascist. You do Henry Anslinger proud, I am sure you believe it causes blacks go out and seek teh TRIBBLE with white women too dontcha? You little Hearst wannabe. It must be sad to hate as much as you do and then to simultaneously be one of the most ignorant children around.
I somewhat pity you, but not much.
With this new alternative timeline, years of history are now irrelevant, and no new stories that incorporate that history are anticipated, which basically has erased that timeline.
What made Star Trek special and set it apart from other space media, was that it was first a drama/story that happened to be set in the future in space travel. The back stories of the characters and their relationships gave the viewer a reason to be invested in these characters.
While many people like this reboot, the fact remains that there are many who believe that Abrams has fixed something that wasn't broken, and fixing something that is not broken can shorten its lifespan.