What are you talking about? The fans had absolutely no say in Nemesis, and the director had never seen Star Trek before then.
John Logan (the film's script writer) was a self-acknowledged HUGE fan of TNG. He also often called Brent Spiner to collaborate on the script.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
There's nothing wrong with that opinion. I'd love to see a new series too. I'm just saying I don't agree with the assertion that these movies are killing Star Trek. They've kept Star Trek in the public view for more years than Enterprise did, and that was a series. They've kept Star Trek in the public view for longer than Nemesis and Insurrection did.
Why aren't you saying Enterprise and Insurrection and Nemesis killed Star Trek? The reboot is the first Star Trek in a decade to actually cause a rise in Star Trek fans and yet it's the one people are claiming is "killing" Star Trek. That just makes no sense to me at all.
Again, I'm not debating whether or not it's good. I liked it. You didn't. Both of us are right. That's what's cool about opinions. We can both be right. But the "JJTrek is killing Star Trek" thing is simply not true. We haven't seen this much excitement for Star Trek in a very long time. And not just for these movies. Around the time the last movie's hype began, Netflix added every series. Do you think that was a coincidence? They were cashing in on the hype (which is great, IMO). Me and several of my friends started playing STO again because of these movies. How is that a bad things for Trek?
if i came off as he killed trek is not what i mint and for that i do apologize what im saying is they are summer blockbusters good for that and here is my opinion its not something going to usher the next 50 years of trek
again new life I don't see it I see movies that are a hit for few weeks then nothing for 4 years
FYI - the exact formula you described BUILT Lucas Arts; made George Lucas a billionaire; and while later it did spawn a popular CGI TV series - for 30+ years the Star Wars franchise was a feature film franchise.
So, again, to say JJ Abram's Star Trek films didn't breathe new life into the Star Trek Franchise (which over the last 47 years has consisted BOTH on TV and film (and Star Trek feature films were all we had from 1979 - 1986 with 4 very successful ones in that period); is just plain disingenuous, and VERY inaccurate.
(To illustrate my point: Without the success of those four feature films from 1979 - 1986, we probably would not have gotten the 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' TV series. It remains to be seen if CBS will greenlight another Star Trek based TV series (either in the JJ verse or back in the 'Prime' Star Trek Universe) after the current series of Star Trek feature films is brought to a close (the current cast was signed for three; and their will be a third -- but if the third is successful enough, paramount could still continue with a fourth , etc.); but if CBS does, you can bet it's because of the new interest in Star Trek that the JJ Abram's films have generated.)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
i will also add this i was born in the TNG time frame so i had 2 more series to spoil me and maybe that why i like the show better then the movies kirk and tng and jj alike
if i came off as he killed trek is not what i mint and for that i do apologize what im saying is they are summer blockbusters good for that and here is my opinion its not something going to usher the next 50 years of trek
No worries, Daan. These threads move so fast, it's entirely possible I was either being assumptive or mixing you up with other posters.
So, again, to say JJ Abram's Star Trek films didn't breathe new life into the Star Trek Franchise (which over the last 47 years has consisted BOTH on TV and film (and Star Trek feature films were all we had from 1979 - 1986 with 4 very successful ones in that period); is just plain disingenuous, and VERY inaccurate.
(To illustrate my point: Without the success of those four feature films from 1979 - 1986, we probably would not have gotten the 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' TV series. It remains to be seen if CBS will greenlight another Star Trek based TV series (either in the JJ verse or back in the 'Prime' Star Trek Universe) after the current series of Star Trek feature films is brought to a close (the current cast was signed for three; and their will be a third -- but if the third is successful enough, paramount could still continue with a fourth , etc.); but if CBS does, you can bet it's because of the new interest in Star Trek that the JJ Abram's films have generated.)
i will say this ya his movie may have jolted some life back in like a dying man on the operating table whos heart has stop but in my opinion i think some overestimate how much tho
I think what we have here, and what we have all over these boards, is a wide variety of opinions about Star Trek: what makes it great, when is it at its best, what is the health of the franchise right now. And that's fine. That, to me, is the great thing about Star Trek, that it fosters so many different interpretations.
I also grew up in the TNG era. I've said before that I think the "Golden Age" of Star Trek was that 90s period when TNG was finishing its very successful run, when DS9 was hitting its stride, when Voyager was starting and when we had very good movies (Undiscovered Country and First Contact). I know there's a lot of people who would disagree with that, and that's perfectly ok.
What often disappoints me is when people attack others for holding one of these differing interpretations. I remember not too long ago we were having a nice discussion about the Enterprise B, and someone decided to go after me because, in his view, the only "true" Star Trek was what was made while Gene Roddenberry was alive. It's fine if he thinks that, but why can't I have my interpretation of canon?
I liked the new movies, and I'm glad they are around. I've heard from numerous people who were never Star Trek fans before that they really enjoyed them. Most of my friends enjoyed them. I know a guy who never, ever goes to the theater unless its a Star Trek movie. I'd love to see a new TV series, but I doubt it'll happen for a good long while. But even with that I think the franchise is healthier today as STID is winding down its major run in theaters than it was at the end of Enterprise.
As to the original question of this thread, I don't personally feel JJ Abrams ruined Star Trek. Even if I hadn't liked the new movies, I don't think its possible for nearly 50 years of history spanning 12 movies, 6 tv shows, numerous games, novels, comics and whatever to be "ruined " by one bad installment. That is all my opinion of course and you may disagree with it as you like.
Look, this is pretty simple: Youth informs which Trek you enjoy. When you're a kid, you see things with an uncritical eye, your endocrine system literally makes pleasure more intense, and as you age, your old memories tinge those youthful memories with nostalgia. I'm obviously a fan of the Movie Trek era, because that's when I was at the right age to enjoy their product: a 10 year old boy with spaceships on the brain. Odds are pretty good if you saw JJ's Trek movies at that impressionable age, you'd think they were the most awesome stuff ever.
Now when you get older, you start to recognize the classic manipulative tricks that movie writers and directors use to evoke emotion. Something which would have been surprising and moving as a child will simply feel contrived and hackneyed, because we've seen it done many times before. Another change as you mature is your increasing ability to display sympathy with others. In films, this impels an adult viewer to consider the actions of the protagonists from more than one point of view. Kirk (in both incarnations) is a really brash, egocentric character. When you're a kid, you just identify with him. He's your buddy, and you want him to win. As an adult, you start to think about how his actions might make other people feel, and thanks to maturity and empathy, he comes off as an entitled prick, an impression that isn't helped by the fact that he basically destinies his way into Captaining a Starship, no dues paying or experience required.
But it's important to remember that LOTS of Star Trek, from every era, has suffered from bad acting, direction and writing.
Look, this is pretty simple: Youth informs which Trek you enjoy. When you're a kid, you see things with an uncritical eye, your endocrine system literally makes pleasure more intense, and as you age, your old memories tinge those youthful memories with nostalgia. I'm obviously a fan of the Movie Trek era, because that's when I was at the right age to enjoy their product: a 10 year old boy with spaceships on the brain. Odds are pretty good if you saw JJ's Trek movies at that impressionable age, you'd think they were the most awesome stuff ever.
Now when you get older, you start to recognize the classic manipulative tricks that movie writers and directors use to evoke emotion. Something which would have been surprising and moving as a child will simply feel contrived and hackneyed, because we've seen it done many times before. Another change as you mature is your increasing ability to display sympathy with others. In films, this impels an adult viewer to consider the actions of the protagonists from more than one point of view. Kirk (in both incarnations) is a really brash, egocentric character. When you're a kid, you just identify with him. He's your buddy, and you want him to win. As an adult, you start to think about how his actions might make other people feel, and thanks to maturity and empathy, he comes off as an entitled prick, an impression that isn't helped by the fact that he basically destinies his way into Captaining a Starship, no dues paying or experience required.
But it's important to remember that LOTS of Star Trek, from every era, has suffered from bad acting, direction and writing.
Very nice post. Props.
I too was raised on the TOS movies in the 80s, so that's what defines Trek for me (it's also why my STO characters wear the Wrath of Khan movie uniforms despite the continuity issues). While I loved the new Trek movies, I gotta' say, your post has some very interesting insights.
really to me they are not star trek but they are good star wars movies with star trek skin i give it that but this new life every one talks about i dont see it i see a hyper point that then dies down after a whlie imo and even gene soon thinks it works better as a tv show then a 2 hour blockbuster and not going to lie i want a tv show more then jj movies
Again, how are these movies any different than the previous films? You use the Star Wars analogy, which is ludicrous, because the Star Wars narrative is in the fantasy-based hero style. The two don't even compare.
Point out exactly what is in these new films that kills Star Trek, that hasn't already been in previous films?
Action and Explosions? (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact, Nemesis)
Big Visual Effects? (Motion Picture, Undiscovered Country, and every TNG film)
Exploring different aspects of characters? (Wrath of Khan (aging), Undiscovered Country (Kirk prejudice), Generations (emotion chip), First Contact (vengeful Picard)
Comedic dialog moments? (Voyage Home, Final Frontier, Generations, Insurrection)
Completely new ship and set designs? (Motion Picture, Final Frontier, First Contact, Nemesis)
Did I miss anything? The only thing that's changed is the level of Visual Effects technology, and the budgets movies are allowed to use for them (and VFX has become much cheaper to do, than in the "old days")
Again I ask the question, what has 2009 and Into Darkness done so badly that qualifies it as "ruining Star Trek"?
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
I too was raised on the TOS movies in the 80s, so that's what defines Trek for me (it's also why my STO characters wear the Wrath of Khan movie uniforms despite the continuity issues). While I loved the new Trek movies, I gotta' say, your post has some very interesting insights.
What really get's me is people telling me on how TOS really brought the Big Three as friends, but if you watched them, you see colleagues who work well together, but that is about it. It wasn't until the movies until that TOS crew became a close-knit family that well all come to identify with, except for the teary-Kirk-I-miss-you moments in TMP (which was weird, but however you get that they were friends). The TOS movies were my first viewings of the beloved franchise. Star Trek III to be exact.
TNG had enough run to establish the one of the best on-screen friendships (in my opinion) Data-Geordi. I felt for Geordi when Data died. The other is Bashir-O'Brien (which was the best), they grew from a crusty-old crewmember-brash new officer to best friends before the war started. Third would be the Bashir-Garak friendship.
What I see in the new movies, is a nice beginnings to a friendship that we all loved from the TOS movies.
Well, I'm done catering to the troll tantrum, so if he comes back with some absurdly long post, its going unanswered by me.
Yeah, I'm a bit ashamed of myself for continuing to post on this. No disrespect to anybody intended here, but clearly there's an impasse. Normally, when I realize that, I stop debating, but this time, I just keep posting.
What really get's me is people telling me on how TOS really brought the Big Three as friends, but if you watched them, you see colleagues who work well together, but that is about it. It wasn't until the movies until that TOS crew became a close-knit family that well all come to identify with, except for the teary-Kirk-I-miss-you moments in TMP (which was weird, but however you get that they were friends). The TOS movies were my first viewings of the beloved franchise. Star Trek III to be exact.
^^^
I don't agree with this assessment as four episodes really showed the friendship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy during the run of the series (and there are probably more, but these stand out to me):
1) Amok Time: Kirk disobeys a direct order from an Admiral to bring Spock to Vulcan (and won't divulge Spock's personal reason as he gave his word to Spock that what was said between them would leave the room). Also, when Spock beams down he requests McCoy accompany him and Kirk - and also states directly to T'Pau that by right and tradition, the Vulcan male is accompanied by his closest friends in response to her question of "Are our ceremonies for out-worlders?" (McCoy even mentions to T'Pau that Kirk and Spock are friends, and to force them to fight to the death... when she replies,the choice has been made, it's up to him (Kirk) now.
2) Journey to Babel: Kirk tells Spock's mother (Amanda) he and Spock are friends; and risks his health so that Spock can perform the transfusion need to keep his father Sarek alive during surgery.
3)The Tholian Web: Spock remains in Tholian space (and risks the Enetrprise itself) when logic clearlty shows the thing to do would be to leave.
4) The Immunity Syndrome: When Spock implores the Captain not to risk the Enterprise to save his Shuttlecraft, McCoy blurts out, "Shut up Spock! We're rescuing you!"
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
^^^
I don't agree with this assessment as four episodes really showed the friendship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy during the run of the series (and there are probably more, but these stand out to me):
1) Amok Time: Kirk disobeys a direct order from an Admiral to bring Spock to Vulcan (and won't divulge Spock's personal reason as he gave his word to Spock that what was said between them would leave the room). Also, when Spock beams down he requests McCoy accompany him and Kirk - and also states directly to T'Pau that by right and tradition, the Vulcan male is accompanied by his closest friends in response to her question of "Are our ceremonies for out-worlders?" (McCoy even mentions to T'Pau that Kirk and Spock are friends, and to force them to fight to the death... when she replies,the choice has been made, it's up to him (Kirk) now.
2) Journey to Babel: Kirk tells Spock's mother (Amanda) he and Spock are friends; and risks his health so that Spock can perform the transfusion need to keep his father Sarek alive during surgery.
3)The Tholian Web: Spock remains in Tholian space (and risks the Enetrprise itself) when logic clearlty shows the thing to do would be to leave.
4) The Immunity Syndrome: When Spock implores the Captain not to risk the Enterprise to save his Shuttlecraft, McCoy blurts out, "Shut up Spock! We're rescuing you!"
And I don't remember the episode's name, but there was the time Spock mind melded with Kirk to make him forget his broken heart.
Let's talk about magic insta-planet device that can also somehow revive dead people even though it was stated (by the soon to be revived, no less), that it destroys any organic matter that came before.
Let's talk about how killing is wrong.
Let's talk about it doesn't really matter what we all think, the movie STILL grossed $415,310,916 worldwide. Soon as you can put out a movie that does that, then your opinions on how good or bad it is will actually be relevant.
Also. I grew up on Shatner/Nimoy Trek. When I first saw TNG advertised I was so hyped. then, first episode....the ending. Picard(any card) says....."We surrender." The whole series went downhill from there. The spinoffs, DS9? Voyager? Enterprise? Trash. Tripe. I treat them like Highlander 2.
The JJ movies? Decent. I'm more willing to accept them as canon than TNG, Voyager, DS9 AND Enterprise.
Let's talk about it doesn't really matter what we all think, the movie STILL grossed $415,310,916 worldwide. Soon as you can put out a movie that does that, then your opinions on how good or bad it is will actually be relevant.
Also. I grew up on Shatner/Nimoy Trek. When I first saw TNG advertised I was so hyped. then, first episode....the ending. Picard(any card) says....."We surrender." The whole series went downhill from there. The spinoffs, DS9? Voyager? Enterprise? Trash. Tripe. I treat them like Highlander 2.
The JJ movies? Decent. I'm more willing to accept them as canon than TNG, Voyager, DS9 AND Enterprise.
uhm... it was Q he was surrendering to, and it was so the civilians on his ship could escape. As for TNG, it didn't really hit its stride until its third season, then it just got better and better.
DS9 was a bit of a departure, but you still had some great material. Find an episode called "Duet", and I think you'll find (what one could call) Trek purity in that one. And it was nice to get some serious focus on the Klingons, for the 4th - 6th seasons (something even TOS didn't do too much of).
Voyager... well... by then, Rick Berman had full control, and by then, it ceased to be Gene's baby. Same goes for Enterprise.
Still, I say give TNG another try, at least from Season 3 - on. And some of DS9 has some merit as well, for an oldschool Trekkie.
Paid STO subscriber since December 2010, and DJ for mmo-radio
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
As much as this bothers me, I have to +1 this. However, I disagree with Scotty.
The actor/ movie director(in his own right..and good at it.) (forget his name for now, late here)loved the character as a child, and tried to bring justice to the role..... he gets a pass, in my opinion.He was a die hard Trek fan IRL, and tried to bring Dohann,s Character back, RESPECTFULLY.Other than that, JJ Trek is a fat steaming dump on the franchise,...with camera flare.AS much as I hate the JJ movies, the TNG movies were no better, loved the TV show, but the films lacked substance;
Let's talk about magic insta-planet device that can also somehow revive dead people even though it was stated (by the soon to be revived, no less), that it destroys any organic matter that came before.
Actually, Spock's corpse was introduced after the Genesis reaction was supposed to be over. However, due to David's use of certain proscribed technologies, it proved to be - ah - rather less stable than had been expected (there was a scene in the novelization in which David and Saavik paid a visit to Regula first, to visit his cave, and found the life there had gone insane, overgrowing the space available and evolving at downright bacterial rates). It turned microbes on the surface of the giant sunglasses case Spock was buried in into something that looked like gummi trilobites, and it revived his body (albeit without a mind inside its brain - that's where the whole katra thing comes in).
I'll grant that the functioning of the Genesis Device bordered on magic...
Its star Eisn didn't go nova or supernova, either.
A star called Hobus, several lightyears away, went supernova, an event nobody thought much of because it was too far away. Except that somehow, its wavefront began traveling through subspace, wiping out several star systems on its way into the Romulus system. Spock tried to stop it while Eisn still burned, but failed; he did manage to stop it before it destroyed any more of the galaxy.
And how did a star go supernova unexpectedly, and propagate through subspace at warp speeds? That's revealed as you play STO...
It is because of people like JJ, Bermon and Braga no one can tell what Star Trek is anymore.
I don't beleilve Romulas went supernova.
I would of put the 2 best in charge which is william Shatner and Len. Nimoy they are the best to run the franchise.They know it the best.
I would submit that JJ is doing a better job than Berman and Braga. As for Shatner... yeah, we all saw how his directorial debut went... but Paramount tried to sabotage that a bit, so not fully his fault.
Someone mentions this later, Romulans did not go Supernova (as a planet cannot do that), it was the star Hobus. Though they don't explain this in the movie, the device that triggerd the Nova was a combination of Trilithium (generations) and Genesis Device (Wrath of Khan)... so when you mix the devastating reactions of both together, you get one big bad-TRIBBLE shockwave of devastating doom.
I think the events surrounding this were built off of a novelization called Genesis Wave. I have not read the book, but I will give it a try, to see if it shares the same events timeline or if its completely different. I don't read much, but if I get my hands on it, I'll let you know if its any good.
I know but it didn't bet blown away the same for remus as all Romulans as still living on romulas and remans living on remus.
That is what i meant though the sun didn't go supernova.
... nobody is living on either planet. Rihannsu (Romulus) is gone, and the Romulans are trying to make a new home on Mol'Rihan (New Romulus - I think I got the names right), per the events of STO. While the events of Romulus' destruction only exist in a comic book form, it is officially recognized as canon by CBS and Paramount.
Comments
John Logan (the film's script writer) was a self-acknowledged HUGE fan of TNG. He also often called Brent Spiner to collaborate on the script.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
if i came off as he killed trek is not what i mint and for that i do apologize what im saying is they are summer blockbusters good for that and here is my opinion its not something going to usher the next 50 years of trek
system Lord Baal is dead
FYI - the exact formula you described BUILT Lucas Arts; made George Lucas a billionaire; and while later it did spawn a popular CGI TV series - for 30+ years the Star Wars franchise was a feature film franchise.
So, again, to say JJ Abram's Star Trek films didn't breathe new life into the Star Trek Franchise (which over the last 47 years has consisted BOTH on TV and film (and Star Trek feature films were all we had from 1979 - 1986 with 4 very successful ones in that period); is just plain disingenuous, and VERY inaccurate.
(To illustrate my point: Without the success of those four feature films from 1979 - 1986, we probably would not have gotten the 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' TV series. It remains to be seen if CBS will greenlight another Star Trek based TV series (either in the JJ verse or back in the 'Prime' Star Trek Universe) after the current series of Star Trek feature films is brought to a close (the current cast was signed for three; and their will be a third -- but if the third is successful enough, paramount could still continue with a fourth , etc.); but if CBS does, you can bet it's because of the new interest in Star Trek that the JJ Abram's films have generated.)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
system Lord Baal is dead
No worries, Daan. These threads move so fast, it's entirely possible I was either being assumptive or mixing you up with other posters.
i will say this ya his movie may have jolted some life back in like a dying man on the operating table whos heart has stop but in my opinion i think some overestimate how much tho
system Lord Baal is dead
I also grew up in the TNG era. I've said before that I think the "Golden Age" of Star Trek was that 90s period when TNG was finishing its very successful run, when DS9 was hitting its stride, when Voyager was starting and when we had very good movies (Undiscovered Country and First Contact). I know there's a lot of people who would disagree with that, and that's perfectly ok.
What often disappoints me is when people attack others for holding one of these differing interpretations. I remember not too long ago we were having a nice discussion about the Enterprise B, and someone decided to go after me because, in his view, the only "true" Star Trek was what was made while Gene Roddenberry was alive. It's fine if he thinks that, but why can't I have my interpretation of canon?
I liked the new movies, and I'm glad they are around. I've heard from numerous people who were never Star Trek fans before that they really enjoyed them. Most of my friends enjoyed them. I know a guy who never, ever goes to the theater unless its a Star Trek movie. I'd love to see a new TV series, but I doubt it'll happen for a good long while. But even with that I think the franchise is healthier today as STID is winding down its major run in theaters than it was at the end of Enterprise.
As to the original question of this thread, I don't personally feel JJ Abrams ruined Star Trek. Even if I hadn't liked the new movies, I don't think its possible for nearly 50 years of history spanning 12 movies, 6 tv shows, numerous games, novels, comics and whatever to be "ruined " by one bad installment. That is all my opinion of course and you may disagree with it as you like.
IDIC, right?
Now when you get older, you start to recognize the classic manipulative tricks that movie writers and directors use to evoke emotion. Something which would have been surprising and moving as a child will simply feel contrived and hackneyed, because we've seen it done many times before. Another change as you mature is your increasing ability to display sympathy with others. In films, this impels an adult viewer to consider the actions of the protagonists from more than one point of view. Kirk (in both incarnations) is a really brash, egocentric character. When you're a kid, you just identify with him. He's your buddy, and you want him to win. As an adult, you start to think about how his actions might make other people feel, and thanks to maturity and empathy, he comes off as an entitled prick, an impression that isn't helped by the fact that he basically destinies his way into Captaining a Starship, no dues paying or experience required.
But it's important to remember that LOTS of Star Trek, from every era, has suffered from bad acting, direction and writing.
Very nice post. Props.
I too was raised on the TOS movies in the 80s, so that's what defines Trek for me (it's also why my STO characters wear the Wrath of Khan movie uniforms despite the continuity issues). While I loved the new Trek movies, I gotta' say, your post has some very interesting insights.
Again, how are these movies any different than the previous films? You use the Star Wars analogy, which is ludicrous, because the Star Wars narrative is in the fantasy-based hero style. The two don't even compare.
Point out exactly what is in these new films that kills Star Trek, that hasn't already been in previous films?
Action and Explosions? (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact, Nemesis)
Big Visual Effects? (Motion Picture, Undiscovered Country, and every TNG film)
Exploring different aspects of characters? (Wrath of Khan (aging), Undiscovered Country (Kirk prejudice), Generations (emotion chip), First Contact (vengeful Picard)
Comedic dialog moments? (Voyage Home, Final Frontier, Generations, Insurrection)
Completely new ship and set designs? (Motion Picture, Final Frontier, First Contact, Nemesis)
Did I miss anything? The only thing that's changed is the level of Visual Effects technology, and the budgets movies are allowed to use for them (and VFX has become much cheaper to do, than in the "old days")
Again I ask the question, what has 2009 and Into Darkness done so badly that qualifies it as "ruining Star Trek"?
What really get's me is people telling me on how TOS really brought the Big Three as friends, but if you watched them, you see colleagues who work well together, but that is about it. It wasn't until the movies until that TOS crew became a close-knit family that well all come to identify with, except for the teary-Kirk-I-miss-you moments in TMP (which was weird, but however you get that they were friends). The TOS movies were my first viewings of the beloved franchise. Star Trek III to be exact.
TNG had enough run to establish the one of the best on-screen friendships (in my opinion) Data-Geordi. I felt for Geordi when Data died. The other is Bashir-O'Brien (which was the best), they grew from a crusty-old crewmember-brash new officer to best friends before the war started. Third would be the Bashir-Garak friendship.
What I see in the new movies, is a nice beginnings to a friendship that we all loved from the TOS movies.
Apparently, someone had been carrying this thread's katra around for a while, then decided to deliver it back home.
Well, I'm done catering to the troll tantrum, so if he comes back with some absurdly long post, its going unanswered by me.
Yeah, I'm a bit ashamed of myself for continuing to post on this. No disrespect to anybody intended here, but clearly there's an impasse. Normally, when I realize that, I stop debating, but this time, I just keep posting.
^^^
I don't agree with this assessment as four episodes really showed the friendship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy during the run of the series (and there are probably more, but these stand out to me):
1) Amok Time: Kirk disobeys a direct order from an Admiral to bring Spock to Vulcan (and won't divulge Spock's personal reason as he gave his word to Spock that what was said between them would leave the room). Also, when Spock beams down he requests McCoy accompany him and Kirk - and also states directly to T'Pau that by right and tradition, the Vulcan male is accompanied by his closest friends in response to her question of "Are our ceremonies for out-worlders?" (McCoy even mentions to T'Pau that Kirk and Spock are friends, and to force them to fight to the death... when she replies,the choice has been made, it's up to him (Kirk) now.
2) Journey to Babel: Kirk tells Spock's mother (Amanda) he and Spock are friends; and risks his health so that Spock can perform the transfusion need to keep his father Sarek alive during surgery.
3)The Tholian Web: Spock remains in Tholian space (and risks the Enetrprise itself) when logic clearlty shows the thing to do would be to leave.
4) The Immunity Syndrome: When Spock implores the Captain not to risk the Enterprise to save his Shuttlecraft, McCoy blurts out, "Shut up Spock! We're rescuing you!"
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
And I don't remember the episode's name, but there was the time Spock mind melded with Kirk to make him forget his broken heart.
Let's talk about it doesn't really matter what we all think, the movie STILL grossed $415,310,916 worldwide. Soon as you can put out a movie that does that, then your opinions on how good or bad it is will actually be relevant.
Source for monetary quote: http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/untitled-star-trek-sequel-2012
Also. I grew up on Shatner/Nimoy Trek. When I first saw TNG advertised I was so hyped. then, first episode....the ending. Picard(any card) says....."We surrender." The whole series went downhill from there. The spinoffs, DS9? Voyager? Enterprise? Trash. Tripe. I treat them like Highlander 2.
The JJ movies? Decent. I'm more willing to accept them as canon than TNG, Voyager, DS9 AND Enterprise.
Occam's Razor makes the cutting clean.
uhm... it was Q he was surrendering to, and it was so the civilians on his ship could escape. As for TNG, it didn't really hit its stride until its third season, then it just got better and better.
DS9 was a bit of a departure, but you still had some great material. Find an episode called "Duet", and I think you'll find (what one could call) Trek purity in that one. And it was nice to get some serious focus on the Klingons, for the 4th - 6th seasons (something even TOS didn't do too much of).
Voyager... well... by then, Rick Berman had full control, and by then, it ceased to be Gene's baby. Same goes for Enterprise.
Still, I say give TNG another try, at least from Season 3 - on. And some of DS9 has some merit as well, for an oldschool Trekkie.
As much as this bothers me, I have to +1 this. However, I disagree with Scotty.
The actor/ movie director(in his own right..and good at it.) (forget his name for now, late here)loved the character as a child, and tried to bring justice to the role..... he gets a pass, in my opinion.He was a die hard Trek fan IRL, and tried to bring Dohann,s Character back, RESPECTFULLY.Other than that, JJ Trek is a fat steaming dump on the franchise,...with camera flare.AS much as I hate the JJ movies, the TNG movies were no better, loved the TV show, but the films lacked substance;
I'll grant that the functioning of the Genesis Device bordered on magic...
I don't beleilve Romulas went supernova.
I would of put the 2 best in charge which is william Shatner and Len. Nimoy they are the best to run the franchise.They know it the best.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
Its star Eisn didn't go nova or supernova, either.
A star called Hobus, several lightyears away, went supernova, an event nobody thought much of because it was too far away. Except that somehow, its wavefront began traveling through subspace, wiping out several star systems on its way into the Romulus system. Spock tried to stop it while Eisn still burned, but failed; he did manage to stop it before it destroyed any more of the galaxy.
And how did a star go supernova unexpectedly, and propagate through subspace at warp speeds? That's revealed as you play STO...
That is what i meant though the sun didn't go supernova.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
The Paradise Syndrome and his name........ Kirok!!!!!
system Lord Baal is dead
I would submit that JJ is doing a better job than Berman and Braga. As for Shatner... yeah, we all saw how his directorial debut went... but Paramount tried to sabotage that a bit, so not fully his fault.
Someone mentions this later, Romulans did not go Supernova (as a planet cannot do that), it was the star Hobus. Though they don't explain this in the movie, the device that triggerd the Nova was a combination of Trilithium (generations) and Genesis Device (Wrath of Khan)... so when you mix the devastating reactions of both together, you get one big bad-TRIBBLE shockwave of devastating doom.
I think the events surrounding this were built off of a novelization called Genesis Wave. I have not read the book, but I will give it a try, to see if it shares the same events timeline or if its completely different. I don't read much, but if I get my hands on it, I'll let you know if its any good.
... nobody is living on either planet. Rihannsu (Romulus) is gone, and the Romulans are trying to make a new home on Mol'Rihan (New Romulus - I think I got the names right), per the events of STO. While the events of Romulus' destruction only exist in a comic book form, it is officially recognized as canon by CBS and Paramount.
LOL Yes, the thing we all yell whenever we play "Cold Storage" (Breen mission 5)