Well, to be fair, if there's any place that's appropriate for Star Trek fans to furiously debate Star Trek, that place would be a discussion forum specifically devoted to Star Trek.
I love the new Star Trek movies, but the angry posts bashing it don't bother me because at the end of the day, we're all on the same team. We're all just people who are passionate about Star Trek.
Don't confuse angrily typed posts with the people who post them. I seriously doubt any of them are screaming "ABRAMS!" in the streets. I'm assuming they just enjoy having heated debates about it on the forums.
Well, obviously this Kirk was gonna be different, so that's out of the way.
And we never see him do so onscreen: that doesn't mean he never did so. And besides, Prime Kirk became captain at age 29 roughly, which had plenty of time to learn discipline and respect and all that stuff. This Kirk, who's still mainly a teenager and acting like one, is thrust into this situation and does what he can with the situation.
I think he did well enough for his circumstances, personally. He's still impulsive and headstrong, of course, but events will conspire to break that (I think that was Into Darkness's whole point, more-or-less)
And as far as making him the Captain, Pike was confined to the wheelchair, and Starfleet probably didn't have too many replacements on hand due to the small fleet destruction earlier. Plus, if Kirk proves incompetent, they reduce him in rank and give the Enterprise to another captain. If he proves worthy, then great.
No one said it was a permanent command, just that it happened
I realize this is a different Kirk and as I pointed out a terrible one at that. He's a caricature.
There isn't really much difference except the lens flare.
Abrams and company let the lens flare go for Into DARKness. I keep pointing this out. It's well past time to let go of the lens flare jokes and insults. This movie is too dark for the lenses to flare.
There isn't much naked skin at all in the two new trek films. It's fascinating that people think there is.
Abrams and company let the lens flare go for Into DARKness. I keep pointing this out. It's well past time to let go of the lens flare jokes and insults. This movie is too dark for the lenses to flare.
I have heard a joke about the new movie though it would be innapropriate for the forums still funny made me LOL
I find it funny that people are upset that an alternate reality isn't like the main reality...like if the made a tv show about the mirror universe people here would complain because it's too militaristic or Spock would never grow a goatee....
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I find it funny that people are upset that an alternate reality isn't like the main reality...like if the made a tv show about the mirror universe people here would complain because it's too militaristic or Spock would never grow a goatee....
Ikr because we all know your not truely evil until you grow a goatee
I can see where how people would be upset about the new characters backgrounds and wondering why kirk losing is father would change Spocks and everyone else's future.
We don't know how it did, but obviously it did have a impact. Anything could have happened.
I can see where how people would be upset about the new characters backgrounds and wondering why kirk losing is father would change Spocks and everyone else's future.
We don't know how it did, but obviously it did have a impact. Anything could have happened.
I don't really think the alternate timeline was introduced as a way to explain all the changes made in the new movies. I think, more specifically, it was simply a way to preserve the original Star Trek for fans who don't like the changes.
Basically, he's saying, "Look, I'm going to change a lot of stuff here and you probably won't like some of the stuff I'm changing. I get that, so here's an olive branch. I'm setting this in an alternate timeline that specifically established that the Trek you love still exists."
Most of the changes to the new movies are really for out-of-continuity reasons. They're because the new movies are a reboot and things are going to be changed. Just like TMP changed things from the series. When TMP came out, they didn't come up with a reason Klingons had foreheads. They just said, "This is how they look now." When TNG changed the Romulans, it was just a "This is how they look now" thing.
Star Trek has been rebooted several times over the years and many arbitrary changes have been made for plot and/or special effects reasons. This is the first reboot to at least put forth some effort to preserve the continuity that came before it by saying, "this isn't the same reality."
I think using the alternate timeline to explain the changes is missing the point of the alternate timeline. The point was to preserve the originals, which it does.
I don't really think the alternate timeline was introduced as a way to explain all the changes made in the new movies. I think, more specifically, it was simply a way to preserve the original Star Trek for fans who don't like the changes.
Basically, he's saying, "Look, I'm going to change a lot of stuff here and you probably won't like some of the stuff I'm changing. I get that, so here's an olive branch. I'm setting this in an alternate timeline that specifically established that the Trek you love still exists."
It would be nice if that was true, but behind the scenes, he put pressure on Paramount and tried to get them to stop selling merchandise with the original TOS crew, stop reissuing DVDs and Blu-Rays of the old Trek, etc. He got IDW to stop publishing TOS-related comics. He wanted his Trek to be the only Trek out there. He failed, because frankly, CBS sees way too much money left in old Trek to give it up. But that he tried is well documented:
See Here. If JJ had had his way, this game wouldn't exist, just his Star Trek shooter.
So, saying people shouldn't be mad about JJ changing Trek because they still have the other is kind of disingenuous, given JJ's attempts to get rid of the other.
It would be nice if that was true, but behind the scenes, he put pressure on Paramount and tried to get them to stop selling merchandise with the original TOS crew, stop reissuing DVDs and Blu-Rays of the old Trek, etc. He got IDW to stop publishing TOS-related comics. He wanted his Trek to be the only Trek out there. He failed, because frankly, CBS sees way too much money left in old Trek to give it up. But that he tried is well documented:
See Here. If JJ had had his way, this game wouldn't exist, just his Star Trek shooter.
So, saying people shouldn't be mad about JJ changing Trek because they still have the other is kind of disingenuous, given JJ's attempts to get rid of the other.
First, let me say I totally see your point and I'm not saying I'm right here... I'm just saying I disagree with the assertion that he wants all other Treks to disappear.
There's a huge difference between fighting over merchandising rights and saying the original timeline didn't exist. I actually see both sides on the merchandising rights argument. If you have a brand new movie out, and kids go to buy the toys but the toys look nothing like the new movies, it's just gonna hurt both platforms.
In my opinion, though, that in no way suggests he wants to just wipe the old Trek from existence.
The new Trek acknowledges the existence of the old Trek constantly. First, that's the reason they did the alternate timeline. If he just wanted to overwrite it, he wouldn't have done the alternate timeline. He would have done exactly what previous iterations of Trek have done... he'd have just changed it without explanation.
Secondly, this new movie is absolutely full of nods and references to the originals. And I'm not just talking about the plot that has so many people upset. There are constant references to TOS, from red shirt references to mentions of Mudd to actual characters that literally discuss the events of the old timeline within the movie. If he really didn't want anybody knowing about the original Star Trek, he would not have included so many references and he most definitely would not have had a character from those movies stating outright that the events of those movies happened.
So while I respect that you don't agree, I personally think people's assertion that he wants to wipe the old Trek from existence is overstating. Heck, in interviews this week he's talked about how after getting involved with these movies he went back and watched the originals and developed a deeper appreciation for them. That doesn't sound like someone trying to wipe them out.
I'm not saying Abrams is perfect. I had complaints about the new movies. I'm just saying he's not the villain some folks are making him out to be.
It would be nice if that was true, but behind the scenes, he put pressure on Paramount and tried to get them to stop selling merchandise with the original TOS crew, stop reissuing DVDs and Blu-Rays of the old Trek, etc. He got IDW to stop publishing TOS-related comics. He wanted his Trek to be the only Trek out there. He failed, because frankly, CBS sees way too much money left in old Trek to give it up. But that he tried is well documented:
See Here. If JJ had had his way, this game wouldn't exist, just his Star Trek shooter.
So, saying people shouldn't be mad about JJ changing Trek because they still have the other is kind of disingenuous, given JJ's attempts to get rid of the other.
If you don't like JJ Trek, don't bloody watch it and don't blast those who do.
... If you don't like it, keep watching TOS and keep quiet.
Quite your whining and get on with life, if you don't like it don't keep going on about it.
You do realize you're telling people not to talk about why the don't like JJ-trek in a thread that asks "Why do people think JJ ruined Star Trek?" , right? :rolleyes:
You do realize you're telling people not to talk about why the don't like JJ-trek in a thread that asks "Why do people think JJ ruined Star Trek?" , right? :rolleyes:
well put, but i was not really whining, i just was wondering why people thought JJ ruined Star Trek, not about what was wrong with the new movies. It is not really whining anyway(not that you said it is, just wanted to clear it up), just "debating" there's a difference.
Secondly, this new movie is absolutely full of nods and references to the originals. And I'm not just talking about the plot that has so many people upset. There are constant references to TOS, from red shirt references to mentions of Mudd to actual characters that literally discuss the events of the old timeline within the movie.
As far as I can tell, the folks who, when asked what they dislike about these movies, are reduced to screaming "ABRAMS!! LENS FLARES!! BOOOM!!", are simply unaware that there is any dialog in the '09 movie, at least. Most of their concerns (aside from the Spock/Uhura subtext suddenly becoming text) are addressed in the dialog - if they could stop frothing at the metaphorical mouth long enough to listen to it...
He killed the level of how realistic Star Trek is in the 2009 film.
I think he would have been better off consulting a Trekker and maybe not use the Enterprise.
Also he changed the way the enterprise looks and works
The interior of Engineering, although improved in into darkness is nothing like what it should look like.
Kirk is jerk (the following statement is not so true in the new film) and just a I could not give a **** about killing everyone PEW PEW PEW firing non cannon cannons and blue torpedos ... MASSIVE PLOT HOLES coz everyone is dumb ... wait ... there are people who are clever ... THIS CANNOT BE /end sarcastic tone
Hopefully I'll come back from my break; this break is fun; I play intellectual games.
He killed the level of how realistic Star Trek is in the 2009 film.
LMFAO!!!
Yeah, dune buggy chases and Troi fantasy sex scenes with a 20yr old Picard clone that turns into Nosferatu didn't do "realism" any harm in Star Trek. Shall I go on, or are those scenes enough?
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
Sorry, but Gene took a big ol' dump on scientific realism back in the day, when the transporter was introduced. Its sole raison d'etre is that it was cheaper than filming shuttlecraft sequences. The closest "scientific reasoning" came to this thing was when Gene invoked the tunnel diode effect in an attempt to explain it - and a cursory inspection of the actual tunnel diode effect shows that this was an early example of Treknobabble.
Sorry, but if you want a valid reason for hating on Abrams, this ain't it...
Edit: Oh, and I almost forgot those sensors with FTL returns - you can see what's going on right now, at distances ranging from light-minutes to light-years! And so very many other technologies...
Basically, I recommend giving this song a listen. (WARNING: NSFW)
I have often commented that I feel Abrams only sees the Trek label as a cash cow, much like a pimp looks at a used-and-abused hooker. If it's still making money, who cares, right? Abrams is more focused on scenery TRIBBLE and lens flare than he is on story, and like lemmings, people are buying it.
It's another reason that, in addition to shuddering in horror at what he's been doing to Star Trek, I'm also shuddering to think of what he'll do to Star Wars. Because unlike Trek, where the book/game/etc. canon is taken with a grain of salt (mainly because there are about twenty different explanations for smooth-head Klingons pre-Enterprise), the Star Wars Expanded Universe - the early parts particularly - are taken as gospel by the fandom. For many Star Wars fans, Episodes VII-IX have been, are, and always will be the Thrawn Trilogy (Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, The Last Command), the novels that established the EU. Not even the word of Lucas himself could change that, especially as people are slamming him for elements of the prequel trilogy (particularly, in my view, the fact they made Anakin an oedipal, self-absorbed whining brat - my usual comment is "THAT became Darth Vader?").
I don't like abrams for what he sees gene's vision as... as mentioned above, a cash cow, pumped full of growth hormones to make the most processed and unnatural form of milk there is, but still entertaining. i see trek and i see hope, abrams sees trek and he probably sees $_$
but
with the bad comes some good. at the very least we get a new generation of trek fans. im being honest when I say Star Trek Enterprise didnt do to well in that department.
Out of the masses of new 'fans' that like the new movies, there will be some that want more. they will look high and low, watch the previous series, and perhaps want more. they might even turn to fan made series as I have.
it's like sifting sand for those cool pieces of beach glass or neat shells. those are keepers, and there you find the next generation of star trek fans
I have often commented that I feel Abrams only sees the Trek label as a cash cow, much like a pimp looks at a used-and-abused hooker. If it's still making money, who cares, right? Abrams is more focused on scenery TRIBBLE and lens flare than he is on story, and like lemmings, people are buying it.
It's another reason that, in addition to shuddering in horror at what he's been doing to Star Trek, I'm also shuddering to think of what he'll do to Star Wars. Because unlike Trek, where the book/game/etc. canon is taken with a grain of salt (mainly because there are about twenty different explanations for smooth-head Klingons pre-Enterprise), the Star Wars Expanded Universe - the early parts particularly - are taken as gospel by the fandom. For many Star Wars fans, Episodes VII-IX have been, are, and always will be the Thrawn Trilogy (Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, The Last Command), the novels that established the EU. Not even the word of Lucas himself could change that, especially as people are slamming him for elements of the prequel trilogy (particularly, in my view, the fact they made Anakin an oedipal, self-absorbed whining brat - my usual comment is "THAT became Darth Vader?").
It would be incredibly unfair to blame Abrams for the new Star Wars trilogy not following the books. Lucas wrote the story before he ever sold it to Disney and the very week Disney bought it, both they and George Lucas stated that they would absolutely not be making the books into movies. They stated unequivocally that Episodes 7, 8, and 9 are original stories and - while they may use elements from the EU - they are not using those stories for the next trilogy.
This was all before they had chosen a director, so to blame Abrams for that would be the grossly unwarranted. Of course, I'm sure folks will end up blaming him for it anyway.
the Thrawn Trilogy (Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, The Last Command), the novels that established the EU. Not even the word of Lucas himself could change that
The Word of Lucas himself has changed that. Lucas never intended the next three films to use the Thrawn Trilogy material. Fans who ignore that have been ignoring Lucas for far too long. Which is crazy since Lucas was always the final word on that. Now that Disney's inolved and Abrams, it's still going forward with a brand new story idea.
Thrawn was never slated to be the future of the Star Wars storyline.
EDIT: And another thing ... INTO DARKNESS DROPPED THE LENS FLARES! Seriously, the lens flares wouldn't have worked well in any of the major actions scenes. It was too dark with the Klingons. It was too dark with the Vengeance fight. Lens flares are 2009. You all need to find some other thing to latch onto with Into Darkness. Like Magic Blood? Or Klingon Piercings? Or Peoplepedoes! Or anything other than lens flares!
I just saw the new movie and I could see why purists would find fault in it but I also fully enjoyed the movies as it stands on its own. The actors were quite good in making the roles their own while paying homage to the original. As an alternate timeline they aren't breaking cannon they are writing their own. So I'm with the OP this is a good movie not better than the old but still good.
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
You got that right! Plus the Enterprise looks like it had a run in with a apple store lol
IF he had made his own storyline and characters no problem.
It's just when you decide to copy a cheeseburger it has to actually have cheese. You can't come out and say well this is an alternate cheeseburger so I can do whatever I want.
No, you can't.
To me jj is right up there with uwe boll.
All that aside, if I tired to forget the star trek I know I still don't enjoy the movies stand alone.
I didn't laugh at the jokes, I didn't care about the characters, weren't impressed with the CGI.
Also, all of them being teenagers make it feel like twillight it's pretty obvious what age we aiming for here.
Comments
There isn't really much difference except the lens flare.
Not done so yet... Funny mental image though
I realize this is a different Kirk and as I pointed out a terrible one at that. He's a caricature.
There isn't much naked skin at all in the two new trek films. It's fascinating that people think there is.
Abrams and company let the lens flare go for Into DARKness. I keep pointing this out. It's well past time to let go of the lens flare jokes and insults. This movie is too dark for the lenses to flare.
I have heard a joke about the new movie though it would be innapropriate for the forums still funny made me LOL
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Ikr because we all know your not truely evil until you grow a goatee
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BdLOVjNJruM/TJTLoTZG5SI/AAAAAAAAAGs/1Ld-EFujWk8/s1600/spock1.png
We don't know how it did, but obviously it did have a impact. Anything could have happened.
I don't really think the alternate timeline was introduced as a way to explain all the changes made in the new movies. I think, more specifically, it was simply a way to preserve the original Star Trek for fans who don't like the changes.
Basically, he's saying, "Look, I'm going to change a lot of stuff here and you probably won't like some of the stuff I'm changing. I get that, so here's an olive branch. I'm setting this in an alternate timeline that specifically established that the Trek you love still exists."
Most of the changes to the new movies are really for out-of-continuity reasons. They're because the new movies are a reboot and things are going to be changed. Just like TMP changed things from the series. When TMP came out, they didn't come up with a reason Klingons had foreheads. They just said, "This is how they look now." When TNG changed the Romulans, it was just a "This is how they look now" thing.
Star Trek has been rebooted several times over the years and many arbitrary changes have been made for plot and/or special effects reasons. This is the first reboot to at least put forth some effort to preserve the continuity that came before it by saying, "this isn't the same reality."
I think using the alternate timeline to explain the changes is missing the point of the alternate timeline. The point was to preserve the originals, which it does.
It would be nice if that was true, but behind the scenes, he put pressure on Paramount and tried to get them to stop selling merchandise with the original TOS crew, stop reissuing DVDs and Blu-Rays of the old Trek, etc. He got IDW to stop publishing TOS-related comics. He wanted his Trek to be the only Trek out there. He failed, because frankly, CBS sees way too much money left in old Trek to give it up. But that he tried is well documented:
See Here. If JJ had had his way, this game wouldn't exist, just his Star Trek shooter.
Btw, when word of what JJ was planning leaked out, it wasn't just fans who got mad. Levar Burton called him out on it publically.
So, saying people shouldn't be mad about JJ changing Trek because they still have the other is kind of disingenuous, given JJ's attempts to get rid of the other.
First, let me say I totally see your point and I'm not saying I'm right here... I'm just saying I disagree with the assertion that he wants all other Treks to disappear.
There's a huge difference between fighting over merchandising rights and saying the original timeline didn't exist. I actually see both sides on the merchandising rights argument. If you have a brand new movie out, and kids go to buy the toys but the toys look nothing like the new movies, it's just gonna hurt both platforms.
In my opinion, though, that in no way suggests he wants to just wipe the old Trek from existence.
The new Trek acknowledges the existence of the old Trek constantly. First, that's the reason they did the alternate timeline. If he just wanted to overwrite it, he wouldn't have done the alternate timeline. He would have done exactly what previous iterations of Trek have done... he'd have just changed it without explanation.
Secondly, this new movie is absolutely full of nods and references to the originals. And I'm not just talking about the plot that has so many people upset. There are constant references to TOS, from red shirt references to mentions of Mudd to actual characters that literally discuss the events of the old timeline within the movie. If he really didn't want anybody knowing about the original Star Trek, he would not have included so many references and he most definitely would not have had a character from those movies stating outright that the events of those movies happened.
So while I respect that you don't agree, I personally think people's assertion that he wants to wipe the old Trek from existence is overstating. Heck, in interviews this week he's talked about how after getting involved with these movies he went back and watched the originals and developed a deeper appreciation for them. That doesn't sound like someone trying to wipe them out.
I'm not saying Abrams is perfect. I had complaints about the new movies. I'm just saying he's not the villain some folks are making him out to be.
Let the TRIBBLE have Star Wars.
well put, but i was not really whining, i just was wondering why people thought JJ ruined Star Trek, not about what was wrong with the new movies. It is not really whining anyway(not that you said it is, just wanted to clear it up), just "debating" there's a difference.
"Is it your goal to be the only genius-level repeat offender in the Midwest?"
I think he would have been better off consulting a Trekker and maybe not use the Enterprise.
Also he changed the way the enterprise looks and works
The interior of Engineering, although improved in into darkness is nothing like what it should look like.
Kirk is jerk (the following statement is not so true in the new film) and just a I could not give a **** about killing everyone PEW PEW PEW firing non cannon cannons and blue torpedos ... MASSIVE PLOT HOLES coz everyone is dumb ... wait ... there are people who are clever ... THIS CANNOT BE /end sarcastic tone
I hope STO get's better ...
Yeah, dune buggy chases and Troi fantasy sex scenes with a 20yr old Picard clone that turns into Nosferatu didn't do "realism" any harm in Star Trek. Shall I go on, or are those scenes enough?
:rolleyes:
I hope STO get's better ...
Using drug use is wrong?
Hate to break it to ya, but you're typing like I type when I'm blitzed out of my mind.
And seriously, this thread is waaaaaaay more funny.....OONNNNN WEEEEEEDDDDDD.
Cheers!
...This isn't hard science fiction. If you want realistic science, you look elsewhere.
Sorry, but if you want a valid reason for hating on Abrams, this ain't it...
Edit: Oh, and I almost forgot those sensors with FTL returns - you can see what's going on right now, at distances ranging from light-minutes to light-years! And so very many other technologies...
Basically, I recommend giving this song a listen. (WARNING: NSFW)
It's another reason that, in addition to shuddering in horror at what he's been doing to Star Trek, I'm also shuddering to think of what he'll do to Star Wars. Because unlike Trek, where the book/game/etc. canon is taken with a grain of salt (mainly because there are about twenty different explanations for smooth-head Klingons pre-Enterprise), the Star Wars Expanded Universe - the early parts particularly - are taken as gospel by the fandom. For many Star Wars fans, Episodes VII-IX have been, are, and always will be the Thrawn Trilogy (Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, The Last Command), the novels that established the EU. Not even the word of Lucas himself could change that, especially as people are slamming him for elements of the prequel trilogy (particularly, in my view, the fact they made Anakin an oedipal, self-absorbed whining brat - my usual comment is "THAT became Darth Vader?").
"There's No Way Like Poway!"
Real Join Date: October 2010
I did enjoy the new trek movie
I don't like abrams for what he sees gene's vision as... as mentioned above, a cash cow, pumped full of growth hormones to make the most processed and unnatural form of milk there is, but still entertaining. i see trek and i see hope, abrams sees trek and he probably sees $_$
but
with the bad comes some good. at the very least we get a new generation of trek fans. im being honest when I say Star Trek Enterprise didnt do to well in that department.
Out of the masses of new 'fans' that like the new movies, there will be some that want more. they will look high and low, watch the previous series, and perhaps want more. they might even turn to fan made series as I have.
it's like sifting sand for those cool pieces of beach glass or neat shells. those are keepers, and there you find the next generation of star trek fans
Chillax. No Ego. No Drama.
Like my alien? Watch THE VIDEO
Need custom graphics for you or your fleet? Click HERE
It would be incredibly unfair to blame Abrams for the new Star Wars trilogy not following the books. Lucas wrote the story before he ever sold it to Disney and the very week Disney bought it, both they and George Lucas stated that they would absolutely not be making the books into movies. They stated unequivocally that Episodes 7, 8, and 9 are original stories and - while they may use elements from the EU - they are not using those stories for the next trilogy.
This was all before they had chosen a director, so to blame Abrams for that would be the grossly unwarranted. Of course, I'm sure folks will end up blaming him for it anyway.
The Word of Lucas himself has changed that. Lucas never intended the next three films to use the Thrawn Trilogy material. Fans who ignore that have been ignoring Lucas for far too long. Which is crazy since Lucas was always the final word on that. Now that Disney's inolved and Abrams, it's still going forward with a brand new story idea.
Thrawn was never slated to be the future of the Star Wars storyline.
EDIT: And another thing ... INTO DARKNESS DROPPED THE LENS FLARES! Seriously, the lens flares wouldn't have worked well in any of the major actions scenes. It was too dark with the Klingons. It was too dark with the Vengeance fight. Lens flares are 2009. You all need to find some other thing to latch onto with Into Darkness. Like Magic Blood? Or Klingon Piercings? Or Peoplepedoes! Or anything other than lens flares!
You got that right! Plus the Enterprise looks like it had a run in with a apple store lol
IF he had made his own storyline and characters no problem.
It's just when you decide to copy a cheeseburger it has to actually have cheese. You can't come out and say well this is an alternate cheeseburger so I can do whatever I want.
No, you can't.
To me jj is right up there with uwe boll.
All that aside, if I tired to forget the star trek I know I still don't enjoy the movies stand alone.
I didn't laugh at the jokes, I didn't care about the characters, weren't impressed with the CGI.
Also, all of them being teenagers make it feel like twillight it's pretty obvious what age we aiming for here.
1/5