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
And the Enterprise apparently runs on beer. :rolleyes:
Just got back from the seeing the new movie. I liked it. A lot. No, I am not going to discuss storyline, plot, or characters. Don't wanna be like all the hipsters in this thread.
Saw this same reaction to the first JJ Trek film, hipsters. None of you are being very avant garde by dogpiling onto a viewpoint which was so very common. But, I can understand why you might feel something is wrong with JJTrek. After all, he had the nerve to do another whole movie about Star Trek without asking for your permission first.
I think I shall copy down the username of each of you with a negative post about JJ Trek and then go and see the film again on your behalf. I intend to wear a Tee shirt with your username boldly emblazoned as part of the following.
"Hi there! My username is ______ and I simply looove JJ Trek!"
Be sure to watch for the YouTube vids. I only hope the film runs long enough for me to get around to all of you. TTFN!
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
The movie was awesome, and haters gonna hate, becasue at this point when JJ steps down, the next person is gonna be the target, and everyone will say he ruined trek and blah blah blah.....whatever.
Hell this movie did not even have that much action...and they emphases everything Star Trek....they could have easily gone and killed Khan, and just fight and have space battles.. the Enterprise did not even get a shot off once at all....and just had Khan trying to take over Earth for whatever reason. Also Kirk emphases to keep the Value of StarFleet exploration and that Star Fleet is NOT a military only organization and is also about Exploration.
Magic blood... I'll take magic blood over Spock's brain, or a Planet that regenerated Spocks body Or hey Scotty you died, but Nomad revived you using blueprints of Human beings.
What they are using Uhura more to suit her skills, glad they did not make her character look stupid by reading books and trying to speak Klingon like in Star Trek 6 you would think she know how to speak the language of their greatest enemy, but no we want to use comedy. Or Scotty hitting his head and knocking himself out
STITD is not perfect, but fans have this thing looking at Star Trek with rose color glasses as if did not have it's completely ridiculousness moments, and Gene was so perfect everything he did was great...Yeah that's why TNG would have died had they not reduce his role in it.
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
ok so what movie is this from, i didnt see any of this in Star Trek (09 or 13) oh and btw engineering is a BUDWEISER BEER FACTORY not a pumping station, get your facts straight, go down to where it says Filming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)
and also personally i enjoyed both films and i do not think JJ ruined the franchise, it was already ruined and he brought it back to life. Live long and prosper.....
According to Roddenberry, Nicholas Meyers ruined Star Trek, and this road led to the creation of TNG.
If you are wondering, TWOK was a soft reboot of TMP and TOS with it being more militarized, the age of the Enterprise down to 20 years instead of 40 years, Kirk's wee one, an attempt at introducing a new series of characters (only Saavik survived), the eventual decommissioned of the Enterprise, Khan's crew, the inclusion of the Franz Joseph designs, and of course the retconning of Chekov (if you wanted fan wars- that one was a biggie).
This, again, happened four movies later, when Meyers directed TUC. Roddenberry didn't like the Conspiracy, Saavik's actions (later Valeris), and this movie was supposed to be Starfleet Academy.
So, honestly, all this fan reactions happened once before, it will happen again with the next generation of Trek media.
brought it back to life that is funny after his movies star trek will be where it was before him no where
so much life where is a new TV show?
well he brought it back to life in the sense that before 2009 no one was talking about Trek except for Star Trek fans...
...and why would they do another series when the last one failed...
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.
Didn't Gene actually have overall control taken from him after TMP anyway?
yes he did
and Meyers was brought in (incidently he never saw Star Trek before he was hired and directed two of the better films....WoK and UC.)
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.
and Meyers was brought in (incidently he never saw Star Trek before he was hired and directed two of the better films....WoK and UC.)
Actually Gene had influenced the first 2 seasons of TNG heavily hence why those 2 seasons were some of the worse written episodes, tng didnt even get good till season 3 and 4
The biggest complaint i ever see about JJ is ...lens flare..like JJ was the first to use it or something...fun fact...watch the 1982 movie the Thing with kurt russel
People dont like the way the characters are potrayed now...hmm
TOS KIRK, sleeped with women, than slapped them afterwards and got into more fist fights than one else in the crew
JJ KIRK, sleeped with women, hasnt slapped them afterwards, still gets into alot of fist fights
TOS SPOCK, has emotional bouts every other episode, shown as the rational mind not fully understanding kirks actions 3d chess.....
JJ SPOCK, has emotional bouts every other scene, shown as the rational mind not fully understandnig kirks actions
TOS BONES, knows more backward planet medicine than anyone else (frontier doctor) single, grumpy alot
JJ BONES, knows all sorts of backward planet medicine than anyone else, single, grumpy alot
I could go on but im sure someone will just rage again without any real premises for an argument
and Meyers was brought in (incidently he never saw Star Trek before he was hired and directed two of the better films....WoK and UC.)
Right. I think some folks forget that WoK was a reboot of TMP
Whenever anybody accuses Into Darkness of ripping of WoK, I acknowledge that they have a point, but WoK did the same thing to TMP, so that isn't really a valid reason for hating one and loving the other. If you hated Into Darkness because you thought it was a bad movie, that's your opinion and that's perfectly fine. But if the act of rebooting WoK is the reason you hated Into Darkness, that's just odd reasoning since WoK did the exact same thing.
Look at this plot description (spoiler-warning for classic Trek here):
James T. Kirk is an aging admiral who is not satisfied with his job. A crisis happens and the Enterprise is the only ship close enough to deal with it. Because of this crisis, Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, bumping the current captain down to first officer. They go to stop the new crisis, and in the climax the first officer is killed. The film ends with Kirk and McCoy standing on the bridge of the Enterprise, looking at the new life they just witnessed being born to the galaxy. Kirk feels young again and is in command of the Enterprise.
Now, that's a pretty specific description of a movie, no? Which movie am I describing, WoK or TMP?
And for the folks who say, "Wait, you're leaving out important details! Like the awesome firefights in WoK and the awesome revenge story!"
So those folks are saying what made WoK great was that it took a previous Trek movie and added all kinds of action and a revenge story to it?
Sounds pretty much like Into Darkness to me.
Again, if someone doesn't like it because they just think it's TRIBBLE, that's perfectly fine. Everybody has a right to an opinion.
But to act like this movie broke some holy Trek law by pulling from the movies before it, I don't think that's a valid criticism. WoK pulled far more from TMP than Into Darkness pulled from WoK.
Wow. I'm way too wordy.
(btw, my use of "you" in my post was generic; wasn't referring to you specifically)
I think the only thing worse than those blindly condemning Abrams' films, are those blindly praising it like it's the second coming of Jesus.
So I'll call these people NuTrekkers, or #The1701. You know, when you go to the movies to watch the films, and you bump into those so-called "fans," but when you try to talk to them about Star Trek and bring up older TV series and films, they're like, "What? What are you talking about? Who's Picard? What's a Dukat? Star Trek has been around for over 45 years? Really?"
...And that's exactly what happened when I went to the theaters this weekend... *Picard facepalm*
not spent much time in bars?
kids as young as 12 sneak in
he is clearly a teen
he behaves like one , dresses like one and talks like one I half expect him to say "your not my dad" to spock
The Narada destroyed the Kelvin in 2233. 25 years later it emerged again to destroy Vulcan.
Kirk was born the day the Kelvin was destroyed. 25 years later Kirk is still a teenager? Wait, what?
Normally, Sollvax, I love your trolling but on this one, I gotta call ya!:P
"...we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than the things that divide us.”
Jo Cox 22.6.1974 - 16.6.2016
I think the only thing worse than those blindly condemning Abrams' films, are those blindly praising it like it's the second coming of Jesus.
So I'll call these people NuTrekkers, or #The1701. You know, when you go to the movies to watch the films, and you bump into those so-called "fans," but when you try to talk to them about Star Trek and bring up older TV series and films, they're like, "What? What are you talking about? Who's Picard? What's a Dukat? Star Trek has been around for over 45 years? Really?"
...And that's exactly what happened when I went to the theaters this weekend... *Picard facepalm*
"What's a Picard facepalm?"
*slap*
:P
Lol...im oldschool sorta...watched TOS with my dad as syndication in the early 80s before tng came out...when tng came out i was like what? for the first couple years...the stories were bad and it just wasnt near as fun as TOS was..than it changed got alot more actiony and as a young kid you suddenly go oo cool fun...
as trek has grown over the decades so have the fans...apparently alot of the TOS fans dont actually remember the show because they continously say JJ ruined kirk and spock by not keeping them the way they were...i dunno lol
its the way of things...I like JJ, heck i like most of any trek...theres good and bad in all of it...fistful of datas anyone? but than will have a great episode like lower decks..it happens
most just cant get over the idea of someone actually making star trek a box office smash hit, its like they like seeing THEIR trek fail at everything just so they feel like their part of the underdogs team or something i dunno
and why there isnt a new series for the few that might not understand...cause cbs and paramount cant grow up and reach a mutual outcome since their split
So I'll call these people NuTrekkers, or #The1701. You know, when you go to the movies to watch the films, and you bump into those so-called "fans," but when you try to talk to them about Star Trek and bring up older TV series and films, they're like, "What? What are you talking about? Who's Picard? What's a Dukat? Star Trek has been around for over 45 years? Really?"
:P
Or did you know that they made a bunch of novels based on the Lord of the Rings movies. Although, I am somewhat guilty of this for the older Doctor Who episodes about not knowing who the companions are and the personality of the Doctors before the 10th one.
I think the only thing worse than those blindly condemning Abrams' films, are those blindly praising it like it's the second coming of Jesus.
So I'll call these people NuTrekkers, or #The1701. You know, when you go to the movies to watch the films, and you bump into those so-called "fans," but when you try to talk to them about Star Trek and bring up older TV series and films, they're like, "What? What are you talking about? Who's Picard? What's a Dukat? Star Trek has been around for over 45 years? Really?"
...And that's exactly what happened when I went to the theaters this weekend... *Picard facepalm*
"What's a Picard facepalm?"
*slap*
:P
I definitely don't think the Abrams movies were perfect. I had my share of complaints. Overall, though, I did enjoy them quite a bit.
That said, I don't really see anything wrong with someone loving this movie without knowing anything about previous Trek. Introducing people to the franchise was the point.
I know several people who had never watched any Trek before but - because of these movies - are now working through the shows and movies.
Most of them have a little culture shock at the special effects of TOS, but after a few episodes, they love it.
You might be able to argue that the destruction of the Kelvin would prompt Starfleet to build bigger ships, but it's a LOOOOOONG stretch to make the case that Nero's actions would cause the Chekhovs to have a child 5-10 years sooner AND Sulu to become a ninja instead of a fencer AND to make Spock forget his Vulcan heritage (the defining attribute of the character, no less), and more besides.
I'm sorry, it's just really bad writing, with no attention to any details that might inconvenience their (weak) story.
Sulu admits his advanced "hand-to-hand" training is in fencing. Try carrying a foil or rapier into combat after an orbital drop, I dare you! His sword is just a fancy sword, nothing to do with being a ninja.
Chekov is referred to as a 17 year old wizz-kid (and is already a newly minted ensign on JJenterprise) so he IS 8 years younger than Kirk (who would be 25). No change to the family arrangements there.
And how did Spock forget his Vulcan heritage exactly.
The kiss between Kirk and Uhura in TOS was supposed to be SPOCK and Uhura (forcing a Vulcan to experience humiliation). Shatner had a hissy fit and it got changed to Kirk. Uhura had always had a soft spot for Spock, as had Nurse Chapel. How is a woman finding him attractive against his heritage? His father married, and had a child with, a human. How is Spock's decision to pursue any form of relationship with Uhura against his heritage? He shows anger, snaps and attacks Kirk (didn't he do this a lot in TOS too? I'm thinking around Pon'Farr time?)... not exactly Vulcan, but then he isn't exactly Vulcan is he?
As to Scotty's accent... does your accent not change over time depending on where you live? Mine has. I'm Welsh with no hint of a Welsh accent as I live in Yorkshire... but put me on a phone with the olds and the welsh comes flooding back. So what if Simon Pegg's accent is not spot on specific for a regional dialect of Scotland.
Now the student/teacher relationship with Uhura and Spock. He does refer to her as his best student... but does not say she IS his best he says she WAS. Suggests no current teacher/student issues. As they are now involved in a relationship, he assigns her to the Farragut to show no favouritism. Her argument points out that his actions are inappropriate given her skills as the Farragut is a lesser assignment and she has earned the Enterprise. In a split second, he logically concludes she is right, and assigns her to the Enterprise. Probably to avoid a case of sexual descrimination...:D
Sulu in TOS was meant to represent ALL Asian-Americans. Yes, he was Japanese-American in TOS (as far as I can find out) but that is besides the point. John Cho's Sulu is STILL meant to represent ALL Asian-Americans but in this instance he is Korean-American.
Whilst I can understand some having an issue with this, I do not, as long as his character is true.
Someone asked if I would want Martin Luther King played by a Chinese but this is an attempt to squirrel the debate. Sulu, et. al, are fictional characters... Martin Luther King is not. Fictional characters have been played by different actors all the time (Brody in Iron Man/Iron Man 2 anyone?).
"...we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than the things that divide us.”
Jo Cox 22.6.1974 - 16.6.2016
I think the only thing worse than those blindly condemning Abrams' films, are those blindly praising it like it's the second coming of Jesus.
So I'll call these people NuTrekkers, or #The1701. You know, when you go to the movies to watch the films, and you bump into those so-called "fans," but when you try to talk to them about Star Trek and bring up older TV series and films, they're like, "What? What are you talking about? Who's Picard? What's a Dukat? Star Trek has been around for over 45 years? Really?"
...And that's exactly what happened when I went to the theaters this weekend... *Picard facepalm*
"What's a Picard facepalm?"
*slap*
:P
Congratulations you discovered the average movie goer at a movie theatre. When I went to Episode I of Star Wars, I had no idea who Mace Windu or Qui-Gon Jinn was. I've only had a passing knowledge of Anakin Skywalker as well (at the time I never read any of the expanded universe). So by your definition I wasn't a "fan".
Yeah because when TNG came out every who watched it knew who Kirk and crew was...I mean it's not like TOS fans and TNG hated each other at the time...Oh wait
I think JJ Abrams Trek puts far too much stock into fansevice and pop culture knowledge of Trek and stops right there-filling the rest of the movie in with standard action hero movie garbage. Try and judge the movies on how respecful they are of the source material and they reveal themselves to be shallow representations-little mroe than lip service. Romulans show up in 2009 trek, but have absolutely nothing to do with the Romulans from either TOS-era or TNG-era except their names and their pointy ears. Thier representation ends at the lip service and then the 'action hero movie' part of the equation steps in and the Romulans come down with a case of the 'generic action movie badguy'. In many ways echoing the mistakes of Nemesis to the point where Nero, his crew, ship, motivation etc blur with that of Shinzon and the Remans. Trek 2009 was just Nemesis with a bigger budget, IMO.
This attitude of just giving lip service and then handing the rest over to action movie-ville results in some pretty horrific reprucussions. Technology like transwarp beaming etc gets introduced with nary a thought- to the point where the second movie had to work to clean up its mistakes. (only to make more of its own) Similar thing with Romulus and Vulcan getting blown up for the sake of cheap drama without thinking about the reprucussions. For both Prime-Trek (Rommies were pretty much the only 'badguys' left around worth noting) and for Nu-Trek (one of the most popular alien species and historically important within the setting gone like that)
When evaluated as a action movie in its own right? Well, the action is pretty much the only the movies have going for them, because it certainly isn't the plot. So much time is delegated to fanservice and action that it seems like actual plotting was added as an afterthought-more of a vehicle for the action scenes and fanservice than the way it should be-with them as tools to advance the plot.
JJ's take on Trek is not only bad Trek, but bad moviemaking in general-it just has a far better budget than past Treks to ride to success on.
JJ can rename the movie Mean Girls to Star Trek just to make a buck ...there will always be talibans to follow the name...who cares about the content ,the name its the same so it has to be what the name says .
Ill search the vid on youtube with JJ using the same props in star trek and star wars (big props like interiors) and post it here later ....but in the end who cares ,JJ and his taliban followers
"Romulans" do not appear in '09 Trek. One specific group of Romulans appears - a leader who is clearly insane, and a group of followers who may be similarly insane or who may be following him due to their own mnhei'sahe (they are never explored as characters, and exist only to populate the backdrop - much like most of Starfleet).
Judging all Romulans by him would be similar to judging all Klingons by Commander Kruge in The Search For Spock, or all humans by Kirk in any incarnation, and would lead to similar misapprehensions.
"Romulans" do not appear in '09 Trek. One specific group of Romulans appears - a leader who is clearly insane, and a group of followers who may be similarly insane or who may be following him due to their own mnhei'sahe (they are never explored as characters, and exist only to populate the backdrop - much like most of Starfleet).
Judging all Romulans by him would be similar to judging all Klingons by Commander Kruge in The Search For Spock, or all humans by Kirk in any incarnation, and would lead to similar misapprehensions.
Actually, I say Nero has the best justification of being villian, well clearly he is being driven by grief into insanity. However, Nero does have a conscience or at least in conflict because he tries to jusitify his actions with Pike.
NEM's Romulans did have more character than Nero's crew (who barely spoke) except for Ayel.
A little closer to the thread's topic, I sometimes struggle with all the justifications for why people hate the new Trek.
Whether or not you love or hate a movie isn't something that can be proven mathematically. When you try to defend your reasons for hating it by bringing up facts and data, people are going to debate that data.
If you didn't like the new Trek, the most valid reason you could possibly give is, "I just hated it. I didn't come out of that movie feeling like I had a good time."
If you stop right there, nobody can argue your point. That's without question the most valid argument you'll ever have against the new movies.
But when you say you didn't like it because Klingons had foreheads or Romulans didn't act right or Scotty's accent was wrong, you're absolutely going to get people who disagree.
But if you just say, "Bottom line, I didn't like that movie," nobody can reasonably say, "You're wrong! You DID like it!"
All lore-related rationalizations are completely unnecessary. The most valid reason you can have for hating this movie is simply that you hated the movie.
Comments
And the Enterprise apparently runs on beer. :rolleyes:
Saw this same reaction to the first JJ Trek film, hipsters. None of you are being very avant garde by dogpiling onto a viewpoint which was so very common. But, I can understand why you might feel something is wrong with JJTrek. After all, he had the nerve to do another whole movie about Star Trek without asking for your permission first.
I think I shall copy down the username of each of you with a negative post about JJ Trek and then go and see the film again on your behalf. I intend to wear a Tee shirt with your username boldly emblazoned as part of the following.
"Hi there! My username is ______ and I simply looove JJ Trek!"
Be sure to watch for the YouTube vids. I only hope the film runs long enough for me to get around to all of you. TTFN!
Hell this movie did not even have that much action...and they emphases everything Star Trek....they could have easily gone and killed Khan, and just fight and have space battles.. the Enterprise did not even get a shot off once at all....and just had Khan trying to take over Earth for whatever reason. Also Kirk emphases to keep the Value of StarFleet exploration and that Star Fleet is NOT a military only organization and is also about Exploration.
Magic blood... I'll take magic blood over Spock's brain, or a Planet that regenerated Spocks body Or hey Scotty you died, but Nomad revived you using blueprints of Human beings.
What they are using Uhura more to suit her skills, glad they did not make her character look stupid by reading books and trying to speak Klingon like in Star Trek 6 you would think she know how to speak the language of their greatest enemy, but no we want to use comedy. Or Scotty hitting his head and knocking himself out
STITD is not perfect, but fans have this thing looking at Star Trek with rose color glasses as if did not have it's completely ridiculousness moments, and Gene was so perfect everything he did was great...Yeah that's why TNG would have died had they not reduce his role in it.
/rant:D
ok so what movie is this from, i didnt see any of this in Star Trek (09 or 13) oh and btw engineering is a BUDWEISER BEER FACTORY not a pumping station, get your facts straight, go down to where it says Filming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)
and also personally i enjoyed both films and i do not think JJ ruined the franchise, it was already ruined and he brought it back to life. Live long and prosper.....
so much life where is a new TV show?
system Lord Baal is dead
If you are wondering, TWOK was a soft reboot of TMP and TOS with it being more militarized, the age of the Enterprise down to 20 years instead of 40 years, Kirk's wee one, an attempt at introducing a new series of characters (only Saavik survived), the eventual decommissioned of the Enterprise, Khan's crew, the inclusion of the Franz Joseph designs, and of course the retconning of Chekov (if you wanted fan wars- that one was a biggie).
This, again, happened four movies later, when Meyers directed TUC. Roddenberry didn't like the Conspiracy, Saavik's actions (later Valeris), and this movie was supposed to be Starfleet Academy.
So, honestly, all this fan reactions happened once before, it will happen again with the next generation of Trek media.
well he brought it back to life in the sense that before 2009 no one was talking about Trek except for Star Trek fans...
...and why would they do another series when the last one failed...
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.
yes he did
and Meyers was brought in (incidently he never saw Star Trek before he was hired and directed two of the better films....WoK and UC.)
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.
Actually Gene had influenced the first 2 seasons of TNG heavily hence why those 2 seasons were some of the worse written episodes, tng didnt even get good till season 3 and 4
The biggest complaint i ever see about JJ is ...lens flare..like JJ was the first to use it or something...fun fact...watch the 1982 movie the Thing with kurt russel
People dont like the way the characters are potrayed now...hmm
TOS KIRK, sleeped with women, than slapped them afterwards and got into more fist fights than one else in the crew
JJ KIRK, sleeped with women, hasnt slapped them afterwards, still gets into alot of fist fights
TOS SPOCK, has emotional bouts every other episode, shown as the rational mind not fully understanding kirks actions 3d chess.....
JJ SPOCK, has emotional bouts every other scene, shown as the rational mind not fully understandnig kirks actions
TOS BONES, knows more backward planet medicine than anyone else (frontier doctor) single, grumpy alot
JJ BONES, knows all sorts of backward planet medicine than anyone else, single, grumpy alot
I could go on but im sure someone will just rage again without any real premises for an argument
Right. I think some folks forget that WoK was a reboot of TMP
Whenever anybody accuses Into Darkness of ripping of WoK, I acknowledge that they have a point, but WoK did the same thing to TMP, so that isn't really a valid reason for hating one and loving the other. If you hated Into Darkness because you thought it was a bad movie, that's your opinion and that's perfectly fine. But if the act of rebooting WoK is the reason you hated Into Darkness, that's just odd reasoning since WoK did the exact same thing.
Look at this plot description (spoiler-warning for classic Trek here):
James T. Kirk is an aging admiral who is not satisfied with his job. A crisis happens and the Enterprise is the only ship close enough to deal with it. Because of this crisis, Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, bumping the current captain down to first officer. They go to stop the new crisis, and in the climax the first officer is killed. The film ends with Kirk and McCoy standing on the bridge of the Enterprise, looking at the new life they just witnessed being born to the galaxy. Kirk feels young again and is in command of the Enterprise.
Now, that's a pretty specific description of a movie, no? Which movie am I describing, WoK or TMP?
And for the folks who say, "Wait, you're leaving out important details! Like the awesome firefights in WoK and the awesome revenge story!"
So those folks are saying what made WoK great was that it took a previous Trek movie and added all kinds of action and a revenge story to it?
Sounds pretty much like Into Darkness to me.
Again, if someone doesn't like it because they just think it's TRIBBLE, that's perfectly fine. Everybody has a right to an opinion.
But to act like this movie broke some holy Trek law by pulling from the movies before it, I don't think that's a valid criticism. WoK pulled far more from TMP than Into Darkness pulled from WoK.
Wow. I'm way too wordy.
(btw, my use of "you" in my post was generic; wasn't referring to you specifically)
FIRST CONTACT...
NEMESIS....
but I guess cause JJ is the new guy will just focus on him
Join date July 08
So I'll call these people NuTrekkers, or #The1701. You know, when you go to the movies to watch the films, and you bump into those so-called "fans," but when you try to talk to them about Star Trek and bring up older TV series and films, they're like, "What? What are you talking about? Who's Picard? What's a Dukat? Star Trek has been around for over 45 years? Really?"
...And that's exactly what happened when I went to the theaters this weekend... *Picard facepalm*
"What's a Picard facepalm?"
*slap*
:P
The Narada destroyed the Kelvin in 2233. 25 years later it emerged again to destroy Vulcan.
Kirk was born the day the Kelvin was destroyed. 25 years later Kirk is still a teenager? Wait, what?
Normally, Sollvax, I love your trolling but on this one, I gotta call ya!:P
Jo Cox 22.6.1974 - 16.6.2016
Lol...im oldschool sorta...watched TOS with my dad as syndication in the early 80s before tng came out...when tng came out i was like what? for the first couple years...the stories were bad and it just wasnt near as fun as TOS was..than it changed got alot more actiony and as a young kid you suddenly go oo cool fun...
as trek has grown over the decades so have the fans...apparently alot of the TOS fans dont actually remember the show because they continously say JJ ruined kirk and spock by not keeping them the way they were...i dunno lol
its the way of things...I like JJ, heck i like most of any trek...theres good and bad in all of it...fistful of datas anyone? but than will have a great episode like lower decks..it happens
most just cant get over the idea of someone actually making star trek a box office smash hit, its like they like seeing THEIR trek fail at everything just so they feel like their part of the underdogs team or something i dunno
and why there isnt a new series for the few that might not understand...cause cbs and paramount cant grow up and reach a mutual outcome since their split
Or did you know that they made a bunch of novels based on the Lord of the Rings movies. Although, I am somewhat guilty of this for the older Doctor Who episodes about not knowing who the companions are and the personality of the Doctors before the 10th one.
I definitely don't think the Abrams movies were perfect. I had my share of complaints. Overall, though, I did enjoy them quite a bit.
That said, I don't really see anything wrong with someone loving this movie without knowing anything about previous Trek. Introducing people to the franchise was the point.
I know several people who had never watched any Trek before but - because of these movies - are now working through the shows and movies.
Most of them have a little culture shock at the special effects of TOS, but after a few episodes, they love it.
So that makes me happy the new movies were made.
Sulu admits his advanced "hand-to-hand" training is in fencing. Try carrying a foil or rapier into combat after an orbital drop, I dare you! His sword is just a fancy sword, nothing to do with being a ninja.
Chekov is referred to as a 17 year old wizz-kid (and is already a newly minted ensign on JJenterprise) so he IS 8 years younger than Kirk (who would be 25). No change to the family arrangements there.
And how did Spock forget his Vulcan heritage exactly.
The kiss between Kirk and Uhura in TOS was supposed to be SPOCK and Uhura (forcing a Vulcan to experience humiliation). Shatner had a hissy fit and it got changed to Kirk. Uhura had always had a soft spot for Spock, as had Nurse Chapel. How is a woman finding him attractive against his heritage? His father married, and had a child with, a human. How is Spock's decision to pursue any form of relationship with Uhura against his heritage? He shows anger, snaps and attacks Kirk (didn't he do this a lot in TOS too? I'm thinking around Pon'Farr time?)... not exactly Vulcan, but then he isn't exactly Vulcan is he?
As to Scotty's accent... does your accent not change over time depending on where you live? Mine has. I'm Welsh with no hint of a Welsh accent as I live in Yorkshire... but put me on a phone with the olds and the welsh comes flooding back. So what if Simon Pegg's accent is not spot on specific for a regional dialect of Scotland.
Now the student/teacher relationship with Uhura and Spock. He does refer to her as his best student... but does not say she IS his best he says she WAS. Suggests no current teacher/student issues. As they are now involved in a relationship, he assigns her to the Farragut to show no favouritism. Her argument points out that his actions are inappropriate given her skills as the Farragut is a lesser assignment and she has earned the Enterprise. In a split second, he logically concludes she is right, and assigns her to the Enterprise. Probably to avoid a case of sexual descrimination...:D
Sulu in TOS was meant to represent ALL Asian-Americans. Yes, he was Japanese-American in TOS (as far as I can find out) but that is besides the point. John Cho's Sulu is STILL meant to represent ALL Asian-Americans but in this instance he is Korean-American.
Whilst I can understand some having an issue with this, I do not, as long as his character is true.
Someone asked if I would want Martin Luther King played by a Chinese but this is an attempt to squirrel the debate. Sulu, et. al, are fictional characters... Martin Luther King is not. Fictional characters have been played by different actors all the time (Brody in Iron Man/Iron Man 2 anyone?).
Jo Cox 22.6.1974 - 16.6.2016
Congratulations you discovered the average movie goer at a movie theatre. When I went to Episode I of Star Wars, I had no idea who Mace Windu or Qui-Gon Jinn was. I've only had a passing knowledge of Anakin Skywalker as well (at the time I never read any of the expanded universe). So by your definition I wasn't a "fan".
Having an encyclopedic knowledge of the franchise's universe isn't a requirement.
Having a basic knowledge of the franchise's universe isn't a requirement (because "basic" is defined differently by every person).
If you say you're a fan, you're a fan.
This attitude of just giving lip service and then handing the rest over to action movie-ville results in some pretty horrific reprucussions. Technology like transwarp beaming etc gets introduced with nary a thought- to the point where the second movie had to work to clean up its mistakes. (only to make more of its own) Similar thing with Romulus and Vulcan getting blown up for the sake of cheap drama without thinking about the reprucussions. For both Prime-Trek (Rommies were pretty much the only 'badguys' left around worth noting) and for Nu-Trek (one of the most popular alien species and historically important within the setting gone like that)
When evaluated as a action movie in its own right? Well, the action is pretty much the only the movies have going for them, because it certainly isn't the plot. So much time is delegated to fanservice and action that it seems like actual plotting was added as an afterthought-more of a vehicle for the action scenes and fanservice than the way it should be-with them as tools to advance the plot.
JJ's take on Trek is not only bad Trek, but bad moviemaking in general-it just has a far better budget than past Treks to ride to success on.
Ill search the vid on youtube with JJ using the same props in star trek and star wars (big props like interiors) and post it here later ....but in the end who cares ,JJ and his taliban followers
Judging all Romulans by him would be similar to judging all Klingons by Commander Kruge in The Search For Spock, or all humans by Kirk in any incarnation, and would lead to similar misapprehensions.
Actually, I say Nero has the best justification of being villian, well clearly he is being driven by grief into insanity. However, Nero does have a conscience or at least in conflict because he tries to jusitify his actions with Pike.
NEM's Romulans did have more character than Nero's crew (who barely spoke) except for Ayel.
Whether or not you love or hate a movie isn't something that can be proven mathematically. When you try to defend your reasons for hating it by bringing up facts and data, people are going to debate that data.
If you didn't like the new Trek, the most valid reason you could possibly give is, "I just hated it. I didn't come out of that movie feeling like I had a good time."
If you stop right there, nobody can argue your point. That's without question the most valid argument you'll ever have against the new movies.
But when you say you didn't like it because Klingons had foreheads or Romulans didn't act right or Scotty's accent was wrong, you're absolutely going to get people who disagree.
But if you just say, "Bottom line, I didn't like that movie," nobody can reasonably say, "You're wrong! You DID like it!"
All lore-related rationalizations are completely unnecessary. The most valid reason you can have for hating this movie is simply that you hated the movie.
You're not wrong.
People who loved it aren't wrong either.