People don't "think" JJ ruined Star Trek. JJ did ruin it.
How did he do this?
1. He failed in his own goals for the reboot. He wanted to tell the pre-story of how Kirk and Spock became such good friends. But skews the prime timeline before they even meet. How can you tell the "early years" stories if they aren't even happening in the early years of the prime universe?
2. Destroyed Romulus in the prime universe for no other reason than to do it. Then tells the rest of his story in an alternate timeline. So effectively altering the prime timeline and not even bothering to tell his story there.
3. Lens flare.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Help rebuild the Romulan Star Empire to glory. Click the banner to join today.
People don't "think" JJ ruined Star Trek. JJ did ruin it.
How did he do this?
1. He failed in his own goals for the reboot. He wanted to tell the pre-story of how Kirk and Spock became such good friends. But skews the prime timeline before they even meet. How can you tell the "early years" stories if they aren't even happening in the early years of the prime universe?
2. Destroyed Romulus in the prime universe for no other reason than to do it. Then tells the rest of his story in an alternate timeline. So effectively altering the prime timeline and not even bothering to tell his story there.
3. Lens flare.
#2 in particular really bugs me. In the Prime universe the borg had been defanged by Voyager, the Cardassians/Breen/Dominion had dropped out of the race thanks to DS9, and the Klingons had become closer and closer to the Federation over the course of the era. The Romulans were the only major power of note with any bite left that was antagonistic to the Federation, and which had any element of mystery left to it. Then Nemesis and 2009 Trek came along and delivered a one-two punch to them. Nemesis had hardly anything to do with Romulans-the villains beign a human and a previously nonexistant alien sepcies of nosferatu. 2009 Trek took place in a completely different dimension, yet both of them managed to irrepairably mess up one of the few compelling villain factions left in Trek.
People don't "think" JJ ruined Star Trek. JJ did ruin it.
Because Troi mind r4pe scenes and pregnant Trip Tucker were doing wonders for building up the fandom and popularity of the Star Trek franchise. Shall I go on?
So much drama in your claim, and it's not even based on anything.
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.
You're not wrong.
People who loved it aren't wrong either.
Pretty much THIS. The majority of reasons people give for hating NuTrek are easily debunked by examples of EstablishedTrek.
#2 in particular really bugs me. In the Prime universe the borg had been defanged by Voyager, the Cardassians/Breen/Dominion had dropped out of the race thanks to DS9, and the Klingons had become closer and closer to the Federation over the course of the era. The Romulans were the only major power of note with any bite left that was antagonistic to the Federation, and which had any element of mystery left to it. Then Nemesis and 2009 Trek came along and delivered a one-two punch to them. Nemesis had hardly anything to do with Romulans-the villains beign a human and a previously nonexistant alien sepcies of nosferatu. 2009 Trek took place in a completely different dimension, yet both of them managed to irrepairably mess up one of the few compelling villain factions left in Trek.
Lens Flare is a personal perference, I didn't even notice, nor cared. Different Style, just like I never noticed the man bulges of TMP. If you want something to whine about Trek, watch pre-Director's Cut TMP, especially Decker. I hate my friends for pointing that out.
With the destruction of Romulus, its just another major event. Personally, I think it opens the door to new stories with the new baddies.
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
Exactly - I even recall a little animosity between some of the TOS cast vs the TNG show and crew, i.e. some were convinced it would fail without them. Oddly enough, there's even MORE success now for Trek movies based on the TOS characters they made so memorable in pop culture.
People don't "think" JJ ruined Star Trek. JJ did ruin it.
How did he do this?
1. He failed in his own goals for the reboot. He wanted to tell the pre-story of how Kirk and Spock became such good friends. But skews the prime timeline before they even meet. How can you tell the "early years" stories if they aren't even happening in the early years of the prime universe?
2. Destroyed Romulus in the prime universe for no other reason than to do it. Then tells the rest of his story in an alternate timeline. So effectively altering the prime timeline and not even bothering to tell his story there.
3. Lens flare.
I might add, this is an alternate timeline alongside the old ST; it didn't overwrite it. TNG "Parellels" did the exact same, with hundreds and even thousands of different quantum realities existing at once.
Again, alternate timeline. Romulus being destroyed, Spock/Nero disappearing is all that really changed in the Prime Universe.
They were overdone, no one's debating that. But that doesn't automatically make them bad (plus Into Darkness barely had any, despite all claims to the contray)
So I hardly find that evidence that he 'ruined' ST: more like he made an entirely different version alongside the one many love.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
People don't "think" JJ ruined Star Trek. JJ did ruin it.
How did he do this?
1. He failed in his own goals for the reboot. He wanted to tell the pre-story of how Kirk and Spock became such good friends. But skews the prime timeline before they even meet. How can you tell the "early years" stories if they aren't even happening in the early years of the prime universe?
2. Destroyed Romulus in the prime universe for no other reason than to do it. Then tells the rest of his story in an alternate timeline. So effectively altering the prime timeline and not even bothering to tell his story there.
3. Lens flare.
Before we all start lighting the pitchforks, let me say that I think this poster might be operating under a different connotation of the word "ruin" here.
I was furiously typing a reply when it occurred to me that he might not mean Abrams destroyed the existence of Star Trek; just that he doesn't like the changes in that movie and some of the ways that movie impacted the main timeline.
I used to make 'lens flare' cracks about Trek (2009)...but then I saw BSG: Blood and Chrome. Great Googley-Moogley. Its like they saw the 2009 flick and decided the reason it was so popular was the lens flare, and went crazy. Its like spending an hour and a half looking into a flashlight.
If you think that JJ Abrams ruined Star Trek, then chances are you would have had the same view of anyone else Paramount might have brought in to helm the franchise instead. Face it, Hollywood doesn't make summer tentpole movies that even remotely resemble TOS, much less targeted to the same demographic. Heck, even most TNG/DS9 fans are now at the high end of the age range Hollywood is shooting for.
In other words, if you don't like the reboot movies, don't hate the player (Abrams), hate the game (the industry-wide preferences for action-heavy movies and younger target audiences). The latter has far more to do with the character of the reboot movies than the former.
Pretty much THIS. The majority of reasons people give for hating NuTrek are easily debunked by examples of EstablishedTrek.
this this this
I have no issues with people who hate the movie but when you bring up nitpicks that were in the original movies and series then people come off as complainers...
...unless nitpicking is how Trekkers show love....they nitpicked TOS
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.
If you think that JJ Abrams ruined Star Trek, then chances are you would have had the same view of anyone else Paramount might have brought in to helm the franchise instead. Face it, Hollywood doesn't make summer tentpole movies that even remotely resemble TOS, much less targeted to the same demographic. Heck, even most TNG/DS9 fans are now at the high end of the age range Hollywood is shooting for.
In other words, if you don't like the reboot movies, don't hate the player (Abrams), hate the game (the industry-wide preferences for action-heavy movies and younger target audiences). The latter has far more to do with the character of the reboot movies than the former.
Amazing...
Somebody in this thread is actually saying something that makes sense. :P
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
If you think that JJ Abrams ruined Star Trek, then chances are you would have had the same view of anyone else Paramount might have brought in to helm the franchise instead. Face it, Hollywood doesn't make summer tentpole movies that even remotely resemble TOS, much less targeted to the same demographic. Heck, even most TNG/DS9 fans are now at the high end of the age range Hollywood is shooting for.
In other words, if you don't like the reboot movies, don't hate the player (Abrams), hate the game (the industry-wide preferences for action-heavy movies and younger target audiences). The latter has far more to do with the character of the reboot movies than the former.
that is BS.
there are more action movie fans than star trek fans ,so he made the movie for the action fans.Funny how if he would have made a TRIBBLE movie (of course with Star Trek name ...its easy to paste a name on anything) he would have had action movie and star trek fans view his TRIBBLE Trek simply because TRIBBLE movies are for ...well ,every homo sapiens on earth.
He simply took a franchise (a half a century old one) from Star trek fans and moved it to action movie fans.
If he would work in car industry he would stop making Rolls Royce luxury cars and you will get Prius type cars called Rolls Royce ...his logic will be "more people will buy my sheet"
Other movies Id TRIBBLE just to get famous as JJ :
Home Alone = make it a horror movie
Alien = clearly action movie (independence day type)
Godzilla = Ill make a new Jurassic Park from it
Robocop = has to be ironman
Christine = cop action movie with cars and tties
there are more action movie fans than star trek fans ,so he made the movie for the action fans.Funny how if he would have made a TRIBBLE movie (of course with Star Trek name ...its easy to paste a name on anything) he would have had action movie and star trek fans view his TRIBBLE Trek simply because TRIBBLE movies are for ...well ,every homo sapiens on earth.
He simply took a franchise (a half a century old one) from Star trek fans and moved it to action movie fans.
If he would work in car industry he would stop making Rolls Royce luxury cars and you will get Prius type cars called Rolls Royce ...his logic will be "more people will buy my sheet"
Other movies Id TRIBBLE just to get famous as JJ :
Home Alone = make it a horror movie
Alien = clearly action movie (independence day type)
Godzilla = Ill make a new Jurassic Park from it
Robocop = has to be ironman
Christine = cop action movie with cars and tties
I'm not sure how you think Star Trek 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 weren't action movies.
I'll grant that 4 wasn't an action movie. It was a comedy.
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
Chekov in TOS was also a young man with a bad Russian Accent. Scotty on TOS was an Irish Canadian and humorous. Uhura on TOS was a strong Black woman in a mini skirt and so is the young lady in todays Trek. Kirk on TOS was a womanizer whose first contact with new alien races tended to be in the bedroom.
He simply took a franchise (a half a century old one) from Star trek fans and moved it to action movie fans.
And so would any other director Paramount might have brought in to run the film franchise instead of Abrams. Why? Because if that's what makes Paramount money, they'd be nuts to hire any showrunner who's not interested in remaking the film franchise in that image.
Again, if you're gonna hate, hate the game, not the player.
And so would any other director Paramount might have brought in to run the film franchise instead of Abrams. Why? Because if that's what makes Paramount money, they'd be nuts to hire any showrunner who's not interested in remaking the film franchise in that image.
Again, if you're gonna hate, hate the game, not the player.
/Agree
Paramount didn't go to Abrams and say, "Hey there. We want you to make a movie just like the last few" and then was completely betrayed by Abrams' films.
Paramount set out to find somebody who they thought could accomplish exactly what Abrams accomplished.
I used to make 'lens flare' cracks about Trek (2009)...but then I saw BSG: Blood and Chrome. Great Googley-Moogley. Its like they saw the 2009 flick and decided the reason it was so popular was the lens flare, and went crazy. Its like spending an hour and a half looking into a flashlight.
It was all the chrome. The blood was less reflective.
Don't listen to what any of these JJ haters says, yes, I would like a different Trek, yes I would like a more sci-fi Trek, but I was thoroughly entertained when I watched it, more than I thought it would be. I'm sure there was plot holes (that didn't really matter to the core of the movie).
I know there's probably at least one jack TRIBBLE on here that's said "All you have to do is hang something shiny in front of audiences and they'll be entertained" as if there's no creativity that goes into making an action scene, even though there has been dozens of directors who has claimed that directing action sequences is one of the most difficult things you can do as a director.
Truth is, these people are hardcore fans and looks at the new Star Trek as something it's not nor can it be. They'll nit pick things in the plot and think they're smart for it, when the truth is most people just don't give a TRIBBLE about said plot holes, they just want to unwind watching a movie. It has great action, some funny moments, and personally I really loved Kirk and Spock's relationship in this movie and really dug Spock learning what friendship is about.
To sum it up, asking why people don't like a certain movie on the internet is kind of pointless. You don't need other people's opinions, if you enjoyed the movie with all its flaws than congratulations - You're not a cynical douche.
You're not going to change their opinion.
The weirdest part about all of this? I've yet to meet an older person who grew up on the original series that didn't love the new one.
Star Trek Into Darkness was an entertaining movie and I don't care what anybody says. The hilarious part is how all these haters absolutely DREADED the first one and they went to go see the new in its opening weekend. Even if they watched it for free, they still wasted 2 hours on something they were going to hate on no matter what kind of movie it ended up being.
It was all the chrome. The blood was less reflective.
That made me LOL.
One thing about the lens flare that always makes me chuckle....I personally know several people who gripe about the lens flare in Trek but will tell you that you don't know great sci-fi unless you've watched Firefly.
I love Firefly, but the lens flare on that show (and in the movie) is insane. And intentional. David Boyd (the director of photography) wanted lens flare so much that he actually returned the super fancy cameras they were using and instead got cheaper cameras that weren't as good at preventing lens flare.
I think that if Trek 2009 was like the original episodes or movies, it would not earn too much money.
People today want to see some action, not really heavy dialogue(although the new trek movies did have a good amount of dialogue and action, which is good)
I mean if you look at Iron Man, would you want that to have heavy dialogue most of the time?
Star Trek can be one of those series that you can throw action into and it would still be good as long as you put some story into it like the new Star Trek movies. Like i said in another thread is that there IS a good amount of dialogue in the new movies, but there is some really good action in it that people don't really see it.
I thought Trek 2009 was a good enough Star Trek that i bought it. I will probably do the same for Into Darkness, because I liked that one too.i guess you can say i came out of Into Darkness satisfied.
I am also happy that some people that never seen Star Trek before are now giving it a second look and watching the original movies and episodes. Im kinda happy JJ's movies came out because of that.
I was also surprised by the movies because when i saw the Trek 2009 trailer years ago, i thought it be one of those really heavy action movies that had little talking and would get low ratings like some other movies. But i came out of it satisfied and again i bought it and the same goes for into darkness.
Everyone has their opinions, but me personally i came out of both movies satisfied.
Interestingly, the conversation attempt from "The Man Trap" was the result of an ad-lib from Nichelle during the previously-filmed episode, when the go-to line, "Open hailing frequencies," was used once too often. She turned and replied, "If I have to open hailing frequencies one more time, I'm going to blow up this g**d***ed panel!"
Dorothy Fontana was on set that day, and like it so much she included a variant on it in a subsequent script.
The hilarious part is how all these haters absolutely DREADED the first one and they went to go see the new in its opening weekend.
Not me. I am not going to spend one dime on it. When it eventually comes to TV I'll probably watch it.
Like many long-time Trek fans, I did see '09 to check out the new take on my favorite characters and give it a fair shot. I did not like it. Hence I will not support this one. Could it be this explains why Into Darkness is not meeting studio expectations? I think that can very well be part of it.
I will give JJ Abrams one major compliment. He put together a great cast and crew. It's the talent and enthusiasm of this group of actors that is infectious and hard not to like. I think even the hardest critics cannot find something good to say about them.
My biggest gripes about Abrams is his arrogance and laziness. You folks do realize there wouldn't be STO if Abrams had his way. The Countdown comic was to destroy the prime universe. They wanted to destroy Vulcan and Earth in the prime universe and kill Data, Picard, Riker and Worf to name a few. Levar Burton made some disparaging remarks about Abrams over this. Abrams wanted his universe to be the only one. Have the reason it is believed he accepted the Star Wars gig was because CBS wouldn't stop make merch of the older shows.
Second, laziness. Though the cast was phenomenal the story of Trek 09' was basically TWOK with a good measure of Star Wars thrown in. STID is basically the greatest hits plus Space Seed and TWOK. But, pew, pew, pew, a lot of folks lap it up.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a die hard Peter Jackson fan once. This poor, delusional soul tried to convince me that Peter Jackson was greater than J.R.R. Tolkien. He tried to tell me that Jackson improved The Lord of the Rings and made a series of movies greater than the novel. I remember telling him that when Peter Jackson creates something wholly original and that will stand the test of time get back to me. I get the same vibe from JJ fans. without JJ Star Trek would be dead. Really? There's a lot of talented folks who could have resurrected Trek and it really didn't need that much help to begin with.
I'm willing to bet people will be talking about Nimoy and Shatner 20 years from now, not NuTrek. Of course 20 years from now they will probably be recasting the current line up.
I don't know how you define "older", but I'm not a youngster and I did not like JJ-trek.
Not me. I am not going to spend one dime on it. When it eventually comes to TV I'll probably watch it.
Like many long-time Trek fans, I did see '09 to check out the new take on my favorite characters and give it a fair shot. I did not like it. Hence I will not support this one. Could it be this explains why Into Darkness is not meeting studio expectations? I think that can very well be part of it.
While I liked it (I'm 40, so not sure if I qualify as an old-timer or not), you definitely deserve props. You gave it a shot and didn't like it. They can't ask for more than that.
On a side note, the movie didn't meet the studio's lofty expectations but that's more about their projections than the movie's success. It's most definitely a hit. Its opening weekend matched that of the last one (which had enormous hype because it was the return of TOS characters), it's currently number 1 at the box office, and it has done incredibly well in the international market, reaching an 80% improvement over what the last one made overseas.
I will give JJ Abrams one major compliment. He put together a great cast and crew. It's the talent and enthusiasm of this group of actors that is infectious and hard not to like. I think even the hardest critics cannot find something good to say about them.
My biggest gripes about Abrams is his arrogance and laziness. You folks do realize there wouldn't be STO if Abrams had his way. The Countdown comic was to destroy the prime universe. They wanted to destroy Vulcan and Earth in the prime universe and kill Data, Picard, Riker and Worf to name a few. Levar Burton made some disparaging remarks about Abrams over this. Abrams wanted his universe to be the only one. Have the reason it is believed he accepted the Star Wars gig was because CBS wouldn't stop make merch of the older shows.
Second, laziness. Though the cast was phenomenal the story of Trek 09' was basically TWOK with a good measure of Star Wars thrown in. STID is basically the greatest hits plus Space Seed and TWOK. But, pew, pew, pew, a lot of folks lap it up.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a die hard Peter Jackson fan once. This poor, delusional soul tried to convince me that Peter Jackson was greater than J.R.R. Tolkien. He tried to tell me that Jackson improved The Lord of the Rings and made a series of movies greater than the novel. I remember telling him that when Peter Jackson creates something wholly original and that will stand the test of time get back to me. I get the same vibe from JJ fans. without JJ Star Trek would be dead. Really? There's a lot of talented folks who could have resurrected Trek and it really didn't need that much help to begin with.
I'm willing to bet people will be talking about Nimoy and Shatner 20 years from now, not NuTrek. Of course 20 years from now they will probably be recasting the current line up.
All I see is an opinion piece with no real substance. Guess what, TUC was going to be a full reboot of TOS if Meyers got his way. In BOBW, Data would have been merged with Picard. We would have gotten horrible new TNG uniforms and Kirk shot in the back for Generations. In FC, the Defiant and DS9 were meant to be destroyed. In TVH, Eddie Murphy was meant to cast in the film. I love 80s Murphy, but that would've been a catastrophe especially the fan wars.
If you want laziness, Generations featured a number of reused shots from TUC. Laziness, I bet if you asked any filmmaker, making a film, much less a large budget production, is anything but lazy. Trek 09 equals TWOK is a first for me, unless you mean ACTION FILM, then yes, again every Trek film since TMP has been marketed as an action film, even TVH.
All I see is an opinion piece with no real substance. Guess what, TUC was going to be a full reboot of TOS if Meyers got his way. In BOBW, Data would have been merged with Picard. We would have gotten horrible new TNG uniforms and Kirk shot in the back for Generations. In FC, the Defiant and DS9 were meant to be destroyed. In TVH, Eddie Murphy was meant to cast in the film. I love 80s Murphy, but that would've been a catastrophe especially the fan wars.
If you want laziness, Generations featured a number of reused shots from TUC. Laziness, I bet if you asked any filmmaker, making a film, much less a large budget production, is anything but lazy. Trek 09 equals TWOK is a first for me, unless you mean ACTION FILM, then yes, again every Trek film since TMP has been marketed as an action film, even TVH.
Really? All those things that you mention that were to happen didn't! That's your defense? What has JJ Abrams created on his own that will stand the test of time? Super 8 and Cloverfield? Really? Pathetic.
Comments
How did he do this?
1. He failed in his own goals for the reboot. He wanted to tell the pre-story of how Kirk and Spock became such good friends. But skews the prime timeline before they even meet. How can you tell the "early years" stories if they aren't even happening in the early years of the prime universe?
2. Destroyed Romulus in the prime universe for no other reason than to do it. Then tells the rest of his story in an alternate timeline. So effectively altering the prime timeline and not even bothering to tell his story there.
3. Lens flare.
Help rebuild the Romulan Star Empire to glory. Click the banner to join today.
#2 in particular really bugs me. In the Prime universe the borg had been defanged by Voyager, the Cardassians/Breen/Dominion had dropped out of the race thanks to DS9, and the Klingons had become closer and closer to the Federation over the course of the era. The Romulans were the only major power of note with any bite left that was antagonistic to the Federation, and which had any element of mystery left to it. Then Nemesis and 2009 Trek came along and delivered a one-two punch to them. Nemesis had hardly anything to do with Romulans-the villains beign a human and a previously nonexistant alien sepcies of nosferatu. 2009 Trek took place in a completely different dimension, yet both of them managed to irrepairably mess up one of the few compelling villain factions left in Trek.
So much drama in your claim, and it's not even based on anything.
:rolleyes:
Lens Flare is a personal perference, I didn't even notice, nor cared. Different Style, just like I never noticed the man bulges of TMP. If you want something to whine about Trek, watch pre-Director's Cut TMP, especially Decker. I hate my friends for pointing that out.
With the destruction of Romulus, its just another major event. Personally, I think it opens the door to new stories with the new baddies.
Again, alternate timeline. Romulus being destroyed, Spock/Nero disappearing is all that really changed in the Prime Universe.
They were overdone, no one's debating that. But that doesn't automatically make them bad (plus Into Darkness barely had any, despite all claims to the contray)
So I hardly find that evidence that he 'ruined' ST: more like he made an entirely different version alongside the one many love.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Before we all start lighting the pitchforks, let me say that I think this poster might be operating under a different connotation of the word "ruin" here.
I was furiously typing a reply when it occurred to me that he might not mean Abrams destroyed the existence of Star Trek; just that he doesn't like the changes in that movie and some of the ways that movie impacted the main timeline.
In other words, if you don't like the reboot movies, don't hate the player (Abrams), hate the game (the industry-wide preferences for action-heavy movies and younger target audiences). The latter has far more to do with the character of the reboot movies than the former.
My Foundry missions | My STO Wiki page | My Twitter home page
this this this
I have no issues with people who hate the movie but when you bring up nitpicks that were in the original movies and series then people come off as complainers...
...unless nitpicking is how Trekkers show love....they nitpicked TOS
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.
Amazing...
Somebody in this thread is actually saying something that makes sense. :P
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
that is BS.
there are more action movie fans than star trek fans ,so he made the movie for the action fans.Funny how if he would have made a TRIBBLE movie (of course with Star Trek name ...its easy to paste a name on anything) he would have had action movie and star trek fans view his TRIBBLE Trek simply because TRIBBLE movies are for ...well ,every homo sapiens on earth.
He simply took a franchise (a half a century old one) from Star trek fans and moved it to action movie fans.
If he would work in car industry he would stop making Rolls Royce luxury cars and you will get Prius type cars called Rolls Royce ...his logic will be "more people will buy my sheet"
Other movies Id TRIBBLE just to get famous as JJ :
Home Alone = make it a horror movie
Alien = clearly action movie (independence day type)
Godzilla = Ill make a new Jurassic Park from it
Robocop = has to be ironman
Christine = cop action movie with cars and tties
I'm not sure how you think Star Trek 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 weren't action movies.
I'll grant that 4 wasn't an action movie. It was a comedy.
Chekov in TOS was also a young man with a bad Russian Accent. Scotty on TOS was an Irish Canadian and humorous. Uhura on TOS was a strong Black woman in a mini skirt and so is the young lady in todays Trek. Kirk on TOS was a womanizer whose first contact with new alien races tended to be in the bedroom.
And so would any other director Paramount might have brought in to run the film franchise instead of Abrams. Why? Because if that's what makes Paramount money, they'd be nuts to hire any showrunner who's not interested in remaking the film franchise in that image.
Again, if you're gonna hate, hate the game, not the player.
My Foundry missions | My STO Wiki page | My Twitter home page
/Agree
Paramount didn't go to Abrams and say, "Hey there. We want you to make a movie just like the last few" and then was completely betrayed by Abrams' films.
Paramount set out to find somebody who they thought could accomplish exactly what Abrams accomplished.
I know there's probably at least one jack TRIBBLE on here that's said "All you have to do is hang something shiny in front of audiences and they'll be entertained" as if there's no creativity that goes into making an action scene, even though there has been dozens of directors who has claimed that directing action sequences is one of the most difficult things you can do as a director.
Truth is, these people are hardcore fans and looks at the new Star Trek as something it's not nor can it be. They'll nit pick things in the plot and think they're smart for it, when the truth is most people just don't give a TRIBBLE about said plot holes, they just want to unwind watching a movie. It has great action, some funny moments, and personally I really loved Kirk and Spock's relationship in this movie and really dug Spock learning what friendship is about.
To sum it up, asking why people don't like a certain movie on the internet is kind of pointless. You don't need other people's opinions, if you enjoyed the movie with all its flaws than congratulations - You're not a cynical douche.
You're not going to change their opinion.
The weirdest part about all of this? I've yet to meet an older person who grew up on the original series that didn't love the new one.
Star Trek Into Darkness was an entertaining movie and I don't care what anybody says. The hilarious part is how all these haters absolutely DREADED the first one and they went to go see the new in its opening weekend. Even if they watched it for free, they still wasted 2 hours on something they were going to hate on no matter what kind of movie it ended up being.
That made me LOL.
One thing about the lens flare that always makes me chuckle....I personally know several people who gripe about the lens flare in Trek but will tell you that you don't know great sci-fi unless you've watched Firefly.
I love Firefly, but the lens flare on that show (and in the movie) is insane. And intentional. David Boyd (the director of photography) wanted lens flare so much that he actually returned the super fancy cameras they were using and instead got cheaper cameras that weren't as good at preventing lens flare.
People today want to see some action, not really heavy dialogue(although the new trek movies did have a good amount of dialogue and action, which is good)
I mean if you look at Iron Man, would you want that to have heavy dialogue most of the time?
Star Trek can be one of those series that you can throw action into and it would still be good as long as you put some story into it like the new Star Trek movies. Like i said in another thread is that there IS a good amount of dialogue in the new movies, but there is some really good action in it that people don't really see it.
I thought Trek 2009 was a good enough Star Trek that i bought it. I will probably do the same for Into Darkness, because I liked that one too.i guess you can say i came out of Into Darkness satisfied.
I am also happy that some people that never seen Star Trek before are now giving it a second look and watching the original movies and episodes. Im kinda happy JJ's movies came out because of that.
I was also surprised by the movies because when i saw the Trek 2009 trailer years ago, i thought it be one of those really heavy action movies that had little talking and would get low ratings like some other movies. But i came out of it satisfied and again i bought it and the same goes for into darkness.
Everyone has their opinions, but me personally i came out of both movies satisfied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CJdFppsHeo
And this is for all the "ZOMG - Uhura was never into Spock! JJ suxx! I know Star Trak better!" people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fK3Fc14xOu8#t=277s
Dorothy Fontana was on set that day, and like it so much she included a variant on it in a subsequent script.
Not me. I am not going to spend one dime on it. When it eventually comes to TV I'll probably watch it.
Like many long-time Trek fans, I did see '09 to check out the new take on my favorite characters and give it a fair shot. I did not like it. Hence I will not support this one. Could it be this explains why Into Darkness is not meeting studio expectations? I think that can very well be part of it.
My biggest gripes about Abrams is his arrogance and laziness. You folks do realize there wouldn't be STO if Abrams had his way. The Countdown comic was to destroy the prime universe. They wanted to destroy Vulcan and Earth in the prime universe and kill Data, Picard, Riker and Worf to name a few. Levar Burton made some disparaging remarks about Abrams over this. Abrams wanted his universe to be the only one. Have the reason it is believed he accepted the Star Wars gig was because CBS wouldn't stop make merch of the older shows.
Second, laziness. Though the cast was phenomenal the story of Trek 09' was basically TWOK with a good measure of Star Wars thrown in. STID is basically the greatest hits plus Space Seed and TWOK. But, pew, pew, pew, a lot of folks lap it up.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a die hard Peter Jackson fan once. This poor, delusional soul tried to convince me that Peter Jackson was greater than J.R.R. Tolkien. He tried to tell me that Jackson improved The Lord of the Rings and made a series of movies greater than the novel. I remember telling him that when Peter Jackson creates something wholly original and that will stand the test of time get back to me. I get the same vibe from JJ fans. without JJ Star Trek would be dead. Really? There's a lot of talented folks who could have resurrected Trek and it really didn't need that much help to begin with.
I'm willing to bet people will be talking about Nimoy and Shatner 20 years from now, not NuTrek. Of course 20 years from now they will probably be recasting the current line up.
While I liked it (I'm 40, so not sure if I qualify as an old-timer or not), you definitely deserve props. You gave it a shot and didn't like it. They can't ask for more than that.
On a side note, the movie didn't meet the studio's lofty expectations but that's more about their projections than the movie's success. It's most definitely a hit. Its opening weekend matched that of the last one (which had enormous hype because it was the return of TOS characters), it's currently number 1 at the box office, and it has done incredibly well in the international market, reaching an 80% improvement over what the last one made overseas.
I'd say it's doing pretty well.
All I see is an opinion piece with no real substance. Guess what, TUC was going to be a full reboot of TOS if Meyers got his way. In BOBW, Data would have been merged with Picard. We would have gotten horrible new TNG uniforms and Kirk shot in the back for Generations. In FC, the Defiant and DS9 were meant to be destroyed. In TVH, Eddie Murphy was meant to cast in the film. I love 80s Murphy, but that would've been a catastrophe especially the fan wars.
If you want laziness, Generations featured a number of reused shots from TUC. Laziness, I bet if you asked any filmmaker, making a film, much less a large budget production, is anything but lazy. Trek 09 equals TWOK is a first for me, unless you mean ACTION FILM, then yes, again every Trek film since TMP has been marketed as an action film, even TVH.
Really? All those things that you mention that were to happen didn't! That's your defense? What has JJ Abrams created on his own that will stand the test of time? Super 8 and Cloverfield? Really? Pathetic.
"What has Gene Roddenberry created that will stand the test of time? 'The Questor Tapes' and 'Earth: Final Conflict'? Really? Pathetic."
If you never fail, you're not trying anything...
Gene Roddenberry created that little thing Star Trek. Who talks about Lost and Alias anymore?