test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

2456

Comments

  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,557 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    angrytarg wrote: »
    Unrelated note: Please stop bringin S31 up for *everything* that doesn't add up in Trek lore which is mostly due to obvious out-of-universe reasons. You could as well say "Iconians" every time something fishy happens... oh wait XD

    Must be talking about someone else since I rarely bring up Section 31 as an explanation for something that doesn't add up.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    thetanine wrote: »
    Yes well I thought I'd pull this gem out again...just to TRIBBLE you poor wankers off:

    Full disclosure: I enjoyed both JJ-films. However, you just admitted you are trolling. Are you trying to get in trouble?

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • themetalstickmanthemetalstickman Member Posts: 1,010 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    starkaos wrote: »
    This. My only problem with Star Trek 2009 is that I hate reboots in general. It just seems like the writers are phoning it in rather than trying to create something new and interesting.

    STID destroys any future JJ Star Trek movie with interstellar transporters and magic blood. There is absolutely no point for any Starfleet ships to exist in the next movie. Why use a ship when you can just beam to the next planet? Magic blood destroys the drama. There is no point in worrying about someone dying when they can just be saved by magic blood.

    The transwarp beaming equation was confiscated by Section 31, likely for that very reason. Imagine if enemies of the Federation get their hands on it. Klingons and Romulans beaming right into Starfleet HQ from their homeworlds is exactly the sort of thing S31 exists to prevent.
    Og12TbC.jpg

    Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.

    I dare you to do better.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    If this was anywhere but Ten Forward...

    But, have your fun.

    There will be another Star Trek movie set in the JJ-verse. Some people will love it and some won't.

    With JJA out of the picture (see what I did there), there's at least a possibility that someone who wants to do a Star Trek story will write and direct it.

    As opposed to someone who insists on stamping their own "artistic interpretation" on it to show how clever they are and whose main purpose is making as much money on it as they possibly can.

    The movies had their merits and I enjoyed them to a degree.

    But there's no question that JJA threw a spanner into the gears by trying to insist everyone forget TOS and kill all of the TOS collectables so they could make more money on it. I blame him and Paramount for the fact that we don't have a new TV series already.

    Ironically, though, it'll be these Star Trek movies that pave the way for a TV series, if they're financially successful enough. Renegades and the other projects are great, but someone somewhere has to convince financiers that they can make money.
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • edited April 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • ssbn655ssbn655 Member Posts: 1,894 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    LMAO at all that got suckered in by this post. Keep feeding the trolls.
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    edited April 2015
    starkaos wrote: »
    STID destroys any future JJ Star Trek movie with interstellar transporters and magic blood.

    Because "Assignment: Earth" and "Mortal Coil" didn't deal with those years before they appeared in Into Darkness... :rolleyes:
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    thetanine wrote: »
    Yes well I thought I'd pull this gem out again...
    bluegeek wrote: »
    If this was anywhere but Ten Forward...

    But, have your fun.

    Off topic subject matter aside, are you saying it is OK to post threads with the intended goal of pissing people off? If so that is certainly a new policy, but good to know the official stance, I guess.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    mhall85 wrote: »
    Because "Assignment: Earth" and "Mortal Coil" didn't deal with those years before they appeared in Into Darkness... :rolleyes:
    TNG did something similar. They used a modifier transporter to board a Ferengi ship that was traveling at warp with shields up.

    I always wondered why THAT doesn't get mentioned more often.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,544 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    bluegeek wrote: »
    With JJA out of the picture (see what I did there), there's at least a possibility that someone who wants to do a Star Trek story will write and direct it.
    You mean like Simon "Scotty" Pegg?

    And while the OP may have been trolling, if you'll care to notice, Nagus, you'll see the conversation here has largely been civil. My issues with STID have more to do with violations of known physics (we know what cold fusion is, and it isn't that!) than with any of the doubletalk stuff which, as has been noted, can be found in TOS.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • eldarion79eldarion79 Member Posts: 1,679 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    TNG did something similar. They used a modifier transporter to board a Ferengi ship that was traveling at warp with shields up.

    I always wondered why THAT doesn't get mentioned more often.

    The Dominion did something similar in Jem'Hadar, and ENT had a similar concept in Daedalus. Magic blood is pretty similar to any of the Series' Doctors finding a cure for the uncurable.
  • shevetshevet Member Posts: 1,667 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    The transwarp beaming equation was confiscated by Section 31, likely for that very reason. Imagine if enemies of the Federation get their hands on it. Klingons and Romulans beaming right into Starfleet HQ from their homeworlds is exactly the sort of thing S31 exists to prevent.
    What's to stop the enemies of the Federation getting their hands on it? Scotty's a bright lad, granted, but there are probably equally bright lads in the Klingon and Romulan empires. Since transwarp beaming is physically possible, sooner or later they'll figure out how to do it, all by themselves.

    It's one of those scientific genies - the ones you can't put back in the bottle.
    8b6YIel.png?1
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    jonsills wrote: »
    You mean like Simon "Scotty" Pegg?

    And while the OP may have been trolling, if you'll care to notice, Nagus, you'll see the conversation here has largely been civil.

    Yeah, there's no such "official" policy that says trolling is okay in Ten Forward. But I have to look at the thread as a whole. If there's a live conversation going on where people are having a civil discussion... I'm not going to condemn an entire thread if I can avoid it.

    Nagus, give us at least a little credit for trying to moderate sensibly where we can.

    And thanks for that link, Jonsills :)
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    bluegeek wrote: »
    Yeah, there's no such "official" policy that says trolling is okay in Ten Forward. But I have to look at the thread as a whole. If there's a live conversation going on where people are having a civil discussion... I'm not going to condemn an entire thread if I can avoid it.

    Nagus, give us at least a little credit for trying to moderate sensibly where we can.

    And thanks for that link, Jonsills :)

    That's interesting! So it is OK to post a thread that breaks the forum rules, as long as people have a civil conversation after the OP. Thanks for the explanation :)

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    The OP's obvious attempt at trolling aside, I also liked the JJ Abrams films. Both of them. I actually preferred Into Darkness, denial of the laws of physics aside.

    They're good action sci-fi films. The story is, fair enough, poor, but the effects, acting and choreography is pretty darn good.

    That said, it helps if you think of them separate from the rest of the franchise. And then compare them to the works of Michael Bay.
  • rambowdoubledashrambowdoubledash Member Posts: 298 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    Eh, these days effects aren't enough in and of themselves to win me over, not when you can have movies like, say, Jupiter Ascending, which are beautiful to look at but otherwise stupid, stupid, stupid movies.

    There is a serious glut of talented set and costume designers and computer animators in Hollywood right now. The folks who worked on Jupiter Ascending should have been working on something like a Dune remake.
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    edited April 2015
    TNG did something similar. They used a modifier transporter to board a Ferengi ship that was traveling at warp with shields up.

    I always wondered why THAT doesn't get mentioned more often.
    eldarion79 wrote: »
    The Dominion did something similar in Jem'Hadar, and ENT had a similar concept in Daedalus. Magic blood is pretty similar to any of the Series' Doctors finding a cure for the uncurable.

    NO! You guys are ruining it!

    JJ Abrams is a moron, and is the ONLY one responsible for bringing in already-used tropes into an almost-50-year old franchise. HE MUST BE BANISHED, AND HIS MOVIES WIPED FROM EXISTENCE! ALL OF THEM!!! NO MERCY!!!

    /sarcasm :P

    Sometimes, I just think a contingent of fans are pissed that a Star Trek film was made by an ardent Star Wars fan, LOL. Nero may be a one-dimensional villain, and Khan may be unnecessary... but, Team Bad Robot got a lot right with this IP and franchise, IMO. :)
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    I am always annoyed about this topic whenever someone else attempts to speak for me. At 53yo, I am quite capable of making up my own mind, TYVM.

    I enjoyed both outings of JJTrek. A lot. This does not make me a heretic or a blasphemer nor any of the other nasty words alleged Star Trek fans attempt to tag me with.

    There are a lot of things I dislike very much about TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT. I usually keep them to myself because some people enjoy these parts of Star Trek a great deal more than I do.

    Doing so is called 'courtesy' or 'good manners'. Both of which are closely tied to another word which is now apparently foreign to alleged Star Trek fans - 'respect'.
    Thank you for saying that!

    Every incarnation of Star Trek if it's a series or movie has its flaws, i'm person enough to decide what i like and what not.
    Personally i enjoyed the new movies too, even more than some older ones.
    Sure there are logical flaws in the new movies but those people bashing it and think they speak for everyone else are invited to show me a trek movie/series that doesn't have logic holes and/or flaws.
    "...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--" - (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    That's interesting! So it is OK to post a thread that breaks the forum rules, as long as people have a civil conversation after the OP. Thanks for the explanation :)

    You are deliberately twisting my words and I do not appreciate it.

    If you thought the OP was trolling, why didn't you report it? As far as I know, NOBODY reported the OP for trolling.

    I wasn't particularly offended by the OP. Why should I assume everyone else is?
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    I think a lot of it is this: many of us grew up watching the Trek TV shows. For some it was TOS, myself it was TNG, etc. And while many of the individual episodes were honestly not that great, the fact that it was something we grew up watching gives it a big nostalgia factor which excuses the flaws the show might have had.

    Because of that, we are more willing to excuse or even completely ignore all the many contradictions or plot holes in the shows we love, while at the same time being critical with the JJ-Trek of those exact same flaws. I am someone who enjoys both, but I can *understand* why some people feel the way I just described.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    And please delete post #40 since you edited out the statement in the OP I was actually talking about :P

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • mikoto8472mikoto8472 Member Posts: 607 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    Ah interesting, a civil conversation about the NuTrek movies. ;)


    In my case I mildly enjoyed both movies. Sure they had their flaws and JJ Abram's influence was all over them. They had the same mark as Fringe.

    But they were okay, enough to entertain me and an interesting enough alternative take on Star Trek. That being said though it was okay only because I knew it was an alternate universe separate from the 'prime' universe I know and like so well.
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    edited April 2015
    I think a lot of it is this: many of us grew up watching the Trek TV shows. For some it was TOS, myself it was TNG, etc. And while many of the individual episodes were honestly not that great, the fact that it was something we grew up watching gives it a big nostalgia factor which excuses the flaws the show might have had.

    Because of that, we are more willing to excuse or even completely ignore all the many contradictions or plot holes in the shows we love, while at the same time being critical with the JJ-Trek of those exact same flaws. I am someone who enjoys both, but I can *understand* why some people feel the way I just described.

    Many aren't willing to admit that... that's my problem with the debate.

    You can dislike the films all you want, but don't tell me they suffer from deficiencies that the rest of the franchise is somehow immune.
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • edited April 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    mhall85 wrote: »
    Many aren't willing to admit that... that's my problem with the debate.

    You can dislike the films all you want, but don't tell me they suffer from deficiencies that the rest of the franchise is somehow immune.

    To add another thought to my previous point, I think it is also easier to ignore bad episodes because they are just single episodes in larger season or series, probably bookended by other episodes that were better. But the JJ-Trek are actual movies with years in between their production, so they are the sole target for all criticism.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    edited April 2015
    valoreah wrote: »
    I can admit that anything prior to the JJ reboot had deficiencies. Like anything else, it had it's good moments and bad moments. Taken as a whole, the good outweighs the bad.

    And both you and jonstills are some of the few I've talked to, on these forums, that openly admit that. :) Then again, I've also read both of you criticize other parts of Trek, so this isn't entirely surprising. Just because you love something, that doesn't mean it's above reproach.
    valoreah wrote: »
    JJ Trek has more bad than good IMO.

    And that's fine by me. :) I disagree, even though I *do* wish it could be better (better in-universe "fan service," fleshing out the Nero character more, using Robert April instead of Khan, etc.).
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    edited April 2015
    To add another thought to my previous point, I think it is also easier to ignore bad episodes because they are just single episodes in larger season or series, probably bookmarked by other episodes that were better. But the JJ-Trek are actual movies with years in between their production, so they are the sole target for all criticism.

    Very fair point.

    That's the same reason why I think the level of vitriol against the JJ films is unfair... comparing two Abrams films to seven seasons of a show (or ~15 years of consecutive television and film) is quite unfair, IMO.

    But, as others have said, I can *understand* the other side of the argument.
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    spockout1 wrote: »
    Star Trek: The Star Trek - I liked it. It was fun to see Trek on the big screen again and the movie itself wasn't horrible. There were some things I didn't enjoy about it, but I'd have a hard time saying I completely hated it. There were a lot of good points and the feel was almost there.

    Star Trek: Into Darkness - Awful, completely lame ripoff of another (already well-done the first time) Trek movie that has already been ripped off before. Wait, what if we make Kirk die and Spock yell? What a twist. It was like they just took all the TRIBBLE that made people think of Star Trek and threw it in the movie, regardless of whether or not it fit.

    "My name is....Khan."

    "Yeah? So? My name is Kirk. That's Spock over there. The doctor's name is McCoy, did we miss anyone? Are we all introduced now? Great, who gives a s#!t what your name is, guy-in-glass-case. I'm gonna call you Loki, just because."

    Kirk: "Oh , your name is 'Khan'? Well.... Let me know if 'Khan' needs a magazine or somethin'" :)
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    mhall85 wrote: »
    Very fair point.

    That's the same reason why I think the level of vitriol against the JJ films is unfair... comparing two Abrams films to seven seasons of a show (or ~15 years of consecutive television and film) is quite unfair, IMO.

    But, as others have said, I can *understand* the other side of the argument.
    The dumb part is how most people who bash nu-Trek compare the worst aspects of it against the best aspects of the tv shows.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited April 2015
    Let me also throw this out into the mix: IDW Publishing has an ongoing comic series(40+ regular issues plus a dozen or so related mini-series issues) set in the JJ-verse. While I do not believe a person should be *required* to read extra material to enjoy a TV show or movie, for me personally those stories have greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the 2 movies, because it makes them feel like part of a much bigger story, like the other Trek shows have felt. One of those mini-series also explains Khan's story prior to Into Darkness, which I wish could have been included in the movie.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
This discussion has been closed.