test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Who isn't going to see Star Trek Beyond?

2456710

Comments

  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 56,088 Community Moderator
    ryan218 wrote: »
    "I know nothing about this film from the Trailer!"

    Well, yeah... It's only a Teaser Trailer. They never reveal the plot of a film. That's why they're called Teaser Trailers. I'm reserving judgement until they show an actual theatrical trailer.

    Um... ryan... that MIGHT be the theatrical. I saw that specific trailer when I went to see Star Wars YESTERDAY.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,055 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    ryan218 wrote: »
    "I know nothing about this film from the Trailer!"

    Well, yeah... It's only a Teaser Trailer. They never reveal the plot of a film. That's why they're called Teaser Trailers. I'm reserving judgement until they show an actual theatrical trailer.

    Um... ryan... that MIGHT be the theatrical. I saw that specific trailer when I went to see Star Wars YESTERDAY.

    Huh, good point. Odd, when I saw it on the web, I could have sworn it had 'TEASER' in the title. That and Teasers are usually the first trailer released for a film...
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,126 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    iconians wrote: »
    I have no problems with people hating. But I do prefer it if they show their work. Why they hate what they hate.

    But why? If we were talking about politics or religion or some important RL issue, I could understand you wanting to bridge the gap with someone on the other side to reach some kind of social compromise so we can all live in peace together. But when we are talking about completely subjective opinions about a fictional movie, why does it matter if someone else hates it if you enjoy it? Unless your goal is to try to counter their opinion and prove them wrong, how does them explaining their hatred help your experience?

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,126 Arc User
    Individually speaking, there is no right or wrong on this subject. The person who says Into Darkness it the best movie ever made is equally right as the person who says it is the worst movie ever made. Individually, neither of their opinions is any more right than the other. But there is a difference between individual opinion and general consensus, and if anyone is interested in the general consensus about the JJ-movies, here it is:

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    iconians wrote: »
    WHO ISN'T GOING TO SEE STAR TREK BEYOND?

    A better question is, why do you care so much whether other people see the movie or not? I'm going to see the movie...because I want to. If I enjoy it, great. If I don't, no big deal. Either way, people shouldn't be so insecure that they need other people to validate or "side with them" about their choices of entertainment or how they feel about a certain movie.

    Pretty much all of this. Star Trek does not require a litmus test in order to be considered a fan of it. It's a franchise, not a cult.

    Thank you. We have really got to stop doing this as fans; the insularity and holding other fans up to ideological purity tests like Sheldon Cooper giving Leonard the "roommate test" doesn't exactly make it welcoming to new people who might not be the same as the "hardcore fans." And like it or not, if people want the franchise to keep growing, they are going to have to accept new people.

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • gfreeman98gfreeman98 Member Posts: 1,182 Arc User
    iconians wrote: »
    The JJ Abrams films on the other hand, I see the opposite. I see people going after miniscule things without ever really explaining why they hate it other than it's just "different". Lens flares. That's about it.
    Then you haven't been listening, but there's no point in rehashing all my gripes here. No one has to justify their preferences of entertainment. As thegrandnagus1 says, there's no right or wrong answer.

    That said, you're right that it's not all about Abrams - he just happens to be the poster boy for the whole reboot/"reimagining"/alternate universe. The writers are equally if not more responsible for the result.

    The "lens flare" label simply summarizes the disdain some of us have for the entire production. It's shorthand, if you will.


    screenshot_2015-03-01-resize4.png
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    "Poster boy"? more like scapegoat....

    I'd like to go, but it's just not practical.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    I plan on seeing it and giving it a fair shake. I enjoyed ST09. I had mixed feelings toward "Into Darkness" (although it was a decent film). But I came to those conclusions AFTER I saw the complete movies. Not by what I saw in a short trailer.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,204 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    As for "Beyond" the trailer was quite lackluster and built up no excitement in me.

    Since this thread has devoled into JJ-Trek vs Rest of Trek, well...

    Redoing characters that already had a long history in the franchise with 1 TV show, SIX movies was a stupid move and opens too many possible comparisons. Hell, they even failed to capture the friendship, dynamics between TOS Kirk, McCoy, Spock. FFS, McCoy has so little screen time in JJ Trek I wonder why the hell they bothered to have him to begin with.

    Instead of building upon the history of Star Trek, JJ Trek tries to restyle something that had been done already with classic characters.

    Why they did not simply move past the eras shown in previous Star Trek TV shows and movies and forge their own, truly unique setting, unique characters, unique ship designs, I don't know. If they did so, I'm not saying it would have been perfect. But the doors would have been closed on stupid things like TOS vs JJ-TOS comparisons and those stupid rehashing of classic events with classic characters. There'd be no comparisons like TOS Kirk vs JJ-Kirk, etc. But that's what we got instead of getting something completely new.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    Also, it's not a reboot, it's an alternate universe, and the last two films have been leaps and bounds above Insurrection, Generations, or the Final Fronter.

    Not in my view. I think every one of those is better, including Final Frontier. I honestly don't understand peoples' beef with Insurrection - I don't think it was anything massively epic, but I don't think it was bad either. I keep thinking that it's related to the fact that they're a bunch of hippies that Picard decides to protect? I don't know.

    I do think the new ones are probably better than Nemesis - but I think Nemesis was by far the worst Star Trek movie.
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    iconians wrote: »
    The JJ Abrams films on the other hand, I see the opposite. I see people going after miniscule things without ever really explaining why they hate it other than it's just "different". Lens flares. That's about it.

    I criticize both Voyager and Enterprise and give explicit reasons for it on other threads. I don't hate Voyager like I think Enterprise was truly an atrocity however...

    I have many reasons I hated the new Star Treks and it's got nothing to do with lens flairs, though I could do without them. JJ Abrams is totally tangential to my dislike of the new Treks and 90% of my dislike was aimed at Roberto Orci's political soapboxing with Star Trek in a way that it's seldom done - twisting the Federation into something that fundamentally isn't the Federation all for the purpose of saying he hates America and George Bush as if the Federation was ever supposed to be the American government in the first place (it wasn't - it carries the UN logo because it was modeled off the 1960's United Nations before they invited a bunch of third world slavers, human rights violators, and war criminals to join the UN).

    I hate the decision to make Khan a white man which was done for the explicit purpose of "we need to be careful about vilifying non-white people" as if the author believes only whites are capable of doing wrong and therefore any fiction with a non-white villain must be in some way censored to portray the apparent perfected ideology of non-whites which never results in a single bad person. Furthermore the decision to make Khan a Sikh was originally made with the explicit reason of undermining the assumption an "ubermensch" would be a white person in the first place - Khan is both extremely intelligent, extremely seductive, and extremely strong - he dwarfs the original conception of Kirk on the Enterprise of being all three of these things.

    I hate that Kirk is perpetually shown to be incompetent in the films to the point that thousands wouldn't die in San Francisco in Into Darkness if Kirk had done the responsible thing and checked the payload of his torpedoes which both Scotty and Spock warn him to do (so the author has apparently noted to himself that it's unusual for the Captain to load torpedoes without knowing the payload - but decides to ensure he makes the wrong decision to move the plot along despite the damage that causes to the protagonist's character and the suggestion that he's competent to command a starship). But Roberto Orci hates Kirk and wants to make Kirk seem incompetent and undisciplined - once again projecting his personal aggression against George Bush onto a character in Star Trek. As well as suggesting that Section 31 is actually more evil than it is in DS9 (it's still a good natured organization in DS9 - just more likely to not follow Federation ideology to the last dotted "i" in foreign relations). The fact that Kirk will avoid any punishment for not checking the Torpedos is evidence that they're not interested in writing a responsible, quasi-"realistic", and upstanding Federation at all - one that cares about Captain behavior and fitness.

    Since Orci is still listed as part of the new Star Trek screenwriters - I have no interest. There are numerous other things I could list, most of which aren't quite as neurotic as some trekkies' complaints. I will slightly complain about universe-changing technologies like "transwarp transporters" thrown carelessly in without concern for the repercussions to future plot lines - but not about, say, minutia errors in technobabble.

    One thing I will give the new Star Treks is that Quinto is an excellent Spock - if only they had writers who were more capable of respecting Spock as a dynamic character - which was done somewhat better in their first reboot, but was horrific in Into Darkness with Spock being barely more than a foil and verbal abuse target from Kirk and Uhura. Spock has always been somewhat of the brunt of jokes - but I never felt like he was really ever disrespected in the way ST:ID did. Except when the disrespect was a result of Spock severely disregarding human custom and emotion - like in Galileo Seven, or when he's the target of open racism like in Balance of Terror. Regardless, even with McCoy's constant complaining about Spock you never get the real impression that McCoy has no respect for Spock at all.
    Post edited by penemue#7777 on
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    rattler2 wrote: »
    "JJTrek destroyed my life and everything I knew!"

    You're buying into negative characterizations of all people who like Star Trek. Don't bite: people have a right to complain about a poorly produced product and give their reasons for it (or to give bad reasons to hate a well done product). People have a right to care about the mythologies their cultures are told by their entertainers. Theater was so important in Ancient Rome and Greece that it literally was a religious ritual and the biggest philosophers from Greece, especially Aristotle, expound in depth, for hundreds of pages, about dramatic technique, critique, and storytelling.
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • rangerryurangerryu Member Posts: 284 Arc User
    By the way just to point something out Simon Pegg who wrote the film hates the trailer so.......that's saying something.
  • penemue#7777 penemue Member Posts: 125 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    WHO ISN'T GOING TO SEE STAR TREK BEYOND?

    A better question is, why do you care so much whether other people see the movie or not? I'm going to see the movie...because I want to. If I enjoy it, great. If I don't, no big deal. Either way, people shouldn't be so insecure that they need other people to validate or "side with them" about their choices of entertainment or how they feel about a certain movie.

    I don't feel insecure in the slightest. I can articulate why I wasn't a fan of the new Treks just like I can articulate why I don't like the first 3 seasons of Enterprise - with the exception of a few episodes - and like I can articulate why I think DS9 is a better TV series than TNG with TNG still being a very good series.

    What I don't understand is why people feel insecure enough to say "you'll eat it and you'll like it" to people who voice complaints about the new movies.

    I'm just sincerely curious what the general disposition of STO is towards the new Treks - while I also remorselessly express my dislike. :-)

    I just discovered "Roger Ebert"'s (I guess he's a brand name now that he's passed on?) reviewer voiced many of the same complaints as a lot of naysayers here present about, especially, Into Darkness. Unlike most "film critics" - it most certainly didn't receive endless inexplicable lauding like the rest of the film critic community seemed to give it as if they were all getting studio kickbacks.
    Post edited by penemue#7777 on
    qD8QR3H.jpg?1

    "At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton

    "[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner

    "It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,928 Arc User
    (...) As well as suggesting that Section 31 is actually more evil than it is in DS9 (it's still a good natured organization in DS9 - just more likely to not follow Federation ideology to the last dotted "i" in foreign relations). (...)

    Excuse me? S31 are villians in DS9 (they became the heroes of ENT however). They wear GeStaPo style attire for a reason. They are not "good natured" in any way shape or form - which was the point of their existence in DS9.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    angrytarg wrote: »
    (...) As well as suggesting that Section 31 is actually more evil than it is in DS9 (it's still a good natured organization in DS9 - just more likely to not follow Federation ideology to the last dotted "i" in foreign relations). (...)

    Excuse me? S31 are villians in DS9 (they became the heroes of ENT however). They wear GeStaPo style attire for a reason. They are not "good natured" in any way shape or form - which was the point of their existence in DS9.

    Welllll, sort of :p.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,928 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    Welllll, sort of :p.

    As if I would discuss that stuff with an ENT lover... pig-2.gif​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    iconians wrote: »
    I have no problems with people hating. But I do prefer it if they show their work. Why they hate what they hate.

    The JJ Abrams films on the other hand, I see the opposite. I see people going after miniscule things without ever really explaining why they hate it other than it's just "different". Lens flares. That's about it.

    People is going to like it or hate it. Some will nick pick it over stuff to make them hate it. However for me, I hate everything about it. The story, the ships, the cast, the crew. This is why I call it Spoof Trek. As I see it more than nothing than a Spoof for the Trek movies, and a mockery. However if they would have done something entirely different. Based a movie off DS9, Voyager, or something brand new. Then I would be more accepting of it. Just like Axanar, to me that is original and the making of a great movie.

    Granted the shows have their hit and miss. I didn't like DS9 until the Dominion War part. Then I watched it and loved it. As the early parts of DS9 seemed rather boring when I tried to watch it. Voyager, I enjoyed most of it. Granted some shows was junk, but that happens. TNG same thing as Voyager for me. The movies, I rather watch the TOS and TNG movies over again than Jar Jar Spoof Trek.

    There is no right or wrong answer. Bottom line, you can't please everyone. JJ Trek pleased some and created hate as well.
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
  • gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    Warmaker, to be fair, when you talk about "capturing the friendship dynamics" of the old series, I don't see how, with the premise of the new universe, one could expect that to be the same, particularly with how severely Kirk was affected by the shift in timelines. That this was a casualty of Nero is something Old Spock pretty much openly acknowledged as a tragedy. Some look at it as a horrible offense to them. I see it as what it's stated to be: evidence of damage to the timeline.

    I have my disagreements with things JJ did: the treatment of Carol Marcus, Uhura's unprofessional attitude problem, Spock's pulling strings based on a relationship with a cadet, failing to explain the change in Khan's appearance (the casting wouldn't have been so much of an issue if they'd let Cumberbatch react in spoken dialogue to being physically altered against his will by Marcus and might even have given us a powerful character moment), etc. But I see absolutely no reason to let that devolve into an irrational hatred, into nitpicking things that are *not* really a big deal, into not being able to see *anything* good, or feeling the need to administer a purity test to new fans who may want to come in because of the new movies. I don't need to call names, go after Abrams personally, or act like the sky is falling at times when I should choose to air one or more of these critiques.

    In the end I do love Star Trek, but I am not going to elevate it beyond its rightful place in my life. It IS entertainment, not an actual, serious code to live by. Sure, some Trek writers hoped to start a conversation, but I don't think they ever expected to be revered like penmue's attempt to compare it to Ancient Greek pageantry. If anyone on the staff did, then there are serious issues. ;)

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,624 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    gulberat wrote: »
    If anyone on the staff did, then there are serious issues. ;)

    Well, only that Star Trek has greater complexity, scope, and better use of visual effects. :tongue:

    Remember that ancient forms of entertainment are only analogous to what we have now. They're still expressions of the same story telling tradition which has underpinned our species' cultural development for pretty much as long as the species has existed. Entertainment has generally always mattered to people, go back and review it over world history, so you can't use that "Entertainment" label to justify why a certain set of movies shouldn't be viewed too critically (ie. thought about.)
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    I think you may have missed the point. If Star Trek were up there with what penmue suggested it should be in terms of being sacrosanct, then discussion of Star Trek would be against forum TOS. That IMO is taking it waaaaay out of proportion to suggest it or any form of entertainment warrants that level of consideration. Maybe more people should remember the MST3K slogan: "It's just a show, I really should relax." Sure, we can have fun with it, sure, we can point out when things didn't work, but elevating it to life and death importance...nope.

    Anyway, I have to head out the door because I'm treating myself to some Star Wars, so AFK for a good while.

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,624 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    gulberat wrote: »
    I think you may have missed the point. If Star Trek were up there with what penmue suggested it should be in terms of being sacrosanct, then discussion of Star Trek would be against forum TOS. That IMO is taking it waaaaay out of proportion to suggest it or any form of entertainment warrants that level of consideration.

    lol, indeed. To make the point succinctly entertainment is self-reflection. If you can't talk or at least think about it it really can't function.

    Reboot, TNG, TOS, classic literature, it's all fair game.
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    angrytarg wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Welllll, sort of :p.

    As if I would discuss that stuff with an ENT lover... pig-2.gif

    Ha. I like ENT sure, just as I like the AR films, they just aren't at the top of my list.

    It's DS9 -> later TNG -> TOS films II-VI -> TNG films -> ENT and AR films -> everything else.

    I just find myself defending them against the more 'fanboyish' assaults that I would for, say, VOY.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,204 Arc User
    gulberat wrote: »
    Warmaker, to be fair, when you talk about "capturing the friendship dynamics" of the old series, I don't see how, with the premise of the new universe, one could expect that to be the same, particularly with how severely Kirk was affected by the shift in timelines. That this was a casualty of Nero is something Old Spock pretty much openly acknowledged as a tragedy. Some look at it as a horrible offense to them. I see it as what it's stated to be: evidence of damage to the timeline.

    I have my disagreements with things JJ did: the treatment of Carol Marcus, Uhura's unprofessional attitude problem, Spock's pulling strings based on a relationship with a cadet, failing to explain the change in Khan's appearance (the casting wouldn't have been so much of an issue if they'd let Cumberbatch react in spoken dialogue to being physically altered against his will by Marcus and might even have given us a powerful character moment), etc. But I see absolutely no reason to let that devolve into an irrational hatred, into nitpicking things that are *not* really a big deal, into not being able to see *anything* good, or feeling the need to administer a purity test to new fans who may want to come in because of the new movies. I don't need to call names, go after Abrams personally, or act like the sky is falling at times when I should choose to air one or more of these critiques.

    In the end I do love Star Trek, but I am not going to elevate it beyond its rightful place in my life. It IS entertainment, not an actual, serious code to live by. Sure, some Trek writers hoped to start a conversation, but I don't think they ever expected to be revered like penmue's attempt to compare it to Ancient Greek pageantry. If anyone on the staff did, then there are serious issues. ;)

    The whole alternate thing using TOS characters and a mockery of events never sat well with me. "Into Darkness" was a gold mine for the latter, especially the twisting of elements of TWOK. When they showed it would be rehashed Khan, I knew the "Khaaaan!" part would be redone. I was expecting it. I was dreading it. When it happened with the "twist" I simply groaned and did a double-facepalm.

    Do something new with new characters. Maybe they'd still TRIBBLE something up with a new setting and new characters but you're not going to walk into a minefield redoing classic TOS characters and events.

    For the record, I would also view a "re-imagining" of TNG, DS9 in a negative light. These characters have been built upon for years and there's no need to change that.

    I mean, come on! With today's technology, what can they really show us with a Star Trek universe, say, 100 years after the Dominion War and TNG crew's "Nemesis?" What can they show us by having essentially a clean slate to forge a new era of the franchise with minimal entanglements?

    That's not what we got. Instead, we got a caricature of TOS.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,055 Arc User
    gulberat wrote: »
    Warmaker, to be fair, when you talk about "capturing the friendship dynamics" of the old series, I don't see how, with the premise of the new universe, one could expect that to be the same, particularly with how severely Kirk was affected by the shift in timelines. That this was a casualty of Nero is something Old Spock pretty much openly acknowledged as a tragedy. Some look at it as a horrible offense to them. I see it as what it's stated to be: evidence of damage to the timeline.

    I have my disagreements with things JJ did: the treatment of Carol Marcus, Uhura's unprofessional attitude problem, Spock's pulling strings based on a relationship with a cadet, failing to explain the change in Khan's appearance (the casting wouldn't have been so much of an issue if they'd let Cumberbatch react in spoken dialogue to being physically altered against his will by Marcus and might even have given us a powerful character moment), etc. But I see absolutely no reason to let that devolve into an irrational hatred, into nitpicking things that are *not* really a big deal, into not being able to see *anything* good, or feeling the need to administer a purity test to new fans who may want to come in because of the new movies. I don't need to call names, go after Abrams personally, or act like the sky is falling at times when I should choose to air one or more of these critiques.

    In the end I do love Star Trek, but I am not going to elevate it beyond its rightful place in my life. It IS entertainment, not an actual, serious code to live by. Sure, some Trek writers hoped to start a conversation, but I don't think they ever expected to be revered like penmue's attempt to compare it to Ancient Greek pageantry. If anyone on the staff did, then there are serious issues. ;)

    The whole alternate thing using TOS characters and a mockery of events never sat well with me. "Into Darkness" was a gold mine for the latter, especially the twisting of elements of TWOK. When they showed it would be rehashed Khan, I knew the "Khaaaan!" part would be redone. I was expecting it. I was dreading it. When it happened with the "twist" I simply groaned and did a double-facepalm.

    Do something new with new characters. Maybe they'd still TRIBBLE something up with a new setting and new characters but you're not going to walk into a minefield redoing classic TOS characters and events.

    For the record, I would also view a "re-imagining" of TNG, DS9 in a negative light. These characters have been built upon for years and there's no need to change that.

    I mean, come on! With today's technology, what can they really show us with a Star Trek universe, say, 100 years after the Dominion War and TNG crew's "Nemesis?" What can they show us by having essentially a clean slate to forge a new era of the franchise with minimal entanglements?

    That's not what we got. Instead, we got a caricature of TOS.

    Paramount aren't allowed to explore post-Nemesis events due to the conditions of the Viacom split. The Prime Timeline is solely the intellectual property of CBS. Paramount had no choice but to reboot the movie franchise.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,126 Arc User
    ryan218 wrote: »
    gulberat wrote: »
    Warmaker, to be fair, when you talk about "capturing the friendship dynamics" of the old series, I don't see how, with the premise of the new universe, one could expect that to be the same, particularly with how severely Kirk was affected by the shift in timelines. That this was a casualty of Nero is something Old Spock pretty much openly acknowledged as a tragedy. Some look at it as a horrible offense to them. I see it as what it's stated to be: evidence of damage to the timeline.

    I have my disagreements with things JJ did: the treatment of Carol Marcus, Uhura's unprofessional attitude problem, Spock's pulling strings based on a relationship with a cadet, failing to explain the change in Khan's appearance (the casting wouldn't have been so much of an issue if they'd let Cumberbatch react in spoken dialogue to being physically altered against his will by Marcus and might even have given us a powerful character moment), etc. But I see absolutely no reason to let that devolve into an irrational hatred, into nitpicking things that are *not* really a big deal, into not being able to see *anything* good, or feeling the need to administer a purity test to new fans who may want to come in because of the new movies. I don't need to call names, go after Abrams personally, or act like the sky is falling at times when I should choose to air one or more of these critiques.

    In the end I do love Star Trek, but I am not going to elevate it beyond its rightful place in my life. It IS entertainment, not an actual, serious code to live by. Sure, some Trek writers hoped to start a conversation, but I don't think they ever expected to be revered like penmue's attempt to compare it to Ancient Greek pageantry. If anyone on the staff did, then there are serious issues. ;)

    The whole alternate thing using TOS characters and a mockery of events never sat well with me. "Into Darkness" was a gold mine for the latter, especially the twisting of elements of TWOK. When they showed it would be rehashed Khan, I knew the "Khaaaan!" part would be redone. I was expecting it. I was dreading it. When it happened with the "twist" I simply groaned and did a double-facepalm.

    Do something new with new characters. Maybe they'd still TRIBBLE something up with a new setting and new characters but you're not going to walk into a minefield redoing classic TOS characters and events.

    For the record, I would also view a "re-imagining" of TNG, DS9 in a negative light. These characters have been built upon for years and there's no need to change that.

    I mean, come on! With today's technology, what can they really show us with a Star Trek universe, say, 100 years after the Dominion War and TNG crew's "Nemesis?" What can they show us by having essentially a clean slate to forge a new era of the franchise with minimal entanglements?

    That's not what we got. Instead, we got a caricature of TOS.

    Paramount aren't allowed to explore post-Nemesis events due to the conditions of the Viacom split. The Prime Timeline is solely the intellectual property of CBS. Paramount had no choice but to reboot the movie franchise.

    No, they just aren't allowed to do it without dealing with CBS. Marvel was not allowed to use Spiderman...until they made a deal with Sony. So IP rights aren't a law of nature that can never be broken, they just mean 2 companies have to deal with each other to make something.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,126 Arc User
    What I don't understand is why people feel insecure enough to say "you'll eat it and you'll like it" to people who voice complaints about the new movies.

    I haven't seen anybody say that; do you have a link? Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question; I know you don't. Anyway, you are free to hate the movies. There is nothing wrong with that. Individually, you are just as right in your opinion as anyone else. That said, the general consensus is clear:

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

    But it shouldn't bother you that the vast majority of people disagree with you. It's just a movie. You shouldn't need other people to validate your criticism of a movie to feel good about yourself.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,055 Arc User
    ryan218 wrote: »
    gulberat wrote: »
    Warmaker, to be fair, when you talk about "capturing the friendship dynamics" of the old series, I don't see how, with the premise of the new universe, one could expect that to be the same, particularly with how severely Kirk was affected by the shift in timelines. That this was a casualty of Nero is something Old Spock pretty much openly acknowledged as a tragedy. Some look at it as a horrible offense to them. I see it as what it's stated to be: evidence of damage to the timeline.

    I have my disagreements with things JJ did: the treatment of Carol Marcus, Uhura's unprofessional attitude problem, Spock's pulling strings based on a relationship with a cadet, failing to explain the change in Khan's appearance (the casting wouldn't have been so much of an issue if they'd let Cumberbatch react in spoken dialogue to being physically altered against his will by Marcus and might even have given us a powerful character moment), etc. But I see absolutely no reason to let that devolve into an irrational hatred, into nitpicking things that are *not* really a big deal, into not being able to see *anything* good, or feeling the need to administer a purity test to new fans who may want to come in because of the new movies. I don't need to call names, go after Abrams personally, or act like the sky is falling at times when I should choose to air one or more of these critiques.

    In the end I do love Star Trek, but I am not going to elevate it beyond its rightful place in my life. It IS entertainment, not an actual, serious code to live by. Sure, some Trek writers hoped to start a conversation, but I don't think they ever expected to be revered like penmue's attempt to compare it to Ancient Greek pageantry. If anyone on the staff did, then there are serious issues. ;)

    The whole alternate thing using TOS characters and a mockery of events never sat well with me. "Into Darkness" was a gold mine for the latter, especially the twisting of elements of TWOK. When they showed it would be rehashed Khan, I knew the "Khaaaan!" part would be redone. I was expecting it. I was dreading it. When it happened with the "twist" I simply groaned and did a double-facepalm.

    Do something new with new characters. Maybe they'd still TRIBBLE something up with a new setting and new characters but you're not going to walk into a minefield redoing classic TOS characters and events.

    For the record, I would also view a "re-imagining" of TNG, DS9 in a negative light. These characters have been built upon for years and there's no need to change that.

    I mean, come on! With today's technology, what can they really show us with a Star Trek universe, say, 100 years after the Dominion War and TNG crew's "Nemesis?" What can they show us by having essentially a clean slate to forge a new era of the franchise with minimal entanglements?

    That's not what we got. Instead, we got a caricature of TOS.

    Paramount aren't allowed to explore post-Nemesis events due to the conditions of the Viacom split. The Prime Timeline is solely the intellectual property of CBS. Paramount had no choice but to reboot the movie franchise.

    No, they just aren't allowed to do it without dealing with CBS. Marvel was not allowed to use Spiderman...until they made a deal with Sony. So IP rights aren't a law of nature that can never be broken, they just mean 2 companies have to deal with each other to make something.

    Which Paramount and CBS are unlikely to do: Sony Motion Pictures were facing imminent financial failure and thus needed to do a deal with Marvel Studios to keep the Spider-Man movie rights. Paramount and CBS are both financially successful companies and have no reason to work together - it would cost Paramount more trouble than it's worth to them when they already own the movie IP.
  • alexmakepeacealexmakepeace Member Posts: 10,633 Arc User
    I probably won't. The last two weren't that good, and the trailer makes me go Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Just can't get excited.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,055 Arc User
    I probably won't. The last two weren't that good, and the trailer makes me go Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Just can't get excited.

    This is pretty much the problem I'm seeing right off the bat: the trailer is, honestly, not very good. The music and scenes chosen just make this look like another Summer Action flick, not a Star Trek film. I mean, even the trailers for the Transformers films were more creative than this!
This discussion has been closed.