someone that says they dont like star trek isnt the best person to make a trek film
He said that, but he played it up more than anything. Exaggerated, even He also said he'd never seen Nemesis because to him, Star Trek was about Kirk and Spock, and his general knowledge of ST made him the ideal person to bring a new film to a general audience.
Though he has admitted to liking Star Wars more as a child.
Was named Trek17, but still an author.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh'. I have nothing against the game/devs, nor any particular wish to talk bad about either, or praise most decisions. Still, it's better to be positive than cynical.
It's naive to think that an alternate universe version of Star Trek (which JJ's movie was), changes the original in any way, imo There's a reason why they call it an alternate universe... because other than the cutoff point, they don't share much in common. The original goes in one direction in the timeline, while the new one continues at the same rate in time in a different direction.
Which is the point: the Star Trek that you love, still exists. The new Trek, embodied by this movie, will go on regardless. They're completely seperate, even as they're the same name of a franschise.
Blaming this new Trek to be changing Star Trek indefinitely, despite the fact that the original still exists and is untainted, because this movie is seperate from it... I find that illogical of many people, personally.
JJ has not come to your house and smashed your brand new copy of TNG on Blue Ray. All the Star Treks continue to exist in their original form in their original universe.
Would you say that "Yesterday's Enterprise" completely invalidates everything that went before? That was an alternate universe episode. Trek has done dozens of alternate universe episodes, none of which has ruined the entire franchise, nor do the new movies.
The great thing about Star Trek is that there is so much of it that it really can be all things to all people. Over the 46-year history of Star Trek there has been romance, social commentary, science, religion, humor, conflict, redemption, death, life, birth and ungodly amounts of great space battles. Doesn't matter what you're in the mood for, Trek has it.
For me it sort of comes down to this: if don't like the new movies, ain't nobody forcing you to watch them. If you're in the mood for something other than a rip-roaring space opera, there's plenty of Trek you can still watch.
The Foundry Roundtable live Wednesdays at 7:30PM EST/4:30PM PST on twitch.tv/thefoundryroundtable Forums are like Sanctuary Districts, complete with Gimmes, Ghosts and Dims.
I don't know what others think but I am not claiming that JJ has destroyed Star Trek, I enjoyed the film as an action flick, but what disappointed me and what is still disappointing me is that the films are becoming just that, action flicks. Lots a explosions, lots of special effects, I'm sure I will enjoy that in the next film, but brains are optional now, there is no more deeper meaning, no social commentary, nothing to make you think. A feast for the senses but zero calories for the brain, that's why it just doesn't feel like a Star Trek film.
And this is how it will be from now on, the original stories may continue to exist but there will be nothing of substance added. This new Trek is a dimwitted hyperactive descendant of the Trek I knew and enjoyed. I'll likely watch the new film and probably enjoy it as an action film, but it won't really be Star Trek to me.
They wouldn't give Frakes a show about Titan...but they thought that letting J.J. "no imagination" Abrams loose on the IP of the sainted Gene Roddenberry would be a good idea...at least I have my novels and STO to keep the real Star Trek alive...
I really dont see the problem, other than it steals the design from the dark night rises.
Half the franchise has has some evil force or megalomaniac trying to blow something up, or cause destruction or seek revenge. khan in II, the whale probe in VI, Soron in generations, the borg in first contact, shinzon in nemsis, nero in XI.
There are tons of evil creatures in every single series. we had an entire series in ds9 that was very focused on war and conflict. the crews family have been killed at times, crew members have suffered senseless deaths. planets have been destroyed, no one seems to mind all that, because that was old trek and that could do no wrong now?
i swear that its just people have taken a disliking to JJ. If this poster was being made under the former writers, and showed the borg standing over an assimilated earth, or the doomsday device hovering over a destroyed planet, everyone would be geeking out like there is no tomorrow. people seem to just want to hate on it now because its JJ. evident that some have concluded the film will suck based on a single picture, because it's not all roses and sunshine?
would you conclude ds9 sucked based on the damage done to starfleet academy by the breen, or tng by the battle at wolf 359? its a teaser to set up the conflict, the threat that must be stopped, like they have stopped a hundreds times before in every series.
there is this notion that star trek is about hope for the future. no, only the federation is about hope for the future. the rests of the galaxy is more often than not trying to destroy them. all those red shirts did not die in accidents.
There are other concerns and issues besides the terrible poster.
Yes, every movie had some evil or malevolent antagonist that had to be overcome. In the Search for Spock it was death itself, one could argue that it was blind faith in The Final Frontier and besides General Chang it was essentially fear or intolerance. Even in the newer films there were more abstract ideas that were used as obstacles to be overcome. Like revenge in Insurrection.
THAT's the main issue. All of the old films and series (with the exception of Enterprise in my opinion, sorry to any fans) had action and excitement, but they also had deeper themes and they actually made you think and reevaluate your own views and feelings. The show and films moved with the times and drew from the events that were occurring in the world at the time. All the "senseless" things in the other series and films were used either at the time or later on as ways of tackling pretty serious issues, usually to great effect (the death of Tasha Yar for example is used numerous times especially with Data, usually to discuss the ideas of loss, grief and the ability to cope after the death of a loved one, as well as Jack Crusher and Jennifer Sisko).
In fairness, I don't like Abrams, but not just because I didn't like Star Trek. Frankly I think he's a poor writer, director and whatever else he does. I find he has a serious lack of imagination and as a result continues to use the same idea over and over again without it ever developing into anything more. That is something that was never a problem with previous incarnations of Star Trek. Each episode was something interesting and new and different. Even if the idea had been used before it was usually given an interesting and creative twist.
Another thing that has always been present is a strong connection to culture, history and literature. Even in the films (the comparison that Lily draws between Picard and Captain Ahab in First Contact and Khan's last words, which are also from Moby ****, also vast amounts of Shakespeare and other very well known writers and poets) there is a connection with these things that points to the fact that humanity has become more enlightened. This was nowhere to be found in the 2009 film.
Star Trek has also been more lighthearted and humorous in all its previous forms. Abrams film just didn't have that. There were (bad) jokes, like Kirk's hands and tongue swelling up and the inexplicable transformation of Scotty into an incompetent buffoon...but that's not what I'm talking about. The only humour in the 2009 Star Trek was the Will Ferrell brand of obvious and over the top spit take inducing humour, which is fine in its place, but not so much in Star Trek. But the subtle and lighthearted feeling was not there.
Star Trek is, was and always should remain about hope for the future and for humanity. Yes, the galaxy was a rough place, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Borg, there were a lot of people out to get humanity. But humanity prevailed. No matter how dark things got we held to our principles (with a few exceptions to prove the rule) and came out stronger. There's a reason that the Klingons, Romulans and Borg are there and it's to show how we can be better. All those species are us at our worst, but the Federation and Starfleet are meant to show how good we can and should be. DS9 and Voyager got away from that a little, which is to be expecting since Gene was no longer around, but they still came back to that basic idea. In DS9 the Federation was pushed to its very limits but prevailed and in Voyager Janeway (almost always) stuck to the principles of the Federation instead of breaking with those principles even though it could have meant getting home faster.
People aren't judging it based purely on a poster and the fact Abrams is behind it. They're judging it on what they got last time. A lot of people were really disappointed because what they got was Star Trek stripped to its bare parts of space, ships and fighting, but all the heart was gone.
As an action oriented popcorn flick...okay I can accept it (even though I still thought it was terrible, just as a movie, even if it hadn't been a Star Trek movie) but as Star Trek I will never accept it, alternate timeline or not. I have to say that was the only saving grace (but hardly surprising since alternate realities seem to be Abrams bread and butter) since technically it doesn't effect the original timeline and allows for the prime universe to exist unchanged within the canon.
I didn't like the first one, I doubt I'll see this one and I can only hope that it ends soon and we get something that takes us back to what Star Trek was meant to be, although I fear that now that will be impossible.
If you liked the movie, that's fine, you're entitled to your own opinion and this wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. This is just my opinion of it and why I think other people have a problem with these new movies. It's not just because we don't like J.J...Star Trek has been around consistently, in one form or another, longer than pretty much any other series in history. It means a lot to a vast amount of people and you can't just radically change the substance of something like that without upsetting a lot of people.
EDIT: It depresses me that the name of a great piece of literature was starred out as an inappropriate word...See if you can spot it.