Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,958
# 141
12-12-2012, 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trek21 View Post
At least you get it: that this doesn't destroy the original, but only exists alongside it
I get that it doesn't destroy the original, I just think it's weak to go that route, rather than being truly original
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,560
# 142
12-12-2012, 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
I get that it doesn't destroy the original, I just think it's weak to go that route, rather than being truly original
Which is your opinion, but I wish some of the more... stubborn-minded would get that through their heads

Having an opinion about ST2009 is perfectly fine, but regarding the film as a poison simply because it exists... that's just really stupid, imo.
Was named Trek17, but still an author: www.enlightenmentoblivion.com.

Last edited by trek21; 12-12-2012 at 02:03 PM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 130
# 143
12-12-2012, 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
I disagree with the general point: I dislike what JJ's done to Trek, and is continuing to do, and don't consider it any more than trash unfit to carry the title Star Trek. However, I also respect people's right to like different things to me
That all fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my "general point", which was that the writers of Trek disregard realism whenever they want. "Q" was just one example to show that it is hardly exclusive to JJ's movies. So while you may not like JJ-Trek, that has nothing to do with my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
I get that it doesn't destroy the original, I just think it's weak to go that route, rather than being truly original
You mean like how TNG wasnt "truly original", and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Or how DS9 wasnt "truly original", and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Or how Voyager wasnt "truly original" and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Yep, thats right. Nothing after TOS was "truly orignal", as they were all just piggybacking on the existing Star Trek brand name.

Pretty much any complaint(besides lens flairs) that is leveled against the JJ movies can also be leveled against the previous Trek series. They also disregarded realism(see "Q") and also were not "truly original" beyond TOS. None of that means you have to change your mind about not liking the movie, it just means that if you have a problem with one but not the other then you have a double standard.

Last edited by betawatcher; 12-12-2012 at 02:06 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,958
# 144
12-12-2012, 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trek21 View Post
Which is your opinion, but I wish some of the more... stubborn-minded would get that through their heads

Having an opinion about ST2009 is perfectly fine, but regarding the film as a poison simply because it exists... that's just really stupid, imo.
I agree entirely. My beef's not with the film per se, but JJ, and the fact that a hack like him is allowed screen time
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 130
# 145
12-12-2012, 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
I agree entirely. My beef's not with the film per se, but JJ, and the fact that a hack like him is allowed screen time
Many people feel the same way about Brannon Braga
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 300
# 146
12-12-2012, 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by betawatcher View Post
Many people feel the same way about Brannon Braga
I believe you mean "He Who Shall Not Be Named".
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,958
# 147
12-12-2012, 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by betawatcher View Post
That all fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my "general point", which was that the writers of Trek disregard realism whenever they want. "Q" was just one example to show that it is hardly exclusive to JJ's movies. So while you may not like JJ-Trek, that has nothing to do with my point.
Yes, but again, it's one thing to disregard realism for a scenario/creature etc, and something else to suddenly expect people to believe that a militery (ish) organisation who are punishing a cadet for cheating on a crucial exam, would ignore the chain of command, and just say "Oh here you go, have a starship..." Maybe overlook the cheating, but to give him a full commission, that really was just pushing suspension of disbelief too far for the sake of a movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by betawatcher View Post
You mean like how TNG wasnt "truly original", and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Or how DS9 wasnt "truly original", and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Or how Voyager wasnt "truly original" and just piggybacked on the existing Star Trek brand name? Yep, thats right. Nothing after TOS was "truly orignal", as they were all just piggybacking on the existing Star Trek brand name.

Pretty much any complaint(besides lens flairs) that is leveled against the JJ movies can also be leveled against the previous Trek series. They also disregarded realism(see "Q") and also were not "truly original" beyond TOS. None of that means you have to change your mind about not liking the movie, it just means that if you have a problem with one but not the other then you have a double standard.
A fair point with regards riding on the coattails of the name, but a crucial difference, is that TNG, DS-9 and Voyager (even Enterprise) weren't ever intended to be re-workings of TOS, but extensions of that universe.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 130
# 148
12-12-2012, 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
Yes, but again, it's one thing to disregard realism for a scenario/creature etc, and something else to suddenly expect people to believe that a militery (ish) organisation who are punishing a cadet for cheating on a crucial exam, would ignore the chain of command, and just say "Oh here you go, have a starship..." Maybe overlook the cheating, but to give him a full commission, that really was just pushing suspension of disbelief too far for the sake of a movie
Your suspension of disbelief? Maybe. But that doesnt mean it pushes too far for everyones. Likewise, some may say that having Wesley the ensign wonder boy repeatedly saving the senior crew/ship is pushing their suspension of disbelief too far, but that doesnt mean it pushes yours too far. Everyone's suspension of disbelief is different, so there is no universal meter to go by when criticizing a movie or show.


Quote:
A fair point with regards riding on the coattails of the name, but a crucial difference, is that TNG, DS-9 and Voyager (even Enterprise) weren't ever intended to be re-workings of TOS, but extensions of that universe.
And the story of the movie is that this is not a "reworking", but a parallel timeline, not unlike the Mirror Universe. Same people, but different events and outcomes, while existing simultaneously alongside the existing Trek universe.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,958
# 149
12-12-2012, 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by betawatcher View Post
Many people feel the same way about Brannon Braga
Myself included
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,958
# 150
12-12-2012, 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by betawatcher View Post
Your suspension of disbelief? Maybe. But that doesnt mean it pushes too far for everyones. Likewise, some may say that having Wesley the ensign wonder boy repeatedly saving the senior crew/ship is pushing their suspension of disbelief too far, but that doesnt mean it pushes yours too far. Everyone's suspension of disbelief is different, so there is no universal meter to go by when criticizing a movie or show.
I guess that's true

Quote:
Originally Posted by betawatcher View Post
And the story of the movie is that this is not a "reworking", but a parallel timeline, not unlike the Mirror Universe. Same people, but different events and outcomes, while existing simultaneously alongside the existing Trek universe.
I don't know why, but to me, that somehow makes it even worse. I'd've had more respect for JJ if he'd just said "I've got an idea for a sci-fi movie..." and did that as something totally independant, rather than having to use the Trek legacy as an easy way of gain viewers. I wonder what Laurentian Phenomenon will be featured next...
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:12 AM.