Jump to content


Photo

Just curious, what's everyone's opinion on JJ Star Trek?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#81 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:52 PM

roflmao.gif

#82 Redshirt#7

Redshirt#7

    Rick & Pat know me by name.

  • Members
  • 398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Britain
  • Interests:Avoiding landing parties, surviving till the titles roll

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:37 PM

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Apr 12 2013, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
roflmao.gif

May I ask in a non Data way, and I mean no offence, what are you rolling around hysterically laughing at?

#83 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:27 PM

QUOTE (Redshirt#7 @ Apr 12 2013, 09:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My opinion? Very much this:

Its more Star Wars than Star Trek to me. I mean, if I remember correctly, Gene himself didn't want the D to be weathered and battered like many ships from Star Wars. Well just look at the Kelvin. A complete outsider comes in, rewrites my Beloved friends, screws the beauty of the ship, and throws nearly 50 odd years of history out of the window....
...It wasn't Star Trek. It was a Sci Fi Film, but not Trek.


Oh come on!!!!!

I'm soooo sick of fans saying this wasn't Star Trek, oh the mighty Gene Roddenberry wouldn't approve... bla bla bla bull.

Star Trek is entertainment and is many things to many people. I HATE it when fans say this isn't Star Trek... WHY? What IS Star Trek? Sure it may not be your idea of what Star Trek is TO YOU but clearly a lot of fans would disagree with you.

It hasn't thrown out 50 years of history, those stories are still there, being aired on TV stations around the world, being updated to Blu Ray for an entirely new generation to enjoy over and over again. Those stories are over but there not gone and in the universe, the JJ Abrams movies simply take place in an ALTERNATE universe, not the same universe. History has not been re-written.

Abrams said it best when he said he couldn't understand those fans of this franchise who can't accept something different. Its like all you want is the same, you don't want change or anything different, and for fans of a show that is about going boldly where no one's been before.

As Abrams say's, you either have to accept change and see where it goes or just admit that you don't want to watch anything that hasn't got William Shatner in it.

Star Trek is whatever the creative team involved in bringing it to the screen want it to be. Right now it's the way Abrams wants it, in the 90's it was the way Berman wanted it, in the 80's it was how Bennett wanted it and after Abrams it will be in the hands of a new team to do what they think Star Trek is all about so don't go saying this isn't Star Trek because you can't really define something that has changed drastically over it's 50 years.

#84 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:06 PM

Read Shatner's book on making the movies. Gene wanted a movie where Kirk and Spock go back in time and shoot Kennedy from the grassy knoll.

#85 Commodore Kor'Tar

Commodore Kor'Tar

    The Great Tribble Hunter

  • Members
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:U.S.S. Kahless NCC-76108 AKA Fort Worth TX
  • Interests:Playmates figures and ships (90s era), Art Asylum and DST figures and ships , Galoob figures and micro machines .

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:34 PM

QUOTE (FHC @ Apr 12 2013, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Read Shatner's book on making the movies. Gene wanted a movie where Kirk and Spock go back in time and shoot Kennedy from the grassy knoll.


Red Dwarf did a variation of that idea where an alternate universe Kennedy dressed as a police officer shot himself from the grassy knoll.


#86 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:35 PM

QUOTE (Redshirt#7 @ Apr 12 2013, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
May I ask in a non Data way, and I mean no offence, what are you rolling around hysterically laughing at?


Your link! I found it funny!

#87 Qcjoe

Qcjoe

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati
  • Interests:scifi,comics,actionfigures,baseball,football

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:36 AM

Lets be honest Gene was interested in making money. I think maybe his "vision" has been idealized over the years through the fanbase but anyone's first goal in Hollywood is money. Everything else is secondary.

And there is nothing wrong with wanting to make money.  Your point is 100% correct.  He also loved the girls.  From some reason fans want to give him saint hood.   Its almost the same way here in Cincinnati we looked at Pete Rose.  In his playing/coaching days he could do no wrong.  Years after him getting nailed for betting on baseball peoples opinions changed.  Most still love him,but know he is a flawed person.  That being said I love the JJ Star Trek with a few visual issues.  Of course I could do with out lens flares.  I didnt need parts of the Enterprise being filmed at a beer plant.  I thought Nero was very two dimensional. The movie was fun though and I thought  It had good pacing and good acting.  On top of that I know people who would have never touched trek and loved it.  I cant wait for the next one.  My wife is so tired of me talking about it.



#88 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:51 AM

Just wanted to say (as I intended originally anyway), that regardless of whether or not I believe it to be Star Trek - or at least, what Star Trek is to me, I am looking forward to seeing this new one. Even if I dislike it, my first taste of 3D with Prometheus, made me a believer in the technology as far as space-stuff is concerned. No, I don't want a 3D tele at home, but I do enjoy it at the pictures, and although I would prefer it to be a prime-universe candidate, seeing the Enterprise-JJ on an imax screen in 3D should be amazing. 

 

My cinema having a bar to sit-off in afterwards is a huge plus, as well. :)



#89 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:35 PM

Never know, they may release "Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan 3D". Can't see why not...



#90 Redshirt#7

Redshirt#7

    Rick & Pat know me by name.

  • Members
  • 398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Britain
  • Interests:Avoiding landing parties, surviving till the titles roll

Posted 19 April 2013 - 07:53 AM

Sorry to all those I might of offended.

Please ignore my previous post, to quote FHC, never post wile half asleep.

My opinion is my opinion, I know Gene wanted to do a film with the classic cast years ago. And I love the film, I spent £30 for seats to see it, and since then have seen it 16 times. My opinion is that it was to much of a change, I like it for what it is, but its like when TNG or DS9 came along, to some it was too much of a radical change. Change happens, its a fact of life. It just will take me a bit to adjust to Spock being the ladies man or the new Enterprise. Star Trek was dead, and needed revival. It succeeded in that aspect. For me, it ranks about 4th or 3rd of my favourite Trek film, I'm not knocking it, it will just take time for me to warm to it, that’s all.



#91 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 April 2013 - 03:12 PM

I think a lot of fans who grew up knowing only TNG got used to a certain type of Star Trek. I grew up on TNG too but I'm more of the opinion that Star Trek should go where it hasn't been before and JJ Abrams has done just that.

 

Its a fresh and new approach and that's awesome. I don't care that it's not the same as TNG or Enterprise, I care that it's done well and respects the source material and thankfully it does both of those things beyond what even I expected back in 2006 when Abrams was first announced as developing Star Trek, in every aspect.



#92 malloc64

malloc64

    Tracking number maniac

  • Members
  • 93 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 21 April 2013 - 12:05 AM

http://basicinstruct...till-wrong.html

2013-04-16-stillwrong.gif



#93 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 01 May 2013 - 11:22 PM

When the 2009 movie came out I was pretty excited for it. I went with an open mind looking for change, something, as 1701 says,  fresh and new, but sadly, that wasn't the movie I saw. Others may have seen it that way, but I didn't. It wasn't bad, but it just didn't excite me. I left the theater thinking, ok, that wasn't bad, but that wasn't great. I found the plot to be derivative and uninspired. As a physicist, I always found one of the fun things about the trek TV shows was the fact that the techno babel often was rooted in actual theory, done in a way where you couldn't say its true or false (which isn't to say sometimes it was just wrong... because sometimes it was!).

 

For me, a key aspect of most previous Trek, was the incorporation of some type of social message. In other words, the techno babel is just window dressing to convey a message. The use of aliens are often a mechanism to comment on and give intro-speculation on the Human condition itself. I, personally, found JJ's trek "light" in those areas. 

 

I've re-watched it several times, and I can't say its grown on me, I still see it as a fun, well acted movie, that is fundamentally flawed in plot. 

 

Often times, the 1st new movie in such a franchise spends its time re-introducing characters, which this did. So I'm again hoping that the 2nd installment is truly something fresh and new and not just trying to re-hash the Story of Kahn... but I confess I'm pretty nervous about what I'm hearing.



#94 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:05 PM

So, I was thinking about JJ's reboot some more, and really, the Kirk, Spock, McCoy interaction were how I always saw the focus in TOS. They were the stars, the rest of the cast were really just there for support and continuity. Thus I was wondering how a re-boot would have been received if they just built everything around those three. In other words, don't worry about needing a scotty uhura etc and reboot the franchise around Spock Kirk and McCoy?






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users