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

#41 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:47 PM

I didn't like this thread from the start. It's like asking peoples thoughts on politics (which btw is a banned topic). Asking peoples thoughts on something they feel passionate about is bound to lead to trouble. No one ever changes anyone's mind, but rather, why can't you understand what I'm saying. Let me say it again. You need to listen better....etc.

I'm watching this thread, if it starts to go south, I'll close it. Just an fyi

#42 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:28 AM

QUOTE (FHC @ Mar 26 2013, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm watching this thread, if it starts to go south, I'll close it. Just an fyi

With due respect, but that's pretty drastic. After all, we're just discussing a Star Trek movie. Some people on this board have mentioned elsewhere that they didn't like ST5, for example (which I loved), and those threads didn't get banned. Just saying.

#43 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:54 AM

This movie has been the fuel more heated "debates" then ANY of the shows.

I not only look at things as a fan of Trek but I also look at them as an administrator of this site, so I

#44 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 27 March 2013 - 03:06 PM

Can I just say, I apologise to anyone who felt I was trying to influence them, or trying to change their minds. I was simply looking to initiate conversation with what I feel, is a great bunch of guys here - a discourse with you all, nothing more.

#45 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:24 PM

No need to overreact just remember it's just a movie and keep it civil. smile.gif

#46 Jedigreedo

Jedigreedo

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma

Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:18 PM

To keep it simple, I don't like anything that Abrams has with Star Trek and I don't feel he's done anything for Star Trek. I originally enjoyed the first movie in theaters as a generic scifi action romp, but after watching it on DVD I've realized that it really needs the theatrical experience for that. Because all that I can really find favorable are the occasional visuals, particularly the Kelvin scene. I couldn't enjoy the characters, pacing, or the story overall; the casting is almost a saving grace but Chris Pine as Kirk was just bland - more sitcom slacker who gets things handed to him rather than a complicated rebel who finds his way.

What I find most interesting is that it's mostly those unfamiliar with Trek* who herald Abrams' Trek as revitalizing the franchise and giving a fresh perspective on it. But, that's problematic because the franchise went stale again after the movie left theaters - even the DVD release wasn't cause for much fanfare. Honestly, I think if Abrams' movie had done what so many seem to claim then we would have seen a new TV show by now rather than just a sequel that took longer to get out than it should have.

Ultimately my opinion is that Abrams has made Star Trek less than what it was by making it a parody of itself, and it would take a major change in direction to get it back to the respectable quality that it was. In truth, I feel it hasn't been to that level since the early promising days of Voyager, but as bad as its latter seasons and Enterprise was I feel as though Abrams' direction has been more damaging.

Feel free to disagree/agree, I'm not looking to sway anyone. I meant to toss my two cents into the thread sooner but I've been mulling it over to keep it as succinct as possible.


*I've been concerned about bringing this up but would like to point out that I'm not speaking of anyone here, rather I'm referring to articles that have touched on this subject. The writers of the articles are generally noticeably unfamiliar with Star Trek outside of the short-lived hype that surrounded Abrams' movie up until release.

#47 Destructor!!!

Destructor!!!

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

  • Members
  • 1,883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 31 March 2013 - 10:36 AM

JediGreedo, I agree with your sentiments overall, but I'd just like to address one or two specific points:

1. At the most basic level, Abrams has done something for Star Trek.
He's increased awareness of the "brand", and brought a ton of new fans in via the "shallow end" that is his movie, who can now explore the deep end of the rest of canon through netflix, et al.

2. The Star Trek 2009 Blu-Ray release got a lot of press at the time, garnering praise from dedicated blu-ray reviewers along the lines of "One of the best uses of the blu-ray format's abilities yet seen". Mainly, they were referring to the innovative special features, though the quality of the picture and sound transfer was similarly hailed as cutting edge. The blu-ray was heavily advertised and merchandised with at least 3 different versions released.

I concur with everything else you had to say, though.

#48 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2013 - 02:27 PM

I think a fan first has to ask himself or herself, what IS Star Trek? Before they can really say they dislike this version simply because it's different or less Star Trek or more Star Wars or whatever else.

Star Trek is many things to many people so to dismiss one version of it because it's not "their" Star Trek is, well, illogical.

If we are fans, truly fans then shouldn't we embrace change? Shouldn't we embrace the fact that JJ Abrams Star Trek is different and that it has opened up Trek to a whole new audience and helped people find a way into its long running myth.

Nicholas Meyer said it once (I think it's the Wrath of Khan blu-ray), fans rarely know what they want and I have to agree with him.

#49 Jedigreedo

Jedigreedo

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma

Posted 31 March 2013 - 11:37 PM

QUOTE (Destructor!!! @ Mar 31 2013, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1. At the most basic level, Abrams has done something for Star Trek.
He's increased awareness of the "brand", and brought a ton of new fans in via the "shallow end" that is his movie, who can now explore the deep end of the rest of canon through netflix, et al.


That's a fair point, kinda going into "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

QUOTE (Destructor!!! @ Mar 31 2013, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
2. The Star Trek 2009 Blu-Ray release got a lot of press at the time, garnering praise from dedicated blu-ray reviewers along the lines of "One of the best uses of the blu-ray format's abilities yet seen". Mainly, they were referring to the innovative special features, though the quality of the picture and sound transfer was similarly hailed as cutting edge. The blu-ray was heavily advertised and merchandised with at least 3 different versions released.


That is certainly where I can agree with praise to the movie, I can only imagine how incredible some scenes must be in blu-ray quality Especially something like the Kelvin scene, the post-production crew were definitely some very amazing and dedicated people to pull off what they did.

QUOTE (1701 @ Mar 31 2013, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If we are fans, truly fans then shouldn't we embrace change?


Whether someone can embrace change or not to the direction that a Star Trek project takes is kind of a moot point if they can't enjoy the movie based on the general quality (or lack thereof) of filmmaking, especially the story.

#50 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:28 AM

QUOTE (Jedigreedo @ Mar 31 2013, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Whether someone can embrace change or not to the direction that a Star Trek project takes is kind of a moot point if they can't enjoy the movie based on the general quality (or lack thereof) of filmmaking, especially the story.


But then what are you basing your judgement of the 2009 movie on? Are you comparing it to the past (then) 40 years of Star Trek? Or films of a similar nature?

There have been some truly atrocious episodes and movie's story wise, acting, general concept in Star Trek's history! There are a handful of Trek movie's that are actually any good in the area's fans seem to judge the 2009 movie on! You simply can't say that the 2009 film was worse than Star Trek: Generations or Star Trek: The Search for Spock or Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture or Star Trek: Insurrection or Star Trek: Nemesis based on your opinions of JJ Abrams movie? Or a numerous number of episodes from TOS - ENT, Spock's Brain anyone? Encounter at Farpoint? Surely you have to concede that whilst you may not think JJ Abrams Star Trek is that great, it's better than most of the previous Star Trek movies and by and large better than a lot of Enterprise and Voyager and also is miles better than some of the episodes from each of the live action TV series. And compared to other summer blockbusters, it's miles ahead of nearly all of them in terms of acting, story and spectacle (Transformers, Iron Man 2, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 3, 4, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Terminator Salvation, Star Wars Episodes 1 - 3, Avatar, The Dark Knight Rises, Avengers Assemble, Green Lantern, the list is endless of movies Star Trek was better than).

I think all of this is to do with a few fans on the internet mainly who are so engrossed in what they believe makes good Star Trek that they are unable to understand what makes good Star Trek and to see the bigger picture - they'd rather see Enterprise resurrected or stories similar to the episode in Voyager when Captain Janeway was turned into a giant alien eel because somehow that's better than Chris Pine's incredible performance as Captain Kirk or Zachary Quinto's Spock? Or better than the thrilling Benedict Cumberbach looks in the trailers of Into Darkness? I mean COME ON GUYS WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING!!!!

Its beyond belief that when someone new like JJ Abrams comes in and does something new Star Trek fans, especially over at www.trekweb.com and www.trekmovie.com get their knickers in a twist claiming that this is rape or sacrilegious to the mighty Gene's vision - its pathetic from such a minority of fans and might I add the same fans who were calling for Branon Braga's and Rick Berman's head's when Voyager and Enterprise were on so no. So what do we want Berman and Braga back? What do fans want? Fans don't have a clue what they want.

I watched the special features on the 2009 Trek blu-ray last night and I've got nothing but admiration and respect from the guys involved: Abrams, Burk, Orci, Lindeloff and Kurtzman. Most of them may not be hard-core fans (Neither was Nicholas Meyer or Harve Bennett or Braga and Berman) but all of them are fans to some degree, even Abrams. They all understood what Roddenberry was doing, they all got it, and as far as I'm concerned the movie that they made was both hugely respectful of not just the universe but of Roddenberry's idea of what Trek was. It's bigger yes, bolder yes and yes like many summer blockbuster movies, it took some inspiration from Star Wars - what film in modern times doesn't? The Star Wars trilogy set the standard but to say it's more Star Wars than Star Trek is like saying The Hobbit is more like Star Wars than The Hobbit. To say that the acting wasn't good? You might not want to watch Star Trek The Original Series then if thats your view because some of the acting in that series and the subsequent 6 classic movies was just as bad... The story? Then you may as well chuck all of you Star Trek's away because the story whilst I'd say not the strongest, was hardly the weakest Trek movie story.

I don't mean to trample over your opinions but when we've all been subjected to horrific Star Trek stories and horrific plots and acting in more than half of the 600+ hours of TV Trek and the 10 classic movies, I don't see how anyone can be so disappointed in this movie which as a movie that has a story, that has actors and a plot - was all highly praised by literally EVERYONE. Star Trek or not, people can spot a bad movie and this was not a bad movie at all.

#51 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:55 AM

And that's exactly what I meant above...

#52 Jedigreedo

Jedigreedo

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:38 AM

QUOTE (1701 @ Apr 1 2013, 08:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But then what are you basing your judgement of the 2009 movie on? Are you comparing it to the past (then) 40 years of Star Trek? Or films of a similar nature?


Oh, I'm going both ways here. I'd say 75% the latter and 25% the former. Except I have to note that it's not specifically films of a "similar nature," but just filmmaking 101. Have a good story, and good characters. As much as I loved the vast majority of the cast (Pine's pretty much my only disappointment there), their characters can't save much of the movie because both the main character and the villain are so badly handled. I've already said what was wrong with Kirk, and Nero was a very dull and uninteresting villain.

QUOTE (1701 @ Apr 1 2013, 08:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There have been some truly atrocious episodes and movie's story wise, acting, general concept in Star Trek's history! There are a handful of Trek movie's that are actually any good in the area's fans seem to judge the 2009 movie on! You simply can't say that the 2009 film was worse than Star Trek: Generations or Star Trek: The Search for Spock or Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture or Star Trek: Insurrection or Star Trek: Nemesis based on your opinions of JJ Abrams movie?


I love The Motion Picture and The Search for Spock; I'm alright with Generations and Insurrection; Final Frontier has a decent story under the rough layers of Shatner's narcissism and poor filmmaking; Nemesis, despite TNG being my favorite era/crew, is very nearly down there with Abrams' Trek. It only barely manages to have enough saving graces to keep it floating above.

QUOTE (1701 @ Apr 1 2013, 08:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Its beyond belief that when someone new like JJ Abrams comes in and does something new Star Trek fans, especially over at www.trekweb.com and www.trekmovie.com get their knickers in a twist claiming that this is rape or sacrilegious to the mighty Gene's vision - its pathetic from such a minority of fans


That's pretty harsh there, I think you need to calm down about this.

QUOTE (1701 @ Apr 1 2013, 08:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't see how anyone can be so disappointed in this movie which as a movie that has a story, that has actors and a plot - was all highly praised by literally EVERYONE.


I do not think it means what you think it means.


#53 data_2006

data_2006

    Rick & Pat know me by name.

  • Members
  • 385 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Star Trek

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:56 AM

Might I add that I also second Jedigreedo's points and did not like it as a star trek movie, so no need for me to further reply on this subject, you either liked it or you don't and as we are all tollerant Star trek fans here, (a future where mankind mostly works together for the common good) I say let's agree to disagree and move on.


#54 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:38 PM

JJ's 2009 effort goes into a special pile for me. Its not the "Hate it" or "Love it pile"...

Its actually the same pile I stick Riddly Scotts "Prometheus" in.

For me, both have brilliant moments, only to be offset by glaringly huge flaws!

I want to love both these movies, but, in the case of Prometheus, the character development and motivation is absolutely a wreck. ST 2009, has some glaring character development issues as well, but not to the extent of Prometheus.

Flipping the script, my biggest issue of ST 2009 was plot premies and development, something again that plagued Prometheus (IMO) but not to the extent of ST 2009. I found much about the plots of both to be derivative and uninspired.

As pointed out there is much about the ST 2009, that if you don't read the back story comic, you just don't know! For example, this thread is the first I learned that Nero's ship was supposed to be Borg influenced.

In the case of both these movies, I read about some of what ended up on the cutting floor, and I think both could be really great movies with a re-cut special edition.

Ultimately, I'm left wondering if Star Trek belongs on the big screen... I think I'd like to see it go back to its roots, on the small screen, part of the reason the TOS movies did so well, is the generations of fans that knew and loved Nimoy and Shatner, and I have to believe that people went to see them as much as anything. Its a phenomena that I don't if it can be recreated.

#55 malloc64

malloc64

    Tracking number maniac

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

Posted 03 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

I loved the 2009 movie. I watched it three times in the theaters. It helped that the local theater manager is a huge Trek nerd and had all his staff dress in uniforms from various Trek eras (mostly TOS/TNG/Movie mostly) for the premier. I met a lot of local Trekkers that day!

Sure there were some serious flaws I noticed even the first time through:

- Why is the engine room a 20th century industrial brewery?!
- Why would they build a starship on earth and not in space?
- What is "Inert Reactant" and how can non-toxic water serve as that? No way they are using water as warp core coolant....
- And why are there "water turbines" in the engine room anyway?!
- Wait, how come all the cadets exit into different commissioned officer ranks?
- How can Spock be the high rank of Commander and then Kirk skips past him at the end of the film to what Captain Pike spent his whole life to this point attaining?
(Can you imagine one of Wesley's friends, let's call him Bob, graduating Starfleet Academy and then somehow catapulting past Commander Riker because Picard put Bob in charge for a day and he did well?)

But I still immensely enjoyed the movie. I was shocked when it was announced. Interest in Trek was at an all time high during TNG. General interest began waning during DS9 and while Voyager was a very weak show it at least finished its 7 seasons. Enterprise was supposed to regenerate the Trek cool factor but it didn't even finish its run. In my mind Trek was dead for the foreseeable future (best I could hope for was a long delay followed by a BSG-style reboot) until the 2009 movie was announced.

There's tons of stuff that makes me groan about the way some of the things have been handled (ie: the 750m+ scale that Abrams imagines for the JJprise is beyond ridiculous) but overall I think these turn of events has been a net plus for even crusty old fans like me. A very nice side effect of the 2009 film has been a large increase in the availability of good quality Trek merchandise!

But as a hardcore fan I guess I'll have to put in my obligatory - THEY BETTER BE FAITHFUL TO THE ORIGINAL VISION AND STOP BEING SUCH GREEDY MARKETEERS!



Ahhhhh there, that's better.

#56 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:55 PM

haha awesome smile.gif

#57 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:17 AM

Saavik was a student at SFA and a Lt. Anyone remember that? Few do. I assume that Kirk would be the same.

Lt to Capt

Lt Commander
Commander
Capt

From Capt to Adm

Capt
Commodore
Rear Adm
Vice Adm
Adm.

So Pike

#58 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:12 AM

QUOTE (FHC @ Apr 4 2013, 08:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Saavik was a student at SFA and a Lt. Anyone remember that? Few do. I assume that Kirk would be the same.

Lt to Capt

Lt Commander
Commander
Capt

From Capt to Adm

Capt
Commodore
Rear Adm
Vice Adm
Adm.

So Pike

#59 Destructor!!!

Destructor!!!

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

  • Members
  • 1,883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:33 PM

QUOTE (malloc64 @ Apr 3 2013, 09:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
- What is "Inert Reactant" and how can non-toxic water serve as that? No way they are using water as warp core coolant....
- And why are there "water turbines" in the engine room anyway?!


Well, actually, now you say that, I've become a little more accepting of that farcical scene... Deuterium is the inert reactant used in warp engines, as opposed to antimatter as the active reactant. Deuterium is the easily handled reactant.

What form does Deuterium take? The chemical formula is a clue: 2H2o.

And the common-usage name of Deuterium?

Heavy water.

It is currently used in cooling pools in nuclear reactors, and looks and behaves just like water. In the TNG tech manuals, it is described as a slush, but that is probably due to cooling - and turbines would prevent the water frosting into solid blocks.

Sorry if this is coming across a little condescending... It reflects my thought processes on the matter more than anything else... So, for that one bit of set decoration- hats-off to the filmmakers!

I still hate the engineering set at large, but that's a detail that alleviates my frustration with that particular scene - I hadn't noticed that myself, well spotted!

#60 malloc64

malloc64

    Tracking number maniac

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

Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:20 PM

QUOTE (FHC @ Apr 4 2013, 08:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Saavik was a student at SFA and a Lt. Anyone remember that? Few do. I assume that Kirk would be the same.

Lt to Capt

Lt Commander
Commander
Capt

From Capt to Adm

Capt
Commodore
Rear Adm
Vice Adm
Adm.

So Pike




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users