Stop whining, submitter. Nobody likes a whiner.

The My Little Pony Killer: I liked the last new Star Trek film, so I'm pretty sure I'll like this one.

/You can keep crying about the franchise or whatever.

As a long-time Star Trek fan, I can tell you that I really liked the Abrams movie. It was MUCH better than I was expecting.

The new Star Trek was fine. A significant number of the previous movies were far, far worse. I'm looking at you especially, Nemesis and Insurrection.

Oh, and V.

Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.

GAT_00: Shostie: Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.

But nothing tops the pile of suck that was Final Frontier.

I'd argue Generations can fit that bill just fine.

Whether you approve of Abrams Trek or not, "Into Darkness" is a pretty shiatty, generic subtitle.

/so were Nemesis and Insurrection. They lost their mojo in naming the films after Undiscovered Country.
//Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

GAT_00: FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

What does it mean when I'm both?

Seriously. I've been a Star Trek fan since before anyone ever dreamed of a "Next Generation" (always poser Trek to me) and now I'm a "nuTrek" fan?

Yeah right. Abrams' Trek is far more close to the spirit of REAL Trek than Berman & Braga ever sniffed.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

There are a lot of Trekkies who decided to hate Abrams' Trek as soon as it was announced. They were calling it Trek Babies and stuff. They were so emotionally invested in hating the new movie that they refused to allow themselves to enjoy it, and now they've become so determined to hate it that they refuse to admit that just maybe they're being sort of retarded fanboys.

New Trek is better than most all of "old Trek." Doesn't make me a new fan, makes me not an insane one.

When was this Orwellian decision made that somehow the last ST movie hurt the franchise's popularity and future? I realize some people didn't like it, but it was undeniably successful.

Also, Leonard Nimoy liked this so-called "nuTrek" enough to take a substantial role. He refused to even show up for Generations.

Which one sounds more like a real Trek movie to you?

GAT_00: I'm actually rewatching DS9 right now, so I'm getting a kick out of how I'm nuTrek, whatever the fark that means. Hell, you can't properly enjoy the new movie without knowing all the references.

Just did a rewatch about a month ago. Really enjoyed it all over again.

DamnYankees: When was this Orwellian decision made that somehow the last ST movie hurt the franchise's popularity and future? I realize some people didn't like it, but it was undeniably successful.

It's an angry nerd thing. They still can't stand it that they were wrong and the new movie was popular with audiences and critics alike. When they are sure something is going to suck and it doesn't, they don't always know how to deal with it.

Uh, I was just using NuTrek as a descriptor for the movie, not the fans.

But you guys keep being rabid.

FirstNationalBastard: Uh, I was just using NuTrek as a descriptor for the movie, not the fans.

But you guys keep being rabid.

You keep being an angry nerd. You still won't convince anyone.

Confabulat: FirstNationalBastard: Uh, I was just using NuTrek as a descriptor for the movie, not the fans.

But you guys keep being rabid.

You keep being an angry nerd. You still won't convince anyone.

What have I said in this thread that's angry, or that was intended to convince anyone of anything?

Just that "Into Darkness" is as shiatty a subtitle as Nemesis or Insurrection, or even Final Frontier.

You're the one posting 50 times trying to convince people of something.

The new Star Trek was better than any Star Trek movie since First Contact.

Although I enjoyed it, I felt that there was one major flaw. The young man that they had playing Sulu was obviously heterosexual. I think that since Georgi Takei came out before this movie did, they should have payed him respect by casting a homosexual Asian American actor to portray Mr. Sulu.

The fact that Sulu was played by a homosexual actor in the original television series is a great testament to how accepting the future will be. I'm sure that many homosexual children that wanted to be astronauts found him to be a great role model. They let him pilot the Federation's flagship, even though he probably slept with the younger, more impressionable male crewmen and more than likely had some sort of space AIDS.

He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

I went into with the expectation of hating the movie, and I liked it. So, I shall go in with expectation of liking the next movie, and I shall probably hate it.

So it goes.

SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.

FirstNationalBastard: What have I said in this thread that's angry, or that was intended to convince anyone of anything?

FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

What was your point of this statement?

KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.

yes. Obviously my pointing out that how I feel about something is my decision and not yours makes me a whiner. How silly of me.
By the way, the huge gaping flaw in your argument?
Takei himself had absolutely zero problem with Cho as Sulu. If the man who originated the character wasn't making an issue, why in space would anyone else?

(citation)

SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: SilentStrider: KingoftheCheese: He overcame adversity and that is what made him a great crew member, if not the greatest, that served on the Enterprise. I think Mr. Abrams needs to take a good, hard look at the character of Sulu before the second movie comes out and he betrays even more fans.

Please do Star Trek fans a favor, and stop trying to decide that we're supposed to feel betrayed by how a character is portrayed between incarnations. Thats for us to decide, not you.

SilentStrider: Nobody likes a whiner.

yes. Obviously my pointing out that how I feel about something is my decision and not yours makes me a whiner. How silly of me.
By the way, the huge gaping flaw in your argument?
Takei himself had absolutely zero problem with Cho as Sulu. If the man who originated the character wasn't making an issue, why in space would anyone else?

(citation)

Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.

I was going to make a sarcastic comment about how the new Star Trek was obviously such a step down from the cinematic glory of Insurrection, but it looks like it's already been taken care of.

It's an unfortunate reality that actors age, and can't keep playing the same roles forever. While you can make the argument that Star Trek should have just died a quiet death, the only other options were either a reboot or a new tv series. A whole new crew and setting would never fly introduced in a movie without an establishing series.

Say what? The new Star Trek was the best Star Trek film to date.

As a long-time Star Trek fan, I can say with certainly that I thought the last movie was a steaming pile of targ poop. And I was honestly expecting to enjoy it--this is not "they're changing the thing I like and it's gonna suck grumblegrumblegrumble" whining--I really felt the franchise needed a reboot. But not this one.

I don't want a Trek universe without Vulcan. And you can take tongue-in-cheek WAY too far, which they did; as much as I love Joss Whedon, I don't love Whedon-esque dialogue and characters in my Trek.

Finally, the set looked like the set of the Lost in Space reboot--all shiny and round and silly.

rickycal78: KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended. It's almost just as bad as having his widow play the harlot Lwaxana Troi on TNG and DS9. She should have respected the memory of her late husband enough to demand that the character not be so sultry. It's just embarrassing to watch.

So how well exactly did you personally know Roddenberry to know for certain he wouldn't have enjoyed different interpretations of his characters? Did you also know them well enough to know for certain that he wouldn't have wanted his wife to play a fun character? Especially considering Roddenberry died in '91 and Lwaxana as a character appeared in the show at least 4 times before his death. Somehow I think if he disapproved of the character he wouldn't have had her on the show.

As the years went on, the character became sluttier and sluttier. I have seen every episode of Deep Space Nine, except the ones where that character appeared. I tried to watch one and I was physically sickened by the way she carried herself. I cringe when I even hear her voice as the computer.

Confabulat: FirstNationalBastard: What have I said in this thread that's angry, or that was intended to convince anyone of anything?

FirstNationalBastard: Also, it looks like you NuTrek fans are getting to be as rabid a bunch as the old Trekkies.

What was your point of this statement?

He comes into any thread about the new Star Trek and starts sh*tting all over it. It's his "thing."

the new star trek movie was better than all of the TNG movies.

KingoftheCheese: Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the future and I don't think that messing with a character would make him proud to see where his vision had ended.

George Takei is gay. I don't think Sulu was ever considered gay. Neil Patrick Harris is gay but plays a womanizer on TV. Interestingly there is often a difference between a role and the person playing them, which certainly must come as a relief to the people close to the guy who played Pinhead in all those movies.

But then I think your tongue is firmly in cheek.

MeinRS6: Lens flare or not, that last movie was pretty entertaining.

I'd put it up against most of the original cast movies and all of the TNG movies.

I like you when you stay on this tab and this tab only.