If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SlashFilm)   The new Star Trek film will be subtitled "Into Darkness", which is just where the franchise has been since JJ "Lens Flare" Abrams took over   (slashfilm.com) divider line 306
    More: Fail, Star Trek, Star Trek 2, lens flares, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, J. J. Abrams  
•       •       •

3631 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Sep 2012 at 5:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-08 01:48:35 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 01:51:34 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 01:56:37 PM
Next subby will complain that Ron Moore ruined the BSG franchise with bad editing.
 
2012-09-08 01:59:55 PM
Stop whining, submitter. Nobody likes a whiner.
 
2012-09-08 02:30:52 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 02:36:06 PM

Shostie: 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.


That's not going to stop the haters who were mad that the new movie was popular.
 
2012-09-08 02:52:04 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 02:53:11 PM
Oh, and V.
 
2012-09-08 02:57:46 PM

Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.


And The Motion Picture.
 
2012-09-08 03:12:04 PM

Shostie: Relatively Obscure: Oh, and V.

And The Motion Picture.


But nothing tops the pile of suck that was Final Frontier.
 
2012-09-08 03:22:19 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 03:22:36 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 03:25:13 PM

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?
 
2012-09-08 03:27:16 PM

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 liked Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock just as much as I like Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto in those same roles. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CO-EXIST, PEOPLE!!
 
2012-09-08 03:35:00 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 03:38:32 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 03:44:00 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 03:44:11 PM

Confabulat: 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'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.
 
2012-09-08 03:45:28 PM
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?
 
2012-09-08 03:45:56 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 03:46:37 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 03:46:53 PM
Uh, I was just using NuTrek as a descriptor for the movie, not the fans.

But you guys keep being rabid.
 
2012-09-08 03:50:13 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 03:51:56 PM

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

But you guys keep being rabid.


And you keep on hating the new movie for no reason other than it's new.

DamnYankees: 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.


I'm rewatching everything, I just started with DS9.
 
2012-09-08 03:52:33 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 03:54:41 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 04:28:32 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 04:32:05 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 04:43:24 PM

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.

 
2012-09-08 04:49:39 PM

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?
 
2012-09-08 04:56:48 PM

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)
 
2012-09-08 05:08:35 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 05:22:12 PM
My perception of the previous movie is that it was a good movie, but bad Star Trek. There have been plenty of bad movies, and some of those have also been bad Star Trek, so yeah, this was a step up. But the amount of shoehorning they had to pull of to try and get all of the original characters back together on the Enterprise under the new universe scenario was just completely unbelievable (yes, it often happens that a cadet on academic probation gets promoted directly to starship captain). If you're going in just looking to be entertained, the movie works (although even then the Romulan side of the plotline was pretty weak), but if you're going in expecting decent Star Trek, well, not so much.
 
2012-09-08 05:29:47 PM
I don't understand the hate for the new Trek. You'd think that JJ Abrams built a starship and used it to slingshot around the sun, traveling to 1965 where he blinded Gene Rodenberry with lens flare then proceeded to sodomize him to death, erasing the original series from existence.

I can enjoy both, thanks to a transporter accident that split me into two separate people.
 
2012-09-08 05:30:06 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 05:32:30 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 05:33:53 PM
1. Take a bunch of actors and dress them in those laughably silly Star Trek uniforms.
2. Write a stupid plot.
3. ???
4. Profit!
 
2012-09-08 05:34:37 PM
Say what? The new Star Trek was the best Star Trek film to date.
 
2012-09-08 05:35:40 PM
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.
 
2012-09-08 05:36:09 PM
Eh, it's high budget fanfic. There's tons of low budget fanfic that is muuuuuch better than Captain Lensflare. Of Gods and Men, for instance. If you're going to spend millions of dollars to make a theater quality Star Trek, make sure the writing is tight and if you're using source material that your usage is correct.
 
2012-09-08 05:38:05 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 05:41:57 PM
As opposed to the Picard and Data fanfictions called "Generations", "Insurrection", and "Nemesis"?

Sorry, fellow Trekkies, the franchise had hit a rut and wasn't going anywhere. Voyager, Enterprise, and those three TNG films were stale and boring. Star Trek needed an injection of something fresh and new. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted or what you think ST should always be.

/also still better than Star Trek V and The Motionless Picture
 
2012-09-08 05:42:07 PM

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."
 
2012-09-08 05:42:11 PM
the new star trek movie was better than all of the TNG movies.
 
2012-09-08 05:42:14 PM

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.
 
2012-09-08 05:45:44 PM

KingoftheCheese: 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.


You sound like the Transformers GEEWUNers who constantly biatch and cry about how every series after G1 isn't exactly like G1.
 
2012-09-08 05:46:17 PM
img52.imageshack.us

/Haters gonna hate
 
2012-09-08 05:48:06 PM

awfulperson: 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.


Vulcan's still around in the Prime universe. That's the beauty of alternate timelines/multiverses, veerything you obsess over in one of them is still aorund.

/"I hate this version because the frog is a bullfrog when in the original it was clearly a tree frog!"
//NNNEEEEEERRRRRRRRD
 
2012-09-08 05:48:07 PM
None of the films hold up that well compared to the better TNG episodes.

That said, I can't imagine something like "The Inner Light" translating well to film.
 
2012-09-08 05:49:44 PM

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.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report