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.

(Badass Digest)   Lifetime Trekkie explains why he's butthurt over the Star Wars directing announcement. "I feel like J.J. Abrams took me out to the prom but left with the hotter girl"   (badassdigest.com) divider line 211
    More: Sad, J.J. Abrams, Star Wars, Prime Directive, Star Trek Fanboy  
•       •       •

4598 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Jan 2013 at 8:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-28 12:35:56 AM

Fano: you mong.


you're a racist assbag, your argument is invalid.
 
2013-01-28 12:37:28 AM

mjbok: Confabulat: Of all the things to complain about, the age of the characters? WTF?

It's a valid complaint, and here's why:
Apart from the absolute ridiculous premise that a universe that is split two decades prior would end up with the same exact bridge crew, the crew all originally went to the academy, graduated, and had other ship assignments first because...they were all different ages. Now a person who is 12 years younger is in the same academy class? Kirk would have been approximately 26 (given four years at Star Fleet Academy) at the time he takes over as captain of the Enterprise. That means that Chekov is 14. In the altverse Chekov is 17 and a prodigy, which is why he is where he is. That means that Chekov's parents and their sperm/egg combination was exactly the same 3 years later in the altverse.

There are so many holes in the idea of who the crew of the Enterprise is in the altverse, but even if you can suspend disbelief to say that the universe did indeed split at time "x", all events prior to time "x" should have been the same. Like people being born certain places, or being born at certain times. Eventually it all comes back to the fact that the premise is profoundly retarded. The further (timewise) you get from a Genesis point of a time-split, the more differences there will be between the original (which did exist since Old Spock was still around) and the new timeline. This is not a mirror universe (lack of goatees), but a deviation of the original timeline. It is, at its core, stupid.


It's cute you think any star trek nerd here cares about such continuity
 
2013-01-28 12:46:20 AM

Kazan: Fano: you mong.

you're a racist assbag, your argument is invalid.


Nice try, the people of Mongo are not subject to such human concepts, nor are mongoloid idiots. Did you think I was besmirching the proud Hmong people with that statement? Indeed no, I would not conflate any of those peoples with your foolishness.
 
2013-01-28 12:53:30 AM
Massive Star Trek & Star Wars fan here. Involved in fanzines of both fandoms. Seen all the episodes, movies. Read a lot of the books, comics even the tech manuals, roleplaying sourcebooks. I can tell you the names of both unnamed Federation presidents in Star Treks 4 and 6. I can tell you a Clone Turbo Tank actual in-universe production name.

I have a novel way of dealing with this news. Bear with me. It's a bit crazy. Might be a bit of a long shot:

How about everone just watch the movie once, assess it to see if you like it or not. If you like it good for you. If you don't just ignore it. If you believe you'll hate it nevertheless, then don't watch it.

Just an idea.
 
2013-01-28 12:54:49 AM

mjbok: Confabulat: Of all the things to complain about, the age of the characters? WTF?

It's a valid complaint, and here's why:
Apart from the absolute ridiculous premise that a universe that is split two decades prior would end up with the same exact bridge crew, the crew all originally went to the academy, graduated, and had other ship assignments first because...they were all different ages. Now a person who is 12 years younger is in the same academy class? Kirk would have been approximately 26 (given four years at Star Fleet Academy) at the time he takes over as captain of the Enterprise. That means that Chekov is 14. In the altverse Chekov is 17 and a prodigy, which is why he is where he is. That means that Chekov's parents and their sperm/egg combination was exactly the same 3 years later in the altverse.

There are so many holes in the idea of who the crew of the Enterprise is in the altverse, but even if you can suspend disbelief to say that the universe did indeed split at time "x", all events prior to time "x" should have been the same. Like people being born certain places, or being born at certain times. Eventually it all comes back to the fact that the premise is profoundly retarded. The further (timewise) you get from a Genesis point of a time-split, the more differences there will be between the original (which did exist since Old Spock was still around) and the new timeline. This is not a mirror universe (lack of goatees), but a deviation of the original timeline. It is, at its core, stupid.


This post is a prime example of why, pre-JJ, people mocked and ridiculed the riduculous 'trekkies'.

You're so wrapped up in the minutiae of a series that had ground to a halt due to lack of fans...that you can't see the delights in a new Trek that brings in a new crowd of fans who don't care how the Enterprise is designed, or the paradoxes illustrated by comparing notes on exactly what was said three years apart in a comic book adaptation of a bad screen play.

Who gives a crap about all your little details? Shut up and enjoy your movie.
 
2013-01-28 12:57:57 AM

ryant123: COMALite J: What Abrams did was destroy the entire Star Trek universe and replace it with his new version. This is the first time that the alteration of the "past" was not undone and the changes reset (a la "City on the Edge of Forever," "Yesterday's Enterprise," etc.).

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 656x492]


Forgot about that one, but it still isn't a splinter universe / divergent timeline like Abrams said. It's more of a case of an alteration done to the past that became the known already established history of the present, a time loop in a sense (like Kirk's glasses and the "invention" of "transparent aluminum" in ST:IV, and the "invention" of Velcro® in Enterprise).

Kazan: COMALite J: All Trek series except (gag!) Enterprise are undone.

gag? enterprise was better than freaking voyager. unfortunately they cancelled it right after it 'grew the beard' [season 4]


I had already given up on Enterprise long before that. I heard that it was just starting to get good. <speak voice="captain_hindsight">I should've given it more of a chance. After all, remember how bad "Encounter at Farpoint" was?</speak>

I agree that Voyager was worse. I lost all interest in that with the episode "Threshold," arguably the single worst canon episode of any continuity-type TV series I've ever seen.

not true. nothing that involves vulcan can happen, the other things you listed still CAN happen. picard CAN happen.

How? If Picard's ancestors of the movie time period even hears the news about Vulcan's destruction (and how could they not?), it would alter what they would do, say, think, etc., to at least some degree over what they did in the original time continuum. The same sperm would not meet the same ovum.

It's remotely possible that a baby boy would be born to French parents surnamed "Picard" that they name "Jean-Luc" around that time, but the odds against him being genetically the same and thus having the same talents and personality as the Jean-Luc Picard of TNG is about as remote as the odds of two identical snowflakes forming and landing in the same spot, perfectly aligned, exactly a year apart to the nanosecond accuracy.
 
2013-01-28 01:05:59 AM

Fano: Kazan: Fano: you mong.

you're a racist assbag, your argument is invalid.

Nice try, the people of Mongo are not subject to such human concepts, nor are mongoloid idiots. Did you think I was besmirching the proud Hmong people with that statement? Indeed no, I would not conflate any of those peoples with your foolishness.


obligatory
 
2013-01-28 01:06:02 AM

Infernalist: mjbok: Confabulat: Of all the things to complain about, the age of the characters? WTF?

It's a valid complaint, and here's why:
Apart from the absolute ridiculous premise that a universe that is split two decades prior would end up with the same exact bridge crew, the crew all originally went to the academy, graduated, and had other ship assignments first because...they were all different ages. Now a person who is 12 years younger is in the same academy class? Kirk would have been approximately 26 (given four years at Star Fleet Academy) at the time he takes over as captain of the Enterprise. That means that Chekov is 14. In the altverse Chekov is 17 and a prodigy, which is why he is where he is. That means that Chekov's parents and their sperm/egg combination was exactly the same 3 years later in the altverse.

There are so many holes in the idea of who the crew of the Enterprise is in the altverse, but even if you can suspend disbelief to say that the universe did indeed split at time "x", all events prior to time "x" should have been the same. Like people being born certain places, or being born at certain times. Eventually it all comes back to the fact that the premise is profoundly retarded. The further (timewise) you get from a Genesis point of a time-split, the more differences there will be between the original (which did exist since Old Spock was still around) and the new timeline. This is not a mirror universe (lack of goatees), but a deviation of the original timeline. It is, at its core, stupid.

This post is a prime example of why, pre-JJ, people mocked and ridiculed the riduculous 'trekkies'.

You're so wrapped up in the minutiae of a series that had ground to a halt due to lack of fans...that you can't see the delights in a new Trek that brings in a new crowd of fans who don't care how the Enterprise is designed, or the paradoxes illustrated by comparing notes on exactly what was said three years apart in a comic book adaptation of a bad sc ...


www.samefacts.com I was just asking a few questions...
 
2013-01-28 01:09:33 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Fano: Kazan: Fano: you mong.

you're a racist assbag, your argument is invalid.

Nice try, the people of Mongo are not subject to such human concepts, nor are mongoloid idiots. Did you think I was besmirching the proud Hmong people with that statement? Indeed no, I would not conflate any of those peoples with your foolishness.

obligatory


I'm now offended that Kazan didn't understand Mongo's place in the game of life. Just a pawn, but one that was existential.
 
2013-01-28 01:24:16 AM
Star Wars versus Star Trek... the movie!
 
2013-01-28 01:27:14 AM
Hello, my name is Jordan Hoffman and I am a Star Trek Fanboy.

Stopped reading right there.

/there is no redeeming value from Star Trek
 
2013-01-28 01:40:36 AM

mjbok: This is Spock being logical in TOS:


This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:


Spock got violent when he needed to in the original series.
 
2013-01-28 01:49:26 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Spock got violent when he needed to in the original series.


Yes, but mjbok was right, I think, when he said Spock 1.0 never really "flew off the handle" in any way resembling what 2.0 did. On one hand, violent action while in a calm state of mind (unless otherwise altered), and on the other, violent action while in a violently disturbed state of mind.

At least that's how I think Spock would see it.
 
2013-01-28 01:58:53 AM

legion_of_doo: Star Wars versus Star Trek... the movie!


Oh how cute, they have blasters. Mr. Worf, beam a photon torpedo onto their bridge.
 
2013-01-28 02:04:16 AM
This recent trend of nerd fans who think they deserve some kind of control over the creative folks who work on the franchises they obsesses over disturbs me greatly.

"It's just the disrespect that kills me."

How the fark is it in any way disrespectful that a man who has devoted his life to making movies gets to create his dream movie as well as work on a similar sci-fi property?

I'm reminded of a thread I read on Comic Book Resources recently where my fellow comic book reading nerds whine about how it was soooo terribly disrespectful of comic book creators to respond to online attacks from fans (such as the death-threats Dan Slott received for killing-off Peter Parker) with snarky sarcasm and derision. It was somehow beyond-the-pale for these comic book pros to respond to online idiocy from fans in any way other than calm, mannered corporate-speak.

Nobody owes you anything just because you're a fan of something and have devoted long endless lonely hours to a genre or franchise. GO OUTSIDE AND GET SOME FRESH AIR.
 
2013-01-28 02:08:32 AM
I like both Star Trek and Star Wars, but I like them both for different reasons. Of the two, Star Trek has definitely more sci-fi themes, while Star Wars is just space fantasy/opera/action.

I kinda like the new Star Trek movie, but it was really just a Star Wars movie set in the Star Trek universe. While the dialogue, pacing, effects and characters were fine (I don't have a problem with mindless action, catch phrases and iconic scenes/references), the story was a boring piece of poo. They essentially took the plot of TNG's Yesterday's Enterprise and Nemesis and skingrafted them together (And there's only so much you can do with a time travel arc. Ultimately, every new Trek story will remind you of another Trek story when you're sufficiently versed in enough of it).

It was just a dumb story that made no god damn sense when applied to fridge logic and that's something you should NEVER do in ANY sci-fi story much less a Star Trek story because geeks love to pick things apart. Where the fark did the red matter come from? Why does Spock have so much of it? Why would Nero blame him for their sun going supernova? How was that his farking fault? How the hell did Kirk land within walking distance of Spock's cave on an entire farking planet -- what are the odds of that contrivance? Why make a rookie cadet fresh out of the Academy and not even assigned to the god damn ship Captain? ....he shouldn't have even been a junior grade lieutenant with that crap.

It goes on and on. Everything was great about the movie and I really wanted to like it, but it gets worse with repeated viewings because the plot holes are worse than Spock's Brain.

COMALite J: What Abrams did was destroy the entire Star Trek universe and replace it with his new version.


He had to. It was the only way to do anything Trek.

Part of the problem of the creative funk that Star Trek had gotten itself into was this expansive universe that it laid out over a period of 40 years, 11 movies and 6 television shows (according to Paramount, everything televised is canon so that includes The Animated Series -- the books you can ignore) totaling over 700 hours of continuity.

Trying to come up with new characters, storylines and plots that adhere to three generations of television backstory must be an impossible task for today's Trek writers, so a reboot makes sense.

If only the plot was new.

I would love for Star Trek to do something like a classic hard sci-fi series -- a real philosophical puzzler with a Rod Serling-esque twist at the end. Interestingly, my favorite Trek episodes ("Measure of a Man", "The Inner Light", "Best of Both Worlds", "Who Watches the Watchers" or any episode with Q in it) contain almost no action at all and spark profound contemplation on life, reality, and the nature of the human condition, like true sci-fi is supposed to. I miss the episodes full of unexplained, spooky wonder.

Star Trek has a lot of corny shiat in it, but when it gets it right, it easily has the best stories on television. Just once I would like to see a Trek movie use this format, as a true science fiction vehicle to explore humanity's sense of wonderment at the infinite.

But hey.... gotta sell movie tickets or something.
 
2013-01-28 02:19:33 AM

Ishkur: Why would Nero blame him for their sun going supernova? How was that his farking fault?


See a lot of Americans vs. Saddam Hussein/9-11.
 
2013-01-28 02:23:51 AM

Smeggy Smurf: legion_of_doo: Star Wars versus Star Trek... the movie!
Oh how cute, they have blasters. Mr. Worf, beam a photon torpedo onto their bridge.


"Aye sir, one photon torpedo, coming rig....ergh...gack....I...can't...breathe...."

*worf drops to the ground*

*booming voice* "I FIND YOUR OVERCONFIDENCE DISTURBING."

*entire Enterprise crew chokes and dies*

"all too easy."
 
2013-01-28 02:30:24 AM

0Icky0: See a lot of Americans vs. Saddam Hussein/9-11.


I would like to think that the alien villain in a science fiction movie is a little bit more intelligent, informed, and reasonable than the average mouth-breathing, Fox News watching, racist illiterate teabagger
 
2013-01-28 02:32:19 AM

Farker Soze: Techhell: /Agrees about Abrams' take on Trek - it wasn't a Trek movie. It was a dumb action-comedy that actively encouraged viewers to sit back, turn off their brains and just oogle the pretty action and the wittily forgettable one-liners.

What, like ST IV and VI?


notsureiftrollingorstupid.jpg
 
2013-01-28 02:32:33 AM

legion_of_doo: Star Wars versus Star Trek... the movie!


oh fark yeah. let's see the Enterprise go all out against the Executor. there will need to be some limitations, however, no teleporting torpedos into bridges and no Forcing kirk into an airlock
 
2013-01-28 02:37:20 AM

Infernalist: Honestly, I don't see the reason for the hatred for the new Star Trek. The whole premise for the original series was 'action' combined with a morality play where the emotional(McCoy) clashes with the logical(Spock) with Kirk in the middle to weigh both sides and then save the farking day somehow or another.

Pretty much what I saw in the last Star Trek movie. All three sides of the equation were nailed by their respective actors and I look forward to seeing what they do with the next movie.


Then you didn't understand Star Trek. It was terrible acting, plot, effects and dialog. What makes Star Trek memorable instead of just another in a long line of examples of campy sci-fi is that it was political and social commentary. It was a platform to dissect issues of racism, the cold war (hint: Klingons were the Russians), religion, vanity, etc.

I'm not fault J.J. Abrams or the last Star Trek movie specifically. But the above hasn't been true about anything Trek since the early 1990's when TNG ended. Everything since has been generic, forgettable, bland sci-fi that will look campy in 30+ years.
 
2013-01-28 02:38:57 AM

imgod2u: Everything since has been generic, forgettable, bland sci-fi that will look campy in 30+ years.


I don't know if you've watched lately, but TNG looks pretty campy in 2013.
 
2013-01-28 02:40:05 AM
My exact thought when I read this headline:

images.sodahead.com

/Give it a rest guys, the franchise has been dead for 14 years
 
2013-01-28 02:47:52 AM

Confabulat: imgod2u: Everything since has been generic, forgettable, bland sci-fi that will look campy in 30+ years.

I don't know if you've watched lately, but TNG looks pretty campy in 2013.


I don't know if you read my post but I didn't imply that TNG wouldn't be campy; I implied it that it'd be memorable despite being campy, unlike DS9, Voyager, etc.
 
2013-01-28 02:54:30 AM

Confabulat: mjbok: Look at Spock's dad's relationship with Spock's mom. Loveless (in the way we understand it) and more of a marriage of understanding than any marriage of passion.

I think it was well-established that Savik loved his wife dearly even though he would never admit it.


My god. No one else caught you.

I am impressed.
 
2013-01-28 02:56:31 AM

Ishkur: Smeggy Smurf: legion_of_doo: Star Wars versus Star Trek... the movie!
Oh how cute, they have blasters. Mr. Worf, beam a photon torpedo onto their bridge.

"Aye sir, one photon torpedo, coming rig....ergh...gack....I...can't...breathe...."

*worf drops to the ground*

*booming voice* "I FIND YOUR OVERCONFIDENCE DISTURBING."

*entire Enterprise crew chokes and dies*

"all too easy."


Data communicates with computers on Star Destroyer... both agree that mankind is too sick to survive, and proceed to eliminate the rest of the humans in a robot AI revolution.
 
2013-01-28 02:57:51 AM

Shadow Blasko: Ishkur: Smeggy Smurf: legion_of_doo: Star Wars versus Star Trek... the movie!
Oh how cute, they have blasters. Mr. Worf, beam a photon torpedo onto their bridge.

"Aye sir, one photon torpedo, coming rig....ergh...gack....I...can't...breathe...."

*worf drops to the ground*

*booming voice* "I FIND YOUR OVERCONFIDENCE DISTURBING."

*entire Enterprise crew chokes and dies*

"all too easy."

Data communicates with computers on Star Destroyer... both agree that mankind is too sick to survive, and proceed to eliminate the rest of the humans in a robot AI revolution.


Reapers win.
 
2013-01-28 02:59:02 AM

Aboleth: Massive Star Trek & Star Wars fan here. Involved in fanzines of both fandoms. Seen all the episodes, movies. Read a lot of the books, comics even the tech manuals, roleplaying sourcebooks. I can tell you the names of both unnamed Federation presidents in Star Treks 4 and 6. I can tell you a Clone Turbo Tank actual in-universe production name.

I have a novel way of dealing with this news. Bear with me. It's a bit crazy. Might be a bit of a long shot:

How about everone just watch the movie once, assess it to see if you like it or not. If you like it good for you. If you don't just ignore it. If you believe you'll hate it nevertheless, then don't watch it.

Just an idea.


The voice of reason! What are you doing here?

I recently realized I would be in my mid-forties by the time this new SW trilogy is done. I just can't get all worked up about this crap. Can't we all just get along?
 
2013-01-28 03:06:33 AM

Fano: Farker Soze: Techhell: /Agrees about Abrams' take on Trek - it wasn't a Trek movie. It was a dumb action-comedy that actively encouraged viewers to sit back, turn off their brains and just oogle the pretty action and the wittily forgettable one-liners.

What, like ST IV and VI?

They were endlessly quotable to the point of reaching cultural saturation, you mong.


You can't use that word! That's OUR word!

/we took it back
 
2013-01-28 03:13:00 AM

imgod2u: Then you didn't understand Star Trek. It was terrible acting, plot, effects and dialog. What makes Star Trek memorable instead of just another in a long line of examples of campy sci-fi is that it was political and social commentary. It was a platform to dissect issues of racism, the cold war (hint: Klingons were the Russians), religion, vanity, etc.


The reason that TNG has aged so badly is that its fairly difficult to have consistent social/political commentary when the series is set in some kind of post-scarcity economy with no money, no real religion/spirituality, and where essentially all the characters are ridiculously idealized with near perfect morals. Don't get me wrong, there are a few great TNG episodes that still hold up, but most of the series simply does not.

This is also why DS9 is, by far, the ST series that holds up. It loosened some of the restrictions that Roddenberry put on things, which allowed a more serious exploration of political and social issues.

So much of TNG just likes rather trite when held up against the more modern sci-fi series.


I actually enjoyed the Abrams movie, but I agree that it wasn't very Star Treky. But I didn't expect that going in, so whatever. The old ST series are in the grave. Just don't expect 90s Star Trek, and the movie really isn't all that bad.
 
2013-01-28 03:19:44 AM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: tallguywithglasseson: Didn't care for Abrams' take on Star Trek. Take existing franchise, make some winks to the original material, turn into dumb action movie.

[www.hungh.com image 500x331]

/And nothing of value was Lost


That was the point where I stopped watching that movie. I mean, why not just LAND where you want to go?
 
2013-01-28 03:31:30 AM
Argo is going to win Best Picture. It has an RT score of 96%. Abrams' Star Trek has an RT score of 95%.

Those of you trying to crap all over it have a severe case of "I can't like anything that's too mainstream.".

And quit pretending like the series where Shatner hams it up for two hours every couple of years was some kind of untouchable masterwork. It ain't Bill Shakespeare. Hell, they make changes to his stuff all the time. Yet somehow that brand survives....
 
2013-01-28 03:34:19 AM

Krazikarl: imgod2u: Then you didn't understand Star Trek. It was terrible acting, plot, effects and dialog. What makes Star Trek memorable instead of just another in a long line of examples of campy sci-fi is that it was political and social commentary. It was a platform to dissect issues of racism, the cold war (hint: Klingons were the Russians), religion, vanity, etc.

The reason that TNG has aged so badly is that its fairly difficult to have consistent social/political commentary when the series is set in some kind of post-scarcity economy with no money, no real religion/spirituality, and where essentially all the characters are ridiculously idealized with near perfect morals. Don't get me wrong, there are a few great TNG episodes that still hold up, but most of the series simply does not.


Erm, you may have missed the point then. The focus was not on the morally idealized, perfect Federation but the aliens and planet-of-the-week they ran into. Picard and the like were the lens of idealism through which we were supposed to view the rest of the world and all the events that were happening. The Ferengi was uncontrolled and rampant mercantilism, the Klingons were war-hawks, the Cardassians were backs-against-the-wall imperialists, etc.

There were no "villains" of TNG per se. Yes, they may have appeared as such through the formulaic storylines of heroes-triumph-over-evil and without a good actor (Stewart) at the head of it, it may even have come off as such. But even the worst of conflicts (see: Chain of Command, The Wounded, etc.) were presented superbly not as "look at these bad guys and how the good guys won" but resolve with an understanding of why each side did what they did; how the Cardassians devolved into such a militaristic state due to starvation and lack of resources; how the Klingons were almost a slave to their own militaristic culture; how the Ferengi discard anyone amongst them who isn't seeking profit -- including one who's seeking revenge for the death of his son.

This is also why DS9 is, by far, the ST series that holds up. It loosened some of the restrictions that Roddenberry put on things, which allowed a more serious exploration of political and social issues.

No, it didn't. It loosened what the Federation could represent; it didn't loosen what the entire mythos and universe presented. They simply made the human characters take on the characteristics of what was supposed to be represented by the "alien" characters. It was equivalent to making Gulliver start fighting wars over which side of the egg to break. But in doing so, it dramatically narrowed the scope of what could be explored; people didn't like seeing other humans doing terribly inhumane and bad things; they could tolerate it if an "alien" did it.

So much of TNG just likes rather trite when held up against the more modern sci-fi series.

Of course. That's not the point. The point isn't to look gritty with shaky-cams and all bloodied up and saying "frak". That's faux-insight. It's superficial crap that is just dramatic enough to appear deep and insightful but in reality, isn't really communicating anything. You tell me DS9 or Battlestar God-did-it ever came anywhere close to tackling the underlying motivations and issues of torture the way Chain of Command did. Or presented imperialism and the cold war anywhere near as well as Star Trek 6. Or hell, even something as personal as how difficult it is to communicate with a foreign culture and how much both sides want to.

I actually enjoyed the Abrams movie, but I agree that it wasn't very Star Treky. But I didn't expect that going in, so whatever. The old ST series are in the grave. Just don't expect 90s Star Trek, and the movie really isn't all that bad.

It isn't. Like I said, I'm not specifically calling out Abram's Star Trek. In terms of quality, it's still leagues ahead of Enterprise-has-a-joystick or KAHNNNN-redone-with-Picard Star Trek. Still, you can't help but miss what it was.

The funny thing is that Enterprise -- despite all its failings -- tried the most to be like Trek of old and tackle contemporary issues like terrorism, racism and fear of the unknown enemy.
 
2013-01-28 03:55:43 AM
I hope the next Star trek movie takes more of the TOS material and gangbangs it in the back of the van like drunk prom queen.
 
2013-01-28 04:13:42 AM

imgod2u: Krazikarl: imgod2u: Then you didn't understand Star Trek. It was terrible acting, plot, effects and dialog. What makes Star Trek memorable instead of just another in a long line of examples of campy sci-fi is that it was political and social commentary. It was a platform to dissect issues of racism, the cold war (hint: Klingons were the Russians), religion, vanity, etc.

The reason that TNG has aged so badly is that its fairly difficult to have consistent social/political commentary when the series is set in some kind of post-scarcity economy with no money, no real religion/spirituality, and where essentially all the characters are ridiculously idealized with near perfect morals. Don't get me wrong, there are a few great TNG episodes that still hold up, but most of the series simply does not.

Erm, you may have missed the point then. The focus was not on the morally idealized, perfect Federation but the aliens and planet-of-the-week they ran into. Picard and the like were the lens of idealism through which we were supposed to view the rest of the world and all the events that were happening. The Ferengi was uncontrolled and rampant mercantilism, the Klingons were war-hawks, the Cardassians were backs-against-the-wall imperialists, etc.

There were no "villains" of TNG per se. Yes, they may have appeared as such through the formulaic storylines of heroes-triumph-over-evil and without a good actor (Stewart) at the head of it, it may even have come off as such. But even the worst of conflicts (see: Chain of Command, The Wounded, etc.) were presented superbly not as "look at these bad guys and how the good guys won" but resolve with an understanding of why each side did what they did; how the Cardassians devolved into such a militaristic state due to starvation and lack of resources; how the Klingons were almost a slave to their own militaristic culture; how the Ferengi discard anyone amongst them who isn't seeking profit -- including one who's seeking revenge for the death of his son.

This is also why DS9 is, by far, the ST series that holds up. It loosened some of the restrictions that Roddenberry put on things, which allowed a more serious exploration of political and social issues.

No, it didn't. It loosened what the Federation could represent; it didn't loosen what the entire mythos and universe presented. They simply made the human characters take on the characteristics of what was supposed to be represented by the "alien" characters. It was equivalent to making Gulliver start fighting wars over which side of the egg to break. But in doing so, it dramatically narrowed the scope of what could be explored; people didn't like seeing other humans doing terribly inhumane and bad things; they could tolerate it if an "alien" did it.

So much of TNG just likes rather trite when held up against the more modern sci-fi series.

Of course. That's not the point. The point isn't to look gritty with shaky-cams and all bloodied up and saying "frak". That's faux-insight. It's superficial crap that is just dramatic enough to appear deep and insightful but in reality, isn't really communicating anything. You tell me DS9 or Battlestar God-did-it ever came anywhere close to tackling the underlying motivations and issues of torture the way Chain of Command did. Or presented imperialism and the cold war anywhere near as well as Star Trek 6. Or hell, even something as personal as how difficult it is to communicate with a foreign culture and how much both sides want to.

I actually enjoyed the Abrams movie, but I agree that it wasn't very Star Treky. But I didn't expect that going in, so whatever. The old ST series are in the grave. Just don't expect 90s Star Trek, and the movie really isn't all that bad.

It isn't. Like I said, I'm not specifically calling out Abram's Star Trek. In terms of quality, it's still leagues ahead of Enterprise-has-a-joystick or KAHNNNN-redone-with-Picard Star Trek. Still, you can't help but miss what it was.

The funny thing is that Enterprise -- despite all its failings -- tried the most to be like Trek of old and tackle contemporary issues like terrorism, racism and fear of the unknown enemy.


DS9 had some of the best episodes of Trek on television. I loved "In The Pale Moonlight" and "Far Beyond The Stars." Hell, what made DS9 so great was that it showed the Federation as flawed. I can't believe utopias, so having a flawed Federation, and a flawed station commander in DS9, helped me to enjoy the stories without having to suspend too much disbelief.
 
2013-01-28 04:20:41 AM
Maybe Abrams will deliberately tank this new episode to please the Trek fans.
 
2013-01-28 04:45:31 AM
Do people forget how campy orginal Star Trek was? Do you remember how stupidly they treated time travel, having 3 different opinions depending on who was writing that weeks episode?

Star Trek (the old one. pre silly, silly movies) is sci fi camp with a psychological twist. The drama is between two characters and the backdrop is new and unusual circumstances to challenge them. I love TNG, but when it comes down to it Kirk is portrayed as a better military officer than Picard. Picard is a diplomat with command training, at the helm of a warship that has a day care. That was stupid, and they comment on it at times.

The new movie brings back some of the technical camp, and a strong military approach which was key to the old series. Responsibilities vs desires, even spock wasn't immune on that show. Hopefully in the next movie he's a bit matured though.
I doubt they'll have old spock deus ex them a hundred years worth of tech, it'd be too much like god mode.
 
2013-01-28 05:05:12 AM
I was actually expecting them to put Rick Berman & Brannon Braga in charge of the new SW, for some reason. Fark it though, As it's been said before, nobody can really fark star wars up more then Lucas already did, it's not like Abrams is going to unmake IV-V-VI and delete them from our memories, so if your panties are in a twist, un-bunch them with your Original Edition VHS rip you pirated, I'm sure the tape is all De-gaussed from what can only be described as tri-daily playbacks in the VCR. As for people whining about the ST Timeline, one of the movie's plots was resolved by rescuing a god damn whale. Your argument is moot.
 
2013-01-28 05:22:13 AM
BTW:

dogboy360: Ok, I have to say it.
ST:TOS brought scifi mainstream. .



Umm.. no. Science fiction made the mainstrean in the 1800s. Here are some examples:

H.G. Wells wrote The Time Machine in 1895. Jules Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in 1870.
 
2013-01-28 05:23:06 AM
darn spelling. I meant "mainstream".
 
2013-01-28 05:32:02 AM
Jordan Hoffman: "Why I'm Butt-Hurt About J.J. Abrams"
The Rest of the World: "We do not care & TMI about your body image issues"
 
2013-01-28 05:52:04 AM

COMALite J: What Abrams did was destroy the entire Star Trek universe and replace it with his new version. This is the first time that the alteration of the "past" was not undone and the changes reset (a la "City on the Edge of Forever," "Yesterday's Enterprise," etc.).


Only problem with your reasoning is Spock Prime still exists.

For him to exist and for the Romulan ship to have come back in time to blow shiat up, they still have to exist in another timeline, or you have a paradox. There are two options - paradox, or parallel universes.

Plus, it's farking fiction, you can write about either universe as much as you like, or invent your own in which tribbles rule a giant galactic empire.
 
2013-01-28 05:59:52 AM
You know they could fix all this time business with one simple move: Cross-over with the Doctor. He could just pop up in that booth and do his magic and there you go everyone goes home happy, besides nerds love Doctor Who and Star Trek so why not have both! Its pure win, I'm going to tell my buddy JJ about this tomorrow when we do lunch!
 
2013-01-28 06:32:16 AM
Did anyone else ever read that batshiat insane rant someone posted on the internet about Final Fantasy XIII being on Xbox and how Square had betrayed him like women, and also absent parent figures?

This was not nearly as insane. When people freak out about stupid crap, I expect serious mental illness! I NEED TO FEED!!!

//Also, anyone have a link or a screencap? That rant was pure gold, but now I can't find it.
 
2013-01-28 06:38:17 AM

BumpInTheNight: You know they could fix all this time business with one simple move: Cross-over with the Doctor. He could just pop up in that booth and do his magic and there you go everyone goes home happy, besides nerds love Doctor Who and Star Trek so why not have both! Its pure win, I'm going to tell my buddy JJ about this tomorrow when we do lunch!


I believe the Who crossover was an idea that floated around for ST:ENT.

Imagine a Borg cube with the outer size of a TARDIS able to whoosh into any location.

/But they're all carrying bananas instead of weapons.
 
2013-01-28 06:51:33 AM
jimmyloram.com

Ironically prophetic and still funny.
 
2013-01-28 07:37:59 AM
When I became a man I put away my childish ways.
 
2013-01-28 07:40:57 AM
The biggest Trek movie disaster is the fact that they never did a voyager movie.
 
2013-01-28 07:56:47 AM

Pochas: The biggest Trek movie disaster is the fact that they never did a voyager movie.


7 of 9 + IMAX. That is all.
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report