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 212
    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»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-27 05:06:46 PM
The author went to the prom with someone who left with a hotter girl?

i can see that happening.  There are probably plenty of girls hotter than he is.

I still don't see anyone going to the prom with him, but perhaps I'm just being overly judgemental.
 
2013-01-27 05:08:27 PM
You really need to read that entire thing in Comic Book Guy's voice, is sooo much better.

Here, I'll get you started:
goodcomics.comicbookresources.com
 
2013-01-27 05:11:10 PM
Didn't care for Abrams' take on Star Trek. Take existing franchise, make some winks to the original material, turn into dumb action movie.

But off the top of my head, I can think of two (plausible) directors for Star Wars sequels that would be worse than J.J. Abrams: Zack Snyder and George Lucas.

//Lucas already shiat on his own franchise with the prequels, so I guess I don't really care who does the next sequels
 
2013-01-27 05:20:22 PM
First Nerd Problems
 
2013-01-27 06:18:25 PM
Waaaaaaaahhhhhh!
 
2013-01-27 06:28:55 PM
Imagine the lens flares you can get from two suns!
 
2013-01-27 06:46:13 PM
Dude needs to lighten up.  If anything, Abrams has shown he has a love of the source material.  I enjoy both Star Wars and Star Trek (though I'm more of a TNG guy)...and I'm sure both universes will be fine (so long as Lucas has nothing to do with writing dialogue for the script).
 
2013-01-27 07:46:24 PM
Suck it, nerd.

NERDS!!!!
 
2013-01-27 08:14:01 PM
Honey, Hollywood is made up of whores. Abrams never really liked you, he just liked your money. Now he's got your money, and somebody in a Boba Fett costume is waving a roll of twenties.
 
2013-01-27 08:17:16 PM

slayer199: Dude needs to lighten up.  If anything, Abrams has shown he has a love of the source material.  I enjoy both Star Wars and Star Trek (though I'm more of a TNG guy)...and I'm sure both universes will be fine (so long as Lucas has nothing to do with writing dialogue for the script).


THIS. My manager is a Olympic-level Trek and SW geek, and this news has left him downright tolerable for the last few days.
 
2013-01-27 08:18:54 PM
Sounds like a Taylor Swift song to me.
 
2013-01-27 08:27:58 PM
I was kind of meh towards the last Star Trek movie. I don't think Abrams can do any worse than Lucas, however.
 
2013-01-27 08:28:29 PM

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.

But off the top of my head, I can think of two (plausible) directors for Star Wars sequels that would be worse than J.J. Abrams: Zack Snyder and George Lucas.

//Lucas already shiat on his own franchise with the prequels, so I guess I don't really care who does the next sequels


I think Snyder might be able to do great things with Star Wars, though it's equally possible that he would make an awesome looking movie that didn't really work.

/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.
 
2013-01-27 08:32:33 PM

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?
 
2013-01-27 08:33:55 PM

Could be worse: Michael Bay


img.photobucket.com
+
img.photobucket.com
=
journal.georgetown.edu
 
2013-01-27 08:37:40 PM
Ok, I have to say it.
ST:TOS brought scifi mainstream. Without it SW never could have come about to become what it was.
SW did have an impact on scifi. It helped make scifi stronger in the non-nerd world. Now, scifi is all around us, and has several sub-cultures within it.

/BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?
ST >SW. I still like both.
 
2013-01-27 08:39:24 PM

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

/And nothing of value was Lost
 
2013-01-27 08:40:28 PM

dogboy360: BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise"


Yeah, but that shuttle boldly stayed on Earth.
 
2013-01-27 08:46:33 PM
 
2013-01-27 08:48:49 PM

Confabulat: dogboy360: BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise"

Yeah, but that shuttle boldly stayed on Earth.


Well, it did fly (just never left the atmosphere).
 
2013-01-27 08:49:00 PM

dogboy360: Ok, I have to say it.
ST:TOS brought scifi mainstream. Without it SW never could have come about to become what it was.
SW did have an impact on scifi. It helped make scifi stronger in the non-nerd world. Now, scifi is all around us, and has several sub-cultures within it.

/BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?
ST >SW. I still like both.


To be fair, I REALLY don't see one of them being named "Executor."
 
2013-01-27 08:50:18 PM
Also:
NERD FIGHT ON!
 
2013-01-27 08:51:56 PM
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.
 
2013-01-27 08:58:28 PM
I like how the author complained that something didn't make sense in the movie. And the tv show did?
 
2013-01-27 09:04:57 PM

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


hahaha I'd forgotten about that scene, great one.
 
2013-01-27 09:16:59 PM

dogboy360: Also:
NERD FIGHT ON!


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-27 09:20:57 PM

dogboy360: Ok, I have to say it.
ST:TOS brought scifi mainstream. Without it SW never could have come about to become what it was.
SW did have an impact on scifi. It helped make scifi stronger in the non-nerd world. Now, scifi is all around us, and has several sub-cultures within it.

/BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?
ST >SW. I still like both.



Yeah.. keep telling yourself that was because of Star Trek, and not a 200 year old Navy tradition. They may have gotten the ball rolling, but if Benedict Arnold had named his ship the Millenium Falcon, I think we all know what that shuttle would have been named.
 
2013-01-27 09:22:36 PM
oh good. I was worried people had started taking sci fi fans seriously for a moment, thanks for fixing that.
 
2013-01-27 09:22:58 PM

mrlewish: dogboy360: Also:
NERD FIGHT ON!

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 500x336]


That is WRONG on so many levels in this thread!

/Damn kind, stay off the lawn!
 
2013-01-27 09:25:21 PM

gunther_bumpass: dogboy360: Ok, I have to say it.
ST:TOS brought scifi mainstream. Without it SW never could have come about to become what it was.
SW did have an impact on scifi. It helped make scifi stronger in the non-nerd world. Now, scifi is all around us, and has several sub-cultures within it.

/BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?
ST >SW. I still like both.


Yeah.. keep telling yourself that was because of Star Trek, and not a 200 year old Navy tradition. They may have gotten the ball rolling, but if Benedict Arnold had named his ship the Millenium Falcon, I think we all know what that shuttle would have been named.


Variant names considered:
Century Eagle
Eon Hummingbird
Three-minute Egg
 
2013-01-27 09:26:07 PM

gunther_bumpass: dogboy360: Ok, I have to say it.
ST:TOS brought scifi mainstream. Without it SW never could have come about to become what it was.
SW did have an impact on scifi. It helped make scifi stronger in the non-nerd world. Now, scifi is all around us, and has several sub-cultures within it.

/BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?
ST >SW. I still like both.


Yeah.. keep telling yourself that was because of Star Trek, and not a 200 year old Navy tradition. They may have gotten the ball rolling, but if Benedict Arnold had named his ship the Millenium Falcon, I think we all know what that shuttle would have been named.


Point missed entirely! 1d10t.

dogboy360: mrlewish: dogboy360: Also:
NERD FIGHT ON!

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 500x336]

That is WRONG on so many levels in this thread!

/Damn kind, stay off the lawn!


KIDS, off the lawn.
/been drinking
/FTFM
 
2013-01-27 09:26:17 PM

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?


Are you trying to say that IV was... an action movie? Really? Seriously? Nah, you're just trollin' me for a response. Almost caught me.
 
2013-01-27 09:41:51 PM

dogboy360: Confabulat: dogboy360: BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise"

Yeah, but that shuttle boldly stayed on Earth.

Well, it did fly (just never left the atmosphere).


There was also that whole Star Wars weapons program thing. Of course that didn't get into space, either.
 
2013-01-27 09:42:39 PM
FTFA "Imagine a bunch of CW actors running around an uninspired Enterprise bridge. (Joke that it looks like the Apple Store, joke that it's chock-a-block lens flares, it still looks cool.)"

The bridge was never my problem, the engine room was. I don't know what kind of look they were going for, but having what looked like 20 households worth of oversized clear household sewer pipe looked dumb as hell. What's all that water for? Why do the pipes need to be clear? Just for the scene with Scotty floating in them? Why so gods be damned many of them? Hell the engine room of ST: Enterprise was better than that.
 
2013-01-27 09:43:17 PM

slayer199: If anything, Abrams has shown he has a love of the source material.


If by love of the source material you meaning changing everything BEFORE the split to the dumb as hell altverse (ages of characters, where characters were born, the way the science of Trek works) then I agree. You hated how Lucas changed stuff about the Force? Wait until you see how JJ farks with the existing mythology. Don't worry though, he will tell you that he knows where it is all going and he isn't making it up as he goes.

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


This is Spock being logical in TOS:
www.call-with-current-continuation.org

This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:
popreflection.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-27 09:43:46 PM
Infernalist
Honestly, I don't see the reason for the hatred for the new Star Trek.

Because Trek is supposed to be deep, thought-provoking social commentary exploring ethical dilemmas against the backdrop setting of optimistic high futurism, not shallow and forgettable action movies?
 
2013-01-27 09:44:21 PM
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"

scarymotherfucker.files.wordpress.com

PENIS GOES WHERE???
 
2013-01-27 09:45:09 PM

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.


Wait, there was a morality conflict between Spock and McCoy in Star Trek 2009? Was it more than just four lines for each character? Or was it something like:

Spock: "Ensign Kirk, we must pause to consider the logical conclusions to this potential action."
McCoy: "Damn your Vulcan logic!"
Uhura: *strikes a sexy pose while rolling her eyes and shaking her head*
Spock: "Is there something wrong with pausing to consider the potential outcomes?"
McCoy: "Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Computer Programmer! You talk some sense into that pointed eared Vulcan!"
Sulu and Chekhov: *Look at each other in a way that says "We're totally not listening to this conversation and we're totally not gay.*
Sulu: *Looks back at Chekhov with a look that says "Wait, you're not?"*
Kirk: "Spock, explain to me the potential outcomes of our actions while we beam onto the Romulan ship and punch some Romulans in the face."
Chekhov: *looks back at Sulu with a look that says "No! I mean, there's nothing wrong with that, I'm just not, I mean, you're a very handsome man I suppose, and I'm sure most guys would be happy to be with you, but that's not something we do in Russia. Often. Um."
Spock: "A fascinating plan."
Scotty: "A fas'inating plan? Tha's wha'you're calling a fas'inating plan? That's a wee bit of a cockel-rup tha' me wee bairns canna come up wif!"
Spock, Kirk, Sulu, McCoy and Chekhov look at Uhura: "If any one of you asks me what I think you want to ask me, you better hope I go with Kirk and Spock so that I can kick Romulan faces in..."
Kirk: "Well, that's settled. Spock, you're with me. Chekhov, you have the bridge. Sulu, you look fabulous. No one ask Uhura to translate Scotty into English. Let's go!"
 
2013-01-27 09:46:08 PM

mjbok: Wait until you see how JJ farks with the existing mythology


He's not in charge of the franchise, he's just directing someone else's script. Disney isn't going to turn that cash cow over to one guy.
 
2013-01-27 09:51:57 PM

Techhell: 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?

Are you trying to say that IV was... an action movie? Really? Seriously? Nah, you're just trollin' me for a response. Almost caught me.


Also, The Undiscovered Country was a pretty thoughtful post-cold war movie that dealt with the challenges of winding down decades of hostilities. It is probably my second favorite movie of the pre-reboot Trek series, after STII.

/Bonus: Kurtwood Smith was the Federation President
//Benzites, leave
 
2013-01-27 09:55:33 PM

mjbok: ...

This is Spock being logical in TOS:
[www.call-with-current-continuation.org image 391x353]

This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:
[popreflection.files.wordpress.com image 790x444]


Abram's splinter universe is not the same as the original. things are different. Spock is a bit less in control of himself in this one, and given the circumstances it is even more likely that this was just a temporary lapse of control.
 
2013-01-27 09:57:39 PM

Mad_Radhu: dogboy360: Confabulat: dogboy360: BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise"

Yeah, but that shuttle boldly stayed on Earth.

Well, it did fly (just never left the atmosphere).

There was also that whole Star Wars weapons program thing. Of course that didn't get into space, either.


Ok, I will give you that. But Nobody wanted that. Even now, that was a stupid idea. Yes, there are defence contractors that are trying to make something like that work. But, it was a misnomer from the beginning.
 
2013-01-27 10:02:36 PM

mjbok: slayer199: If anything, Abrams has shown he has a love of the source material.

If by love of the source material you meaning changing everything BEFORE the split to the dumb as hell altverse (ages of characters, where characters were born, the way the science of Trek works) then I agree. You hated how Lucas changed stuff about the Force? Wait until you see how JJ farks with the existing mythology. Don't worry though, he will tell you that he knows where it is all going and he isn't making it up as he goes.

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

This is Spock being logical in TOS:


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


I did mind that depiction of Spock, actually. The thing that people always forget about the Vulcans is that they embrace logic because they are walking around with constant low-level 'roid rage, and basically murdered each other all the time and burned the planet with a couple of nuclear wars before Vulcan Jesus taught them logic. Going batshiat after having Vulcan destroyed, killing his mother in the process, actually is consistent with the character. Pushed too far, he'd have a hard time using logic to keep those powerful emotions in check.
 
2013-01-27 10:03:43 PM
DIDN'T mind.
 
2013-01-27 10:05:22 PM

dogboy360: Mad_Radhu: dogboy360: Confabulat: dogboy360: BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise"

Yeah, but that shuttle boldly stayed on Earth.

Well, it did fly (just never left the atmosphere).

There was also that whole Star Wars weapons program thing. Of course that didn't get into space, either.

Ok, I will give you that. But Nobody wanted that. Even now, that was a stupid idea. Yes, there are defence contractors that are trying to make something like that work. But, it was a misnomer from the beginning.


The hell we didn't want it! And of course they called it Star Wars, you didn't expect them to call it "Death Star" did you?
 
2013-01-27 10:06:31 PM
If you're regularly tanking your own life by making obscure references to things on first dates and in corporate meetings, you really need a reality check. In business in particular, you have to speak to your audience, and this guy clearly doesn't know how to do that. I get it, he's a massive Trek dweeb.

I love Sci Fi, but I wouldn't bring it up in meetings with senior management of my clients. My company on the other hand, our tech partner had all our servers named after Vulcans. Trek references would hardly lower yourself in his eyes. Know your audience.

He's butthurt because he feels like somehow Abrams would have made more Trek movies a TV series? I find it incredibly unlikely myself that Abrams is going back to TV. Way more money in directing movies. With Roddenberry dead, I'm not sure I would trust anyone to do a TV series. Trek has a long history of tanking TV series. Enterprise could have rocked, but no, they wanted to focus on the temporal war and new races never seen in the other Treks (Denoblians and Suliban and crap).

Live action SW has never been on TV, and frankly is likely a better fit for Abrams than ST anyway. It's really more about the action.

Not sure where I was meaning to go with this... but basically holy crap francis, lighten up. It is just two entertainment franchises.
 
2013-01-27 10:08:57 PM

Kazan: Abram's splinter universe is not the same as the original. things are different. Spock is a bit less in control of himself in this one, and given the circumstances it is even more likely that this was just a temporary lapse of control.


Hence what I was saying about lack of respect for the source material.
 
2013-01-27 10:11:28 PM

Mad_Radhu: ages of characters


All the characters on TOS were played by actors right around about the same age, give or take a couple of years. McCoy was the oldest, as I recall. So what is the problem with them all being the same age again? We know Spock lives well into the TNG era, so there's no reason to assume he was older than Kirk when they served together. It would be weirder if they didn't. Chris Pine is in his early thirties; William Shatner was in his mid-thirties when he played Kirk.

Of all the things to complain about, the age of the characters? WTF?
 
2013-01-27 10:16:14 PM
I've kind of come to detest JJ Abrahms. Lost and Super 8 are the work of a carnival barker who teases you with a web of mysteries and then forgets you after you're inside the tent. Super 8, especially. I saw the movie and thought it was okay, but then later i saw the infamous preview that didn't say a peep about aliens -- it was a scintillating montage of mystery, nostalgia, childhood, magic, spiritual awakening, my god, what unfathomable secrets are buried in this film? It's so tremendous it would burn our faces like the Ark of the Covenant if we dared release it! That! What was that?!

...and then it turned out to be an alien. Kind of a cousin of Cloverfield. Blah. It made me mad. It was a scam.

As for his Star Trek movie, it was slick and fun but now i don't ever think about it and don't really feel like watching it again. Disposable. So now he gets to recreate Star Wars too? Both? That's too much power for one competent but visionless huckster. I don't like it. Oh, god, i can see him now, in interviews, rattling on about how "we wanted to streamline the Star Wars universe, kind of get away from all the mythology and tragedy, and create a new paradigm, something sleeker and hipper, more in tune with today's zeitgeist, with really sharp and penetrating dialogue... i looked at the lightsaber and asked myself, what really is it? Who made it? Probably some 11-year old supergenius from the suburbs of Coruscant, sort of a proto-Steve Jobs, a kid with a lot of spirit and snark, and that was the genesis of the Joe'h Baumer character..."

Maybe i'm wrong. I don't know. I just wish they'd given control of Star Wars to an older, more ponderous director. Ridley Scott or someone.
 
2013-01-27 10:20:30 PM

Boojum2k: gunther_bumpass: dogboy360: Ok, I have to say it.
ST:TOS brought scifi mainstream. Without it SW never could have come about to become what it was.
SW did have an impact on scifi. It helped make scifi stronger in the non-nerd world. Now, scifi is all around us, and has several sub-cultures within it.

/BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?
ST >SW. I still like both.


Yeah.. keep telling yourself that was because of Star Trek, and not a 200 year old Navy tradition. They may have gotten the ball rolling, but if Benedict Arnold had named his ship the Millenium Falcon, I think we all know what that shuttle would have been named.

Variant names considered:
Century Eagle
Eon Hummingbird
Three-minute Egg


I would totally fly in The USS Three Minute Egg.
 
2013-01-27 10:23:45 PM

ELF Radio: I've kind of come to detest JJ Abrahms.
...
Maybe i'm wrong. I don't know. I just wish they'd given control of Star Wars to an older, more ponderous director. Ridley Scott or someone.


Ridley Scott? The man behind Prometheus? You'd rather the guy who promised a crap ton of explanation capping off a series and instead of delivering, gave us one of the worst movies I've had the displeasure of seeing.

I've never seen Lost or Super 8, sounds like a similar promise and lack of delivering, but at least he's got Alias, Fringe, and the ST movie under his belt. Also, don't forget SW isn't about that kind of mystery and intrigue. It's a Space Opera Action series. I'd trust Abrams to SW LONG before Ridley Scott. Are there better directories? Yea, potentially. But anyone I think, there are probably issues with. Maybe Joss Whedon? But only after I get my Dr Horrible 2. I dunno, I can't saw I'm displeased about it being Abrams. Had they announced Michael Bay or M Night Shamalama Dingdog I'd have been pissed.
 
2013-01-27 10:25:34 PM

mjbok: Kazan: Abram's splinter universe is not the same as the original. things are different. Spock is a bit less in control of himself in this one, and given the circumstances it is even more likely that this was just a temporary lapse of control.

Hence what I was saying about lack of respect for the source material.


i think you're just being Comic Book Guy here. given the circumstances spock being not entirely in control of himself is completely understandable. especially since kirk and Spock are [appear to be] younger than they were in TOS
 
2013-01-27 10:25:35 PM

rickycal78: dogboy360: Mad_Radhu: dogboy360: Confabulat: dogboy360: BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise"

Yeah, but that shuttle boldly stayed on Earth.

Well, it did fly (just never left the atmosphere).

There was also that whole Star Wars weapons program thing. Of course that didn't get into space, either.

Ok, I will give you that. But Nobody wanted that. Even now, that was a stupid idea. Yes, there are defence contractors that are trying to make something like that work. But, it was a misnomer from the beginning.

The hell we didn't want it! And of course they called it Star Wars, you didn't expect them to call it "Death Star" did you?


It was a gift to the contractors. A very large money gift. It was a pipe dream even on the 80's.
Naming the thing "Star Wars" was a way of framing a concept that people could pretend that was wanted. A new hope. (bad pun intended)
 
2013-01-27 10:27:11 PM

ELF Radio: I just wish they'd given control of Star Wars to an older, more ponderous director. Ridley Scott or someone.


LOL. I disagree with the rest of what you wrote but to be fair, I'd pay to see that.
 
2013-01-27 10:35:51 PM
Your first mistake was actually liking what Abrams did to Star Trek. You should be glad he's moved on to a different franchise and will no longer be ramming his sans-lube hand into Trek.
 
2013-01-27 10:39:37 PM

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


I absolutely understand your criticisms of Abrams' reboot, but this is a totally inappropriate screenshot to support your point - you're showing precisely the point in the movie where Spock loses control of his emotions, for which he (logically) declares himself unfit to command. While I agree with your points by and large, this 'example' is patently ass-backwards.
 
2013-01-27 10:41:09 PM

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.
 
2013-01-27 10:42:14 PM

BumpInTheNight: You really need to read that entire thing in Comic Book Guy's voice, is sooo much better.

Here, I'll get you started:
[goodcomics.comicbookresources.com image 289x229]


Thanks. That helped.
 
2013-01-27 10:44:16 PM

mjbok: That means that Chekov is 14.


Why is Chekov 14? Walter Koenig is the same age as George Takei.
 
2013-01-27 10:46:50 PM

Hitomi Tanaka's Paperweights: I absolutely understand your criticisms of Abrams' reboot, but this is a totally inappropriate screenshot to support your point - you're showing precisely the point in the movie where Spock loses control of his emotions, for which he (logically) declares himself unfit to command. While I agree with your points by and large, this 'example' is patently ass-backwards.


Thanks for the first part. In TOS (and TNG plus movies) how many times did Spock lose his shiat? The only time I can remember was on the planet with the flowers and that was a result of the spores influencing him. A better example for the new movie would be him getting Uhura out of her panties, because outside of PonFar (sp?) this wouldn't have happened for any Vulcans in the original universe. While it is logical that she gets his Vulcan dick hard, that's not the way it works in the established universe. 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.
 
2013-01-27 10:47:13 PM

mjbok: That means that Chekov's parents and their sperm/egg combination was exactly the same 3 years later in the altverse.


No, because Chekov looks different.

And you're really pushing it. Did you get upset when the Enterprise slingshotted around the sun to get to 1985?

No? Then get over yourself.
 
2013-01-27 10:47:40 PM

mjbok: This is Spock being logical in TOS:
[www.call-with-current-continuation.org image 391x353]

This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:
[popreflection.files.wordpress.com image 790x444]


You know, even in the movie itself Older Spock (Nimoy) told Kirk to go push Younger Spock's buttons. Because he's a broken man. It also serves as a semi-plausible explanation as to how Kirk got control of the ship again.

The original series had Spock as half-human (lolwut); this version just underscored that. So why the butthurt?

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to make fun of in the new Trek: The USS Apple Store with its Clearly-A-Warehouse Super Mario Brothers Engine Room and the campy script. Spock losing his cool after being provoked over a larger-than-life personal loss was one of the better touches.

I also liked the "handgun" phasers with their pistol-slide action :P

You're not going to get "Original Trek", by the way. The Original Series cribbed a lot from the Twilight Zone -- Rod Sterling's use of sci-fi to exorcise his demons over being a young trooper in World War II. That kind of morality play has fallen out of style.
 
2013-01-27 10:47:43 PM
Star Wars and Star Trek were great. But they are done. Time for someone to create a new franchise to take their place.

/rebooting has only worked once
//result = one great series + 1,000,000 crappy series/films
 
2013-01-27 10:48:16 PM

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.
 
2013-01-27 10:49:46 PM

Confabulat: Why is Chekov 14? Walter Koenig is the same age as George Takei.


Chekov was born in 2245. Kirk was born in 2233. This is only for the original universe. It's not the relative age of the actors, it's the relative ages of the characters. Just like how in one movie (not Trek) Sally Field played Tom Hanks girlfriend, and a decade later she played his mother.
 
2013-01-27 10:51:48 PM

mjbok: Chekov was born in 2245. Kirk was born in 2233. This is only for the original universe. It's not the relative age of the actors, it's the relative ages of the characters.


Ugh, well if it means so much to you that you've memorized the birthdays of the crew, then I defer to you. And may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2013-01-27 10:52:48 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Star Wars and Star Trek were great. But they are done. Time for someone to create a new franchise to take their place.

/rebooting has only worked once
//result = one great series + 1,000,000 crappy series/films


LIsten. Franchises are big money. Don't be a cock-blocker.

/I agree with you 100%
 
2013-01-27 10:53:25 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to make fun of in the new Trek: The USS Apple Store with its Clearly-A-Warehouse Super Mario Brothers Engine Room and the campy script. Spock losing his cool after being provoked over a larger-than-life personal loss was one of the better touches.


The bigger issue with the engine room scene was being able to transport from huge distances onto a ship traveling at warp speed.

Honestly I'm not the biggest Trek fan (liked TOS some, thought some of TNG was brilliant, and didn't really see much of the others), but like with Doctor Who it bothers me when something has literally decades of established stuff and someone new takes it over and shiats all over it.
 
2013-01-27 10:55:28 PM
I've decided that everything Jar-Jar Abrams turns to shiat.

Lost took a good premise and ended up shiatting all over it.

Alias had good mysteries with stupid resolutions (just like Lost).

Revolution is farking retarded. Don't get me started on Alcatraz. Fringe was pretty stupid too.

Star Trek 2009 was a dumb, forgettable action movie. Face it.

Star Wars 7 is gonna suck ass if prior trends hold. But I'll still pay to see it...
 
2013-01-27 10:55:59 PM
Why didn't Nero just try to stop his planet from getting blown up in the first place? Rather than some stupid irrational revenge scheme against people who don't even know why he's PO'ed, he could be out there laying the groundwork to keep his people safe.

And why did Sulu have a lightsaber?
 
2013-01-27 10:56:27 PM

Confabulat: Ugh, well if it means so much to you that you've memorized the birthdays of the crew, then I defer to you. And may God have mercy on your soul.


I looked them up. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty were always kind of the elder statesmen with Chekov and Sulu being younger which is why them all being at the academy together struck me as odd.
 
2013-01-27 10:56:52 PM

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.


Star Wars IS a dumb action movie, though. So I actually have hope for the next movie because of this.
 
2013-01-27 10:58:03 PM

Mike Chewbacca: 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.

Star Wars IS a dumb action movie, though. So I actually have hope for the next movie because of this.


You raise a good point...
 
2013-01-27 10:58:57 PM

elchip: I've decided that everything Jar-Jar Abrams turns to shiat.

Lost took a good premise and ended up shiatting all over it.

Alias had good mysteries with stupid resolutions (just like Lost).

Revolution is farking retarded. Don't get me started on Alcatraz. Fringe was pretty stupid too.

Star Trek 2009 was a dumb, forgettable action movie. Face it.

Star Wars 7 is gonna suck ass if prior trends hold. But I'll still pay to see it...


Actually, regarding the TV shows, everything JJ Abrams touches starts out good and then he ditches it and then it becomes crap.
He had nothing to do with Lost after the first season.
He already abandoned Revolution, I think after the 1st episode.
 
2013-01-27 11:14:34 PM
If he puts in a fifteen-minute scene with the original Star Wars cast pummeling Jar Jar Binks to death with gaderffii sticks, I'll be OK with whatever else he does. Think Joe Pesci at the end of Casino. Kind of like that.
 
2013-01-27 11:23:47 PM

GreenAdder: Why didn't Nero just try to stop his planet from getting blown up in the first place? Rather than some stupid irrational revenge scheme against people who don't even know why he's PO'ed, he could be out there laying the groundwork to keep his people safe.

And why did Sulu have a lightsaber?


That was pretty much the whole point, Nero was irrational. To everyone else it was obviously all about revenge. In his head it was Spocks fault it happened and he can only avert the tragedy by eliminating both Spoke and the Federation.

And because Sulu is awesome.
 
2013-01-27 11:24:08 PM
>Trekkie explains why he's butthurt over the Star Wars directing announcement

Because "butthurt" is the reflexive reaction to ANY news about Star Wars.
 
2013-01-27 11:27:09 PM

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?


While I agree with you there. Keep in mind those movies had the foundation of a series. This new star trek was a fresh reboot with no foundation since they did that weird dimension altering bs. So it's just dumb space action movie with little ties to what made people like star trek to begin with.
Hint: it wasn't dumb space explosions and one liners
 
2013-01-27 11:28:21 PM
It could be worse. McG and Ewe Boll could team up and form the Wonder Twin, shape of MEGASUCK
 
2013-01-27 11:29:08 PM
I just figured any reaction to Abrams leaving Star Trek would be met with patronizing sarcasm.

"Oh, no, JJ...  pleeeease don't leave Star Trek. The universe needs your 'contributions'  sooooo badly. We just don't know how we're ever going to get along without your  absolute genius. That first movie of yours was  such an original idea, and this new sequel of yours looks like it's going to be your best work ever. It just won't be the same if some other director takes over..."
 
2013-01-27 11:29:14 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-27 11:33:03 PM

mjbok: Thanks for the first part. In TOS (and TNG plus movies) how many times did Spock lose his shiat? The only time I can remember was on the planet with the flowers and that was a result of the spores influencing him. A better example for the new movie would be him getting Uhura out of her panties, because outside of PonFar (sp?) this wouldn't have happened for any Vulcans in the original universe. While it is logical that she gets his Vulcan dick hard, that's not the way it works in the established universe. 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.


Absolutely, as I said before I definitely agree with most of your points. I think, ultimately, I'm just more forgiving of a 'reboot' than many other people, but I think I can almost-kinda-sorta understand some of the logic behind it.

My feeling has been that many reboots are motivated by the need to recalibrate of lot of emotional, political, or other content, for a new, younger, and differently-wired audience. You even hint at this with the words "Loveless (in the way we understand it)". Lovelessness could have a very different meaning to those who grew up in post-Leave it to Beaver era than those who grew up in the plastic 80s to those growing up today, and this is probably true of any cultural, emotional, psychological 'element' of a story, character, or world. As an example, the first film that popped into my mind for the word "lovelessness" was Ordinary People, whereas I would assume a younger person's first association would be something quite different. Perhaps if we explored it, that younger person and I would discover we have very different definitions of lovelessness, precisely because the nature and social mores of love are so different for each one of us. The times they are a-changin' and all that...

I think reboots become necessary when the emotional contexts of the audience have changed enough over time that the implications, undercurrents, and feel of a movie/world are no longer quite in line with their original intentions. For what it's worth, I think Abrams actually did that rather admirably with Star Trek... but I would have to admit that's because I also feel, as all old farts do, that the next generations of audience are necessarily more small-minded and emotionally stunted even than my own. (Which, of course, is always wrong and never fair. But ain't that the fun of being an old fart?)

In other words, the old Spock, if he were to preserved absolutely true to his 'original' form, would simply not mean the same to today's audience, because their very understanding of logic, emotionless, and all the mind/heart dichotomy and debate that Spock's character represented to the older generation is not and cannot be interpreted in the same way by people who grew up in a vastly different world, with vastly different social rules of interaction and exposure.

Or perhaps you'd agree with me on this: the old Spock, it was all the years of the character's 'coldness' and logic that made the great phrase, "I have been, and will always be, your friend" so powerful. Coming from a character who never expressed things in this way, these were immensely powerful words (to me, the definition of the early series in a lot of ways). The new Spock... those words would not be so unusual, so telling, simply because they are not quite so against the grain of the character's already-established behavior.
/yes I've been drinking, I don't write this much about Star Trek otherwise
 
2013-01-27 11:36:09 PM
Think of it like this:

A guy comes over to your house and breaks your TV. Twice. And suddenly you get a letter in the mail. It's from the guy, telling you he's tired of breaking your TV. He'd rather go over to a different house, because he found out they have a much more expensive TV to break.

Would you miss the guy? Would you feel slighted at his absence? Would you feel betrayed that suddenly you might have a different guest who treats your TV with care and respect?
 
2013-01-27 11:37:40 PM
It's more like he went to the prom with two dates while you stood awkwardly in the corner and acted all angst-y and mad that you got friend-zoned by both of them.
 
2013-01-27 11:38:06 PM

Craps the Gorilla: This new star trek was a fresh reboot with no foundation since they did that weird dimension altering bs.


Personally, I think that was a stroke of genius--and pretty much the only one in the new movie. In that respect Abrams didn't "ruin" Star Trek because the original timeline remains untouched. In fact, it's MUCH better than Kirk's crappy death in Generations.

But I agree with you on the rest.
 
2013-01-27 11:39:28 PM

mjbok: This is not a mirror universe (lack of goatees), but a deviation of the original timeline. It is, at its core, stupid.


Not sure if trolling (goatees), but the argument (while stupid) could be legit...
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-27 11:42:40 PM
I still think they should have hired Woody Allen to do Star Wars.
 
2013-01-27 11:49:30 PM

Hitomi Tanaka's Paperweights: In other words, the old Spock, if he were to preserved absolutely true to his 'original' form, would simply not mean the same to today's audience, because their very understanding of logic, emotionless, and all the mind/heart dichotomy and debate that Spock's character represented to the older generation is not and cannot be interpreted in the same way by people who grew up in a vastly different world, with vastly different social rules of interaction and exposure.


I know this is kind of middle ground between the original Spock and the new Spock, but Data was really Spock 2.0. Rather than having lack of emotion be a race character trait it was due to him being an android, but it was the same vein, with a different background. By making the new Spock be "updated" it makes him less a Vulcan and more like someone with Aspergers, or someone like Sheldon on BBT.
I honestly think that the movie could have been called Star Trek and had the exact same plot (with one minor exception) and it wouldn't have bothered me. There's no reason for it to be Kirk, Spock, Scotty, etc. Especially when changing character traits there was no reason (other than name recognition) to not have had it be different characters in the same universe. You can't say it wouldn't work, as TNG and DS9 both were successful and are still talked about and outside of an unrecognizable McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint there were no TOS characters until season 4 or 5. It was lazy IMHO.

//Star Trek is one of very few (movie) series that I have seen all of them in the theater (Star Wars, Star Trek, Die Hard, Indiana Jones are the only ones).
 
2013-01-27 11:50:10 PM
I'd love to see Ron Howard directs a Star Wars. He has experience with big FX but I think his strength lies with the character development and getting a good performance from his cast
 
2013-01-27 11:52:47 PM

Brainsick: Not sure if trolling (goatees)


Tried to find a troll picture with a goatee, but couldn't. That was supposed to be a joke (though it is the obvious visual tell they've used.)
 
2013-01-27 11:57:36 PM
Star Trek has always tried to be science fiction narrowly defined, with nothing magic or supernatural, at least until DS9. Star Wars has always been fantasy set in space. I doubt that one man directing both franchises can please their fanboys, but may be able to entertain the general public, which is the whole point of the entertainment industry.
 
2013-01-28 12:09:56 AM

GreenAdder: Think of it like this:

A guy comes over to your house and breaks your TV. Twice. And suddenly you get a letter in the mail. It's from the guy, telling you he's tired of breaking your TV. He'd rather go over to a different house, because he found out they have a much more expensive TV to break.

Would you miss the guy? Would you feel slighted at his absence? Would you feel betrayed that suddenly you might have a different guest who treats your TV with care and respect?


You're not helping my cabin fever. Comments like this usually remind me to shut off the computer and go do something outside.

/f*king January
 
2013-01-28 12:10:41 AM

mjbok: I know this is kind of middle ground between the original Spock and the new Spock, but Data was really Spock 2.0. Rather than having lack of emotion be a race character trait it was due to him being an android, but it was the same vein, with a different background. By making the new Spock be "updated" it makes him less a Vulcan and more like someone with Aspergers, or someone like Sheldon on BBT.


Before we continue, I just want to quickly say your knowledge of Star Trek really shows through and it's been a pleasure discussing the series with someone who cares about it so much - love it or hate it, I always thought ST was great for conversation-fodder, and it's been cool hearing your thoughts on it.

As for Data... I always regret I didn't like TNG better and get to know those characters. When it first came out, damned if I didn't recognize Brent Spiner from his part-time character in Night Court, and that really threw me off. Also, I often felt they fell down the Tin Man trap ("if I only had a heart") too easily with Data, though I understand over time he did become a deeper and more interesting character.

(Brent Spiner on Night Court: http://youtu.be/aCUsTGtpojA - the quote at 1:37 still makes me laugh to this day)
 
2013-01-28 12:13:18 AM
drop some acid and go bar hopping in a pair of assless leather chaps, it will do you a world of good. expand your horizons a bit, know what i mean.
 
2013-01-28 12:14:16 AM

Kazan: mjbok: ...

This is Spock being logical in TOS:
[www.call-with-current-continuation.org image 391x353]

This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:
[popreflection.files.wordpress.com image 790x444]

Abram's splinter universe is not the same as the original. things are different. Spock is a bit less in control of himself in this one, and given the circumstances it is even more likely that this was just a temporary lapse of control.


It's not a splinter universe. He may call it that, but under the long-established rules in the way Trek handles time travel, it isn't.

Star Trek has had several time-travel stories in which characters traveled into the past, and they traveled to the past of the main Trek timeline and drastically altered the present. They did not spin off an alternate timeline!

Parallel timelines do exist in Trek (Mirror Universe, "Parallels" TNG episode, etc.), but not as the result of time travel.

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.).

Kirk, Spock, etc. only exist in the Abrams universe because they had already been conceived before the alteration, so the circumstances leading to said conception remained unaltered. But everything past that, starting with the birth of Kirk, was altered at least slightly, and drastically indeed once Vulcan was destroyed.

Nothing past that point can happen the way it did. Anyone with any connection to the Federation who was conceived after the destruction of Vulcan would be unlikely to ever exist, as the odds of the circumstances leading to the exact same sperm meeting the exact same ovum still happening unchanged would be miniscule indeed, and getting exponentially smaller as time passes from that point.

So, Picard, Riker, Data, Wesley (hi, Wheaton!), LaForge, O'Brien, etc. never existed (actually, for similar reasons, Wesley shouldn't've existed in "Yesterday's Enterprise," either, but I digress). Lwaxanna Troi might have, but not Denna's father and thus Denna herself. Worf might've been conceived (unlikely given the Klingon Empire's relationship with the Federation), but would not have been raised by humans and would never join Starfleet. Of course Guinan existed, but never met Picard and so never had reason to be a bartender on a Starfleet starship.

None of the main human (including part-human) characters of Deep Space Nine would exist either. Ditto Voyager. The characters native to the Delta Quadrant, yes.

All Trek series except (gag!) Enterprise are undone. The TOS characters exist, but as Old Spock himself said, their destinies are irrevocably altered. The same things will not happen to them as happened in TOS.

Even most of the novels are undone ― even novel series such as Peter David's New Frontier books that are tangential to the Trekverse and Federation are undone. Warlord M'k'n'zy of Calhoun would exist, but would never have become Captain Mackenzie Calhoun. Ditto Zak Kebron, Burgoyne 192, Ensign Janos, Si Cwan, Moke, etc.. The more Federation-connected characters (Elizabeth Shelby, Robin Leffler, Selar, Mark McHenry, Soleta, etc.) would never exist (even though those last two were novel-only characters, they were both conceived in the Federation long after when the destruction of Vulcan would happen in the Abrams-altered timestream).

Trek fans realize this. Sales of Trek novels dropped so drastically following the Abrams movie that the novel franchise itself is in danger. Why bother to read stories that "never happened" even in the fictional universe?
 
2013-01-28 12:18:48 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.).


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-28 12:22:47 AM

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]

COMALite J: Nothing past that point can happen the way it did


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

however spock (the elder)'s knowledge gives the federation a huge distinct advantage. if he shares what he knows they'll jump 100 years in technology.
 
2013-01-28 12:25:37 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?


They were endlessly quotable to the point of reaching cultural saturation, you mong.
 
2013-01-28 12:27:00 AM
There's a lot of arguing over something that just isn't that important. I'm a TOS Trekkie, but enjoyed all the spin-offs as well. When I got wind of Abram's reboot, I wanted to see it out of curiosity, but knew before going into it that it would never actually be "Star Trek." So I never really considered it as part of the Star Trek universe. It's easy enough to ignore it, so who cares?
 
2013-01-28 12:28:12 AM
No amount of lens flare could possibly make a new Star Wars sequel worse that episodes 1-3.
 
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.
 
2013-01-28 08:05:02 AM
I am more of a Trekker but thought that JJ Abrahams should have done Star Wars being Fantasy sci-fi.

Now I read many Star Wars people don't want JJ Abrahams in their franchise.

Is it possible only the people who want to make money by expanding their audience want JJ Abrahams on their favorite Sci-fi universe?

/Can JJ Abrahams also do a Stargate movie, just because he should be involved in anything and everything science-fiction. I would like all science-fiction to look and taste like the very same thing.
 
2013-01-28 08:08:29 AM
mjbok:
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

This is Spock being logical in TOS:
[www.call-with-current-continuation.org image 391x353]

This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:
[popreflection.files.wordpress.com image 790x444]


yeah... we all know spock never lost his shiat in TOS...
3.bp.blogspot.com
and of course he never choked Kirk over something trivial, like a piece of ass...
ic.pics.livejournal.com
 
2013-01-28 08:18:23 AM
"The point I'm making is that, laugh all you want, Star Trek isn't just a show (and movie series and books and games and comics and bulletin boards) - it is a part of my life. I am closer to it than to some of my cousins."

Much like furries and those 'special' individuals who froth at the brain over My Little Pony, this behaviour should not be tolerated when exhibited by adults. It should be taken as a desperate plea for castration.

Star Wars/Star Trek/Who Cares... Its all mindless low-brow entertainment with all the cultural depth and entertainment value of a dissatisfying bowel movement.
 
2013-01-28 08:20:59 AM
 Now That's What I Call a Taco!: 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....


It's a great action movie. I'll readily acknowledge that. But in seeking out popularity, it lost its soul. As Star Trek, it utterly sucks. The Original Series wasn't perfect- far from it. But it explored ideas and discussed real issues on television. That's what made it interesting, that's what made it different. There was action mixed in, but the show was driven by ideas and discussion. It was about our faults and failings as individuals and as a society. The JJ Abrams movie was about flashy lights.
 
2013-01-28 08:23:30 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: Star Wars/Star Trek/Who Cares... Its all mindless low-brow entertainment with all the cultural depth and entertainment value of a dissatisfying bowel movement.


Both sides are bad, so vote republican?

Star Trek caught on because it was precisely NOT mindless low-brow entertainment. Star Wars caught on precisely because it was mindless low-brow entertainment, but a very well done example of it.
 
2013-01-28 08:24:15 AM
conceptart.org
 
2013-01-28 08:52:58 AM

cptjeff: It's a great action movie. I'll readily acknowledge that. But in seeking out popularity, it lost its soul. As Star Trek, it utterly sucks. The Original Series wasn't perfect- far from it. But it explored ideas and discussed real issues on television. That's what made it interesting, that's what made it different. There was action mixed in, but the show was driven by ideas and discussion. It was about our faults and failings as individuals and as a society. The JJ Abrams movie was about flashy lights.


The series may have been like that but none of the movies were.
 
2013-01-28 08:55:30 AM

Egoy3k: cptjeff: It's a great action movie. I'll readily acknowledge that. But in seeking out popularity, it lost its soul. As Star Trek, it utterly sucks. The Original Series wasn't perfect- far from it. But it explored ideas and discussed real issues on television. That's what made it interesting, that's what made it different. There was action mixed in, but the show was driven by ideas and discussion. It was about our faults and failings as individuals and as a society. The JJ Abrams movie was about flashy lights.

The series may have been like that but none of the movies were.


Oh I dunno...TMP, 4, 5 and 6 tried to be more 'original series' I think. Then they figured out most moviegoing audiences weren't very smart so PEWPEWPEWPEWPEW
 
2013-01-28 08:59:22 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.).


How do you know there isn't a parallel timeline where the status quo remains?  We're only privy to the new timeline, that doesn't mean the original timeline doesn't exist.
 
2013-01-28 09:00:31 AM
So, TFA, if you're calling Star Wars the hotter girl, does this mean you're admitting it's better than Star Trek?

/minor Trekkie
//I'll watch Star Wars, but I couldn't really be called a fan
 
2013-01-28 09:20:23 AM

You Are All Sheep: Egoy3k: cptjeff: It's a great action movie. I'll readily acknowledge that. But in seeking out popularity, it lost its soul. As Star Trek, it utterly sucks. The Original Series wasn't perfect- far from it. But it explored ideas and discussed real issues on television. That's what made it interesting, that's what made it different. There was action mixed in, but the show was driven by ideas and discussion. It was about our faults and failings as individuals and as a society. The JJ Abrams movie was about flashy lights.

The series may have been like that but none of the movies were.

Oh I dunno...TMP, 4, 5 and 6 tried to be more 'original series' I think. Then they figured out most moviegoing audiences weren't very smart so PEWPEWPEWPEWPEW


Watch Wrath of Khan again- action and deeper thought aren't mutually exclusive. Wrath of Kahn had a lot to it- it was about aging, loss, and Kirk's avoidance and fear of consequences finally catching up with him. It wasn't just an action flick. Search for Spock was loyalty, competing duties, and finally accepting responsibility. Not all of the original movies were about socio-political issues- some were introspective looks at the human condition, but all had a decent amount of meat to them.

The TOS movies, as a whole, did a VERY good job of blending serious topics in with the action and fun. Most of the TNG movies utterly failed at that, and JJTrek failed spectacularly.
 
2013-01-28 09:23:38 AM

cptjeff: It's a great action movie. I'll readily acknowledge that. But in seeking out popularity, it lost its soul.


Dude, can you get any more hipster?
 
2013-01-28 09:35:33 AM

Millennium: cptjeff: It's a great action movie. I'll readily acknowledge that. But in seeking out popularity, it lost its soul.

Dude, can you get any more hipster?


I'm not a hipster. Hipsters are morons who like things precisely because they're obscure, so they can have some street cred for faux sophistication. I, on the other hand, could give a shiat if things I like are popular or not. I do, however, care if, in an attempt to be more broadly appealing, they compromise their product. In seeking a larger, more dumbed down audience, they got rid of what made me and people like me like the Star Trek franchise in the first place.
 
2013-01-28 09:36:00 AM

dogboy360: /BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?


Eh, you might want to check where that "Enterprise" name came from.
 
2013-01-28 09:38:02 AM
I have a bad feeling about this.............
 
2013-01-28 09:45:12 AM

Kyosuke: Imagine the lens flares you can get from two suns!


/thread
 
2013-01-28 09:58:35 AM

StrangeQ: dogboy360: /BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?

Eh, you might want to check where that "Enterprise" name came from.


StrangeQ: dogboy360: /BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?

Eh, you might want to check where that "Enterprise" name came from.


You're the one who needs to do a little checking. It was originally going to be named the Constitution. Star Trek fans orchestrated a campaign to get it named after the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701.

The Star Trek ship was named after the naval vessels. The Shuttle, however, was named after the Star Trek ship.
 
2013-01-28 10:00:05 AM
Enough Star Trek and Star Wars could we get a big budget Dune reboot now?
 
2013-01-28 10:21:57 AM

RTOGUY: Enough Star Trek and Star Wars could we get a big budget Dune reboot now?


That worked out so well before....How about no.
 
2013-01-28 10:26:38 AM

GreenAdder: Your first mistake was actually liking what Abrams did to Star Trek. You should be glad he's moved on to a different franchise and will no longer be ramming his sans-lube hand into Trek.


More of my nerdrage is focused on what Berman & Braga did to Trek than Abrams...

/ although I did like DS9
 
2013-01-28 10:30:51 AM

slayer199: RTOGUY: Enough Star Trek and Star Wars could we get a big budget Dune reboot now?

That worked out so well before....How about no.


I think it could work now. If The Hobbit can get three movies, surely Hollywood can be convinced to give Dune the time it needs to be done right.
 
2013-01-28 10:34:22 AM

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


The Trekkies have been trolled, they just haven't figured it out yet.
Abrams Trek is more like a parody than actual film
 
2013-01-28 10:36:45 AM

Ishkur: 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



I quoted this so I wouldn't have to type the same damn thing myself. Thank you.

Fano: I was just asking a few questions...


+1,000,000 internets for posting a Columbo reference, and one that made me laugh, at that.
 
2013-01-28 10:42:19 AM
Star Trek isn't just a show (and movie series and books and games and comics and bulletin boards) - it is a part of my life. I am closer to it than to some of my cousins.

I've met most of my cousins perhaps one time in our entire lives; I could name perhaps two of my cousins if I thought about it for a while.

So, I can safely say that I'm closer to Star Trek than I am to any of my cousins. In particular, I can name some of the folks in Star Trek. For example, there's Spock, Captain Kirk, Dr. Bones, and that one Korean gay guy who caught some sort of nuclear blood vessel disease that made him talk funny.
 
2013-01-28 10:51:20 AM
Dear Jen,


Sorry I left with Cindy. She was hotter than you, hot to trot, and a better kisser than you. Besides I had to save her from that young minister wannabe who she was with. I know it was wrong of me. It's been 17 years, so STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

Best regards,
 
2013-01-28 10:51:49 AM

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


Oh noes! You'll never be able to go back the old shows again.

I mean, seriously, dude... it's a campy show from the late '60s that had the guy from priceline.com go around and boink a lot of green alien chicks. Who cares?
If you want to complain about a movie destroying a universe, you should complain about Django Unchained. It absolutely ruined Wagner's Ring Cycle for me, because Siegfried and Brünhilda never had dynamite and dancing horses!
 
2013-01-28 11:00:44 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!


img.gawkerassets.com
It's already happening


/wibbly wobbly
//timey wimey
 
2013-01-28 11:14:56 AM

Infernalist:

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 ...


Meh, I've been a casual fan of the series, and cannot argue birthdays or relative ages of characters. I didn't really like the reboot movie because of how the main plot made the command crew almost an impossibility, and then had to come up with a contrived way to put Kirk in charge.

TOS Kirk came up fast and became captain young, through heroics and being in the right place at the right time. Reboot Kirk ended up being promoted from cadet to captain for no reason other than Kirk has to be the captain, to hell with any type of progressive rank structure. And it was just through shiatty writing that it turned out that way.
 
2013-01-28 11:43:57 AM

Mad_Radhu: think it could work now. If The Hobbit can get three movies, surely Hollywood can be convinced to give Dune the time it needs to be done right.


You'd think.  I'm a fan of the novels, but much like Tolkien's works, I don't think they could do it justice in 2 hours...they'd have to make it a trilogy...and that would be just for the original Dune.

The Dune mini-series was pretty decent (and closer to the novel), but the Dino De Laurentiis movie was horrible (they Director's Cut is better, but it was still a mess).
 
2013-01-28 11:50:29 AM

lizyrd: TOS Kirk came up fast and became captain young, through heroics and being in the right place at the right time. Reboot Kirk ended up being promoted from cadet to captain for no reason other than Kirk has to be the captain, to hell with any type of progressive rank structure. And it was just through shiatty writing that it turned out that way.


Well, he was promoted to Acting 2nd in command by Captain Pike (one could argue, that Pike recognized early on that Kirk had ability and sought to challenge him).  He was promoted to acting Captain after Spock resigned his commission.  Because he was successful and earned the respect of his crew, one could argue that the command decided to keep him in place.

Hell, if you go back to TNG (and yes, I realize that TNG was after TOS) when Q described how Picard seized the moments that made his career in Tapestry, one could argue that that this was more of a policy than an aberration.

There's something in movies and novels called suspension of disbelief...and one could make a plausible enough of a case to suspend disbelief.
 
2013-01-28 11:54:56 AM

slayer199: lizyrd: TOS Kirk came up fast and became captain young, through heroics and being in the right place at the right time. Reboot Kirk ended up being promoted from cadet to captain for no reason other than Kirk has to be the captain, to hell with any type of progressive rank structure. And it was just through shiatty writing that it turned out that way.

Well, he was promoted to Acting 2nd in command by Captain Pike (one could argue, that Pike recognized early on that Kirk had ability and sought to challenge him).  He was promoted to acting Captain after Spock resigned his commission.  Because he was successful and earned the respect of his crew, one could argue that the command decided to keep him in place.

Hell, if you go back to TNG (and yes, I realize that TNG was after TOS) when Q described how Picard seized the moments that made his career in Tapestry, one could argue that that this was more of a policy than an aberration.

There's something in movies and novels called suspension of disbelief...and one could make a plausible enough of a case to suspend disbelief.


You could also make an argument based upon a timeline that has been altered attempting to 'repair' itself to what it should have been. Yeah that seems pretty stupid but viewers people tend to forget the fiction part of science fiction as often as writers forget the science part.
 
2013-01-28 11:59:02 AM

slayer199: lizyrd: TOS Kirk came up fast and became captain young, through heroics and being in the right place at the right time. Reboot Kirk ended up being promoted from cadet to captain for no reason other than Kirk has to be the captain, to hell with any type of progressive rank structure. And it was just through shiatty writing that it turned out that way.

Well, he was promoted to Acting 2nd in command by Captain Pike (one could argue, that Pike recognized early on that Kirk had ability and sought to challenge him).  He was promoted to acting Captain after Spock resigned his commission.  Because he was successful and earned the respect of his crew, one could argue that the command decided to keep him in place.

Hell, if you go back to TNG (and yes, I realize that TNG was after TOS) when Q described how Picard seized the moments that made his career in Tapestry, one could argue that that this was more of a policy than an aberration.

There's something in movies and novels called suspension of disbelief...and one could make a plausible enough of a case to suspend disbelief.


There's something called suspension of disbelief, and then there's, "BECAUSE MAGIC, SO SIT DOWN AND SHADDUP!". Large portions of JJTrek fall into the later category.
 
2013-01-28 12:27:04 PM

mjbok: 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.


As a life long Star Trek fan myself, I have to say

images.sodahead.com

Seriously, it is not in any way critical, or even remotely important, to the plot what their birthdate is. Who their parents are? Sure, that could be important. If some characters had a vast difference in age that defined their relationship? Yeah, it would suck if what was supposed to be a much older and wiser character became a same-age wise cracking sidekick.

But the characters are all generally the same age in the source. Chekov being 3 years older in the new one?

You aren't arguing about actual plot or characterization, you're arguing about trivia. Yes, I understand it is highly nerdly to care deeply about trivia, but you need to understand that trivia does not make a story good or bad.
 
2013-01-28 12:31:57 PM
God, I hope Abrams gets Lindelof to write the script.
 
2013-01-28 12:45:04 PM

cptjeff: There's something called suspension of disbelief, and then there's, "BECAUSE MAGIC, SO SIT DOWN AND SHADDUP!". Large portions of JJTrek fall into the later category.


Guess what, it's not real.  Quibbling over the reality and plausibility of science fiction is inherently goofy...because it doesn't matter.  What DOES matter are the characters...and many people probably feel the characters are true enough to the original series.
 
2013-01-28 01:03:43 PM

Mad_Radhu: /Bonus: Kurtwood Smith was the Federation President


How in the hell did I miss that?
 
2013-01-28 01:08:23 PM
I for one HATED the constant high-brow moral dilemma bullshiat of the Star Trek franchise. fark you, Wesley Crusher, and every single boring plot you ever entered. The new Star Trek movie was the ONLY entertaining entry since First Contact, and it blew First Contact out of the water.

We want a funny action thriller set in the Star Trek universe, with beloved characters providing great dialogue and comedic elements. Abrams is the best thing to happen to Star Trek since Patrick Stewart.

And YES, I'm looking forward to Star Wars by Abrams. Now I have hope that he'll actually coax a decent acting performance out of someone...anyone? Star Wars could use some charisma, and it hasn't had a single drop of it since Harrison Ford departed the franchise.
 
2013-01-28 01:26:06 PM
While I would have loved a sequel immediately I kept quiet when Abrams went off and did Super 8.

Yeah, because sequels where they rush 'em out the door are SO good. This moron understands that the director doesn't write, greenlight, fund and produce the movie, right?
 
2013-01-28 01:27:47 PM

Kyosuke: Imagine the lens flares you can get from two suns!


You know, I'd like to give a big ol' fark you to the fark community for bringing that up. I was able to ignore it before, and lens flare DOES have a place, but yeah, he uses it like people used coke in the 80's. Now I can't watch a movie with gratuitous lens flare without being horribly distracted.
 
2013-01-28 01:29:12 PM

Boojum2k: Variant names considered:
Century Eagle
Eon Hummingbird
Three-minute Egg


I'm with the other guy, I'd fly on the USS Three Minute Egg in a heartbeat...
 
2013-01-28 01:30:09 PM

enochianwolf: 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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale 

Star Trek is just barely a Type 1 society. Only beginning to fully use an entire planet's energy and branching into their own solar system while exploring beyond it.
Star Wars is a Type 2 or 3 society. They use entire solar systems. Light speed travel in personal vehicles.

It'd be like today's US Navy engaging the Spanish Armada in 1650.
 
2013-01-28 01:32:37 PM

born_yesterday: God, I hope Abrams gets Lindelof to write the script.


"This movie isn't about answers as much as it's about asking questions."
 
2013-01-28 01:43:26 PM

lizyrd: TOS Kirk came up fast and became captain young, through heroics and being in the right place at the right time. Reboot Kirk ended up being promoted from cadet to captain for no reason other than Kirk has to be the captain, to hell with any type of progressive rank structure. And it was just through shiatty writing that it turned out that way.


It was a bit of a stretch for him to still be a cadet, but battlefield promotions are pretty common, especially after a lot of the leadership has been wiped out. Just ask this guy:

www.sarahannsmith.com

Plus, I'm sure that Old Spock probably put in a good word with the Federation brass. Having someone from the future vouch for you kind of takes a lot of guesswork out of the promotion process.
 
2013-01-28 02:03:39 PM

Mad_Radhu: lizyrd: TOS Kirk came up fast and became captain young, through heroics and being in the right place at the right time. Reboot Kirk ended up being promoted from cadet to captain for no reason other than Kirk has to be the captain, to hell with any type of progressive rank structure. And it was just through shiatty writing that it turned out that way.

It was a bit of a stretch for him to still be a cadet, but battlefield promotions are pretty common, especially after a lot of the leadership has been wiped out. Just ask this guy:

[www.sarahannsmith.com image 291x504]

Plus, I'm sure that Old Spock probably put in a good word with the Federation brass. Having someone from the future vouch for you kind of takes a lot of guesswork out of the promotion process.


Plus he can say "this guy will break some rules, but will save yours, mine, and everyone elses ass about 10 times"..so the next movie is him getting in trouble and possibly losing the enterprise because he breaks the prime directive.
 
2013-01-28 02:13:36 PM

slayer199: The Dune mini-series was pretty decent (and closer to the novel), but the Dino De Laurentiis movie was horrible (they Director's Cut is better, but it was still a mess).


I like the set design and costuming from the movie, but the Harkonnens were over-the-top, exaggerated evil. ( the tv-series portrayed that House more believably, IMHO )
 
2013-01-28 02:44:35 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: ( the tv-series portrayed that House more believably, IMHO )


Agreed.  The Harkonnens in the De Laurentiis version were caricatures.  There was some horrible casting choices beginning with Kyle MacLachlan as Paul Atreides (Sting was not a good choice either).  There were some excellent actors/actresses attached (José Ferrer, Linda Hunt, Richard Jordan, Patrick Stewart, Jürgen Prochnow), but it wasn't enough to overcome MacLachlan's wooden acting.  I've also come to believe that David Lynch was a horrible choice to direct Dune.  Hell, Ridley Scott would have been a better choice in 1984.

The only way they could do Dune justice these days on the big screen is to do the first book as a Trilogy.
 
2013-01-28 02:48:41 PM

mjbok: slayer199: If anything, Abrams has shown he has a love of the source material.

If by love of the source material you meaning changing everything BEFORE the split to the dumb as hell altverse (ages of characters, where characters were born, the way the science of Trek works) then I agree. You hated how Lucas changed stuff about the Force? Wait until you see how JJ farks with the existing mythology. Don't worry though, he will tell you that he knows where it is all going and he isn't making it up as he goes.

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

This is Spock being logical in TOS:
[www.call-with-current-continuation.org image 391x353]

This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:
[popreflection.files.wordpress.com image 790x444]


To be fair, Vulcans being emotionally extreme in certain situations has ample support from prior Star Trek canon.
 
2013-01-28 02:50:05 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: slayer199: The Dune mini-series was pretty decent (and closer to the novel), but the Dino De Laurentiis movie was horrible (they Director's Cut is better, but it was still a mess).

I like the set design and costuming from the movie, but the Harkonnens were over-the-top, exaggerated evil. ( the tv-series portrayed that House more believably, IMHO )


To be honest, I thought the TV-series Harkonnen were far more tame than those of the novels. But, it's better than too over-the-top, ala Dino.
 
2013-01-28 03:05:18 PM

Quantumbunny: Had they announced Michael Bay or M Night Shamalama Dingdog I'd have been pissed.


God, that's no shiat. He would pull off an incredibly stupid twist, like after a climactic battle it turns out the Villain was the Protagonists father all along.

Seriously though, I thank my lucky stars it's not shamalama dingdong. The man is a one trick pony.
 
2013-01-28 03:15:20 PM
Is ANYONE actually surprised that J.J. Abrams left a property before it was complete? I don't think he's stuck with a single series he created for more than two seasons. I think he has some strange type of directorial ADD.
 
2013-01-28 03:22:00 PM

mjbok: In TOS (and TNG plus movies) how many times did Spock lose his shiat? The only time I can remember was on the planet with the flowers and that was a result of the spores influencing him.


I was going to respond, but after looking through the thread, it appears that you've already been thrown to the ravening nerd-horde multiple times.
 
2013-01-28 04:00:31 PM

sinner3k: Is ANYONE actually surprised that J.J. Abrams left a property before it was complete? I don't think he's stuck with a single series he created for more than two seasons. I think he has some strange type of directorial ADD.


He's the NBA father of directing. He's great at making kids, not so much at raising them to adulthood.
 
2013-01-28 04:08:48 PM

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


You didn't get the whole "Battling with his dual nature" thing? Jesus, that was a relatively simple plot point. He's a young kid in the new movie, a seasoned adult in the original. They had whole SCENES devoted to it, for God's sake, and it makes sense, he doesn't pop out of the womb cold and logical, he's a mixed race, and even after devoting time to learning how to embrace his Vulcan side, his Human side may peek through at times. Not only this, but pretty much all of the movies, as well as the original series dealt with this at some point.
 
2013-01-28 04:43:27 PM

StrangeQ: dogboy360: /BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise". What has SW got?

Eh, you might want to check where that "Enterprise" name came from.


My paternal grandfather served on the CV-6 during WWII. I wish he hadn't died when I was 14, because now that I'm a WWII nerd, I have a bunch of questions I'd love to ask him.
 
2013-01-28 04:51:39 PM
To those complaining about Kirk's quick ascension from cadet to captain: It's very likely old Spock had a hand in that. I'm sure he had a meeting/debriefing with Starfleet. Not to mention he had a ship from 100 years in the future. Do you think they would not have downloaded its database before sending it on a suicide run?

To those complaining about Kirk's placement on the ice planet: It's an ice planet. Which means there is a limited habitable zone, most likely near the equator. Nero didn't want old Spok dead, he wanted him to witness the destruction of Vulcan and live with that memory and so left him there. Young Spock wanted Kirk off the ship, so dropped him in the habitable zone, but within walking distance of an outpost. Still a little contrived, but not totally unbelievable.
 
2013-01-28 05:02:56 PM

slayer199: lizyrd: TOS Kirk came up fast and became captain young, through heroics and being in the right place at the right time. Reboot Kirk ended up being promoted from cadet to captain for no reason other than Kirk has to be the captain, to hell with any type of progressive rank structure. And it was just through shiatty writing that it turned out that way.

Well, he was promoted to Acting 2nd in command by Captain Pike (one could argue, that Pike recognized early on that Kirk had ability and sought to challenge him).  He was promoted to acting Captain after Spock resigned his commission.  Because he was successful and earned the respect of his crew, one could argue that the command decided to keep him in place.

Hell, if you go back to TNG (and yes, I realize that TNG was after TOS) when Q described how Picard seized the moments that made his career in Tapestry, one could argue that that this was more of a policy than an aberration.

There's something in movies and novels called suspension of disbelief...and one could make a plausible enough of a case to suspend disbelief.


Oh, I understand suspension of disbelief. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to tolerate a show or movie about starships, a galaxy full of habitable, populated planets a stone throw's away, and bipedal aliens that look remarkably human but with different foreheads. Trek wasn't always perfect at maintaining military decorum and practices, but it tried. All of the captains have a backstory of a career that landed them in the captain's chair. TOS Kirk rose through the ranks quickly, but he was progressively promoted. The TNG episode you mentioned still was a lesson that Picard would not have successfully advanced through a career had he had the cautiousness of a 60-year old when he was 22. The implication still was that decisions made at several key turning points in a long-term career resulted in his success.

Throwing a cadet into the captain's chair because the boss recognizes a natural ability belongs in poorly written fanfic. That's the part that gives me the biggest problem; not just that it's unbelievable, but that it could have been avoided with better writing. It didn't have to be George Kirk on the ship in the beginning, Jim Kirk didn't have to be a delinquent that entered the academy on a dare. But then we wouldn't have had car thefts, police chases and bar fights.
 
2013-01-28 07:11:36 PM
I still want them to give Star Wars to Guillermo del Toro.
 
2013-01-28 07:35:53 PM

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.


I felt that it was a useful correction of years of the franchise become so taken by its own seriousness that it managed to drain all the life out of itself. I think that it restored a sense of fun that has been absent for too long.

And yeah... I like to see the franchise to find a place somewhere in the middle between "Fark science, here's lensflare!" and "The Diplomacy and Religio-Philosophy Hour, In Space".
 
2013-01-28 09:12:21 PM
I wonder if anyone will ever write and film any new science fiction stories?
 
2013-01-29 12:51:28 AM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: I still want them to give Star Wars to Guillermo del Toro.


Give him 20 million, have him make a Tales from Jabba's Palace series and run it on Showtime, profit
www.oocities.org

Star Wars + Pan's Labyrinth + The Storyteller = Win

/images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-29 01:00:24 AM

ZeroCorpse: I wonder if anyone will ever write and film any new science fiction stories?


It's more horror, but this was pretty damned fresh:

cdn.uproxx.com
 
2013-01-29 04:05:34 AM

ZeroCorpse: I wonder if anyone will ever write and film any new science fiction stories?


There are no new stories.

There are about 12 archetypes, 8 basic plots, and 6 tones or moods, but infinite amounts of interpretation and recontextualization.

In sci-fi's case, everything has pretty much been done before. Now it's just up to people to do it again in new and interesting ways.
 
Displayed 212 of 212 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report