Star Trek XI

[Doctor Who?]

So you are calling a movie you have not seen the worst thing ever,i rest my case.

Also no one and I mean no one who wasn't already a Star trek fan was going to go see a movie that had any connection to the spin offs,so they either had to leave Star Trek dead,make the movies on a budget of $12 and just let them keep looking cheaper and cheaper until they lost the last of the fans,or reboot.  The new movie pays a lot of respect to what has come before,they spent a long time looking for actors,and it doesn't undo anything that happened in the past.  I am a huge Star Trek fan who was only going to see the worst Star Trek movie ever and i was blown away.  You really should give it a chance.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

So you are calling a movie you have not seen the worst thing ever,i rest my case.

Also no one and I mean no one who wasn't already a Star trek fan was going to go see a movie that had any connection to the spin offs,so they either had to leave Star Trek dead,make the movies on a budget of $12 and just let them keep looking cheaper and cheaper until they lost the last of the fans,or reboot.  The new movie pays a lot of respect to what has come before,they spent a long time looking for actors,and it doesn't undo anything that happened in the past.  I am a huge Star Trek fan who was only going to see the worst Star Trek movie ever and i was blown away.  You really should give it a chance.

I've never said anything about the quality of the movie, just that it doesn't sound like STAR TREK.

And if there's a chance it would affect my enjoyment of the old stuff I'm not sure I want to see it.  It's happened to me before, I loved Quantum Leap but that one episode where we find out he had a wife and family back home waiting for him ruined the entire show for me.

Like I just said, there was plenty of room in the regular Star Trek universe to start a new story line with a new crew, didn't have to be connected to the spin-offs.

[Thrifty]

So you are calling a movie you have not seen the worst thing ever,i rest my case.

Also no one and I mean no one who wasn't already a Star trek fan was going to go see a movie that had any connection to the spin offs,so they either had to leave Star Trek dead,make the movies on a budget of $12 and just let them keep looking cheaper and cheaper until they lost the last of the fans,or reboot.  The new movie pays a lot of respect to what has come before,they spent a long time looking for actors,and it doesn't undo anything that happened in the past.  I am a huge Star Trek fan who was only going to see the worst Star Trek movie ever and i was blown away.  You really should give it a chance.

I've never said anything about the quality of the movie, just that it doesn't sound like STAR TREK.

And if there's a chance it would affect my enjoyment of the old stuff I'm not sure I want to see it.  It's happened to me before, I loved Quantum Leap but that one episode where we find out he had a wife and family back home waiting for him ruined the entire show for me.

Like I just said, there was plenty of room in the regular Star Trek universe to start a new story line with a new crew, didn't have to be connected to the spin-offs.

I don't understand how a new story can retroactively ruin an old story that you like.

I can understand a statement that it doesn't sound like Star Trek.  It definitely had a different feel to it than any other Trek I've seen, which isn't much.  It was less preachy and character driven, more action oriented.

[Thrifty]

But then, when I do comment on something I think is good I'm told that my taste is shit, so what's the point?

Increased post count?

No, you're right.

I didn't rave about how wonderful "Garth Merenghi's Darkplace" was when I found it.

I didn't turn someone else on here to "Being Human" when I talked it up.

All I do here is bitch about Trek and Dubya....you can go back though just the threads I've started and even though they're titled and the body of the post is about something else entirely you all know that it's really about those two things because Jewish Carpenter says that's all I talk about, right?

Fuck all of you.

You can find a couple exceptions to every rule, but they don't count against the fact that you are mostly a negative person.

What the Hell does JewishCarpenter have to do with any of this?  I drew my own conclusions from your posting history, particularly in this very thread.

[Moleman]

But then, when I do comment on something I think is good I'm told that my taste is shit, so what's the point?

So because you feel that people get after you for things you like you decide to counter that by bitching at other people and making them feel like shit instead?

Its hard to tell what a person means over the Internet but it does seem like to me as well that just about everything you post is negative and intentionally confrontational.  Maybe you don't mean to do that, I don't know.  Ending a post by saying "fuck you all" and having a signature with the word fuck in it for everyone and their families to see whenever you post doesn't exactly make you look like a wonderful nice person though.

[Thrifty]

But then, when I do comment on something I think is good I'm told that my taste is shit, so what's the point?

So because you feel that people get after you for things you like you decide to counter that by bitching at other people and making them feel like shit instead?

Its hard to tell what a person means over the Internet but it does seem like to me as well that just about everything you post is negative and intentionally confrontational.  Maybe you don't mean to do that, I don't know.  Ending a post by saying "fuck you all" and having a signature with the word fuck in it for everyone and their families to see whenever you post doesn't exactly make you look like a wonderful nice person though.

I agree with this well articulated post.

I add that I openly admit I am prone to outbursts of anger and insulting people at time.  I feel bad about that.

[Doctor Who?]

So you are calling a movie you have not seen the worst thing ever,i rest my case.

Also no one and I mean no one who wasn't already a Star trek fan was going to go see a movie that had any connection to the spin offs,so they either had to leave Star Trek dead,make the movies on a budget of $12 and just let them keep looking cheaper and cheaper until they lost the last of the fans,or reboot.  The new movie pays a lot of respect to what has come before,they spent a long time looking for actors,and it doesn't undo anything that happened in the past.  I am a huge Star Trek fan who was only going to see the worst Star Trek movie ever and i was blown away.  You really should give it a chance.

I've never said anything about the quality of the movie, just that it doesn't sound like STAR TREK.

And if there's a chance it would affect my enjoyment of the old stuff I'm not sure I want to see it.  It's happened to me before, I loved Quantum Leap but that one episode where we find out he had a wife and family back home waiting for him ruined the entire show for me.

Like I just said, there was plenty of room in the regular Star Trek universe to start a new story line with a new crew, didn't have to be connected to the spin-offs.

well first of all the filmmakers didn't want to tell a story with new people they wanted to tell one about Kirk and the rest(The movie is faithful to the characters,while at the same time showing that Kirk's dad being dead changed a lot of things),but they didn't want the new actors to have to pretend to be the old ones.  that and just not wanting to get bogged down with history is the main reason for the reboot.  Also it does take place in an alternate time line so it doesn't undo anything we had seen before.

Also i would say it was one of the most character driven Trek movies.  Nothing seemed to be happening just because the plot said so it was happening because of the characters.  If anything i would say this new movie is the 21st century Wrath of Khan,the actions packed more character driven movie that brings the franchise back.

I find it funny that some Trek fans are getting so worked up over this when the old cast seems fine with it.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I find it funny that some Trek fans are getting so worked up over this when the old cast seems fine with it.

Once you've listened to enough interviews and commentary tracks you understand that actors don't watch what they make very often, you'll often hear stuff like "I've never seen the final version with the effects" or "I haven't watched this since the premier". 

Actors move on to other projects, don't have the investment in the shows that the fans do.  I've seen every episode (even the crappy ones) of the original series at least 10 times, I doubt the cast members could remember every episode they did 40 years ago.

well first of all the filmmakers didn't want to tell a story with new people they wanted to tell one about Kirk and the rest(The movie is faithful to the characters,while at the same time showing that Kirk's dad being dead changed a lot of things)

They didn't really want to tell the story of Kirk and the rest, since they changed all the history that had been laid down before as the characters backgrounds.

If they wanted to tell the story of Kirk and Spock just do it, people do change as they get older, you could get away with younger actors for quite a few movies before they started to get to the age they were in the original series.  It's called "acting", playing a part, the original actors were playing roles, new actors could play younger versions of the same roles.

Sorry, you're not going to convince me it was necessary to alter the timeline so drastically.

[Doctor Who?]

Have you seen the movie?  They didn't want the actors to have to pretend to be Shatner or the rest also the main point is to put the danger back in star trek if you place it in the same universe then you know everyone is going to be ok,you know Earth can't be destroyed,you know all sorts of things.  Also you have to make sure that nothing you write makes what happens in the future impossible.

The characters onscreen are very much Kirk and his team they are just younger and have had some awful things happen to some of them but they are the same people. 

All long running character change a little over time and the degree to which these characters have change to make them work in a new area is so small it is not worth talking about.  Have you ever read any early Robin Hood/  he didn't rob from the rich and give to the poor or shoot arrows in early tales does that mean that everything made since is not Robin Hood?

Don't worry I am sure at some point we will get a movie that has a bloated William Shatner spouting techno babble for ten hours.  Then the die hard trek fans can jump for joy about the greatest movie of all time and it can lose $100 million at the box office and trek can die for good with the fans happy.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

But then, when I do comment on something I think is good I'm told that my taste is shit, so what's the point?

Increased post count?

No, you're right.

I didn't rave about how wonderful "Garth Merenghi's Darkplace" was when I found it.

I didn't turn someone else on here to "Being Human" when I talked it up.

All I do here is bitch about Trek and Dubya....you can go back though just the threads I've started and even though they're titled and the body of the post is about something else entirely you all know that it's really about those two things because Jewish Carpenter says that's all I talk about, right?

Fuck all of you.

You can find a couple exceptions to every rule, but they don't count against the fact that you are mostly a negative person.

What the Hell does JewishCarpenter have to do with any of this?  I drew my own conclusions from your posting history, particularly in this very thread.

And I could use the same method and use the thread for "Twilight New Moon" to make the same case about you.  Or Bob bitching about his Rams over in the NFL thread on the Television Board.  Or gbeenie with her pro-Bush and Anti-Obama stances.

I could give you more examples of when I've tried to add to the discussion on this board  - like the three threads I started on the board for "The Room" and posting "Hotel Torgo" - and most of the time all I've gotten back was shit. But you just see what you want to and it's not worth my time.

[Thrifty]

But then, when I do comment on something I think is good I'm told that my taste is shit, so what's the point?

Increased post count?

No, you're right.

I didn't rave about how wonderful "Garth Merenghi's Darkplace" was when I found it.

I didn't turn someone else on here to "Being Human" when I talked it up.

All I do here is bitch about Trek and Dubya....you can go back though just the threads I've started and even though they're titled and the body of the post is about something else entirely you all know that it's really about those two things because Jewish Carpenter says that's all I talk about, right?

Fuck all of you.

You can find a couple exceptions to every rule, but they don't count against the fact that you are mostly a negative person.

What the Hell does JewishCarpenter have to do with any of this?  I drew my own conclusions from your posting history, particularly in this very thread.

And I could use the same method and use the thread for "Twilight New Moon" to make the same case about you.  Or Bob bitching about his Rams over in the NFL thread on the Television Board.  Or gbeenie with her pro-Bush and Anti-Obama stances.

I could give you more examples of when I've tried to add to the discussion on this board  - like the three threads I started on the board for "The Room" and posting "Hotel Torgo" - and most of the time all I've gotten back was shit. But you just see what you want to and it's not worth my time.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

But then, when I do comment on something I think is good I'm told that my taste is shit, so what's the point?

Increased post count?

No, you're right.

I didn't rave about how wonderful "Garth Merenghi's Darkplace" was when I found it.

I didn't turn someone else on here to "Being Human" when I talked it up.

All I do here is bitch about Trek and Dubya....you can go back though just the threads I've started and even though they're titled and the body of the post is about something else entirely you all know that it's really about those two things because Jewish Carpenter says that's all I talk about, right?

Fuck all of you.

You can find a couple exceptions to every rule, but they don't count against the fact that you are mostly a negative person.

What the Hell does JewishCarpenter have to do with any of this?  I drew my own conclusions from your posting history, particularly in this very thread.

And I could use the same method and use the thread for "Twilight New Moon" to make the same case about you.  Or Bob bitching about his Rams over in the NFL thread on the Television Board.  Or gbeenie with her pro-Bush and Anti-Obama stances.

I could give you more examples of when I've tried to add to the discussion on this board  - like the three threads I started on the board for "The Room" and posting "Hotel Torgo" - and most of the time all I've gotten back was shit. But you just see what you want to and it's not worth my time.

Fuck you

[goflyblind]

that clown music playing every time i open this thread now.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

They didn't want the actors to have to pretend to be Shatner or the rest
 

I never said new actors had to act like Shatner and Nimoy, if the new actors played their roles properly then they could play younger versions of Kirk and Spock and it would be acceptable without having to do the time travel crap.  It sounds like the actors in the movie did play the characters correctly.

 Take those New Voyages fan shows, it sounds like if you put the actors from the movie into those shows it would be a pretty good version of Star Trek (with a little script polishing also).

 

also the main point is to put the danger back in star trek if you place it in the same universe then you know everyone is going to be ok,you know Earth can't be destroyed,you know all sorts of things.  Also you have to make sure that nothing you write makes what happens in the future impossible.  

So what you really want is a new science fiction franchise, not Star Trek.  A real fan of Star Trek would want more stories set in that universe, not create a new one just to make it easier on the writers.  

[Doctor Who?]

Don't pull that real fan bullshit on me.  There are some people who would say you are not a real fan if you watched one minute of the spin offs.  I have been watching Star Trek since I was two,I had all the toys(Still have some of them.),bought the tV shows and movies on VHS and then some of them twice on DvD,The first website i ever went to was StarTrek.com. 

Saying that if someone disagrees with you they are not a real fan is the same as calling someone Hitler. 

One last thing a real fan would want the franchise to go on and tell new stories that excite new gernations of movie goers.  Also has some law been passed that I don't know about that will stop people in future from seting movies,tv shows,and books in the prime universe?  Also why should a new movie be new voyages when new voyages is already new voyages.  Oh and I would love to see how badly a new voyages movie would bomb.  Oh and you are still missing the main point we have seen how things turn out latter in the prime universe,so there is no way to tell a story with Kirk and Spock in it that has sense of danger or excitment because we know in the prime universe they turn out ok.  So the new voyages idea is the worst one to make the universe exciting again.