- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Any other Star Trek:TOS fans hate the Abrams stuff?
Posted on 2/15/13 at 9:07 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 2/15/13 at 9:07 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Rob, that means a lot coming from you. With you taking this position, I only feel vindicated in really hating this movie.
Well I'm good for something.
The fact is, nerd rage got Enterprise canceled as it finally was hitting it's stride.
JJ took something that was born for a completely different generation and updated it to fit the this one....and managed to actually keep the core elements in place.
Frankly, the guy did a masterful job and I cannot wait to see what he does this summer and with the 3rd (and likely his final) movie.
1
Posted on 2/15/13 at 9:13 pm to asurob1
quote:
The fact is, nerd rage got Enterprise canceled as it finally was hitting it's stride.
Maybe. My problem was Paramount and the f*cking syndication packages. When they turned on the network, I ended up never watching the last 2 seasons of Voyager - I know the basics, and realistically I had started to lose interest. When they made it tough for me to find, that was it. Heck, I really didn't have access to Enterprise until it was well into its second season, and back then, it was hard to catch back up. To this day, I've seen about 15 episodes of Enterprise, give or take and there are at least 20 Voyager episodes I've never seen.
And I call myself a Trekkie...
Posted on 2/15/13 at 9:30 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Maybe. My problem was Paramount and the f*cking syndication packages. When they turned on the network, I ended up never watching the last 2 seasons of Voyager - I know the basics, and realistically I had started to lose interest. When they made it tough for me to find, that was it. Heck, I really didn't have access to Enterprise until it was well into its second season, and back then, it was hard to catch back up. To this day, I've seen about 15 episodes of Enterprise, give or take and there are at least 20 Voyager episodes I've never seen.
And I call myself a Trekkie...
Voyager was absolute shite. The whole premise was stupid and it never made it past that.
Enterprise, I never understood the rage about it. People were pissing and moaning about the theme song...I kept thinking really?...
Frankly the writing of Enterprise was superior to a lot of the original series...never mind TNG. Really, if you take the time to get to the third season you will find it was finally getting where most fans wanted it to be (much like it took TNG three seasons to really get decent).
Paramount blows...and I struggled to find Enterprise at times myself..I actually finished watching its run by purchasing the 3rd season...other then that insult to the fans final episode, it was well worth the purchase.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 9:44 pm to asurob1
quote:
Voyager was absolute shite. The whole premise was stupid and it never made it past that.
I can't endorse this opinion. I know pretty much how it went down: "Okay - we want to take some of the strong points of TNG - especially Q and the Borg, and blend them with DS9's strengths, the Gamma quadrant, the Bajoran-Cardassian conflict (via the Maquis), and return to the adventure/episodic format (versus the threaded, novel-like story of DS9) with a female captain."
I'm not saying it should have engendered excitement and the execution was spotty at times, but it is not a terrible premise. I've still never forgiven Seven of Nine for Obama. But that's a story for another time.
I just never liked Janeway. I thought she was terrible as captain, as bad a captain they had (until the late unpleasantness).
Posted on 2/15/13 at 9:59 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I can't endorse this opinion. I know pretty much how it went down: "Okay - we want to take some of the strong points of TNG - especially Q and the Borg, and blend them with DS9's strengths, the Gamma quadrant, the Bajoran-Cardassian conflict (via the Maquis), and return to the adventure/episodic format (versus the threaded, novel-like story of DS9) with a female captain."
I'm not saying it should have engendered excitement and the execution was spotty at times, but it is not a terrible premise. I've still never forgiven Seven of Nine for Obama. But that's a story for another time.
I just never liked Janeway. I thought she was terrible as captain, as bad a captain they had (until the late unpleasantness).
seven of 9 was the only good thing that came from that show...
That being said, Janeway was terrible...beyond terrible...no way ship's captain would have sacrificed her crew the way she did. The pilot just killed it for me and I ignored it for several years dropping in now and then. I got what they wanted to do with it, but then they failed...I mean after all that time without ship yards and upkeep that ship would have begun to fall apart at the seams...yet there it was every week factory fresh.
DS9 was okay...too much like Babylon 5 (which it ultimetly eclipsed) right down the the galactic war. It at least had high points unlike voyager.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 10:12 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I don't really want to be converted and I know many TOS fans really enjoy it (although I simply cannot understand it in context of, particularly TOS and DS9), but I wanted to throw this out and see if any TOS fans agree with me.
When you say TOS, I assume you mean pre-Abrams basically. I'm not a huge fan of TOS itself, but the subsequent series and all the movies I loved for the most part.
I take it for what it is -- a ST popcorn flick. I don't like it as much as the pre-Abrams stuff. But, I don't mind popcorn flicks. I'm not huge on the new universe, but I do look forward to the new one coming out soon and hope that it sparks a new series one day that comes back to the universe done before Abrams.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 10:21 pm to rmc
quote:
I take it for what it is -- a ST popcorn flick. I don't like it as much as the pre-Abrams stuff.
I completely understand this position.
quote:
But, I don't mind popcorn flicks. I'm not huge on the new universe, but I do look forward to the new one coming out soon and hope that it sparks a new series one day that comes back to the universe done before Abrams.
That's the epiphany I came to in this process - "Maybe they can fix it?" which leads to, "Hey, they f*cked this up and they're not going to fix it", followed by , "Hey, they f*cked it up, deny they f*cked it up and they say I'M f*cked for not liking it", and finally, "F*ck them."
I guess the hate grew just like that.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 11:24 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
The great stength of DS9 was Gul Dukat, one of the most fully developed, 4 dimensional SciFi villains of all time.
They had many many hours to develop him.
quote:
Another weakness of the 2009 Abrams film - the villain was G*dawful.
They had 2 hours
Posted on 2/15/13 at 11:27 pm to Ace Midnight
I like the new star trek for what it is. It's amazing how crappy props and sets make sci fi so great. Now having watched the original series I have a bigger problem with fringe.
Futurama pays homage
Fringe basically steals concepts
The new star trek is better than any of the NG movies
Futurama pays homage
Fringe basically steals concepts
The new star trek is better than any of the NG movies
Posted on 2/15/13 at 11:29 pm to Ace Midnight
So, there is a lot of hate for JJ's ST coming from Ace. I understand your dislike of the new movies. I respectfully disagree with you, but understand it none the less.
In all Honesty unless you watched TOS when they came out or had a solid understanding of that time period, they are dumb as frick. Now with placing TOS in its proper perspective, the 60's and what it did as far as having Kirk kiss Uhura a big shocker for that time, ST brought social themes into light using a fantasy canvas. Kirk could bang all the green skin 4 tittied solar skanks he wanted but kissing a black woman OMG!!!!! The whole premise was to show what Human kind could be once they move past the greed and selfishness, and act as one focused community on bettering themselves.
DS9 I wanted to like but that bitch with the nose killed it for me. Although having Hawk in it was badass.
Voyager. 7 of Nine was hot, Cpt. Jane needed to be shot.
TNG was ok. It seemed the whole series had this smug "Look at how civilized we are" vibe to it.
I like the JJ S.T. It keeps the Cannon of the original story in place and creates a new path for the series to take. Kirk is angrier, more balsy and a bigger man-whore. Spock is still a prick. Scotty is, well scotty, and Sulu isn't a gay man anymore.
In all Honesty unless you watched TOS when they came out or had a solid understanding of that time period, they are dumb as frick. Now with placing TOS in its proper perspective, the 60's and what it did as far as having Kirk kiss Uhura a big shocker for that time, ST brought social themes into light using a fantasy canvas. Kirk could bang all the green skin 4 tittied solar skanks he wanted but kissing a black woman OMG!!!!! The whole premise was to show what Human kind could be once they move past the greed and selfishness, and act as one focused community on bettering themselves.
DS9 I wanted to like but that bitch with the nose killed it for me. Although having Hawk in it was badass.
Voyager. 7 of Nine was hot, Cpt. Jane needed to be shot.
TNG was ok. It seemed the whole series had this smug "Look at how civilized we are" vibe to it.
I like the JJ S.T. It keeps the Cannon of the original story in place and creates a new path for the series to take. Kirk is angrier, more balsy and a bigger man-whore. Spock is still a prick. Scotty is, well scotty, and Sulu isn't a gay man anymore.
Posted on 2/16/13 at 2:43 am to asurob1
I understand where Ace is coming from. As a huge fan of TOS I don't think Abrams' Star Trek was true to the spirit of TOS. Some of the technology made no sense and didn't fit into the universe. The movie was void of any moral dilemmas. Hell, it was void of any thought really. Kirk was a smug jackass, which I guess isn't that bad, but Spock was just awful. At least McCoy was well done.
If I had to judge the movie without comparing it to TOS I would say it was decent. I'm also easily entertained by movies like this so the horrid writing didn't bother me that much.
If I had to judge the movie without comparing it to TOS I would say it was decent. I'm also easily entertained by movies like this so the horrid writing didn't bother me that much.
Posted on 2/16/13 at 6:05 am to ZTiger87
quote:
Hell, it was void of any thought really.
I guess that sums it up better than I ever could have.
Posted on 2/16/13 at 7:02 am to ZTiger87
quote:I liked it because in my own mind at least, I rationalized my own assumption that TOS picked up at the level of a more mature, seasoned Enterprise crew than this new Trek movie did. In this movie, they were all green as grass (even immature somewhat) and didn't really know each other or what to expect from each other. So I could excuse that they were not characters who were as fully developed as TOS presented them when it debuted back in the 1960s. But maybe that's just me. I guess I just wanted to like it, so I did.
As a huge fan of TOS I don't think Abrams' Star Trek was true to the spirit of TOS. Some of the technology made no sense and didn't fit into the universe. The movie was void of any moral dilemmas. Hell, it was void of any thought really. Kirk was a smug jackass, which I guess isn't that bad, but Spock was just awful. At least McCoy was well done.
This post was edited on 2/16/13 at 7:04 am
Posted on 2/16/13 at 8:05 am to JawjaTigah
quote:
In this movie, they were all green as grass (even immature somewhat) and didn't really know each other or what to expect from each other.
Another offensive aspect of this is the relative disregard they give to Starfleet's organization.
I get they're green. I know the goal of the movie was for us to see Kirk bang the first alien chick, hear McCoy utter the "I'm a doctor, not a..." catchphrase for the first time, Scotty make the first inflated repair estimate, Spock muse on illogical human behavior for the first time... I get all that cliched crap that goes with a reboot.
However, where it lost me was that little of it made sense - the original canon didn't specify, but it is reasonable to assume that perhaps Uhura and Sulu went to the Academy together. But, to keep the crew intact for the reboot, they basically had Kirk go the same time as Uhura and Sulu. Scotty was in a purgatory assignment and McCoy got pulled in - and that was reasonable as in TOS, they are older than Kirk (as is Spock) and it is possible all 3 are senior to Kirk in service - but they all followed specialty tracks (McCoy, especially), and Kirk was on a fast track to command.
But then, it just goes off the rails on a crazy train - Pike "senses" something, and ultimately puts Kirk in command? WTF? So, now he jumps from newly commissioned ensign to O-6, without spending any significant time learning the job?
I understand that reboots are always tricky. I certainly don't expect them to explain every detail or background they changed - there isn't enough time. But what they imply ought to make sense, right?
In TOS, Kirk was VERY young to be in charge of a Constitution class at 35 - after 12 years of service. Obviously he made quick work of his ensign and lieutenant assignments, and was rapidly moved into a First Officer job to groom him for command. That is part of the Kirk legend - he was quickly identified as a future captain and moved up accordingly. However, it was because of demonstrated potential and performance under fire. Not some magical intuition that Pike has about an alternate reality version of this punk kid.
Little about the 2009 movie made any sense. Whatever entertainment value it might have had was lost in this (at least for me).
This post was edited on 2/16/13 at 8:06 am
Posted on 2/16/13 at 10:54 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Any other Star Trek:TOS fans hate the Abrams stuff?
I like both.
Posted on 2/16/13 at 11:37 am to Ace Midnight
quote:While I understand your feelings and all, and respect your opinion, I can't help but want to say since the whole Star Trek/Kirk thing is all literature anyway (even on video) there's gotta be a sort of "willing suspension of disbelief" that kicks in - even where there are loose ends and inconsistencies. So that the two versions can exist and yet not offend. At least for me. Which is why I can enjoy and appreciate both for what they are/were/and will be.
Whatever entertainment value it might have had was lost in this (at least for me).
Good discussion all around.
Posted on 2/16/13 at 12:58 pm to JawjaTigah
quote:
there's gotta be a sort of "willing suspension of disbelief" that kicks in
I hear you. Still not a reason to like Abrams' take though.
quote:
So that the two versions can exist and yet not offend.
And they clearly don't offend lots of people. I don't like being talked down to and I don't like my intelligence insulted. If I had never watched TOS, that would be one thing, as this would be my first experience with the characters. However, I like the characters in TOS and I don't like Abrams' version of the characters, so I'm done. What I'm perplexed by TOS fans' acceptance of all this is - take for example "Balance of Terror" - wonderful episode, minimum special effects, but that level of drama would just be beyond the current team's ability to pull off.
That "submarine" battle feel, along with strong characters was captured in The Wrath of Khan. Call Shatner a hokey overactor if you want, he continued to pull it off in a likeable, dare I say it, "heroic" fashion. Pine, by far the weakest actor in the new crop, can never attempt to approach that level of "hokey overacting".
This post was edited on 2/16/13 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 2/16/13 at 1:05 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Pine, by far the weakest actor in the new crop, can never attempt to approach that level of "hokey overacting".
Not true at all really, just watch Smokin' Aces sometime. He showed he's perfectly capable of showing that sort of "hokey overacting" during a particular scene of that movie.
Posted on 2/16/13 at 1:09 pm to auyushu
quote:
Not true at all really, just watch Smokin' Aces sometime. He showed he's perfectly capable of showing that sort of "hokey overacting" during a particular scene of that movie.
Probably not going to happen because he tops my "Do Not Watch" list, slightly ahead of Shia Labeouf.
Posted on 2/16/13 at 1:14 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Probably not going to happen because he tops my "Do Not Watch" list, slightly ahead of Shia Labeouf.
What the heck has he been in that you could have reached Shia levels of hatred? I mean, he's had what? Smokin Aces, Star Trek, and Unstoppable?
I can understand hating a particular actor (like Shia, who has a proven track record of suck), but it seems weird to hate a guy that has barely done anything.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News