NOTICE: NEW FORUMS

We are excited to share with you our brand-new and improved Disruptor Beam forums!

We've chosen new forum software that brings added functionality to improve your experience, including increased spam management. Your username details have been carried over, so you should be able to login with your old forum details without issue. For our veteran community members, you'll see that we have many of the thread categories you’re used to, so we hope you'll feel right at home there.

Our new forums are located here: https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/

 
   
 < 1 2 3 4 > 
What is the main problem with the J.J. Abrams movies?
Posted: 08 February 2016 07:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  798
Joined  2016-01-26
PumpingPicard - 07 February 2016 09:14 AM

The biggest problem i have is that they took something that already existet with TOS and redid it with new Actors. Yes i know its suposed to be an alternative reality or some *but come on. Kirk and Spock already exist. For me William Shatner will always be Kirk to me.

Do you think they would’ve had a financially successful movie with a brand new crew set in the TNG timeline?  The very fact that it is Kirk and Spock is what allowed them to make 3.  I don’t see that happening with a brand new crew.  We would need 3 movies just to get comfortable with the characters.

 Signature 

http://www.divinemercy.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2016 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Avatar
Yeoman
RankRank
Total Posts:  68
Joined  2016-01-15

I agree that they needed to approach a reboot with pre-established characters.  Using TOS crew makes sense, as well, because it was a more action-oriented show.  You never really saw any of the later captains regularly slugging it out with alien foes, and that right there made TOS the ideal crew to bring to a big action blockbuster.  I do wonder how big of a fanbase TOS has versus something like TNG in this day and age, but for the aforementioned reasons, I don’t see the TNG crew ever getting a real reboot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2016 05:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  269
Joined  2016-01-24

That’s kind of cynical, to think Trek fans are so closed off to new stories with new characters that we just wouldn’t accept anything other than something we already know and love. And also a bit cynical to think that no one would be able to craft an original Trek story that would not capture our imaginations due to clever character development or storyline. I mean, sure, it may not be easy, but I should hope that in a ‘verse as infinite as Trek’s, there would be some room for new characters in new situations that would satisfy the Trek fans.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2016 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Avatar
Cadet
Rank
Total Posts:  42
Joined  2016-01-17

Joolie is really hitting the nail on the head here, but I’ll add my two cents as well. I basically can’t trash-talk the 2009 movie since it got me into Star Trek in the first place, but after watching the series I can say that it definitely missed the point of Star Trek. The thing I really miss in the movies from the series is that they don’t even come close to pushing industry boundaries or striving to be better.
TOS was diverse for its time, whereas the movies look a bit like the set of Mad Men. Khan and the lack of female characters (to the extent that they got rid of Chapel and I’m not even sure they’ve mentioned Rand) are the most obvious examples of this, but it feels stupid to have such basic issues in trek when at this point they should be moving on to using genderless pronouns and so forth.
The movies are just about action and beating the bad guys into a pulp, rather than understanding the bad guys and figuring out that maybe they’re not really bad guys, and let’s think about that. I liked the thoughtful approach of the series much better.
Another thing that drives me crazy is that lack of hopefulness! Roddenberry was really aiming for an image of the future where things were better, for everybody. The movies play out like “What if we had space travel TOMORROW and practically everything else is the same??”
I could probably write an essay on Why Into Darkness Was Bad, but I’ll refrain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2016 07:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Avatar
Yeoman
RankRank
Total Posts:  77
Joined  2016-01-21
cardassianninja - 08 February 2016 07:45 AM
PumpingPicard - 07 February 2016 09:14 AM

The biggest problem i have is that they took something that already existet with TOS and redid it with new Actors. Yes i know its suposed to be an alternative reality or some *but come on. Kirk and Spock already exist. For me William Shatner will always be Kirk to me.

Do you think they would’ve had a financially successful movie with a brand new crew set in the TNG timeline?  The very fact that it is Kirk and Spock is what allowed them to make 3.  I don’t see that happening with a brand new crew.  We would need 3 movies just to get comfortable with the characters.


Yes I do!  Just look at all the fan films like Star Trek: Phase 2 or Axanar.  Or even better yet how about turning the novels like New Frontiers or Vanguard into live action either big screen or the little screen.  The Trek franchise is suffering from lack of imagination that is plaguing the entertainment industry.

 Signature 

  Kirk’s first order as captain of the Enterprise: “Take her out of the Galaxy, Mister Mitchell.” Picard’s first order as captain of the Enterprise: “We surrender.”

1887. Kirk’s show motivated people to be scientists, astronauts, and other people of greatness. Picard’s show motivated people to ... change the channel. You’ve never heard of anyone of importance talk about how Picard’s show changed their lives in meaningful ways. Dale S

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2016 01:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  560
Joined  2016-02-24
Max - 03 October 2015 03:22 AM

Into Darkness is the biggest problem, considering how Star Trek 09 set itself on a course free of all the continuity “baggage” which had come before and opened up a blank slate. So what was the first thing they did? Rehash “Wrath of Khan” (and not even a GOOD rehash) and, to a lesser extent, Star Trek 09.

Well JJ is a rehasher if anything. Just look at the newest Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens for very clear evidence of that. It was pretty much a complete rehash of A New Hope and not a good rehash either. Still I enjoyed it but there was lots of disappointment.

I do like the JJTrek movies, I can appreciate them in a different light. Like other commenters on this thread have said, it’s made for a different audience and the two shouldn’t full on be compared. I enjoy seeing what the non-Trekkies like to view of the ST universe, it’s an interesting insight. Admittedly though I liked Star Trek (2009) than I did the sequel Into Darkness, because ST 2009 was less of a rehash of old material, most of it was new-ish ideas, while Into Darkness as said before, was just a rehash of old material.

 Signature 

Check out my game achievements! Or scroll down to see my self-made character ala Star Trek Timelines design

The Haus of Gaghgagh is currently full right now. We are seeking fleet alliances though!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2016 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  335
Joined  2016-12-07
HTower - 16 September 2015 11:17 PM

For me, the JJverse is a guns blazing, shoot em up action movie.  Trek, at least in my opinion has always been more of a drama(with some action too), with philosophical questions, struggling to do the right thing in a difficult situation, an exploration of not just space, but one’s own self.  That depth is missing from the reboot.

Look at what some people say are some of their favorite episodes of TNG.

The Inner Light, Data’s Day, The Measure of a Man.  Barely any action at all. 
(Caveat, Best of Both World’s is another top 3 favorite, and has a lot of action in it).


I’ve finally come to a place where I can rationalize Trek Prime, and JJTrek.  They both share the same back story, but are meant for completely different audiences, and are not really meant for being considered against each other.  To do so is to invite madness.

couldn’t agree more. JJ has star wars-ified trek. yes this should be a word.

 Signature 

“Risk is our business. That is what a starship is all about.”
Cpt. James T. Kirk


DB: Do Better!

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2016 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Avatar
Commander
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-04-13

What’s RIGHT with them is that they remain fan fiction and are not canon. They’re great stand-alone sci-fi movies if we forget that they’re based on Star Trek, but I cringe at the Star Trek name being attached to them. They’re eight million kinds of effed up; our established characters and the way they’re used are totally and completely wrong and insane.

 Signature 

My crew spreadsheet
226 Level 100 FE
192 Immortal

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2016 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Avatar
Ensign
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  125
Joined  2016-01-29
vhcouto - 16 September 2015 03:57 PM

Hello trekkers,

I hear many mixed opinions about the new Star Trek movies. I like both of them (mainly the first one), but my knowledge on the whole Trek universe is very shallow. So I’d like to know what the main problems with the reboots are, and the qualities too.

Thanks for the opinions =D

Too… Much… Bl00dy… Lens flare…

 Signature 

In the immortal words of Spock: “Live long and prosper

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2016 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Avatar
Ensign
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  125
Joined  2016-07-25

Besides the generic “Its more Star Wars than Star Trek” comment it lacks the sense of discovery most of TNG/Voyager (and DS9 to a smaller degree) had.

Not sure if Im in the minority but I still rank First Contact/Nemesis better than all the Abrams remakes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2016 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Avatar
Cadet
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2016-10-06

I will avoid the conversation regarding canon/non-canon as I think it has been kicked around enough.  I have my gripes there, but no need to flog a dead horse.

I think the best summary I can come up with is that he didn’t make Star Trek movies, so much as he made SciFi Action movies with Star Trek characters involved.  I enjoyed the movies once I could get past trying to consider them Star Trek movies.  He seemed to miss the point of Star Trek always being a reflection of human society.  Just look at the traits of each alien races for the clearest example.

That all being said, I don’t really have any trouble considering Star Trek Beyond a Star Trek movie (thankfully JJ is gone).  I felt that it found a balance between action/scifi and human social interactions.  That is the direction I feel is required for Star Trek to stay relevant in today’s society.

 Signature 

Courage is when you’re the only guy who knows how shit-scared you really are.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2016 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Avatar
Ensign
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2016-08-01

On a positive note, who better than Zachary Quinto to play Spock? Although at times I kind of expect him to point at someone’s head and start to cut it open…

 Signature 

It’s a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your 2 cents in. Somebody’s making a penny.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2016 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Avatar
Cadet
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2016-10-06

Honestly I thought that the casting was pretty good for the most part.

The only casting I didn’t feel worked well was Zoe Saldana as Uhura.  That could be the way she was written in to the storyline though as opposed to her acting.

 Signature 

Courage is when you’re the only guy who knows how shit-scared you really are.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2016 05:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Avatar
Commander
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2763
Joined  2015-12-05
ToeToh - 12 December 2016 05:55 PM

Not sure if Im in the minority but I still rank First Contact/Nemesis better than all the Abrams remakes.

I don’t think many would object to First Contact being better than the Abrams remakes. While many fans were dismayed with some aspects of the movie (such as, the very existence of a Borg Queen), it’s a good entertaining movie, with excellent acting, interesting concepts, and good character development.

I’ll take “Picard’s old wounds are reopened” character arc over “things happen to Spock until he loses control and he punches someone” arc, any day.


That said, I always found Nemesis abysmal. In my opinion, it is the only old Trek movie on par (in badness) with the Abrams movies.

 Signature 

Minor contributor to the STT Wiki

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2016 03:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  561
Joined  2016-07-30

Problems with Abrams? Disregard and disrespect for source material. End of thread.

 Signature 

My Crew Quarters

Prolific STT Wiki contributor.

Star Trek is a work of fiction. All characters in this game are fake. If you believe otherwise, please seek professional help. We care about you.

Profile
 
 
   
 < 1 2 3 4 > 
3 of 4