Abrams is Destroying Star Trek like Lucas has Destroyed Star Wars — Page 22

sean wookie said:

Fan edits have always been shit anyways.

I couldn't possibly agree with you more.

You just want it to be bad, eh Hunter!!!

Well, I'm going to see it tonight........Looking forward to it!! ;)

Apparently my local theatre is showing Star Trek VI alongside the new movie.  Squee!  Guess which one I'll be seeing!

Ebert's Review even though only 2 and a half stars out of four is over all positive.  I wonder if Hunter6 actually read it.

The opening thing he says really struck me though and is over all a condemnation of the new film.

“Star Trek” as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera, but that doesn’t amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no “Star Trek” has gone before."

Which i find curious because he does not explore this in the same context of star wars.  Did not this same man like Episode III.  Geez i mean the prequels were space opera "more concerned with repeating a sucessful formula" Was this dude even paying attention.

I knew in the beginning this movie would be a throwaway action flick just like some of the previous entries the actioners were more sucessful than the cerebral motion picture the rodenberry trek that stalled in space dock and was revived to new life in the wrath of khan.  First Contact and Khan were sucessful action flicks.  Insurrection was a lesser entry though still good without lots of boxoffice returns,  Nemesis repeated themes and added new ones and still was a flop.

Hunter6 said:

As the release of Star Trek (2009) comes near, the bad Reviews being to come out.

Star Trek (2009) Reviews

Roger Ebert:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997

The Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/05/06/1241289237288.html

IGN:
http://movies.ign.com/articles/973/973956p1.html

 

No movie, even the most acclaimed classic, went without a small handful of negative reviews (and this new Star Trek's handful is tiny.)

I personally don't give a shit about the new Star Trek movie or Star Trek in general, but it is getting overwhelmingly positive reviews.

The only real review I care about is the Peter Travers review, that dude has tastes closest to my own. I don't know why Ebert is so famous (been around the longest I guess,) but he has mostly shit taste in movies. Dude gave glowing reviews to the Star Wars prequels, I remember him giving Phantom Menace 31/2 out of 4 stars with a hyper-glowing review. Those movies were fucking ass.

So did Revenge of the Sith and Indiana Jones IV which says a lot who really puts the food on the critics tables.

I wouldn't say either got overwhelmingly positive reviews.

Sith is at 80 and Indy is below 80 on Rotten Tomatoes.

That's a far shot from the 90's to mid 90's (which indicates an overwhelmingly positive response to a movie from the audience of critics.)

Gene Roddenberry......60's dude

JJ Abrams......00's dude

I know which I prefer  (and it ain't the 60's dude)

Well what would you liked to have seen from Abrams, he was working with the original characters? What sort of modern day social issues could he have worked in without making it completely retarded?

Should he have made Spock a Middle Eastern tranny?

Z6PO said:

The 00'dude boldly go nowhere, has nothing to say, it's just the same old clichés of your average summer movie...

 

Abrams should have had Sulu and Chekov have butt sex, then it would be making a bold statement somewhat on par with having a black woman on the bridge.

Well, swordfighting is Sulu's specialty.

Right girls....don't get upset....The film is......

Bloody good!!

Like Johnny boy, I won't go into details...But I loved it. It's just a great big sci-fi epic that never lets up.

"It's Trek Jim, but not as we know it"

Great stuff!!

I am going to have to wait until I see it. But so far all this is scaring me. Exact same thing happened with Revenge of the Sith and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

All my friends were shouting about how fantastic ROTS was, then I went and saw it and realized it sucked. Then it seemed like after I saw it, everyone started to admit how bad it was. I kept hearing that Indy IV was pretty good, then when I eventually saw it, I nearly puked multiple times. Now I can't find a person on the face of the earth who still admits to liking it.

My dad talked me into going to see it with him tomorrow (dah, same reason I ended up seeing ROTS against my better judgement), so looks like tomorrow evening I will be able to give a fair opinion.

The thing is how often do you see a studio delibretely going about alienating its existing fanbase.

By saying this is not your father's star trek.  They are pretty much flipping the bird at original series fans, the ones who they promised a return to classic treks roots.  And they want to have it both ways anyway to be a reboot and not.  To fuck with the fans and then try and placate them by putting Leonard Nimoy into the movie. 

An emotional Spock.  What is he now like firckin SYBOK.

The time paradox excuse to explain away the canon backstories is laughable.  Might as well set it in a different parellel reality or the mirror universe because these are not the same characters from the original series films and movies if their life story is changed.  Kirk is not the Kirk we know without Kodas the Executioner and the bad memories of tarsis IV.  Without having his dad around to influence him to get into the academy and become a starship captain.

We all know our life experiences make up a lot of who we are.  You cannot  change that and expect the same character, its a lame copout.  In the End this movie is a 2 hour fuck off and a circle jerk.  Nice shaky camera lense flares and bright colors.  Action, sex and explosions.   What happenened to "seek out strange new worlds and civilizations.  To boldy Go where no man has gone before"

First Contact was an action film too.  But at least that had the Gravitas of Patrick Stewart to carry it.  Chris Pine cannot even measure up to Shatner much less Stewart.  This film is a teen soap drama joke.  But this is not the CW, or One Tree Hill, the OC, Smallville, or the new 90210.

Because brain dead people want a popcorn flick and not cerebral science fiction, or a story that makes you wonder about the unknown out there.  Or give us a realized future and a real update like abrams promised not an apple store bridge and dialogue straight out of micheal bays transformers or a kevin smith film.

Hopefully this film at the end restores the real timeline but i doubt it.  If it did the sequel would not be junk if they got new screenwriters and rid of abrams, or at least got rid of the overly bright exposure and lens flares and shaky cam.  This is not LOST it is star trek.  It is not Cloverfield it is Star Trek.

That not even the half of it the score is a joke.  It is on the level of a tv score and not like a score for an epic motion picture.

In the end this movie was actually shot on film but early on they were going to do digital.  But you would never notice because of the over saturated colors and low grain film stock.  I mean it is not as bad as the cinematography on war of the worlds or Indiana Jones IV but man it is actually worse than the star wars prequels.  At least Lucas did not do shaky cam and lense flares every half a second.

The only postive is the sharpness of the images because of film being used.  It sure does look nice too on a purely eye candy level and ILM outdid themselves on the Effects.  Their effects on Transformers 2 and this film are said to be mindblowing and astounding.  For a big effects picture summer blockbuster action flick you can't go wrong on that level.  And the film will make a shitload of money.

I look forward to the Behind the scenes dvd.  And the cinefex article.

The Alan Dean Foster Novelization does not come out til next week.  Too bad i wanted to read it before seeing the film.  They are going to lose book sales from not releasing it weeks to months early of the films release. 

I read the novelizations of the star wars prequels before seeing the films. The comics adaptation.  The scripts and the video games.  What did they do here the film only.  Just like a barebones dvd release.  Not even a making of book or expanded soundtrack.  No Trading cards.  Nothing but bad plastic toys and glasses with fast food, and stupid phaser toys and bad photoshopped movie posters.

skyjedi2005 said:

The thing is how often do you see a studio delibretely going about alienating its existing fanbase.

By saying this is not your father's star trek.  They are pretty much flipping the bird at original series fans, the ones who they promised a return to classic treks roots.  And they want to have it both ways anyway to be a reboot and not.  To fuck with the fans and then try and placate them by putting Leonard Nimoy into the movie.

Exactly. No matter how good this movie is as your generic explosion filled, orgasm of the senses, sci-fi flick, it made the mistake of alienating the people who really care about the series, and basically told them, f you, we are going for the mass appeal on this one gents.

What is really dumb are all the people out there who feel that real ST fans don't have the right to feel a bit pissed. This exact same movie could have been made without flipping the bird at the fans. They might have still felt that it sucked, but they wouldn't have felt like they had J.J. Abram's piss spraying them in the face, with all these advertisements basically saying, "Hey fans! Guess what? (drops pants) SUCK ON THAT!!! Nah nah nah nah nah naaaah!"

I am not a big Trekkie, but I can sympathize with them. In know SW is a bad example, because it too was basicially destroyed for the sake of bringing in more cash too. But imagine if the adds for the prequel had went on, almost tauntingly, "This isn't the Star Wars you grew up with!" "Forget all you know about Star Wars" "If you are a Star Wars fan, don't go to see this because all the cool kids will be there and they don't want to have to stare at your ugly nerdy face!" etc.

Hunter6 said:

I thinking like with other JJ Abrams' work that as time goes maybe a week or a month that more and more people will turn on this film. It was like that with MI: III and Cloverfield.

Yeah, give it six months, and it will be hip to hate this thing. It just takes a while for the masses to realize that most of these movies manufactured for mass consumption absolutely suck. They seem to like them at first taste, then after time they admit that it wasn't that great. Then a year later or so if the title of the movie is brought up somehow they'll says, "Ah, that old movie. That has got to have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen!" At least that has been the trend.