I'm not saying 2009 and Into Darkness were bad films, but they were awful Star Trek films.

9/27/2013 7:13:15 PM

agreed

9/27/2013 7:21:42 PM

needs more whale-iens.

9/27/2013 7:24:09 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=628021&page=2#15701372
agreed.

[Edited on September 27, 2013 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2013 8:00:18 PM

Yeah JJ Abrams basically missed the entire point of Star Trek. Everything Gene Roddenberry ever tried to convey through his writing was completely thrown to the wind.

But whatever fuck that humanistic visionary futurist bullshit. EXPLOSIONS! Am I right?!

9/28/2013 4:07:15 AM

doesn't help that we won't see the next install for 5 billion years thanx to star wars

i somehow doubt his body of work will unite the two fandoms either

9/28/2013 4:21:07 AM

http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

^Abrams' not directing the next Star Trek film

9/28/2013 2:26:54 PM

Pssh. Klingons had subtitles because the universal translator hadn't been invented yet. Oh no wait...the universal translator was invented 100 years prior. JJ Abrams is just a fucking hack.

9/28/2013 3:06:07 PM

Star Trek is too fake to ever be taken seriously

Star Wars on the other hand is realistic

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/science-trumps-force-create-real-life-lightsaber-223711142.html

9/28/2013 9:34:07 PM

The biggest difference between trekkies and jedifags: Trekkies were never shit on by Gene Roddenberry. George Lucas is enemy of the fanboy state for creating the letdown of the millennium. Also George Lucas is a racist.

9/28/2013 9:49:03 PM

Gene Roddenberry died before Lucas ever shit on Star Wars

9/28/2013 9:51:06 PM

First Lucas quits then he comes back just to squeeze every last penny he can out of his fanbase. On top of that he ruined one of the greatest trilogies of all time. He is a greedy, pathetic sack of shit.

Gene Roddenberry never did it for money. His writing was his way of expressing his hope for the human race. The worst thing he ever did was cheat on his wife. He never had the capacity for the shit George Lucas pulled. Even if he was still alive, he wouldn't have quit and come back just for money. If given the opportunity, he would have kept going because he really believed in what he was saying.

wtf does Lucas believe in? Midi-chlorians?

9/29/2013 12:06:56 AM

I'll put the original Star Wars trilogy against anything Star Trek related

the prequels suck ass but that doesnt take away from the originals

and who is to say Roddenberry wouldn't have fucked something up if he had lived longer

the fact is, in the early 90s or whenever Roddenberry died, Lucas hadn't taken a steaming dump all over the SW franchise yet

9/29/2013 12:13:22 AM

He was certainly saving up for one

9/29/2013 3:23:28 AM

Quote :

"ene Roddenberry never did it for money. His writing was his way of expressing his hope for the human race. The worst thing he ever did was cheat on his wife. He never had the capacity for the shit George Lucas pulled. Even if he was still alive, he wouldn't have quit and come back just for money. If given the opportunity, he would have kept going because he really believed in what he was saying. "

I feel like cheating on your wife is a little worse than making movies people don't like and making tons of money off of them.

9/29/2013 12:09:43 PM

dude bwned uhura and nurse chapel.

9/29/2013 12:43:30 PM

nO WAY

9/29/2013 5:06:09 PM

Quote :

" I feel like cheating on your wife is a little worse than making movies people don't like and making tons of money off of them."

In most cases yes. But George Lucas didn't just make movies people didn't like. He hyped up the prequels for a decade getting everyone who ever loved Star Wars excited just so he could get better box office earnings. That isn't so bad when you are making good movies for the sake of good art, but when you're focused completely on the marketing and merchandising then you are a greedy piece of shit. You are an even bigger piece of shit when you do it with something as classic as Star Wars.

You might ask, how do I know he did that on purpose and not just because he sucks as a filmmaker? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that he didn't give a single fuck about the quality of the films. You can go back and watch interviews and behind the scenes clips of George Lucas talking about not beating Titanic at the box office, hyping up the special effects, and doing everything he can to coattail on the success of the previous films while doing AS LITTLE WORK AS POSSIBLE. He had thousands of highly talented and skilled artists, technicians, and producers at his disposal to continue one of the greatest sagas ever created and he produced the biggest disappointment in film history - no fuck that, IN THE HISTORY OF FICTION. So yeah. I think fooling around on your wife pales by comparison to what George Lucas did. Seriously, fuck that guy.



btw Smath74: nurse chapel was his wife so that one doesn't count

[Edited on September 29, 2013 at 5:31 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2013 5:26:04 PM

Quote :

"when you're focused completely on the marketing and merchandising then you are a greedy piece of shit"

He's such a greedy piece of shit that he's donating the $4 billion from the sale of Lucasfilm to educational foundations.

9/29/2013 5:45:02 PM

Now that he feels bad.

edit: The whole reason he sold Lucasfilm was because he was butthurt over his fans basically burning him in effigy for years. I don't doubt that he has changed since the release of the prequels but it's really just a reaction to the massive amounts of criticism he has received.

[Edited on September 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM. Reason : -]

9/29/2013 5:55:08 PM

Quote :

"btw Smath74: nurse chapel was his wife so that one doesn't count"

well duh... but he had a different wife when they first started bwning.

9/29/2013 10:40:25 PM

First wife doesn't count either.

9/29/2013 11:10:58 PM

Star Trek, really is just better suited for the small screen.

I feel sorry for star wars fans, I bet 7 makes 'em think 1 wasn't so bad.

9/29/2013 11:23:56 PM

Insurrection and Nemesis exist yet JJ Abrams destroyed Star Trek.

9/30/2013 12:45:02 PM

Those last two Star Trek movies were pretty good, IMO.

I never really watched the shows though. Only people I knew that watched Star Trek were huge losers and nerds IRL.

9/30/2013 1:27:30 PM

Quote :

"Insurrection and Nemesis exist yet JJ Abrams destroyed Star Trek."

Yes those were bad movies, but they still had the classic Star Trek story structure and subject matter.

9/30/2013 3:34:59 PM

Insurrection would have made a good two part TNG episode, and I don't think it was a terrible story... just not that great of a movie.

Nemesis was full of fail.

9/30/2013 4:43:05 PM

Insurrection and Nemesis are beyond fucking terrible and not trek in the least other than the name and the cast.

JJ Trek fucking owns and is better than all the TNG movies and all the TOS movies other than VI and II.

9/30/2013 5:01:06 PM

It's called Star Track

































According to my mom.

9/30/2013 5:44:59 PM

the first star trek reboot was good, way way ahead of the star trek tng movies and star wars prequels, into darkness was dissapointing no doubt, he seemed trying way to hard to pay homage to the original movies on that IMO, anyway none of the star trek films were really classic anyway, it's more of a tv show

funny I've read more interesting stories in the star trek and star wars universe then the prequel star wars and most of the trek movies and I barely read that stuff to begin with





[Edited on September 30, 2013 at 5:57 PM. Reason : k]

9/30/2013 5:50:26 PM

I feel like you are baiting me

9/30/2013 9:31:29 PM

Destroying 50 years of established canon in a few minutes.

Inventing terrible technology (multi system transporter which makes star ships pointless)

Abrams thinking Warp Drive = Star Wars Hyperdrive

Lack of understanding of the Trek Universe. Sure the Enterprise can travel from Klingon space in mere minutes from Earth!

Trying to hard to appease fanboys with tribbles, Section 31, the early destruction of Praxis ie pretty much all of into Darkneess

Khan's superblood = Federation can cure everything now!

Turning every female character into a stereotype. Uhura interrupting a mission to discuss relationship problems, Marcus having daddy issues, ever other female character being there for Kirk to sleep with. TOS Uhura would have none of that shit, neither would Crusher, Kira, Torres, etc.

Lens Flair!

Throwing in Spock Prime for no reason.

If 2009 didn't get made, there was a good chance of a new series staring Worf as Captain, and that would have been awesome.

Abrams destroyed Star Trek. Yes the films were enjoyable (2009 more than Into Darkness) but overall, he killed what Star Trek was by trying to make it cool and hip, while at the same time appeasing to Trekkies.




[Edited on September 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM. Reason : a]

9/30/2013 9:42:20 PM

i've never understood the geekdom surrounding star trek, but I appreciate it anyway because I actually enjoyed the silmarilion

9/30/2013 9:58:06 PM

funny no mention that abrams is directing the new star wars also yet

10/1/2013 1:40:37 PM

http://nerdapproved.com/movies/j-j-abrams-has-some-words-of-apology-in-regards-to-lens-flares/

Quote :

"In case you haven’t noticed, J.J. Abrams has a penchant for lens flares. The new Star Trek movies are overflowing with them, and when Abrams was confirmed for Episode VII, the jokes about flares went flying. CraveOnline cornered Abrams on the red carpet for the Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray release party and they asked the question we all want to know: What’s up with all the lens flares? And guess what? He apologized. “I know I get a lot of grief for that,” says Abrams. “But I’ll tell you, there are times when I’m working on a shot, I think, ‘Oh this would be really cool… with a lens flare.’ But I know it’s too much, and I apologize. I’m so aware of it now. I was showing my wife an early cut of Star Trek Into Darkness and there was this one scene where she was literally like, ‘I just can’t see what’s going on. I don’t understand what that is.’ I was like, ‘Yeah, I went too nuts on this.’” “This is how stupid it was,” J.J. Abrams added. “I actually had to use ILM [Industrial Light & Magic] to remove lens flare in a couple of shots, which is, I know, moronic. But I think admitting you’re an addict is the first step towards recovery.” I can’t believe there were more flares! I’m a little curious to see what it was like before ILM removed them. (CraveOnline via /Film) "

10/1/2013 4:59:48 PM

Holy hell, that film was AFTER he removed lens flair?

10/1/2013 5:14:02 PM

Quote :

"i've never understood the geekdom surrounding star trek"

+1. I'm a big fan of the series. Watched the original series and NG all the way through, but I have never understood the people who get their panties in a wad over this stuff.

I thought Abrams did a great job with the last 2 films. The only thing I didn't like was the opening act of Into Darkness.

10/1/2013 5:16:53 PM

wow wtf

10/1/2013 5:16:59 PM

^^ The opening act was the most TOS thing they did

10/1/2013 8:17:16 PM

?? I won't necessarily take you seriously unless you have more details.

I can count four spots downtown on Hillsborough that have been proposed for large developments in the past decade and have zoning that would allow something that big.

301 Hillsborough (Southwest corner of Hillsborough/Dawson, across from the Clarion). 25 story hotel/condo project proposed by Reynolds Father/son duo, the developers of Quorum Center. It fell through in 2009 and the city now owns the property.

400 Hillsborough (Northwest corner of Hillsborough/Harrington). This was proposed as two hotels and possibly apartments/condos by Winston Hospitality but fell through a few years ago. Now owned by what seems to be a hotel developer based in Oak Brook, Illinois.

501 Hillsborough (Southwest corner of Hillsborough/West). Proposed as an 8-10 story mixed use building by HBS/York. Nearly the entire block is still owned by HBS.

601 Hillsborough (Southwest corner of Hillsborough/Glenwood). Proposed in 2007 by Sandman, developer of the Paramount condos, as a 20-30 story condo tower. Property ownership not entirely clear.

10/1/2013 8:17:44 PM

voyager, enterprise, and the tng films killed star trek.

10/1/2013 8:20:02 PM

Quote :

"The opening act was the most TOS thing they did"

Except the whole Enterprise under the ocean thing without an explanation as to why.

It's a starship capable of orbiting a planet and beaming people on and off. All the problems that they have in the first 10 minutes result from them being stuck at the bottom of the ocean.

A lot of the personal conflicts in the film and a key to the plot was Kirk's violation of the prime directive and saving of Spock, fine I get that. But parking a starship in an ocean within 1/2 mile of a primitive civilization just seems like poor writing to get to that plot point.

10/1/2013 8:51:06 PM

Quote :

"Except the whole Enterprise under the ocean thing without an explanation as to why. "

I really didn't have an issue with that, TOS did a lot of things we were suppose to just take for face value like the Enterprise being sent back in time for historical observation in Assignment: Earth. It was good campy fun.

10/1/2013 8:55:43 PM

Quote :

"It was good campy fun"

And that's why I think it was still a good film. There was a lot of campy, did-it-only-for-special-effects kind of stuff, but overall it was great.

Abrams haters can hate all they want, but unless fans are willing to watch a series end without turning into a franchise, they're going to have to come to terms with different directors, writers, producers and actors changing things for new audiences.

10/1/2013 9:19:30 PM

they put the enterprise under the ocean because it was cool. that's the reason. they could have easily left it in space and beamed/shuttled out once they got out of visual range of the civilization, but that's not as fun which is what these movies are about.

also orci and kurtzman are big trek nerds and both films are littered with script, audio, and visual references to the prime timeline that they didn't have any reason to put in there other than they are nerds and they wanted to do it right.

The fact is you just cant have a star trek VI or IV these days cause people don't have the attention span for it. TV is a much better medium for that kind of thing anyways, especially on cable and premium networks. Both JJ treks are fantastic action adventures that may not feature some of the same themes as tos, tng, or ds9, action adventure is certainly not beyond the realm of trek. II is absolutely a mindless action film. There are no themes of cultural acceptance or collaboration, its a battle of Kirk vs Khan and there are a slew of episodes that deal primarily in cheesy action. That's the basis for JJ trek.

Also, Roddenberry would have whole heartedly opposed much of deep space 9 even though its by far the best written trek. so when we're talking about what would have happened if he were still around, i'd say probably not as much.

10/1/2013 9:40:35 PM

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/01/star-trek-is-broken-here-are-ideas-on-how-to-fix-it/

10/1/2013 11:46:26 PM

^This is a common gripe amongst the most HARDCORE fans, and it's a tired arguement.

Quote :

"When you now have two films that don’t live up to the basic premise of the concept… you have a problem."

The original idea for this was written almost four and a half decades ago, back in the 70s. Rodenberry created a groundbreaking show that explored a fictional space at a time when real space travel was in its infancy. During a time of civil rights movements, he created a show with a diverse cast. When women's role in military function was merely support, he created roles for female officers. While the cold war raged and everyone in a uniform was tasked with offensive/defensive task, he created a crew whose purpose was exploration and adventure.

Rodenberry even focused on casting and writing based on Shakespearean theater, so should we cast Abrams under the bus for not posting casting calls around The Globe theatre?

You can't write a concept in the 1970s and expect it to stay unchanged and relevant for the 2010s.

If Abrams had really done a shit job at this revamp, it would have died at the box office, but it didn't. Instead he's created an interest in the teen and early 20s group for a concept that was written when their parents were their age.

10/2/2013 12:10:06 AM

JJ Abrams gets a point for admitting to the lens flare madness. I guess it did make it look futuristic, but it just got annoying after 10 minutes.

10/2/2013 12:11:34 AM

Star Trek I haven't seen yet is always better than Star Trek I've already seen.

10/2/2013 12:55:06 AM

The 2009 film was enjoyable, but again the story was a B rated movie at best with Triple A production value. It killed the whole previous Star Trek canon, but ok I'll try to take that and see where the story goes on.

Into the Darkness? My god, it was unwatchable; the story was just awful and nothing made any real sense even if you just kept the story/canon to the 2009 film. Nothing flowed right and even the funny character interactions you would have thought would have been a fun cheeky comment weren't; they were more annoying than anything cause they would drag it on too long or just seem too out of place.

I hope JJ abrams doesn't destroy Star Wars canon this bad.

10/2/2013 6:06:48 AM