The Official Red Room Bitch About Star Trek Into Darkness Thread! (SPOILERS)

This is what really drives the haters nuts..

Lifetime Gross

Star Trek (2009) $257,730,019
The Voyage Home $109,713,132

They just can't fathom the fact that the reboot is more popular than any of the previous trek movies.

Really?

Like the title didn't give that away so you could avoid the topic entirely?

Seems like you need a life... purposely visiting threads you hate and adding nothing of value to them.

I think I'll just drop this riiiight heeere...

Are those figures adjusted to reflect the value of the dollar at the time they were released?

It would also be interesting to see the net figures as well as the gross, but the studio won't let you have access to those.

Here's what the Klingons will look like:

You don't need to retcon anything - its a reboot. So now all you're doing is looking for excuses for bad writing.

Any BSG fan knows where they got the "magic blood" idea from.

I posted about this a couple of days ago. It's particularly easy to fathom, and it doesn't at all follow that AbramsTrek is "better".

Twilight: New Moon (2009) $296,623,634

Therefore, a 2 hour, 10 minute snorefest based on shitty Mary Sue fanfic based on Anne Rice's gay-ified vampires is a better movie than J.J. Abrams' 2 hour, 7 minute shitty fanfic based on Star Trek.

Because, clearly, the number of entertainment-starved, half-literate idiots willing to part with cash to be spoon-fed pablum is a tremendous indicator of quality.

The Voyage Home did not have a 100 million dollar plus budget and marketing campaign either.

"protomatter" v. "red matter"

objectively, it's the SAME FUCKING THING!!!!

In the former case, you take the shit and someone make some technobabbly magical science project work in such away as to take dead stuff and create a whole fucking living planet (and oh by the way, accidentally resurrect the dead)

in the latter case you take the stuff and blow shit up in a spectacularly unlikely fashion.

...and you figure the latter is more unrealistic than the former?

Eh. Suit yourself. I don't know how either one of us would prove our opinion given the shit ain't real.

I posted a complete list of inflation adjusted gross totals on one of these Trek threads just a few days ago

Wrong. Khan pre-dates the divergence.

Alternately, if you are saying that NOTHING from the former continuity applies because it's not really a new timeline but a complete reboot - THEN "retcon" is indeed not necessary.

I'll just default back to "it's the same sort of bad writing which has regularly occurred in Star Trek all along. So why are we busted up about it NOW?"

There is no divergence - it's a reboot.

Shit, they didn't even treat it like a divergence in the movie where the divergence occurred.

I'm pretty consistent in my criticism, so using the angle of, "he criticizes this, but gives this previous instance a pass" doesn't fly with me. Additionally, one of the biggest arguments for doing the reboot was that the new movies wouldn't be held down by the bad writing of the past, and that these new movies were going to be better. This latest example shows that argument to be invalid, and the claim to be untrue with a really obvious example, though to be frank, even the first movie had the same kind of bad writing and used some of the same crutches as the original franchise, with the time travel/alternate timeline bit being the most obvious example of that. Now it's using the tried and true reset button that VOY in particular was fond of using.

And this is where I go from channeling Harlan Ellison to goofing off again.

[yt=This robot-cat-shark is chasing a duck. Your argument is invalid.]Of2HU3LGdbo[/yt]

Why do people care so much what other people think?

Does it really effect your own enjoyment of a film to know there are people who hate it?

Who cares?

In my case, I DON'T care who hates or loves it, it's purely and intellectual exercise to discuss it. i have no emotion at all invested in what others think.

Simple.

I want a movie like I want.

I do not want a movie in the Abramsverse. If a bunch of people do like the Abramsverse, then we'll see more of the Abramsverse.

Thus, in order for me to get the movie I want, the people who like the Abramsverse must be turned, isolated, or neutralized.

Sucks that we outnumber you by so much, huh?

Oh well.

I'm never going to get another Freddy Krueger movie with Robert Englund.

Not gonna happen.

I have to console myself with the old movies, and other new movies.

There's 4 more Evil Deads coming, there's 2 more phases of Avengers movies, there's another Star Wars trilogy, there's the mystery Star Wars spinoff films, there's a 5th Toxic Avenger, there's a Toxic Avenger remake, there's a Class Of Nuke 'em high 4 and 5...

And that's all stuff off of comfortable familiar properties.

Nevermind the completely new stuff that'll surprise me like "Human Centipede", did.

I don't need to arm-wrestle fuckin' New Line into coughing up Freddy 9 for me.

And if I did consider such a thing, trying to pathetically troll the fans of the Nightmare remake wouldn't be the way I went about it.

I guess I'm saying, move the fuck on.

I must have missed all the "lets bitch about how bad the writing was in "the Search for Spock" (or whichever)" threads.

And no, I'm not i8nterested in a tangent about what may or may not have happened at TBBS a decade ago

I've never heard, or heard of, that argument coming from TPTB. the only context in which I've ever heard"free from the past" invoked was being free from the burden of a vast continuity (which is often itself self-contradictory)

I've never heard anyone connected with the production say or even clearly imply that previous trek featured "bad writing" - even when all of us know full well that, at least, the last two movies were horrendous.

So, ultimately, it's "real Star Trek" after all.

That's really sad. I don't mean like tear-jerker sad or anything, just more like a dull, empty sort of dark-overcast-afternoon-with-a-sky-full-of-iron-gray-pregnant-clouds-that-just-won't-rain kind of sad. I sort of want to buy you a puppy, but then again I sort of don't, because you might make the puppy sad, too.

Why?

If you know what you want then why "move on"?

Fight for what you want. If you still don't get it, then you've lost nothing

How is it possible for one person to go full retard all the time?

Because Star Trek doesn't love you anymore.

Dominating it won't make it love you.
Control isn't love.

You have a massive mind control ray built by Mojo Jojo hidden in the Ozarks somewhere?

Case, ya know, the vast majority of the buying public doesn't actually read the shit you post on a BBS. Assuming of course your argument was always persuasive.

Which it ain't.

Neutralized?

What does that even mean?

I love cloudy days.

Control has its own charms.