How I Would Fix The Last Star Trek Movie

You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to

Either way, its pretty obvious discussing the last trek movie with you is about a fruitful as asking Stevie Wonder to pick your bathrooms colour scheme.

We all have our blind spots, guess this ones yours.

No, they aren't the same thing. Character development is what happens over the course of a movie or series, and Abrams Trek didn't have a whole hell of a lot there either. Character depth is what's already present and evident in each scene as they take place.

You speak of yourself, not me, because it's evident that you haven't had any intention of discussion the movie. Others have discussed the movie with me, even if they disagreed. All you've done is made ad hominem statements.

I think the problem here is that you have had a discussion, but ecky's opinion is that much different from yours that you are confusing it with what you interpret as ad hominem statements.

In other words you are so desperate for him to accept your view, and through that vindicate your own opinions about the piece, that you will not stop until he conforms more to what you want to hear.

It's rather sad, no? I'm forced to think that for some the Shatner "get a life" sketch still applies.

I've discussed it over various threads. I've pointed out that the movies faults are evident elsewhere in Trek, I think I've been quite fair in stating that it wasn't an intellectual tour de force or the best thing ever, and that while it may not have been the trek I personally wanted, it was nevertheless an enjoyable, decent film quite in-keeping with Trek's heritage.

And I've pointed out the problems in Trek fandom, for which you've proved an excellent case study and propped up my view far better than I could've done myself. To which I doff my cap and give thanks.

No, that isn't the case here. Here his "arguments" have basically been along the lines of "NERD!"

I actually don't give a shit what he thinks, I'm just calling bullshit on him for making the "arguments" that he has made. My analysis of the movie and discussion related to that has only been to share my view about them. If people agree with them, awesome, but no one needs to "accept" anything I say.

And again I could say the same to you and to ecky, since you both apparently have nothing better to do than to argue about a movie and to essentially antagonize anyone who didn't like it and has the gall to actually say so and/or explain why.

And I'd be happy to have that kind of discussion. I actually have had that kind of discussion here with others. If it's just something you don't care to repeat again, then perhaps you should think about excusing yourself from any discussion about it rather than what you have been doing in this thread.

And you are an awesome example of the same problem you try to say is the fault of others, that of the elitist fan who will accept no views other than their own. That fracturing of the fandom that everyone whines about is caused by people like you who would rather do the intellectual equivalent of throwing shit than anything else.

Right... The moment anyone point out they can look beyond the movies flaws and enjoy it, when it's pointed out that none of the movies flaws are unique to it and have been in the Trek franchise since the start, or that bellyaching over farty little things you turn into Mr Indignant

Comedy gold. This entire thread is Trekkers 2.

I'd say it's pretty safe to say either you can't read or you haven't bothered to read much of anything I've said, because what I complained about are how fans of this movie will often defend this movie by bashing the old franchise for having the same kind of flaws that Abrams Trek itself has. Not sure what that has to do with having a decent discussion that doesn't resort to trolling as I've had in this thread with plenty of other people.

Including you, whether you like to admit it or not.

In other words, trash the whole script, right?

I admit after the third or fourth you do get incredibly tedious on this subject, so I do sort of skip over. Bit like forwarding through the adverts when watching a recorded show.

And you desperately need to understand 'pointing out' isn't the same as 'bashing'. I don't think anyone has actually bashed the old series', just pointed out that all the flaws those who dislike Trek XI have complained about, are evident throughout the entire franchise.

Essentially it boils down to you holding it up to a level of quality you think the previous series had, but in reality didn't.

Now you can argue it was flawed, I won't disagree. You can argue it wasn't the best outing of the franchise, I won't disagree. You can argue it should've been better - again, I won't disagree.

But when you start comparing it so some fantastical flawless, perfect incarnation of Trek that only exists in whatever fantasy world you have rattling inside your skull, and condemning it on that basis then I am going to pull you up on it, and yes, I am going to point and laugh and amuse myself at your expense.

I have no problem with you disliking the movie, that is your prerogative and your right, but I do have a problem stating its crap in some objective measurement derived from said fantasy version of Trek. Because thats a load of bollocks. Big hairy ones at that.

Oh I'm fine to admitting it, I'm just getting a kick out of when you get all shrill and indignant. Far better than a stress ball.

They really should have placed a sticker on the DVD cover stating that it came with the added bonus of getting up the noses of some people.

The last Star Trek movie is a fun flick, the action is well paced, the effects are solid, and it was much better than most introduction/origin movies. Though I was brain slapped by Kirk being jettisoned almost directly to the elder Spock. That's one hell of a coincidence.

^Yup, would've made more sense for Nero to have dumped Prime at the Starfleet station, and where, logically, Kirk would've gone to and so not stretched coincidence to breaking point.

It was a point where it was obvious they wanted a monster chase scene and a cave, and stretched the plot around it.

And you are always free to not participate if you feel this way. Or to put it more simply: you can't put up much of an argument when you don;t even know what you're arguing against.

Looks like I'm not the only one then.

And I've pointed out that since that is the case, Abrams Trek is hardly the shiny, flawless, "new" thing fans of it try to claim that it is. The same people who go on about how necessary a reboot was in order to get away from a lot of the old corn and cliches then turn around and apparently fail to realize they are poking their own original argument full of holes when they point out a lot of the same problems with this movie were the same kind of problems the movie was supposedly trying to get away from.

Not really, no. If you think I ignore any of the faults the original franchise had, you definitely haven't been paying much attention to anything I've actually said. What I have said is that at its best it was definitely more thoughtful and had more depth than Abrams Trek even attempted to have.

I'd argue that it's on the same level as STV and NEM.

And I'll laugh and amuse myself at you assertion that I've done something that I haven't because you think you can categorize me as one of the "wrong font!" bashers. I hate to disapoint you, but being critical isn't the same as "bashing".

What's bollocks is this twisted funhouse mirror version of me and my criticism you seem to have in your head.

So you admit that your only purpose here is to troll.

Or maybe it should have come with one warning about making certain viewers so conceited that they enjoy the smell of their own farts, because this movie hasn't gotten up my nose or any other orifice for that matter. Or are you going to try to argue that every movie I'm critical of has done that?

It looks like many Star Trek "fans" think that problems with other Trek series and films somehow excuses and/or justifies problems with Abramstrek.

If anything, Abramstrek should NOT have as many problems as the earlier movies and series.

Why? Big name highly experienced director. Blockbuster production staff. Sky is the limit budgeting (Abramstrek cost what? As much as the last four movies COMBINED!!??).

Massive studio support with massive promotion effort (during the Super Bowl no less).

So why are fans making excuses for this movie?

10 years from now, we'll just see how well it holds up. I seriously doubt it will be as fondly remembered as most of the original series moves.

While I agree with you, it's not really a fair comparison.


There's a lot of emotional/sentimental value attached to the original series movies that the new Trek movie won't ever have simply because the actors in the new film don't have the same history with the audience that Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley did. ST fans had "known" those guys for 10+ years by the time TOS movies came about.

Hell, personally speaking, I don't mind watching ST:V just for the campfire/interaction scenes between the three of them. It's the only "good" thing about an otherwise terrible movie.

Fair enough.

I'd fix it by stopping to think about it and go watch Kick Ass

Point of order: people didn't bitch about VOY, ENT & NEM for being corny & full of holes, they bitched about it being stale & deadly, deadly boring.

Don't put quote marks around the word as if those people aren't really fans. You are the one who has admitted to disliking the majority of Trek movies. Question your own status.

I was not raised that way.

Look at it has family.

Most families that I know of tolerate more bad decisions, trouble making, and general idiocy from their own family than they would from strangers.

My family was not like that. My parents always expected their family members to be "better" than the common herd.

I expect Star Trek to be better.

I don't make excuses for it.

Which has what to do with questioning whether or not other people are really fans? It's getting ridiculous with you guys.

Because people have different views of what makes a fan just as some people have different ideas of what makes a patriot.

Some believe patriots criticize their own country and point out flaws to make it better.

Some believe patriots adopt a "my country right or wrong" mentality.

I'm sure this isn't flying by you.

The bottom line is

"I love Star Trek."

"I want Star Trek to be better."

This thread has to win a Forgie for the most stupid series of overreactions over a movie ever posted.

Not to mention that young Spock was the one who tossed him off the ship.

They don't have a Brig on the ship?

They don't have that history yet.

If there are no more movies with the current crew of actors, they will pretty much be forgotten as a kind of footnote in the history of Trek. But if there are a series of movies with them, they will come to be as closely identified with the characters, for the younger generation of Trek fans, as Shatner, Nimoy, etc. are to us oldies.

And if that happens, the film will be looked back on with very fond memories as the first film with the "right" actors. Those of us who grew up with the others will wonder what in the world they're talking about, but those who grow up with the current crew will simply dismiss us as being out of touch.

We see with Dayton how easy it is to think your own point of view is absolute, so that you become the criterion for determining who is or is not a "true" Star Trek fan. It's ridiculous, but it's human. If there are enough movies with the new generation of actors, their fanbase will be large enough that they will simply declare outright that their opinion is the only "right" one. Those of us who are old-time TOS fans will be considered as totally "out of it" as Lawrence Welk fans are by the current generation of young people.

It was supposed to be the universe trying to correct itself or some such bullshit. Plus it gave them an excuse to come up with a couple new monster designs. Not like they expected the audience to think all that hard about anything.

Perhaps, but that's not the point I was making.

TOS had a 13-year history with the fans before the first movie was ever released.

A cancelled series gets new life on the big screen. People were overjoyed.

The new film can't compare to that "backstory" because it simply doesn't have it.

And I say that as someone who thoroughly enjoyed the new movie.

Note:

To show I'm not completely biased I did enjoy some elements of the movie.

1) It looked like a movie and not just an extended television show. The first Star Trek movie in 30 years that actually seemed like a motion picture.

2) Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike was great. He brought the perfect mixture of gravity and humanity to the role. Greenwood was arguably better than Jeffrey Hunter as Pike.

3) The overall exterior look of the Enterprise was good. Close enough to the original yet cleverly updated. Aside from the hideous warp engines and aft end of the engineering hull (which I figure can be fixed by a later refit).

4) Casting of the Enterprise crew was pretty good. Especially the roles of Kirk and McCoy. I still thought the role of Scotty should've gone to the guy from Stargate: Atlantis though.

Why would you try and "fix" the most profitable movie in the history of the franchise?

If you're upset about the change in the timeline, you still have 5 series and ten movies worth of content to reminisce with.