Star Trek XII?

Actually in some ways, it's even more immature. Kirk being pushed into Uhura and accidentally grabbing her breasts, many of the crude jokes, Kirk's case of marshmallow hands and tongue, Scotty taking a trip to the waterpark, etc.

Not always, but often. The idea that it's reduced entirely to the silly and corny is what bothers me because Trek was usually at its best when it was serious, aside from the occasional comedy relief episode.

Actually I didn't say that. What I did was disagree with the notion that since Star Trek is sci-fi that it inherently can't be taken seriously.

And yet TVH didn't have the kind of sophomoric bullshit that Abrams Trek did. For that you'd have to watch TFF. But really I think you've mistaken what I said and have missed the point I was making to begin with.

And for the record, I don't think Abrams Trek was the worst Trek movie ever - it's totally tied with STV, INS, and NEM.

It's too bad Abrams Trek is mostly ham and slapstick.

And let me explain to you just this once: don't lump me in with Dayton or anyone else for that matter. I have my own opinions and my own reasons for disliking Abrams Trek. Unlike numerous Abrams Trek fanboys, I don't call the people who disagree with me stupid, and the closest I would ever come to that would be to question their tastes. My problem is with the movie. And since it's something I feel strongly about, it's something I'll discuss should discussion about it come up. I'm not out to prove you or anyone else wrong, I'm just talking about a movie.

No, its characters, character development, story and plot (or lack thereof as the case may be) are what objectively makes it a bad movie. The Star Trek stuff is just nitpicky cherries on the top.

No, actually that'd be the other way around. You don't see me calling names or saying people are stupid for disagreeing with me, but you can sure see plenty of that directed toward me. When confronted with criticism of something they like, apparently some people feel the only way to defend it is not to discuss the quality of the thing they like, but to attack the people criticizing it.

No, what makes discussion about a movie not a discussion is when some people insist on making it personal rather than just discussing the movie.

And case in point. The fact you seem to think I view myself as an elite fan says a lot by itself. I like how not liking a movie suddenly makes me an uber-nerd and elitist.

And what you don't seem to realize is that I'm not a TOS fan.

Oh yeah.

Because "sci-fi lite" is known for having writers like Harlan Ellison and Norman Spinrad.

If you want to get down to it, for decades people (like Asimov) who wrote science fiction novels and short stories looked down on anything on television no matter the quality.

I grew up with the original series, so I ain't a modern Trek fan. I'm just able to recognize the show for what it is. Hell, even Gene Roddenberry referred to it as "Wagon Train to the stars", not exactly an endorsement for high-brow entertainment. But on the other hand, Trek produced some classic episodes like Balance of Terror and City on the Edge of Forever that were intelligent and riveting.

Abrams Trek was pure popcorn entertainment and I loved it. But so was the original Star Wars when it came out in 1977. It was a homage to the 1950's serials and was a fun, mindless romp that touched the heart of an entire generation. Then look what they did with Empire -- they made an adult, intelligent action film that had a soul and well-rounded characters.

While I enjoyed the first Abrams Trek, I'm hoping that since the characters have already been established in the first film, that they go the Empire Strikes Back route and give us a darker, intelligent action flick that allows the characters to shine.

Well be honest.

In the mid 1960s, westerns were one of the mainstays of hour long dramas. Both in ratings and in tackling serious themes.

So "Wagon Train To the Stars" was hardly advocacy for lowbrow entertainment.

That said, after waiting half a decade for another Trek movie (and nearly two decades for a decent Trek movie) I just could not enjoy "Star Wars Trek".

And watching the way many movies and their sequels are made, I just don't have much hope that the Abramstrek is going to get the "Empire Strikes Back Treatment".

Indeed, I fully expect "more of the same".

This entire thread makes baby Jesus cry.

So did Star Trek XII....

What, like the characters themselves are at this point?

Doctor Who has had both Neil Gaiman and Douglas Adams writing for it, and I'd hardly call Doctor Who "serious" science fiction.

Harlan Ellison and Norman Spinrad......

Dayton you place them too high on a pedestal. Both wrote one episode of Star Trek.

I will agree however that anyone who thinks Abramstrek is going to get the "Empire Strikes Back Treatment" is out of their flipping mind.

Um, there's not a little misinformation flying around in this thread.

"Wagon Train to the stars" was how Roddenberry characterized it for the Suits at Desilu. It was the most dumbed-down description he could give to a culture that functions on "the TVGuide version," i.e., a log-line that sums up the most complex concept in one short sentence.

It was a deliberate oversimplification of what was a very sophisticated concept for its time.

Asimov may have denied it publicly, but he was actually one of Roddenberry's unofficial consultants from the beginning. But he was well aware that not only is there a Sci-Fi Ghetto (excellent link, Captain X!), but that there is a ghetto within the ghetto. As an established s/f writer, he couldn't be seen lending his support to a mere teevee program. What would his peers in SWFA say?

No less an expert on the franchise than Nimoy has been quoted as saying that Trek is whatever you want it to be - deadly serious one week, slapstick comedy the next, with movie plots careening from pure action to deep emotional scenes and back to something blowing up again.

It's allegory, morality play, space opera, human comedy, speculative fiction, and ultimately, most importantly, a damn good time.

Trying to fit it into a box any smaller than that is futile.

I'd say more the people who wrote them, but whatever. Just illustrates how ludicrous it is that the entire main crew was instantly promoted to the ranks and positions they held in TOS.

Yes, don't understand the desire to pretend that 'real' Star Trek is some kind of 2001: Space Odyssey. As someone else said, it sometimes hit the heights, it often explored some complicated issues. But at it's best it was great fun with an undercurrent of intelligence (I'd hold up STII as the prime example of that).

Maybe the new one didn't have quite as much going on underneath the surface but it was great fun and frankly the fan boys should be on their knees in suplication at all the geeky injokes Abrhams threw at them.

At least Star Trek XII was real, unlike baby Jesus.

Have the two of you invented time travel?

I think you fellers mean Star Trek XI, Star Trek XII isn't real, because it hasn't been made yet.

Oh, it exists. I saw it in an old Simpsons episode.

The Simpsons did it!

Yeah, the hamming up when Spock is giving times as days instead of hours. Khan is a superhuman whose Kryptonite turned out to be overacting Vulcans. Who knew?

Great film, but some bits assume the audience are dumb as rocks.

I'm surprised. I always had you down as a TOSser

http://social.entertainment.msn.com...spx?feat=6c143770-dff5-4f66-9f88-6dc145614da0

Guess most of our questions will be answered in about 18-19 months.

Though if we're lucky lots of interesting details will be out within a year.

I bet that the 2013 Super Bowl will have several clips from the movie like they advertised the last one.

Curious choice of words for someone who claims no interest in it whatsoever.

^ yeah but when you live to rag on it, the details are just as juicy!

I wager 50 quatloos that they change the font!

And another 5000 quatloos that Forbin will still bitch about it being incorrect!

I bet Microsoft will pay them millions to use that useless Calibri font

Bad Star Trek is like taking an ugly woman home.

You're anticipating bad sex, you hope it will be better than you think.....and in the end at least its better than nothing.

Or so I've heard.

What would a person's looks have to do with whether sex was good or not?

I fucked some hot girls who were as sexually exciting as watching cars rust, and I've banged a couple of not-so-hot girls who were fucking animals in the sack.

Looks have nothing to do with sexual prowess. Just remember that no matter how hot a woman is, somewhere out there is a guy who got sick of her shit.

I've never been with an ugly girl (well not what I consider ugly anyhow) as I've never been able to get past the ugliness, after all you've got to have at least some sexual attraction to shag it.

I've been with some average looking ones, or shy inward ones, and generally I find that they are better in the sack because not only do they try harder, but the seem more interested in pleasing and not quite so fussy in terms of being pleased (I'm not one of these types who only cares about myself in the sack, so I get a bit pissed off if I get some bitch who has a "blokes only want to stick it in and cum" attitude and therefore makes no effort herself).

I always figured the ugly ones would put more effort in anyhow since they are probably more desperate for it.

I wonder if Dayton is telling us about his sex life?

No. I've only had sex with one woman my entire life (my wife). In fact, only dated or kissed one woman (my wife).

So as a happily married man, I know virtually nothing about sex.

Though I was just making a snarky remark, what Black Dove refers to I've heard is true. Lots of extremely attractive women are lousy lays because of the simple fact that

"When you have a lot of natural talent, you don't work on developing good technique".

Or so I've heard.

Quote of the year.