The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Why NuTrek sucks... so far
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:29 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I might be wrong, but I have the strong impression that the writers and producers of ST09 are much into pop, not genuine sci-fi. I also believe that pretty much all of these people will produce the next Trek movie.
Furthermore the studio also wanted to make Trek cool, so I seriously doubt that they will change their mind after the success of ST09.

I have certain doubts about the long-run effects of FluffyTrek though, TOS and TNG inspired people. I wonder what impact pew-pew-Trek has upon kids who grow up with it ...
I wonder if "pew pew pew" will inspire kids to become scientists?

I LIKED the fact Trek was seen as "nerdy" by many people. I gave them the finger and challenged them to make me stop. A part of me liked the fact that I "got" what so many others could not. That may sound "elitist", but it's true. It's the same feeling I had when I got a 100% score on a test and completely screwed everyone on the "bell curve"!! I LIKE feeling "smart", even if it's only from a TV show.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:30 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
Been done by many "tribute" bands over the decades. But I get what your saying.

There was a band called the "Yardbirds." When they split up, Jimmy Page owned the right to the name, he formed a new band originally called "The New Yardbirds" But, after chance encounter with Keith Moon, we knwo them better as Led Zepplein.
Another analogy may be what if somebody bought the rights to the "Beatles" name and used it on a rap band? Then it would literally be "The Beatles" in name only. Just like NuTrek is Star Trek in name only. Just a thought.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:31 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
I agree completely with what you're saying. I think the biggest thing that bothered me was that in the beginning, the movie was hyped as an "origin story" that was supposed to chronicle the early days of Kirk, Spock, and the rest. And in a sense, that's what we got. Just not in the way it should have been. It didn't show the origins of the original crew. It showed how the alternate universe versions of our heroes met. Even after watching the movie, we still have no clue (as far as on-screen canon is concerned) how the original prime versions of the crew ended up on the Enterprise together. That was the story I wanted to see.

It seriously bothers me that they threw away 43 years of Star Trek history just so they could dumb it down for a general audience of non-Trek fans. It was not necessary to totally redesign the whole Trek universe. The original designs could have been tweaked and updated enough to make them look modern without scrapping the original in favor of what we got. In the place of the ultra cool, colorful, inviting, efficiently designed original bridge we got the iBridge which looks like a cross between an Apple store and the jewelry department at Belk. In the place of the clean, neat, and efficient TOS engineering section we got the boiler room from the Titanic. In place of the original Matt Jeffries designed Enterprise we got the Church designed Abramsprise, or "Fuglyprise" as I like to call it which looks like a disproportioned kitbash of the TMP saucer and alien-ship-of-the-week body. Those nacelles are absolutely hideous. And WTF is up with the Abramsprise being almost twice as big as a Galaxy class ship? That is pure stupidity. Did the writers and designers do any research at all? Did they actually watch TOS at all? After watching this movie, I wonder if the so-called "trekkie" writers even knew anything at all about Star Trek. They certainly don't know much about dedicated TOS fans.

When I watched STXI, I enjoyed it as a generic time travel/action/adventure/sci-fi summer blockbuster popcorn flick. But I found myself missing Star Trek while I was watching it. Sure they got the names right, but that's about it. They missed the whole essence of Star Trek in my opinion.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:32 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
I wonder if "pew pew pew" will inspire kids to become scientists?

I LIKED the fact Trek was seen as "nerdy" by many people. I gave them the finger and challenged them to make me stop. A part of me liked the fact that I "got" what so many others could not. That may sound "elitist", but it's true. It's the same feeling I had when I got a 100% score on a test and completely screwed everyone on the "bell curve"!! I LIKE feeling "smart", even if it's only from a TV show.
Well, that's a whole different ball game of perspective.

There's no-one else's opinion going to get round being hurt your private club got opened up a bit.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:33 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Another analogy may be what if somebody bought the rights to the "Beatles" name and used it on a rap band? Then it would literally be "The Beatles" in name only. Just like NuTrek is Star Trek in name only. Just a thought.
Luckily, I find the Beatles vastly over-rated.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:33 AM
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
OneBuckFilms OneBuckFilms is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
If the next Trek flick has no substance (like this one!) then I will not only mourn the death of Trek, but I will bitterly despise these new Trek creations as the walking dead.
No substance. Lets see:

- Characters are given an origin story with a twist, showing the genesis of core characters.
- There is an emotional impact to the events in this film beyond most Star Trek.
- The character of Spock is given close examination in a way only seen on occasion in the series.

There is a great deal of substance. Social commentary and allegory, if that is what you mean, is probably for the next movie, and was not in all, or even most, Star Trek.
__________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:34 AM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms View Post
No substance. Lets see:

- Characters are given an origin story with a twist, showing the genesis of core characters.
- There is an emotional impact to the events in this film beyond most Star Trek.
- The character of Spock is given close examination in a way only seen on occasion in the series.

There is a great deal of substance. Social commentary and allegory, if that is what you mean, is probably for the next movie, and was not in all, or even most, Star Trek.
Good points!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:34 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

TOS really wasn't hard science fiction either. The whole multiverse explanation in this film is probably more scientific than anything that was in TOS. It was really TNG that put an emphasis on technobabble and science fiction soloutions to their problems. If anything, I think this film was much more in the spirit of TOS than any of the other films despite some of the superficial changes in apperence.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:34 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
If most Star Trek films didn't have a pew-pew-pew phaser/starship battle/fist fight in them somewhere to satiate the action quotient (ever present in TOS anyway) then I would think that the term FluffyTrek could apply.

But I fail to see why we should kid ourselves that pew-pew-pew was never there and used heavily to move things along the way.

What we are bemoaning is a lack or allegory, metaphor or philosophy in the film.

Which is an absolutely valid point, but tempered by the fact that Star Trek was always a mainly action-adventure format show that sometimes dipped a little deeper into things.
I must clarify. I mean "pew pew pew" almost literally. I don't mean it as a definition for action or battle scenes. I LIKE battle scenes. I really digged the battle scene in NEM and the many fleet battles in DS9. I mean "pew pew pew" as in the way the phasers and other weapons actually sounded and "felt". It seemed a corny way to make them feel less "Trek" and more "Halo"
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:35 AM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
TOS really wasn't hard science fiction either. The whole multiverse explanation in this film is probably more scientific than anything that was in TOS. It was really TNG that put an emphasis on technobabble and science fiction soloutions to their problems. If anything, I think this film was much more in the spirit of TOS than any of the other films despite some of the superficial changes in apperence.
Amen sir! This one was definitely the closest in tone and spirit to TOS IMO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:05 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.