The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > I come as an Emissary to canonistas and revisionists...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-02-2008, 07:50 PM
Angry Horta's Avatar
Angry Horta Angry Horta is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA
Posts: 27
Default

I agree this is JJ's way around Canon. I've been a trekker for my whole life (41 years) and all I want is a good movie to get trek back on track. Some ship modifications and character deviations wont bother me "much".
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-02-2008, 08:49 PM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

**You know.....a Wife that makes a commitment to her husband for 40 years year and then says'

"I don't feel like making you happy any more" is a pretty awful person. Marriage is forever...and that's what you buy into. If Paramount wants it's fan base to stick around how bout a little reciprical appreciation?**


You stated it's all in how we express ourselves in another thread. Look to that.

Trek fans self-vaunt the franchise as the "intelligent sci-fi" but it has the most fans that can't even use the built-in and freely given tools of typed internet communication like spell-check (no offense to you specifically). Examine threads with an truly objective eye on any Trek board. It states more about the fan base than anything else - just type something up and call it good, who cares? "Reciprical" indeed.

That's precisely what's been given back for the last couple of decades. Haven't you enjoyed it? The declining viewership sure hasn't. Trek isn't all good, it ain't all bad either, but it sure needs a a new direction and the facelift doesn't hurt.

"Years year"? What's a "years year"? Some newfangled and obscure Trek method of time keeping?

Anyone wanting a divorce (the implied statement since you invoke "marriage is forever") is automatically an "awful person"?
Marriage is not forever or else divorce wouldn't exist.
There's no dogmatic attitude in Trek fans.... nah.
Nor tolerance. No "It has to look just like this! or I'm boycotting!" and other inane statements.

Generalized statements like "JJ is raping my childhood!" or "JJ doesn't respect the fans!" is rather pathetic. Childish tantrums of an immature and increasingly insecure audience ingesting its own isolation.

No "Trek doesn't have enough gays in it!" while making rude gay jokes at the same time. Nope. Trek is certainly openly and universally liberal in the aggrandized IDIC principle isn't it?
A secret society of self-indulged importance and impotence.
I think the people most offended by the changes are those who have wrapped up far far far too much of their life into this. Studied facts and figures of an imaginary tale and hold it dear as the great accomplishment of their life.

Shatner had it right the first time "Get a life". He just forgot to add ..."your own and not one stolen from a tv screen".

I'd like to see JJ give the broadest spectrum of viewers a rollicking good time at the movies & home theaters and a hope for more to come, moreso in this time of global distress and disillusionment. Pandering to a select few isn't financially or morally acceptable. Make yourself an idie film if that is your goal. Trek died... and is now being given another chance on the proviso that it be something completely new but familiar enough that as many as possible "get it" and can enjoy it. Making the gamble profitable for the studio is also mandatory. I don't think they have "philanthropist" as a buzz-word in their corporate statement.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-02-2008, 08:49 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Comparing being a fan of TREK to marriage.

I'll consider the shark jumped now.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-02-2008, 08:59 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSnyder4
Trek died... and is now being given another chance on the proviso that it be something completely new but familiar enough that as many as possible "get it" and can enjoy it.
Do you think those who will "get it" didn't already and haven't already made up their minds? Do you think the details Abrams has changed will make any difference to those few who didn't know the original details anyway and "got it" before but weren't going to see it based on the sketchy basics they did know? Keeping the original details or discarding them makes no difference. Changing the ship to look like an anachronistic abomination won't bring new people to the theater. By itself, it won't push anyone away. But it reflects disregard, and disregard will push people away.

Quote:
Making the gamble profitable for the studio is also mandatory. I don't think they have "philanthropist" as a buzz-word in their corporate statement.
Do you often discard your best cards when you gamble? I don't. Paramount, apparently, has decided to do just that.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:03 PM
Trekfan69's Avatar
Trekfan69 Trekfan69 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8
Default

Ouch!

And here I thought we were just a bunch of Trek fans discussing the new movie...

Seems some of us are illiterate, others of us are neurotic shut ins, and the whole lot of us are impotent and self-indulgent...

Good God! I'm glad we're talking about space ships and aliens with pointy ears. God only knows what we would be if we were talking about politics or religion!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:13 PM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekfan69 View Post
Ouch!

And here I thought we were just a bunch of Trek fans discussing the new movie...

Seems some of us are illiterate, others of us are neurotic shut ins, and the whole lot of us are impotent and self-indulgent...

Good God! I'm glad we're talking about space ships and aliens with pointy ears. God only knows what we would be if we were talking about politics or religion!
The Crusades.
__________________
Ever notice that many of the same people who want variety in life frown very hard on vanilla... But without Vanilla, Baskin Robbins just wouldn't BE 31 flavors.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:13 PM
radoskal's Avatar
radoskal radoskal is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekfan69 View Post
Ouch!

And here I thought we were just a bunch of Trek fans discussing the new movie...

Seems some of us are illiterate, others of us are neurotic shut ins, and the whole lot of us are impotent and self-indulgent...

Good God! I'm glad we're talking about space ships and aliens with pointy ears. God only knows what we would be if we were talking about politics or religion
Listen to this person!
__________________
Mom, how many times do I have to tell you, Track is what athletes run on. Trek is what the Enterprise goes on.

-Free Enterprise
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:39 PM
AJBlue98's Avatar
AJBlue98 AJBlue98 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
…[M]ovie makers have been trying to … please fans of their respective franchise[s]. … Every single time … the fans of those franchises respond with … how … the movie … does not live up to its name. I was starting to at least understand [sic] the complaints that they used too much mainstream hocuspocus [sic] like more action, cgi, thin dialogue, etc.

And then "X-Files: I Want to [sic] Believe" happened.

A movie that had very little action, next to no CGI (if there even was any), stellar acting, high quality dialogue, character driven story, very true to its name.[sic] AND THE FANS HATED IT!… At some point, someone's going to come along and go, "…The fans are going to hate us no matter WHAT we do.…"
The X-Files: I Want To Believe was a special case (and thus a very bad example). In the case of that movie, the previous nine years and film had established a very well-known story arc that had left more than a few so-called loose ends, so in the case of that particular movie, the communal grousing came from …I Want To Believe’s failure to further the plot.

That’s not to say, of course, that such a simple as above didn’t open the door to some less (shall we say) high brow gripes as well.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-02-2008, 11:05 PM
Wagon Train Wagon Train is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 22
Default

Well, I'm sorry to see some of the thread seems to have devolved into more name calling and such.

I respect everyone's right to express themselves as they wish, I only request we do it without insults, and telling people unsanitary things they can do because they disagree.

I fully accept both sides of the argument, because without having seen the actual film, it's the best option for me going into June 8th, 2009.

As others have said in many different threads, change is difficult but in some cases necessary, and seeing what's happened to the Star Trek franchise in the recent past, and what it took for Paramount to want to deal with it again, proves as much. That point make sense and I understand it completely.

And on the flip side, I also understand the feelings of long time fans that maybe it wasn't necessary to make such radical changes and seeing this will feel like 'fan fiction' for them; Since they've watched the original unfold, appearances and information indicate that JJ has decided to alter too many of the continutity 'rules' that were written by Gene with TOS and the films for them to accept the story as being prequel to TOS.

For the flamethrowers in the audience, on both sides, just bring up the points and try to leave out the disgust with 'the other side'. There is no "other" trying to "win" the argument. I just want to see what opinions people have on my -at best mind you- guess on what might happen.

The only people that can answer the mechanics questions on the full story/film are those that have watched it, and they ain't talkin.

So, in the mean time, I'll try to anchor the thread back to the original purpose which was simply:

Side A "Canonistas": Would you, as a long time fan with concerns over the deviation/revision of established TV/Movie canon by JJ, be potentially more able to accept this film into the established fold if it was from the angle that
this plot theory was correct


If not, I completely understand. I just want to see if something like that *might* help reduce the feeling that JJ is 'cutting loose' long time fans or disregarding history just because he was late for a Lost production meeting, or Felicity: The Movie writing session.



Side B "Open to Change/Revisionists": Will you, seeing this film, really care if my theory was to happen? If you were watching it, and it was just popped in there with a simple line like:

Fake scene dialogue I just made up, but still holds to my theory-


Now, if that was the only mention of it in the whole film, would you really, really be insulted or even give a crap that it was the case moving forward for the franchise? Would it truly affect or ruin your ability to enjoy the rest of the film/series if they only used a single line to signal the more ardent fans of the TOS continuity that this was the starting film of a 'new' beginning?

And do you think brand new fans would care or even notice while watching the film if this line was spoken and was the only indication of my theory, only caught by those who would 'get it'?



Again, I only respectfully ask we keep insults out of the discussion. Thank you all for your responses to far!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-02-2008, 11:50 PM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

I do agree with the idea of the butterfly effect and have (in another thread) said so. I know that I'll have to deal or not deal with what Paramount gives us. But I'll still give my opinion about my preferences which as I've said, are no more OR less valid than anyone else's

Change is not inherently bad nor is it inherently good. It merely is change... Even if it is for a reason. There may be benefits from change but also drawbacks in the same.
__________________
Ever notice that many of the same people who want variety in life frown very hard on vanilla... But without Vanilla, Baskin Robbins just wouldn't BE 31 flavors.
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 07:51 AM.


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.