...there are at least three camps, because there are those of us who like it all.
That is still the first camp i.e. the ones who like JJ Trek.
But to address your first point, yes there're those who hated the last iterations of "old Trek" and they hate the new Trek still. Well that's their problem, I'm certainly not one of those people. But I can understand their position. They'd been so used to the heydays of TNG and DS9 and they saw what seemed like TPTB going complacent so they whine, they snivel and the franchise suffered for it.
And then you have the same people but they went "Hooray!" after seeing JJ Trek. That's what I meant.
Ok I just saw the images of the toys for the movie, can someone confirm that the new Klingon BOP has freaking SeaRAM launchers on the wing roots? I used to work on the RAM launcher right out of college and find it interesting that Klingon ships are using early 21st century USN defensive weapons.
That is still the first camp i.e. the ones who like JJ Trek.
The way you worded it previously made it sound like you meant the two camps either liked one or the other, not both. Or, perhaps I read it wrong. But, no worries.
The way you worded it previously made it sound like you meant the two camps either liked one or the other, not both. Or, perhaps I read it wrong. But, no worries.
There are a lot more than just two or three camps actually, there were a number of camps before the JJTrek stuff even came out and the number seems to have gone up, not down. Just going with the regular Trek vs the Abrams stuff there are at least five broad states: Those who like it all, those who only like the original Trek, those who like parts but not all of the original Trek but hate JJTrek, those who like only parts of the original but like the JJTrek, and those who dislike all of the original Trek but like JJTrek.
Personally I like all of the regular Trek despite its inconsistencies between the various series and movies. I even like the JJTrek for its mindless action and special effects (which is about as far from traditional Trek as you can get), but hate it as well for its internal inconsistencies like the nonsense of running at "maximum warp" for at least twenty minutes and then stranding Kirk on a planetoid that had to be another moon of Vulcan to see it as a large disk. And that is after going from Earth to Vulcan in practically no time. Which is it? Warp is fast or warp is slow?
The AbramsTrek characters are also very stereotypical without the depth of the originals which does not help.
Yeah, there have been a lot of different camps of Trekkies for years. Some are diehard TOS and will watch nothing else. Each of the other series has their diehard fans as well. Some just watch the movies and not the TV shows at all.
Case in point: I worked for a guy more than a decade ago who found out I was a Trekkie. He said he was as well and asked who my favorite character was. I said Data, because he always has been and still is my favorite. The guy who I was working for said, "Who? There's no Data in Star Trek." He was a Trekkie, but he only liked TOS, I don't think he even bothered with TNG or any of the later Treks.
I love Trek and enjoy the new films, but what bugs me about JJ Trek are the plot holes in the stories that you can fit an enitre solar system thought. The writers claim to be hugh fans of Trek, so they should have seen the plot holes and fixed the scripts before they even started filming.
The other thing that bugs me about JJ Trek is that with the look he is trying to make it look a bit like Star Wars (Yes I know he is a Wars fan and not a Trekkie.)
I just hope the next film will not have JJ directing as I have had enough of all the dam lens flairs.
Lots of years I needed to listen to stupid remarks, like being a nerd to love trek.
Star Wars, this is what everybody else liked, no technical nonsens, only fantasy.
I loved trek because it had a vision, they had a russian officer (it was the sixties remember), a BLACK FEMALE officer, a japanese (dont mention the war), a scotsman as we know them..........drinking scotch, and a (bastard) alien.
And they all act like humans do (except Spock ofcourse).
Now, we have the JJ lensflare movies (maybe they should clean the cameras better, is like they have grease on their lenses?). They do not carry the vision I became a trekkie for. It is only a big fight in both movies.
Ofcourse they can not carry the same vision, there is no cold war anymore, the KKK is gone, and scotsmen do not drink so much anymore, no need for a brighter future, we allready have it.
So, rebooting it, ruined the reason why I became a trekkie. Is this a problem? No, I allready changed my vision and became to love TNG and the others.
What I really do not like, is the fact that the six million dollar man (remember him?), would be jalous of the "new" enterprise crew. Hell, what am I saying, they are better than Batman, better than Spiderman, they look better and can do more than any Marvell comic hero. Now we have fantasy, no science fiction, we got Star Wars.
To elaborate a little more... my expectations going in were pretty much on the money... since I'd read the Wikipedia plot summary before I saw the movie...
Yes, it had less lens flares than the first movie, which is good and slightly less violent shaky cam than the first movie, which is also good. The Klingon makeup and costumes, meh, alright I guess... the helmets suggest they all had the same type of foreheads... which if you know your Klingon's, is not the case.
The Enterprise engineering and bridge sets are still ugly, garish, not ergonomic looking and seem like an OSHA nightmare...
As for the story, I thought that it was good and had far less holes and illogical "WTFs?!" than the first movie.
There were still a couple sequences that didn't really make sense, the worst being the Enterprise's near-crash. One moment they're more or less orbiting the Moon which is 238,900 miles away... the next, suddenly they're right above the Earth's atmosphere and being pulled in by the gravity of Earth... not to mention, where exactly were any other starships, that could give them a tug with tractor beams? I mean only two spaceships in the entire Sol system?
Of course, going in I knew "John Harrison's" true identity... I really sighed when Spock screamed "Harrison's" true name in rage, reminding me of another movie I'd already seen millions of times... :rolleyes:
It's still a good movie overall, while not being really my kind of Trek, the visual effects really amazed me at least.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
I would rather watch that damned warp10 evolution episode of Voyager where Janeway and Paris shag as slugs and have babies.
There was so much wrong with this movie ignoring all the khan bs and parody lines and scenes. Does no one do any research or hire experts to advise how things would be done or how things react in space. Only parts that were acceptable was where Pike was grinding kirk and spock was being a dick to pike. SO what 3 min of the film.
Disgusting to think we went from the 2 good stories with khan to this. Nothing redeeming at all. Add in that comic and the whole April, the other enterprise horse crap and ugh. I knew an annoyance at cons who had a story with transformers and gi joe in that was better written than this.
i hope otherwise since much as you may hate them the old films are still available and as they were so if you hate the new films that much you can ignore them. anyway since this was a "wrath of khan" remake, and the first trek film by abrams was a bit like "star trek the motion picture" what with a huge menacing ship(vger-->nero's narada) and an approaching threat to earth, i am guessing they will remake star trek III("the search for kirk's genitals" as you say it will be) next. they might even think to make it a really good film with more of the klingons in it, or it might be another that still cannot compare with nemesis or star trek III. personally i think the only way nemesis could be improved was by having a longer battle and placing picard and his crew in a hijacked klingon BOP rather than the boring old enterprise. however bad you may think new star trek is it is still one of the best films to come out recently and a huge profit maker for paramount pictures.
You know if a normal person said the movie was worse than Nemesis I would be worried, the fact that SF is making the comment just makes me laugh. Nemesis, seriously?
I would love to know what you've been smoking all this time.
Nevermind...I'm just going under the assumption that you're a) woefully ignorant due to your age or b) consistently trolling for attention. :rolleyes:
I plan to see the movie tonight, but I'm going in with the same expectations as Chris. I'm looking forward to the FX, but not counting on the story to carry much weight at all.
I would love to know what you've been smoking all this time.
Nevermind...I'm just going under the assumption that you're a) woefully ignorant due to your age or b) consistently trolling for attention. :rolleyes:
I plan to see the movie tonight, but I'm going in with the same expectations as Chris. I'm looking forward to the FX, but not counting on the story to carry much weight at all.
perhaps i just have a slightly(maybe extremely) different view to you on what constitutes a good movie. i am not trolling for attention IT IS WHAT I THINK. as far as i'm concerned nemesis was cool. you have probably seen it by the time you get back to this thread but if you saw the 3d version some of the effects should really impress you, it is the best 3d film(effects and 3d illusion wise) i have seen.
and oldmangreg you are quite right in what you say about watching into darkness as a sci fi action film rather than hoping it is like "proper" star trek.
I just saw the movie, what a steaming pile of crap. I am not a huge trek fan, and while some bits were nice homages, I saw enough changes to enrage the typical trekkie to no end. Even trying to watch it as dumb sci-fi movie ticked me off as the blatant disregard of any kind of physics, especially during the falling scene, with the gravity field changing directions constantly had me wanting to call for my money back. Combine that with numerous plot holes, deus ex's, and the absolute worst starship interior designs I have ever seen and I say save your money.
I think I am the only person on this site that thought the movie was a VAST improvement over Star Trek 2009. It wasn't a great film, but a 7/10, I'd say.
I just saw the movie, what a steaming pile of crap. I am not a huge trek fan, and while some bits were nice homages, I saw enough changes to enrage the typical trekkie to no end. Even trying to watch it as dumb sci-fi movie ticked me off as the blatant disregard of any kind of physics, especially during the falling scene, with the gravity field changing directions constantly had me wanting to call for my money back. Combine that with numerous plot holes, deus ex's, and the absolute worst starship interior designs I have ever seen and I say save your money.
Funny, it wasn't the changes JJ made which turned me off but the homages which absolutely ruined both movies for me. They are so irrelevant and unnecessary I simply felt embarassed by the filmmaker's attempt to remind people they're still watching Star Trek, no some generic sci-fi actioner.
And you're right the production design was simply horrible - very tacky and makes no sense whatsoever.
I think I am the only person on this site that thought the movie was a VAST improvement over Star Trek 2009. It wasn't a great film, but a 7/10, I'd say.
Id give it an 8/10;; otherwise I agree. I liked it for a Star Trek film.
"Everything wrong with Star Trek (2009) in five minutes or less" is interesting. The narrator talks as fast as an auctioneer and they turkey trot the pace as fast as possible but even going over the five minute limit by 35 seconds they barely scratch the surface on wrongness. :rolleyes:
Why don't they just put warp nacelles on a Star Destroyer and get it over with?
I get both sides.
It had less problems with the plot in this film.
It had great action at some parts.
My Thoughts:
It's hard to be disappointed with a "Fluff Movie". I was disappointed with the first. I had expectations. I didn't this time. I knew what I was getting...and I got it. What I wasn't quite expecting was the all the plagiarism at the end. Was it plagiarism or was it nostalgia? I don't know and don't care.
What I did notice was that JJ Abrams said "he wasn't doing Wrath of Kahn" and that's exactly what we got even down to the two Federation ships doing battle and a death scene in a reactor. JJ also said that he would address the fans concerns about Trek ideals. Was it in that one line ripped off from Insurrection? "Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"
And the Science ...once again...well there was none.
Why were people falling over the ship at the end? Was there something wrong with the Gravity?
Did the ship not really need shields for reentry even though they get power back well after falling through a cloud bank?
Did someone research how far the moon was from Earth in miles and simply changed miles to kilometers because the moon isn't 237,000 kilometers from Earth....LOL!! It is 237,000 miles though.
The Vengeance hits San Fransisco after falling all the way from the moon ( which should have taken days) Why isn't there a huge crater?
They jump in the water and swim down to Enterprise (that would kill anyone)
We all know why. It's a Fluff movie. It's not supposed to make sense.
-I enjoyed:
The humor was good as always. I thought all the falling in the film was tedious and obnoxious but the space dive to Vengeance was far more interesting than the skydive in the first film. I loved Cumberbatches acting...everyone else was standing still in comparison. The shots of Enterprise going to warp were quite tantalizing and stimulating. Best part of all I stopped hating on the JJprise for a few moments...
So, I saw it in 3D last night. Just like I hoped most of the FX were well done and the story...blah. I think a lot of you are dissecting what you perceive as plot holes rather harshly and they apparently ruined the movie for you. The moon to earth one seems to be the biggest deal right now (why no crater and how could it get the Vengeance get from point A to point B that fast are favorites). I make no claim to be a physicist or expert in related fields, but geez...let it go. Imagine what it would take to make certain things come to pass in a movie and don't expect it to give you a play by play of every action and reaction. Perhaps there was a great amount of momentum after the ships fell out of warp carrying them to Earth faster than would be expected. Maybe the Vengeance had to take some sort of arced trajectory affecting the overall speed to impact San Fransisco since Khan was aiming for Starfleet HQ. Maybe there was some sort of force field protecting Kirk and Bones while they were swimming down to Enterprise which stands to reason because a starship shouldn't feasibly be able to sustain being submerged since space vessels are meant to keep pressure in, not out. But...I digress.
Spacefighter, you misunderstand me. I wasn't just talking about your views in this thread specifically or even your opinions about movies other than this. I meant EVERYTHING you've ever said on this forum: uniformed opinions on people's work, not taking advice when you've asked for it, ad infinitum.
Sometimes you just have to except things as dramatic licence.
The moon is orbiting the earth, its only because it is going round in an orbit that it stays up there.
A ship suddenly dropping out of warp near the moon is not orbiting, with no engines to put the ship into a stable orbit it will fall to earth, possibly not as fast as shown in the film, but short of making the next five sequals all about the enterprise falling to earth, they had to shorten the process somewhat.
The only thing I found puzzling was what the hell where those big floating things flying around san fransisco at the end, if they are some sort of unmanned cargo sled you would think at the very least they might have some safety sensors that warned there were people on top.
I think there are more important question than why the garbage trucks can't sense people.
What about a police force. You have a gun ship just hammering away at a building...for like...forever.
I think there are more important question than why the garbage trucks can't sense people.
What about a police force. You have a gun ship just hammering away at a building...for like...forever.
Or just where the hell is the rest of fleet for that matter. The Federation is about to go to war with the Klingons and yet no ships were stationed at Earth for defence?? Even something as small as a shuttle craft attracted a squadron of BoP's.
Or how about the transwarp beaming. Why need new battlecruisers when all you have to do is transwarp-beam a bunch of torpedoes to Qo'nos and call it a day.
In Star Trek Into Darkness, they exposed the ship to the natives when they came out of the water, how the heck did they get it in the water without the natives seeing it?
I love how a friend of mine described the new warp effect in Into Darkness, says it looks like pixie dust. LOL
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB 1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD 32 GB RAM Windows 11 Pro
Posts
That is still the first camp i.e. the ones who like JJ Trek.
But to address your first point, yes there're those who hated the last iterations of "old Trek" and they hate the new Trek still. Well that's their problem, I'm certainly not one of those people. But I can understand their position. They'd been so used to the heydays of TNG and DS9 and they saw what seemed like TPTB going complacent so they whine, they snivel and the franchise suffered for it.
And then you have the same people but they went "Hooray!" after seeing JJ Trek. That's what I meant.
The way you worded it previously made it sound like you meant the two camps either liked one or the other, not both. Or, perhaps I read it wrong. But, no worries.
There are a lot more than just two or three camps actually, there were a number of camps before the JJTrek stuff even came out and the number seems to have gone up, not down. Just going with the regular Trek vs the Abrams stuff there are at least five broad states: Those who like it all, those who only like the original Trek, those who like parts but not all of the original Trek but hate JJTrek, those who like only parts of the original but like the JJTrek, and those who dislike all of the original Trek but like JJTrek.
Personally I like all of the regular Trek despite its inconsistencies between the various series and movies. I even like the JJTrek for its mindless action and special effects (which is about as far from traditional Trek as you can get), but hate it as well for its internal inconsistencies like the nonsense of running at "maximum warp" for at least twenty minutes and then stranding Kirk on a planetoid that had to be another moon of Vulcan to see it as a large disk. And that is after going from Earth to Vulcan in practically no time. Which is it? Warp is fast or warp is slow?
The AbramsTrek characters are also very stereotypical without the depth of the originals which does not help.
Case in point: I worked for a guy more than a decade ago who found out I was a Trekkie. He said he was as well and asked who my favorite character was. I said Data, because he always has been and still is my favorite. The guy who I was working for said, "Who? There's no Data in Star Trek."
I love Trek and enjoy the new films, but what bugs me about JJ Trek are the plot holes in the stories that you can fit an enitre solar system thought. The writers claim to be hugh fans of Trek, so they should have seen the plot holes and fixed the scripts before they even started filming.
The other thing that bugs me about JJ Trek is that with the look he is trying to make it look a bit like Star Wars (Yes I know he is a Wars fan and not a Trekkie.)
I just hope the next film will not have JJ directing as I have had enough of all the dam lens flairs.
Anyway to make you guys laugh.
Here is something I did not really notice when watching TNG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVIGhYMwRgs
This one is my fave;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edflm7Hh3hs
Lots of years I needed to listen to stupid remarks, like being a nerd to love trek.
Star Wars, this is what everybody else liked, no technical nonsens, only fantasy.
I loved trek because it had a vision, they had a russian officer (it was the sixties remember), a BLACK FEMALE officer, a japanese (dont mention the war), a scotsman as we know them..........drinking scotch, and a (bastard) alien.
And they all act like humans do (except Spock ofcourse).
Now, we have the JJ lensflare movies (maybe they should clean the cameras better, is like they have grease on their lenses?). They do not carry the vision I became a trekkie for. It is only a big fight in both movies.
Ofcourse they can not carry the same vision, there is no cold war anymore, the KKK is gone, and scotsmen do not drink so much anymore, no need for a brighter future, we allready have it.
So, rebooting it, ruined the reason why I became a trekkie. Is this a problem? No, I allready changed my vision and became to love TNG and the others.
What I really do not like, is the fact that the six million dollar man (remember him?), would be jalous of the "new" enterprise crew. Hell, what am I saying, they are better than Batman, better than Spiderman, they look better and can do more than any Marvell comic hero. Now we have fantasy, no science fiction, we got Star Wars.
My $0,02
It was basically a
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
Yes, it had less lens flares than the first movie, which is good and slightly less violent shaky cam than the first movie, which is also good. The Klingon makeup and costumes, meh, alright I guess... the helmets suggest they all had the same type of foreheads... which if you know your Klingon's, is not the case.
The Enterprise engineering and bridge sets are still ugly, garish, not ergonomic looking and seem like an OSHA nightmare...
As for the story, I thought that it was good and had far less holes and illogical "WTFs?!" than the first movie.
There were still a couple sequences that didn't really make sense, the worst being the Enterprise's near-crash. One moment they're more or less orbiting the Moon which is 238,900 miles away... the next, suddenly they're right above the Earth's atmosphere and being pulled in by the gravity of Earth... not to mention, where exactly were any other starships, that could give them a tug with tractor beams? I mean only two spaceships in the entire Sol system?
Of course, going in I knew "John Harrison's" true identity... I really sighed when Spock screamed "Harrison's" true name in rage, reminding me of another movie I'd already seen millions of times... :rolleyes:
It's still a good movie overall, while not being really my kind of Trek, the visual effects really amazed me at least.
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro
There was so much wrong with this movie ignoring all the khan bs and parody lines and scenes. Does no one do any research or hire experts to advise how things would be done or how things react in space. Only parts that were acceptable was where Pike was grinding kirk and spock was being a dick to pike. SO what 3 min of the film.
Disgusting to think we went from the 2 good stories with khan to this. Nothing redeeming at all. Add in that comic and the whole April, the other enterprise horse crap and ugh. I knew an annoyance at cons who had a story with transformers and gi joe in that was better written than this.
I hope they just end trek here and now.
i hope otherwise since much as you may hate them the old films are still available and as they were so if you hate the new films that much you can ignore them. anyway since this was a "wrath of khan" remake, and the first trek film by abrams was a bit like "star trek the motion picture" what with a huge menacing ship(vger-->nero's narada) and an approaching threat to earth, i am guessing they will remake star trek III("the search for kirk's genitals" as you say it will be) next. they might even think to make it a really good film with more of the klingons in it, or it might be another that still cannot compare with nemesis or star trek III. personally i think the only way nemesis could be improved was by having a longer battle and placing picard and his crew in a hijacked klingon BOP rather than the boring old enterprise. however bad you may think new star trek is it is still one of the best films to come out recently and a huge profit maker for paramount pictures.
I would love to know what you've been smoking all this time.
Nevermind...I'm just going under the assumption that you're a) woefully ignorant due to your age or b) consistently trolling for attention. :rolleyes:
I plan to see the movie tonight, but I'm going in with the same expectations as Chris. I'm looking forward to the FX, but not counting on the story to carry much weight at all.
As for the Star Trek part of it....ehhhhhhhh
and oldmangreg you are quite right in what you say about watching into darkness as a sci fi action film rather than hoping it is like "proper" star trek.
Funny, it wasn't the changes JJ made which turned me off but the homages which absolutely ruined both movies for me. They are so irrelevant and unnecessary I simply felt embarassed by the filmmaker's attempt to remind people they're still watching Star Trek, no some generic sci-fi actioner.
And you're right the production design was simply horrible - very tacky and makes no sense whatsoever.
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/
Id give it an 8/10;; otherwise I agree. I liked it for a Star Trek film.
Why don't they just put warp nacelles on a Star Destroyer and get it over with?
I get both sides.
It had less problems with the plot in this film.
It had great action at some parts.
My Thoughts:
It's hard to be disappointed with a "Fluff Movie". I was disappointed with the first. I had expectations. I didn't this time. I knew what I was getting...and I got it. What I wasn't quite expecting was the all the plagiarism at the end. Was it plagiarism or was it nostalgia? I don't know and don't care.
What I did notice was that JJ Abrams said "he wasn't doing Wrath of Kahn" and that's exactly what we got even down to the two Federation ships doing battle and a death scene in a reactor. JJ also said that he would address the fans concerns about Trek ideals. Was it in that one line ripped off from Insurrection? "Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"
And the Science ...once again...well there was none.
Why were people falling over the ship at the end? Was there something wrong with the Gravity?
Did the ship not really need shields for reentry even though they get power back well after falling through a cloud bank?
Did someone research how far the moon was from Earth in miles and simply changed miles to kilometers because the moon isn't 237,000 kilometers from Earth....LOL!! It is 237,000 miles though.
The Vengeance hits San Fransisco after falling all the way from the moon ( which should have taken days) Why isn't there a huge crater?
They jump in the water and swim down to Enterprise (that would kill anyone)
We all know why. It's a Fluff movie. It's not supposed to make sense.
-I enjoyed:
The humor was good as always. I thought all the falling in the film was tedious and obnoxious but the space dive to Vengeance was far more interesting than the skydive in the first film. I loved Cumberbatches acting...everyone else was standing still in comparison. The shots of Enterprise going to warp were quite tantalizing and stimulating. Best part of all I stopped hating on the JJprise for a few moments...
Spacefighter, you misunderstand me. I wasn't just talking about your views in this thread specifically or even your opinions about movies other than this. I meant EVERYTHING you've ever said on this forum: uniformed opinions on people's work, not taking advice when you've asked for it, ad infinitum.
The moon is orbiting the earth, its only because it is going round in an orbit that it stays up there.
A ship suddenly dropping out of warp near the moon is not orbiting, with no engines to put the ship into a stable orbit it will fall to earth, possibly not as fast as shown in the film, but short of making the next five sequals all about the enterprise falling to earth, they had to shorten the process somewhat.
The only thing I found puzzling was what the hell where those big floating things flying around san fransisco at the end, if they are some sort of unmanned cargo sled you would think at the very least they might have some safety sensors that warned there were people on top.
What about a police force. You have a gun ship just hammering away at a building...for like...forever.
Or just where the hell is the rest of fleet for that matter. The Federation is about to go to war with the Klingons and yet no ships were stationed at Earth for defence?? Even something as small as a shuttle craft attracted a squadron of BoP's.
Or how about the transwarp beaming. Why need new battlecruisers when all you have to do is transwarp-beam a bunch of torpedoes to Qo'nos and call it a day.
I love how a friend of mine described the new warp effect in Into Darkness, says it looks like pixie dust. LOL
Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
32 GB RAM
Windows 11 Pro