I for one am sick of hearing the "new generation" argument
wtf am I then (20) I like the classic trek
Classic Trek including TOS, The TRUE Films, TNG, DS9 (it has its problems but still) and Voyager have attracted millions some of the most dedicated fans you can ever find (many as intense as Rocky Horror fans) and you have pissed them off. Star Trek never needed new fans, they would have continue buying DVDs and Merchandise for classic trek of decades to come.
They would have continued to buy all of the previous series DVD's until they all died off and left the franchise with no fandom? Then what would Paramount/CBS Studios do?
I somehow doubt that would be a problem. "Classic Trek" fans are still of all ages so the potential audience exists for decades. What's more I find it difficult to believe that there would really be a lot of difficulty in acquiring new fans. In any case everything must die eventually and so will Star Trek. It could have at least died with some dignity instead of this modern emo space fantasy crap.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Classic Trek fans are in their 40s and 50s and are getting OLDER not YOUNGER. Paramount/CBS has to get a younger generation, not people with their heads stuck up their asses about the canon.
@StoneKnivesBearskins: Sorry kiddo, but I speak for myself and I'm also speaking generally; most Trekfans are older, with the first and second generations of fans in their 40's, 50's and 60's (I'm 43 as of 2/16/11; started watching TOS when I was 5 years old in the early 70's) and we're dying off-also, the franchise suffered because of over-saturation and (according to some people, BUT NOT TO ME) mediocre episodes and movies. That's why there a new movie, to recover from the 'Star Trek' crash.
@StoneKnivesBearskins: Actually, IT DID recover Star Trek as a brand name; the movie's popularity has spawned a generation of new fans, and even got some of them to check out all of the previous shows and movies. Not to forget all of the fandom creating fan art at Deviant Art and other art sites, and a whole host of other things, like people dressing up in cosplay based on the old show. So you see, the movie did succeed at what it set out to do-Uhura & Spock love included.
@StoneKnivesBearskins Your right my friend. Here is a good point. How many people not only remember but still watch the reimaged Planet of the Apes? Now how many remember the original made in the 60's? The newer one out sold the original in Box office sales and got young people to watch the original, but most of those young people I talked to don't even remember the new one, or the story in it.
@BondFreek I admit that I don't know much about Planet of the Apes.
But I do have a question:
Was POTA as popular as ST?
I'm just curious, because if people remember ST09, it might be because it does have the words "Star Trek" in the title, and some Trek fans love all things ST, whether it is good or bad.
Don't worry, I'm not trying to defend the movie, I just want to know the differences in the popularity between ST and POTA.
@StoneKnivesBearskins Back in the 60's it was as popular as Mission Impossible for obvious reasons, it was casted with stars. It was so popular that when the movies were finished it spun off a live action series and an animated one. But to this day most movie goers only remember the first movie. Star Trek started out slow and built up speed. Simply put the longer Star Trek was in reruns the more popular it got. The more new products happened for POTA the less popular it got.
@BondFreek So, you're saying that the fan bases are approximately the same size?
BTW, Star Trek was extremely popular, but it's audience wasn't enormous yet, and they always aired it at horrible times. When it went into syndication, the different networks could air it at whatever time they thought viewers would watch it, so more could, and did.
@StoneKnivesBearskins No, What I'm saying is that Planet of the Apes was more popular than Star Trek in the 60's. However, as Star trek became more popular Planet of the Apes (with the exception of the first movie) became less popular. There is no real connection it's just a coincidence. Planet of the Apes only focused on racism; MI only focused on corruption of power: what made Star Trek such an enduring part of our culture is its ability to adapt to current events.
@BondFreek: According to you and ONLY YOU. Nobody else. And one teenager who agrees with you IS NOT representative of all teens. First off, not all teens are Trek fans; most just loved the movie, and it was a favorite for them; secondly, not all teens are as callow as you make them out to be; third, as I said before, most of the teens and young people that are fans of Star Trek may have become fans of the movie, and those that are have done a lot of amazing things with their fandom, i.e. fanart.
@Neville6000 Keep on swinging, but remember to keep those gloves up! Lies "teens (...) just loved the movie, & it was a favorite for them" do not drown the truth out of existence. PS. Fan art is nice but it doesn't put food on the table. Becoming a scientist; like the real Spock, or an engineer like the real Scotty: just like all the older fans did with their lives. Why did they do that? Because of what made Star Trek the ground breaking show of its time. Science and character not Explosions.
@Trekfreek: Unlike you (probably), many of the fan artists also SELL their work and take commissions for other stuff they do; not all Trekfans want to (or have to) become scientists or engineers; third, when Kirk & Co. were blasting Khan & Co. in TWOK, and Picard & Co. were doing it to the Borg, you didn't complain or give a shit-why did you give a shit when it happened in this movie?
@Neville6000 And how would you know what I "give a shit" about? Everything that happened in TWOK, TNG Best of Both Worlds and in First Contact was clearly explained in the plots of all three movies; also R2D2 was not in the debris fields in those movies. PS How can a 17 year old be stuck in 1968, 1977, 1980's or early 1990's? Try thinking logically at least one this year.
@Trekfreek "R2D2 was not in the debris fields in those movies,..."
No but the Millenium Falcon helped Picard destroy the Borg Cube in "First Contact". Both were ILM inside jokes and they happen a lot in other movies as well. This in no way a defense of JJ's "Star Wars-ing up" of Star Trek. However early "spoilers" from Abrams team indicated that STII will have an underlying real world theme. We'll see.
@Trekfreek Friend, I read an interview with John Ralston who said where and when to look for it. I've seen it. It's there. It's only on screen for a fraction of a second. You have been listening to rumors and lies from people who apparently have a very small television screen and a VHS player.
Oh and the "ghost" in TMAAB was no one's imagination. It was a cardboard cutout from the party scene at the beginning that was hastily shoved behind a curtain.
@jtkirkfan2002 Wrong again. I have played the movie backward forward slow motion fast motion inverted picture and black and white; It's not there and using my own words against me will not change the facts. PS. I did see the Kitchen Sink in SW Ep III and R2 D2 in Raiders, ST XI and Indy 4. The "ghost" is not there and neither is the Falcon. Look for your self!
@jtkirkfan2002 Wrong again. I have played the movie backward forward slow motion fast motion inverted picture and black and white; It's not there and using my own words against me will not change the facts. PS. I did see the Kitchen Sink in SW Ep III and R2 D2 in Raiders, ST XI and Indy 4. The "ghost" is not there and neither is the Falcon. Don't take any one's word for it; Look for yourself!
@Trekfreek I have seen it. Google "Ken Ralston, Milenium Falcon in Star Trek: First Contact". Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I have.
The "ghost" is there. It's as plain as day, but it's no ghost. It's a cardboard cutout of Ted Danson used in the opening party scene.
@jtkirkfan2002 Than you need glasses, because if I don't see it and my friends and family don't see it and Jonathan Frakes, who directed the movie, says it's not there; then IT'S NOT THERE!
PS The Ghost the fans refer too was not the cardboard cut out used in the party. The ghost they seen walked through the shot. People see what they want to see unless they clear their minds and really investigate with an open mind.
@Trekfreek Are you going to tell me they sky is green next? Because none of your facts are any more accurate than that. I have never, ever read or heard anything about a ghost walking through a shot. The original report was about a little boy behind a curtain. It was the cutout.
Oh and Ken Ralston of ILM directed the special effects and he says it's there. I've seen it and so do I. I'll take Ken Ralston's and my own word over some guy on the internet.
@StoneKnivesBearskins: First off, Sopmylo (and ONLY) Sopmylo, as the creator of these videos, can tell me to do so-you can't.
Secondly, again I reiterate; you've all lost the argument: I suggest you go to the Trek Today webseit, talk to some fans, and get a different perspective.
I'm pretty sure if you talk to real Star Trek fans (not the people who paramount is throwing all over the place who claim to be fans) and you will get the general opinion that ST09 is bad.
Yes, there are some interesting parts. I personally found the destruction of Vulcan meaningful on many levels.
It is very symbolic. Leonard Nimoy and Mark Lenard, the original Vulcans, were both Russian Jewish immigrants. They're families were forced to leave... cont
@StoneKnivesBearskins ...their homeland and try to find homes in alien places, or die.
That is the same situation that the Vulcans are now facing.
I also loved the scenes with LN, partly because I absolutely adore him, and partly because his performance was outstanding.
However, aside from a few interesting parts, the movie just doesn't work as a Star Trek movie. It is a Star Wars movie. If you don't believe me, check out this vid /watch?v=M67nnd8FjLk
@StoneKnivesBearskins: That video was meant as a joke,and was not meant for you to be taken seriously; just because it has some similar scenes does not mean it a rip-off, but a homage.
@Neville6000 I know the video is something of a joke, but it does point out many of the similarites.
And tell me, why on Earth is Jar Jar Abrams going to pay homage to Star Wars in a Star Trek movie? If he wanted to pay homage to Star Wars, he should have made a Star Wars movie, not a Star Trek movie.
@StoneKnivesBearskins "why on Earth is Jar Jar Abrams going to pay homage to Star Wars in a Star Trek movie?" Because he can't make a Star Wars movie: if the movie was "Space 1999" The Movie or a remake of "2001 a Space Odyssey" he still would have made it look like Star Wars; it would not matter what the name of the movie was if it takes place in space he would have made it Star Wars. Need Proof? Just look at all the debris fields in the movie R2D2 is in every one of them.
@Trekfreek That's my point. If he wants so badly to pay tribute to Star Wars, he should stay away from other beloved science fiction stuff.
He shouldn't take away the basic elements of Star Trek, that of exploration and discovery, and add in the elements of Star Wars, that of beating off the evil bad guy before he takes over the universe.
@StoneKnivesBearskins: I do talk to 'real fans'; they're the ones I mentioned earlier who are at the Trek BBS part of the Trek Today website. Many of them have accepted the new movie and have moved on; they're not stuck in the past trying to bring it back-just like you should be.
@Neville6000 Wow, would everybody else on this page look at that. There is a fellow commenting who says that a 17-year-old is stuck in the past.
I accept the new movie as existing, only a fool would refuse to do that, but I'm not going to say that it was the best movie out there. Sorry, but it isn't.
@StoneKnivesBearskins: I can't believe that a 17-year old is stuck in the past (I used to be like you as far as music is concerned, but I grew out of it)-hopefully you will too, otherwise when you get older you'll be pining for the youth that you'd wised you'd spent doing young people things that you'd actually spent doing old people things (you can do both-it's called BALANCE.)
@Neville6000 If I am stuck in the past, than explain this:
Why am I in the middle of writing a four book series? If I were pining away for things of the past, I certainly wouldn't be doing that.
Why am I competing in speech tournaments several times each year (and winning awards for it)? If I were pining away for things of the past, I wouldn't be able to do that either.
Seriously if Abrams wanted to make a "sci-fi movie for a non sci audience" why couldn't he have created a new universe rather than destroy a beloved classic. Perhaps it is just that he isn't creative enough to come up with new characters, settings, and technologies.
In any case I could put up with this new "Star Trek" if he hadn't destroyed Romulus in the "classic universe". That way "classic" fans still have their universe intact (post DS9/Nemesis) and these "new audience" fans can have their own separate universe to play with and destroy as they wish.
@Neville6000 We better "fracking well get used to it."? Yavol! Mine Furor! Do you want us to worship Jar Jar Abrams too? Creativity is sustained by being original not ripping apart some one else’s work. What Jar Jar did to this movie I did to a lame 80's show when I was 13. It was called Matt Huston, I merely changed the names and interpreted it literally and presto instant parody. Any child can rewrite a story, Real talent comes from imagination.
@BondFreek: Hey asswipe, get this through your head:you don't own Star Trek, Paramount and CBS Studios does. They can do what they want with it, including change what needs to be changed when the need arises. You just have to either enjoy the franchise, or you can leave it behind; either way, it's not yours, so please STFU and deal.
@Neville6000. It's funny (as in stupid) how people like you always result to name calling when ever some one disagreas with you. News Flash! This is America I have a right to hate bad movies and to speek my opinion without censorship! if anyone should "STFU" it's you your not my King of the world. And even if you are "I did not vote for you!" (Montypython and the Holy Grail) You like Garbage movies? fine! Just don't tell people that they must like what you like or "STFU".
@BondFreek: Because I'm tired of your constant whining over something that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, which is the quality (good or bad) of the Star Trek franchise. The world and North America has other more pressing problems-don't you think that you should be spending your energy dealing with those than with how Star Trek's supposedly been ruined by J.J. Abrams? All you whining makes you and the others here who made comments look like spoiled brats.
@Actionguy1: FYI, I live in my own apartment, on the 5th floor in downtown Toronto. I'm not in any group home; maybe YOU are, and you're trying to get a rise out of me. Either way, you failed...just as your immature temper tantrum against the new movie series is failing.
@Actionguy1: I wasn't angry the last few posts, just talking in an even tone-if I was angry, I would have used exclamation points. And no, I still don't live in a group home.
@Neville6000 You jackass! Are you still trying to fight this losing battle? I noticed all your comments on the Star Trek: 90210 video have been deleted.
Looks like the only failure I've seen in these parts lately is you!
What a total fucking joke!
Consider your ass spanked again! Now go bother someone else before you give yourself an aneurysm, you idiot.
But people have given him a chance with this new movie. I was actually really looking forward to the new movie. But it was a complete mess imo. Not because of little nit picks, because of the story which I just found to be really silly. Even for a Star Trek film. There was no theme or moral to deal with, so the whole movie lacked drama to me. I didn't really care about anyone.
@Neville6000 I never said that I did. You're the one responding to old comments. You're the one bowing down to Abrams' sorry excuse for a Star Trek film. You are the one who is deluded by trying to argue when there isn't one to make. Stop trying to make excuses for this film and blindly defending Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci's ego trip because it does NOT make you look smart.
@shinconvoy: Hey, I only came back here because of a response coming to my e-mail box, so I responded. If you or the others don't want me here, DON'T respond to me.
@Neville6000. It was not original. He freely admitted that he stole from Star Wars and the best scenes from the Wrath of Khan and First Contact. PS. Jar Jar did not write the movie a fan like you did. Lots of fans of shows write bad stories & are loved by other fans who also write bad stories, just read all the fan-fiction crap. My sister said it best "This movie is just like a BAD fan-fiction story. It reminds me of those cross over stories of Quantum Leap/ Star Trek/ Doctor Who." REAL BAD FILM
@BondFreek: Some basement-dwelling fanboys simply cannot accept that Star Trek is a business property whose owners decided to make changes in order to make it more profitable. The fans purchase products made by Paramount, the owners; the fans do not own Star Trek. Unfortunately, fans like you can't accept that, and so you all cry like spoiled babies wanting their bottles.
@Neville6000. Everyone knows it's a business, (Ass wipe), that does not mean we have to like the film. It also does not mean that we don’t have the right to complain and belittle this pile of shit. You sir also forget that Star Trek was Gen Roddenberry’s life's work. Altering it, making it something it is not disrespects an artist who struggled all his life to make it something special.
@BondFreek: No one said that you had to talk about it either, or show up in online forums to bitch about it-you can decide not to see any more movies, and stick to the old shows on DVD until your eyes bleed. And I know enough about Gene Roddenberry to say the that man wasn't perfect, and shouldn't have had anything to do with Star Trek after a certain life stage.
@Neville6000 No one said that Gene Roddenberry was perfect. But to say that he “shouldn't have had anything to do with Star Trek after a certain life stage” is disrespectful and despicable. How would you feel if someone said the same kind of thing about you? You work your entire life creating something special something that would affect the world’s opinions on politics and war; then just after you started to make an impact people take it from you and turn it into something without meaning.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@BondFreek: Gene's writing and character creating with the TNG characters was dismal to say the least; he boxed them in, and did not allow them to be anything other than perfect-which was wrong. That had severe repercussions on the way TNG, Voyager and Enterprise was looked at compared to Kirk & Co.-ask any fan, and they'll tell you the same thing I just told you. Only DS9 had relatable human characters, and that was because of the influence of Ira Steven Behr on it.
@Neville6000 LOL! Perfect? Really? Riker caving into using the power of the "Q", Picard with an artificial heart because he lost his temper when he was a cadet, Troy’s rocky relationship with her mother, Everyone on board falling in love with the wrong kind of people. Data falling for his brothers lies. Data even tried to kill a man in cold blood once. Picard was even tricked by a Romulan agent once. They were complex characters but they were far from perfect.
@BondFreek: I was referring to Cloverfield, NOT Star Trek 2009. Cloverfield was his own original work-a Godzilla movie, but set in New York. BTW, if you and the rest of the angry mob here think that Abrams was bad, you'll be whining if you got a look at the JMS (Babylon 5 creator) script/concept for Star Trek that he wanted to do. Be glad the movie wan't made by Michael Bay, or by Berman & Braga-THEN you'd be red-faced with apoplexy. And I was not aware that this movie was a crossover.
@Neville6000. It took you two months to come up with this response? I suggest you do more research; you got it all wrong again. J M S never wrote a script for the new Star Trek. However, he did have many of the original writers working for him during the 5 seasons of Babylon 5. Also Michael Bay was never approached. Berman was fired after the last Star Trek movie failed and was forced to end Enterprise early. Everything you said was just roomers.
@BondFreek: Sorry Bond Freak, but JMS DID write his own concept for a revival of Star Trek; Google 'JMS Star Trek concept' and you will see what I'm saying. He did this because he was dissatisfied with TNG/DS9/Voyager, and he wanted it to get back to what he thought was great storytelling (he hated the effect the holodeck had on the three shows especially, and felt that it let the stories down when it was used in any episode.) Find out the REAL truth about Star Trek, and not what you know.
@Neville6000 J. Michael Straczynski Star Trek concept was a pure reboot or a reimagining for TV. Not “erase the original” & replace it with Star Wars. He also said that the original series was never stagnant just dated. He did not want to change any of the characters just the stories and the technology. This was back in 2004 & was his idea (as a fan) alone. This was not part of Star Trek history because he never got the OK. Paramount was not even considering a reboot till Batman Begins came out.
@Neville6000 Talk about childish, misinformed comments!
"that was his own original movie he wrote; what does he owe you"?
First of all Retardo: Abrams did NOT write it! Those talentless hacks Orci and Kurtzman whote it! And NEWS FLASH! it wasn't very original. It was contrived horseshit! We've seen it all before.
What does Abrams owe us? His resignation as the producer of the Star Trek franchise. A person can't continue to fuck things up any worse than he has.
@Actionguy1: Wow, so I made a little mistake in who wrote it-big deal. I still stick to what I said before; this is not yours, you don't own it, and if you want to have any power over it, get off of your ass, go back to school, and then get a job at Paramount/CBS. Even better yet, seek some counselling for you emotional hurt-this is just a entertainment franchise, after all.
@Actionguy1 Can you act like anything other than a hurt lover whose sweetheart did them wrong? It doesn't matter how much ranting and raving you do-Star Trek still isn't under your control, nor of anybody else here that made comments about the movie. It's run by Paramount and CBS Studios, and they can do what they want.
@Neville6000. He knows that and all the hate and ranting and raving you doo will not stop him from speaking his mind, the same goes for me. If you don't like it then take your own advice and do something different. You have been defending this movie for over a year. Relax, your sequel is being made, Star Wreck will go on till people want intelligent movies again. You had more than your say. Now it is our turn.
@Neville6000 Have you figured it out yet? You have obviously LOST the argument here. Your " JJ Abrams' Utopian version of Star Trek" is hated by SO many people.
Give it up and quit trying to be an advocate for the extremely stupid, retarded, or simply clueless, for that matter.
Watching this film is like seeing a longtime friend being ass raped, and there is not a damned thing you can do to stop it. You can look away, but when you look back, your friend is stil being violated.
@CaptainSuperGuy: I have not lost any 'argument' that I was aware of; all I see here is the ranting of spoiled, immature children who call themselves 'adults' but aren't. The wider world has spoken; it LOVES this movie, and it will love the nest ones in the series. You and everybody else on this YouTube channel have lost, you just don't know it yet and are in denial. Yes, I lost the 'argument HERE', but as I said, out there in the real world, you've all lost.
@Neville6000 Now who's trying to speak for everyone else?
It's one thing to state an opinion but it's another to degenerate into troll-level arguing. You're turning into the very thing you accuse us of being. I'm not going any further by sinking to your level. If you don't want to respond, then just block the emails in your box. Otherwise, by getting mad, you're proving my point.
BTW, if you really are a Star Trek fan, as you say, then to quote Captain Sisko: "You've betrayed your uniform!"
@aperson22222: He didn't 'ruin' Star Trek anymore than Roddenberry did with the way he wrote the TNG characters, or anybody else did-there are good movies/episodes and bad movies/episodes, but you can still love Star Trek regardless.
@Neville6000 Can, and I do. But this is just beyond the pale. He's much too untrue to characters. Don't use established characters if you want to create brand new personalities. And don't say "They're not the real characters, it's an alternate timeline." That's even worse. That means he said "All of Star Trek never happened except my film, so just watch this instead!"
@luigi19987 Yea, and I'm pissed of at Paramount for allowing a half ass TV producer and his flunkies completely bastardize a beloved franchise!
JJ Abrams has no business directing or producing Star Trek. He admitted that he was NOT a Star Trek fan! So what does he do? He makes his f^@#ed up version of Star Wars using Gene Roddneberry's characters!
I'd say Abrams missed the mark by a few million light years!
What he made was NOT Star Trek, it was a soulless, lens flare filled shitfest!
@Actionguy1 your problem is you dont like fans of this film even though they are fans of star trek itself if you dont like this film then dont comment
@luigi19987 I never said I did not like the fans of this film. I simply stated that I do not like the production team on this movie or what they were allowed to do with it. You liked the movie, fine. I have no problem with you.
I will continue to emphasize what a terribly ill conceived project it was as well. Sorry if you have a problem with that.
It was not Star Trek. It was a bad sci fi film that simply contained elements of Star Trek.
@Actionguy1: So then, why don't you become a writer/director/producer, and write a Star Trek movie/TV show concept, instead of just bitching over YouTube about the movie? Your mind and body will thank you for it. Better yet, why don't you do what Luigi19987 says and NOT comment anymore?
@Neville6000 I stated that I would continue what an ill conceived project this film was in the first place!
It is quite obvious that you and Luigi both are mentally deficient and shouldn't even be allowed on the internet. Face it, you and Luigi are in an arena where neither of you will ever win, so you should just go away.
Advice to you: Never come to a battle of wits only half armed, tard boy.
@Actionguy1: I'm not 'mentally deficient' and neither is Luigi-he just spells badly, but both our opinions/facts are just as valid (probably even more so) as your opinions (and don't delude yourselves, you're in the minority on this one, not me, Luigi or anybody else who saw and liked/loved the film. )
@Neville6000 Oh wow Neville! You learned a new word! "Delude"! That's really special, but please, don't "over use it"! And NO. I'm NOT in a minority! This movie SUCKED ASS!!!!!!
@Actionguy1: Don't you worry, I will-as soon as I can share this page with the world and show how 'fans' like you are. Then we'll see who the simpleton is.
@Actionguy1: In a battle of wits with the filmmaker and screenwriter, YOU'D be the loser, not me-and he'd probably use you as an example of the kind of fan he or the scriptwriter doesn't want.,and that the Onion made fun of in their news story on the new movie.
@luigi19987: I don't blame you, and am in solidarity with you: these 'fans' make the rest of us who like/love the Star Trek franchise look like idiots.
@Neville6000 Do we have to go through this crap again? So you and your equally mentally deficient friend Luigi "LOVE" the latest pile of shit that's been called "Star Trek"? Once again, ill-conceived attempt to make something already wonderful "NEW" again. Terrible cast, director with no clue, writers with no talent, bad cinematography, HUGE PLOT HOLES, over the top soundtrack, and goddamed lens flares in every scene! Yep! That's why you look like idiots!
@Actionguy1 I wouldn't call the cast horrible. They did decently enough. If there had been good writers and a good director, they could have been (dare I say it) almost (note that I said *almost*) amazing, especially Karl Urban as Bones (the only Trekkie in the bunch).
@Actionguy1: As I said before, if you think that you can do any better, let's see you change careers, become a scriptwriter/film director, and then show all of us how you'd handle Star Trek. Or you can get counseling for your hurt, damaged soul. But try and remember, 'Star Trek goes on with and without you.'
All this whining reminds me of grade school. The truth is that JJ Abrams injected some badly needed life into Star Trek and reinvented it for a whole new generation.
@TheVanishingUniverse: Correctamundo! But you know these whiny morons who call themselves 'fans' posting here-they wouldn't be satisfied unless their mothers were making the show.
And love this one even more. JJ as a whiney guy with delusions of Godhood. I hated this movie and I hate JJ. My thoughts on this exactly! Love it. Love it. Fantastic! Just brilliant!
I was hoping that Nimoy's participation in the new film was a sign that it would be like the Star Trek we know. I'm reserving judgement until I see it, but I'm not optimistic after what I've seen.
I fear that Star Trek may be worse than dead, and it is it's heart that is gone. Does Abrams even know what Star Trek means?
My thoughts exactly from the moment that Abrams was picked as director. I wasn't going to go and see the movie, then I changed my mind thinking I hadn't been fair on it. Your right Star Trek's heart is missing, and so is it's soul, but I'm finding only a very few people agree with me on this.
Considering the the franchise was on life support after Nemesis, I think that Abrams did a great job...the public and the critics agree as well, as do most Trekfans.
Star Trek always had its loyal fanbase that's not being on life support just because the stupid plebs didn't get it I coudln't care less now Abrams made a movie for them an sure it sucks as everything produces for the masses usually sucks
You could also show the Brainless Zombie Spock being remote-controlled by McCoy, only paste Abrams' head onto McCoy's body so it looks like Abrams is controlling Nimoy. ;)
You have good editing skills. Perhaps after you watch the film, you can can do a "fan cut" version, where you can piece together a version of the film using TOS clips. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support for something like that. ;)
very nicley put together
captaintarel 9 months ago 2
So funny !
ppatocthereturn 1 year ago
Comment removed
luigi19987 1 year ago
Next time hopefully they remember a social theme and a powerful storyline....and a villain who is actually credible.
Jack1981ish 2 years ago
Next time, just go and watch the same old episodes over and over again, until your eyes bleed.
Neville6000 1 year ago
JJ Abrams' "stick a strobe light in front of a camera for two hours" excuse for a movie, already had that effect.
celticarchie 1 year ago 2
TOS kirk is just mad because he can't drive
brooklyn560 2 years ago 3
I for one am sick of hearing the "new generation" argument
wtf am I then (20) I like the classic trek
Classic Trek including TOS, The TRUE Films, TNG, DS9 (it has its problems but still) and Voyager have attracted millions some of the most dedicated fans you can ever find (many as intense as Rocky Horror fans) and you have pissed them off. Star Trek never needed new fans, they would have continue buying DVDs and Merchandise for classic trek of decades to come.
klingoncowboy4 2 years ago 2
They would have continued to buy all of the previous series DVD's until they all died off and left the franchise with no fandom? Then what would Paramount/CBS Studios do?
Neville6000 2 years ago
I somehow doubt that would be a problem. "Classic Trek" fans are still of all ages so the potential audience exists for decades. What's more I find it difficult to believe that there would really be a lot of difficulty in acquiring new fans. In any case everything must die eventually and so will Star Trek. It could have at least died with some dignity instead of this modern emo space fantasy crap.
klingoncowboy4 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Classic Trek fans are in their 40s and 50s and are getting OLDER not YOUNGER. Paramount/CBS has to get a younger generation, not people with their heads stuck up their asses about the canon.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Excuse me, but I am not in my 40s or 50s I am in my teens, and I LOVE TOS, and I HATE ST09.
What do you have to say now?
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago 3
@StoneKnivesBearskins: Sorry kiddo, but I speak for myself and I'm also speaking generally; most Trekfans are older, with the first and second generations of fans in their 40's, 50's and 60's (I'm 43 as of 2/16/11; started watching TOS when I was 5 years old in the early 70's) and we're dying off-also, the franchise suffered because of over-saturation and (according to some people, BUT NOT TO ME) mediocre episodes and movies. That's why there a new movie, to recover from the 'Star Trek' crash.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 That is a reasonable argument, however, ST09 didn't help recover Star Trek.
True, I do enjoy watching it, but not as Star Trek.
If they had gotten good writers and a good director, it could have been amazing, but sadly, they didn't, so it wasn't.
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago 2
@StoneKnivesBearskins: Actually, IT DID recover Star Trek as a brand name; the movie's popularity has spawned a generation of new fans, and even got some of them to check out all of the previous shows and movies. Not to forget all of the fandom creating fan art at Deviant Art and other art sites, and a whole host of other things, like people dressing up in cosplay based on the old show. So you see, the movie did succeed at what it set out to do-Uhura & Spock love included.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 I'm going to say one more thing, and then I'd like to request that we end this discussion.
First, I will not deny the fact that ST09 did interest non Trek fans in the franchise, but that film will not hold up over time.
In 100 years from now, the Star Trek TOS Trilogy (2-4) as well as ST6 will still be watched and loved.
Within 10 years from now, ST09 will be forgotten as the piece of junk made too look cool by lense flares and other special effects.
At least, In my opinion.
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago 4
@StoneKnivesBearskins Your right my friend. Here is a good point. How many people not only remember but still watch the reimaged Planet of the Apes? Now how many remember the original made in the 60's? The newer one out sold the original in Box office sales and got young people to watch the original, but most of those young people I talked to don't even remember the new one, or the story in it.
BondFreek 1 year ago
@BondFreek I admit that I don't know much about Planet of the Apes.
But I do have a question:
Was POTA as popular as ST?
I'm just curious, because if people remember ST09, it might be because it does have the words "Star Trek" in the title, and some Trek fans love all things ST, whether it is good or bad.
Don't worry, I'm not trying to defend the movie, I just want to know the differences in the popularity between ST and POTA.
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago
@StoneKnivesBearskins Back in the 60's it was as popular as Mission Impossible for obvious reasons, it was casted with stars. It was so popular that when the movies were finished it spun off a live action series and an animated one. But to this day most movie goers only remember the first movie. Star Trek started out slow and built up speed. Simply put the longer Star Trek was in reruns the more popular it got. The more new products happened for POTA the less popular it got.
BondFreek 1 year ago
@BondFreek So, you're saying that the fan bases are approximately the same size?
BTW, Star Trek was extremely popular, but it's audience wasn't enormous yet, and they always aired it at horrible times. When it went into syndication, the different networks could air it at whatever time they thought viewers would watch it, so more could, and did.
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago
@StoneKnivesBearskins No, What I'm saying is that Planet of the Apes was more popular than Star Trek in the 60's. However, as Star trek became more popular Planet of the Apes (with the exception of the first movie) became less popular. There is no real connection it's just a coincidence. Planet of the Apes only focused on racism; MI only focused on corruption of power: what made Star Trek such an enduring part of our culture is its ability to adapt to current events.
Trekfreek 1 year ago
@BondFreek: According to you and ONLY YOU. Nobody else. And one teenager who agrees with you IS NOT representative of all teens. First off, not all teens are Trek fans; most just loved the movie, and it was a favorite for them; secondly, not all teens are as callow as you make them out to be; third, as I said before, most of the teens and young people that are fans of Star Trek may have become fans of the movie, and those that are have done a lot of amazing things with their fandom, i.e. fanart.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Keep on swinging, but remember to keep those gloves up! Lies "teens (...) just loved the movie, & it was a favorite for them" do not drown the truth out of existence. PS. Fan art is nice but it doesn't put food on the table. Becoming a scientist; like the real Spock, or an engineer like the real Scotty: just like all the older fans did with their lives. Why did they do that? Because of what made Star Trek the ground breaking show of its time. Science and character not Explosions.
Trekfreek 1 year ago 2
@Trekfreek: Unlike you (probably), many of the fan artists also SELL their work and take commissions for other stuff they do; not all Trekfans want to (or have to) become scientists or engineers; third, when Kirk & Co. were blasting Khan & Co. in TWOK, and Picard & Co. were doing it to the Borg, you didn't complain or give a shit-why did you give a shit when it happened in this movie?
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 And how would you know what I "give a shit" about? Everything that happened in TWOK, TNG Best of Both Worlds and in First Contact was clearly explained in the plots of all three movies; also R2D2 was not in the debris fields in those movies. PS How can a 17 year old be stuck in 1968, 1977, 1980's or early 1990's? Try thinking logically at least one this year.
Trekfreek 1 year ago 3
@Trekfreek "R2D2 was not in the debris fields in those movies,..."
No but the Millenium Falcon helped Picard destroy the Borg Cube in "First Contact". Both were ILM inside jokes and they happen a lot in other movies as well. This in no way a defense of JJ's "Star Wars-ing up" of Star Trek. However early "spoilers" from Abrams team indicated that STII will have an underlying real world theme. We'll see.
jtkirkfan2002 10 months ago
@jtkirkfan2002 That was just a rumor. It was only there through people’s imagination. Just like the "Ghost" in Three Men and a Baby.
Trekfreek 10 months ago
@Trekfreek Why did ILM admit to putting it there?
jtkirkfan2002 10 months ago
@jtkirkfan2002 "Why did ILM admit to putting it there?" They didn't! You have been listening to roomers and lies.
Trekfreek 10 months ago 3
@Trekfreek Friend, I read an interview with John Ralston who said where and when to look for it. I've seen it. It's there. It's only on screen for a fraction of a second. You have been listening to rumors and lies from people who apparently have a very small television screen and a VHS player.
Oh and the "ghost" in TMAAB was no one's imagination. It was a cardboard cutout from the party scene at the beginning that was hastily shoved behind a curtain.
jtkirkfan2002 10 months ago
@jtkirkfan2002 Wrong again. I have played the movie backward forward slow motion fast motion inverted picture and black and white; It's not there and using my own words against me will not change the facts. PS. I did see the Kitchen Sink in SW Ep III and R2 D2 in Raiders, ST XI and Indy 4. The "ghost" is not there and neither is the Falcon. Look for your self!
Trekfreek 10 months ago
@jtkirkfan2002 Wrong again. I have played the movie backward forward slow motion fast motion inverted picture and black and white; It's not there and using my own words against me will not change the facts. PS. I did see the Kitchen Sink in SW Ep III and R2 D2 in Raiders, ST XI and Indy 4. The "ghost" is not there and neither is the Falcon. Don't take any one's word for it; Look for yourself!
Trekfreek 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek I have seen it. Google "Ken Ralston, Milenium Falcon in Star Trek: First Contact". Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I have.
The "ghost" is there. It's as plain as day, but it's no ghost. It's a cardboard cutout of Ted Danson used in the opening party scene.
jtkirkfan2002 10 months ago
@jtkirkfan2002 Than you need glasses, because if I don't see it and my friends and family don't see it and Jonathan Frakes, who directed the movie, says it's not there; then IT'S NOT THERE!
PS The Ghost the fans refer too was not the cardboard cut out used in the party. The ghost they seen walked through the shot. People see what they want to see unless they clear their minds and really investigate with an open mind.
Trekfreek 10 months ago 2
@Trekfreek Are you going to tell me they sky is green next? Because none of your facts are any more accurate than that. I have never, ever read or heard anything about a ghost walking through a shot. The original report was about a little boy behind a curtain. It was the cutout.
Oh and Ken Ralston of ILM directed the special effects and he says it's there. I've seen it and so do I. I'll take Ken Ralston's and my own word over some guy on the internet.
jtkirkfan2002 10 months ago
@StoneKnivesBearskins: First off, Sopmylo (and ONLY) Sopmylo, as the creator of these videos, can tell me to do so-you can't.
Secondly, again I reiterate; you've all lost the argument: I suggest you go to the Trek Today webseit, talk to some fans, and get a different perspective.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Maybe you should do that.
I'm pretty sure if you talk to real Star Trek fans (not the people who paramount is throwing all over the place who claim to be fans) and you will get the general opinion that ST09 is bad.
Yes, there are some interesting parts. I personally found the destruction of Vulcan meaningful on many levels.
It is very symbolic. Leonard Nimoy and Mark Lenard, the original Vulcans, were both Russian Jewish immigrants. They're families were forced to leave... cont
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago
@StoneKnivesBearskins ...their homeland and try to find homes in alien places, or die.
That is the same situation that the Vulcans are now facing.
I also loved the scenes with LN, partly because I absolutely adore him, and partly because his performance was outstanding.
However, aside from a few interesting parts, the movie just doesn't work as a Star Trek movie. It is a Star Wars movie. If you don't believe me, check out this vid /watch?v=M67nnd8FjLk
It perfectly demonstrates that fact.
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago
@StoneKnivesBearskins: That video was meant as a joke,and was not meant for you to be taken seriously; just because it has some similar scenes does not mean it a rip-off, but a homage.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 I know the video is something of a joke, but it does point out many of the similarites.
And tell me, why on Earth is Jar Jar Abrams going to pay homage to Star Wars in a Star Trek movie? If he wanted to pay homage to Star Wars, he should have made a Star Wars movie, not a Star Trek movie.
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago
@StoneKnivesBearskins "why on Earth is Jar Jar Abrams going to pay homage to Star Wars in a Star Trek movie?" Because he can't make a Star Wars movie: if the movie was "Space 1999" The Movie or a remake of "2001 a Space Odyssey" he still would have made it look like Star Wars; it would not matter what the name of the movie was if it takes place in space he would have made it Star Wars. Need Proof? Just look at all the debris fields in the movie R2D2 is in every one of them.
Trekfreek 1 year ago
@Trekfreek That's my point. If he wants so badly to pay tribute to Star Wars, he should stay away from other beloved science fiction stuff.
He shouldn't take away the basic elements of Star Trek, that of exploration and discovery, and add in the elements of Star Wars, that of beating off the evil bad guy before he takes over the universe.
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago 2
@StoneKnivesBearskins: I do talk to 'real fans'; they're the ones I mentioned earlier who are at the Trek BBS part of the Trek Today website. Many of them have accepted the new movie and have moved on; they're not stuck in the past trying to bring it back-just like you should be.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Wow, would everybody else on this page look at that. There is a fellow commenting who says that a 17-year-old is stuck in the past.
I accept the new movie as existing, only a fool would refuse to do that, but I'm not going to say that it was the best movie out there. Sorry, but it isn't.
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago 2
@StoneKnivesBearskins: I can't believe that a 17-year old is stuck in the past (I used to be like you as far as music is concerned, but I grew out of it)-hopefully you will too, otherwise when you get older you'll be pining for the youth that you'd wised you'd spent doing young people things that you'd actually spent doing old people things (you can do both-it's called BALANCE.)
Neville6000 1 year ago
Comment removed
StoneKnivesBearskins 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Neville6000 If I am stuck in the past, than explain this:
Why am I in the middle of writing a four book series? If I were pining away for things of the past, I certainly wouldn't be doing that.
Why am I competing in speech tournaments several times each year (and winning awards for it)? If I were pining away for things of the past, I wouldn't be able to do that either.
StoneKnivesBearskins 11 months ago
Seriously if Abrams wanted to make a "sci-fi movie for a non sci audience" why couldn't he have created a new universe rather than destroy a beloved classic. Perhaps it is just that he isn't creative enough to come up with new characters, settings, and technologies.
klingoncowboy4 2 years ago 12
@klingoncowboy4: He did a reboot, which is just as good.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000. No he did a sequel prequel rewrite history and the rules. If this was like Mission Impossible you would not get this much hate mail.
BondFreek 1 year ago 6
In any case I could put up with this new "Star Trek" if he hadn't destroyed Romulus in the "classic universe". That way "classic" fans still have their universe intact (post DS9/Nemesis) and these "new audience" fans can have their own separate universe to play with and destroy as they wish.
klingoncowboy4 2 years ago
@klingoncowboy4: It's called 'shaking
things up'-and you'd better fracking well
get used to it. That's how creativity is sustained.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 We better "fracking well get used to it."? Yavol! Mine Furor! Do you want us to worship Jar Jar Abrams too? Creativity is sustained by being original not ripping apart some one else’s work. What Jar Jar did to this movie I did to a lame 80's show when I was 13. It was called Matt Huston, I merely changed the names and interpreted it literally and presto instant parody. Any child can rewrite a story, Real talent comes from imagination.
BondFreek 1 year ago 5
@BondFreek: Hey asswipe, get this through your head:you don't own Star Trek, Paramount and CBS Studios does. They can do what they want with it, including change what needs to be changed when the need arises. You just have to either enjoy the franchise, or you can leave it behind; either way, it's not yours, so please STFU and deal.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000. It's funny (as in stupid) how people like you always result to name calling when ever some one disagreas with you. News Flash! This is America I have a right to hate bad movies and to speek my opinion without censorship! if anyone should "STFU" it's you your not my King of the world. And even if you are "I did not vote for you!" (Montypython and the Holy Grail) You like Garbage movies? fine! Just don't tell people that they must like what you like or "STFU".
BondFreek 1 year ago 4
@BondFreek: I really don't care what you think about Star Trek, asswipe, nor does anybody else. Either put up, or do without-it's your choice.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 If you don't care what I think then why are you responding?
BondFreek 1 year ago
@BondFreek: Because I'm tired of your constant whining over something that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, which is the quality (good or bad) of the Star Trek franchise. The world and North America has other more pressing problems-don't you think that you should be spending your energy dealing with those than with how Star Trek's supposedly been ruined by J.J. Abrams? All you whining makes you and the others here who made comments look like spoiled brats.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 You half wit! You woudn't know what "sustaining creativity" was if it bit you on the ass and spit it in your face!
The group home monitor has his eye on you!
Actionguy1 1 year ago 12
@Actionguy1: FYI, I live in my own apartment, on the 5th floor in downtown Toronto. I'm not in any group home; maybe YOU are, and you're trying to get a rise out of me. Either way, you failed...just as your immature temper tantrum against the new movie series is failing.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 You live in a group home! Don't lie to us! Boy, you are such a persistant little idiot! Talk about a temper tantrum! Ha! Ha!
You just keep making yourself sound stupider, and stupider with everyone of your angry posts.
Keep it up. Your hole's getting deeper!
Actionguy1 1 year ago 4
@Actionguy1: I wasn't angry the last few posts, just talking in an even tone-if I was angry, I would have used exclamation points. And no, I still don't live in a group home.
Neville6000 1 year ago
Comment removed
Trekfreek 1 year ago 5
@Neville6000 You jackass! Are you still trying to fight this losing battle? I noticed all your comments on the Star Trek: 90210 video have been deleted.
Looks like the only failure I've seen in these parts lately is you!
What a total fucking joke!
Consider your ass spanked again! Now go bother someone else before you give yourself an aneurysm, you idiot.
CaptainSuperGuy 1 year ago 18
I'm 33 have loved TOS for 15 years now and there won't be any cast that can compete with the original period
sondano 2 years ago
@sondano: Then you never met the fans of TNG, DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise yet. They're just as prolific as you.
Neville6000 1 year ago
To Luigi19987:
But people have given him a chance with this new movie. I was actually really looking forward to the new movie. But it was a complete mess imo. Not because of little nit picks, because of the story which I just found to be really silly. Even for a Star Trek film. There was no theme or moral to deal with, so the whole movie lacked drama to me. I didn't really care about anyone.
Jack1981ish 2 years ago
@Jack1981ish: Perhaps the moral was there, but you chose to ignore it?
Neville6000 1 year ago
LOL @ the random Paramount logos popping up
tannerwaterbury 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i am pissed off with the people who hate the new film PLEASE GIVE JJ A CHANCE DONT JUDGE HIM ON ONE FILM
luigi19987 2 years ago
I didn't judge him on just one film. He has Cloverfield to answer for.
Sopmylo 2 years ago 8
@Sopmylo Don't forget LOST. He's still on my hit list for that train wreck.
shinconvoy 1 year ago 2
@shinconvoy: He's on YOUR hit list, and YOUR hist list only-don't delude yourself into thinking that you speak for all Losties or Trekkers.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 I never said that I did. You're the one responding to old comments. You're the one bowing down to Abrams' sorry excuse for a Star Trek film. You are the one who is deluded by trying to argue when there isn't one to make. Stop trying to make excuses for this film and blindly defending Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci's ego trip because it does NOT make you look smart.
shinconvoy 1 year ago 5
@shinconvoy: Hey, I only came back here because of a response coming to my e-mail box, so I responded. If you or the others don't want me here, DON'T respond to me.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Sopmylo: that was his own original movie he wrote; what does he owe you?
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000. It was not original. He freely admitted that he stole from Star Wars and the best scenes from the Wrath of Khan and First Contact. PS. Jar Jar did not write the movie a fan like you did. Lots of fans of shows write bad stories & are loved by other fans who also write bad stories, just read all the fan-fiction crap. My sister said it best "This movie is just like a BAD fan-fiction story. It reminds me of those cross over stories of Quantum Leap/ Star Trek/ Doctor Who." REAL BAD FILM
BondFreek 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@BondFreek: Some basement-dwelling fanboys simply cannot accept that Star Trek is a business property whose owners decided to make changes in order to make it more profitable. The fans purchase products made by Paramount, the owners; the fans do not own Star Trek. Unfortunately, fans like you can't accept that, and so you all cry like spoiled babies wanting their bottles.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000. Everyone knows it's a business, (Ass wipe), that does not mean we have to like the film. It also does not mean that we don’t have the right to complain and belittle this pile of shit. You sir also forget that Star Trek was Gen Roddenberry’s life's work. Altering it, making it something it is not disrespects an artist who struggled all his life to make it something special.
BondFreek 1 year ago 7
@BondFreek: No one said that you had to talk about it either, or show up in online forums to bitch about it-you can decide not to see any more movies, and stick to the old shows on DVD until your eyes bleed. And I know enough about Gene Roddenberry to say the that man wasn't perfect, and shouldn't have had anything to do with Star Trek after a certain life stage.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 No one said that Gene Roddenberry was perfect. But to say that he “shouldn't have had anything to do with Star Trek after a certain life stage” is disrespectful and despicable. How would you feel if someone said the same kind of thing about you? You work your entire life creating something special something that would affect the world’s opinions on politics and war; then just after you started to make an impact people take it from you and turn it into something without meaning.
BondFreek 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@BondFreek: Gene's writing and character creating with the TNG characters was dismal to say the least; he boxed them in, and did not allow them to be anything other than perfect-which was wrong. That had severe repercussions on the way TNG, Voyager and Enterprise was looked at compared to Kirk & Co.-ask any fan, and they'll tell you the same thing I just told you. Only DS9 had relatable human characters, and that was because of the influence of Ira Steven Behr on it.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 LOL! Perfect? Really? Riker caving into using the power of the "Q", Picard with an artificial heart because he lost his temper when he was a cadet, Troy’s rocky relationship with her mother, Everyone on board falling in love with the wrong kind of people. Data falling for his brothers lies. Data even tried to kill a man in cold blood once. Picard was even tricked by a Romulan agent once. They were complex characters but they were far from perfect.
Trekfreek 1 year ago 6
Comment removed
BondFreek 1 year ago
@BondFreek: I was referring to Cloverfield, NOT Star Trek 2009. Cloverfield was his own original work-a Godzilla movie, but set in New York. BTW, if you and the rest of the angry mob here think that Abrams was bad, you'll be whining if you got a look at the JMS (Babylon 5 creator) script/concept for Star Trek that he wanted to do. Be glad the movie wan't made by Michael Bay, or by Berman & Braga-THEN you'd be red-faced with apoplexy. And I was not aware that this movie was a crossover.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000. It took you two months to come up with this response? I suggest you do more research; you got it all wrong again. J M S never wrote a script for the new Star Trek. However, he did have many of the original writers working for him during the 5 seasons of Babylon 5. Also Michael Bay was never approached. Berman was fired after the last Star Trek movie failed and was forced to end Enterprise early. Everything you said was just roomers.
BondFreek 1 year ago 6
@BondFreek: Sorry Bond Freak, but JMS DID write his own concept for a revival of Star Trek; Google 'JMS Star Trek concept' and you will see what I'm saying. He did this because he was dissatisfied with TNG/DS9/Voyager, and he wanted it to get back to what he thought was great storytelling (he hated the effect the holodeck had on the three shows especially, and felt that it let the stories down when it was used in any episode.) Find out the REAL truth about Star Trek, and not what you know.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 J. Michael Straczynski Star Trek concept was a pure reboot or a reimagining for TV. Not “erase the original” & replace it with Star Wars. He also said that the original series was never stagnant just dated. He did not want to change any of the characters just the stories and the technology. This was back in 2004 & was his idea (as a fan) alone. This was not part of Star Trek history because he never got the OK. Paramount was not even considering a reboot till Batman Begins came out.
BondFreek 1 year ago
@Neville6000 PS. What was this a response too? And don't you get tired of looking for things to argue about only to be defeated time and again?
BondFreek 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Talk about childish, misinformed comments!
"that was his own original movie he wrote; what does he owe you"?
First of all Retardo: Abrams did NOT write it! Those talentless hacks Orci and Kurtzman whote it! And NEWS FLASH! it wasn't very original. It was contrived horseshit! We've seen it all before.
What does Abrams owe us? His resignation as the producer of the Star Trek franchise. A person can't continue to fuck things up any worse than he has.
Now stfu and get over it!
Actionguy1 1 year ago 4
@Actionguy1: Wow, so I made a little mistake in who wrote it-big deal. I still stick to what I said before; this is not yours, you don't own it, and if you want to have any power over it, get off of your ass, go back to school, and then get a job at Paramount/CBS. Even better yet, seek some counselling for you emotional hurt-this is just a entertainment franchise, after all.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Hey tard boy! Do your caretakers in the group home know you're on the PC ranting like an angry little, loser again?
Have you ever had an original thought or idea in your life?
No?
Didn't think so.
Your really are an angry little, loser, aren't you?
Actionguy1 1 year ago 4
@Actionguy1 Can you act like anything other than a hurt lover whose sweetheart did them wrong? It doesn't matter how much ranting and raving you do-Star Trek still isn't under your control, nor of anybody else here that made comments about the movie. It's run by Paramount and CBS Studios, and they can do what they want.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 No one's been "ranting and raving" here but you fool. Go back and read some of your indignant comments.
"It's run by Paramount and CBS Studios, and they can do with it what they want."
That's the only thing you've stated that has made any sence at all.
You are correct! They own it, now their going to allow JJ Abrams and crew finally kill it.
I see It happen in large corporations in this country everyday. Even in Canada. Remember Quebcor? It's called bad business decisions.
CaptainSuperGuy 1 year ago 3
@Neville6000. He knows that and all the hate and ranting and raving you doo will not stop him from speaking his mind, the same goes for me. If you don't like it then take your own advice and do something different. You have been defending this movie for over a year. Relax, your sequel is being made, Star Wreck will go on till people want intelligent movies again. You had more than your say. Now it is our turn.
Trekfreek 1 year ago 6
@Neville6000 Have you figured it out yet? You have obviously LOST the argument here. Your " JJ Abrams' Utopian version of Star Trek" is hated by SO many people.
Give it up and quit trying to be an advocate for the extremely stupid, retarded, or simply clueless, for that matter.
Watching this film is like seeing a longtime friend being ass raped, and there is not a damned thing you can do to stop it. You can look away, but when you look back, your friend is stil being violated.
ST:XI SUCKS!
CaptainSuperGuy 1 year ago 3
@CaptainSuperGuy: I have not lost any 'argument' that I was aware of; all I see here is the ranting of spoiled, immature children who call themselves 'adults' but aren't. The wider world has spoken; it LOVES this movie, and it will love the nest ones in the series. You and everybody else on this YouTube channel have lost, you just don't know it yet and are in denial. Yes, I lost the 'argument HERE', but as I said, out there in the real world, you've all lost.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 No Neville. In the REAL world or anywhere, you have lost. Especially if you think JJ's shitty movie was any good!
Just GO AWAY AND LEAVE IT ALONE YOU FUCKING RETARD!
You will have your dumb ass handed to you again!
CaptainSuperGuy 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Now who's trying to speak for everyone else?
It's one thing to state an opinion but it's another to degenerate into troll-level arguing. You're turning into the very thing you accuse us of being. I'm not going any further by sinking to your level. If you don't want to respond, then just block the emails in your box. Otherwise, by getting mad, you're proving my point.
BTW, if you really are a Star Trek fan, as you say, then to quote Captain Sisko: "You've betrayed your uniform!"
shinconvoy 1 year ago
no no what i said was one star trek film
luigi19987 2 years ago
@luigi19987 Come on--He ruined Star Trek. A cultural icon. We're judging him on eleven films and 705 television episodes.
aperson22222 1 year ago 2
@aperson22222: He didn't 'ruin' Star Trek anymore than Roddenberry did with the way he wrote the TNG characters, or anybody else did-there are good movies/episodes and bad movies/episodes, but you can still love Star Trek regardless.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Can, and I do. But this is just beyond the pale. He's much too untrue to characters. Don't use established characters if you want to create brand new personalities. And don't say "They're not the real characters, it's an alternate timeline." That's even worse. That means he said "All of Star Trek never happened except my film, so just watch this instead!"
aperson22222 1 year ago 6
@luigi19987 Yea, and I'm pissed of at Paramount for allowing a half ass TV producer and his flunkies completely bastardize a beloved franchise!
JJ Abrams has no business directing or producing Star Trek. He admitted that he was NOT a Star Trek fan! So what does he do? He makes his f^@#ed up version of Star Wars using Gene Roddneberry's characters!
I'd say Abrams missed the mark by a few million light years!
What he made was NOT Star Trek, it was a soulless, lens flare filled shitfest!
Actionguy1 1 year ago 4
@Actionguy1 your problem is you dont like fans of this film even though they are fans of star trek itself if you dont like this film then dont comment
luigi19987 1 year ago
@luigi19987 I never said I did not like the fans of this film. I simply stated that I do not like the production team on this movie or what they were allowed to do with it. You liked the movie, fine. I have no problem with you.
I will continue to emphasize what a terribly ill conceived project it was as well. Sorry if you have a problem with that.
It was not Star Trek. It was a bad sci fi film that simply contained elements of Star Trek.
That's where similarities ended.
Actionguy1 1 year ago 4
@Actionguy1: So then, why don't you become a writer/director/producer, and write a Star Trek movie/TV show concept, instead of just bitching over YouTube about the movie? Your mind and body will thank you for it. Better yet, why don't you do what Luigi19987 says and NOT comment anymore?
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 I stated that I would continue what an ill conceived project this film was in the first place!
It is quite obvious that you and Luigi both are mentally deficient and shouldn't even be allowed on the internet. Face it, you and Luigi are in an arena where neither of you will ever win, so you should just go away.
Advice to you: Never come to a battle of wits only half armed, tard boy.
Actionguy1 1 year ago 4
@Actionguy1: I'm not 'mentally deficient' and neither is Luigi-he just spells badly, but both our opinions/facts are just as valid (probably even more so) as your opinions (and don't delude yourselves, you're in the minority on this one, not me, Luigi or anybody else who saw and liked/loved the film. )
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Oh wow Neville! You learned a new word! "Delude"! That's really special, but please, don't "over use it"! And NO. I'm NOT in a minority! This movie SUCKED ASS!!!!!!
Now get over it and move along you simpleton.
Actionguy1 1 year ago
@Actionguy1: Don't you worry, I will-as soon as I can share this page with the world and show how 'fans' like you are. Then we'll see who the simpleton is.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 All you have to do is show up Neville6000. That's ALL you have to do. When people see your moniker, they understand, "simpleton"!
You're nothing but a pitiful joke wh's trying to defend a pitiful excuse/joke of a movie!
CaptainSuperGuy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Neville6000 All you have to do is show up Neville6000. That's ALL you have to do. When people see your moniker, they understand, "simpleton"!
You're nothing but a pitiful joke who's trying to defend a pitiful excuse/joke of a movie!
CaptainSuperGuy 1 year ago
@Actionguy1: In a battle of wits with the filmmaker and screenwriter, YOU'D be the loser, not me-and he'd probably use you as an example of the kind of fan he or the scriptwriter doesn't want.,and that the Onion made fun of in their news story on the new movie.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Neville! Just shut the HELL UP AND GO AWAY!
You are an IDIOT, and you prove it with every keystroke!
Get backon your medication and CHILL OUT!
Accept the fact that Abrams' "Star Shit" SUCKED ASS and that you are an immature bitch!
CaptainSuperGuy 1 year ago
@luigi19987: I don't blame you, and am in solidarity with you: these 'fans' make the rest of us who like/love the Star Trek franchise look like idiots.
Neville6000 1 year ago
@Neville6000 Do we have to go through this crap again? So you and your equally mentally deficient friend Luigi "LOVE" the latest pile of shit that's been called "Star Trek"? Once again, ill-conceived attempt to make something already wonderful "NEW" again. Terrible cast, director with no clue, writers with no talent, bad cinematography, HUGE PLOT HOLES, over the top soundtrack, and goddamed lens flares in every scene! Yep! That's why you look like idiots!
Give it a rest you fucking retard!
Actionguy1 1 year ago 2
@Actionguy1 I wouldn't call the cast horrible. They did decently enough. If there had been good writers and a good director, they could have been (dare I say it) almost (note that I said *almost*) amazing, especially Karl Urban as Bones (the only Trekkie in the bunch).
StoneKnivesBearskins 1 year ago
@Actionguy1: As I said before, if you think that you can do any better, let's see you change careers, become a scriptwriter/film director, and then show all of us how you'd handle Star Trek. Or you can get counseling for your hurt, damaged soul. But try and remember, 'Star Trek goes on with and without you.'
Neville6000 1 year ago
All this whining reminds me of grade school. The truth is that JJ Abrams injected some badly needed life into Star Trek and reinvented it for a whole new generation.
TheVanishingUniverse 2 years ago
Sadly, I think you're right: Abrams gave to the new generations just what the new generations wanted.
But, as for me, I call me out of the Abrams universe.
78kokka 2 years ago
@TheVanishingUniverse: Correctamundo! But you know these whiny morons who call themselves 'fans' posting here-they wouldn't be satisfied unless their mothers were making the show.
Neville6000 1 year ago
anyone know what the ar watermark is? is that the software you used?
bensy010 2 years ago
And love this one even more. JJ as a whiney guy with delusions of Godhood. I hated this movie and I hate JJ. My thoughts on this exactly! Love it. Love it. Fantastic! Just brilliant!
assignmentearth 2 years ago 4
nice! the ending would also work with the part in "this side of paradise'" where kirk "accuses" spock of being a traitor.
tsukishime 2 years ago 2
"His brain is gone!"
Never have truer words about J.J.'s "reboot" been spoken.
sophomorictrash 2 years ago 5
all I hear is a whine!!!! Bhahahahahaaha!!!!
Oh please make a big edition of something like this when you get the footage from the new movie.. lol
unbreakable2008 2 years ago 4
"When I try to read it all I get is a whine"
Haha, brilliant.
I was hoping that Nimoy's participation in the new film was a sign that it would be like the Star Trek we know. I'm reserving judgement until I see it, but I'm not optimistic after what I've seen.
I fear that Star Trek may be worse than dead, and it is it's heart that is gone. Does Abrams even know what Star Trek means?
theinquisitor 2 years ago 15
My thoughts exactly from the moment that Abrams was picked as director. I wasn't going to go and see the movie, then I changed my mind thinking I hadn't been fair on it. Your right Star Trek's heart is missing, and so is it's soul, but I'm finding only a very few people agree with me on this.
celticarchie 2 years ago 3
Considering the the franchise was on life support after Nemesis, I think that Abrams did a great job...the public and the critics agree as well, as do most Trekfans.
Neville6000 2 years ago
While the rest of us know it's a pile of crap!
celticarchie 2 years ago
'The rest of us' don't really matter.
Neville6000 1 year ago
Star Trek always had its loyal fanbase that's not being on life support just because the stupid plebs didn't get it I coudln't care less now Abrams made a movie for them an sure it sucks as everything produces for the masses usually sucks
sondano 2 years ago 2
You could also show the Brainless Zombie Spock being remote-controlled by McCoy, only paste Abrams' head onto McCoy's body so it looks like Abrams is controlling Nimoy. ;)
EliteRanger 2 years ago
You have good editing skills. Perhaps after you watch the film, you can can do a "fan cut" version, where you can piece together a version of the film using TOS clips. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support for something like that. ;)
dswynne 2 years ago
great!
UtubeDweller 2 years ago