this is definitely the worst star trek movie i ever saw,the most unbelievable thing about it is it is actually this bad,what the hell did they do to the enterprise? once so fine with her beautiful photon torpedoes and elegant phasers.plus the fact the kirk in this movie gets in the captains chair just by chance.iam not a trekkie but i can understand their disappointment with this it's well justified.
lol the best star trek ever what a fucking joke. I'm not even all that into Star trek but even I know that the original movies were a hell of a lot better. It was a totally unmemorable movie and incredibly boring. If special effects are what impresses you, fine. I watch movies to see good acting and good storylines, neither of which this movie had. I wasn't entertained...
Have watched ST since its pilot (yes, that old) and still enjoyed this movie. It took a slightly different path, but did so within the possibilities we've come to know in the ST universe. It was fast, fun, and engagingly played by all. Contrary to the ridiculously rabid comments here, it was very respectful and true to the ideals of ST.
And while I'm a Trekkie (NOT a Trekker) I do realize one thing those rabid fans are missing:
@Krocotto "slightly different path"? It did a 180 and inverted to its exact opposite. It’s no longer Star Trek but Buck Rodgers meats Fantasy Island! Name one Ideal of Star Trek it up healed! Positive future? Not Gene's. Moral Story? Not one for grownups. Working together? It was done to fast & resembled a Care Bears film. Science? Not even close! You might have watched Star Trek from the moment it first aired but you never got the subtle points that Gene Rodenberry was trying to convey.
@Krocotto OH! Did I hurt your little feelings? PUSSY! Grow up! Next time doo your research, before you try insulting someone! Also, you might try kissing a girl at least once it might clear up that puberty problem for you.
@Trekfreek Not at all, just the sort of thing I've come to expect from your ilk. Just for shits and giggles, let's look at "The Great Bird of the Galaxy" and his "values," shall we?
Oh, something like the IDIC medal, nothing but a pure marketing ploy to get, believe it or not, more money out of simpletons like you.
Because Roddenberry understood something YOU do not: ST always was, and shall ever be, NOTHING more than for-profit programming.
@Krocotto The IDIC medal was in the third season. That was the season when Roddenberry was no longer the producer or writer of the show. Please note that no such obvious marketing ploy happened before. Also the yellow pages add in Trek IV was hated by Roddenberry. "How much have YOU spent for good old Gene?" not nearly as much as you!
@Krocotto That's not what I'm saying at all! Boy you are dense! Watch the episode again! Rodenberry had nothing to do with the stupid IDIC. First off I don't dwell in a basement, second Gen Roddenberry said it himself. "I saw TV as a means to bring up controversy, and maybe I will get away with it because it's shrouded in fiction." Also, every true sci-fi has a point hidden in the entertainment. ZPG, War of The World, Gulliver’s Travels, The Planet of the Apes and so on!
@Trekfreek Interesting that almost all the movies you cite were made from much, much, better books. As for ZPG, you must know it was as monumentally stupid as the anti-science book it was based upon. The Ehrlichs hardly had any "hidden" meaning in their ridiculously alarmist and totally fabricated "numbers."
It IS fun and exciting to think one "gets" the "hidden" meaning of a film, in a sophomoric way, but it is best to remember that first and foremost, the film is made TO MAKE MONEY.
@Trekfreek Once the Great Bird realized what a cash cow he had on his hands, the IDIC was born. It is disingenuous at best, and outright delusional at worst, to deny that Roddenberry took every advantage he could to make as much cash as possible out of his creation. However Barrett tries to whitewash what the medal "meant" and whose "teaching" it was supposedly based upon, it reveals the truth:
ST was just a show, meant to make money, and it has done so quite well.
@Krocotto Your not listteng so I'm done with you. This is no longer a discussion but now is a screaming match. No matter how I respond you will never even consider checking my facts. Your obsessed in "setting me strait". Well tough shit! My fandom has not hurt my life on bit and I know the facts of Trek. You do not because you are not, nor will you ever be, a fan! Good by!
Hurts when you can't admit that for all your admiration, your "hero" was just another money-grubbing script writer, albeit one who hit the jackpot.
That doesn't discount the quality of his work, don't misunderstand me, but it is still JUST A SHOW.
As for your facts, you've told me nothing new. Anyone with any math sense discounted 'The Population Bomb' immediately. To see a movie made from it to sway the sheeple was just sad.
@Krocotto "Truth hurts, doesn't it?" you forgot to add "Oh sure, Not as much as jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing, But it Hurts!" (Naked Gun 21/2). Try using some originality in your attacks. Gene Roddenberry was a hero but not for my entertainment. He was a hero for all of us in war time. You really should do some research before you post.
@Trekfreek Ah, patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel.
At no time did I disparage Roddenberry's war record. No one did. We were talking about what I see on this site as rabidly out of proportion belief in "the message" or the "ideals" of ST. Nor did I not say I was not a fan. What is needed is a reality check that for all the fun of Trek, it is still just pap, nothing more.
@Krocotto OMG! You responded so dam fast, you realy are here all the time! And you have the gall to tell me to get a life? SHIT MAN! GET OVER IT! And yes Trek from, 1976- his death, was Gene's life's work. LOOK IT UP!
@Trekfreek Just had the great good fortune to be checking my mail after work when I caught your reply. One address, all mail to one site. Easier to keep track.
And of course it was his life's work. He knew where the money was. Just like Abrams.
@Krocotto "Just had the great good fortune to be checking my mail after work" Wow that's an amazing coincidence. You would not buy that and neither do I! You don't understand the liberal mind. Profit life’s work=move on to any and all projects and ignore the past. But art is doing it because I love it and if I make money off of it fine. This was Gene. He was a liberal who loved his art. If all he cared about was making money TNG would have been another War TV show like Buck Rodgers.
@Krocotto Oh. Did you know that TNG's first season was considered a faller? The toy company that had the contract to sell the dolls had to sell the rights to another company because the toys were not selling. The ratings were low and dropped even further when they killed off Tasha Yar. If it was not for Whoopee Goldberg wanting to be on the show it would have not been given the green light for season 2. But even with the low ratings Gene refused to make it Action packed.
@Trekfreek LIke I said, it's a religion to you poor schmucks. "The liberal mind," another canard. It's a faith to you, actually believing that "Good ole Gene" was doing it just because he loved his art. Yeah, sure. And by the way, grasshopper, if you truly, really really believe that line of total BS, then I finally understand where you're coming from and why you absolutely cannot let it go without getting the last word.
Keep the faith; after all, reality is so hard, isn't it?
@Krocotto First off a religion involves a god of some kind. Gene was just a man with a vision. Did he work for money? YES HE WORKED FOR MONEY! But he did not cave into presser from the studios to make his show about cowboys and aliens. If he had maybe his show would have lasted the whole 5 years. In Hollywood there is a fine line between profit and art. The talented ones like Gene walk that line. whereas the rest are like Jar Jar. I know what I'm talking about because I studied film!
@Trekfreek You went to Jr College and studied film. I'm, like, sooooo impressed. As for TNG, you proved my point. If you are truly, truly REALLY naive enough to actually, deep in your little liberal heart BELIEVE that TNG was made for ANYTHING other than money, then honey, I've got a bridge to sell you.
TOS went tits up after 3 years NOT because of Gene's "integrity." It sank because it sucked. I mean, for fuck's sake, how many sparkly, styrofoam boulders have to hit you in the head, dude?
ST TOS, TNG, any of it, ALL of it, was written and produced for MONEY. And not for any other reason. No matter how much you worship GR as some sort of demigod of "liberal" ideals, you cannot change that. No matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY want to believe, with all your whole naive heart that GR did it ALL for ART (how fucking pretentious, nimrod!), it's ALL done for money.
It is a tool for advertisers. Like radio, the only reason shows are on is to bring the retailer's ads into your living room where you can't escape. That's all. To go to Jr. College, "study film" and *think* you *know* "art" and can thereby believe in the shit that slimes out of your TV is just sad.
Jeebus, but nimrods educated beyond their abilities are boring.
Stop lending trash any meaning. Simply enjoy it for what it is: trashy fun.
@Krocotto University of Colorado is NOT A Jr. College! JACKASS! Congratulations you just found what you were looking for my angry BUTTON! YOU ASS HOLE! TV is a tool, just like radio, computers, the printing press, etcetera... GROW UP! To you it's just entertainment, and that's fine, but to others who work in the industry it is a means to influence the world to their point of view! Ever ask a Media student why he wants to be a reporter or writer? The answer is almost always "To change the world."
@Trekfreek And I see how much it's changed.... let's see... cigarettes ("T for Taste Zone"), "feminine" spray, nation-wide morbid obesity, gosh, you've changed it so much for the better!
Now I realize where you're coming from: you're not only sadly naive, you HAVE to justify the shit of TV as "art" or you'd have to admit you're wasting a perfectly good life being NOTHING MORE THAN A CORPORATE SHILL. You supply the time wastes between the ads - the ONLY reason for ANY mass media in America.
@Trekfreek Don't think I'm right, bucko? Let's look at an example in the state of your "degree." (BTW, nice way to learn how to say, "Would you like fries with that?")
Throughout CO, MILLIONS of library books are being destroyed. NOT resold, NOT given away, but D.E.S.T.R.O.Y.E.D. Why? Because the books just aren't being checked out. So most CO libraries are changing their focus into being rental Blockbusters. How do I know? Because I've seen it done.
@Trekfreek Now, then, Mr./Ms. "I'm gonna change the world," just how is making American illiterate shitheads that no longer even check books out doing ANYTHING worthwhile?
You, if you really DO work in American "media" have helped to create "Fahrenheit 451" right before our eyes. Aren't you proud? The "slime oozing out of your TV set" is just that: slime that has helped to destroy our culture.
Your polemic has helped me understand you, though. Not only are you naive, you've wasted your life.
@Trekfreek Really. You've "studied film" and fancy yourself capable of "changing the world?"
Really?
The vapid trash that is daily shit out of TVs is NOTHING to brag about doing, child. Now I understand why you think GR's work was "art." Yeah, sparkly, styrofoam boulders whacking the Red Shirts was just so, artsy, don't 'cha know?
That also explains the drama.
Take a deep breath, fan your face, and repeat after me, "There's no place like home, there's no place like home."
@Krocotto "That's not what I'm saying at all!" (Shatner SNL) You make me think of those fictional fans in that skit. If it does not fit into your little world you get all confused and jump to conclusions. I'm not into "PC", but Hollywood is! You might try watching the news when actors, writers, directors, and TV show creators speak on it from time to time. Hollywood is the most hypocritical industry of all time. They hate profit but they set out to make it.
@Krocotto You know what? I give up. You are just too dense and too much of a jerk to carry on this conversation any more. You win! The world revolves around only your point of view and I’m just a “Stupid” college/life in the streets/self educated conservative who trust people who “lie all the time” even when they say “I---am---Lying”. After all they must be trying to make money by saying that they are writing morality tales, even though they loose audiences by saying that. BY! BY!
@Trekfreek As far as points of view, if you wish to spend your life doing nothing more than contributing to entertainment, good for you, it's a living. But do it honestly. Don't elevate it beyond its worth. It's just a movie, not a fucking "film." It's just waste time between commercials on TV, nothing else. If someone doesn't like your work, no big deal. If someone likes work you don't, it doesn't matter, because neither work has any value, anyway.
@Krocotto PS. Your rant on books was also covered in Star Trek the episode’s name is "Court-martial." I love Books and yes it is a crime that books are being erased from history because no one is reading them but 90% of those books are entertainment "Made for making MONEY!" You don't mind when classic film is destroyed but you go ballistic when classic literature does. Can you say H--Y--P--O--C--R--I—T--E? I think you can. I'm done! Respond if you must but this page is yours. Good bye.
And you missed the point of the rant. People don't read because of people like YOU who believe "media" is important. People like YOU have helped to create a nation of creotards the rest of the world laughs at. Creotards who can't name a single symphony but know *every single word* of the Oscar Mayer jingle and can't understand even the simplest principles of evolution, and believe in sky fairies.
@Trekfreek A couple of things: an internet flounce doesn't count unless you keep it up. Merely removing your comment from this page doesn't remove it from mine. By my count you have flounced away from this conversation at least twice. Sending me messages in the middle of the night kinda breaks the mood, ya know? Try to keep up.
And BTW, Shakespeare is one word, not two. And "influence" is a misnomer. Try outright copying. Not to say that's all that bad. But call it what it is, 'k?
@Trekfreek Speaking of Shakespeare: Seen the "trying to change the world" attempts by your fellow "artists?" The one where they challenge that Shakespeare is really *the* Shakespeare? Where they try to "introduce" the "controversy" over true authorship? Kinda like how creatards try to "introduce" the "controversy" over evolution. Neither has any merit, but hey, it's a *film,* right?
Nothing to proud of, but hey, they're in the business to change the world, eh"
BTW, did you ever see the very limited run of "Police Squad," the precursor to the "Naked Gun" movies?
Now those were funny.
I miss that these days, on film as well as TV.
I shall step away and agree that we disagree. I loved ST TOS, respect and admire Roddenberry, but I don't feel like disparaging a man who brought that vision into the new millennium. It's just a show and Abrams did the one thing that was Roddenberry's greatest motivation as well: earned a ton of money.
@Trekfreek As for setting you straight, I could care less. I've just had a few grins poking a stick at people who really, really, really need to listen to William Shatner's SNL gig.
If you didn't like ST 2009, cool. But don't act like it's anything important. It was NEVER important, it was and remains just entertainment.
Instead, spend your time volunteering somewhere, or fighting the Wall Street bailout, etc. You know, the real world problems we watch ST to escape.
@Krocotto Because you lost an argument you're going to tell me what to do with my time?! I'm not your child and Shatner did not write that SNL gig. In fact Shatner is just as big of a fan of the show as I am. So take your high and mighty attitude toward something you know nothing about and "Go clime a tree." You’re 54 years old right? Why are you wasting time on YouTube? Simple you need to get a life as much as the rest of us. The only people I tell to get a life are those with no education.
@Krocotto PS. The only person here that is acting like it is important is you. You can't stand anyone not liking what you like and giving a logical reason for not liking it. Why? Because it destroys the illusion that it's a "good movie". I said it over 100 times; it is not taboo to like a bad movie. I'm not saying that you can't like STXI, I'm just saying it is a bad movie that is also an insult to Roddenberry’s life’s work. So Get over it "be well! AND JJ's AN ASS HOLE!" (Demolition Man(sortof)
@Trekfreek As for dwelling in a basement, I take it from Shatner's brilliant turn on SNL. He said what had been needed to be said for too long. He tore apart the geeks who were absolutely deranged in their obsession for the show and put it back into perspective.
ST is NOT philosophy, it is NOT religion, it is NOT science; it is at its very best (a point reached very few times) ripping good TV. It is entertainment, and the vitriol over the latest movie is completely unnecessary.
@Krocotto ZPG touched on the controversial issue of forced birth control from a government (like in Japan). War of The Worlds pointed out that sometimes viruses and bacteria are a good thing. Gulliver’s Travels covered a wide variety of political and social problems with in human nature. The Planet of the Apes focused on race hatred. You really should pay more attention to what you watch.
@Trekfreek Again, you talk of movies made to make money from books that were in EVERY way superior to the movies, except of course for ZPG, which was as execrable as The Population Bomb, the book upon which it really was based. (Perhaps YOU should pay more attention..)
These are apple and oranges, anyway. ST was based on nothing but Roddenberry's desire to make money by writing scripts for TV.
The point is that the anger over the new movie is ridiculous. It's just another money maker.
@Trekfreek Yeah, I enjoyed the original series, some of the spinoffs, and some of the movies. But at no time did ANY of it measure up, IN ANY WAY, with the reality of the REAL space program. NOTHING Roddenberry EVER wrote measured up to that. Growing up watching steely-eyed spacemen ride real rockets to the moon put ST and all the movies into perspective:
ST was NEVER anything more than entertainment.
To get your knickers in a twist over its "ideals" is just stupid.
@fifaplayer10 No they are not fans. And they only like explosions. Why do I say this? Simple, how did Kirk get the flag ship when he is an insubordinate cadet who attacked a superior officer twice, stowed away on a ship against orders, and has a criminal record? (One good deed dose not override the bad ones). The Villain, why does he hate someone for trying to help his people? If he does not care about changing the past, why does he not warn his people about the Danger? It's a DUMB movie!
@Trekfreek The problem with people like you is you assume your view of a movie is the only correct view of the movie.
Grow up and be open minded and try and see things from another from not just yours, but others as well. I'm not saying that i loved this movie, but i didnt hate it so much either. Stop being so biased.
@fifaplayer10 The problem with people like you is that when someone does not like what you like and or proves you wrong on something you lash out with hate. Everyone is biased, the day people stop being biased is the day individualism dies and freedom along with it. "An unbiased opinion" is an oxymoron. Now you can accept that I have a different opinion than you and I base my opinions on facts or you can go off like a child complaining that people disagree with you. I suggest the former.
@fifaplayer10 It is you who can't stand other people's opinion. I was making a point that everyone is bias & when I pointed out that "an unbiased opinion" is an oxymoron, the quotations were to set it apart not to accuse you of saying it! You don't know me! To assume I would not consider other people’s opinion based on one comment is stupid! Don't attack if you don't want to be retaliated on!!
best star trek ever?? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDIN ME? JJ ABRAMS RAPED STAR TREK IN THE MOST BRUTAL WAY POSSIBLE! thats right you heard me! he RAPED star trek! he took the most loving memories from television and RAPED THEM, AND THE PISSED ON THEM! he never watched a SINGLE episode of star trek and he only made the film to make a quick buck. with no regard to star trek fans. DAMN YOU ABRAMS!!! DAMN YOU!!!
@sashaulianov1 "good movie ?" Let me put it this way Godzilla movies are better written, acted and directed than this pile of junk called Star Trek (XI). Godzilla films also have a point to them; this new Trek has no point.
"Here's a random prediction: "Trek" will finish as the fourth-highest grossing film of the 2009, behind the new "Harry Potter" film, Pixar's "Up" and the "Night at the Museum" sequel. "
Not because of me. I downloaded because I predicted that this would be a cheap Hollywood rape of the Star Trek concept. And I was right, turned it off halfway through because I realised you could replace all names with random other ones, and nobody would notice, so generic and boring was the plot.
@Blahb27 You doo realize that it's 2011 and your prediction came true 2 years ago. :-) I too downloaded a boot leg, just to try it; if I liked it I was going to go pay to see it. I turned it off when the title came up. I waited 2 hours while watching Godzilla 2000 (NONE STOP). I turned it back on then off when Kirk jumped out of the car like "The 6 Million Dollar Man"(kid). It literally took me a week to finish Jar Jar's Star Trek, It's that BAD. I only finished it to give it a full & far review
@Trekfreek I know. It wasn't yesterday I saw the movie either. More like "The same week it entered the cinemas". I don't really know why. I expected it to suck, but still got it fairly soon.
@Blahb27 Well for me when I saw the teaser poster I was excited but as I heard more and more spoilers, my fears of this movie being a travesty grew larger and larger. Then I saw the trailer and I knew I had to take precautions. It's the only Trek film I had not seen in the theater.
plus, everyone who played the main crew are very talented actors, just watch Heros, or Avatar, or Run Fat Boy Run, or Bottle Shock, or Harold and Kumar!
@mrgarymakin, ummmm.... WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGIANST 12 YEAR OLDS?! im partailly offended since im 12 AND A HALF, we never did anything to you! crazy -cuss-! and i dont know about you guys, but i loved the moviesoo much! (and EVERYONE is sexy there!)
@riggamourtusfriend I have nothing against 12 year olds. When I was 12 I loved garbage movies too; Movies like "Some Where in time" (Sexy leading lady), "Sheena" (SEXY Heroin), Bigfoot (Hot women in almost nothing), & “Romeo and Juliet” (hot nude Tit-ies shown twice, on regular TV!). But I grew up & as my hormones balanced out I started to watch good movies like “White Heat”, “Casablanca”, “The Day the Earth Stood Still” (BW) & “The Planet of the Apes” (1968). No sex in them, but great films.
I am a old man I grew up watching star trek and I did not like star trek the next generation, ds9 was ok and I did not like voyager I did like enterprise but this was GENE RODDENBERRY dream an that the way he would have like it but this jj Adams really piss me off he turn the star trek world upside down an rape it , now I know there people who like it that fine but there a old saying IF IT NOT BROKEN DON’T FIX IT and by the way I like star trek phase 2
@dude75able I agree with you about Karl Urban and Simon Pegg. They did a great job. The rest......what can I say? No matter how good the actors were it was still a terrible movie.
It was a good movie but I would not put it as best anyways in my view the best scifi series of all time is Babylon 5, then between TOS or TNG (prob tng) and then I would have DS9, Enterprise and last of all Voyager lol but this is all down to preference I guess some people love voyager and hate enterprise, also its down to wot you grew up on, me it was B5 and DS9
Star Trek XI was the best sci-fi/action movie I have ever seen. The effects were mindblowing, battles, etc. A lot of fun. BUT this was not a Star Trek movie. It took me a year to figure that out. My frosty side liked it while my wheaty side didn't. I justified the movie with all the same lame excuses everyone has. I defended it by saying canon didn't apply to an alternate universe. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
@spacecowboy5000 Sure, I would expect a few little discrepencies but Abrams pretty much raped Trek canon. About the only thing they got right were the points on Spock's ears. Everything else was a different sci-fi world -- but nothing near to what Star Trek has been for the last 45 years. You cannot just randomly change all that history and what fans have loved all this time. Trekkies have made the franchise what it is and Paramount goes and destroys it all with the worst Trek movie ever.
This was a great movie to watch, entertaining, but! it was wrong threw out tha movie in some places, espiecally tha enterprise LOGO that was on everything, in TOS, each emblam was specific to that ship n crew, mistake #1, but it was still fun 2 watch.
best star trek movie ever!!!!! and ive seen them all, n this one is by far the best! hands down! cant wait for the next one. HURRY UP GUYS WITH THE SEQUEL already!!
@thegreat101nt What made it "by far the best! hands down!" Was it the 2 dimensional bad guy, the fact that Dr. McCoy had to study medicine again to be assigned a ship/or the fact he was an incompetent doctor in the first place, Kirk acting like a spoiled brat and getting whatever he wanted, Sulu's in ability to drive a star ship, Spock's inability to control his emotions, or Uhura sleeping her way onto the flag ship? Maybe it was the FX and lens flares you liked, because it can’t be the story.
@Trekfreek Here now... What exactly are you selling here? I didn't like the movie myself (See above) but your use of hyperbole is uncalled for! McCoy was at the Academy for Officer Training, not medical. Kirk ... okay they raped Kirk's character. As for the others, they were at the start of their careers. Any fiction writer will tell you all good characters MUST have flaws. And the way you describe how Uhura was in the movie - you should be hit in the head with an olive loaf. What are you?Weird?
@spacecowboy5000 I tell it the way I see it. McCoy is a Doctor and like all doctors who join the military he never attended the academy. "Who is Captain Dunsel? Spock what does it mean?!" Spock pointed out that Dunsel is a term that all cadets knew very well. McCoy receiving office training? He's a Doctor He has office Training. Uhura Got the Enterprise by bitching to Spock whom she slept with. In my day that makes her a gold digging Slut.
@Trekfreek I don't know... I've been watching Trek since 1967. I've read all the novels, all the behind-the-scenes books. I created a Star Trek club AND a Trek magazine. I've been going to conventions since 1979 and I've never heard any of the crap you're spouting. Yes, it was a TERRIBLE Trek movie but I'm trying to be fair and not just bashing everything about it without thinking - like you're doing. Try taking on a more mature attitude. It's bound to do you some good.
@spacecowboy5000 You never heard McCoy ask Who is Captain Dunsel in “The Ultimate Computer”? When McCoy talks he talks about Doctors, but never stated one word about the Academy except that he did not know what Dunsel means. "Dunsel, Doctor, is a term used by midshipmen at the Academy when referring to a useless part." I know a lot about the military (having grown up in a military town) Doctors don't attend classes at the Academy. Try to stand up for your point of view. Nobody likes a wimp.
@Trekfreek KILL STAR TREK!!!! No more shows like Voyager or movies like the horror of ST XI. Destroy the franchise. Paramount made the last movie for only one reason - money. We fans don't matter to them, quality doesn't matter to them - just money. End Star Trek before they turn it into something worse. Who's a wimp? Don't tell me about military. The navy is a different branch and if one day McCoy is forced to take command he has to have training for that. He's the superior of a lot of crew men
@spacecowboy5000 I have not bashed a thing about this movie without thinking. You are trying to be a soft hart to those you disagree with, that's your choice. My choice is to state what I think backed up with facts & if that hurts some people than they need to grow up. Maturity does not mean being a pansy. You can read & play Trek till your "green in the face" but it will not make you a Trekker. You must stand up & defend Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek, only then can you call yourself a Trekker.
@Trekfreek I defend Gene's philosophy. I don't bitch about trivial things. In a 1969 interview, Roddenberry said, "It's not the ship that matters. It's the people and the stories they tell". He dreamed of a universe were people were kinder, more understanding. THAT, sir, is what I'm fighting for. "Soft heart"? Really? ROFLMAO!!!!! I love Star Trek with every fiber of my being. So much so I am willing to do what no Trekker has done before....
@loner1878 Star Trek (XI) in 400 characters or less...Bad guy comes from the future seeking revenge on events that have not happened. Hoodlum Kirk gets on board the enterprise. Vulcans say: “We have no emotions...You Humans are STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!" Punk ass Kirk gets command by fighting with superior officers and forcing them to obey him. Kirk's ill conceived plan to defeat the bad guy miraculously works and everyone forgets his uncouth behavior and gives him command of their flag ship.
This movie is good, but hardly the best Star Trek.
The story took waaay too many shortcuts, that was a real problem with this one.
But even worse, IMHO, there's not much Science in this Sci-Fi with the name Star Trek. But Science has always been a MAJOR part of Star Trek (and Sci-Fi in general is much better with it anyway). That there could be the single biggest problem of all with this outing.
I still prefer "your father's Star Trek" over this one.
I am reading the comments: it's sure a lot of angry and pissed off people. All I have to say is tread lightly. Trek just climbed out of the grave, so let's not beat it to death again so soon after it's reincarnation. It's breathing for the moment, but not for long, so do something constructive, answer one question: to whom should the creative reigns be given? Who can breathe life back into the franchise and stay true to the established lore?
@SuperAnnuatedDoodle "Who can breathe life back into the franchise and stay true to the established lore?" That's easy, the one woman who help resurrect Trek back in the 70's D.C. Fontana. She is still a fan of the show and has written an episode for the high budget fan show Star Trek New Voyages. Another great writer and producer would be David Gerald, he wrote several episodes for the original series, and TNG. He also is writing for the fan show Star Trek New Voyages.
This movie was designed for hipster fags who pay more attention to style and mediocre action sequences over substance, storyline and message. This movie does not cater to, nor is it loyal to Roddenberry's vision of the Star Trek universe. The original series is corny?? Srsly?? Well I cant blame people for their lack of comprehension when it comes to production value and storyline, after all, this is the era of Lady GaGa and Bieber, bwaaaa I threw up a little in my mouth... puke...
@romefox Alas, the whole "Blame the viewer argument". If anyone is to blame, it's Rick Berman and Brannon Braga for train-wrecking the franchise. ST:XI is an improvement to their cliche lines, crappy stories, cheap production values, dogmatic moralizing, self-deprecating humor (which reached its climax with the "manual steering column" in Insurrection), and generally pissing all over the loyalty of the fans. Nemesis and Enterprise were the darkest days for Trek, period.
The new Trek is rubbish, Roddenberry should ring JJ's neck. The movie is entertaining as a fast paced mediocre action flick, not at all loyal to the original brand.
You really are pathetic, defending a bad film with an ill conceived plot, bad cinematography, and terrible acting. Stuttering, stammering Abrams and company will eventually put Star Trek into an early grave, but you'll continue to eat the shit that they produce.
@Actionguy1 It was a good movie. If it takes place in an alternate reality, I don't understand why everything needs to be so technical. The acting was not bad at all, and J.J Abrams is one of the best directors/producers/writers of this time. His critical acclaim and huge bank account speak for themselves.
I will admit to finding this movie very entertaining and the performances fairly good, Star Trek (2009) has very little to do with Gene Roddenberry's sci-fi vision. It's a film about special effects, action and violence, and not about ideas, philosophy and the morality. While this film has the veneer of the the Star Trek legacy, it's lacks much of the original show's depth and heart. When all is said and done, what have we really learned about ourselves from this film?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@rktsncalnc That two people, with different beliefs and different views and problem solving ideals, can still take a moral road, a way to bridge that awful social gap between each other for the greater good. That there is something that binds individuals in the face of absolution, that hope isn't just a waking dream but a dimension made reality by the collective will of people faced with hard decision in the face of morality versus end result.
@Sethir Let me finish your speech with a quote from the real Kirk (You)"dimension made reality by the collective will of people faced with hard decision in the face of morality versus end result" (Kirk) "To Dream the highest REALITY!" See? It fits perfectly! One nonsensical speech for another, you really can't tell them apart.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Trekfreek Except that you can't, and you're just being posh about it. In retrospect, Kirk's quote speaks about a vision, and envisioning a best scenario. Being short or long term isn't the issue, it's the message behind it. You understand it, but feel it is not necessary to take it seriously through this youtube conversation, as bashing other's posts and debating the sentences rather than the message floats your boat better at this instant.
@Sethir LOL ROTFLMAO!!!!! Kirk's quote was gibberish to confuse and short out the android Norman. There was no Deep Meaning to it. You are the kind of person who will stare at a pack of gum for 20 hours then proclaim that the ingredients is a deep philosophical statement. I only bash people who try to find things that are not there. It's a waste of life to speak in riddles with no reason but to sound precocious, and to justify belittling people who are wiser than you and/or disagree with you.
@Sethir Okay, so where was the "moral road" when, towards the end of the film, they killed Nero? How does killing a man - one who is your enemy, nonetheless - figure into the Federation's ethos? Would it have not been much more noble and moral to beam Nero and his crew aboard the Enterprise, throw them in the brig and let this man who was hellbent on revenge suffer a lifetime of being saved by his enemies? How does allowing Nero to die serve Starfleet's "greater good" beyond revenge?
@rktsncalnc. Great point; I would like to add that it was Spock who wanted to finish the job in the movie, which is totally out of character for Spock. In the series Spock tried to talk Kirk out of chasing down the Gorn and it was Spock who refused to take the lives of the giant Neanderthal men who killed 2 of his men. The real Spock never seeks revenge.
@Trekfreek The scene early on in the film where Spock is mocked by Vulcan "bullies" rings false, as well. Here is a race of aliens who suppress their emotions, yet a trio of youths badger young Spock w/ illogical and emotional pettiness? Also, the Nero storyline: He comes through the black hole in time and waits 25+ years for Spock to arrive? How did he know Spock would be coming through the black hole? Wouldn't Nero's time had been better spent flying to Romulus to warn of the future supernova?
@rktsncalnc "How did he know Spock would be coming through the black hole?" Also, if they both came through about the same time, how could he know when Spock is going to come out of the black hole? As fair as he knew Spock could have come out 20 years before him or even 200 years before, or even 500 years into the future. After all Nero is no scientist. There is so many painfully obvious things wrong with the movie; it’s a wonder why people like it at all.
@Trekfreek Nero blames Spock for the destruction of his planet and the death of his wife. Okay. So why not fly on over to "present day" Romulus and warn them of this impending doom? He had 25 or so years to do so. "In so many centuries, our sun will supernova. Let's get some scientists on that. Pronto!"
Also, after Nero destroys Vulcan, his next target is ...Earth? Why??? What did the Federation do to him?
@rktsncalnc Another great point. Ambassador Spock was an outcast of the Federation for living on Romulus. Also if he had gone to Romulus (who hate the federation) The Romulans of that time would have given him both Spock's heads on a silver platter.
Star Trek (XI) is way too easy to pick apart; the1970's Godzilla movies are harder to ridicule.
@rktsncalnc Nero is already on Romulus in the past - he might negatively affect his own life if he goes there. He might even be imprisoned again, as a rogue.
The point is: Nero wants revenge against Spock, and by extension, Vulcan and the Federation.
@mrgarymakin That "extension of revenge" against the Federation is never addressed at all within the movie. Destroying Vulcan makes sense because Nero's character arc within this story explains this. Going after Earth is pointless, and provided solely to give the Earthlings in the audience a bit of empathetic peril. It's a hollow dues ex machina.
As for the time paradox, given what we've gleaned about him from this film, perhaps Nero isn't the smartest alien in the galaxy.
@rktsncalnc Again, Spock is a Federation citizen, so Nero wanting revenge against Earth holds up. There were always Romulan plots against the Federation going on - so what's your problem here?
And if bad people in the real world do irrational things, why do some fans have a problem with it in the fictional world of Star Trek?
@mrgarymakin Here's my problem: where is this addressed in the film? At what point does Nero say, "Okay, now on to Earth. And oh yeah, here's why..."?
Also, bad people in the real world do seemingly irrational things because their actions have meaning (however flawed) to them. If you watched a movie and a character did random things that were not explained, it would be off-putting and confusing, and your reaction to that character would most likely be negative.
@mrgarymakin It's not that I want Nero's motivation spelled-out. I simply want more clarity to his character. His motivations work in service to the plot, and not the other way around. He's extremely "underwritten" all right.
@mrgarymakin "Spock is a Federation citizen" Wrong again. Spock has lived on Romulus for over 20 years; I think it's safe to say that Spock is not a federation citizen and is a freelance politician. Even if you’re right it still makes no science. Would you blame Canada if Michael J. Fox Failed to find a cure for Parkinson’s? Of course not; it’s a dumb plot Idea. Bad people always have a motive that has a hint of rational thought.
@Trekfreek Whether Spock is on Romulus or not, he's still a Federation citizen. Since when did he apply for Romulan citizenship?
Again, Spock and the Vulcan Science Academy actively failed to prevent Romulus' star from going nova. Nero seeks revenge on Spock and all Vulcans, and the Federation that they belong to - which all Romulans are raised to hate and fear.
@mrgarymakin "Since when did he apply for Romulan citizenship?" Ever see the TNG episode Reunification? By refusing to leave Romulus when ordered by the Federation, he effectively renounced his citizen ship as a Vulcan. Spock knew this was a possibility when he decided to stay and help the Romulans lean the Vulcan way of living. According to the comic book (that all you fans of this movie refer too when in a jam.) Nero knew this about Spock & asked for his help. Romulans are raised to fight!
@mrgarymakin He already screwed up his own time line. Remember "Balance of Terror"? If Kirk had not beat the Romulan commander in that episode the ripple might have changed whether or not Nero was born. And Spock might not have gotten involved in Romulan politics, which might have determined if Nero even met his wife. Time is the tapestry of our lives.
@Trekfreek And Nero doesn't know any of this - he didn't travel back in time on purpose. As I've said before, you can't change history in your own universe; only creat another universe. Nevertheless, Nero might not want to directly affect his life and family on Romulus, even in a parallel universe. Spock avoided his younger self, until it was unavoidable.
@mrgarymakin "you can't change history in your own universe" Wrong again. According to quantum mechanics you can change your own history in your universe. The problem is that you take the chance of creating paradoxes that will not only destroy your universe but all of existence. Why would not Nero want to try to save his wife and child? Common, he's dumb enough to want to destroy the federation and risk wiping himself out indirectly but smart enough to fear changing his history directly? Really?
@Trekfreek Physical events cannot be undone once they've occurred; just like energy cannot be destroyed. What you describe, if it's current theory at all (which I doubt) is impossible mumbo-jumbo. We don't live in a magical universe where things pop out of existence. We likely live in an expanding omniverse, where these fluxes become their own universes.
@mrgarymakin Are you a quantum physicist even an amateur one like me? I doubt it very much. Quantum physics is different from regular physics. Time travel is possible but not without the potential to cause paradoxes. When this happens events cancel each other out. Two of the same particles or events can never be allowed to occupy the same time. If this happens the event would cause an explosion on the quantum level wiping out all of existence unless the event is corrected. These are facts!
Simply put if you went back in time and killed your father before he met your mother than you would not have been born Period! You would not exist in an alternate reality or time line you would not exist, and there is the paradox if you never existed how can you go back in time and kill your father? This one event would wipe out all of reality.
@mrgarymakin WRONG AGIAN. How thick are you? The Grandfather Paradox is still the leading theory that can be proven mathematically in any given situation, the multi universe theory has no such solid math to it because it has to many variables; with The multi universe theory you can punch in the necessary math codes and prove it right then punch in those same math codes and prove it wrong. Many scientists, including Hawking, have deemed it unreliable as a means to explane time travel.
@Trekfreek I wouldn't be calling people "thick" on here, if you're consistently illiterate.
Most scientists have moved away from the Grandfather Paradox theory, in favour of the multiverse explanation. You refuse to believe in the multiverse because you're religious, and don't like the idea that this universe isn't special.
@mrgarymakin You obviously don't know what illiterate means, otherwise you would not have miss used the word. Now, who does not know how to read or write? I suggest you keep from giving personal attacks if you wish to be taken seriously. Being religious has nothing to do with whether or not I dislike the multi universe theory. I'm telling you strait out that the math does not hold up. Also, for every scientist who favors the Milt-verse theory there are 2 who don't. Check the facts Kid.
@mrgarymakin. Last note: "He who is the first to raise a fist is the first to run out of ideas" H.G. Wells. This includes personal attacks. Personal attacks include literacy, Religion, Race, Family, body type, sex, and Country.
@Trekfreek You were first to resort to insults, remember? I simply pointed out your hypocrisy. And you regularly insult anyone who doesn't agree with you here. But keep ranting for another two years.
@mrgarymakin First off calling people thick is not an insult, second insulting back is not a very adult thing to do. Third the only hypocrite is obviously you. You don't even know the definitions of illiterate & ranting. Forth, I never accused you of not knowing how to spell or punctuate. Note: Some of the greatest mathematicians could not spell "knife" to save their lives. Finally I have always said its O.K. to like bad movies. No one here is saying you should stop watching the stupid film.
@Trekfreek Calling someone thick IS an insult. How thick are you? Illiterate means not being able to read or write, and since you seem unable to understand what people are saying on here, or write properly in response, then I would say the term could apply to you. Your comments on here are the very definition of rant.
@mrgarymakin NOT IN THE U.S. and not on Doctor Who! It means that you're so set in your ways that you refuse to learn or listen! "Thick: lacking the ability to learn and understand quickly" A Rant is "a very loud, aggressive, or bombastic speech that is usually long and repetitive" I could not possibly rant here because everything is written. Next time use a dictionary! As far as me being "a great mathematician" you don't know me so how would you know? BOY you ARE THICK!
this is definitely the worst star trek movie i ever saw,the most unbelievable thing about it is it is actually this bad,what the hell did they do to the enterprise? once so fine with her beautiful photon torpedoes and elegant phasers.plus the fact the kirk in this movie gets in the captains chair just by chance.iam not a trekkie but i can understand their disappointment with this it's well justified.
nufto 2 months ago 2
lol the best star trek ever what a fucking joke. I'm not even all that into Star trek but even I know that the original movies were a hell of a lot better. It was a totally unmemorable movie and incredibly boring. If special effects are what impresses you, fine. I watch movies to see good acting and good storylines, neither of which this movie had. I wasn't entertained...
VitalSigns1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The sequel should be called...
Star Trek II: Spock Takes it in the Ass
lcromy 3 months ago
I liked the 2009 star trek movie, not as good as Wrath of Khan, but it was good
jesus6087 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have watched ST since its pilot (yes, that old) and still enjoyed this movie. It took a slightly different path, but did so within the possibilities we've come to know in the ST universe. It was fast, fun, and engagingly played by all. Contrary to the ridiculously rabid comments here, it was very respectful and true to the ideals of ST.
And while I'm a Trekkie (NOT a Trekker) I do realize one thing those rabid fans are missing:
It's just a movie, guys.
Lighten up and enjoy the ride.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto "slightly different path"? It did a 180 and inverted to its exact opposite. It’s no longer Star Trek but Buck Rodgers meats Fantasy Island! Name one Ideal of Star Trek it up healed! Positive future? Not Gene's. Moral Story? Not one for grownups. Working together? It was done to fast & resembled a Care Bears film. Science? Not even close! You might have watched Star Trek from the moment it first aired but you never got the subtle points that Gene Rodenberry was trying to convey.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Flame on, child, whatever makes you feel as if you're not actually the mistaken result of a broken condom.
When puberty is in your past, you'll have a different perspective: it's just a medium of make believe.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto OH! Did I hurt your little feelings? PUSSY! Grow up! Next time doo your research, before you try insulting someone! Also, you might try kissing a girl at least once it might clear up that puberty problem for you.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Not at all, just the sort of thing I've come to expect from your ilk. Just for shits and giggles, let's look at "The Great Bird of the Galaxy" and his "values," shall we?
Oh, something like the IDIC medal, nothing but a pure marketing ploy to get, believe it or not, more money out of simpletons like you.
Because Roddenberry understood something YOU do not: ST always was, and shall ever be, NOTHING more than for-profit programming.
And how much have YOU spent for good old Gene?
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto The IDIC medal was in the third season. That was the season when Roddenberry was no longer the producer or writer of the show. Please note that no such obvious marketing ploy happened before. Also the yellow pages add in Trek IV was hated by Roddenberry. "How much have YOU spent for good old Gene?" not nearly as much as you!
Trekfreek 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Oh, of course there's an explanation: "He didn't really *mean it!*"
You tried to make the case that there are "subtle points" that Roddenberry was trying to make.
What you, and so many other basement dwelling losers absolutely fail to understand is that:
Star Trek was nothing, but NOTHING more than a for-profit exercise. It was, and remains, NOTHING more than that.
Your instilling ridiculous meanings into what is nothing more than cheap entertainment can't change that.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto That's not what I'm saying at all! Boy you are dense! Watch the episode again! Rodenberry had nothing to do with the stupid IDIC. First off I don't dwell in a basement, second Gen Roddenberry said it himself. "I saw TV as a means to bring up controversy, and maybe I will get away with it because it's shrouded in fiction." Also, every true sci-fi has a point hidden in the entertainment. ZPG, War of The World, Gulliver’s Travels, The Planet of the Apes and so on!
Trekfreek 3 months ago 2
@Trekfreek Interesting that almost all the movies you cite were made from much, much, better books. As for ZPG, you must know it was as monumentally stupid as the anti-science book it was based upon. The Ehrlichs hardly had any "hidden" meaning in their ridiculously alarmist and totally fabricated "numbers."
It IS fun and exciting to think one "gets" the "hidden" meaning of a film, in a sophomoric way, but it is best to remember that first and foremost, the film is made TO MAKE MONEY.
Krocotto 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Once the Great Bird realized what a cash cow he had on his hands, the IDIC was born. It is disingenuous at best, and outright delusional at worst, to deny that Roddenberry took every advantage he could to make as much cash as possible out of his creation. However Barrett tries to whitewash what the medal "meant" and whose "teaching" it was supposedly based upon, it reveals the truth:
ST was just a show, meant to make money, and it has done so quite well.
End of story.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto Your not listteng so I'm done with you. This is no longer a discussion but now is a screaming match. No matter how I respond you will never even consider checking my facts. Your obsessed in "setting me strait". Well tough shit! My fandom has not hurt my life on bit and I know the facts of Trek. You do not because you are not, nor will you ever be, a fan! Good by!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Nice flounce.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Hurts when you can't admit that for all your admiration, your "hero" was just another money-grubbing script writer, albeit one who hit the jackpot.
That doesn't discount the quality of his work, don't misunderstand me, but it is still JUST A SHOW.
As for your facts, you've told me nothing new. Anyone with any math sense discounted 'The Population Bomb' immediately. To see a movie made from it to sway the sheeple was just sad.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto "Truth hurts, doesn't it?" you forgot to add "Oh sure, Not as much as jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing, But it Hurts!" (Naked Gun 21/2). Try using some originality in your attacks. Gene Roddenberry was a hero but not for my entertainment. He was a hero for all of us in war time. You really should do some research before you post.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Ah, patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel.
At no time did I disparage Roddenberry's war record. No one did. We were talking about what I see on this site as rabidly out of proportion belief in "the message" or the "ideals" of ST. Nor did I not say I was not a fan. What is needed is a reality check that for all the fun of Trek, it is still just pap, nothing more.
As for Roddenberry's "life's work," WTF?
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto OMG! You responded so dam fast, you realy are here all the time! And you have the gall to tell me to get a life? SHIT MAN! GET OVER IT! And yes Trek from, 1976- his death, was Gene's life's work. LOOK IT UP!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek Just had the great good fortune to be checking my mail after work when I caught your reply. One address, all mail to one site. Easier to keep track.
And of course it was his life's work. He knew where the money was. Just like Abrams.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto "Just had the great good fortune to be checking my mail after work" Wow that's an amazing coincidence. You would not buy that and neither do I! You don't understand the liberal mind. Profit life’s work=move on to any and all projects and ignore the past. But art is doing it because I love it and if I make money off of it fine. This was Gene. He was a liberal who loved his art. If all he cared about was making money TNG would have been another War TV show like Buck Rodgers.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Krocotto Oh. Did you know that TNG's first season was considered a faller? The toy company that had the contract to sell the dolls had to sell the rights to another company because the toys were not selling. The ratings were low and dropped even further when they killed off Tasha Yar. If it was not for Whoopee Goldberg wanting to be on the show it would have not been given the green light for season 2. But even with the low ratings Gene refused to make it Action packed.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek LIke I said, it's a religion to you poor schmucks. "The liberal mind," another canard. It's a faith to you, actually believing that "Good ole Gene" was doing it just because he loved his art. Yeah, sure. And by the way, grasshopper, if you truly, really really believe that line of total BS, then I finally understand where you're coming from and why you absolutely cannot let it go without getting the last word.
Keep the faith; after all, reality is so hard, isn't it?
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto First off a religion involves a god of some kind. Gene was just a man with a vision. Did he work for money? YES HE WORKED FOR MONEY! But he did not cave into presser from the studios to make his show about cowboys and aliens. If he had maybe his show would have lasted the whole 5 years. In Hollywood there is a fine line between profit and art. The talented ones like Gene walk that line. whereas the rest are like Jar Jar. I know what I'm talking about because I studied film!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek You went to Jr College and studied film. I'm, like, sooooo impressed. As for TNG, you proved my point. If you are truly, truly REALLY naive enough to actually, deep in your little liberal heart BELIEVE that TNG was made for ANYTHING other than money, then honey, I've got a bridge to sell you.
TOS went tits up after 3 years NOT because of Gene's "integrity." It sank because it sucked. I mean, for fuck's sake, how many sparkly, styrofoam boulders have to hit you in the head, dude?
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Trekfreek One. More. Time.
ST TOS, TNG, any of it, ALL of it, was written and produced for MONEY. And not for any other reason. No matter how much you worship GR as some sort of demigod of "liberal" ideals, you cannot change that. No matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY want to believe, with all your whole naive heart that GR did it ALL for ART (how fucking pretentious, nimrod!), it's ALL done for money.
Krocotto 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Do you even know why TV exists, child?
It is a tool for advertisers. Like radio, the only reason shows are on is to bring the retailer's ads into your living room where you can't escape. That's all. To go to Jr. College, "study film" and *think* you *know* "art" and can thereby believe in the shit that slimes out of your TV is just sad.
Jeebus, but nimrods educated beyond their abilities are boring.
Stop lending trash any meaning. Simply enjoy it for what it is: trashy fun.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto University of Colorado is NOT A Jr. College! JACKASS! Congratulations you just found what you were looking for my angry BUTTON! YOU ASS HOLE! TV is a tool, just like radio, computers, the printing press, etcetera... GROW UP! To you it's just entertainment, and that's fine, but to others who work in the industry it is a means to influence the world to their point of view! Ever ask a Media student why he wants to be a reporter or writer? The answer is almost always "To change the world."
Trekfreek 3 months ago 3
@Trekfreek And I see how much it's changed.... let's see... cigarettes ("T for Taste Zone"), "feminine" spray, nation-wide morbid obesity, gosh, you've changed it so much for the better!
Now I realize where you're coming from: you're not only sadly naive, you HAVE to justify the shit of TV as "art" or you'd have to admit you're wasting a perfectly good life being NOTHING MORE THAN A CORPORATE SHILL. You supply the time wastes between the ads - the ONLY reason for ANY mass media in America.
Krocotto 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Don't think I'm right, bucko? Let's look at an example in the state of your "degree." (BTW, nice way to learn how to say, "Would you like fries with that?")
Throughout CO, MILLIONS of library books are being destroyed. NOT resold, NOT given away, but D.E.S.T.R.O.Y.E.D. Why? Because the books just aren't being checked out. So most CO libraries are changing their focus into being rental Blockbusters. How do I know? Because I've seen it done.
Krocotto 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Now, then, Mr./Ms. "I'm gonna change the world," just how is making American illiterate shitheads that no longer even check books out doing ANYTHING worthwhile?
You, if you really DO work in American "media" have helped to create "Fahrenheit 451" right before our eyes. Aren't you proud? The "slime oozing out of your TV set" is just that: slime that has helped to destroy our culture.
Your polemic has helped me understand you, though. Not only are you naive, you've wasted your life.
Krocotto 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Really. You've "studied film" and fancy yourself capable of "changing the world?"
Really?
The vapid trash that is daily shit out of TVs is NOTHING to brag about doing, child. Now I understand why you think GR's work was "art." Yeah, sparkly, styrofoam boulders whacking the Red Shirts was just so, artsy, don't 'cha know?
That also explains the drama.
Take a deep breath, fan your face, and repeat after me, "There's no place like home, there's no place like home."
Krocotto 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek And "Trekfreek?" A couple of things: 1)If I say I merely blundered into your comment through my gmail right after you posted, it is so.
2) For someone who feels the "media" is someplace for a right righteous "humyn" (gotta be PC, don't 'cha know?) bean, you're missing some beats.
This is the 'net. Don't EVER reveal your hot buttons, or your opponent will simply keep punching them till you pop.
I really don't care *how* you waste your life, but now I know *how* you're doing it.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto "That's not what I'm saying at all!" (Shatner SNL) You make me think of those fictional fans in that skit. If it does not fit into your little world you get all confused and jump to conclusions. I'm not into "PC", but Hollywood is! You might try watching the news when actors, writers, directors, and TV show creators speak on it from time to time. Hollywood is the most hypocritical industry of all time. They hate profit but they set out to make it.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Krocotto You know what? I give up. You are just too dense and too much of a jerk to carry on this conversation any more. You win! The world revolves around only your point of view and I’m just a “Stupid” college/life in the streets/self educated conservative who trust people who “lie all the time” even when they say “I---am---Lying”. After all they must be trying to make money by saying that they are writing morality tales, even though they loose audiences by saying that. BY! BY!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek As far as points of view, if you wish to spend your life doing nothing more than contributing to entertainment, good for you, it's a living. But do it honestly. Don't elevate it beyond its worth. It's just a movie, not a fucking "film." It's just waste time between commercials on TV, nothing else. If someone doesn't like your work, no big deal. If someone likes work you don't, it doesn't matter, because neither work has any value, anyway.
It's just entertainment, get over it.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto PS. Your rant on books was also covered in Star Trek the episode’s name is "Court-martial." I love Books and yes it is a crime that books are being erased from history because no one is reading them but 90% of those books are entertainment "Made for making MONEY!" You don't mind when classic film is destroyed but you go ballistic when classic literature does. Can you say H--Y--P--O--C--R--I—T--E? I think you can. I'm done! Respond if you must but this page is yours. Good bye.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek "Classic film?" No. Such. Thing.
And you missed the point of the rant. People don't read because of people like YOU who believe "media" is important. People like YOU have helped to create a nation of creotards the rest of the world laughs at. Creotards who can't name a single symphony but know *every single word* of the Oscar Mayer jingle and can't understand even the simplest principles of evolution, and believe in sky fairies.
People like YOU are making "Idiocracy" reality.
Krocotto 3 months ago
Comment removed
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek A couple of things: an internet flounce doesn't count unless you keep it up. Merely removing your comment from this page doesn't remove it from mine. By my count you have flounced away from this conversation at least twice. Sending me messages in the middle of the night kinda breaks the mood, ya know? Try to keep up.
And BTW, Shakespeare is one word, not two. And "influence" is a misnomer. Try outright copying. Not to say that's all that bad. But call it what it is, 'k?
Krocotto 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Speaking of Shakespeare: Seen the "trying to change the world" attempts by your fellow "artists?" The one where they challenge that Shakespeare is really *the* Shakespeare? Where they try to "introduce" the "controversy" over true authorship? Kinda like how creatards try to "introduce" the "controversy" over evolution. Neither has any merit, but hey, it's a *film,* right?
Nothing to proud of, but hey, they're in the business to change the world, eh"
Now, try to stay out this!
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Trekfreek
BTW, did you ever see the very limited run of "Police Squad," the precursor to the "Naked Gun" movies?
Now those were funny.
I miss that these days, on film as well as TV.
I shall step away and agree that we disagree. I loved ST TOS, respect and admire Roddenberry, but I don't feel like disparaging a man who brought that vision into the new millennium. It's just a show and Abrams did the one thing that was Roddenberry's greatest motivation as well: earned a ton of money.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto Yes I seen Police Squad when it aired in the early 80’s and now I own it. It was designed to only have six episodes.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek As for setting you straight, I could care less. I've just had a few grins poking a stick at people who really, really, really need to listen to William Shatner's SNL gig.
If you didn't like ST 2009, cool. But don't act like it's anything important. It was NEVER important, it was and remains just entertainment.
Instead, spend your time volunteering somewhere, or fighting the Wall Street bailout, etc. You know, the real world problems we watch ST to escape.
Just saying.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto Because you lost an argument you're going to tell me what to do with my time?! I'm not your child and Shatner did not write that SNL gig. In fact Shatner is just as big of a fan of the show as I am. So take your high and mighty attitude toward something you know nothing about and "Go clime a tree." You’re 54 years old right? Why are you wasting time on YouTube? Simple you need to get a life as much as the rest of us. The only people I tell to get a life are those with no education.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Krocotto PS. The only person here that is acting like it is important is you. You can't stand anyone not liking what you like and giving a logical reason for not liking it. Why? Because it destroys the illusion that it's a "good movie". I said it over 100 times; it is not taboo to like a bad movie. I'm not saying that you can't like STXI, I'm just saying it is a bad movie that is also an insult to Roddenberry’s life’s work. So Get over it "be well! AND JJ's AN ASS HOLE!" (Demolition Man(sortof)
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek As for dwelling in a basement, I take it from Shatner's brilliant turn on SNL. He said what had been needed to be said for too long. He tore apart the geeks who were absolutely deranged in their obsession for the show and put it back into perspective.
ST is NOT philosophy, it is NOT religion, it is NOT science; it is at its very best (a point reached very few times) ripping good TV. It is entertainment, and the vitriol over the latest movie is completely unnecessary.
Krocotto 3 months ago
@Krocotto ZPG touched on the controversial issue of forced birth control from a government (like in Japan). War of The Worlds pointed out that sometimes viruses and bacteria are a good thing. Gulliver’s Travels covered a wide variety of political and social problems with in human nature. The Planet of the Apes focused on race hatred. You really should pay more attention to what you watch.
Trekfreek 3 months ago 2
@Trekfreek Again, you talk of movies made to make money from books that were in EVERY way superior to the movies, except of course for ZPG, which was as execrable as The Population Bomb, the book upon which it really was based. (Perhaps YOU should pay more attention..)
These are apple and oranges, anyway. ST was based on nothing but Roddenberry's desire to make money by writing scripts for TV.
The point is that the anger over the new movie is ridiculous. It's just another money maker.
Krocotto 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek Yeah, I enjoyed the original series, some of the spinoffs, and some of the movies. But at no time did ANY of it measure up, IN ANY WAY, with the reality of the REAL space program. NOTHING Roddenberry EVER wrote measured up to that. Growing up watching steely-eyed spacemen ride real rockets to the moon put ST and all the movies into perspective:
ST was NEVER anything more than entertainment.
To get your knickers in a twist over its "ideals" is just stupid.
Krocotto 3 months ago
First Contact is the best Star Trek film.
MrImastinker 4 months ago
it's funny how some of the old treky fans are shooting this movie down because it was nowhere near like the original ones.
then a lot of ppl i know that have NEVER seen a single star trek movie LOVED this movie.
and guess what, they're now fans of the some of the old ones too.
fifaplayer10 4 months ago
@fifaplayer10 No they are not fans. And they only like explosions. Why do I say this? Simple, how did Kirk get the flag ship when he is an insubordinate cadet who attacked a superior officer twice, stowed away on a ship against orders, and has a criminal record? (One good deed dose not override the bad ones). The Villain, why does he hate someone for trying to help his people? If he does not care about changing the past, why does he not warn his people about the Danger? It's a DUMB movie!
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trekfreek The problem with people like you is you assume your view of a movie is the only correct view of the movie.
Grow up and be open minded and try and see things from another from not just yours, but others as well. I'm not saying that i loved this movie, but i didnt hate it so much either. Stop being so biased.
fifaplayer10 3 months ago
@fifaplayer10 The problem with people like you is that when someone does not like what you like and or proves you wrong on something you lash out with hate. Everyone is biased, the day people stop being biased is the day individualism dies and freedom along with it. "An unbiased opinion" is an oxymoron. Now you can accept that I have a different opinion than you and I base my opinions on facts or you can go off like a child complaining that people disagree with you. I suggest the former.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek it would suck to have people like you run anything at all because you can't consider anything option other than yours.
And i didn't say "unbiased opinion" either did i? The purpose behind my comment was to respect other's opinion and not lash out at them as you are.
Anyways if we keep this arguement going, we'll get nothing settled.
Have a nice day.
fifaplayer10 3 months ago
Comment removed
Trekfreek 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fifaplayer10 It is you who can't stand other people's opinion. I was making a point that everyone is bias & when I pointed out that "an unbiased opinion" is an oxymoron, the quotations were to set it apart not to accuse you of saying it! You don't know me! To assume I would not consider other people’s opinion based on one comment is stupid! Don't attack if you don't want to be retaliated on!!
Trekfreek 3 months ago 2
As Plinkett put it , it's a guilty pleasure movie.
And it was better than almost half of the previous films
rmeddy1 4 months ago
@rmeddy1 Concerning your words: First part true. Second part false.
Idazmi7 4 months ago
@Idazmi7 imo this movie was better than 5,7,9 and 10
rmeddy1 4 months ago
@rmeddy1 whatever
Idazmi7 4 months ago
Let's be positive here guys. It's not twilight.
Yaoimonk 4 months ago
@Yaoimonk No, Twilight is better. :-D lol.
Trekfreek 3 months ago
@Trekfreek Oh no you didn't! 8'D
Yaoimonk 3 months ago
110 people will never ride the Star Trek Enterprise.
honeegrrl 5 months ago
WTF, I've never seen the original Star Trek but I liked this movie!
Spec0pleader 5 months ago
lol so many virgins below me...
bennysupertramp2 5 months ago
Maldito JJ Abrams,enterraste a Star Trek, y por favor quiten el nombre de Gene Roddenberry de los creditos, ese clavo de pelicula no lo merece
Kamastro5 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
best star trek ever?? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDIN ME? JJ ABRAMS RAPED STAR TREK IN THE MOST BRUTAL WAY POSSIBLE! thats right you heard me! he RAPED star trek! he took the most loving memories from television and RAPED THEM, AND THE PISSED ON THEM! he never watched a SINGLE episode of star trek and he only made the film to make a quick buck. with no regard to star trek fans. DAMN YOU ABRAMS!!! DAMN YOU!!!
ZAKITASHI 5 months ago 6
@ZAKITASHI U mad bro?
MarzX1802 5 months ago
@MarzX1802
a little, but thats not the issue right now...........
ZAKITASHI 4 months ago
Fuck this movie and fuck JJ Abrahms, Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci. This is the worst "trek" ever.
BattlestarPacifica 6 months ago
good movie ?
sashaulianov1 6 months ago
@sashaulianov1 "good movie ?" Let me put it this way Godzilla movies are better written, acted and directed than this pile of junk called Star Trek (XI). Godzilla films also have a point to them; this new Trek has no point.
Trekfreek 6 months ago
"Here's a random prediction: "Trek" will finish as the fourth-highest grossing film of the 2009, behind the new "Harry Potter" film, Pixar's "Up" and the "Night at the Museum" sequel. "
Not because of me. I downloaded because I predicted that this would be a cheap Hollywood rape of the Star Trek concept. And I was right, turned it off halfway through because I realised you could replace all names with random other ones, and nobody would notice, so generic and boring was the plot.
Blahb27 6 months ago 2
@Blahb27 You doo realize that it's 2011 and your prediction came true 2 years ago. :-) I too downloaded a boot leg, just to try it; if I liked it I was going to go pay to see it. I turned it off when the title came up. I waited 2 hours while watching Godzilla 2000 (NONE STOP). I turned it back on then off when Kirk jumped out of the car like "The 6 Million Dollar Man"(kid). It literally took me a week to finish Jar Jar's Star Trek, It's that BAD. I only finished it to give it a full & far review
Trekfreek 6 months ago
@Trekfreek I know. It wasn't yesterday I saw the movie either. More like "The same week it entered the cinemas". I don't really know why. I expected it to suck, but still got it fairly soon.
Blahb27 6 months ago
@Blahb27 Well for me when I saw the teaser poster I was excited but as I heard more and more spoilers, my fears of this movie being a travesty grew larger and larger. Then I saw the trailer and I knew I had to take precautions. It's the only Trek film I had not seen in the theater.
Trekfreek 6 months ago 9
plus, everyone who played the main crew are very talented actors, just watch Heros, or Avatar, or Run Fat Boy Run, or Bottle Shock, or Harold and Kumar!
riggamourtusfriend 6 months ago
@mrgarymakin, ummmm.... WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGIANST 12 YEAR OLDS?! im partailly offended since im 12 AND A HALF, we never did anything to you! crazy -cuss-! and i dont know about you guys, but i loved the moviesoo much! (and EVERYONE is sexy there!)
riggamourtusfriend 6 months ago
@riggamourtusfriend I have nothing against 12 year olds. When I was 12 I loved garbage movies too; Movies like "Some Where in time" (Sexy leading lady), "Sheena" (SEXY Heroin), Bigfoot (Hot women in almost nothing), & “Romeo and Juliet” (hot nude Tit-ies shown twice, on regular TV!). But I grew up & as my hormones balanced out I started to watch good movies like “White Heat”, “Casablanca”, “The Day the Earth Stood Still” (BW) & “The Planet of the Apes” (1968). No sex in them, but great films.
Trekfreek 6 months ago
I am a old man I grew up watching star trek and I did not like star trek the next generation, ds9 was ok and I did not like voyager I did like enterprise but this was GENE RODDENBERRY dream an that the way he would have like it but this jj Adams really piss me off he turn the star trek world upside down an rape it , now I know there people who like it that fine but there a old saying IF IT NOT BROKEN DON’T FIX IT and by the way I like star trek phase 2
cronvish 6 months ago 6
fuck abrams its the worst star trek ever i am glad you put the question mark
ThisisAliFareedshow 6 months ago 5
JJ Abrams should be dragged out into the street and bitch slapped for ruining Star Trek.
TomatoeAssassin 7 months ago 5
@TomatoeAssassin No, he should be put into an empty photon torpedo and shot into the sun!
dude75able 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomatoeAssassin um, the idea was that it is the butterfly verse, the movie was a total reboot as will the next two...
Chloeissocoollad 4 months ago in playlist Star Trek 2009
WILLIAM SHATNER vs CHRIS PINE: SHATNER WINS
LEONARD NIMOY vs ZACHARY QUINTO: NIMOY WINS
GEORGE TAKEI vs JOHN CHO: TAKEI WINS
WALTER KOENIG vs that other russian guy: KOENIG WINS
NICHELLE NICHOLS vs.ZOE SALDANA: NICHELLE NICHOLS WINS
DEFORREST KELLEY vs. KARL URBAN: TIE
JAMES DOOHAN vs. SIMON PEGG: TIE
GENE RODDENBERRY vs J.J. ABRAMS: without a doubt, Roddenberry wins. He needs to come back from the grave and slap the shit out of Abrams!
dude75able 7 months ago 4
@dude75able I agree with you about Karl Urban and Simon Pegg. They did a great job. The rest......what can I say? No matter how good the actors were it was still a terrible movie.
(No matter what, Chris Pine sucked)
TomatoeAssassin 7 months ago 2
@TomatoeAssassin I don't like any thing Chris Pine has done up to now.
dude75able 7 months ago
It was a good movie but I would not put it as best anyways in my view the best scifi series of all time is Babylon 5, then between TOS or TNG (prob tng) and then I would have DS9, Enterprise and last of all Voyager lol but this is all down to preference I guess some people love voyager and hate enterprise, also its down to wot you grew up on, me it was B5 and DS9
pimpjuice739 7 months ago
Star Trek XI was the best sci-fi/action movie I have ever seen. The effects were mindblowing, battles, etc. A lot of fun. BUT this was not a Star Trek movie. It took me a year to figure that out. My frosty side liked it while my wheaty side didn't. I justified the movie with all the same lame excuses everyone has. I defended it by saying canon didn't apply to an alternate universe. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
spacecowboy5000 8 months ago
@spacecowboy5000 Sure, I would expect a few little discrepencies but Abrams pretty much raped Trek canon. About the only thing they got right were the points on Spock's ears. Everything else was a different sci-fi world -- but nothing near to what Star Trek has been for the last 45 years. You cannot just randomly change all that history and what fans have loved all this time. Trekkies have made the franchise what it is and Paramount goes and destroys it all with the worst Trek movie ever.
spacecowboy5000 8 months ago
This was a great movie to watch, entertaining, but! it was wrong threw out tha movie in some places, espiecally tha enterprise LOGO that was on everything, in TOS, each emblam was specific to that ship n crew, mistake #1, but it was still fun 2 watch.
mvallejr1 8 months ago
best star trek movie ever!!!!! and ive seen them all, n this one is by far the best! hands down! cant wait for the next one. HURRY UP GUYS WITH THE SEQUEL already!!
thegreat101nt 8 months ago
@thegreat101nt What made it "by far the best! hands down!" Was it the 2 dimensional bad guy, the fact that Dr. McCoy had to study medicine again to be assigned a ship/or the fact he was an incompetent doctor in the first place, Kirk acting like a spoiled brat and getting whatever he wanted, Sulu's in ability to drive a star ship, Spock's inability to control his emotions, or Uhura sleeping her way onto the flag ship? Maybe it was the FX and lens flares you liked, because it can’t be the story.
Trekfreek 8 months ago
@Trekfreek Here now... What exactly are you selling here? I didn't like the movie myself (See above) but your use of hyperbole is uncalled for! McCoy was at the Academy for Officer Training, not medical. Kirk ... okay they raped Kirk's character. As for the others, they were at the start of their careers. Any fiction writer will tell you all good characters MUST have flaws. And the way you describe how Uhura was in the movie - you should be hit in the head with an olive loaf. What are you?Weird?
spacecowboy5000 8 months ago
@spacecowboy5000 I tell it the way I see it. McCoy is a Doctor and like all doctors who join the military he never attended the academy. "Who is Captain Dunsel? Spock what does it mean?!" Spock pointed out that Dunsel is a term that all cadets knew very well. McCoy receiving office training? He's a Doctor He has office Training. Uhura Got the Enterprise by bitching to Spock whom she slept with. In my day that makes her a gold digging Slut.
Trekfreek 8 months ago
@Trekfreek I don't know... I've been watching Trek since 1967. I've read all the novels, all the behind-the-scenes books. I created a Star Trek club AND a Trek magazine. I've been going to conventions since 1979 and I've never heard any of the crap you're spouting. Yes, it was a TERRIBLE Trek movie but I'm trying to be fair and not just bashing everything about it without thinking - like you're doing. Try taking on a more mature attitude. It's bound to do you some good.
spacecowboy5000 8 months ago
@spacecowboy5000 You never heard McCoy ask Who is Captain Dunsel in “The Ultimate Computer”? When McCoy talks he talks about Doctors, but never stated one word about the Academy except that he did not know what Dunsel means. "Dunsel, Doctor, is a term used by midshipmen at the Academy when referring to a useless part." I know a lot about the military (having grown up in a military town) Doctors don't attend classes at the Academy. Try to stand up for your point of view. Nobody likes a wimp.
Trekfreek 8 months ago
@Trekfreek KILL STAR TREK!!!! No more shows like Voyager or movies like the horror of ST XI. Destroy the franchise. Paramount made the last movie for only one reason - money. We fans don't matter to them, quality doesn't matter to them - just money. End Star Trek before they turn it into something worse. Who's a wimp? Don't tell me about military. The navy is a different branch and if one day McCoy is forced to take command he has to have training for that. He's the superior of a lot of crew men
spacecowboy5000 8 months ago
Comment removed
Trekfreek 8 months ago
@spacecowboy5000 I have not bashed a thing about this movie without thinking. You are trying to be a soft hart to those you disagree with, that's your choice. My choice is to state what I think backed up with facts & if that hurts some people than they need to grow up. Maturity does not mean being a pansy. You can read & play Trek till your "green in the face" but it will not make you a Trekker. You must stand up & defend Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek, only then can you call yourself a Trekker.
Trekfreek 8 months ago
@Trekfreek I defend Gene's philosophy. I don't bitch about trivial things. In a 1969 interview, Roddenberry said, "It's not the ship that matters. It's the people and the stories they tell". He dreamed of a universe were people were kinder, more understanding. THAT, sir, is what I'm fighting for. "Soft heart"? Really? ROFLMAO!!!!! I love Star Trek with every fiber of my being. So much so I am willing to do what no Trekker has done before....
spacecowboy5000 8 months ago
@loner1878 Star Trek (XI) in 400 characters or less...Bad guy comes from the future seeking revenge on events that have not happened. Hoodlum Kirk gets on board the enterprise. Vulcans say: “We have no emotions...You Humans are STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!" Punk ass Kirk gets command by fighting with superior officers and forcing them to obey him. Kirk's ill conceived plan to defeat the bad guy miraculously works and everyone forgets his uncouth behavior and gives him command of their flag ship.
Trekfreek 8 months ago
[...continued from last post]
But even so, this is not really bad. But it's sure not the best Star Trek, no.
It's great that it was very respectful and (other than stated above) true to its source material.
Zachary Quinto as the iconic Mr. Spock is a plus, although not perfect (seemed to smile a bit too much), was very good, and his likeness is uncanny.
It sure infused new life into the great franchise, and that's no bad thing.
It's good, but I hope the sequel is MORE true to the original.
WinstonSmith6079 8 months ago
This movie is good, but hardly the best Star Trek.
The story took waaay too many shortcuts, that was a real problem with this one.
But even worse, IMHO, there's not much Science in this Sci-Fi with the name Star Trek. But Science has always been a MAJOR part of Star Trek (and Sci-Fi in general is much better with it anyway). That there could be the single biggest problem of all with this outing.
I still prefer "your father's Star Trek" over this one.
[continued in next post...]
WinstonSmith6079 8 months ago
the movie was a semi-reasonable movie, but it wasnt really star trek
333SoOfTheBeast333 8 months ago
If Nero went back into the past, could not he just spend his 25 years evacuating his planet instead of trying to fulfill a psychopathic revenge...?
magicstorm1 9 months ago
I am reading the comments: it's sure a lot of angry and pissed off people. All I have to say is tread lightly. Trek just climbed out of the grave, so let's not beat it to death again so soon after it's reincarnation. It's breathing for the moment, but not for long, so do something constructive, answer one question: to whom should the creative reigns be given? Who can breathe life back into the franchise and stay true to the established lore?
SuperAnnuatedDoodle 9 months ago
@SuperAnnuatedDoodle "Who can breathe life back into the franchise and stay true to the established lore?" That's easy, the one woman who help resurrect Trek back in the 70's D.C. Fontana. She is still a fan of the show and has written an episode for the high budget fan show Star Trek New Voyages. Another great writer and producer would be David Gerald, he wrote several episodes for the original series, and TNG. He also is writing for the fan show Star Trek New Voyages.
Trekfreek 9 months ago 2
@Trekfreek Good answer. I didn't know that D.C. Fontana was writing for New Voyages, I will have to check that out.
SuperAnnuatedDoodle 9 months ago
This movie was designed for hipster fags who pay more attention to style and mediocre action sequences over substance, storyline and message. This movie does not cater to, nor is it loyal to Roddenberry's vision of the Star Trek universe. The original series is corny?? Srsly?? Well I cant blame people for their lack of comprehension when it comes to production value and storyline, after all, this is the era of Lady GaGa and Bieber, bwaaaa I threw up a little in my mouth... puke...
romefox 9 months ago
@romefox Alas, the whole "Blame the viewer argument". If anyone is to blame, it's Rick Berman and Brannon Braga for train-wrecking the franchise. ST:XI is an improvement to their cliche lines, crappy stories, cheap production values, dogmatic moralizing, self-deprecating humor (which reached its climax with the "manual steering column" in Insurrection), and generally pissing all over the loyalty of the fans. Nemesis and Enterprise were the darkest days for Trek, period.
SuperAnnuatedDoodle 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow! mrgarymakin is not real popular around here, is he? Tasteless moron is getting all his posts removed.
Actionguy1 9 months ago 5
The new Trek is rubbish, Roddenberry should ring JJ's neck. The movie is entertaining as a fast paced mediocre action flick, not at all loyal to the original brand.
romefox 9 months ago 3
"you will experience fear".
NO! You will experience a shitfest that JJ Abrams wants to call Star Trek!
Fuck that talentless, stuttering, little bastard!
Actionguy1 9 months ago 3
You really are pathetic, defending a bad film with an ill conceived plot, bad cinematography, and terrible acting. Stuttering, stammering Abrams and company will eventually put Star Trek into an early grave, but you'll continue to eat the shit that they produce.
Bon appetit!
Actionguy1 9 months ago 7
@Actionguy1 Your stupidity amuses me.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@Actionguy1 It was a good movie. If it takes place in an alternate reality, I don't understand why everything needs to be so technical. The acting was not bad at all, and J.J Abrams is one of the best directors/producers/writers of this time. His critical acclaim and huge bank account speak for themselves.
emergencyexit16 9 months ago
this movie was terrible, rushed, and a terrible plot
donovanjd3 10 months ago 2
I will admit to finding this movie very entertaining and the performances fairly good, Star Trek (2009) has very little to do with Gene Roddenberry's sci-fi vision. It's a film about special effects, action and violence, and not about ideas, philosophy and the morality. While this film has the veneer of the the Star Trek legacy, it's lacks much of the original show's depth and heart. When all is said and done, what have we really learned about ourselves from this film?
rktsncalnc 11 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@rktsncalnc That two people, with different beliefs and different views and problem solving ideals, can still take a moral road, a way to bridge that awful social gap between each other for the greater good. That there is something that binds individuals in the face of absolution, that hope isn't just a waking dream but a dimension made reality by the collective will of people faced with hard decision in the face of morality versus end result.
Sethir 10 months ago
@Sethir Let me finish your speech with a quote from the real Kirk (You)"dimension made reality by the collective will of people faced with hard decision in the face of morality versus end result" (Kirk) "To Dream the highest REALITY!" See? It fits perfectly! One nonsensical speech for another, you really can't tell them apart.
Trekfreek 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Trekfreek Except that you can't, and you're just being posh about it. In retrospect, Kirk's quote speaks about a vision, and envisioning a best scenario. Being short or long term isn't the issue, it's the message behind it. You understand it, but feel it is not necessary to take it seriously through this youtube conversation, as bashing other's posts and debating the sentences rather than the message floats your boat better at this instant.
Sethir 10 months ago
@Sethir LOL ROTFLMAO!!!!! Kirk's quote was gibberish to confuse and short out the android Norman. There was no Deep Meaning to it. You are the kind of person who will stare at a pack of gum for 20 hours then proclaim that the ingredients is a deep philosophical statement. I only bash people who try to find things that are not there. It's a waste of life to speak in riddles with no reason but to sound precocious, and to justify belittling people who are wiser than you and/or disagree with you.
Trekfreek 10 months ago 3
@Sethir Okay, so where was the "moral road" when, towards the end of the film, they killed Nero? How does killing a man - one who is your enemy, nonetheless - figure into the Federation's ethos? Would it have not been much more noble and moral to beam Nero and his crew aboard the Enterprise, throw them in the brig and let this man who was hellbent on revenge suffer a lifetime of being saved by his enemies? How does allowing Nero to die serve Starfleet's "greater good" beyond revenge?
rktsncalnc 10 months ago 4
@rktsncalnc. Great point; I would like to add that it was Spock who wanted to finish the job in the movie, which is totally out of character for Spock. In the series Spock tried to talk Kirk out of chasing down the Gorn and it was Spock who refused to take the lives of the giant Neanderthal men who killed 2 of his men. The real Spock never seeks revenge.
Trekfreek 10 months ago 3
@Trekfreek The scene early on in the film where Spock is mocked by Vulcan "bullies" rings false, as well. Here is a race of aliens who suppress their emotions, yet a trio of youths badger young Spock w/ illogical and emotional pettiness? Also, the Nero storyline: He comes through the black hole in time and waits 25+ years for Spock to arrive? How did he know Spock would be coming through the black hole? Wouldn't Nero's time had been better spent flying to Romulus to warn of the future supernova?
rktsncalnc 10 months ago 2
@rktsncalnc "How did he know Spock would be coming through the black hole?" Also, if they both came through about the same time, how could he know when Spock is going to come out of the black hole? As fair as he knew Spock could have come out 20 years before him or even 200 years before, or even 500 years into the future. After all Nero is no scientist. There is so many painfully obvious things wrong with the movie; it’s a wonder why people like it at all.
Trekfreek 10 months ago
@Trekfreek Nero blames Spock for the destruction of his planet and the death of his wife. Okay. So why not fly on over to "present day" Romulus and warn them of this impending doom? He had 25 or so years to do so. "In so many centuries, our sun will supernova. Let's get some scientists on that. Pronto!"
Also, after Nero destroys Vulcan, his next target is ...Earth? Why??? What did the Federation do to him?
rktsncalnc 10 months ago 3
@rktsncalnc Another great point. Ambassador Spock was an outcast of the Federation for living on Romulus. Also if he had gone to Romulus (who hate the federation) The Romulans of that time would have given him both Spock's heads on a silver platter.
Star Trek (XI) is way too easy to pick apart; the1970's Godzilla movies are harder to ridicule.
Trekfreek 10 months ago 3
@rktsncalnc If Nero went to present day Romulus, he might screw up his own timeline...
Vulcans are part of the Federation, remember?
mrgarymakin 10 months ago
@mrgarymakin Ye, I do remember that. What's your point?
rktsncalnc 10 months ago
@rktsncalnc Nero is already on Romulus in the past - he might negatively affect his own life if he goes there. He might even be imprisoned again, as a rogue.
The point is: Nero wants revenge against Spock, and by extension, Vulcan and the Federation.
mrgarymakin 10 months ago
@mrgarymakin That "extension of revenge" against the Federation is never addressed at all within the movie. Destroying Vulcan makes sense because Nero's character arc within this story explains this. Going after Earth is pointless, and provided solely to give the Earthlings in the audience a bit of empathetic peril. It's a hollow dues ex machina.
As for the time paradox, given what we've gleaned about him from this film, perhaps Nero isn't the smartest alien in the galaxy.
rktsncalnc 10 months ago
@rktsncalnc Again, Spock is a Federation citizen, so Nero wanting revenge against Earth holds up. There were always Romulan plots against the Federation going on - so what's your problem here?
And if bad people in the real world do irrational things, why do some fans have a problem with it in the fictional world of Star Trek?
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin Here's my problem: where is this addressed in the film? At what point does Nero say, "Okay, now on to Earth. And oh yeah, here's why..."?
Also, bad people in the real world do seemingly irrational things because their actions have meaning (however flawed) to them. If you watched a movie and a character did random things that were not explained, it would be off-putting and confusing, and your reaction to that character would most likely be negative.
rktsncalnc 9 months ago
@rktsncalnc You want everything spelt out? Nero is underwritten, that's all.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin It's not that I want Nero's motivation spelled-out. I simply want more clarity to his character. His motivations work in service to the plot, and not the other way around. He's extremely "underwritten" all right.
rktsncalnc 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin Nero is the worst villain ever seen in Star Trek! He was "over the top", and like you, a complete moron!
Actionguy1 9 months ago 3
@mrgarymakin "Spock is a Federation citizen" Wrong again. Spock has lived on Romulus for over 20 years; I think it's safe to say that Spock is not a federation citizen and is a freelance politician. Even if you’re right it still makes no science. Would you blame Canada if Michael J. Fox Failed to find a cure for Parkinson’s? Of course not; it’s a dumb plot Idea. Bad people always have a motive that has a hint of rational thought.
Trekfreek 9 months ago
@Trekfreek Whether Spock is on Romulus or not, he's still a Federation citizen. Since when did he apply for Romulan citizenship?
Again, Spock and the Vulcan Science Academy actively failed to prevent Romulus' star from going nova. Nero seeks revenge on Spock and all Vulcans, and the Federation that they belong to - which all Romulans are raised to hate and fear.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin "Since when did he apply for Romulan citizenship?" Ever see the TNG episode Reunification? By refusing to leave Romulus when ordered by the Federation, he effectively renounced his citizen ship as a Vulcan. Spock knew this was a possibility when he decided to stay and help the Romulans lean the Vulcan way of living. According to the comic book (that all you fans of this movie refer too when in a jam.) Nero knew this about Spock & asked for his help. Romulans are raised to fight!
Trekfreek 9 months ago
@Trekfreek Erm, just because he chose to stay on Romulus to help change things, doesn't mean he isn't a Federation citizen or a Vulcan anymore.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
Respond to this video... Also, Nero has absolutely no qualms about blowing up Vulcan and Earth, thus changing history and the universal timeline.
rktsncalnc 10 months ago
@mrgarymakin He already screwed up his own time line. Remember "Balance of Terror"? If Kirk had not beat the Romulan commander in that episode the ripple might have changed whether or not Nero was born. And Spock might not have gotten involved in Romulan politics, which might have determined if Nero even met his wife. Time is the tapestry of our lives.
Trekfreek 9 months ago 2
@Trekfreek And Nero doesn't know any of this - he didn't travel back in time on purpose. As I've said before, you can't change history in your own universe; only creat another universe. Nevertheless, Nero might not want to directly affect his life and family on Romulus, even in a parallel universe. Spock avoided his younger self, until it was unavoidable.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin "you can't change history in your own universe" Wrong again. According to quantum mechanics you can change your own history in your universe. The problem is that you take the chance of creating paradoxes that will not only destroy your universe but all of existence. Why would not Nero want to try to save his wife and child? Common, he's dumb enough to want to destroy the federation and risk wiping himself out indirectly but smart enough to fear changing his history directly? Really?
Trekfreek 9 months ago
@Trekfreek Physical events cannot be undone once they've occurred; just like energy cannot be destroyed. What you describe, if it's current theory at all (which I doubt) is impossible mumbo-jumbo. We don't live in a magical universe where things pop out of existence. We likely live in an expanding omniverse, where these fluxes become their own universes.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin Are you a quantum physicist even an amateur one like me? I doubt it very much. Quantum physics is different from regular physics. Time travel is possible but not without the potential to cause paradoxes. When this happens events cancel each other out. Two of the same particles or events can never be allowed to occupy the same time. If this happens the event would cause an explosion on the quantum level wiping out all of existence unless the event is corrected. These are facts!
Trekfreek 9 months ago
Simply put if you went back in time and killed your father before he met your mother than you would not have been born Period! You would not exist in an alternate reality or time line you would not exist, and there is the paradox if you never existed how can you go back in time and kill your father? This one event would wipe out all of reality.
Trekfreek 9 months ago
@Trekfreek The Grandfather Paradox is an outdated theory. It's pure sci-fi science and makes no sense.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin WRONG AGIAN. How thick are you? The Grandfather Paradox is still the leading theory that can be proven mathematically in any given situation, the multi universe theory has no such solid math to it because it has to many variables; with The multi universe theory you can punch in the necessary math codes and prove it right then punch in those same math codes and prove it wrong. Many scientists, including Hawking, have deemed it unreliable as a means to explane time travel.
Trekfreek 9 months ago 3
@Trekfreek I wouldn't be calling people "thick" on here, if you're consistently illiterate.
Most scientists have moved away from the Grandfather Paradox theory, in favour of the multiverse explanation. You refuse to believe in the multiverse because you're religious, and don't like the idea that this universe isn't special.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin You obviously don't know what illiterate means, otherwise you would not have miss used the word. Now, who does not know how to read or write? I suggest you keep from giving personal attacks if you wish to be taken seriously. Being religious has nothing to do with whether or not I dislike the multi universe theory. I'm telling you strait out that the math does not hold up. Also, for every scientist who favors the Milt-verse theory there are 2 who don't. Check the facts Kid.
Trekfreek 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin. Last note: "He who is the first to raise a fist is the first to run out of ideas" H.G. Wells. This includes personal attacks. Personal attacks include literacy, Religion, Race, Family, body type, sex, and Country.
Trekfreek 9 months ago
@Trekfreek You were first to resort to insults, remember? I simply pointed out your hypocrisy. And you regularly insult anyone who doesn't agree with you here. But keep ranting for another two years.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin First off calling people thick is not an insult, second insulting back is not a very adult thing to do. Third the only hypocrite is obviously you. You don't even know the definitions of illiterate & ranting. Forth, I never accused you of not knowing how to spell or punctuate. Note: Some of the greatest mathematicians could not spell "knife" to save their lives. Finally I have always said its O.K. to like bad movies. No one here is saying you should stop watching the stupid film.
Trekfreek 9 months ago 3
@Trekfreek Calling someone thick IS an insult. How thick are you? Illiterate means not being able to read or write, and since you seem unable to understand what people are saying on here, or write properly in response, then I would say the term could apply to you. Your comments on here are the very definition of rant.
And you are not a great mathematician.
mrgarymakin 9 months ago
@mrgarymakin NOT IN THE U.S. and not on Doctor Who! It means that you're so set in your ways that you refuse to learn or listen! "Thick: lacking the ability to learn and understand quickly" A Rant is "a very loud, aggressive, or bombastic speech that is usually long and repetitive" I could not possibly rant here because everything is written. Next time use a dictionary! As far as me being "a great mathematician" you don't know me so how would you know? BOY you ARE THICK!
Trekfreek 9 months ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Trekfreek If you understood nuance, you'd know that a rant can also be applied partly to the written word. Now that is thick.
A great mathematician? You can barely spell.
mrgarymakin