@Section31Captain BTW I apologize if I offended you with my comments. I promise that wasn't my intent. I can be a little hot-headed sometimes. Live long and prosper.
Ignoring canon is what made this film so great. That took some balls. Something Braga, Berman, Moore(and arguably Roddenberry) never had. If you don't like it, that's fine. But in this case it's more a question of personal taste rather then something that can be proven as fact. Since I think that's the case I don't think I am out of line when I humbly as that you don't be a little bitch and try to ruin it for those who loved it.
@NoirMage This comment is nothing more than your opinion of canon. FACT: Gene took great care in making sure that canon was dealt with properly. Don't believe me? Then I suggest you read "Star Trek Creator" by David Alexander. Berman, Braga, Moore, Behr, et al., only adhered to his wishes. Also, allow me to point out that it is YOU that came to MY video to offer your opinion. How is expressing my opinion ruining anything for anyone? However, it is alright for you to express yours? Hypocrisy.
@Section31Captain but what's more important? Canon or story quality? I know it's close but I would challenge you that Story quality is more important. Arthur Conan Doyle was accused of not keeping continuity in his books, he replied something to the effect of what does it matter so long as I hold my readers? And I'm sorry you think I'm a hypocrite, but I said you're entitled to your opinion, however, you're not entitled to imply those who love the movie don't care about the legacy of Star Trek.
@NoirMage On this matter, there is no debate. Look at one of my previous posts. The very heart of Star Trek is it's ability to give us terriffic stories. It is my strong opinion that the latest film is not a strong story. It was a mediocre attempt by people that admit to not being fans (with the exception of Orci, but he is another matter) to reinvent it in the image of Star Wars: all action, terrible story. Where did I imply that people that loved this film care nothing for Trek's legacy?
@NoirMage Read what I posted again, "to ignore canon is disgraceful to the Great Birds legacy and unacceptable". Let me mention it again, Gene was extremely protective of canon. To ignore something that was of great importance to HIS creation dishonors the very vision he gave us. As I also mentioned, it is more the direction the franchise is headed that has me upset than the film itself. Why? Let me give you a few examples: There was an article in The Star Trek Magazine last year, continued....
@NoirMage after the film was released, that was about the Borg. I found multiple errors in the article. I wrote in to make the proper corrections. To make a long story short, the editor himself informed me that it was written with the new fans in mind. That is outrageous. A total disregard for Trek's integrity. The other example came from David Stern. In his author's note at the end of his last novel he said he was freed of the need to write specifically to one vision of humanities future.
@NoirMage Blasphemy. While some may see these instances as trivial, I find them atrocious. Then there is the biggest maddening aspect of them all: the prime time line. People claim that it is affected, it is not affected. It IS affected. Although we will still have what has come before the film, the events that lead up to the film (as seen in "Countdown") have altered what must take place in the future. That is total disregard for the entire Trek universe. Again, that may not matter to ....cont
@NoirMage some, but it matters a great deal to me (as I read all of the novels}. The Star Trek universe/ franchise has been altered forever by people that do not care about words like legacy and integrity. And that is what has me truly upset.
I thought Star Trek fans where supposed to be the most open minded people on Earth. Sounds to me like most of you can't see the genius behind this movie because your stuck in the past, which is not forward thinking is it.
Trekkies are "open minded" to other people and their cultures.
That doesn't mean we're a bunch of mind numbed sycophants waiting to be spoon fed Hollywood tripe.
And I pity you and your ilk that call this movie "genius" or "brilliant" because even though it might have been entertaining, for you all, it wasn't even a good movie by itself.
I guess that's what happens when, for the past 20+ years, people are fed more action, sex, & contrived plots than a solid story.
@SolidSnake032486 I consider myself pretty open-minded, but I still can't understand why there is so much hatred for this movie. There are two things they gripe about: "ridiculous" coincidences and Nero's motivation. Those like Section31captain complain about the coincidences when he loves the same Star Trek movies and shows that had just as many wild coincidences.
And Nero's motivation: Hello! Accidental destruction of Romulus? There's no way of knowing how we might act in a similar situation.
@NoirMage Let me ask you this; do you know me? Do you know why it is that I do not like the movie? You must be clairvoyant in claiming "people like Section31Captain.....". There are reasons far deeper for my disdain for the film other than what you feel are my only ones. That is presumptuous and arrogant.
@Section31Captain I know you must be a big fan of Star Trek. Otherwise, you damn well wouldn't call yourself Section 31 Captain now, would you? Also, don't you think it hurts your credibility to insult someone before getting to know them? Maybe what I said was presumptuous, but that doesn't change the fact that every argument I have heard against the movie is almost word for word the same.
There are in fact plenty of logical answers to all of the complaints if you would be a little open minded
@NoirMage Let us review the facts shall we? Yes, I am a huge Trekkie. You say you can tell that from my channels name. How about looking at my channel to watch all of the videos I have made about Star Trek? It is from there that you will be able to see just how passionate I am about the franchise. With that in mind, I made this very video in order to express my personal feelings about a film from the very same franchise I care so deeply about. What did you do? Continued....
@NoirMage You went out of your way to post a comment and look for an argument. Where was I insulting? Calling you clairvoyant was being playfully facetious (just as my video is), it was not an insult. Every persons opinion on why the film was awful is NOT mine. Did it ever occur to you that since I am such a big Trekkie that I am already open minded? Because my opinion of the film differs from yours makes me wrong? That is not only absurd, it is contradictory to the very statement. Continued...
@NoirMage I leave my channel and it's contents open for all, even if the comments are negative. I am well aware that there are many that loved the film and that this video would have them in disagreement. I am always open for a discussion or a debate about Trek, when done so in an adult manner. You will find me friendly and knowledgeable. However, to come here and attack me and my opinions is against the very foundation of Trek; IDIC. Continued.....
@NoirMage You came here to vehemently defend something Star Trek, I respect that. However, resorting to name calling because my opinion differs from yours is beyond absurd. In the end, my main reason for not liking this film is that the repugnant behavior seen in it is not only acceptable, but rewarded. A reflection of modern times. To me, that is NOT Star Trek. I am deeply concerned when the franchise that I care so much about gives us that. As a matter of fact, your comments prove my point.
Why didn't you like it? Because it actually has a decent production budget? Or was it the spectacular action? Or the decent acting, or fast pace, or humor, or amazing score. Dear god if this is not a good movie then what is?
@SolidSnake032486 Genius? Oh my. Stuck in the past? Let me ask you this; how long have you been watching Star Trek? Just answer that for me, then we can proceed with this debate.
well they almost "nailed" Bones. Carl Urban {sp?} should have worn contact lens' to make his eyes blue. DeForest Kelly had amazing blue eyes. Not to mention in "A Piece of the Action" a mob guy say something the the affect, "don't give me those baby blues.."
@Actionguy1 the music was the best part of the movie. it's better than most of the music people listen to. this movie was not star trek, i'll give you all that. and the plot wasn't great. but i still enjoyed myself. if a movie is enjoyable, the who gives a crap if it has a good plot? i would have preferred a good plot, but enjoyment is more important than canon.
@cupdashind You are 100% correct. The film was not Star Trek. It matters a great deal that the plot was terrible. Why? This is what people will come to expect from Star Trek. Over the top action and terrible stories in lieu of what made Trek great in the first place, good stories and plots. And to ignore canon is disgraceful to the Great Birds legacy and unacceptable. It is mainly the direction that the franchise is taking that has most people upset.
@cupdashind I am a lover of film and TV soundtracks and Michael Giacchino's music was WAY over the top! Mister Giacchino is a very good composer, but his music for this poor excuse for a "Star Trek" film will never measure up to the compositions of Alexander Courage, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner, etc. And NO! Roddenberry's canon is the Alpha and Omega of "Star Trek".
There was NOTHING enjoyable about this film. It was pale in comparison to the weekest of original "Star Trek" episodes.
@Section31Captain BTW I apologize if I offended you with my comments. I promise that wasn't my intent. I can be a little hot-headed sometimes. Live long and prosper.
NoirMage 1 year ago
@NoirMage I was not offended. Just do me a favor in the future? Remember IDIC.
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@Section31Captain That's good advice for us all.
NoirMage 1 year ago
Ignoring canon is what made this film so great. That took some balls. Something Braga, Berman, Moore(and arguably Roddenberry) never had. If you don't like it, that's fine. But in this case it's more a question of personal taste rather then something that can be proven as fact. Since I think that's the case I don't think I am out of line when I humbly as that you don't be a little bitch and try to ruin it for those who loved it.
NoirMage 1 year ago
@NoirMage This comment is nothing more than your opinion of canon. FACT: Gene took great care in making sure that canon was dealt with properly. Don't believe me? Then I suggest you read "Star Trek Creator" by David Alexander. Berman, Braga, Moore, Behr, et al., only adhered to his wishes. Also, allow me to point out that it is YOU that came to MY video to offer your opinion. How is expressing my opinion ruining anything for anyone? However, it is alright for you to express yours? Hypocrisy.
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@Section31Captain but what's more important? Canon or story quality? I know it's close but I would challenge you that Story quality is more important. Arthur Conan Doyle was accused of not keeping continuity in his books, he replied something to the effect of what does it matter so long as I hold my readers? And I'm sorry you think I'm a hypocrite, but I said you're entitled to your opinion, however, you're not entitled to imply those who love the movie don't care about the legacy of Star Trek.
NoirMage 1 year ago
@NoirMage On this matter, there is no debate. Look at one of my previous posts. The very heart of Star Trek is it's ability to give us terriffic stories. It is my strong opinion that the latest film is not a strong story. It was a mediocre attempt by people that admit to not being fans (with the exception of Orci, but he is another matter) to reinvent it in the image of Star Wars: all action, terrible story. Where did I imply that people that loved this film care nothing for Trek's legacy?
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@NoirMage Read what I posted again, "to ignore canon is disgraceful to the Great Birds legacy and unacceptable". Let me mention it again, Gene was extremely protective of canon. To ignore something that was of great importance to HIS creation dishonors the very vision he gave us. As I also mentioned, it is more the direction the franchise is headed that has me upset than the film itself. Why? Let me give you a few examples: There was an article in The Star Trek Magazine last year, continued....
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@NoirMage after the film was released, that was about the Borg. I found multiple errors in the article. I wrote in to make the proper corrections. To make a long story short, the editor himself informed me that it was written with the new fans in mind. That is outrageous. A total disregard for Trek's integrity. The other example came from David Stern. In his author's note at the end of his last novel he said he was freed of the need to write specifically to one vision of humanities future.
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@NoirMage Blasphemy. While some may see these instances as trivial, I find them atrocious. Then there is the biggest maddening aspect of them all: the prime time line. People claim that it is affected, it is not affected. It IS affected. Although we will still have what has come before the film, the events that lead up to the film (as seen in "Countdown") have altered what must take place in the future. That is total disregard for the entire Trek universe. Again, that may not matter to ....cont
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@NoirMage some, but it matters a great deal to me (as I read all of the novels}. The Star Trek universe/ franchise has been altered forever by people that do not care about words like legacy and integrity. And that is what has me truly upset.
Section31Captain 1 year ago 4
I thought Star Trek fans where supposed to be the most open minded people on Earth. Sounds to me like most of you can't see the genius behind this movie because your stuck in the past, which is not forward thinking is it.
SolidSnake032486 1 year ago
@SolidSnake032486
Trekkies are "open minded" to other people and their cultures.
That doesn't mean we're a bunch of mind numbed sycophants waiting to be spoon fed Hollywood tripe.
And I pity you and your ilk that call this movie "genius" or "brilliant" because even though it might have been entertaining, for you all, it wasn't even a good movie by itself.
I guess that's what happens when, for the past 20+ years, people are fed more action, sex, & contrived plots than a solid story.
fmscribs 1 year ago
@SolidSnake032486 I consider myself pretty open-minded, but I still can't understand why there is so much hatred for this movie. There are two things they gripe about: "ridiculous" coincidences and Nero's motivation. Those like Section31captain complain about the coincidences when he loves the same Star Trek movies and shows that had just as many wild coincidences.
And Nero's motivation: Hello! Accidental destruction of Romulus? There's no way of knowing how we might act in a similar situation.
NoirMage 1 year ago
@NoirMage Let me ask you this; do you know me? Do you know why it is that I do not like the movie? You must be clairvoyant in claiming "people like Section31Captain.....". There are reasons far deeper for my disdain for the film other than what you feel are my only ones. That is presumptuous and arrogant.
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@Section31Captain I know you must be a big fan of Star Trek. Otherwise, you damn well wouldn't call yourself Section 31 Captain now, would you? Also, don't you think it hurts your credibility to insult someone before getting to know them? Maybe what I said was presumptuous, but that doesn't change the fact that every argument I have heard against the movie is almost word for word the same.
There are in fact plenty of logical answers to all of the complaints if you would be a little open minded
NoirMage 1 year ago
@NoirMage Let us review the facts shall we? Yes, I am a huge Trekkie. You say you can tell that from my channels name. How about looking at my channel to watch all of the videos I have made about Star Trek? It is from there that you will be able to see just how passionate I am about the franchise. With that in mind, I made this very video in order to express my personal feelings about a film from the very same franchise I care so deeply about. What did you do? Continued....
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@NoirMage You went out of your way to post a comment and look for an argument. Where was I insulting? Calling you clairvoyant was being playfully facetious (just as my video is), it was not an insult. Every persons opinion on why the film was awful is NOT mine. Did it ever occur to you that since I am such a big Trekkie that I am already open minded? Because my opinion of the film differs from yours makes me wrong? That is not only absurd, it is contradictory to the very statement. Continued...
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@NoirMage I leave my channel and it's contents open for all, even if the comments are negative. I am well aware that there are many that loved the film and that this video would have them in disagreement. I am always open for a discussion or a debate about Trek, when done so in an adult manner. You will find me friendly and knowledgeable. However, to come here and attack me and my opinions is against the very foundation of Trek; IDIC. Continued.....
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@NoirMage You came here to vehemently defend something Star Trek, I respect that. However, resorting to name calling because my opinion differs from yours is beyond absurd. In the end, my main reason for not liking this film is that the repugnant behavior seen in it is not only acceptable, but rewarded. A reflection of modern times. To me, that is NOT Star Trek. I am deeply concerned when the franchise that I care so much about gives us that. As a matter of fact, your comments prove my point.
Section31Captain 1 year ago
Why didn't you like it? Because it actually has a decent production budget? Or was it the spectacular action? Or the decent acting, or fast pace, or humor, or amazing score. Dear god if this is not a good movie then what is?
SolidSnake032486 1 year ago
@SolidSnake032486 Genius? Oh my. Stuck in the past? Let me ask you this; how long have you been watching Star Trek? Just answer that for me, then we can proceed with this debate.
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@SolidSnake032486 That's what I thought.
Section31Captain 1 year ago
One year ago today. The Jar Jar Abrams Trek starts spreading. Let's keep denouncing it people and remember: Resistance is not futile.
Densaku 1 year ago 2
I'm sorry, but the whole oncoming Uhura/Spock thing just smells like all kinds of wrong to me.
SnarkLicker 1 year ago
Brilliant job! You cracked me up for this genius work!
MsOliviaGarden 1 year ago
Simply put....That Movie is NOT STAR TREK! It is a CBA..Celluliod B$% Abomination
Propguy1701 2 years ago 3
No comments.
cyberdookie 2 years ago
LOL! What more can I say!
siseneg 2 years ago
IMHO That Was NOT Star Trek! It was our worst fears some true. Reimagination of a Classic that bore little to NO resenblance to the Original!
Propguy1701 2 years ago 13
It bore a passing resemblence to Star Trek:
They got the uniform colors right.
They got Spocks haircut right.
They nailed Bones.
Everyone had a familiar name.
But with such little criteria, so do the Wiggles.
Section31Commander 2 years ago 3
well they almost "nailed" Bones. Carl Urban {sp?} should have worn contact lens' to make his eyes blue. DeForest Kelly had amazing blue eyes. Not to mention in "A Piece of the Action" a mob guy say something the the affect, "don't give me those baby blues.."
fmscribs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I loved Star Trek (2009) - a great movie and look forward to the sequel.
TRUMPER007 2 years ago
Thank you!
GOD! "Star Trek XI" SUCKED in so many ways!
Even the music SUCKED!
Actionguy1 2 years ago 3
@Actionguy1 the music was the best part of the movie. it's better than most of the music people listen to. this movie was not star trek, i'll give you all that. and the plot wasn't great. but i still enjoyed myself. if a movie is enjoyable, the who gives a crap if it has a good plot? i would have preferred a good plot, but enjoyment is more important than canon.
cupdashind 1 year ago
@cupdashind You are 100% correct. The film was not Star Trek. It matters a great deal that the plot was terrible. Why? This is what people will come to expect from Star Trek. Over the top action and terrible stories in lieu of what made Trek great in the first place, good stories and plots. And to ignore canon is disgraceful to the Great Birds legacy and unacceptable. It is mainly the direction that the franchise is taking that has most people upset.
Section31Captain 1 year ago
@cupdashind I am a lover of film and TV soundtracks and Michael Giacchino's music was WAY over the top! Mister Giacchino is a very good composer, but his music for this poor excuse for a "Star Trek" film will never measure up to the compositions of Alexander Courage, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner, etc. And NO! Roddenberry's canon is the Alpha and Omega of "Star Trek".
There was NOTHING enjoyable about this film. It was pale in comparison to the weekest of original "Star Trek" episodes.
Actionguy1 1 year ago
CLASSIC, really nothing else good about the movie can be said... except maybe that Bones rocked.
This still has me laughing... 2 minutes of blank screen is better than the movie.
Section31Commander 2 years ago 9