[Trailer] Star Trek - Into Darkness

[Dannager]

As with most Kurtzman/Orci scripts they chose to almost completely ignore what was established,

Which - pardon the nitpick - is pretty much the definition of a continuity reboot.

give a 2-finger salute to the existing fan base,

No, just to you, apparently. I've been a lifelong Trek fan, and the new movie demonstrated a clear appreciation for the universe.

 

[sabrinathecat]

I was not referring to just Trek, but also to Transformers, and Jack of All Trades.
And I am not alone in my opinion of the new Trek. I am also not afraid of being unpopular just because I criticize something that is popular. I dissent when I discern a problem.

 

[Dannager]

I was not referring to just Trek, but also to Transformers, and Jack of All Trades.
And I am not alone in my opinion of the new Trek. I am also not afraid of being unpopular just because I criticize something that is popular. I dissent when I discern a problem.

Look, I can understand not liking something that other people like. That's cool. Whatever.

But what you are doing looks very little like you actually dislike these things for good reasons, and more and more like you've hopped on the hater bandwagon. As a number of people have pointed out in this thread, you don't have a lot of credibility criticizing new Trek for a laundry list of things that old Trek was equally - if not more - guilty of, while simultaneously saying that you long for the Trek of Christmas Past. To boot, some of your criticisms are based on things that aren't even true to begin with (see: "bunch of pretty 20-somethings"). And the fact that Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams all have Emmy wins to their names (to say nothing of nominations) makes your rhetoric ("How these three have careers is a mystery to me.") sound hollow and petty.

 

[jonesy]

If you take every error, every glitch, and every piece of silliness from TOS, TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, and Trek 1-9, it would not add up to the horribleness of JJATrek1. (IF you add in DS9, the formula reverses).

I loved DS9. I think it's awesome. But to say it didn't have all the same silly things that the other incarnations had is just.. well, silly. It just had slightly less of them, or in a more muted form, or in the background so it's mostly forgettable. But then you go and watch a rerun and lo and behold there's Garak repeatedly killing Quark on the holodeck in increasingly weird ways, with Quark commenting.

 

[Derren]

TOS had modest effects for the time (some new stuff, but mostly the same ol' tricks). The episodes were driven by story and character.
Trek 2 had good effects, but was still mostly about the story and characters.
Trek 6 had about average FX for the time (the bar was set pretty high at that point), and was totally driven by the story and characters.
JJATrek, on the other hand, was driven by glare and splice-cut editing, and only managed to keep 1 character remotely like the others.

Pretty much sums it up.
Star Trek was always more about the exploration of a future society than combat. How much combat was there in Star Trek 3? 4? 5? Even the movies with more combat were still as pointed out driven by story and characters. JJTrek on the other hand is driven by combat and sex scenes ignoring everything Star Trek was supposed to be. It is just transformers in space with lots of FX with gigantic plot holes which jump directly in your face unless you shut your brain off.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Emmys and Oscars are both industry politics prizes. My top 3 worst movies of all time are either oscar nominees or winners. In all three cases, the only reason I can see for the movies even being considered is that someone was playing political games behind the scenes. And even a number of movies that weren't terrible that won oscars weren't great--look at John Wayne's True Grit--he got an oscar for that?
And I'm sorry if someone in full make-up looks 3-5 years younger. But that is also the look they were trying for. So maybe my erroneous gripe is a tribute to their make-up artists. Wow, it could be that there actually was some talent in that movie. Who'd have thought.

Never made it past season 3 of DS9. Season 3 was 1 really good episode (Transporter clone Riker steals the Defiant), 2 good episodes. 3 "this looks so bad that by the time the opening credits roll I've decided to skip to the next story", 2 watchable but awful, and 2 "It's a train wreck! I can't believe they're doing this. Oh god someone gouge out my eyes!"

 

[Dannager]

Pretty much sums it up.
Star Trek was always more about the exploration of a future society than combat. How much combat was there in Star Trek 3?

Oh, y'know.

Some.

This too.

And this.

And those took me about 30 seconds to track down. I could find more, but there you go.

4?

Let's be honest; Star Trek IV had very little to do with exploring a future society, and a whole lot to do with lampooning the society of the day.

5?

Which, as I recall, was not received particularly favorably.

Even the movies with more combat were still as pointed out driven by story and characters. JJTrek on the other hand is driven by combat

It does have its fair share of violent scenes, but each has its place in the story. Which, by the way, is a story of a man hell-bent on taking revenge on those he feels allowed his entire planet to be destroyed. That sort of story tends to play well with violence.

and sex scenes

What sex scenes?

Seriously, which ones?

The one where Kirk and green-skinned girl make out on a bed for literally five seconds? They aren't even naked. It's set up as a comedy moment.

Where do people get these ideas? It's like they're retroactively manufacturing memories of scenes that never actually existed just so they can justify their undeserved hate for the movie. Sex scenes that didn't happen. A cast 10 years younger than the actual cast. How does this happen?

ignoring everything Star Trek was supposed to be. It is just transformers in space with lots of FX with gigantic plot holes which jump directly in your face unless you shut your brain off.

I guess our brains were off, then. For what it's worth, MoviePlotHoles identified only two major plot holes: that the Enterprise basically deserted Kirk on an ice planet, and that stars don't just suddenly explode. If you think either of these is sillier than anything seen in Ye Olde Trekke, I can't help you. (For crying out loud, the Enterprise travels back in time - and then forward again! - in Star Trek IV by slingshotting itself around the sun.)

 

[Dannager]

Emmys and Oscars are both industry politics prizes. My top 3 worst movies of all time are either oscar nominees or winners.

Of course they are.

 

[Jhaelen]

And, call me silly

If you wish, I shall

 

[Morrus]

I'm very much looking forward to seeing Benedict Cumberbatch. He's a superb Sherlock, and rapidly becoming one of my favourite actors.