Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uptight, self-serious basement-dwellers that despise change is probably more accurate. :o

Yep, I'm sure that's it. Gotta be. Everyone knows that people who like very progressive things like Star Trek totally despise change.

And yet they're still *****ing about it. It's not even complaining about change. It's "I don't like this thing that you like because it's different from what what I like". Ugh. UGH!

Nah, it's more like, "You stripped out a lot of the stuff I like about this thing to make it more palatable to a wider audience, and hey good for you man, I hope you make lots of money, but the thing clearly isn't for me anymore."
 
Yep, I'm sure that's it. Gotta be. Everyone knows that people who like very progressive things like Star Trek totally despise change.

the funny thing is that is exactly how they/we are. If something doesn't fit within their notion of what Star Trek is it is hated. An example of this is with Star Trek The Next Generation. There series was hated by trekkers until Best of Both Worlds.

Nah, it's more like, "You stripped out a lot of the stuff I like about this thing to make it more palatable to a wider audience, and hey good for you man, I hope you make lots of money, but the thing clearly isn't for me anymore."

Not sure where you are meeting you Trek fans but they are not that calm about it. I play Star Trek Online and the mere mention of the movies sends those boards into threats of pain and harm against JJ and fans of the movies.
 
Yep, I'm sure that's it. Gotta be. Everyone knows that people who like very progressive things like Star Trek totally despise change.

I sense sarcasm, but the initial response to TNG back in '87 pretty much proves that entirely correct.
 
I sense sarcasm, but the initial response to TNG back in '87 pretty much proves that entirely correct.

Well, TNG wasn't very good in 1987 either. That combined with their rejection of the Abrams movies just goes to show show that Trekkies have impeccible taste. :o
 
Or that they're a group of individuals that are particularly prone to fits of nerd rage.
 
No more than any other group as far as I can tell.
 
Both TNG and DS9 faced rejection from Trekkies upon their releases, so this is nothing new. The JJ Abrams films brought the franchise back to life and I think all Trekkies should appreciate that.

The same thing basically happens to many franchises when there is some kind of change. Didn't Bond fans hate Casino Royale when it was first released?
 
No more than any other group as far as I can tell.

True but they are the original whiney nerd fanboys...as evident by William Shatner's SNL sketch back in the early 80's.
 
The JJ Abrams films brought the franchise back to life and I think all Trekkies should appreciate that.

I don't think Trekkies are entitled to appreciate the Abrams films as they essentially are Star Trek with the Star Wars formula instead of the formula the TV shows used. Some like it, some hate it. I can understand why some Trekkies hate the Abrams films as it is a departure from everything that came before.

I myself enjoy the TV shows and movies, but not all do.
 
Yeah but even the movies abandoned the TV formula
 
There were a few of the movies that tried to be more like the show(s), but... for the most part they got criticized for feeling too much like television. I guess you can't win.

Regardless, almost all of the older movies at least attempted to examine some sort of ethical or social issue, some problem with the human condition (even if at times only at a very surface level) which is one of the big things that defines Star Trek and that stuff is totally absent in the Abrams movies.
 
The only movies I really hate are Insurrection and The Final Frontier. I see Generations and Nemesis as missed opportunities, and The Motion Picture is just misunderstood.
 
The only movies I really hate are Insurrection and The Final Frontier. I see Generations and Nemesis as missed opportunities, and The Motion Picture is just misunderstood.

I agree especially with the bold part. Although personally I liked Final Frontier too and I never got why all this hate. The weakest along with Insurrection? Maybe. But not horrible.

It's funny though, my initial expose to the Star Trek mythos was via the Next Generation Tv series during the 90's and I remember being bored watching it and didn't really appreciate the whole concept.

Then after a decade, ST '09 came out and it wowed me with its excellent presentation of characters and story. And for the first time in my life I said ST is cool after all. So I decided to watch all the old movies to get to know more. and I loved every single one of them. Yes even the crappy ones.

After having watched Into Darkness also, I have to admit that I prefer the old movies over the heavy action oriented Abrams take. It's not that the new ones lack substance and they are all for the cool factor and a cgi fest like say a Michael Bay flick, but the frenetic action scenes coupled with the lens flare over saturation are what distinguishes them from the slow paced deep philosophical themes and the focus on the thrill of space exploration that the old ones had.
 
Last edited:
There were a few of the movies that tried to be more like the show(s), but... for the most part they got criticized for feeling too much like television. I guess you can't win.

Regardless, almost all of the older movies at least attempted to examine some sort of ethical or social issue, some problem with the human condition (even if at times only at a very surface level) which is one of the big things that defines Star Trek and that stuff is totally absent in the Abrams movies.

Star Trek Into Darkness did have a problem with the human condition. The militarization of Star Fleet...which mirrored the US's after 9/11.
 
Star Trek Into Darkness: 10 Things That Make No Sense

http://whatculture.com/film/star-trek-into-darkness-10-things-that-make-no-sense.php/2

I’m happy to say Into Darkness had less dumb **** than its predecessor but the focus of creating great looking effects and action sequences at the expense of a logical structure in the script was clearly evident. They didn’t expect the average cinema-goer to question why the Enterprise is underwater because they think the average popcorn muncher is a moron who isn’t worried about small details like this.

But this being Star Trek, a franchise that used to pride itself on creating a believable vision of the future
.
 
I said it once and I'll say it again: Star Trek fans have it wrong. I'm not saying the show(s) were never well written or smart. Most of them were. But everything these people go on about is all surface level.
Star Trek was NEVER the cerebral think-piece they say it is. All of it's messages and meanings are right there on the surface, often blatantly stated. TNG and DS9 are more layered as far as meaning and subtext go, but it's still no hard sci-fi cerebral work. The qualities are there, but it's never something one has to search deep for.
The original series is, whether Trekkies want to admit it or not, a damn action/adventure show. No, not all of the episodes had action but a damn good deal of them did. Is it quaint action compared to today's stuff? Yes. But action it is. Fans blatantly ignore things in the OS to rag on the Abrams films. "Action! Fights! What is this! Not Trek!" Watch any one given episode of the OS and the odds are high you're gonna see a fist fight or a space battle where the whole bridge falls sideways and smoke billows out of the consoles....
"What is this! SEXY LADIES IN REVEALING CLOTHES! THIS IS NOT TREK! ABRAMS IS A HACK!"

Ya, like the OS never had hot women is skimpy clothes...PUUULEEEEZ.
 
I say this every now and then....as someone who has been a TREK fan since its original run in the 60's, and have liked all things TREK including the recent movies.....I love to hear how I don't get/like/understand/appreciate the new stuff.
 
I never said anything about not getting the new stuff. I'm simply stating many Trekkies are hypocritical and hype up aspects of the show that simply aren't there.
 
I'll say this...everything that trekkies complain about in the new movies can be found in the old movies/series...except lens flares...but TNG has several in the opening theme.
 
Zachary Quinto Goes Behind the Scenes of 'Star Trek Into Darkness'


Video in the link.

In the opening scene of Star Trek Into Darkness, Spock almost gets baked alive as he ventures into the maw of a volcano that's about to erupt on planet Nibiru. Perched on a giant crag and surrounded by sheets of ember and flame, the famed Vulcan-Human hybrid at one point seems resigned to his fate, stretching his arms out wide as he looks skyward.

"All of the stuff that took place in the volcano was one night, and it was pretty exciting, actually, I have to say, because you could tell how incredible it's going to look," Spock's Zachary Quinto says about the shooting of the scene in an exclusive behind-the-scenes clip unveiled today by Rolling Stone. "What they were able to do in-camera on that particular sequence was mind-blowing to me."

Star Trek Into Darkness will be released on Blu-ray, Blu-ray 3D, DVD and On Demand on September 10 (a digital release comes out on August 20), and the Blu-ray/DVD combo packs come with a lot of behind the scenes footage. In fact, director J.J. Abrams had his crew at his Bad Robot Productions chronicle the making of the film using top-notch Red Epic cameras.


Aside from this clip, other goodies include a behind-the-scenes look at villain Khan's calamitous ambush on Starfleet Headquarters; commentary from Quinto and actor Benedict Cumberbatch – who played Khan – about their epic fight scene at the end of the movie; and insights into how the filmmakers revamped those historic Star Trek antagonists, the Klingons, and created their home planet, Kronos.

The film was shot in California, and in this exclusive clip, a Spock stunt double looks to be in safe hands as he descends on a cable to the top of a flame-spewing cliff built on wood supports in a sound studio. Still, apparently it felt quite realistic to be there. Asked what the experience was like, he says with a chuckle, "It felt like falling into a volcano at high speed."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/star-trek-into-darkness-behind-the-scenes-20130819
 
I'm surprised no one mentioned anything about the name they chose for the planet of the indigenous tribe in the opening scene of the movie. I mean "Nibiru" is part of a grand mythology and a conspiracy theory that has many followers for many years. Why did they chose such a name?

Planet Nibiru, which is also commonly referred to as Planet X, is believed by many to be the 12th planet in our solar system. This large planetary object is thought to follow a long, elliptical orbit, reaching our inner solar system roughly every 3,600 years. This has raised concerns that Nibiru will either collide or have a near miss with Earth when it returns to our solar system.

The name “Nibiru” is derived from the writings of ancient astronaut theorist and author Zecharia Sitchin and his interpretations of Babylonian and Sumerian iconography, symbology and mythology. The most commonly referenced source is his book The 12th Planet released in 1976.

The name "Nibiru" is derived from the writings of ancient astronaut theorist and author Zecharia Sitchin and his interpretations of Babylonian and Sumerian iconography, symbology and mythology. The most commonly referenced source is his book The 12th Planet released in 1976.

According to Sitchin, Nibiru collided with “Tiamat”, believed to have been another planet once located between Mars and Jupiter. This collision supposedly formed the planet Earth, the asteroid belt, and many comets.
Based on his interpretations of Sumerian mythology, Sitchin wrote that Nibiru was the home of a technologically advanced human-like extraterrestrial race called the Anunnaki. He also claimed that these same beings were called The Nephilim (race of giants) in the Book of Genesis, which evolved after the Anunnaki first arrived on Earth after Nibiru passed near by our solar system up to 450,000 years ago.

http://www.altheadlines.com/nibiru-planet-x-13249127/
 
Last edited:
I say this every now and then....as someone who has been a TREK fan since its original run in the 60's, and have liked all things TREK including the recent movies.....I love to hear how I don't get/like/understand/appreciate the new stuff.

Uh-huh. I grew up in a family of Star Trek fans, who also watched it from the beginning. They love the new movies. I got into Star Trek in the 80s and I love the new movies too.

In fact, everyone I know outside of internet-land who saw Into Darkness loved it too.
 
Uh-huh. I grew up in a family of Star Trek fans, who also watched it from the beginning. They love the new movies. I got into Star Trek in the 80s and I love the new movies too.

In fact, everyone I know outside of internet-land who saw Into Darkness loved it too.

not to be funny but I don't know anyone personally that didnt like STID
 
Uh-huh. I grew up in a family of Star Trek fans, who also watched it from the beginning. They love the new movies. I got into Star Trek in the 80s and I love the new movies too.

In fact, everyone I know outside of internet-land who saw Into Darkness loved it too.

not to be funny but I don't know anyone personally that didnt like STID

What exactly is your point? That only angry friendless nerds on the internet didn't care for it? Because I know a few people "outside of internet-land" that didn't like it. Some of them new Star Trek fans and some of them from way back. However, I'm not about to pretend like I speak for the majority just because I have personal anecdotal evidence that contradicts what you're saying. I would advise you guys do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,549
Messages
21,758,654
Members
45,593
Latest member
Jeremija
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"