”punch it”

BOOM!! oh yeah

Wrong.

They both did subchildish scripts, and I could write better than the both of them as a 16 year old.

I suspect that at least a few Trek fans “love” the movie not because they love the movie, but because they love seeing a product which is branded “Star Trek” make a lot of money and be popular (and, at this stage in the game, exist).

There’s an old saying: hunger is the best sauce.

“Criticizing Paramount’s choices in this matter is perfectly within your right—-but hardly with any merit, IMO. While Abrams’ film is certainly not perfect, there can be no realistic assertion that they could have made a better choice. The evidence is all around you, both in the fan community and in the mainstream as well.”

My (continued) criticism of JJ was never intended to be other than from my personal perspective. How else should it be? Yes, it is true that a lot of fans and (formerly?) non-fans love the movie. But why is that so? I hope and believe that’s because most of them like the movie because of their own personal preferences, and not because anyone else does and they are playing along.
But if the financial success of the movie is based on a majority among individual preferences, why should my differing preferences be without merit? I was not predicting financial success, I was talking about my dislike for JJ’s directorial choices.

“there can be no realistic assertion that they could have made a better choice”

That’s where I disagree a lot, however, and not just on the basis of my personal preferences. Why shouldn’t it have been possible to make an exciting mainstream movie *without* mutilating established Trek to such a degree? Why shouldn’t it have been possible to do it without an alternate timeline? There’s next to no canon about the time between ENT and Where No Man….
I believe that a financially successful mainstream DFX movie could have been made with a director who does not disrespect previous Trek to the extent that JJ does.
I believe, given your statement above, it is rather up to you to show why it’s not possible to make a better movie, e.g. a movie which is just as successful in the mainstream as the present movie, but which has the additional feature of respecting the Trek legacy to a much greater extent.
I suppose this would undoubtedly have been an even better movie (not just a movie which I personally like better) because with such a movie the, oh, I don’t know, maybe 10% of Trek fans who hate ST09 could have been taken on board, too. With only little effort.

100% agree. The whole “Great Bird” worship thing does an injustice to the many folks who contributed absolutely critical components to the whole (both behind and in front of the camera).

I consider both approximately equal at this point (and “at this point” is a critical qualifier, since we’re only [likely] 33% finished with AbramsTrek so it’s a bit early to know where things will end up). Both seem to be operating with one arm tied behind their back in terms of the full two-fisted glory that was the original Star Trek.

BermanTrek had the ideals, the ideas, and the social commentary. AbramsTrek has the action, the humor, and the sexiness. Maybe we should try to combine them in some kind of freak Transporter mishap.

I think both BermanTrek and AbramsTrek are equally distant from TOS, in opposite directions.

While he deserves enormous credit for the idea of Star Trek, it was often the people around him that made Star Trek as good as it was. People like Gene L. Coon, Dorothy Fontana, Herbert Solow, and Robert Justman, and even the network executives who “encouraged” GR to make Star Trek more accessible, were key to making Star Trek what it was.

As much credit as he gets and deserves, quite frankly, I never liked the direction he took Star Trek towards the end. It wasn’t fun to me. It was almost as if he said, “Just kidding guys, this is how I *really* envision the future to be.” Gone were the people around him in the 1960’s who helped to temper some of his more questionable concepts, IMO, and those who remained answered only to him.

In many ways, ST09 is far more like Original Trek than Roddenberry’s own 1987 spinoff series ever was. Like ST09, TOS was sexy, humorous, action-oriented, dramatic, adventurous, romantic, and above all else—-fun!

Lol. I think Bad Robot’s take on Trek is fantastic. I cannot even imagine a scenario where I would long for the days of Rick Berman!

I do agree with you about Manny Coto and ENT. However, I would not have wanted him to helm a Trek film production. His talent was and is for television.

Abrams is to 2009 Trek what Nick Meyer was to 1982 Trek, and I think the 3 best directors Trek feature films have ever had are Wise, Abrams, and Meyer—-none of whom were associated with the television series or had prior involvement at all with Star Trek.

As much as I love Robert H. Justman’s (RIP) work on TOS, I wouldn’t have thought he was the best choice to produce a great Star Trek feature film by any means. The same goes for Manny Coto. However, if Bad Robot ever struck a deal with CBS to do a Star Trek television series—Manny Coto would be an excellent guy to bring aboard. I can only imagine what a tv collaboration between he and Damon Lindelof would be like!

As for the present and future of the feature films, for the first time in 30 years, Star Trek has an A-list commodity at the helm—-and there has never before (even with Wise in the chair) been this kind of combination of critical acclaim and financial success with a Star Trek feature.

Criticizing Paramount’s choices in this matter is perfectly within your right—-but hardly with any merit, IMO. While Abrams’ film is certainly not perfect, there can be no realistic assertion that they could have made a better choice. The evidence is all around you, both in the fan community and in the mainstream as well.