EDITORIAL: Star Trek is not broken | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

EDITORIAL: Star Trek is not broken September 13, 2013

by "The Stig" , Filed under: Editorial,Trek Franchise , trackback

Joseph Dickerson’s “Star Trek is Broken” editorial has caused quite a stir among the Trek community. One person who had a response to this was TrekBBS member “The Stig”, his clear, concise, and level-headed post got a lot of kudos. He contacted us at TrekMovie and said he’d be happy to flesh it out a little bit more and have us run it as a counter-point. So we present it here as an ongoing dialog about the future of the franchise we all love so much. – The TrekMovie Staff

What, exactly, are we expecting from Star Trek?

There has been some talk recently that Star Trek is broken. It’s lost its way and needs to be shepherded back to the true path. Where is the social commentary?  Where are the big ideas?

What about Gene’s vision?

I’d argue that if we’re expecting cutting social commentary or big ideas, Star Trek isn’t (and never has been) particularly effective on that front. It’s always played it safe, with pat answers and trite conclusions to all the “issues” presented. The “first interracial kiss” was anything but, depicted as a forced and unpleasant affair thanks to alien mind control. Commentary on race relations was boiled down to aliens bisected by white and black makeup.

Even the much-vaunted Deep Space Nine failed to actually create the moral grey area that fans give it credit for. Our heroes always did the “right” thing and even in their darkest hour, it was alien third-parties that did the dirty work (I’m looking at you, “In the Pale Moonlight.”).

On the other hand, if you’re looking for rousing adventure, exciting spectacle and human characters, you’d also be disappointed by The Next Generation-era Star Trek. Thanks to Roddenberry’s self-aggrandizing view of “evolved humanity,” we got stale and stiff characters with a “higher sensibility.” Picard and his crew would hit their marks and declaim, loudly, that humanity had evolved past such petty squabbles.  Here was a show with a large extended cast, the most interesting, human, and believable of which was the android.

At least First Contact had the balls to call Picard on his bullshit, if even for a moment.

However…

If you look at the original, with no bloody A,B,C or D, you get relatable people who have interpersonal conflicts, petty fights and make all-too-human mistakes. Kirk and Spock have a shouting match over what to do about Anton Karidian in “The Conscience of the King.”  Kirk’s obsession with the gas creature that attacked the Farragut puts the Enterprise in grave jeopardy in “Obsession.”

Sure, it’s just as sexist as you’d expect a television show from the 60′s to be, but there’s a core there that has endured all these years. It’s a winning formula: The cocksure captain, emotionless first officer and a collection of colorful crewmembers (mostly) working together. This is a story about a team, a family, with all the ups and downs that encompasses.

tos_s2cast

The rub is that, when Abrams looked at reviving Star Trek, he didn’t look to TNG-era Trek. He looked back, way back, to the 60′s and an action-adventure series that captured the imagination and attention of a generation.

The question is, why?

It’s because TNG Trek and beyond never actually continued the original series. In reality, it went sideways from the heart and soul of Trek and never really honored what it was about in the first place.  We haven’t had a true, spiritual successor to the original series until Abrams came along. Nothing that came after managed to capture the verve and sheer enthusiasm of that series: the life-and-death stakes mixed with just the right measure of irreverence. If I were to sit down fresh and watch Star Trek with new eyes, then the succeeding films and television shows, there would be no question:

Abrams got it right.

Comments

1. Rod of Rassilon - September 13, 2013

Yes, yes it is.

2. Steve-o - September 13, 2013

nah… I disagree with this. there should be a good mix of all these elements.
I did re-watch STID last night (2nd viewing). I realized I have let internet trolls brain-wash me, however some of their concerns and points are valid.

I think there were plenty of great elements to the latest installment, but i still want something original. Someone could have easily told me that the story was originally about a villian/terrorist named john harrison and at the last second some one from production stated ” let’s call him Kahn”, and so they did.

otherwise Fantastic film. it just felt a little lazy on the story especially when there are what 60(?) or so episodes to pull content from, Kahn was never all that great. If your not gonna be original give me a flippin Horta, or a salt creature.

3. wes.button - September 13, 2013

Absolutely spot-on. It’s a shame that a vocal minority of hardcore Trek fans can’t see the things they hate are the very reason Trek is still alive. Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams got the winning combination of action, scifi, character, and homage together TWICE now. Both films are a success commercially and critically. I’m not sure even where the debate is.

Probably Trekkies caught up in the past, not able to see beyond nostalgia.

4. Lois - September 13, 2013

“Abrams got it right”? I don’t think so. ‘Getting it right’ is not when you’re just re-telling somone else’s story – especially one that’s considered the best of all Trek movies. That’s just laziness IMO. ‘Getting it right’ is when you’re using your own creativity to tell an original story, but still capturing the heart and soul of TOS. Because of STID, I’m concerned about what he’s going to do with this next big project he has coming…

5. ricardocube - September 13, 2013

I pretty much agree here.

Star Trek Into Darkness is closer to the original than a lot of 1990s and 2000′s Trek ever was.

If you set aside canon for a sec, Cumberbatch made a great Khan, in the same way Pierce Brosnan made a great Bond, Halle Berry made a great Catwomen. Both were different race from the original actors, yet no-one battered an eyelid. Everyone accepted it. Its just a different take on a character. I am beginning to accept it now.

To all the fans, I know its hard for some to accept, but Star Trek is not real, there will never be a Captain Kirk, and there was never a Khan Noonien Singh. Lets just enjoy Trek for being good entertainment.

6. Fletch Gannon - September 13, 2013

Very good article but there is one point that was left out that needs to be addressed. I’d have to say that the best thing about the Abrams Star Trek films is that they are fun to watch, which is something I haven’t been able to say since after Star Trek VI. Nemesis put me to sleep because it seemed so slow paced and boring. I just think that Star Trek should be fun to watch and worth the time I spent to see it. I think the worst thing you could do to me whether it’s Star Trek or any other entertainment is to just bore me.

7. Kevin - September 13, 2013

Sounds like a rant from somebody who, even after all these years, still thinks TNG isn’t “REAL” trek.

8. Gracian - September 13, 2013

JJ hasn’t got it right. I watched all shows and I consider myself mostly an Original Series fan, that’s where my heart is.

Even when you put together those elements there’s an intelligent screenplay with the phylosophical thing Abrams DON’T like, as he said himself. And the phylosophical thing isn’t even that profound!

Kirk could be that all human character but when he does something wrong but he believe it was the right thing, he wouldn’t lie and blame Spock for that!!! He would take responsabilities and assume the consequences. And that’s something of the core of the character you could not change even if we’re talking about an alternative reality. Kirk is all human but not a jerk!

I find impossible to relate to new Kirk’s character. It doesn’t seem at all he would be the Kirk we know if things have gone differently. I really hate him during Into Darkness and cannot understand WHY Spock would like to be his friend!!!

Anyway, every movie has plot holes. But Into Darkness has so many dumb things that I felt like the writers really don’t care about the movie at all. And when they say “you really got us on that one” to a plot hole perceived by a six year old child, I think I was right.

Star Trek isn’t broken. The last movie was something else, but not Star Trek. Star Trek as I know it’s alive and well, but somewhere else… Not with JJ Abrams.

9. BatlethInTheGroin - September 13, 2013

#2: Halle Berry made a great Catwoman?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Heh heh…

Sorry…

For a minute there, I thought you actually said that…

Oh…. wait…

You did.

10. jed - September 13, 2013

JJ’S Trek perfectly captures the flavour of 60′s Trek like no other, whilst at the same time updates it and gives it Blockbuster status.

This is what needed to be done becuase nobody went to see Nemesis and no-one watched Enterprise. ITD and 09 are 2 of the most exciting films ever made for my money, its just a shame that JJ has the party with his SW gig.

11. Jim Cannon - September 13, 2013

AMEN! ALL DAY LONG! This editorial is completely accurate. Well written, great observation and conclusions…GOOD JOB.

BOOM-SHAKA-LAKA!

12. Eric G. - September 13, 2013

This is more a rant against TNG than anything and does not even begin to address the criticisms of STID. People (well, some people, anyway) don’t like it because it’s poorly written and many of the characterizations are terrible. For instance, the personal conflicts of TOS are compelling and mean something (e.g. Spock and McCoy struggling to get along after Kirk’s “death” in The Tholian Web). The personal conflicts in STID are either highly contrived to artificially drive the plot (e.g. Kirk firing Scotty so he can just happen to be near Mars) or inappropriate and annoying (Uhura having a relationship squabble during a dangerous mission).

13. StarFleetVeteran - September 13, 2013

Star Trek IS broken. It was good again for a little while after the first crappy JJ movie came out, but that worthless abomination that was Into Darkness sent it straight back into the crapper. Hey, JJ, Orsi, if you’re reading this, try coming up with an ORIGINAL idea! Don’t go through the trouble of making a whole new universe, and then rehashing old stories with your mark on them.

14. Bill Binder - September 13, 2013

#1. You say you want a mix. Let me offer this; Not every Trek film had a true villain, but those that did ended with spectacular deaths, except Into Darkness. Khan was – despite terrible acts – brought to trial. Our heroes even risked their own lives to see this through. In 2013, we have a lot of people yelling for revenge and killing. Jodi Arias, The Boston bomber, Osama. Now we all have our personal politics, and I’m not looking to start a political debate in this thread, but it took balls to play on the audiences want to kill the villain – in movies or real life – to show that point of view through Kirk’s eyes, and then to say no.

I admit it, I’m a killer. But all it takes is just to day I’m not going to kill… Today.

Familiar.

I’m not certain why they revisited an old story, but it did have one advantage; it ‘re-opened a dialog from 1982 and came to a different conclusion, that we shouldn’t cheer vengeance.

The Prime Directive was also dragged out of retirement as Vietnam is now Afghanistan/Syria. We didn’t really need too much talk of Prime Directive in TNG, but it’s an idea who’s time has come again.

Just my thoughts. IDIC

15. govna - September 13, 2013

i criticized the “broken” article. But this article misses the mark as well.

16. rtrj - September 13, 2013

Excellent article! I’m 64 and I’ve been with Star Trek since the first
show. I enjoyed TNG for what it was, a program very different from TOS
and I missed the flair TOS had. I think 2009 & STID have revived the
“Mood” of TOS and I hope the 3rd movie can rekindle the mystery of
exploration with some pop corn action added!

17. Bart - September 13, 2013

Why does Abrams Trek always have to be about a ‘villain’. Who isn’t tited of big evil black starships? The thing is that they can’t come up with new fresh ideas.

18. Shatner_Fan_Prime - September 13, 2013

I view STID as a mixed bag. It looks great and has great performances – but Khan is a missed opportunity. Not just the casting, but the portrayal was wrong. This Khan was stoic and humorless, whereas the old Khan, while villainous, had the flamboyant charm that makes him well-loved to this day. New Khan had no quotable lines. Old Khan was chock full of them. The threat in this film would have been much more credible had Khan’s crew been awakened – but we don’t get to see that here, as we did in the 60’s. And the filmmakers also miss the opportunity to show us what old Trek never could – Khan’s origin. A flashback, similar to the mind meld scene in ST 2009, would have been glorious – to actually get our first glimpse of Khan in power on Earth, and to see him fleeing in the Botany Bay. We don’t see the Botany Bay in the new film, it isn’t even mentioned by name. And there’s certainly no mention of the Eugenics Wars – Khan’s reason for being frozen in space is never adequately explained. Oddly, they do stick to the “300 years later” timeline, meaning Khan is still supposed to be from the 20th century!

And I’m not sure what JJ & co mean when they keep saying the scale of the action is bigger this time. Nero destroyed Vulcan and almost Earth last time, this time Khan crashes a ship into San Fran. Last movie climaxed with Nero and his crew being sucked into a blackhole, this time Khan is merely knocked out in a fistfight.

I still enjoyed the movie. Here’s hoping they knock it out of the park in 2016, the big anniversary year.

19. Reign1701A - September 13, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness had more social/political commentary than 10/12 of the Star Trek films. IV and VI have overt messages, the rest of them? Not so much.

20. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2013

This “response” needed to be at least a few paragraphs longer. I think there was so much to say on this subject.

… The “first interracial kiss” was anything but, depicted as a forced and unpleasant affair thanks to alien mind control.

Finally someone calls this out. First interracial kiss? Shatner and Nichols should be ashamed of themselves if they ever took credit for that. So I read on at Wiki.

From Wiki and Nichelle’s book…

However, Nichelle Nichols insists in her autobiography Beyond Uhura (written in 1994 after Shatner’s book) that the kiss was real, even in takes where her head obscures their lips.

As Nichelle Nichols writes:

‘Knowing that Gene was determined to air the real kiss, Bill shook me and hissed menacingly in his best ham-fisted Kirkian staccato delivery, “I! WON’T! KISS! YOU! I! WON’T! KISS! YOU!”It was absolutely awful, and we were hysterical and ecstatic. The director was beside himself, and still determined to get the kissless shot. So we did it again, and it seemed to be fine. “Cut! Print! That’s a wrap!”The next day they screened the dailies, and although I rarely attended them, I couldn’t miss this one. Everyone watched as Kirk and Uhura kissed and kissed and kissed. And I’d like to set the record straight: Although Kirk and Uhura fought it, they did kiss in every single scene. When the non-kissing scene came on, everyone in the room cracked up. The last shot, which looked okay on the set, actually had Bill wildly crossing his eyes. It was so corny and just plain bad it was unusable. The only alternative was to cut out the scene altogether, but that was impossible to do without ruining the entire episode. Finally, the guys in charge relented: “To hell with it. Let’s go with the kiss.” I guess they figured we were going to be cancelled in a few months anyway. And so the kiss stayed.’

So, I guess it was a kiss. I learned something new today.

Kudos, Trek!

21. Mad Mann - September 13, 2013

I also mostly agree with the article. TOS were rousing, swashbuckling, Horation Hornblower-type episodes, but they were also deeper than that (mostly).

STiD does emulate a lot of that, but fails in others. Like someone said before, the most disappointing thing about STiD is that there is a great movie in there somewhere, but it needs some weeding.

22. Reign1701A - September 13, 2013

Also…where the heck is Anthony?

23. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 13, 2013

I’m a trekkie from way back and TOS is my favourite.

There are some things I don’t like about the new movies, such as playing fast and loose with the distances involved, and seeming to have each of the movies take place over a period of only a day or so – presumably to feed into the relentless pace at which these movies take place. There are also other things I don’t like about these movies, but overall I like more things than I don’t like. That can also be said, to a greater or lesser extent, about the rest of the Star Trek movies. These new movies aren’t at the top of my list, but they are nowhere near the bottom either.

The characters and their interactions in the new movies hark back to the spirit of TOS in a way I didn’t feel with the other Trek series – and I don’t believe it’s just because they have the same names. The characters in the Alternate Universe movies are meant to be younger and have had different life experiences from their TOS counterparts. They are a bit different, yet still very recognisable.

I agree with the author: “Nothing that came after managed to capture the verve and sheer enthusiasm of that series: the life-and-death stakes mixed with just the right measure of irreverence.”

These movies aren’t perfect, but they feel very TOS to me, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed both of them.

I hope the next Trek movie has more ‘Space, the final frontier…’ and less relentless action; but I’m optimistic that so long as it continues to feel like TOS to me, I will enjoy it.

24. Data - September 13, 2013

Well am not here calling myself a tos fan or a tng fan..i am proud to say that am a star trek fan. Having said that, the article discusses and views the vision of star trek only on the human element. To me Star Trek was not just that its also about science, exploration, bring theoritical science to life, showing parallels of real world in their stories. In that aspect i would say, TNG had more science in it.
Every series of star trek had some aspect of things to portray and it did. DS9 was war themed and it had parallels to real world war issues too.

Now, coming to JJ i think his movies lack all of these, his movies are dramatic, visually grand, a jolly ride but it lacks an essence ( a soul) …no science, no exploration,no advancements of technology shown only hardcore action packed hero/villain (save earth) concept.

I believe he has this tendency to give huge build up to this stories in the start but at the end it finishes so kiddishly. I have experienced this when i saw his Fringe series, each one will have a huge revolutionary start (a build up) but will end so amateurish.

JJ is a super director but he has limitations when it comes to Star Trek, it needs a better one for next movie in my opinion.

25. trekbob - September 13, 2013

I have to agree with this article. Trek isn’t broken. It is at its most successful point in years. I have been a trek fan all my life. I loved TOS and TNG. They are very different shows, but I enjoy them both. I have a similar feeling with the new JJ movies. Are they like TNG? No but that does’t make them less enjoyable.

26. pock speared - September 13, 2013

Nice article. It calls out the “hate” crew by reminding them the Star Trek” they imagine J.J. betrayed didn’t actually exist. in the first place (in much the same way that the fundamentalist right often pine for a 1950′s “leave it to beaver” culture that never existed either).

If anything, STID and the film before it are truly in the spirit of the original, told in modern cinematic vernacular. We don’t see the reasoning behind using a volcano to save a culture or why we would submerge a starship, but can easily imagine the arguments between K, S and Mc that made it happen played out on 1967′s bridge.

Trek, like Bond, departed from itself for decades as cultural mores forced it away from the western-in-space roots where it was born. We now can return to that “space” without feeling so very guilty about it, and a mature eye on the fun it represents. To rant against these films, or the franchise itself as “not true to the fans” is, as one recent poster put it, is a “shitty dodge” that ignores the facts.

27. Nomad - September 13, 2013

We all like to spout the ‘moral issues’, ‘social commentary’ and ‘exploring the human condition’ line when we’re trying to justify the fact that we take this show about aliens and spaceships so seriously, but I wonder how many of us really fell in love with it for those reasons? After all those are the same things any good drama should be about. TNG and the other series were at their most tedious when that’s ALL they did, eg Worf and Alexander having some father-son crisis…why do we even need a spaceship for that? The episodes I most enjoyed as a kid were the ones with the most mid-boggling alien and situations… and I still enjoyed them as an adult because the heroes dealt with these new situations in an enlightened and thoughtful way instead of in some mindless, macho ‘lock-and-load’ manner. The way the characters handled their situations, the fact that they had the outlook and ingenuity we wished all our leaders and representatives had, are what made Star Trek what it was, but without that ‘hook’ of exploring strange new worlds, encountering unknowns, we may as well be watching The West Wing.

28. DaveK69 - September 13, 2013

@ 5. Gracian “I find impossible to relate to new Kirk’s character. It doesn’t seem at all he would be the Kirk we know if things have gone differently. I really hate him during Into Darkness and cannot understand WHY Spock would like to be his friend!!!”

JJ’s era of Trek works because Kirk isn’t who you know him as yet. He’s growing. It’s not Roddenberry’s James T. Kirk. This Kirk belongs to the vision of what Pike sees him becoming. That displays in the end of STID when Kirk gives his speech and says that he now understands what Pike tried to tell him all along with the Captain’s Oath. Earlier in the movie Kirk states “I don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I only know what I can do.” That phrase is the epitome of the character at this time in his life. It shows Kirk has learned humility and that’s where experience comes from.

I know many recent converts to Trek. People who would never have considered watching it in the past who now believe this is a great movie, as was the one before it. But those same people don’t have all that much interest in going back to the 60′s to see where it originated. For them this timeline is the origin and I’m ok with that.

Boborci, if you read this, thank you for taking on the task and succeeding in making Star Trek live again.

29. cbspock - September 13, 2013

I completely agree with this, especially now that I am reading “These Are the Voyages” the making of the original series. TNG basically contrasted with everything the original series put forth.

30. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2013

20. Nomad

… and I still enjoyed them as an adult because the heroes dealt with these new situations in an enlightened and thoughtful way instead of in some mindless, macho ‘lock-and-load’ manner. The way the characters handled their situations, the fact that they had the outlook and ingenuity we wished all our leaders and representatives had

You mean like going off half assed and bombing countries without confirming who is responsible for a mass killing, or who might have a weapon of mass destruction?

I think they covered that in this Trek. Unfortunately our heroes in STiD were to young and inexperienced, or did not have the proper role models growing up.

Hell, the only way this Trek could more closely reflect on today’s societal ills would be to have most of the Federation appear fat and on welfare, and with a hint of ADD. God knows this crews is always at war.

31. Charlie - September 13, 2013

NOPE! It’s still broken!

And as for the “Black and White” thing… can you say budget?

And as for the forced kiss… can you say ACTING!

32. Sebastian - September 13, 2013

This is just back-pedaling, apologist drivel for the “ST is broken” editorial.

It doesn’t address ANY of the real problems with STID in an insightful or meaningful way. It implies that since early ST was kind of shallow, we should just shut up and forget all of the evolution and huge strides forward the franchise has made since 1966….

And the observation that DS9 never actually played in its own gray area sounds like someone who watched the show with earphones on the whole time. There were innumerable times the crew had to delve into the dark side (he forgot that Sisko is the one who had to LIE to the Romulan senator himself; it doesn’t matter who forged the Data rod… Sisko was in command; and he was complicit in the lie, in fact, he authored it!).

And as for the ‘high-mindedness’ the editorial blasts? Well, the morality of ST has been the backbone of the show since the beginning. But unlike the author’s view of ST, it grew and evolved over time….

33. cbspock - September 13, 2013

Just look at the writer’s guide for the original series, JJ is pretty much following it. There is a quote from Gene in These Are the Voyages, about technology. It was never to interfere with the storytelling. We all know TNG drowned in the tech the tech to tech the tech talk, in addition to having no conflict between the main characters it just sucked a lot of the drama out of the show. DS9 sort of found a way around the no conflict rule, but it was still based on TNG even though Ira and RDM managed to get some original series life injected into it.

34. JDP13 - September 13, 2013

Good article. Although I’d say that JJ’s Star Trek does have a lot of social commentary. This is a different world we live in post 9/11. JJ’s Star Trek reflects that. Vulcan destroyed, terrorist attacks to the heart of the Federation. To me these are all social commentaries on what we’re dealing with today. How do we keep our humanity in the face of all this evil. Very different times than 1960.

I thought this article by Harry Knowles over at AICN explained it very well: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62477

35. Steve - September 13, 2013

I agree with this, though I wish it went further. I continue to be astonished by some of the people who post on this site that claim to be real Star Trek fans, yet who hated STID. These people missed the point of what the movie was actually about.

The movie was about two things. First, the continuing development of the relationship between Kirk and Spock. Take the scene from STID when Kirk is telling Spock he lost the ship and Spock is reassigned, and he tells Spock, “I’m going to miss you,” then waits to see if Spock can echo such an emotional sentiment and Spock, though it looks like he wants to, can’t, or won’t. Compare that to Kirk’s death scene at the end and Spock’s emotional response. There is an arc there that is at the heart of what the movie is about, and it’s done beautifully.

Second, the movie is about Kirk’s continued maturity toward earning the captain’s chair, which is evident in scenes throughout the movie.

The “fans” who insist on calling the movie unoriginal or a rip-off are unable to subscribe to the notion that, even in an alternate timeline, the universe harmonizes, and certain situations that occurred before could occur again but under different circumstances. This is the premise under which the writers operated and they did it brilliantly. How did you not get chills when you heard Scotty’s voice say, “You better get down here. Better hurry.”

36. Nomad - September 13, 2013

22 “You mean like going off half assed and bombing countries without confirming who is responsible for a mass killing, or who might have a weapon of mass destruction? I think they covered that in this Trek. Unfortunately our heroes in STiD were to young and inexperienced, or did not have the proper role models growing up.”
Totally agree. The new film got its priorities right by addressing those issues against a setting of an action/adventure film. I could quibble about the Khan stuff but on the whole I think they got it right.

37. Jerry - September 13, 2013

Well said. THIS is what I keep saying to people – Abrams’ Trek is fueled by 1960s Trek NOT 1980s Trek. It was primarily an action-adventure show. Not as bad as Lost in Space but still… To the Spock/Uhura critics, there was clear flirtation in episodes of The Original Series….

38. TomR - September 13, 2013

To be honest I think TNG DS9 VOY and ENT and the movies during this era DID follow the spirit, the 2009/ID films do have the spirit but something has been lost within them. I think they should continue as they are.

However I think a return to star trek on TV will restore the balance we are looking for.

The netflix campaign anyone??????

39. MJB - September 13, 2013

This article is right on. Let’s get Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman going on a Trek series set in the TOS alternate timeline and let them tell the Trek stories that only can be told on TV. I love the movies for the action element, but the franchise shines brightest when on TV.

40. Mr. Anonymous - September 13, 2013

I kinda think both the “broken” and “not broken” articles are a waste of space on this site, cause Star Trek, like such franchises like Doctor Who, have different phases and different styles all over the place for everyone. Some people like the stiffness of Next Gen, some people like the b-movie aspect of Voyager, and some people like the action spectacle of Into Darkness.

So, why call something broken if there’s something for everyone? Stop quibbling over such nonsense. Just be glad it’s still around, and that there’s so much of it to enjoy.

41. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2013

A shameless repost of a repost, but I think I’ve given this a lot of thought and it is meant to address all those that are disturbed by this latest Trek and the tone of the new movies. And I believe it still warrants a response from someone here posting at TrekMovie.

If they wrap this next Trek correctly we will all be singing their praises.

I am beginning to suspect that they took such a trigger-happy approach so they could really take some chances with a three picture storyline.

Remember, John Harrison / Khan made some comments about the state of the Federation while referring to Vulcan’s demise. Where in Star Trek has there ever been a pointed effort by a screenwriter to refer to another series storyline, or to even have a movie sequel’s story connect together? Very few times. In spite of the popular STII and STIII

I am getting the feeling the our much maligned writers were trying to make us all see things that take us out of our usual comfort zones in Trek, so that we take a look at the world WE are living in, to possibly make positive changes in our society. I see real concern for our world in Star Trek into Darkness – put there by the writers – for our best welfare. Now that is an encouraging way to look at these Trek’s. There is the hope.

I am also beginning to suspect that this next Trek will really make us see exactly what Star Trek could be – in its full potential. To that end the writers seemingly decided to create characters that are going through dark times that are very trying (sound familiar?), to take them to a place where they should not have ever been. In the end, through that trek into darkness, we just might have an opportunity to more fully connect to those characters, by sharing in that similar dark experience. Thereby learning more about them in situations that are new.

I think a lot of us are “upset” because we looked to Trek as a place where the craziness of this world, the darkness could not exist. Gene’s original utopian vision was a future place that is kind of like heaven. A clean place where misery never often happens. But Gene’s future is not a real place that is easy for most to find interest in, while enjoying what a character might experience. So, perhaps we need to see our characters have similar tragedies occur, so that they are more real to us.

To make the characters more real, the writers are trying show us that they to share in dark tragedies, so that we all have a common frame of reference. A shared experience.

Here’s hoping that someday we can relate to each other on that higher level, and still pay for ticket. Seems like a contradiction, though.

I believe that these “new Trek” writer guys are way smarter than we have been giving them credit. We will see after the next movie if Star Trek can elevate to truly become something more than just that “geeky sci-fi show.” I think it can. And I see no reason that this next trek can’t travel through all the series, experience all the characters, in an effort to avoid Trek’s greatest threat.

Nero and the dark timeline paradox.

42. crazydaystrom - September 13, 2013

OK Stig, I agree Star Trek is not broken. But STID did break my heart. It’s alright, I’m over it…for the most part. And I just see it as a bit of karmic balancing for the hearts I’ve broken over the years. I meant no harm.

The thing about STID, and this certainly has been said before by myself and many others, is what I see as an imbalance of action to character development. More than a few new fans have said they’ve found the older Treks boring with their ‘talky-ness’ and (pseudo?)intellectual pretentions. Well I found the latest Trek to be mind-deadening with it’s nearly relentless bombardment of action and noise. So, so much sound and fury. I won’t say it all signified nothing but I will say the significance was easily muddled and lessened by the sheer amount of it’s own kinetic onslaught.

I’ve decided I don’t want the next film to be dramatically different from the last two. I like the idea of three Trek films as a recognizable ‘trilogy’. And the box office success of STID can’t be denied or ignored, at least not by me (I may be crazy but I’m not insane). But more action does not automatically translate to more ticket and disc sales. And my Libran nature wants, no NEEDS, (here’s that word again) balance.

Also that TOS was labeled an ‘action/adventure’ series had more to do with the fact that calling it ‘science fiction’ was not considered the most marketable designation for a television show in the sixties. Gene Roddenberry wanted to make a smart science fiction television show. All the action/adventure stuff was to sell. Hmmm. The more things some change, the more they stay the same I guess.

But fine editorial Stig. TY

43. WastedBeerz - September 13, 2013

Being both a Trekkie and a metalhead… I gotta say Trekkie snobs may have surpassed metal snobs in terms of whining… and that is no easy feat. Some of these comment threads are proof… I mean just holy crap! This is one article that gets what JJ was trying to accomplish with the reboot series for sure! Something I have been pointing out all along!

44. LogicalLeopard - September 13, 2013

Time to face it Trek Fans: We’re our own worst enemy at times.

I enjoyed ST09 more than I did STID. That’s not to say that I didn’t like it, I did. I just didn’t enjoy it as much on first viewing. And I realized immediately why I didn’t – I had spent months and months on this BBS speculating, respeculating, analyzing, etc and went to a midnight screening so I could confirm my hunches, suspicions, and analyses. Trying to analyze all of that made me enjoy the movie less than I would have if I would have went in as “cold” as I did with STO9.

There are so many MINOR quibbles fans have had of the movie it completely overshadows whats there. Take ST09, for example. Everyone’s so caught up with the color of Khan’s skin and other nonsense that they’re completely missing that THIS IS THE BEST KIRK STORY, EVER! Or one of them, but I defy anyone to name 5 that top it (not including STO9, this is a continuation of that arc)

I mean, look at it. You’ve got brash and reckless Kirk who goes saves his buddy, who gets him in trouble and the unthinkable happens. The Enterprise is wrenched away from him. Reality starts to sink in a bit, but he’s still Kirk, and maneuvers his way into getting the ship back on a mission. But as before, he’s Kirk…..but he’s inexperienced. He either holds his command too loosely (Prime Directive) or squeezes it too tightly (Scotty’s dismissal) and through a series of events, every thing goes COMPLETELY DOWN THE DRAIN. No win scenario. He has to turn around to his crew, who are going to all die by his decisionmaking, and apologize. Kirk does that. Did you ever in a million years think you’d live to see something like that? Kirk doesn’t accept no for an answer. So what do the writers do? Give him a complete and resounding NO so loud and final, that even Kirk has to bow down. That’s awesome!

Kirk was dead and beaten in that moment, before he actually died later in the movie. And to see a dead man walking, who is still alive enough to realize he needs to die to save the ship, even thoug he doesn’t WANT to die……I mean…doesn’t that make you forget how much you wanted Hrithnik Roshan or whoever to play Khan? For a MINUTE???? And if you didn’t get a little verklempt when Bones looks down on his “corpse” in sickbay, you’re a stone hearted, pointy-eared, green-blooded hobgoblin!

Our own worst enemies….

45. Star Trek Nemesis blows, is the point - September 13, 2013

Sisko ghost authored the data rod transmission.

I don’t get how STID is heartbreaking. It’s not the worst entry of the 12 movies, and it’s not the end of an era. The way TNG is wrapped up in Nemesis most certainly is heartbreaking, however. Data’s death was weak and trite. Some of the best parts of the movie were left on the cutting room floor. It was such an unfortunate send off for that crew. I had such high expectations for that movie, and it fell flatter than a year old open bottle of soda.

46. CoolPT - September 13, 2013

Star Trek is just not a good Motion Picture franchise. Yes, yes, it’s made money, but it was made for and should always have been a TV show. The movies have all had one basic theme…revenge. From TMP to ID, the center of it all is about revenge.

From V’ger and Decker, to Khan, to Kruge and Kirk, to the cylinder alien trying to contact the whales and Gillian mad about losing hers, to Sybok, to Chang and Kirk, to Soran, and Picard and the Borg, to Ru’afo, to Shinzon, to Nero, and now the “new” Khan and Spock. The heart of the movies is about revenge.

We need better story lines like the ones TV can bring. And if it continues to be a movie franchise, then we need a fresh take on story lines, maybe include multiple writers and divide up the story like a “Pulp Fiction” style movie.

Similar to what Chancellor Gorkon says in ST 6, if there is to be a brave new “Trek”, our generation that grew up with it on TV will have the hardest time living in it. But it can be made to change with the times and still hold true to it’s values of the past.

47. Mr Mike - September 13, 2013

I started watching Star Trek when I was 9 years old in 1990. But not, as might be expected at the time, with TNG. I watched TOS after my dad’s 6 o’clock news. I didn’t know anything else as Star Trek, except the cartoon that aired on Nickelodeon that I never liked much. After watching dozens of TOS episodes I saw that there were Trek movies in the video store. I rented TMP and TWOK and even though I recognized the actors, it didn’t feel anything like the original show. I didn’t like the movies much until Star Trek IV, V, and VI when they finally felt right to me, though I now have an artistic appreciation for TMP.

One night, instead of TOS, the local channel started airing TNG. I wasn’t paying much attention at first as the basics kind of looked the same. Then I was blown away: what happened to the ship?! Who was this bald captain and Klingon?! I hated it at first but came to love it and Picard is my favorite Trek captain. But it wasn’t like the original. Neither were any of the shows that followed, until Enterprise Season 4 started a bit to be.

I think this article is right except that I think Star Trek deals beautifully with social and philosophical issues and that both Star Trek ’09 and Into Darkness do as well.

48. crazydaystrom - September 13, 2013

…the more *some things* change…

49. Anthony Thompson - September 13, 2013

I’m still waiting for MJ’s editorial. ; )

50. Russell Meyers - September 13, 2013

I think my main issue with the last movie was knowing too much about the writer, to be honest. I think knowing that Orci is a true conspiracy ‘nut’ no offense intended, has tainted my appreciation for his work.

I don’t think that 9/11 was specifically engineered by the US government, therefore, knowing that the writer believes that, and insinuates that message in the STID, casuses me problems. I am very Left, when it comes to politics, and despised the Bush/Cheyney regime and the direction they took the world, but that is different than the conspiracy theories being put out there.

I just can’t get past the underlying element stated above. Perhaps I misunderstand boborci’s true beliefs, or shouldn’t let that cloud my judgement.

51. Horatio - September 13, 2013

Kudos to “The Stig” for saying it like it is.

Trek was broken when Nemesis was outperformed by a forgettable J-Lo movie and Enterprise self destructed on UPN. JJ and Co literally saved it from its near death coma and made it relevant again.

52. trekwho - September 13, 2013

I have to admit reading this reminded me of when Nimoy penned “I am not Spock” and then later wrote “I am Spock” and it made me smile.

Both editorials don’t hit the mark completely because Star Trek will always be broke to some and not broke to others, and like me, that goes back and forth depending on what is happening with the franchise.

I would rather ask “Is Star Trek going in good directions?” I would love to see a TV series with more of the original Star Trek feel to it. Will I get it? Actually with some of the fan-produced work out there I am in some ways. But I dont expect something on TV anytime soon.

Were there issues I had with the latest movie? Yes, but did I overall like the movie? Yes, as well. I am not expecting something that will invoke my childhood memories of watching the Original Series. Those are great memories but like myself, Star Trek grows and develops. It goes in good directions and in bad.

The big question should be is where is Star Trek headed now? And is that a place we want it to go?

53. Dennis Bailey - September 13, 2013

The first fan editorial about “Star Trek” that tells the truth and makes sense that I’ve seen online in ages.

“The Stig” gets it exactly right – there’s nothing to argue with, here.

54. Robman007 - September 13, 2013

THIS is a good article. Great point for many who forget what Star Trek was all about…who see Star Trek thru the politically correct tinted glasses of TNG era Trek, DS9 being the only show that came close, besides 1 season of Enterprise.

That’s not to say that I don’t think STID had it’s issues. It did…BUT, it was very much Star Trek: The Original Series, even more so then some of the TOS films..

@ 31… “Gene’s original utopian vision was a future place that is kind of like heaven”

That “utopian” future was only in TNG. In TOS, the writers often made a point of showing that Earth was far from perfect and those societies that set out to perfect often fell flat.

I’m not sure how much folks will agree with this statement (or even read it), but I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two Star Trek “Franchises”…The Original Vision of Star Trek, which includes TOS, Season 4 Enterprise, Deep Space Nine, Treks 2-6, and the Abrams films. Then there is TNG, New Roddenberry Trek, which was TNG, Voyager, Enterprise 1-3 and Films 1, 7-10.

55. jas_montreal - September 13, 2013

“It’s because TNG Trek and beyond never actually continued the original series. In reality, it went sideways from the heart and soul of Trek and never really honored what it was about in the first place.”

Are you really kidding me ? TNG was created by Gene and it did not go “sideways” from the heart and soul of trek. That is such an insane statement. Thats complete bull. You cannot just say something like that…..

56. Robman007 - September 13, 2013

“The big question should be is where is Star Trek headed now? And is that a place we want it to go?”

I’d say yes. I think STID was a series of events meant to elevate Captain Kirk and his crew to the people we saw in TOS Trek, especially Captain Kirk. He had to experience some humbling and pretty dastardly events to become THE Captain Kirk, and this film served that purpose. You’ll see a more “Shatner” like Kirk in the next film and Trek will be more “TOS” then before….(boborci…sound right?)

57. Dennis Bailey - September 13, 2013

#44: “Are you really kidding me ? TNG was created by Gene and it did not go “sideways” from the heart and soul of trek. ”

Nope, “The Stig” is right about this. Doesn’t matter who created it.

58. Robman007 - September 13, 2013

44. jas_montreal – September 13, 2013

Actually, it did….it was nothing like TOS Trek. Even Gene wanted it to be seperate from TOS Trek. TOS had personal conflict. TOS had tons of action and Humanity was far from perfect. There was racists and evil doers, criminals and the bunch. Klingons were evil, sneaky, backstabby lot and Romulans were honorable…Kirk often fought against societies just like the one that TNG turned into…

So, yes…he was correct and there is nothing wrong with this statement. TOS Trek and TNG Trek were two different beasts…

59. czn - September 13, 2013

JJ did get it right but, and as you all know there is always a butt, The only real problem for me with jj’s movies is the pace with no drama, cuz he hates drama and he believes that today’s movie going children also hate drama, so in order to sell them as action/adventure he shoots non stop movies and in that he fails for Star Trek, he makes money but makes broken ST; SW will be no different a highly entertainment movie that everybody will love including me, but not with the directorship that a master director could give it like in A New Hope.
Star trek itself is not broken but JJ as director is, the writers also need to get it, because they don’t sometimes.

60. jerr - September 13, 2013

@26 “I continue to be astonished by some of the people who post on this site that claim to be real Star Trek fans, yet who hated STID. These people missed the point of what the movie was actually about.”

I have no problem with the message in the film. In fact it’s timely and rather good. The problem I have with the movie is plot and rather large factual errors. I don’t need to go into them because they have been discussed.

A movie with a good point and plot- Planet of the Apes: Monkey masks, some cheesy lines, but holds up well.
A movie with a good point and bad plot – Omega Man: Disco English cult monks. (Roger Ebert)

The one thing I cannot explain it why this movie ranks so high on Rotten Tomatoes. I’m just astounded by the 87% rating that it has. Perhaps the critics never saw TWOK? Perhaps don’t care how many facts were wrong in a Science Fiction movie? Maybe they are OK with fluff? STiD is a summer movie with all action similar to Independence Day. I really liked ID4 and it was easy for me to overlook things like hacking an alien computer with a Mac because it was just a stilly movie. Now it seems Star Trek is going down that same path. In a few years… I think shine will have worn off and STiD will look silly to others like it does to me. Red matter: that didn’t bug me at all, and I really like Trek09, but STiD just felt wrong. It felt silly and that ruined the “point” of the film.

So we are at Batman Forever territory now. Will the next Trek be a “Batman & Robin” and kill the franchise? Probably not, but it seems like we are going downhill.

61. the captain - September 13, 2013

“Where is the social commentary? Where are the big ideas?”

I don’t know how you missed the big ideas, man. This film, like The Wrath of Khan, has Kirk and Spock dealing with ethics, especially the ethics of friendship. In the context of Starfleet, in the context of world-scale problems, where does friendship fit in? Personally, I walked away thinking “I want ALL my movies to be about friendship” (see also: The Avengers).

Also, Bill Binder (#9) makes a good point.

P.S. This is the first movie I’ve seen where the 3D wasn’t distracting or annoying, but simply made the experience feel more immersive. Got to give props for that.

62. Thorny - September 13, 2013

I don’t agree that “Super 8″ was non-stop action, czn. I also though Kirk’s death was pretty dramatic (albeit extremely familiar) even if we did know this was not going to be a permanent death.

I’m almost 50, and I’m really tired of all the Star Trek infighting. It was annoying in 1987 to be shouted down by zealots as ‘not a true fan’ for daring to like TNG. It was annoying to be shouted down by ‘true fans’ for pointing out that Star Trek V more or less stunk. It was annoying to be shouted down by the Abrams worshippers here and elsewhere for not proclaiming Star Trek 2009 to be the greatest thing since sliced bread (I still rank it at No.3. behind Wrath of Khan and First Contact.) And now we have battling “Star Trek is Broken / No it isn’t” posts. From my vantage point, Star Trek is not broken. It is the same Star Trek we’ve always gotten. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes it tackles social issues, sometimes its just a good shoot-em-up. Sometimes it is a new and original story, sometimes it is very familiar. Sometimes the acting is great, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes it is a blockbuster hit, sometimes it isn’t. It has always been this way, and always will be.

63. scott - September 13, 2013

Two particular fanboy barbs strike me as outrageous.

1. Where is the social commentary? WTF? They made a 9/11 movie, for god’s sake! The whole thing is social commentary. Destruction of Vulcan by Romulan from the future leveraged in attmept to start a war with a third party – the Klingons. Plus: radicalization of powerless displaced person who ultimately becomes a sci-fi suicide bomber.

2. What about strange new worlds? Hello – the strange new world in Into Darkness is EARTH. And it’s explored/rendered in stunning detail.

Oy.

64. Dr. Image - September 13, 2013

Movies are about entertainment and STID delivered. Period. I don’t blame Ocri one bit for being pissed off at all you nitpicking, holier-than-thou, Roddenberry-is-God fanatics. I watched Trek IN THE 60′s, and I’ll take JJ’s take over Berman/Braga’s Voy/Ent swill any day. Evolve or die.

65. Yanks - September 13, 2013

@ 26. Steve – September 13, 2013

The “fans” who insist on calling the movie unoriginal or a rip-off are unable to subscribe to the notion that, even in an alternate timeline, the universe harmonizes, and certain situations that occurred before could occur again but under different circumstances. This is the premise under which the writers operated and they did it brilliantly. How did you not get chills when you heard Scotty’s voice say, “You better get down here. Better hurry.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A “fan” here…

I did not get “chills”, I got a frakin hot flash. Slapping my forehead thinking “no, they won’t go there…”

See, now if the current circumstance actually was realistic and did mean something, then maybe it could have worked. But Spock and Kirk have not developed that bond yet. They haven’t known each other long enough. We all KNEW that Kirk wasn’t going to stay dead and they have resolved the Spock character to an emotional out of control, illogical loon.

What could have happened, under the premise you indicate, was Scotty does say the same line, but when Spock gets down there Kirk is outside the core and Bones tells Spock something like, “good thing he took his anti-radiation shot … he will take some time to recover, but he’ll live…” Then while Kirk lays there, with little to no energy, he – straining – whispers and tells Spock “the needs of the many… GET KHAN!”.

This eliminates the direct rip-off/reversal, fits in your premise, doesn’t require Khan’s “super-blood” when there were 71 other sources right at Bones’ fingertips, and makes that tribble and life eternal bullcrap irrelevant, AND DOESN’T PISS OFF THE FAITHFUL!!!

Oh, and then Spock could use his BRAINS and our wonderful crew instead of his brawn to catch Khan. Then maybe Spock could use his BRAINS and not warp back to Earth with Khan and the Vengeance in tow. You know, where 6+ billion people live placing them all at risk. What do we get? Let’s see, how can we crash a ship in San Francisco Bay and make everyone think its Enterprise in the trailer.

The ending clearly demonstrated the current bunch doesn’t care one iota about those that kept this franchise alive for almost ½ a century and there isn’t any originality left in Hollywood when it comes to writing. This is all just a game to them, I guess that’s why they write movies and we lowly peons just go watch them.

It’s a bad joke…

66. Tiberius Subprime - September 13, 2013

Once again, I think this guys said it best.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/opinion-why-star-trek-fans-624623

There were problems with STID, I do not deny that. But I do think it still felt TOS in many ways. (The writers needed to tighten up the story in a few places and rethink a scene or two, IMHO. But overall, I good ride.)

67. Other Guy - September 13, 2013

This one’s for you @39. Russell Meyers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HlUmmPBoLg

If you have the time to sit through an hour and twenty minutes. But then again you did sit through Star Trek into Darkness.

68. J_Randomuser - September 13, 2013

I’ve read both the “Broken” and (just now) “Not Broken” editorials. I’m more inclined to agree with this one. TOS, at it’s core, was an action adventure show. Gene himself called it “Wagon Train to the Stars” or “Horatio Hornblower in space”. Now, keep in mind, for it’s time Trek was fairly high-brow action adeventure. But, as Stig writes, “expecting cutting social commentary or big ideas, Star Trek isn’t (and never has been) particularly effective on that front.”

Nostalgia does a funny thing to memory. We all hold Trek in such high moral territory, but we quickly brush over it’s short comings. For every “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”, an episode which has wonderful social commentary, there are at least two episodes of ham-fisted horse puckey (see “Spectre Of The Gun”). Yet, we as fans only seem to recall the heady days of Sci-Fi morality plays and true human drama. We often forget the crap-ola that could also come out of the offices at Desilu.

Orci and crew do a great job of keeping TOS original qualities intact. They’ve also shucked the majority of the weightier philosophical wanderings of TNG et al. And let’s face it, it’s exceedingly difficult to do heavy think-pieces in today’s blockbuster minded films. And to be honest, I don’t blame them. The last great Sci-Fi film to do heavy thinking that actually worked on the screen was “2001″ and most people STILL don’t entirely get what the movie was about! (…”First there’s monkeys, then spaceships and a crazy computer, and then a gigantic baby floating in space! WHAT THE HELL!?!?!?!”)

Was STID the most Earth-shatteringly brilliant movie ever made? No, of course not. But, as Trek fans, our standards to tend to err towards INSANE rather than “is this a good movie?”. Bob Orci is NOT Nick Meyers. And y’know what, I’m OK with that. Nick has his fling with Trek and moved on. Let Orci do his thing. Out of everyone on the Supreme Court, Orci is the one guy who I TRULY believe has Trek’s best interests at heart. He’s making it work for a modern audience and not doing that bad of a job. Imagine what would have happened if Michael Bay had gotten his hands on the franchise!

69. DP McGuire - September 13, 2013

I am a fan who doesn’t like STNG. Sure there were a few episodes that were ok and one or two that were really good buy many I can’t even watch. This is a personal opinion and yours can vary. I like TOS a lot and have been a fan since the early 70′s. In fact I went to the big 1975 Chicago Convention. I also liked Enterprise and thought it was much better than STNG, Voy or DS9. Coming from that viewpoint I found ST09 to be one of the best ST movies ever and by far the most fun to watch. The opening scene alone can’t be touched by any previous movie. Whereas I don’t think Kahn was needed I liked STID. It was fun.

It seems that many want ST to be a religion and its not, sorry.

I could go on and on about how much I hate STNG but I don’t. I simply don’t buy it or watch it. Some like it and that’s great, enjoy.

The point is that it has become the in thing to scream how right you are and how wrong everyone else is. How right you are to not like STID and how wrong the good people who made it are and how wrong anyone who likes the movie are. This behavior is deplorable and gives fandom a bad image and quite frankly makes the people doing this look like fools.

It is perfectly ok to not like STID. It is also perfectly ok to love STID. But it is not ok to make others wrong about it.

70. Ahmed - September 13, 2013

“We haven’t had a true, spiritual successor to the original series until Abrams came along. Nothing that came after managed to capture the verve and sheer enthusiasm of that series: the life-and-death stakes mixed with just the right measure of irreverence.”

First, this read like something from Abrams’ public relations office !!

Second, you are sounding like someone who is so dismissive of TNG & DS9 that he overlook how these two shows impacted Star Trek. DS9 was considered closer to TOS than TNG & here you are dismissing it ??

Personally I don’t think that Star Trek is broken, it just not going in the right direction. ST09 was a fresh start, STID on the other hand was a move backward. With STID, the writers looked like they couldn’t come up with their own original stories & used old villain ignoring in the process the very reason they rebooted Star Trek .

When we see same elements that we already seen in the previous movie – the villain hellbent on vengeance, the big black supership, Kirk removal from duty & 5 seconds later, back to his duties & very little character developments – the movie become boring even with all the relentless action.

I hope that for the next & last Trek movie from these guys, that they will give us a movie worthy of the 50th anniversary.

71. PB177 - September 13, 2013

Couple of points to ponder…and I haven’t read them all here so if I’m repeating – forgive me:

1) JJ version of Trek, Kirk is a bumbling fool and spoiled brat. He’s not a hero by any stretch. At least Shatner’s portayal – albeit hound-doggish – had SOME dignity and purpose. Still….good job by Chris.

2) JJ version of spock: Vulcan…human….vulcan…human…vulcan…human…human…no rhyme nor reason to his reactions. the original Spock had to work his way through over years (and episodes) of interaction with humans and other aliens. I actually shook my head and grimaced when he hollered Kaaaaaaaaahn in the last movie. Still….good job by Zach

3) McCoy – bang on IMO. Great job writing and acting for this character.

4) Last point: STID > again, JJ villan’s reason for actions is not relatable. At least originally, it was Kahn vs. Kirk because Kirk “was responsible for killing my wife”. As a viewer I could relate to that.

All in all, STID will likey be the first ST movie I won’t buy…at least until it goes on sale.

72. pbw - September 13, 2013

My issues with ST (2009) and STID really have little to do with whether they have Khan or not or whether the characters are so exactly the same as the originals.

What drives me crazy are the plot holes. The worst thing about the plot holes in these two movies is that every last one of them was *easily* patchable in a way that would have retained the overall shape of the story that the creators wanted. When that happens only lazy or rushed writing can be blamed.

All in all, Star Trek The Original Series was great, but there were good episodes and there were bad episodes. My personal feeling is that the Abrams-verse Star Trek is great, but so far we’ve gotten two bad episodes.

73. The Keeper - September 13, 2013

Argue all you want on weather Star Trek is broken or not. \
But the bottom line is that Paramount needs to fan out a little and ask real SciFi writers to submit story ideas for the next film.
Collaborate with your “hot” screen writing” team to create an exciting concept story unseen in the franchise. Be bold enough to take that step into a new area of film making and story telling. Don’t assume your audience is a mindless mass of pop corn eating plods.

Do you understand?

No more of these half witted revenge war battle stories that are better suited for Star Wars and the run of the mill Superhero movie.

We don’t need another Khan fil….we didn’t need this one no matter how well Orci thinks it was written.

What we are asking for is simple.

An idea movie done is a new exciting way unlike all previous Star Trek films.

An exploration of not only the physical universe around these beloved characters but of real mental insight and imagination.

The challenge would be to make that a fast moving roller coaster adventure, smart, sexy, and understandable to all.

I don’t believe the current writing team is up for such a challenge, at least not when left to their own device.
They lack the imaginative insight of real scifi writers.

Truly they need to step down or move aside, ask for help by real scifi writers to create a new type of story.

We can’t be bogged down by the same old stuff every few years repackaged over and over again.

It’s not that JJ was a bad director, he was an excellent director…he just needed different writers.
The first film set the tone, it was a good solid set up.

But after that the writers lost their way and I am afraid they will fall into the same of cycle of dullness again with a third film if they don’t allow another writer to supply a true scifi idea of some sort.

These writers can’t do it, they are stuck in only one mode of thinking and they are condescending about their work.

No studio in their right mind should pay these guys to write post cards never mind script motion pictures.

74. Jan - September 13, 2013

The negative fans get way too much attention, both in fandom and the public media. Too much negativity, rather than rejoicing in all the new fans, many of them young, that the reboot has brought to ST. I’m an original TOS viewer as a teen and I’m thrilled that so many of my students today are excited by ST’s science fiction, rather than all the teen dystopia currently in vogue. Do I wish we weren’t warping across the galaxy in minutes – of course – but that’s not what is exciting the young people. It’s the energy and positive thinking that we can have a future that’s not all negative, dark and dirty. You can’t see the forest if you are only looking at the trees.

75. Ahmed - September 13, 2013

================
Star Trek game ‘arguably hurt’ the movie, says J.J. Abrams.

Star Trek director J.J. Abrams has offered his opinion on the recent Digital Extremes-developed Star Trek tie-in game, lamenting the quality of the final product and saying that it “emotionally hurt” him.

“The last game, which was obviously a big disappointment to me, was something that we were actually involved in from the very beginning,” Abrams told GamerHub.

“Then we sort of realised that it was not going in a place where we were going to get what we wanted, so we dropped out and they continued to do it despite… y’know.”

Reviews of the game, which was published by Namco Bandai, were generally unfavourable. Our Star Trek review said it was “a deeply unremarkable cover shooter” that was “punctuated by endless hacking mini-games and woeful space combat”.

“To me the video game could have been something that actually really benefited the series and was an exciting, fun game with great gameplay,” Abrams continued.

“Instead it was not and was something that I think, for me emotionally it hurt because we were working our asses off making the movie and then this game came out and it got, this isn’t even my opinion, it got universally panned and I think that it was something without question that didn’t help the movie and arguably hurt it.”

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/429308/star-trek-game-arguably-hurt-the-movie-says-jj-abrams/

================

76. Anthony Thompson - September 13, 2013

What this guy really believes is that NuTrek isn’t broken. He apparently never cared for TOS or TNG. Those were broken, in his view.

The more I see of STID (and the first movie) I realize that Bob and the other writers hate authority figures. That’s why Kirk’s character is so much diminshed from what it had been in the original series. He’s not a hero anymore. He’s talked down to, beaten up, and not taken seriously. And Spock’s violent attacks in both films diminish him, as well. He beats on Khan even after being told that he could save Kirk? Yuck.

77. Fred Herman - September 13, 2013

Even if the results were “trite and safe,” TOS was a series of morality plays from start to finish; with some exceptions, so were all of the subsequent television series. The 2009 film certainly wasn’t. (I can’t comment on STID, not having seen it.)

78. AJ - September 13, 2013

STAR TREK is fine. The last film seemed a haphazard patch job, and was a poor tribute to the lore. ST09, while full of its own holes, was a great way to begin again. Sophomore slump, it would seem.

79. Astronut - September 13, 2013

52.

“… the strange new world in Into Darkness is EARTH.”

Wow. Riveting.

LOL

80. C Zenko - September 13, 2013

I was quite annoyed at STITD when I seen it in the theater. I was really enjoying the movie, and what annoyed me was the re-enactment of TWOK. I was looking forward to something new. I was enjoying the unpredictable alliance between Kirk and Khan. I enjoyed Kirk saving Spock at the beginning, and the natives seeing the Enterprise. I liked all those thinks, and for those who never seen TWOK I’m sure they enjoyed the new WOK. I just felt like we were seeing something new and blame, we were in 1982. I’m sure I’ll be less annoyed as time goes on, but that was what I was thinking when I was seeing the new Star Trek movie for the first time. Give us something new, let us see Kirk, Spock and McCoy solve the new moral delema. For me the strength of TOS was the friendship of 3 people, and it was thier differences that was thier strength. Kirk was always at his best with Spock and McCoy. I don’t. Want to see anymore rogue Star Fleet officers or conspiracies, no more time travel, I want the crew of the Enterprise see something new, and work together. They are in a new timeline, there are many options.
One thing to keep in mind, if you asked each of us to create a list of order of our favorite star trek movies, we would likely have different lists, and that is fine.

1) Star Trek VI Undiscovered County
2) Star Trek III The Search for Spock
3) Star Trek III The Wrath of Khan
4) Star Trek IV The Voyage home
5) Star Trek V The Final Frontier
6) Star Trek The Motion Picture
7) Star Trek First Contact
8) Star Trek Inserection
9) Star Trek (2009)
10) Star Trek Into Darkness
12) Star Trek Generations
13) Star Trek Nemesis

81. Holger - September 13, 2013

I completely agree with Dickerson’s view. And I think the biggest problem for Star Trek right now is JJ Abrams and Star Trek can only be fixed again when JJ is out. Of course that’s no guarantee that things will get better, but as long as JJ is producing and … well, directing, as it were, Star Trek has lost all its characteristics which made it special. (Special, for example, as compared to Star Wars and the myriad of derivative SF productions.)

82. JimJ - September 13, 2013

This article hits the mark much better than the original Star Trek Is Broken article. Both have valid points at times, but this one is definitely “with it”, compared to the other one.

I loved this movie more than any Star Trek movie (Into Darkness). That being said…it’s time for an original exploration story with a new “threat”. However, it should not be the bad-guy of the week formula used so often in today’s movies (including Star Trek). Some people call Star Trek 4 hokey or goofy, but the idea of the threat being something that wasn’t bad-ass of the week was very refreshing.

Bob Orci: I admire your work and feel this movie has received way too much criticism (but, whether you want to admit it or not, there are some very valid points. I love the movie, but it definitely has some parts that could have been thought through a bit better). But, what I am trying to get at is: no more rehash, please. I seriously believe that is what got you in trouble with the harsh critics this time. vs. last time. Khan was a stronger villain than Nero, but Khan created LOTS more controversy because he wasn’t original. Please stop falling into traps that you wrote yourselves out of with your first Trek movie. You opened things up, now be creative with that clean canvass you created!

83. Dave R - September 13, 2013

Way to go Stig!

JJ and his gave Hard Core Trekkies a better movie than they deserved.

84. C Zenko - September 13, 2013

I hate auto correct!

85. Matt Wright - September 13, 2013

FYI: had 20+ comments awaiting moderation, so many of the comment numbers changed.

86. Matt Wright - September 13, 2013

@ 41 – TrekMadeMeWonder
“And I believe it still warrants a response from someone here posting at TrekMovie.”

I hope to have 3rd point of view coming from Hat Rick who’s a regular commenter at TrekMovie.

87. Jeyl - September 13, 2013

“What about Gene’s vision?”

What about it? Even Deep Space NIne did a better job at painting a better picture of humanity than any of Gene’s projects.

And your “it was alien third-parties that did the dirty work”, only makes me love that show even more. Not only did Deep Space Nine allow pure blooded aliens a chance to have their own stories, it allowed them to do it without having any human characters dictate how it should go. Deep Space Nine let the Star Trek universe itself come to life, while still giving humanity a role to play. And shouldn’t that be the most important part when we’re in a universe full of rich and diverse alien life? We’re not the pinnacle of civilization, we’re just a species that has a role to play just like everyone else.

88. JimJ - September 13, 2013

#80- It’s amazing how much we think alike, yet reacted differently in the end. I am going to follow up on what you wrote and show you the differences in our thought patterns. Not saying I am right and you are wrong….just saying, this is what it was to me:

I was quite annoyed when I heard rumors that it might be Khan. I did not want a rehash and felt no one could beat Montalban’s Khan. I loved STITD when I saw it in the theater. I was really enjoying the movie, and what scared me was the re-enactment of TWOK. I thought it was a fantastic tribute but my initial fear was, the TWOK fandom will flip out because you just “rewrote the bible”, even if only out of affection. Sure enough, I was right. Though I thought it was some of the best moments of the movie, many reacted like C Zenko. They were looking forward to something new (so was I). I was enjoying the unpredictable alliance between Kirk and Khan. I enjoyed Kirk saving Spock at the beginning, and the natives seeing the Enterprise. I liked all those things, and for those who never seen TWOK, the reaction to this movie has been much more favorable. Give us something new next time, let us see Kirk, Spock and McCoy solve a new moral problem. For me the strength of TOS was the friendship of 3 people, and it was their differences that was their strength. Kirk was always at his best with Spock and McCoy. I don’t want to see anymore rogue Starfleet officers or conspiracies, no more time travel, no more bad Kilngon of the week or rehashed bad guys. I want the crew of the Enterprise to do something new, working together. They are in a new timeline, there are many options.

As I stated earlier: be creative!!!! Cover those obvious plot holes instead of expecting us just to accept them. People like me forgive due to other great things in your movie, but forgiveness isn’t given to someone if they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and don’t learn from them. You are better than that because you KNOW your Trek. Now, get out there and fight the good fight-lol!

89. BatlethInTheGroin - September 13, 2013

#20: Kirk and Uhurua weren’t TV’s first interracial kiss. That’s a long-toted myth, but it’s inaccurate.

90. BatlethInTheGroin - September 13, 2013

To be honest, this isn’t an overly well-written article. It could really have used some judicious editing before being posted.

91. Voyager 1 leaves the Solar System...NASA quotes Trek - September 13, 2013

This is all a pointless conversation. If you don’t like Nu Trek don’t bash it or watch it…don’t be a jerk to everyone else. If you love the Nu Trek good on you…don’t bash the old Trek.

In other Star Trek news…Voyager 1 leaves the solar system officialy and NASA quotes Star Trek…

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-quotes-star-trek-voyager-1-enters-interstellar-091206918.html

92. JimJ - September 13, 2013

#41: Very interesting points, I enjoyed your comments a great deal. I really hope you are right, because in the end, all 3 movies would end up being revered as Trek’s trilogy = Star Wars’ original trilogy that so many gush about. But, it will have even more “heart” than the Star Wars trilogy has! I hope you are right, I really do.

93. JimJ - September 13, 2013

#89/90: So, what IS the first interracial kiss? Not doubting, but would like to know.

94. stealing the enterprise - September 13, 2013

Agreed Batlethln TheGroin.

Christopher Nolan, please come and save Star Trek!

95. Ahmed - September 13, 2013

@ 92. JimJ – September 13, 2013

“#89/90: So, what IS the first interracial kiss? Not doubting, but would like to know.”

A British series called Emergency Ward 10

“Emergency – Ward 10 attracted controversy for its portrayal of an interracial relationship between surgeon Louise Mahler (played by Joan Hooley) and Doctor Giles Farmer (played by John White[1]), showing the first kiss on television between black and white actors in July 1964, some four years before Star Trek’s more famous Kirk/Uhura kiss in the episode “Plato’s Stepchildren”.[2]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_%E2%80%93_Ward_10

96. The Keeper - September 13, 2013

@89. BatlethInTheGroin – September 13, 2013
#20: Kirk and Uhurua weren’t TV’s first interracial kiss. That’s a long-toted myth, but it’s inaccurate.

You should at least explain:

An inter-racial kiss on TV took place in 1964 between the characters Dr Mahler (Joan Hooley) and Dr Farmer (John White) on ITV’s Soap Emergency Ward 10. This was in Britain.

In America that distiction goes to William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols of Star Trek fame who on November 22, 1968 had an inter-racial black and white kiss in the episode “Plato’s Stepchildren”.

It isn’t technically “inter-racial” but Lucille Ball (white anglo) and Desi Arnaz (white hispanic) kissed repeatedly in “I love Lucy”.

This is of course not including inter racial kisses in movies.

97. C Zenko - September 13, 2013

88 JimJ, I do appreciate the fact there is no right or wrong. Much of the bickering on this Site revolves heavily around who is right and who is wrong. We all have our ideas, and like what we like. I will share my idea, I am not trying to convince anyone I am right, and if others have a different point of view, great. Share it with us, I do enjoy reading other opinions, and sometimes I find myself changing my opinion if the person gives me something new to think about. I appreciate JimJ’s comment.

98. Bernd Schneider - September 13, 2013

I don’t get the message of the “Not broken” article.

The author explains how Trek was not quite as great in terms of bold ideas as one might think. Point taken. But that is only one point from the previous “Trek is broken” article.

And regarding the direction of Star Trek, who is to say that TNG-style Trek went into a wrong direction, and that Abrams fixed that apparent error by giving us a space adventure again, like in TOS? Even if this were true, I wouldn’t care because the Star Trek I love is about exploring the unknown and not about chasing supervillains.

Abrams got it wrong.

99. Broccoli - September 13, 2013

What does that even mean – “Star Trek is broken”? Seriously…I have no idea. Also…what does “going sideways” from what Trek is about even mean in regards to TNG? Nothing about that makes any sense.

Regardless of the merits or faults of the latest movie, Star Trek, itself, is doing fine. What some over-sensitive nerds on the internet have to say is really worthless.

100. JohnnieHF - September 13, 2013

I think the first “new” Star Trek made the point that things were the same, but different. STID made the point that things are different now, but the same. It may have been very pushed together, but by bringing in all the elements of past Trek lore, STID set the franchise up to be able to go forward with future movies that contain familiar events, but that unfold in new and unfamiliar ways.

Don’t be so caught up in the past (even an unreal one) that you can’t move forward. Roddenberry was nothing if not all about the positive future possibilities that we can consider and hope for. Don’t also forget that Roddenberry was responsible for the creation of ST:TNG and was involved with its production for some time before his death (125 episodes – only 51 less than Berman). So, it is disingenuous to say that ST:TNG did not carry and reflect Roddenberry’s vision. Just as in real life, different personalities and the decisions and actions of people create different cultures in the ebb and flow of life.

101. Rasta Ken - September 13, 2013

The last movie was a gimmick fest. “Oh look a tribble” “I helped a Gorn give birth and got bit” “KHANNNNNNN” do I need to go on? JJ gave in and threw in a bunch of random story points and stitched a movie out of them. There was no basis for the friendship of Kirk and Spock besides their proclamations of friendship. Using the Khan story line at this point amounts to rank pandering. All they are selling right now is sensationalism for people who don’t know Trek. Coincidentally this is what is wrong with the movie business generally.

102. Spock's Bangs - September 13, 2013

Bullseye!! We have a winner! The new movies are based on Star Trek…NOT the spin offs. And they honor that source brilliantly. After straying into dull unimaginative waters ( which, granted, many people ate it up) Star Trek…Original Star Trek …is back! And judging from box office dollars, the world was more than ready for its return!

103. Disinvited - September 13, 2013

The reason the kiss was historic wasn’t because it was “the first interracial kiss” as it simply wasn’t something as trivial as that. The civil rights significance of it was that it was the first Prime Time network show to break the affiliates south of the Mason-Dixon line, for lack of a better label, “Jim Crow” ban on depicting anything hinting that a white farm bred American male might find anything remotely attractive about a darker-skinned woman. NBC’s motive for defacto enforcing it was economic: they simply didn’t want to lose those affliates.

It is a fact, I know from growing up in the South, that stations there pulled this episode and kept it off the air. If you want to get a sense of the South’s JC TV look up WLBT’s history.

104. D1 - September 13, 2013

Star Trek is not broken it’s just different now… Accept it or don’t…It’s as simple as that. In the end JJ abrams and company acheived what they set out to do; expand Star Trek’s audience and make money for Paramount.

105. sean - September 13, 2013

I agree that Trek is not broken, but I don’t think we need to declare it so at the expense of great material like DS9, which quite honestly is the best Trek ever got. If the author really walks away from In the Pale Moonlight feeling like Sisko didn’t get his hands dirty…well, we watched two different presentations. As Garak explains after Sisko confronts him, Sisko is absolutely complicit in the Senator’s murder. Or how about ‘For the Uniform’, where Sisko deliberately poisons a planet’s atmosphere because of a personal vendetta? Or Blood Oath, where Jadzia participates in a revenge killing? Or Necessary Evil, where we find out Kira killed one of her own people for collaborating?

DS9 was all about the grey areas.

I dunno guys, I’ve seen better ‘editorials’ from the regular commenters on this very website. It’s a shame one of them wasn’t given the opportunity to respond to Dickerson’s article.

106. Dunsel Report - September 13, 2013

While I agree with the assumptions here about great Trek often equalling great action — after all, The Cage introduced us to Pike by showing him fighting a troll guy on a castle planet — I just can’t agree that Star Trek: Into Darkness succeeded even on its own terms as a “rousing” action movie.

I was roused by the witty and compelling action scenes in ST09, but this time both the heroes, bad guys and situations just didn’t have that special zest that elevates “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” above a “Superman IV: The Quest For Peace.”

Which, come to think of it, this movie reminded me of, with well-meaning politics that I agreed with, but maybe not operating at top-notch levels of suspense, etc. the way the first movie did.

ST09 went out of its way to make us care about Vulcan being blown up. That whole sequence was an astonishing, Indiana Jones-worthy juggling act of about three simultaneous crises. But it had real impact because we’d gotten to know the hopes and fears of Spock’s family and didn’t want to see his mother fall into a pit. (The security chief incineration was also effing hilarious.)

But the Vulcan Drill Sequence set a bar for action Trek that I just didn’t think anything here lived up to. When I think of STID I think of a spaceship skidding into Alcatraz with the movie having given us no reason to care about anyone in its path, or Khan’s character being defined by his being continually mistaken about whether people had blown up his 72 torpedoes.

A lot of the dialogue also lacked the punch of the first movie. I was thrilled to see Bruce Greenwood back in action. I loved his swagger in the first movie and the way he single-handedly embodied the cool dignity and professionalism of the Federation (which it took Peter Weller’s character to unravel.) But compare his awesome moments in ST09 — the bar scene, “she’s brand new, Spock…” — to his role in II. He gives Kirk and Spock a standard cop-movie dressing down about how they’re loose cannons and broke the rules. Kirk: “Except I didn’t.” Ugh.

107. Chief Engineer - September 13, 2013

Let’s be honest… where would Star Trek be if Paramount hadn’t hired Abrams, Burk, Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman in 2006/7?

108. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - September 13, 2013

@ “The Stig”

I disagree with you o he thought that “TNG and after went sideways from the heart and soul of Trek and never really honored what it was about in the first place.”

TNG was exactly what star trek was all about and had the social impact that TOS had. This is why 20 million people on average tuned in every week to watch TNG.

Star Trek has a defferent meaning to differnt people. You feel TOS is the only trek that is “true to the essence of Star Trek” and I disagree.

I agree that “Abrams got it right.” on ST09, but I disagree with that on Into Darkness. Remaking a movie that was already made is unoriginal and boring. They are in a new timeline… think up new stuff… Seek out new live, and new cvilizations… boldly go where Intodarkness did not!

109. Johnnyb807 - September 13, 2013

I’ll bet real money @BobOrci got his pee-pee smacked after posting his last comment on this bulletin board. I doubt we’ll hear much from him for a good long while LOL. Still … weather you agree or disagree w JJ Trek, having someone so intimately involved with Trek be a regular participant of these boards and to listen to both our bitching and our praise was always a cool thing. I’ll kinda miss that.

110. scott - September 13, 2013

@79 – “wow. riveting.”

You should think longer and harder about HOW alien planets are used in Star Trek stories – what function they serve. 23rd century Earth is used that way in Into Darkness – very successfully, IMO.

111. Sybok - September 13, 2013

“The Stig” lays down some truth, holds out his hand and drops the microphone. Absolutely spot on! I have real issues with the past two films but they feel more like Star Trek than anything since the original.

112. Dennis C - September 13, 2013

The long and short of it is that the movie felt short for a lot of people, others liked it because they thought it was good and still others liked it just to be contrary.

As for Abrams going back to the original series, well, where else was there for him to go? Continue the era of TNG which, for all intents and purposes, just wrapped with Enterprise a few years prior? Nope, go back to the beginning, reimagine the whole thing and out your own stamp on it.

It’s worth noting that it’s apparent that “The Stig” didn’t view the Next Gen era as worthy of the Star Trek name so is it really a surprise that he would be thrilled by the return of the original characters in any context?

Sorry, but as an editorial this falls way short and its lack of subjectivity ultimately makes it pointless.

113. Platitude - September 13, 2013

Great points. While I don’t totally agree with the negative comments regarding TNG and DS9, I do agree that J.J. has made two great movies, and has done Star Trek justice.

(Sidenote: nice to see that TrekMovie is showing multiple perspectives. Kudos)

114. Vultan - September 13, 2013

I thought some of the spirit of TOS is in Abrams’ films (here and there), but they lose a lot of points by rehashing so many, many things that really don’t need to be rehashed—hello, Mr. Khan!

The story we were given was—new universe, new stories, yadda, yadda. But it’s really just a new sandbox with the same old action figures. And to take a classic and spruce it up with more action, a hot young cast, and lots of eye candy isn’t daring in modern Hollywood. Look around, folks. It’s a business plan.

115. Trekboi - September 13, 2013

Sponsored by Paramount & Bad Robot Productions lol

116. Vultan - September 13, 2013

A business plan, and a rather cynical one, I might add.

117. Four Light Express - September 13, 2013

Awww a direct consequence of the Orci rant, still I enjoyed ST:ID. Who cares what others think? ;P

118. DarExc - September 13, 2013

I didn’t agree with “Star Trek is Broken” but I really disagree with the last paragraph about how TNG went sideways. That’s nonsense. TNG and DS9 were fantastic shows and TNG carried a lot of the soul on TOS and capture very much the same feelings to me in a higher level at times.

Why do we have to talk about it all like you have to hate one to love the other? TNG is more like TOS than the new movies by far, however, the new movies are still great in their own way!

119. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2013

Come on, all you critics of Khan.

Challenge:

If you had the chance to tell a TREK storyline that spans three movies, then who would you include as a villain, and what would be the theme and tone of your production?

If you can come up with a better storyline, then let’s hear it. Otherwise, lets give our writers a chance to get out the story as they see fit to do. After all, Trek IS making money for the franchise, and you can’t argue with that.

120. star trackie - September 13, 2013

This article is on the money. LOVE TOS..tolerated TNG for its mostly unrealized potential, the rest I mostly skipped. Trek had become irrelevant andboring. Then JJ brought me back into the fold with the characters and fun I remember .
I’m sorry the Next Gennies got left out of the fold, but that trek has withered and died. Whats old is new and I’m loving every action packed minute of it! And the Montal-Khan worshippers can get over it as well. Sucks that JJ is out on the 3rd one, but now the Star Warsies have something else to argue about. lol

121. steve - September 13, 2013

This editorial gets two big things right:

1. TNG was pretty lame.
2. Abrams DID get it right in ST09. He just blew it with STiD.

And what this article does prove, is that there is a TON of room for great, NEW Trek, both on TV and movies. There are just so many directions a new Trek series or movie could go, since so much of previous Trek was just so damn similar.

122. Jefferies Tuber - September 13, 2013

My feelings about STID are complicated, milquetoast and subject to change, but I agree with this “not broken” essay more than the “broken” essay. I bloody loved ST09 and I think the trailer is one of the most rousing few minutes ever put on screen–thanks to everyone involved, principally the writers.

The idea that Trek is broken after the two most profitable films in four decades is beneath self parody.

123. conscienceoftheking - September 13, 2013

I agree with this 100%. I have indeed mentioned this on several posts here AND on my blog.

60s Trek has lots of action, sexiness, drama, and conflict. Humans ARE evolving, but they aren’t “there” yet. Check Arena and Errand of Mercy for strong episodes that show humanity is flawed, but WANTS to improve.

Abrams has this down. He really does. Kirk wants to be a better Captain. Spock struggles with his emotions, trying to be a better Vulcan. (They need to work on McCoy more).

Into Darkness has its problems- I’m not thrilled they went with Khan, of course, as well as the rip off of TWoK death scene. I was also upset about the wildly varying nature / ability to use technology (Kirk can call Scotty via communicator from the Klingon empire?! Are there roaming fees?). However, even the original show had these types of tech inconsistancies from one episode to the next.

But it got a lot right. It has a big moral question (Is Marcus “corrupting” Starfleet’s mission by wanting more weapons for defense?), a ton of action, tensions among the main crew, etc.

http://cornersofchaos.blogspot.com/2013/06/some-star-trek-fun-and-other-stuff.html

http://cornersofchaos.blogspot.com/2013/05/movie-review-star-trek-into-darkness.html

124. BiggestTOSfanever - September 13, 2013

TOS ftw!

125. BatlethInTheGroin - September 13, 2013

#119: That’s an invalid question. People don’t need to be scriptwriters to have an opinion about a movie. If they hated STID, they have every right to feel that way and to express it.

126. chris - September 13, 2013

So… all these points and counter-points aside:
Why did STID sell fewer tickets?
It made more $$ because of 3D (take THAT 3D haters), but still sold fewer tickets than Trek ’09.

Why?

127. Daoud - September 13, 2013

Sorry guys, I don’t think Boborci is coming back, even with this rather short, rather uneven to the article that drove him away….

128. ME!! - September 13, 2013

Good call and right on the money.

There are some details about the Abrams Trek I’m not really that keen on, but overall, I agree…these new films ARE like the Original Series which is the ONLY one that got it right. Don’t get me wrong, I do like some TNG, 3 or 4 Voyager episodes, the concept of Enterprise, and really enjoy DS9, but the Original Series has been and always shall be my absolute favorite.

Part of the problem with what people THINK about Trek is they have the knowledge of what Trek is SUPPOSEDLY about based on what Roddenberry & others, particularly those in the media making commentary, and then firmly believe that IS what Trek is. It isn’t. Just as this guy points out. It’s fun, action adventure at it’s finest…and that is just what it should be…no preachy nonsense…just a fun adventure that everyone can have a good time with.

129. Ahmed - September 13, 2013

@112. Dennis C

“Sorry, but as an editorial this falls way short and its lack of subjectivity ultimately makes it pointless.”

I believe you mean its lack of objectivity.

This came out as just a rant glorifying Abrams movies without any shred of objectivity that address STID issues.

I bet that MJ can writer a better & more objective editorial in defense of STID than this one.

130. ME!! - September 13, 2013

Oops…

edit: “SUPPOSELY about based on what Roddenberry & others, particularly those in the media making commentary have said”

Ok, there…I feel better now.

You know, guys, this comment section should have a bloody edit button!!!!

131. The Dude - September 13, 2013

I would argue that the original series is a compromise between Roddenberrys vision of Star Trek (The Cage) and NBCs idea of a 60s tv show. Abrams movies clearly focuses on the latter. So if you like that action adventure part the new trek movies are for you. But if you are looking for some intelligent and more demanding stories the chance is pretty good you will be disappointed when watching Abrams interpretation. And that is the point. The new movies are blockbuster interpretations that do not try to pretend to be anything else. They are made to appeal to a wide audience and avoid themes that are to complicated.

Now is Star Trek broken? Currently not, but it will be if the trend of “dumbing down” the material continues and Roddenberrys influences and ideas are forgotten. Luckily the Star Trek fanbase is strong and tries to preserve both aspects by producing its own fan films/episodes (Star Trek Phase 2 / Star Trek Continues), which have reached a remarkable quality. Trek fans who like the original stuff are in better hands with these productions.

My hope is that we will see some clever and original Star Trek stories in the future that do the orignal series (TNG too) justice either as TV Series or Movie.

132. Adama - September 13, 2013

I was very sad after Trek VI, knowing that was the last time I could watch this amazing characters on the big screen, and now, we have pretty decent, even good films with that same characters… I’d say that we, us trekkies, are pretty fortunate that after 47 years we get to still having new adventures to watch for… And not a bad version, seriously… I watch this movies, and watch the new actors (wich I love), and Im so grateful because this could have been horribly wrong… just think about the Star Wars prequels… J.J. Abrams steered clear of that fate for us, and I thank him for it.
What if STID was not perfect? some of the original films were horrible… Was Star Trek broken after ST V? or after Nemesis? I see a lot of people that try too hard to nitpick this new movies…

Im just happy that Trek is alive and well, being succesful, that means that down the line, we will have more TV, more books, more everything…

This said, I agree with the editorial, these new movies are more along the lines of TOS, when characters were flawed… I, for one, do not miss the stiffness of some of the latter treks. You have to remember that this is the early years of the Federation, and maybe they have not evolved yet to that “higher sensibility” or as the Stig puts it, the “bullshit” Picard gets called for in First Contact.
For me, JJ is 2/2 with the movies, I expect something more original for three, but I dont see the problem with STiD.

133. Jefferies Tuber - September 13, 2013

The thing that Stig gets right, when he says TNG went sideways, is that the show never addressed the cultural imperialism of even Roddenberry’s utopian vision. The whole premise was that American culture would not just inherit the earth, but the better part of a quadrant of the galaxy. ST09 and the 911 Truther elements of STID do seem to be on course to not just extend the action and adventure of TOS, but to also complete the arc of a narrative about how benign and enlightened the Federation really is.

134. Missing Point - September 13, 2013

So many responses equating “social commentary” with darkness, reality, moral grey area. Put simply – talking about peace, justice, equality, etc. IS social commentary even if the positions espoused seem “easy,” even if the positions seem unlikely to manifest in “reality.” This reminds me of discussions I have heard about the term “protest” vs. the term “demonstration.” Protest is by definition AGAINST something, which is of course what people invariably demand – “what are they protesting?” The real question is not what are they protesting, but WHY. A “demonstration” is showing what (or simply that) alternatives are possible. Star Trek at its best is not a protest, but a demonstration, often showing issues from multiple perspectives, rather than a singular view. This is not the “moral grey area” (where the good guys have to get their hands dirty) that we see featured over and over in our current popular culture, but a different kind of grey area – an actual investigation revealing the simultaneous validity of opposing perspectives (the “why” if you will). It’s not black or white, right or wrong, good or evil, it’s Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. It’s Star Trek.

135. THX-1138 - September 13, 2013

This thread is off to a much better start. No name calling and tantrum throwing.

I believe that we have established that there is a lot of Star Trek out there and that it is all different. A good thing, as it allows for all of our many varied tastes. I have never been a proponent of the “My Trek is better than yours” group, though, so any argument that starts off with the contention that one particular Star Trek was perhaps not “real” Trek loses it’s validity with me.

I am 48 years old and I grew up on Star Trek, mostly in syndication in the early 70′s. It was the combination of action, drama, camaraderie, and intelligence that shaped my young mind and made me fall in love with it. I loved TAS, too. I went to TMP full of excitement and felt disappointed in the slow pace but I still got the “Trek” feel of it even if I didn’t totally grasp the message.

Then TNG came and I was bitter. How dare they sully TOS’ memory? But I watched and came to love it as much if not more than TOS. And I kept an open mind for the rest of series even though I didn’t enjoy them as much (I am really coming around to DS9 since watching it again, though).

When 09 Trek was announced I was excited by the prospect of getting the origins story of my TOS crew and that Star Trek was going to be coming back. I was disappointed to find out, however, that this origin would be taking place in an “alternate universe”. I felt that there were still a lot of stories from the five year mission to be told and that somehow this NuTrek wasn’t going to be the same as TOS. But I changed my mind when it was explained that it gave the writers the freedom to write stories where the crew could be put in peril and their outcome would be unknown to the audience. So for all of 09 Trek’s little nit-picky problems I did indeed feel that at the end of the movie we were going to be going on some adventures like the TV show did.

Then we got the rumors about Khan. “Ugh no”, I thought. Where were the “new” stories? Why are they going back to an established villain? And why on earth would they want to make a movie that would inevitably be compared to TWOK? They also did themselves no favors by keeping it shrouded in secrecy and then having a staggered premier for it that had the movie opening overseas a full month ahead of it’s U.S. debut. That just allowed time for the big reveal to get spoiled and for any potential criticism to build up a head of steam. They shot themselves in the foot.

Now, for better or worse, we are left to discuss whether Star Trek is broken or not, almost immediately after the newest big budget Trek spectacle has been in the theaters. I don’t blame the fans for this problem. While there is a lot to enjoy in this movie such as the first 15 or so minutes that takes place on Nibiru, to a Scotty with some depth to his character, to Karl Urban’s excellent interpretation of McCoy, there are still a lot of problematic plot points.

What we all need to remember is to be tolerant of one another. I have no problem with someone I disagree with being passionate about their point of view. What I totally disagree with, however, is when they feel the need to invalidate my opinion and degrade me as a person because we don’t share the same point of view. I pledge to not call into question somebody’s intelligence, taste, and judgement or to call them names just because we don’t agree. I ask that others do the same.

Star Trek isn’t broken and neither are the fans. The fans are the engine that drives Star Trek. Without us there is not Star Trek.

136. Dennis Bailey - September 13, 2013

Actually, now it’s “without millions of teenagers who go to the movies there is no Star Trek.”

137. Mr Phil - September 13, 2013

I’d concede that Trek isn’t broken. For the most part, STID was a fun summer flick. Trouble is, in trying to pay homage to some of the best moments in previous Trek movie history, it ended up treading on a few toes. (You Khaaaaaaaant have Spock screaming, etc)
I think we could be in a far worse position at this point. It kind of feels a little like watching tng season 1&2 for the first time – it looks great, it’s got all the ingredients and talent, it just hasn’t quite found its own feet yet. Perhaps with the next movie we can drop some of the baggage, and go on a journey. Find out who this version of the characters are. See something in the universe that makes us think, not just a story essentially moulded around an expensive bit of CG that’ll look good in a trailer. Though I do like a nice bit of well executed CG as support to a story.
Do I have faith in the team for the next instalment? Yeah – they’re a talented bunch with a good eye, and we should be grateful for their exhaustive efforts. Despite occasional loss of focus due to excessive Romulan ale consumption.
Should they film IMAX? For me, no. I couldn’t see any improvement in resolution for those sequences on the Imax screen, though I’m sure it helped a smudge with the marketing. It’d be different with a wholly film capture to screen process a la Nolan, but unlikely these days and with that level of integrated vfx for a Trek film.
3D? If it gets more bums on seats, why not. But I see no benefit in seeing it 3d over standard.
So broken? No. But to a fair number of long term fans, it got a bit scorched in the summer sun, and needs a bit of tlc.
And less deep rooted, unseen referred-to-past, planet destroying revenge. Worse than time travel!

138. El Chup - September 13, 2013

While it’s good to present a counter argument to the recent editorial, I can’t help but feel this is a gratuitous attempt to suck up to Abrams, Orci & co after the latter’s rather disgraceful recent meltdown.

139. THX-1138 - September 13, 2013

#136 Dennis Bailey

Good to see you here, Dennis.

Help me out a bit, if you will. I sort of got the impression that you really enjoyed STID and the Abrams and company had Trek going in the right direction. But this comment:

Actually, now it’s “without millions of teenagers who go to the movies there is no Star Trek.”

has me a little confused about where your opinion lay. And please be sure, I am not judging your position, I’m just curious if it was a joke or if maybe I had your opinion wrong. I mean, how else am I to know what slanderous name to call you?

140. Bob Tompkins - September 13, 2013

The cogent question is ‘Would Gene Roddenberry have approved the script for STISD?’ The answer is no. Even when Harve Bennet was running the franchise, even when Tick Berman took over Roddenberry’s role, they stuck with what Gene wanted to do.
When they say Trek strayed from what it was in the 1960s, don’t forget that Gene Roddenberry was the driving force behind both. When TNG began to get its footing in season 2 and 3, Gene was still the driving force; this was Trek the way he envisioned it.
Gene would have never approved the current Transformers clone version of Star Trek. The whole idea behind Nutrek was to get away from what Star Trek was.
The fourth season of Enterprise is something we can point to as being what Star Trek is all about. Had Season 4 of Enterprise been season 1, Nutrek would not even exist. We would be in season 7 of Enterprise’s successor and Enterprise movies would have been the successor to TNG movies.
And maybe, just maybe, the powers that were would have had the balls to pick up the original Star Trek recast at season 4 of the original series.
Don’t forget that Enterprise’s pilot drew 13.5m viewers- numbers that networks would put a hit on the grandmothers to achieve today. Launch that into stories such as we got in season 4….. the possibilities are endless.
Had we just been able to skip seasons 2 and 3…
Star Trek is broken in a billion little pieces.

141. Vorta3434343434343434343 - September 13, 2013

Star Trek was never about the space battles, it was about the personal, emotional, and ethical conflicts that comes with exploring space where no man has gone before – making things go boom was way down on the list. Science fiction is more than just being set in space. JJ has turned Star Trek into a summer blockbuster, and to me, that is not what Star Trek ever seemed to be, even in TWOK. Where’s the high concepts of the Genesis Device? Going back in time to save an extinct species? Or even a sentient computer who’s come home looking for its creator?

Sure, we had the fist fights and quick-witted brinksmanship of Kirk and TOS, but there were still concepts that are missing from the roller coaster that has been the last two Star Trek movies. I don’t mind the action, as long as there are IDEAS. And I don’t see too many ideas about what life is like exploring space in the Abrahamsverse films, except as tiny tags to move a typically nonsensical popcorn plot along.

I’ll take it over no Trek and all, but I don’t know why we can’t get some more high concept ideas going here – After all Fringe had them, and I hear Lost did too though I never watched it. Even Super 8 had a great (if derivative) big idea in it. Here’s hoping Star Trek 3 goes bigger that way.

142. Optimistic Doodle - September 13, 2013

Indeed, Star Trek is not broken; TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY … fans, idem dito.

All series have their ups and downs – even TOS, or prime movies.
(And, to be complete, hu-mans too ;-)

JJ made the right choice to go back to the origin, IMHO.
That being said, watching ST & STID, I dare say it sure is possible – when chosen right again, creatively – to e.g. revisit a the Gamma Quadrant, or once more put a female in the captain’s chair! (different nuFlavours, but keeping the spirit alive throughout each)

I like blue, but sometimes red can be cool too, so to speak.

143. Phil 2 - September 13, 2013

Star Trek IS broken.

What did we see in the last movie? A complete RIP OFF of Star Trek II.

Abrams Trek is horrible. The writing is amateurish. There was is NOT one real Star Trek Fan that is involved in making the movies.

We have the one main writer telling fans to fuck off. Seriously the “F bomb” to the FANS!?!?!?! ARE YOU CRAZY? Just because the fans rip you on your poor work. Get over it! Apologize all you want but the damage is done!

Get NEW writers and RESTORE Trek.

144. Curious Cadet - September 13, 2013

@140. Bob Tompkins – Even when Harve Bennet was running the franchise, …they stuck with what Gene wanted to do.

What the hell are you talking about? Roddenberry hated Harve Bennett.

http://startrekdom.blogspot.com/2007/06/saving-star-trek-from-gene-roddenberry.html

And just like TWOK, TSFS, TFF & TUC, Roddenberry would not have approved of Abrams twisting of Star Fleet into an overtly military organization, mostly because I don’t see Abrams treating Roddenberry any differently than Bennett did.

At the end of the day STID had a great message at its core, totally in line with what Roddenberry would have approved of, and if Starfleet had to be momentarily militarized to sell that message then so be it — just like the whole alien takeover of Starfleet in TNG.

The only problem STID has is execution of the central idea. Nothing is broken, and nothing you have written points to that conclusion.

145. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2013

The cogent question is ‘Would Gene Roddenberry have approved the script for STISD?’

A better question would be, “Would Gene allow the new writers to take a chance and put our heroes through a dark time, so that we could learn why Starfleet, and Trek in general, is at its best when it’s missions are meant for science and exploration?”

146. David C. Roberson - September 13, 2013

The “Is Star Trek Broken” argument went much deeper. This is a lazy argument that I only somewhat agree with. This article should be a mere point in the overall argument. The fact is, Star Trek -is- broken. That doesn’t mean it -can’t- be fixed, and I don’t think it can be fixed by adhering to the post TNG era of thinking, either. Star Trek -wasn’t- as evolved as everyone remembers or likes to believe, that much is correct. Post TNG became too preachy and too arrogant. We want, nay, NEED heroes with faults and fears, otherwise they cannot experience true triumph (and neither can the audience). It’s storytelling 101 and it kills me that Star Trek hasn’t gotten that right in so long. It’s what DS9 got right so often, that which TWOK got right. STID tried to evoke TWOK without ever really earning it. That’s the problem here. As a side note here, I’m really sick of people arguing over what Gene would have liked or approved of. Gene contradicted his own policies when it suited him. That’s part of the problem with the Berman era. Berman stuck religiously to the Roddenberry vision of cardboard cut-out character arcs masquerading as human beings who all get along for no discernible reason other than “humanity has evolved.” Gene suffered from selective memory. Forget that members of the Enterprise crew had their own hatreds and fears and disagreements on the original show, we’re evolved now! It’s ALWAYS been this way! Gene didn’t fool me. I can’t believe he fooled so many of you.

147. czn - September 13, 2013

I’ don’t love you Thorny, nor do you require me to love you, but I find that I; agree with you.

Still for me the pace is so fast…yuck for me anyway.

148. Phil - September 13, 2013

We should be underestimating the impact that this franchise has had on society. Submitted as evidence:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-quotes-star-trek-voyager-1-enters-interstellar-091206918.html

149. czn - September 13, 2013

c. zenco your list is funny, sorry just funny for me. but I respect you…its your list not mine.

150. Horta - September 13, 2013

Star Trek is definitely not broken, but alive, relevant and with a few fresh twists of artistic licence to liven it up for a modern audience.

By far the best critique of STID I have read is John Kenneth Muir’s Cult Movie Review of the film. He focuses on many interesting political references that may have escaped notice:-

http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Star%20Trek

151. Dave H. - September 13, 2013

@140. Bob Tompkins – “Even when Harve Bennett was running the franchise, …they stuck with what Gene wanted to do.”

Wow Tompkins,

This is just so factually wrong. You are just making this up.

152. Ahmed - September 13, 2013

@ 146. Phil – September 13, 2013

” We should be underestimating the impact that this franchise has had on society. Submitted as evidence:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-quotes-star-trek-voyager-1-enters-interstellar-091206918.html

Thanks for the link. This is one of the reasons why Star Trek will be around for a very long time. The way Star Trek is inspiring people is just amazing.

153. Dave H. - September 13, 2013

“We should be underestimating the impact that this franchise has had on society. ”

I completely disagree. Why should we underestimate the impacts? Huh?

154. Disinvited - September 13, 2013

#146. Phil – September 13, 2013

Should? I don’t know why we should but that Yahoo News article definitely is an indication that Stig and some people posting here ARE underestimating its impact.

155. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 13, 2013

Re: Bob Tompkins

NO WAY !!! Gen Roddenberry absolutely hated what Harve Bennett did with those Star Trek movies.

156. Kev - September 13, 2013

“It’s because TNG Trek and beyond never actually continued the original series. In reality, it went sideways from the heart and soul of Trek and never really honored what it was about in the first place. ”

CALL!!!

First off Star trek TNG started off as a Rip off of the original show, Data was Spock, Riker was young Kirk, Picard was supposed to be like if old Spock was in command

the replacement for Doctor Crusher was supposed to be a Doctor Mccoy ripoff

even the enterprise D herself was a modernization concept for the Enterprise Refit in TMP that Andrew Provert really wanted to do if he had been allowed to of been let off the hook

not to mention the reuse of old sets, hell the battlebridge in Encounter was the newly repaired old Bridge from ST4

and TNG was FAILING in S1 and S2 because it was acting like BAD TOS, hence the sudden overhaul and throwing out of Hurley and the change in tone in S2 and S3

and with the money thing, and the we’ve evolved crap, that was bad Gene Roddenberry and Hurley like writing that got him kicked up stairs after TMP failed Critically in the first place.

hell TNG was basically him rebelling against Star Trek 2 – 6 until he passed on

and with that money thing, have a look at this

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/economy.htm

and that example about DS9 paralleling First contact there, it was making fun of that stupidity

so dont knock TNG for simply trying to survive and make itself watchable by getting away from being a tos rip off

along with DS9 trying to show a more realistic view of that future

Hell the reason why trek failed at the movies and on TV with voyager and enterprise was because the producers were trying to make it more 1980′s Gene Roddenberry like

http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/22/garrett-wang-talks-clashes-with-brannon-braga-rick-berman-lost-opportunity-for-star-trek-voyager-movie/

so that gene Roddenberry ideal, its generally not a good idea.

hell its what killed trek in the first place, damn near twice,

it was Meyer and Bennett that saved it the first time and Abrams and the transformers crew that saved it again.

and while their writing needs work and tightening up, along with the set and enterprise designs (seriously, that IS the anorexic enterprise), they still deserve a great amount of gratitude for bringing it back successfully, so you are right in that regard

along with that guy they brought in to desperately save enterprise damn near 10 years ago, Manny Coto.

even though certain points are mind bogglingly stupid of the new films, like the super warp thing Khan had from the first film and fighting above earth with no explanation of why someone didnt pass by and be like what the hell

and stop robocop/Khan in the vengence, or atleast attack them

and also JJ what the hell with the my name is Khan Scene, Steady the BLOODY Camera!

hell that was the one fault of the making of the film that faltered, that one scene

so its the writing that is not up to snuff with the new films, the direction though is good.

But I will say this, Shatter was right, Trek needs to come back to TV and not be weighed down by the Gene Rodenberry ideals again, otherwise its doomed to fail.

157. czn - September 13, 2013

my funny list

1) Star Trek VI Undiscovered County
2}Star Trek (2009)
3}Star Trek First Contact
4}Star Trek IV The Voyage home
5}Star Trek Into Darkness
6}Star Trek III The Wrath of Khan
7) Star Trek III The Search for Spock
8) Star Trek The Motion Picture
9) Star Trek Nemesis
10)Star Trek Insurrection
11}Star Trek Generations
12}Star Trek V The Final Frontier

158. Captain, USS Northstar - September 13, 2013

I’ll throw my hat into the ring to say: I agree — Star Trek is NOT broken!

I was coming back home during a business trip yesterday and happened to notice the person sitting next to me in the departure lounge in Chicago was watching his iTunes copy of STID on his laptop.

Even though I couldn’t hear a thing, I was mesmerized by the visual spectacle. I picked up the story as Spock was beaming down to pursue Khan and thrilled to the story all over again.

I have put off getting the “Target Edition” until my birthday at the end of October — some milestones need to be celebrated with a special gift.

And, there’s no gift more special than fresh Star Trek!

It is truly one of the gifts that keeps on giving.

Thanks for this rebuttal editorial — well done!

159. Aurore - September 13, 2013

… Highest grossing movie in the franchise, huh?

One thing is for sure ; Star Trek is not… broke.

:)

160. Cygnus-X1@hotmail.com - September 13, 2013

This rebuttal does have the virtue of being level-headed, but that’s it’s only virtue.

It reads like this guy is shilling for JJ & Co.

None of what he writes resonates or even comports in the least with what I’ve known of Star Trek over the course of 5 TV series and a few good feature films.

JJ as GR’s true spiritual successor? What a ludicrous statement. JJ has turned Trek largely into THE OPPOSITE of GR’s vision because JJ, by his own admission on several occasions, “didn’t get” GR’s Star Trek. And that’s why Spock cries in every movie now.

So, the writer of this rebuttal would have us believe that someone who fundamentally changed Trek because he didn’t understand it is now the true spiritual successor of Trek’s creator?

BobOrci, did you write this travesty of an opinion under an assumed name? It’s gotta be one of those guys. I mean this thing is a bad joke.

161. P Technobabble - September 13, 2013

I don’t know that anyone – for or against Abrams’ version of Star Trek – could ever come to the end of their explanations, because they’ve all become circular arguments. People are just saying the same things over and over again, until we’ve heard everything that can be said umpteen times.

And then people rant about wanting the Trek writers to come up with something “new and original.” Coming up with “new and original” is simple when writing and producing a major motion picture, simpler than it is to say something in here that hasn’t already been said, huh?

How long ago did someone say “Nothing new under the sun?” (I think the line first appeared in the Bible and Shakespeare quoted it later). Trust me, it was a long time ago. So, even in those days there was a sense that there was really nothing truly NEW to be done. Maybe “new and original” ain’t easy to do. Today there are numerous films that share a fundamental plot line. Nothing new. But the way in which they are presented is what makes things interesting. Then you either like it or you don’t. And, of course, everybody knows “like” and “dislike” are completely subjective, right? Nothing new there.

Personally, I agree with this editorial. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Star Trek. Then again, I don’t see any reason why someone (Abrams, Orci, etc.) has to make a Star Trek that satisfies MY interpretation of it, or drop everything if I say, “THIS is how Star Trek should be done!” Just because a group of people don’t like the new Star Trek does not mean there’s anything broken about it. It just means there’s a group of people who don’t like it. Period.

This criticism of what Star Trek is today is utter nonsense when the critics are arrogant enough to think their opinion stands heads above any other opinion… and especially when those opinions spin a debate into a million different directions, often having nothing to do with Star Trek.

I think it’s a shame that Orci and some fellow fans felt it was time to bolt. Having Bob Orci come around was a real pleasure (as far as I’m concerned) but, unfortunately, a lot of his time here was spent dodging mean-spirited BS from a group of pseudo-fans. That time would have been so much better spent talking with Orci about the thing we are supposed to be here to talk about. As for the others who left… I’m shaking my head. Star Trek fans being driven out of a Star Trek fan site. I don’t know how any fellow fan could allow that to happen — agree or disagree with them. That people can fall into childish, insulting arguments doesn’t speak well for us fans. And it really doesn’t speak well to all those people (and the media) who think we are all a bunch of freaks for being fans in the first place.

I think it is fine to have debate. Done right, it makes people think and challenges them to use their minds. Done wrong, it’s just a pissing contest.

Remember: in the Star Trek universe (old or new) the human race survived into the 23rd century. In our universe… uh, I think the jury is still out.
May fortune favor the foolish…

162. Doug H - September 13, 2013

WHO MOVED MY STARTREK FLAVORED CHEESE!??!!?

I keep hearing “Gene’s vision”. Gene’s vision mostly focused on women in less clothing, Kirk talking computers into exploding, green women in even less clothing, transporters that never worked in emergencies, Slow paced fight choreography, Villains locked into a one way path and heroes with a couple extra dashes of perfect timing and luck. Other than having the new Kirk talking a computer into exploding, I think J.J. Abrams nailed it. In fact, for over 30 years people have talked about Kirk sleeping with green women…J.J. actualy delivered.

163. Stargazer54 - September 13, 2013

Well, I’ve wasted another perfectly good afternoon at work reading through all the back and forth. Many good points, and seriously I appreciate the civility shown today.

Evidence that Trek’s not broken . . . . we’re all here talking about it.

Again, its the fans that keep her afloat. (And it’ll stay afloat as long as we don’t let our unrealistic expectations weigh it down.) The franchise is, after all, just that – a franchise. The decision to make a film or TV series is ultimately a business decision.

And as with any art form created for profit, your only hope is that the artist(s) are able to insert meaningful content when the bean counters aren’t looking. I believe this has been done and it has to be accepted that it never will be to everyone’s liking.

But the fact is, we are on track to get a third installment, and I for one am looking forward to it.

164. Chris - September 13, 2013

Trek is totally broken. I admire optimism, but not when it’s misplaced. Things won’t be better with this NuTrek crew, unfortunately.

165. Aurore - September 13, 2013

“One thing is for sure ; Star Trek is not… broke.”
______

Didn’t you mean “broken”…instead of “broke”?

166. Ahmed - September 13, 2013

@ 164. Aurore – September 13, 2013

““One thing is for sure ; Star Trek is not… broke.”
______

Didn’t you mean “broken”…instead of “broke”?”

Aurore, are you by any chance arguing with your own comment ? :)

167. Aurore - September 13, 2013

@ 164.

No.

I did mean “broke”. As in “having no money”.

Star Trek is not broke ; my beloved franchise is filthy rich, baby!

168. Kenji - September 13, 2013

I don’t know if Bob Orci or you or anyone really needs a 159th take on this topic (especially since they have my STID blu-ray money already, damnit) but I am a Trekkie and that gives me the right, nay, obligation to pontificate about Trek, so here goes:

As a film critic, I gave STID a good ranking for its amusement-ride qualities even though the insider-baseball stuff, though sincere and clever, was irksome.

http://www.straight.com/movies/382816/rollicking-star-trek-darkness-hits-much-it-misses

Having thought about it some more over the summer, my irritation with it reflects the comments in #135, to wit: why rehash old stuff?

We who love Trek find the waits between movies to be interminable. So we want the new stuff.

I’m not saying that there is such a thing in the storytelling universe as a brand new plot, either. Of course Trek has formulas. It’s a franchise, not some experimental art film. One of the things I love about the Abrams approach is that they went back to TOS characters.

Moreover, as a musician, I am aware that doing a brilliant “cover version” of recognizable material is a great way to highlight one’s own distinct strengths and sensibilities.

However, STID repeats so many tropes and inside references from previous canon that I felt, as a fan, somewhat pandered to. It felt like a very big budget Cawley type of thing – that it was Trek for the cultists, who ironically don’t like Abrams anyway.

If you’re going to go nerdy, then please open up the Trekverse in the way that, say, The Wounded Sky by Diane Duane opened Trek into metaphysics via hard SF.

There are also two big fails. The first is that Khan’s magic blood takes death out of the Trekverse. This will require all future Trek to somehow work around that; to engineer MacGuffins into the script to show why magic blood doesn’t work (cf. the tedious use of Kryptonite in Superman stories, as a way to re-introduce jeopardy to an otherwise omnipotent lead).

Second, Admiral Marcus highlights the filmmaker’s self-constrained vision in his rant to Kirk. He tells Kirk two exciting notions: that the Klingons are going to start the war sooner or later, and that Kirk should consider buddying up with Khan – if one augment can do that much damage, can you imagine what the whole platoon of them could do?

Uh… no… but I would love to have seen that instead of Spock fistfighting one dude (although again there is the clever callback, as Spock’s rain of punches is pretty much what he did as a violent yoot in the previous movie).

Does any of this make Trek, as it is, broken? Hells no. Trek is in great shape. It is back as a Paramount francise, it is being healthily financed, has A-grade technical talent, and has refocused on the TOS characters and situations. It is being overseen by a true Trek geek in Orci.

As for its supposed lack of big deep philosophical questions, that is the least of its problems. ST09 and STID don’t hit you over the head with their big ideas, but they are there. The first one is about destiny, the role of fathers and inheritance, and the futility of revenge. The second is about the warmongering impulse in a liberal society, responsibility taking precedence over brilliance, and the illusory nature of control.

I look forward to the next one.

169. Aurore - September 13, 2013

“Aurore, are you by any chance arguing with your own comment ? :)”
______

Not at all. I never do that.
Why are you asking?

:)

170. Ahmed - September 13, 2013

@169. Aurore

lol, I guess then that your counterpart from the mirror universe did that in post #164

171. Phil - September 13, 2013

Damn it!! Shouldn’t!!! SHOULD NOT…

172. Cyrus - September 13, 2013

Star Trek for sure is not broken. It can always be improved upon, but it’s not broken by a long shot.

173. Commodore Adams - September 13, 2013

Bottom line, the new movie IS Star Trek, just as much as TNG or any other series or movie.

Boborci you and your crew did a fantastic job.

174. Aurore - September 13, 2013

“lol, I guess then that your counterpart from the mirror universe did that in post #164″
________

Yeah. Something like that. I guess.
That’s the only plausible explanation, to me.

:)

175. Unbel1ever - September 13, 2013

I think the main problems of the new movies are not based so much in a departure from the vision of Roddenberry, but in the storytelling. Sure, style and action are in the driver’s seat, but that is true for many of the old movies as well. You can buy into that without any problem. However, there are a lots of lazy shortcuts in the storytelling (transwarp beaming, magic blood, nonsense promotions etc.) that take you right out of the experience. Furthermore, there is no internal consistency in the Abramsverse – no canon, no internal logic, no nothing. A good SciFi or Fantasy universe sticks to the rules it sets for itself. It thrives from myriads of details that create a believable picture. These days it apparently is far too much effort to at least keep a key piece of technology consistent between TWO movies. ST09: Multi part warp core, Enterprise operational when ejected, STID: Single warp core, ship fails when offline…..

176. Ahmed - September 13, 2013

@ 171. Phil – September 13, 2013

“Damn it!! Shouldn’t!!! SHOULD NOT…”

Dude, are you OK ?

177. Captain Karl - September 13, 2013

This article mostly strikes me as a “no it isn’t” reply to a “yes it is” school yard argument. We can bandy about minutiae until we’re blue in the face. Today’s Trek isn’t yesterday’s Trek or TNG Trek. It is what it is, a tangent within the same parameters but a injection of what action movies have become, eye candy. If you’re looking for Citizen Kane in Space, you’ve come to the wrong theater.

178. Josh - September 13, 2013

While Star Trek isn’t “broken” the franchise needs some work. Because Star Trek is in our potential future the movie plots need to be more logical. Therefore, people and organizations need to function like they do or would in the real world. For instance, Section 31 would have Starfleet and Civilian oversight. They just can’t build secret ships and staff them without the Federation executive branch knowing about it. Admiral Marcus wouldn’t have nearly the power he is shown in the film. This was my main problem with STID. The writers should do research if they don’t understand something. The plot just didn’t really make any sense. Otherwise the film is very good.

Plots can be exciting and make logical sense.

I think the producers and writers make a mistake in how they treated the original Star Trek fans by blowing up planet after planet just to make minor changes to previous episodes and movies. Star Trek is a nearly 60
year old franchise, it should be given a little more respect.

While I really enjoy the new Star Trek films, I hope the producers and writers can move in a new direction after they complete the current trilogy.

They should return to the Prime Universe but in the 25th Century so that CBS and Paramount can work on TV and movies together, which isn’t really happening right now. Something like Bryan Singer’s Star Trek Federation and maybe focus on the decadents of Kirk, Spock and others. This way that writers can deal with new stories and new developments that don’t have to contend with the complex how are things different questions every time a new movie comes out in the parallel timeline.

179. Karen - September 13, 2013

This article is right on.

Over the years, I’ve seen Trek fans romanticize Trek to the point of delusion. Half of the criticisms levelled at JJ-Trek can easily be applied to TOS. Spock spent half the time yelling in obvious irritation at the beginning of TOS, yet you object to his emotion?

Trek was an action/adventure show, not some ham-handed morality drama in space. Where did this idea come from? TMP was one of the most cerebral, hard sci-fi pieces of Trek there has been, yet fans hated it. So what exactly do you want?

I think the writers and producers should continue to do what they think is best and let the fans cry. You’d think DS9 was some beloved jewel, there are people that hated it to death and still do. Believe me, they’ve been crying for years, you can’t please everybody.

180. Kev-1 - September 13, 2013

First off, any editorial response including the word “bull*#%# is hard to take seriously. There are some points here, at the expense of post TOS Trek, but they are few. I don’t think the new character iterations are like TOS except superficially. The new series is unsustainable; how can you have a TOS type series with an incompetent Kirk character? If anything, Nutrek is more like TNG than TOS, because, like TNG, it relies on soap opera plot elements — Kirk as bad boy, Spock’s family issues, the Spock Uhura romance, Scotty’s scuffles with Keenser — rather than general plot. TNG was a fantastic, influential, show, but it brought out close relatives of almost everybody, including Data, for stories (not a problem, most of the time) instead of space exploration/ mission plots as a main story. Part of that was forced by demographics.

181. Gary 8.5 - September 13, 2013

A challenge .
Can anybody post an editiorial that acts as a rebuttal to Dickersons original editorial.without trashing TNG and the other spnoffs?

182. Phil - September 13, 2013

@180
You’ve obviously never read the LA Weekly…..

183. Richard - September 13, 2013

@177 AMEN!!

After reading through the last Editorials comments over days I think no one will ever win the “Mine is better than yours” fight, so most likely I’m going to sit this round out and read the articles like I used to do. It’s your own opinion in the end whether Trek is broken or not but from all the events of the past two weeks broken or not it is definitely fan-fractured.

184. Jax Maxton - September 13, 2013

What people tend to forget about the original Trek series is that it was, first and foremost, compelling science fiction in the tradition of Asimov and Arthur Clarke. Yes, the shows and movies had good characters and fun action. But aside from all of that Star Trek was always best when it used aliens, planets, and space travel to explore the human condition and what it really means to understand and accept things that are different than us.

New Trek has all of the iconography of science fiction, but is merely a series of action set pieces with decent takes on the original characters, without being good science fiction. In other words, new Trek missed the point. If Trek is ever to return to its glory days it will do so using great sci-fi stories and not JUST chases, fights, and phaser battles.

BTW, I don’t blame this on the creators of the new movies. They have been tasked with converting Trek into a blockbuster franchise that reaches a much larger audience than Trek ever has. In other words, Paramount has sacrificed OUR Trek for dollars. The only way I believe it can ever return is on TV, where the best writing is occurring today.

185. E. - September 13, 2013

In terms of the relationships among the crew of the Original Star Trek, I do somewhat agree Mr. Abrams did get some of the characters right: he nicely capture the action adventure, interpersonal conflicts, and the humorous aspect of many of the episodes and early films.

However, I object to the critique that no other squeal fully captured those elements of TOS. I grant that TNG didn’t at first embrace them, but in it’s defense (and succeeding further shows) the characters were vastly improved upon by the start of the third season, most notably Worf’s Klingon personality coming into occasional conflicts with his human crewmates.

Getting back to the Abram’s Star Trek – verse, the main problem I have with it is the complete absence of the idealistic journey of exploration, and scientific discovery. Those elements are just as important, and yet the are only briefly touched upon in a speech during one of these two movies. Not only that, but also the tech environment of the two movies feels more like the ones found in the James Cameron and Ridley Scott’s movies as opposed to the original Star Trek’s clean, spacious technology.

This may sound like complaining to some readers, but I consider these viewpoints as very valid concerns on Star Trek’s direction as a franchise.
In any event, I won’t waste too more space here, but I will add that the reviewer above me, is correct in stating that this “version” of Star Trek is not for everyone, which also includes me.

I do give you credit for writing a very good thoughtful rebuttal to Joseph Dickerson’s “Star Trek is Broken.” Despite the fact that I agree with Mr. Dickerson, I still find it intriguing to read an opposing point of view.

Thank you.

186. SerlingLives - September 13, 2013

There’s no question that TOS is the true heart and soul of Trek. But the Abrams/Orci popcorn movies are no more a “spiritual successor” to TOS than Galaxy Quest was. Loud, stupid, politically correct, committee-made, and marketing-approved. Tainted irrevocably by stupid “truther” nonsense.

I just saw “World’s End”, and in it’s emotions, drama, and characters was 10x more a Star Trek film than the recent Trek aboborcions.

This is NOT about money. Lost In Space presumably was more commercially successful and long-running than TOS. Does that make it better, or even as good. God no.

Speaking of broken… Trek Movie. Readers should know that for every negative comment here about the new movies that many many more are blocked or deleted in an attempt to maintain good relationships with TPTB at the studio and Bad Robot. It’s a private forum and admins can do what they wish, but let no readers delude themselves that they are seeing anything close to representative opnion.

187. TOSRules - September 13, 2013

There’s no question that TOS is the true heart and soul of Trek. But the Abrams/Orci popcorn movies are no more a “spiritual successor” to TOS than Galaxy Quest was. Loud, stupid, politically correct, committee-made, and marketing-approved. Tainted irrevocably by stupid “truther” nonsense.

I just saw “World’s End”, and in it’s emotions, drama, and characters was 10x more a Star Trek film than the recent Trek aboborcions.

This is NOT about money. Lost In Space presumably was more commercially successful and long-running than TOS. Does that make it better, or even as good. God no.

Speaking of broken… Trek Movie. Readers should know that for every negative comment here about the new movies that many many more are blocked or deleted in an attempt to maintain good relationships with TPTB at the studio and Bad Robot. It’s a private forum and admins can do what they wish, but let no readers delude themselves that they are seeing anything close to representative opinion.

188. TrueFan - September 13, 2013

There’s no question that TOS is the true heart and soul of Trek. But the Abrams/Orci popcorn movies are no more a “spiritual successor” to TOS than Galaxy Quest was. Loud, stupid, politically correct, committee-made, and marketing-approved. Tainted irrevocably by stupid “truther” nonsense.

I just saw “World’s End”, and in it’s emotions, drama, and characters was 10x more a Star Trek film than the recent Trek aboborcions.

This is NOT about money. Lost In Space presumably was more commercially successful and long-running than TOS. Does that make it better, or even as good? God no.

Speaking of broken… Trek Movie. Readers should know that for every negative comment here about the new movies that many many more are blocked or deleted in an attempt to maintain good relationships with TPTB at the studio and Bad Robot. It’s a private forum and admins can do what they wish, but let no readers delude themselves that they are seeing anything close to representative opinion.

189. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 13, 2013

I would say that the task creating a blockbuster Star Trek film that spoke to the core of what Trek is about would require a definition of exactly what Star Trek is. The problem is that it’s different things to different people. Just read the threads on this website that deal with STID and you will see that I am right.

I can say that I have been critical of this film, probably unfairly so. That said, I can honestly say that I only have a couple of “problems” with the J.J.-verse of Trek.

1.) The break up of the big three in favor of a Spock-Uhura love subplot. Ethos, Pathos, Logos. The Warrior, the Doctor, and the Priest. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were the core of the original series and much of what was best in that show sprung from the friendship and interaction of these three characters (here is where I say that Karl Urban is so good as McCoy that I cannot believe that this choice was ever made).

2.) The ignoring of previously stated canon that would not or could not possibly be affected by Nero’s incursion into this timeline (i.e. how long does it take to get to the Klingon homeworld?, Khan’s ethnicity, etc.).

However, these two issues have not slowed my path to see these films in the theater, nor interfered with my purchasing of the Blu Ray or DVD versions of these two films. This is because that without these two “problems”, for me anyway, these are almost perfect Star Trek films. I love the uniforms, the sets, the effects choices (going to warp, phaser functions, etc.), the pacing of these movies (especially STID), the casting and acting are spot on, and the fact that they (the writers) are making a huge effort to wink at the audience and pay respects to what has come before.

Bob Orci’s explosion on another thread got me to thinking about what I really thought about the J.J.-verse. Honestly, I was somewhat ashamed of some of the things that I have posted in the past. Knee-jerk reacting and jumping on the STID bashing bandwagon. The message of STID is one that I have been known to spout off about myself, especially after the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and waterboarding. I was proud that this film was saying something that I believed in. Unfortunately, I think that message was mostly drowned out from the whole Khan fiasco.

So, is Star Trek broken? Probably not. Star Trek, like James Bond or Batman, is bigger than a single film, TV series, or production team. Its appeal is manifestly clear in the $ the last two films have managed to pull in.

Here’s looking forward to what the future holds for Star Trek.

190. P'trick - September 13, 2013

If I’ve correctly read Dickerson’s opinion, and that of his and JJ’s defenders, the reason TREK isn’t broken is because, well, for the most part, prime-TREK sucked. That is wasn’t particularly unique as a tv-series since it was mostly only effective because of its character interaction and its action-oriented entertainment.

Therefore, It would be logical to agree with the writer, that new-TREK is a vast improvement, because it jettisons the failed pretenses of the Roddenberry’s TREK.

However, Gene’s TREK, along with all of the talent that have contributed to it’s presentation over the last 40 decades, did succeed in so many of the areas Dickerson easily dismisses, Generations of fans attest to this fact.

At least he’s being honest about the fact that his admiration for new-TREK is because it doesn’t try to be anything more than a successful summer tent-pole franchise.

191. P'trick - September 13, 2013

Oops, when I read over my comments for mistakes, I always miss SOMEthing. My error is that I referred to John Dickerson’s previously posted “Start Trek Is Broken” Editorial. Actually, I didn’t agree with all of that feature either.

However, my comment here (#186) was about “The Stig”‘s Editorial today.

I mistake was referring to Dickerson’s piece when I meant to critique “The Stig”‘s assertions. Sorry all…

192. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 13, 2013

@184 “What people tend to forget about the original Trek series is that it was, first and foremost, compelling science fiction in the tradition of Asimov and Arthur Clarke.”

Hmm, I have read pretty much everything by Arthur C. Clarke, and I really don’t see much in TOS that is like what he wrote.

Now, TMP, that is like a Clarke book. But TOS, no, not really.

193. Landon H. - September 13, 2013

This is complete and utter bullshit. I grew up on TNG and love it. IT was also Gene’s creation. I think ALL of the tng era series go deeper into the characters and have a vast array of GREAT and dare I say better characters than TOS. Beyond the “big 3″ the rest of the characters were barely eventouched, they were utter cardboard. And Trek has never done big ideas or social commentary well? “Martin LutherKing disagreed with you} You sir have lost ALL credibility. WHAT a hack.

194. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 13, 2013

181 “A challenge .
Can anybody post an editorial that acts as a rebuttal to Dickersons original editorial.without trashing TNG and the other spinoffs?”

What would be the point of that? The latter Berman era (e.g. Voyager and Enterprise) nearly killed Star Trek, and nuTrek brought it back.

Trying to artificially limit the discussion to avoid the horrid latter Berman era (or the initial two awful Roddenberry-managed seasons of TNG) would be like saying:

“Please discuss the origins of the Great Recession, but I challenge you to do it without discussing Wall Street Banking”

The would make no sense. See!

195. Weerd1 - September 13, 2013

Oddly, I disagree with the points of both “Star Trek is Broken” AND “Star Trek is Not Broken.” And that’s OK. The only mistake anyone is making in ANY of these discussions about original, TNG era, or Abrams is claiming that Trek HAS to be some particular thing. It does not. There are cerebral TOS episodes, and action adventure TNG episodes, and comedy DS9 episodes, and hard SF Voyager episodes and space fantasy Enterprise episodes. Star Trek is about PEOPLE, and so long as there people dealing with extrinsic and intrinsic problems in a recognizable space setting, it’s Star Trek.

It’s big enough for any of it.

196. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 13, 2013

@190. Weerd1

Well said.

197. OhPlease - September 13, 2013

Still don’t understand my fellow fans disdain. Here are some reasons.

Someone thinks there’s no consistency because the warp core looks different between 09 and 13. Well they ejected the core in 09, maybe there was a redesign? In STID Kirk and Scotty go running right past the same metal silos on their gravity-failing run to the engine room, so maybe it was always there and not shown in 09? The real world answer is they got access to an awesome supercollider lab this go around and used it for their engine room set. Besides, it’s not like changing out the engine room set between movies is anything new. Have you never seen ST1 – 10?

Someone else complains about the Uhura/Spock thing. Well for one, do you not remember the TOS episode where Uhura got so flirty with Spock that he began to pull on his tunic collar? Or another episode where there was flirty banter about his exotic home world on the bridge? Or the googlie eyes she shot him in another episode when he played his Vulcan harp? It was subtle, but there were some signs in TOS that a crush was there. I think it’s awesome that the current writers picked up on it and took it in a whole new direction.

Kirk respected authority in TOS. What?? Well, he did a bit more than 20 year old Kirk, that’s probably a given, but he definitely cared much more about doing the right thing rather than following orders. Do you guys not remember the time he blatantly disregarded the orders of a commodore and gave Spock direct authority to countermand him and relieve him of command of the ship? Or another time when he seemed about ready to take the head off of a political leazon and the starbase commander accompanying him? Or the countless prime directive violations?

Speaking of the Prime Directive… I like the fact that we seem to be back to the TOS interpretation. I think TNG’s interpretation is too cold, and honestly makes the Federation seem like a bunch of jackasses. In the TOS era it was okay for Kirk to save an entire planet of pre-industrial people by trying to destroy an asteroid that was on collision course for it. In another episode it was okay for Kirk and company to beam on down to a less advanced planet full of sick children because they’d sent out an interstellar distress signal. In several others they flat-out revealed themselves to the natives and laid it all out on the line for them because they’d already been contaminated by another space faring alien race so oh well. By TNG’s time they had resorted to kidnappings and mind wipes to protect the Prime Directive. How awful.

Do folks really not remember how action oriented TOS was for its time? There were shoot outs, fist fights, and bar fights in just about every episode! They drank constantly. There were space battles in about every third episode. McCoy screamed at the top of his lungs at someone about once every 30 minutes. :)

Which reminds me, people who think the new movies are too much about interpersonal relationships aren’t Star Trek fans or don’t understand what they’ve been watching. The one thing that is time and again cited as the truly great thing about TOS were the personal relationships between the characters. Yes they’re unfolding differently. That seems pretty natural to me, this is a different universe.

Which also reminds me, it is in fact a different universe. Go back and watch 2009. They’re not going with the dated, non-scientific concept of linear time travel like what you see in Back to the Future. This is quantum time travel… As a result they’re in a different quantum universe. Perhaps this explains STID villan’s appearance. I mean if Whorf can hop a shuttle craft and pass into other quantum universes where both past and future have changed, why couldn’t something like that have happened here. Please don’t reply to this, it’s rhetorical, this is science fiction, and the writers can do what they want. And I’m glad they did, because Cumberbatch is incredible (holy crap the crying on cue seen in the brig!).

Star Trek was ALWAYS more about doing the right thing, rather than being nice and following orders. There was always action. There were always interpersonal relationships. And it was always pretty interesting.

I see so many of these great qualities in the new Star Trek movies. I love the fact that they’ve really returned to the original core of trek. And I love the fact that THESE ARE ACTUALLY GOOD MOVIES! What I mean is that aside from II, III, and IV, the trek movies kind of fail as movies. Even VI is extremely hokey and full of very corny humor. With the rebooted movies, I consider them to be in the same class of movies I absolutely love to death such as Indiana Jones, BTTF, Casino Royale, and so on. I have waited my entire life for there to be ‘real movie’ Star Trek movies. I’m so happy we have them now. Apparently so are tens of millions of other people.

Let’s talk about movies for a minute, because these are points that cannot really be argued with. As an ensemble, the current trek actors are the best actors we’ve ever seen. As an ensemble. The special effects are orders of magnitude better than any other. The set designs are orders of magnitude better than any other trek series. The sound effects are orders of magnitude better than any other trek series or movie. The costume designs, while I’m sure some hate them, are as high quality as they come. I think even someone who doesn’t like their look, if they have an eye for fashion and can see how they’re constructed, can still probably recognize that.

So then really it all comes down to the writing. That’s what the nay-sayers don’t like. I don’t think it can be argued that the new movies are poorly written. I just don’t. I think 2009 was one of the most enjoyable origin stories of any movie of any franchise I’ve ever seen. Hell even my favorite actor, Ed Norton, said this, unsolicited, in an interview I read… And said he wanted to be in the next film because of it.

I think STID was just a cool movie. Yeah I agree both had points that can be picked at. But as a whole, there aren’t any major problems. So if all of this is the case, then really it just comes down to personal taste. And that’s fine, you don’t have to like It. Just admit you personally don’t care for it and move on. Stop saying its broken… You just don’t like it. And that’s okay, because tens of millions of us do.

198. Check the Circuit - September 13, 2013

I can’t even believe there is a discussion about Star Trek being “broken.” If it weren’t for these last two financial and critically-acclaimed movies, Star Trek would be dead. The we’d ALL be stuck in the past.

Quite the opposite, it seems. Star Trek Lives!

But the rigid, vocal minority makes a lot noise….full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. So to be noticed, the words have to be shocking, rude and hateful. Then…get a bunch of them in a room and they vote a good movie as the worst in the franchise. So it gets some attention…but unfortunately it’s the kind that feeds into the stereotypical image that all Star Trek fans are costume-wearing basement dwellers that get spoofed by The Onion and SNL.

Broken?!

Heavy sigh.

199. Musicman - September 13, 2013

PEOPLE lets talk reality here. Star Trek is in to MAKE MONEY. TNG had its charm but over the course of voyager, DS9, and Enterprise it got stale. The original series was great, while it was on the air though it stopped making money. So what did they do? They cancelled it. JJ Abrams right or wrong is an entertainer with an audience. You could sit there and debate whether or not STID was any good or not but in the end it’s all reflected in the revenue it got. Star Trek the motion picture is widely regarded as being one of the weakest of the movies, however, had it not generated the revenue it had generated Star Trek II would never had been made. In the end, we got another Star Trek that brought in an audience, made some rich guys some money, and satiated our appetite for another Star Trek movie, and will likely get another sequel. This whole mess about Star Trek being broken is total bull! It’s a franchise that must evolve (to quote the movie I just insulted “it’s reached the limits of our universe and it must evolve”). People who go see movies now want to see something different from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Some people need to quit over thinking this mess and learn to appreciate what has been given to us!

200. Bucky - September 13, 2013

Subtext of article: please come back, Boborci! You drive up hits to our site! We apologize!

201. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - September 13, 2013

“I’d argue that ” The damage is done, JJ has walked away and TREK is officially FUCT and sunk in an alternate universe.

202. Gary 8.5 - September 13, 2013

189. Not asking sking for an artificial limit on the discussion.
Just asking if there is anybody here who has both a positive opinon about Trek and the Spinoffs.
Is that really so rare ?

203. kmart - September 13, 2013

Haven’t read the whole thread, but #32 is the guy you should have asked to write an editorial, he sounds like his head is on straight.

As to the ‘not broken’ notion STIG has ejaculated, well …
Man, his line of thought isn’t just offensive, it is bone-stick stupid. Except for the obvious acknowledgement of TNG’s weaknesses (and I’m softpedalling it by calling them weaknesses), this is just bad thinking and wrongheaded writing.

He didn’t even get the DS9 criticism right; his complaint sure doesn’t hold water against what Sisko did to force Eddignton’s surrender, which has got to rank as among the most uncomfortable things that I can recall in the ‘real’ (i.e., non-Abrams) Trek universe (though keep in mind I gave up on VOYAGER and LITTLE ENTERPRISE very early, on account of the mesmerizingly awful notion of trying to re-purpose the previously weakest TREK, TNG, while the body wasn’t even cold.)

As for what Abrams got right? He cashed the checks. Maybe he should have done a series about the Ferengi.

204. Dave H. - September 13, 2013

#196. Ah, #32. The person who sounds so much like you, eh? LOL

205. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 13, 2013

Dave H,

My thoughts exactly. Maybe its “Blue Light Moron Special” night at kmart tonight.

206. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 13, 2013

@193 “Quite the opposite, it seems. Star Trek Lives! But the rigid, vocal minority makes a lot noise….full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. So to be noticed, the words have to be shocking, rude and hateful. Then…get a bunch of them in a room and they vote a good movie as the worst in the franchise. So it gets some attention…but unfortunately it’s the kind that feeds into the stereotypical image that all Star Trek fans are costume-wearing basement dwellers that get spoofed by The Onion and SNL.”

Yep! The meek shall inherit the earth; the rest of us shall go to the stars.

207. MJB - September 13, 2013

Nice try, @196. LOL

208. Wrath of Dhan - September 13, 2013

STID fails as a film (not just a Star Trek film) because it simply makes no sense. People are constantly doing dumb things for no other reason than to move the plot along. Dumb choices are made by characters to create contrived conflict. The science part of science fiction (never a strong suit with Trek) has basically been thrown out the window. The impossible can happen at any moment because the plot demands it and the writers aren’t good enough to bring about an original moment, so again and again they rely on “deus ex machina” – an artifice that comes out of the blue and only exists to satisfy the immediate need of the plot (ie: submarine starships and transwarp transporters). It’s lazy and it’s not very interesting beyond a momentary visual.

This is also a “consequence-free” universe. When Kirk screws up in WOK and lets the Reliant fire on the Enterprise, we see not just the results of his actions, but HIS OWN REALIZATION OF THE MISTAKE HE HAS MADE. NuTrek glosses over consequences. All the deaths in San Francisco are due to the inept actions of Kirk – he let Khan out of jail! He should not only NOT be speaking at a service a year later, he should have been court-martialed and thrown out of Starfleet. But not in the Reboot Universe where consequences don’t exist.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want to see a story wherein Kirk is court-martialed due to stupidity. I want to see a story in which he’s never that stupid to begin with! Where bad things happen DESPITE the best efforts of our heroes rather than BECAUSE of their lack of common sense.

Will a new director help? We have nowhere to go but up, IMO. I think the writers are just as important, and if Orci and company are still involved in setting the plot, I really see no hope.

Fifty years from now, WOK will still be considered a great Trek film. STID will just be a movie on the list.

And don’t EVEN get me started on “cold fusion”…

209. Danny - September 13, 2013

I watched Into Darkness with my father, a fan of Star Trek since 1966 and he loved the movie!

210. Li'l Shat - September 13, 2013

Star Trek is not broken, but it is in the hands of an inept group of talentless hacks.

JJ is all about the lens flares and the shaky cam! And of course Star Wars.

His writers are all about a parallel universe which went to great lengths to shake off canon, only to continue embracing it and playing fan service to it.

Prime Spock gave his blessing to this new timeline (“Ahead, full thrusters”) only to become Li’l Spock’s go-to guy every time the new crew can’t figure things out on their own (“How did you defeat him?”).

They couldn’t think of anything to do other than Khan. “Gollee, let’s do Khan a third time! The fans will love it! Only this time let’s make him white, skinny and British. Now that’s a twist!”.

Not having an original idea in their heads, they turned to Batman and threw the word Darkness into the title. Why not then name the next Trek movie, STAR TREK RISES? You know, for completion.

Star Trek is not broken, but this movie could have been so much better.

As could this editorial btw. Read Dickerson’s, then read this. One makes actual points in a well-expressed, considerate manner, while this one is just a shallow, lazy reaction.

211. Dave H - September 13, 2013

Lil Shat,

Really guy, we’ve heard this same stuff from you like 7 to 8 times now. We get your opinion now, OK?

Do you have any new material?

I’m getting real bored with you “cutting and pasting” the same thing over and over here.

212. The Keeper's Bling - September 13, 2013

‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Blu-Ray Punishes The Fans

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/09/12/star-trek-into-darkness-blu-ray-punishes-the-fans/

-Broken (our wallets.)

213. Li'l Shat - September 13, 2013

@212

Not mine.

214. The Keeper's Bling - September 13, 2013

@213 I was being facetious. I bought the original series seasons and original movies blu-ray sets instead since they were on special. LLAP

215. Li'l Shat - September 13, 2013

From the article:

“If you look at the original, with no bloody A,B,C or D, you get relatable people who have interpersonal conflicts, petty fights and make all-too-human mistakes.”

Yes, but the rub is that you you also get the same with the A, B, C, and D (and E). You also get these things on DS9 or on Voyager. You get them as well in these new movies, too.

216. AJ - September 13, 2013

STAR TREK’s appeal is mostly generational. I am 49, and grew up on TOS, and watched first run TNG on TV after college. By the time DS9 made the tough slog through its first season, I was done.

My opinion? The Klingons were made into laughing stocks, the “fish-out-of-water” crewmember (Spock=Data=Odo=Seven=T’Pol) schtick got tiresome, and blah-blah, it doesn’t matter because life had focused me on other things such as family and career at that point, and whether or not Berman’s “Trek” scribes could keep the franchise propped up on what were TNG’s laurels was not really a concern anymore.

I managed to catch all of DS9, VOY and ENT on VHS & DVD eventually, and, season 4 of ENT aside, it was all pretty forgettable stuff peppered with a few decent eps usually based on gimmicks (time travel or over-milked older Trek tropes).

The fact that most here would disagree with me is really of key importance to the franchise’s future, because what Trek we saw, understood and cherished in our youth, whether it be TOS or VOY, really leaves an indelible mark. The deep ‘fables’ I remember from TOS may be cheesy silliness to DS9 purists, and the perfected humanity overtone of TNG which inspired some may be overblown sophomoric hogwash to others. While I thought the Dominion War was a waste of good Star Trek, some see it as the show at the top of its game.

As for JJ’s version, we got a dud with STID. The TOS heart may have been in the right place, but the story itself was a cobbled mess of stupid bits and pieces with a light plot smeared over it like “butter over too much bread.”

To Mr. Orci, Don’t you and Mr. Kurtzman take the commentary here to heart, as you are unable to create the ‘Star Trek’ we all remember when we grew up. You cannot recreate the sense of wonder and awe I had watching it in black and white when I was 8 on a $200m budget in 3D Sensurround IMAX, so don’t even try. We know you can’t put our heroes in any real jeopardy, but please just write a tight and engaging story. And don’t forget to keep your Franz Joseph Technical Manual at hand for handy reference.

217. Charla - September 13, 2013

#198 Agree,
” I can’t even believe there is a discussion about Star Trek being “broken.” If it weren’t for these last two financial and critically-acclaimed movies, Star Trek would be dead. The we’d ALL be stuck in the past.”

Yes we would be, and it is shameful that people who claim to love Trek so much agitated a very personable, caring, interesting and passionate writer to the point of backing him into a corner and then claiming he’s unproffessional about it?

Look. Alot of you claiming to be Trekker’s or Trekkie’s can talk the talk but you can’t walk the walk. You claim to know Treks meaning on a very basic level to get along with one another like Roddenbery imagined, yet you basically BULLIED one of the very people who actually cared enough to get Trek noticed again into never coming back here to interact with us ever again!!!!

That interaction was what made TrekMovie special, it isn’t often that someone in Bob’s position would even take time to say hello let alone attempt to explain rationale for why something was done in a movie. If I were him I would just say “I wrote it the way I wanted it to be, that’s why”
and I think the rest of you judging from your responses would be the same.

I guarantee not one of you who have been so rude and insensitive about your dislikes of the movie would put up with the the BS that Bob has been subject to. Really it does make you who are so heated sound like selfish, immature, inconsiderate, narcissistic brats. It is nothing less than shameful to allow this to happen over a MOVIE. Bob is a story teller, a great one at that, and this is his and some other lucky guys version of Star Trek. If ya don’t like it, move on with your lives already!! Don’t stone the man to death in the town square ok?

I used to be happy to be called a “Trekkie” or “Trekker”. Not so much anymore. I don’t want to be associated with this type of behavior. I don’t blame Bob for not returning. It is very sad to me that this happened when it should have been a time of fun and enjoyable conversing and light bantering.

I still challenge any of you who think you can do better to take out a nice big loan and make another movie yourself. Even if you had the money, you couldn’t do it. It is just a huge undertaking and most will never know what is involved. Another reason to hush up or put up.

Climbing off my soap box, and climbing into the bed now that I have that off my chest. Hope everyone is proud of themselves and feel better now that they have pissed off the last influential person who would publicly be associated with “Trek Fans” into not coming back to TM for ANY interaction.

Good job and sleep well, little ones with little minds and big mouths.

218. Phil - September 13, 2013

And now, it’s time to play another round of the ‘talentless hack’ drinking game. You know the drill, a shot every time ‘talentless hack’ turns up in a post.

As a public service, because there are a few people who can’t write anything at all associated with Bad Robot without including the phrase ‘talentless hack”, here are the symptoms of alcohol poisoning.

Confusion
Vomiting
Seizures
Slow breathing (less than eight breaths a minute)
Irregular breathing (a gap of more than 10 seconds between breaths)
Blue-tinged skin or pale skin
Low body temperature (hypothermia)
Passing out (unconsciousness) and can’t be awakened

Seriously, before you kill yourself playing this game, go watch a few episodes of Power Rangers, you might get an idea what being a talentless hack really means….

219. Z3R0B4NG - September 13, 2013

Well maybe right there is my problem with JJ’s Trek.

I am a fan of TNG and everything after it, TOS is not my Fav, i respect it because it started it all, and the TMP era movies aren’t too bad either (just… 2 Shakespear quoting villains = facepalm worthy), but i loved the techy stuff about TNG (including the technobabble that so many were complaining about).

In JJ Trek i am more angry that there are no Energy Shields on the Ship (XSPLOSIONS!!!), they use red star warsy laser bolts instead of the iconic Phaser BEAMS (Ship and Handphasers)… and the Warp Effect looks more like Stargate’s take at “Hyperspace” then Warp ever looked in Star Trek. The whole visual language is so… generic just to be new and flashy.

Neither do i like what they did with the iPhone-ish Bridge, the displays on the Screens look flashy but not “functional”, i take the good old LCARS over this nonsense any day.
Not to mention the whole Engine Room disaster in the 2009 one (the STID one was way way waaay better, thumbs up for that).

Ultimately i think i would like JJ’s Trek a lot more if it didn’t play in the Star Trek Universe at all… if you want to do something new and flashy, just do your own thing. If you copy / reboot / revive a “Franchise” to cash in on the “Market Recognition” value, then you gotta live with it that people compare it to the original that they love and will nitpick your stuff to bits until nothing is left standing.

Personally from a STORY point of view, as a TNG Fan, i’d be more excited about a Captain Worf series (That Michael Dorn once talked about) than anything that JJ could ever do with TOS, in the end i am just not too hot for Kirk/Spock/Uhura.
I’ll watch it, i’ll enjoy it for what it is, i read the comics, i played the game, but in the end, those are just a few movies and in the overall Trek Universe ranking they are somewhere on the bottom with Voyager and ENT for me… just finally in 1080p.

220. jd - September 13, 2013

Rather than painstakingly explain why this piece is a big pile of nonsense, I’ll just let this guy do it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/james-t-kirk-star-trek_b_3276106.html

He uses mostly the original series to explain that the 2009 Star Trek was somebody who had never seen Star Trek’s idea of Star Trek. Kirk wasn’t a “cocksure captain” at all. Ironically, in fact, you’re espousing a TNG-era fan’s view of the original series, while lambasting TNG.

Utter nonsense.

221. Danny - September 14, 2013

Bob Orci please come back!!!

222. Basement Blogger - September 14, 2013

@198

Check the Circuit says,

“So it gets some attention…but unfortunately it’s the kind that feeds into the stereotypical image that all Star Trek fans are costume-wearing basement dwellers that get spoofed by The Onion and SNL.”

Hey, watch it with basement dweller part.

223. Moit - September 14, 2013

really nicely written..bravo!

224. czn - September 14, 2013

Everyone of you have to admit that it is hard for anybody to think of themselves as an idiot, so same with me I’ don’t like to think of myself as an idiot, but sure feel like an idiot now, just saw Into Darkness for only the second time, now on DVD and I’ like this movie.

It’s an alternate time line I’ knew that but it never sunk in till now, so the stupid scream never happen by kirk and time who nobody really understands will happen anyway, so now Spock screaming Khan is totally ok with me and so is this Star Trek not Star Trek. The original was the peace and wonder and good ST.

This is the war before peace, before war, before peace ST and everything that happen before will happen but different, so Uhura can die or Edith Keeler from City on the Edge of Forever can live, I love this and maybe after 12 more movies the new kirk played even by another actor who cares will destroy this new time line because its just not good for Earth somehow and and we go back to the original time line, so we think…

I’ve been on and off on this forum with many, many different names and in most of my posts I’ve been very critical of both Bob and JJ, would like to take this chance to say I’m sorry to them both, this is not my ST but I do love were you are going with this DO NOT LISTEN to nobody just do what you want, many of us will follow and pay.

For many die hard fans it will sink in after many years of watching the many movies that Paramount, skydance, Bad Robot and CBS will put out, take my word for it…DO NOT LISTEN to fans, well to some anyway…

many of you can if you wish call me an idiot, ask me if i care…

LOVE this movie in the collection, not so much the first time I’ saw it but its a keepper for viewing every 5 years or so…

I’ve come around JJ and BOB

225. Phil123 - September 14, 2013

I agree with some of this, (I also agreed with much of the contrary article) and agree that JJ’s 2009 Trek is actually being closer to the original series than much of what came after. I’ve argued this myself.

That does not forgive Into Darkness for ripping off half of Wrath of Kahn, having more plot holes than are forgivable, and being the third Trek movie in a row to feature a villain after some kind of revenge. Fourth if you count Picard in First Contact.

Star Trek 2009 had it’s logic issues but I loved it. They were forgivable because the film was great fun, well written, fast paced and reasonably original. Into Darkness was fast paced, but neither as much fun, well written or original.

226. czn - September 14, 2013

My revise list:

1) Into Darkness
2) what ever comes next (#3) in the new time line…
3) ST 2009

I’ cannot include any of the previous movies in the revise list, cuz its a different time line and it’s just not my style.

For a new time line, a new set of rules about ST in my opinion.

You know what we need it’s a new time line for Star Wars also, your toughs anybody…

JAR JAR dies in the first 5 minutes…

227. It Is SO Broken - September 14, 2013

“We haven’t had a true, spiritual successor to the original series until Abrams came along”

As Scotty said it, ‘this is not Scotch’.

228. czn - September 14, 2013

As far as I’m concern the planet were the salt vampire comes from is over populated by them.

There’s a movie without revenge, yet very much in style with viewing preferences of today…World War Z and that zombie show that I never watch made and make money, so why not star trek with vampires.

But I’ still like the idea of Garth in the movie after the Klingon wars one.

so much can be done now…

explore on tv and explode on the big screen I say.

229. Ed - September 14, 2013

czn, wouldn’t True Blood and Twilight be a better comparison? :P

230. pock speared - September 14, 2013

Repost with addendum:
Nice article. It calls out the “hate” crew by reminding them the Star Trek” they imagine J.J. betrayed didn’t actually exist in the first place (in much the same way that the fundamentalist right often pine for a 1950′s “leave it to beaver” culture that never existed either).

If anything, STID and the film before it are truly in the spirit of the original, told in modern cinematic vernacular. We don’t see the reasoning behind using a volcano to save a culture or why we would submerge a starship, but can easily imagine the arguments between K, S and Mc that made it happen played out on 1967′s bridge.

Trek, like Bond, departed from itself for decades as cultural mores forced it away from the western-in-space roots where it was born. We now can return to that “space” without feeling so very guilty about it, and a mature eye on the fun it represents. To rant against these films, or the franchise itself as “not true to the fans” is, as one recent poster put it, is a “shitty dodge” that ignores the facts.

One is reminded of the child who gets exactly what he asked for at Christmas, then throws a tantrum because it isn’t what his overactive imagination desired. In other words, brats, nasty brats who have never written, produced or made a film, and who sit in the back and whine and criticize and expect to be served.

The only thing broken about Trek are the rectums of the little spoiled “fans” who imagine they own something that was never theirs to begin with. Orci was too kind, and his only mistake was trying to please the ingrates who have abused his work and his generosity.

231. The1701 - September 14, 2013

I think what both the JJ Abrams movies have done is made us (the online fan community) look at ourselves and ask the question, what is Star Trek.

Star Trek and in particular Star Trek Into Darkness have both driven either excitement for a new chapter in Star Trek history or utter contempt for those who fail to see what Star Trek was all about.

To say Star Trek is broken or not broken is redundant as Star Trek is seen differently to each and every one of us. Some like it for the profound ideas it presents, others love it because of its tightly woven timeline and the majority just enjoy it because it’s all Star Trek.

The fans (myself included) who enjoy (on varying levels) anything with the Star Trek name attached to it are those fans who will ultimately get the most out of loving this franchise. Those fans are not constrained by one particular way of writing and producing a Star Trek film or TV episode.

The fans who can’t see beyond one particular aspect of Star Trek are the ones who will never be happy with anything and for those fans I say that if you truly want to know the meaning of Star Trek then open your eyes, open your mind to new possibilities and to new horizons. Don’t constrain your own ideas and imaginations to one form of thinking or one form of Star Trek. If Trek has shown us anything over the last 50 years, it’s that it can be anything and everything as long as the characters are people we care about.

The world has changed, the entertainment industry has changed and Star Trek has and must continue to change with the times around it. Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness are relevant pieces of cinema for today’s audiences and I’m sure will be remembered as important pieces of the Star Trek tapestry, just as TOS was relevant to audiences of the 60′s and 70′s.

232. SpaceBun - September 14, 2013

Some of you continue to mistake who the real villain in STID was, which probably contributes to your misunderstanding of how the film works.

Khan was NOT the villain. I would even go so far as to say he wasn’t A villain in STID at all.

The true villain was clearly Marcus and Section 31 behind him, using Khan for their own ends, looking for all the potential horrors out in the universe in the hopes of exploiting them for use against the Federation’s perceived enemies, all due to their sudden fear of the unknown when a mad Romulan from the future blows up a core Federation world with a ship of untold power.

The same unknown that should be more about exploration of, not pre-emptive conquest of.

Khan was little more than an “innocent victim,” or more accurately a beast Marcus found to have caged up, collared and leashed to do his dirty work in “preparing” Starfleet for a war he felt was necessary. This was NOT the Khan found by the more honorable Kirk in “Space Seed,” but the Khan found by Marcus and his ilk, “raised” in their shadows, giving Khan a distorted image of what the Federation and its Starfleet is supposed to represent, leading him to perceive all under the Federation flag to be his enemy.

When Marcus was killed, it was from his own mistakes, his own misdeeds, his own acts of villainy, Khan was merely the instrument.

This isn’t to say that Khan isn’t worthy of being a villain, this Khan or any other we’ve seen so far. Regardless of his appearance (which I personally attribute to maybe being a facial reconstruction by Marcus in addition to his false “John Harrison” name), Benedict Cumberbatch and the writers whose lines he worked from gave us a chilling view of what prime-universe Khan could have become, if not for Kirk’s actions in “Space Seed” and then his inactions leading to “Wrath of Khan.” A cold, heartless, calculating monster from a long-lost era of war and strife revived in a world of peace and harmony.

While there are a few odd moments in the film itself, I can not subscribe to the opinion that STID is broken, that it’s a bad Star Trek film, when at its core it has such depths, taking a spin of something without removing the spirit of Star Trek from it.

I’ve been a Star Trek fan since I was born, raised through the start to the end of TNG and all since, and having seen it all, there are plenty of terrible, unfulfilling moments where pseudo-science-saves-everyone-but-leaves-personal-issues-hanging. TNG was especially guilty of this, despite my attachments to it. And frankly the last few TNG films did not do it for me, with “Nemesis” being an obvious attempt to tie into the popularity among Trek fans known as “Wrath of Khan,” except with clone villains and potentially-reborn-for-future-films-if-successful androids. That, among other things, broke Star Trek, and Paramount was happy to let it die, destroying sets and props that didn’t get sold to private buyers.

You ask me, I think the new films are doing just fine. Anything to get the Trek blood pumping again, to bring in new fans, and to do it with not only style but respect.

233. Barkley - September 14, 2013

As usual, some people defend Abramsverse, attacking TOS and TNG…Maybe they have not arguments for defending STID.

234. ironhyde - September 14, 2013

I disagree with this article. There is so much wrong with it, I’m not even sure where to begin. This shows us just how accurate the “Trek is Broken” piece was.

TNG was superior to TOS, in my humble opinion, because the times were changing to allow for a more openly progressive show. Black and white kiss was made to look the way it was because of the time. But the ideals were still lofty. Oh, Trek was trying to make man a lot more beautiful and good than the cop or medical dramas of the time. No comparison. People WERE better.

As soon as you start telling me TNG wasn’t Star Trek, I faze out. Where does all this nonsense about Gene’s vision of an conflicted humanity come from? It is brilliance, that notion. And I am so disappointed to see that among all our creativity we are unable to work in that realm. I guess it won’t happen until we CAN.

Star Trek had flaws in it’s methodology, but Star Trek wasn’t about putting an African man in front of us and debating racism. It was about getting us into the adventure of racism, politics, theology, by looking inside and outside ourselves. I think in no way TNG went with “easy” or “safe” answers. To this very day The First Duty is one of the hardest episodes for me to swallow. Even Worf’s turning away from the dying Romulan that needed his transplant, what a decision, what a thing to think about.

Star Trek lived in TNG. In DS9, it continued that tradition a bit with some extra vigour and a few risks.

Saying Star Trek isn’t dead because it was dead back in the 90s? Bullshit.

235. Danny - September 14, 2013

Remember when you were young and you liked something, it didn’t matter whether you thought it was good or bad, you just liked it. When it came to that moment when you liked Star Trek you just did, or you liked one series over the other, TOS over Deep Space Nine, because you liked the one you did you allowed the other shows to exist. The new movie is an expression you can ignore or like it like you did before with the other series. It’s the not the end all be all of where Trek is going or will become. There will be other expressions of Star Trek well into the future that will be more faithful or completely different. It’s all-good, because variety is good. Un tighten those sphincter muscles and let it flow naturally.

236. GarySeven - September 14, 2013

This is a very impressive article, as are many of the posts. But I don’t mean it is impressive in terms of accuracy. It is impressive because it powerfully demonstrates how people can disregard essential information if they have an opinion and want to believe something. To claim TNG is not really Star Trek is stunning. Some people have gone further here, saying Gene Roddenberry’s views does notreally count as Star Trek either. Psychologists call this process “selective inattention.” It’s one thing to have a slant on things, another thing to just completely disregard major and key parts of something. Look, if you like Star Trek for the action part only, just say so. But don’t deny something doesn’t exist simply because you just don’t care for that aspect That’s…well, let’s just say to do that is an impressive psychological process.
I have no doubt that such productive conversation where core concepts are just dismissed can happen with people who just deny aspects of things because they just don’t like them— but to those who have open minds, I want to post something. PBS did a wonderful documentary called “The Pioneers of Science Fiction” in which it described how Star Trek was so very different and distinct from the other Science fiction shows of the era, such as Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. To quote from it:
““STAR TREK”
Gene Roddenberry had the kernel of an idea for “Star Trek” as early as 1961, and he planned for each episode of the series to deliver a cathartic two-punch in the form of entertaining adventure and moral message. But Roddenberry met resistance from NBC. The network insisted that the “Star Trek” pilot presented fascinating ideas but lacked excitement. Roddenberry reworked the script and brought actor William Shatner to the key role of Captain James T. Kirk. NBC executives were satisfied with the changes, and the series “Star Trek,” hit small screens in 1966. Unlike anything that had come before it, “Star Trek” addressed issues of race, gender, war, nuclear proliferation and drug abuse in a context that was palatable to the public.”
This is the link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/pioneers-of-television/pioneering-programs/science-fiction/
and the parts about Trek are available on youtube as well.
Anyway, no doubt people will say PBS is not a reputable source for documentaries, that Gene Roddenberry does not represent Star Trek, TNG is not really Trek, and who knows what else, if they want to believe something.
Amazing. Or, as Spock would say about the human mind,
“Fascinating.”

237. P Technobabble - September 14, 2013

186. SerlingLives, 187. TOSRules, 188. TruFan

Same post, word for word, different usernames?

What gives?

238. Eric Cheung - September 14, 2013

I’m basing this on the Lindelof quote I cited in the comments for the previous editorial, but maybe if Trek is put in a position where it feels obligated to throw the USS Vengeance down onto the streets of San Francisco for reasons other than those that grew organically from the writing process then maybe it is broken.

It’s been said that Trek works best on TV. I’d love to see that statement proven wrong someday, and I hope the next movie does just that, but so far the movies, and this goes for all of them, have never really gotten Trek’s tone down.

How about this though? How about a Star Trek story where no one dies? There’s only been one movie to do that so far. If it’s impossible to do on the big screen then maybe Star Trek does need to be back on TV.

239. Kayla Iacovino - September 14, 2013

I completely disagree. This post says to me: All Star Trek after TOS wasn’t really Star Trek… whaaa???

I’m not a fan of the “it’s not Star Trek” argument on either side of the debate. Every canon work with the name Star Trek on it is Trek. Yes, even VOY: Threshold.

And, I’m sorry, but JJ did not go “way back” to the 60s for inspiration for this film. (case in point, it was the writers who would have “gone back” for inspiration, as JJ’s directing style is completely his own and not a copy of Trek directing style). The new films use the TOS characters, but the question is whether or not they capture the chemistry of those characters… AND of the universe as whole. That’s the point we should be debating.

I would say that they don’t (especially STID), but I am open to those who feel that the universe was aptly captured in JJ’s films. I’d like to hear a post convincing me of that; not one saying that we should stop wanting cerebral Trek, since only TOS was real Trek anyways.

240. Kayla Iacovino - September 14, 2013

@12 Eric G.

You said it best.

241. Spock's Bangs - September 14, 2013

#233. “To claim TNG is not really Star Trek is stunning.”

I’m not sure why it surprises you. The article is 100% correct. TNG and Star Trek are apples and oranges grown by the same man. TNG is no more “star Trek” than “Lou Grant” is ” The Mary Tyler Moore Show”. TNG was a spin off set in the same fictional universe with familiar trappings and that is where any resemblance to TOS ends. The author of this Artie has hit the proverbial nail in the head, well done!

242. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 14, 2013

I wouldn’t go so far as to say TNG (and DS9, VOY & ENT) aren’t Star Trek. I believe they are, just as TOS is. I’ve watched them all and am fond of them all to a greater or lesser degree. However, they are different flavours of Star Trek. Just as my favourite ice cream flavour is chocolate, my favourite Star Trek flavour is TOS. For me, the 2 latest movies have a definite TOS flavour.

243. AnthonyDCZar - September 14, 2013

There is a reason why Star Wars and Star Trek have divided fans. It has nothing to do with Gene’s “vision” crap and more to do with the nature of story-telling.

In a two-hour movie a writer/director has only enough time to do summary introductions. The plot – not unlike a fairie tale – is simple and directed at audiences (in US) who want to not fall asleep. So exploration of humanity, addressing complex issues is almost impossible. Into Darkness attempted to do so, but much of the moral was lost in the action.

Star Trek, TOS, had time to flesh out both characters and plots…to discuss ethical and moral issues hidden in a futuristic western. It was not a show for people who simply want to zone out and watch action/adventure.

I disagree both with your premise that this is a “Gene’s Vision” issue and that Next Generation on forward went sideways of that vision.

If you recall, the first few season (until Q introduced the Borg), Next Generation had no moral/ethical dilemma because everyone was happy and there were no wars, poverty etc. Gene’s vision had evolved into watching paint dry.

The best Trek is when the characters are faced with decisions of great import and to follow their decision-making process. In great Trek, the characters are less important than the plot. In Star Wars, the characters ARE the plot. I enjoy both, but they are vastly different and iot really isn’t fair to compare.

BOTTOM LINE: BRING TREK BACK TO EPISODIC TELEVISION.

244. AnthonyDCZar - September 14, 2013

Broken or not:

BRING TREK BACK TO EPISODIC TELEVISION!!!!

245. P Technobabble - September 14, 2013

Frankly, I didn’t see some of the anti-Star Trek insinuations in this editorial that others apparently see. The writer is, in fact, pointing out some things that David Gerrold pointed out in his book “The World Of Star Trek” from 1973. Gerrold criticized Star Trek for the use of what he called “puzzle-box” stories — Kirk has to solve a problem –, NBC’s insistence on more action — Kirk in danger (rather than Kirk has to make a choice) –, and the “saving” of alien societies as Kirk saw fit, ie. the “American” way. And once the utopian idea of perfect humans who never argued with each other appeared in TNG, there was very little drama left to create meaningful stories.

Try to find a way that any post-TOS series improved on TOS. TOS IS Star Trek, for better or for worse. Everything that follows (TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) was an attempt to make lightning strike twice. I don’t think Abrams’ intention was to improve on TOS — I believe his intention was simply to bring the original characters and scenario back to life. Yes, the other shows have good Treks, and bad Treks, but none of them were doing the original Trek. To point at Abrams’ films and say “They aren’t Star Trek” is just insane. For example, as an aside, remove the name Star Trek from DS9 (and remove all the Trekian references). There was nothing “Star Trek” about that show. And then you want to insist that Abrams’ films are not Star Trek?
Look, disliking something is fair enough. Disliking something to the point you want to destroy other people’s points of view, reputations, abilities, whatever, is just… well, use your brain figure it out.

246. Spock's Bangs - September 14, 2013

#208. “STID fails as a film (not just a Star Trek film) because it simply makes no sense. People are constantly doing dumb things for no other reason than to move the plot along”

Wow. Have you watched Wrath of Khan lately? Do you reeeally want to go there?? lol

247. Greg2600 - September 14, 2013

Sorry, but when you make Star Trek: Mission Impossible films, it’s broken. That’s not Star Trek. No more movies, return to television where they’re forced to write good stories.

248. Paul - September 14, 2013

Abrams didn’t *get it right*. Abrams tried to copy the successful elements, but, true to the cargo cult fashion, he never really understood what he was copying. Admittedly, his air traffic control headphones are spot on, so is the entire control tower, but they’re still made of bamboo and coconut shells.

Original Star Trek was written by people who experienced – and fought in – two world wars. Contemporary Star Trek is written by people whose only life experience is sitting in chair, writing.

249. Balok - September 14, 2013

I sure would like to have a sip of the Kool Aid this editorial writer is drinking.

250. Gary 8.5 - September 14, 2013

237. Different flavors of Trek.
That is a good way to describe it .

251. Buzz Cagney - September 14, 2013

Totally agree with him on TNG. Bland as magnolia.
However, while STID definitely caught quite brilliantly the verve and spirit of TOS they fobbed us off with a very poor story indeed.
I’m going to keep saying it because they have so many elements in place.
Writers who get the characters. A cast of fine actors. And the $’s to do what they want.
We just need someone with a story idea…….

252. Gary 8.5 - September 14, 2013

44.
Kirk didnt maneuver to get his command back in STID.
He was quite surprisedthat Pike made him his first officer .

253. Doc - September 14, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs

Everything that needs to be said about the movie.

254. Adolescent Nightmare - September 14, 2013

I am watching the first TNG now and I would- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

255. Yotsuyasan - September 14, 2013

Okay, I have to admit I haven’t gotten all through the comments. I read them pretty well up to about #85 or so. Then I skimmed a bit through about #110. Then I pretty much gave up. So apologies if this has already been addressed. (What can I say, I came into it late?)
.
Anyway, I certainly have my own opinions on Into Darkness or the franchise as a whole… but those viewpoints have pretty much well been hashed back and fourth already. What I did want to address is that I noticed a few comments making a complaint that all of the films prior to ’09 were centered upon vengeance, and how refreshing it was not to have this in the newer films.
.
Um… What?
.
The Motion Picture: No where in this film did I see any vengeance. What could you possibly be talking about? Kirk taking back the center seat? That wasn’t anything personal against Decker. That was based on Kirk’s self-regret. V’Ger trying to wipe out all carbon units? That wasn’t vengeance, that was cold, logical efficiency. The carbon units, which are not true life forms, interfering with establishing contact with the creator? Simple. Get rid of them. Problem solved.
.
The Wrath of Khan: Well, you got me there. Heck, revenge is even was the title before they changed it to avoid conflict with Revenge of the Jedi. But the one consumed by a need for revenge was Khan, who was even self-aware of it as he almost romantically saw himself as Ahab and Kirk as his whale. And… well… we saw what his quest for revenge got him. Hardly glorifying the concept at all.
.
The Search for Spock: Again, where is any hint of revenge driving this story? Heck, the one person who would most be justified in seeking revenge at any point would have been Kirk, after David’s death. And yes, he was upset. Hell, he was almost broken in that moment. But he pulled it together and made some tough decisions, including sacrificing his ship, to complete the mission. And when faced with the one who ordered David’s death, Kirk and Kruge do fight. But when the time came where Kirk could deliver a killing blow, what did Kirk do? Tried to save him. It was only when Kruge refused help and tried to take Kirk with him that Kirk finally had had enough of him. Hardly a revenge driven movie.
.
The Voyage Home: Again, what revenge? The only one who seemed to have anything close to such a motive was the Klingon ambassador seeking extradition of Kirk for his actions against the Klingons in Star Trek III. Kind of bold, since the Klingons (as Sarek pointed out) were completely in the wrong when Kirk encountered them. One commenter specifically mentioned the alien probe. Did he think the probe was seeking vengeance against humanity? Spock clearly pointed out that there was no reason to believe that the probe’s intentions were hostile, and it may have been unaware that its transmissions were having that affect on humanity. If one ascribes to that viewpoint (which I do) then Star Trek IV is the one Trek film that truly has no villains (except perhaps the whalers towards the end) and is a plot that is driven only by the need to solve a problem which has presented itself.
.
The Final Frontier: Who is trying to get vengeance in this film? The Enterprise crew? No. They’re jut trying to rescue hostages, or reclaim their ship. Sybok or his followers? No. They’re just on a holy quest to meet God. The Klingons? Not really. They’re just more on a joyride. To be seeking revenge, they would need a personal stake. They were only seeking glory.
.
The Undiscovered Country: This one could have a touch of it. But really, it isn’t about revenge as much as it is about prejudice, and overcoming it. During the trial, when an excerpt from Kirk’s log was played to make it seem like he was behind things and that it was revenge seeking on his part over David’s death, one has to remember that it was taken out of context: he was expressing misgivings in a personal (private) log, misgivings that he pointedly did not act upon.
.
Generations: Revenge where? All I saw was a man suffering extreme loss, who had become consumed by it and wanted to get back what was lost at any cost. People may have suffered, and many people may have died, in the process: but these people were unimportant to Soran. They didn’t figure into his thoughts at all. Hardly revenge.
.
First Contact: Okay, Picard did go on a major vengeance rampage here. (Obviously, the people making the film must have missed the episode I, Borg when he already faced many of these personal demons regarding the Borg in a much less insane manor.) And Picard gets called out on it, hard. He learns what he was trying to do was the wrong approach, and tries to take a different one. He still needs to defeat the Borg, but from a more rational approach and less driven by pure emotive rage.
.
Insurrection: Okay, this one has it too. Obviously, the So’na have it out for the Ba’ku. But this is probably the best usage or “revenge” in a Trek film, because in the end it is shown that all revenge will get you is your own death, and that reconciliation between the parties involved may be possible.
.
Nemesis: I won’t comment too much on this one. It’s been far too long since I’ve seen it, as it kind of doesn’t exist to me. Until now, it has been the one Trek film I’ve refused to own. (I’ve added Into Darkness to that. But it isn’t because of the film itself, more because of annoyance over the bonus content. So potentially, Into Darkness could join my collection someday… But no Nemesis. Bad Nemesis! Bad, bad Nemesis!) But yes, I acknowledge this one does have revenge in it.
.
So, by my count… Pre-’09 films featuring revenge as integral to the plot: 4 out of 10. (And three of those are TNG, so much less revenge in the Classic Trek days.) Now, the new films?
.
Nero out to kill everyone on a whiny rampage or revenge against EVERYONE because Romulas was destroyed. And the one person who he held most responsible? Oh, he gets to live and know it is happening, because that will really hurt him.
.
Into Darkness: Harder to comment on as I’ve only seen it the once. I’d like to see it more, someday. But Spock of all people goes on a major rampage of wanting to kill Khan in the end, seeking revenge for Kirk’s death.
.
So, pre-’09 fimls: 1 out of 6 (Classic Trek), 4 out of 10 (all together). JJ-Trek: revenge features prominently in both.
.
So, which era of Trek films are bogged down by being about revenge, again?

256. Phil - September 14, 2013

JJ has now confirmed, in an interview with Collider, that he will not be directing the next installment of Star Trek. He did indicate that he will remain on as a producer, though.

Said Abrams: “It’s a little bittersweet, but, I will say that I’m going to be producing the movie. Whomever it is that directs the film will be someone we all know is going to keep the cast and crew in good hands. I feel very lucky to have been part of it and it definitely feels like the right time to let someone come in and do their own thing. I certainly don’t want someone to come in and try to do what I would have done. We want to hire someone who’s gonna come in and bring their own sensibility. I’m very excited to see what comes next, despite feeling jealous of whomever that person is.”

I guess it’s safe to assume that Bad Robot has exercised it’s option to produce the next installment.

257. richpit - September 14, 2013

I agree wholeheartedly with this editorial.

While I was a fan of TNG (after the first couple awkward seasons), it was a “new” Trek, not a continuance of TOS-style stories or characters.

I never watched DS9, I hated Voyager and started to like Enterprise right when they decided to cancel it.

And I’m not afraid to say that I loved Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness. I think they both were awesome movies and a fine continuance of the TOS universe.

258. 47 - September 14, 2013

Abrams got it wrong. Absolutely wrong.

He doesn’t understand (nor like) Star Trek, remember?

And the writer of the text doesn’t seem to get it right either. Abrams didn’t “continue the original series”, he did nothing of that sort. His is an “alternate universe timeline”, remember? What he did is make a movie (series) based on the concept of that show. He basically re-made its concept to satisfy the blockbuster mass audience requirements. The result was a Star Trek-Star Wars hybrid, which is seemingly attractive on the outside, but soulless and empty on the inside. No real resemblance to classic Trek.

Abrams, a spiritual successor to the original series? Give me a break…

Yeah, and I’m the President of the United States.

I don’t think this article was necessary. Mr. Dickerson’s article was so much better and correct in its assessment.

259. czn - September 14, 2013

@227

Yes, Thank You

260. Trek Lady - September 14, 2013

Sorry. This article does nothing to convince me that Trek is in great shape at the moment. I agree that it is not broken, but in my opinion, it certainly is bent.

First of all, I am a TOS fan. I watched TNG sporadically and never really fell in love with it, like TOS. I am only now branching out to watching Enterprise. So I KNOW what the TOS series encompassed. I have been watching and re-watching it for over 40 years. And yes, the action was one of the reasons I enjoyed it. I also enjoy the action in the new films. However, much of the action in the new films seems over the top and without real purpose. In TOS, Kirk would resort to violence, but generally, he sought other solutions first. Yes, he made mistakes, but he tended to regret them, and those flaws made him human to me, not just a comic superhero. When he failed, he would pick himself up and strive to do better in the future. That, to me, is what a human hero does. I would like to see more of that in the new films – more focus on the human elements that emphasize the best of who we are – not the worst, as I feel the new films do. For every moment I see a glimmer of that soul searching in New Trek (Kirk’s decision to bring Khan back for trial), there are too many moments that seem to undermine this introspection and growth. (Kirk goes on to try and beat the crap out of Khan.) I would like to see more reflective discussions among characters, moments of relative quiet while the characters weight the possible consequences of their actions. I would have loved to have seen a scene in depicting the discussion in which the decision to try to save the indigenous people of Nibiru was made, even though it necessitated breaking the Prime Directive. THAT would have been a very Trek moment, but it was likely tossed aside in favor of CGI spectaculars like a giant fish swimming by the viewscreen and a ship rising out of the ocean and for more action and violence. It seems the perception is that films have to keep the audience revved up every moment. Who has time for quiet character building anymore… it all has to be action, action, action! It the audience is not on the edge of their seats, it isn’t successful. I think this attitude is selling audiences short. Yes, the younger generation is used to a fast paced, instant world, but are we really saying everyone under 25 has an attention span of 30 seconds? That an entire generation is ADHD and cannot appreciate quiet character moments? How sad. I know of many fans who found the very few quiet moments in both New Trek films to be some of their favorite scenes. For me, STID was like a roller coaster ride. Parts of it were thrilling, but parts left my stomach unsettled and queasy, and after I left the theater, I felt ultimately let down and depressed. Very little about the film stayed with me, whereas, in the past, I have often felt the need to write out my thoughts in journals posts or through fan fiction. Not this time, and judgeing from the lack of activity on many fan-sites, neither did many others.

TOS DID raise questions and deal with complex social issues. It tackled issues that, at the time, were very controvercial. It is easy to look back now and think “What’s the big deal?”, but at the time, they WERE a big deal! True, the solutions were often simplistic, but at least there WERE solutions beyond “blow them up” or “punch them out!”

And as for using money made as a way to judge something – yes, I suppose if that is the measure of success, the new films are doing great. However, TOS inspired people to become astronauts, engineers, and doctors. TOS inspired people to reach for the stars and strive to better our world. TOS inspired a generation to accept differences and accept the “other”. I doubt very much the new films have inspired anything of the sort…. I personally consider enriching lives much more of a legacy than making a film studio a bunch of money.

261. Captain2K - September 14, 2013

I agree with this article a lot more on STID. I love everything about it. BC as Khan was weird, but that’s because I loved the original character so much. But then, I realize I was quite open to different characters with different personalities playing 007 over the years…

If there is one thing that is a constant with Star Trek, is controversy among the fans!!! Fans always complain of a new series (with new characters) “not trek”.

So my final take is, if the new “Star Trek” movie or TV shows come out, and fans start arguing it’s trek or not, then it’s defnitely Trek!

262. Zirclet - September 14, 2013

I really, really have to take issue with this.

When TNG was in its first run – and as phenomenally popular as any program on television at the time – the near-unanimous reason I got from the layperson as to why it appealed to them was exactly what The Stig calls “bullshit” – that being the “higher sensibility” of the TNG characters.

It was this quality that made TNG unlike any series on television before or since – including its own spinoffs. It was this quality that enabled unique storytelling, as difficult as that proved to produce for the writing staff in the end. It was this quality that Gene Roddenberry refined out of his original concept, which had been so muddied up and meddled with my studio execs.

It is this quality that makes Star Trek Star Trek.

I recognize that this sentiment isn’t shared by the majority of fans these days. I think it had been forgotten or rejected by the time ‘Insurrection’ – which hinged its plot on the very ‘evolved sensibility’ in question, and was indeed called ‘bullshit’, even by participants in the making of the film – and was completely gone by the time of ‘Nemesis’ (where, in both screenings that I attended, audiences actually laughed out loud when Crusher informed Picard that Shinzon was dying and his response was ‘Can he be helped?’).

I realize I’m in the vast minority here, but the friends I have who love Trek love it for these reasons as well – and we’re all considering ourselves long-in-the-tooth and left behind these days. We feel like old hippies, but at least we can hope to evoke the old IDIC adage and hope that the broader fanbase can realize there are myriad ways to appreciate this enduring franchise.

263. David C. - September 14, 2013

All Abrams had to do was a reboot in the SAME TIMELINE, period, but bring insanely good special effects to the film.

There is a built-in fan audience for Star Trek, and also there are enough average movie-goers who understand the iconic nature of the original series.

He didn’t need to update the bridge – just go with the original iconic set.

264. Dswynne - September 14, 2013

Although I don’t think the Star Trek franchise is “broken”, I don’t think the franchise is anywhere at its true potential. If. It did get “broke”, I blame it on the fact that the film side of the franchise was divorced from the television side of the franchise in 2005. So while the films are going, there is oohing going on to keep the franchise going between films, other tha re-issuing DVDs and Blu-rays to further “milk” a pre-existing product on the cheap. They DO need to have a television show on the air (or at least, a mini-series between films) expanding on the nu-Trek universe. And I wouldn’t mind a new cast of characters. After all, I am sure that the five-year mission is not unique to the USS Enterprise. My dream scenario would be if they took the characters from that Star Trek E-surance commercial and expand their roles as the crew of the USS Farragut, Constitution-class:

http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/24/watch-funny-esurance-into-darkness-tv-spot-chekov-scotty-get-domestic-character-posters/

As for this article, I agree in sentiment, but I found it lacking in content. At least, in comparison to the article it is referencing. Good effort, though.

265. Spock's Bangs - September 14, 2013

253 “… In TOS, Kirk would resort to violence, but generally, he sought other solutions first. Yes, he made mistakes, but he tended to regret them, and those flaws made him human to me, not just a comic superhero. When he failed, he would pick himself up and strive to do better in the future.”

You forget this isn’t prime universe Kirk. Into Darkness hasn’t served aboard the Farragut. Into Darkness Kirk is growing, as a person, in front of our very eyes. And he may or may not eventually become the captain you remember. But it isn’t going to be overnight. Prime Kirk was already there. New Kirk doesn’t have the benefit of an hourly weekly series to get where you want him to be, so cut him a little slack, he’s doing best he can! :)

266. MJB - September 14, 2013

I loved TNG when it was first broadcast…but I have found it difficult to watch episodes again. It’s because they don’t hold up for repeat viewing. Why? Because they are dull…plain as vanilla. I have found this to be the case with Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise as well as the TNG era movies (except FC).
I can watch TOS again,again and again. Not sure why but maybe it’s a combo factor of better characters, better actors and better stories.

267. Vorta3434343434343434343 - September 14, 2013

I also wanted to add that I think the best Star Trek right now is on the printed page, ie the novels being published by Pocket Books.

From the Post-Nemesis relaunch TNG novels, including the DS9 original relaunch, the Voyager relaunch, all the way through the Destiny mini-series (which itself is, to me, some of THE best Trek ever – big ideas, cannon shaping events, and a myriad of flavors), through to the recent Cold Equations mini-series – the authors over at TrekLit are really nailing it, with an astonishing level of consistency. I also include the amazing Crucible trilogy featuring Spock, Bones, and Kirk.

Sure, there are a few clunkers mixed in, but if you want high-quality Trek as you’ve come to know it since TNG you need look no further than some of the great work being done by guys like David Mack, David R George III, Christopher L. Bennett, Kristen Beyer, Peter David, and plenty more.

268. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

You know, opinions are opinions… It would help, if the author is going to talk about one of the best Star Trek series and episodes of all time (DS9 / In The Pale Moonlight), to actually sound like he watched series, and in particular that episode. I believe I stopped reading right there…

269. Allenburch - September 14, 2013

I’ve been thinking alot about all that’s transpired over the past several days.

I am a lifelong fan of Star Trek. Some of my best memories from being a kid are wondrous moments, watching episodes of Star Trek. I even enjoyed the The Animated Series when they came out, although I thought they were a little slow.

When we learned that a Star Trek movie was being made, I was so excited to get to see that crew and ship on the big screen. When we finally got to see it, however, I was really disappointed because I thought it was the most boring movie I ever saw. As I grew into adulthood, I did begin to appreciate that 1st movie, but I stil thought it was still boring.

Things definitely got better through the 80′s with the trilogy of II, III, and IV, but I also realized that I was part of a group of fans who had developed a reflective appreciation for the emerging lore of Trek and the clevor way it addressed our current civilization with fictional settings in the future.

This group of fans, however, seemed to always feel the need to “explain” Trek to all the other people who were simply curious about what it was about. Star Trek was really not very fun, frankly, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

It took me several years of watching The Next Generation before I finally accepted it, and now those are some of my most favored TV characters of all time. I do, however, remember living in NYC during the 6th season of TNG and hearing my roommates and others complain about TNG. They didn’t understand how it was supposed to be so good because they though it was boring.

Everyone though, seemed to be very disappointed that the Original Crew would not be coming back to the big screen; being supplanted with the TNG Crew.

As I see it, Star Trek is the reigning King of Film Lore. It runs deeper than any other body of work from our modern times. But I wouldn’t say that it’s been the most fun or exciting. And as I continue to age, I find myself growing tired of trying to solve all the problems of the universe, the way Trek has nobly tried to do, and all I want — is more fun and laughter!

The NuTrek movies has given me that! And you know what? I don’t feel the need to have to “explain” them to all the new Trek fans that have come into the fold…

I have enjoyed being able to visit with you all at various times here at TrekMovie, but I am forced into acknowledging that you die-hard fans of all the old ways have simply not continued to progress throughout the years. You’re like those hypocritical chancellors of the Klingon Empire, before Worf put a stop to it by arranging for Martok to rule with honor.

So that’s it. I am leaving you to squabble like kids in a playground. I’m moving on.

270. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@262 Zirclet

To be fair, DS9 is the second most popular in ratings, IIRC, and it is the most critically acclaimed off all of the shows in the franchise… So, it didn’t do too badly. TNG was appealing because (at least from what I can remember) it dealt with moral issues in an easy to translate way, and of course the exploration had some excitement to it. The characters were nice, and I remember liking Data in particular.

DS9 is the type of series one may have to grow into because it’s not really for kids and young adolescents. It’s the mature, adult, show out of the bunch. Therefore, it takes on harder issues and goes more in depth. It dealt with “exploration” in an exciting way as well; it’s just that the exploration DS9 dealt with wasn’t so much about the “out there,” but rather what was going on inside of each character, about “human” nature, love, friendship, war, history, and how all of that affects people and their relationships… Great series.

271. Will - September 14, 2013

Look, JJ can make whatever he wants. At the end of it, if it’s full of plot holes and silly “fingers crossed no one’s paying attention” moments, it’s not a great movie. Not saying all Trek never had any of the above, but at the very least, Into suffered from this like a metastasized cancer.

Trek ’09 gets a half pass in my book because it wasn’t quite as poorly written. But, at the end of the day, it’s not JJ or the writers who are making me wish I liked this Trek series(read: I wish the writing was better).

The actors are kicking ass with the characters, maybe JJ has something to do with that(being that he’s directing the actors) and it’s a shame they’re not given something better to work with in terms of writing… but, I suppose, at least we’re not on the level of the Star Wars Prequels just yet in terms of stupidity.

Yeah, at the core of it, that’s my major gripe(besides the production design)- I feel like the writing is only average in terms of “story without tons of holes in it.”

But maybe that’s a me problem as I don’t generally want to have to turn my brain off while watching a movie just to get past plot holes, “re-imagined” scenes from other movies, and sociopathic good guy characters who are injecting blood from one thing into a dead thing just to see what happens.

272. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 14, 2013

@262 “When TNG was in its first run – and as phenomenally popular as any program on television at the time ”

Are you kidding me? TNG ratings dropped 40% in Season 2 from Season 1 and the studio was thinking about cancelling it. That’s why Rodenberry was nudged aside, and why we starting seeing more action and internal drama in Season 3.

And its ratings popularity was based on comparison to other “syndicated” shows. It was hardly as popular as other “main tv shows” at the time. For example, MacGuyver typically has ratings 50% higher than TNG. And I can provide many more examples if you wish?

273. Spock's Bangs - September 14, 2013

#271. “But maybe that’s a me problem …”

Yeah, pretty much.

274. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@ 272. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – September 14, 2013

“Are you kidding me? TNG ratings dropped 40% in Season 2 from Season 1 and the studio was thinking about cancelling it. That’s why Rodenberry was nudged aside, and why we starting seeing more action and internal drama in Season 3.”

The data doesn’t support your view.

======================
Star Trek Ratings History:

First off, here’s a rundown of the approximate number of homes tuned into Trek every year since TNG premiered in 1987 (these numbers compensate for the changes in the Nielsen system):

Fall 1987 – Spring 1988: 8.55 Million
Fall 1988 – Spring 1989: 9.14 Million
Fall 1989 – Spring 1990: 9.77 Million
Fall 1990 – Spring 1991: 10.58 Million
Fall 1991 – Spring 1992: 11.50 Million
Fall 1992 – Spring 1993: 10.83 Million
Fall 1993 – Spring 1994: 9.78 Million
Fall 1994 – Spring 1995: 7.05 Million
Fall 1995 – Spring 1996: 6.42 Million
Fall 1996 – Spring 1997: 5.03 Million
Fall 1997 – Spring 1998: 4.53 Million
Fall 1998 – Spring 1999: 4.00 Million

The data looks grim; on some levels, it is. The fact of the matter is that Star Trek has been losing its audience since TNG’s glory days in its 4th and 5th seasons. However the reasons for the drop are far different than some represent them. Between 1987 and 1994, TNG was airing as a mainstream sci-fi show with very little competition and very good national coverage — a very different situation than those that surrounded Voyager and DS9.

When TNG premiered in 1987, it was the only first-run syndicated show on television, and one of very few sci-fi shows in general. At the time, there were 4 networks and a handful of cable channels.

As TNG flourished in an atmosphere without competition, it firmly rooted itself in a position that would cause it to grow — TNG was actually replacing some networks’ prime-time lineup in places.

When TNG ended, this seven year downward spiral began, but not because Trek as a whole was getting worse or less-liked, but because each new show was starting in a crowded, competitive environment with many similar shows. As of June, there were 7 networks, dozens of first-run syndicated shows, and over a hundred cable and premium channels. Where TNG had to deal with maybe a dozen competitors, DS9 and Voyager contend with around 50 (counting the premiums) and a sci-fi market that’s close to being oversaturated.

http://www.trektoday.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml
======================

True that the first two seasons of TNG were not good but the fact is that the ratings started to drop after season 6 of TNG & not before that.

275. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 14, 2013

“I am a fan of TNG and everything after it, TOS is not my Fav, i respect it because it started it all, and the TMP era movies aren’t too bad either (just… 2 Shakespear quoting villains = facepalm worthy), but i loved the techy stuff about TNG (including the technobabble that so many were complaining about).”

Yep that is the problem here. People who really don’t get the real TOS Star Trek, who liked the watered-down stuff like TNG and Voyager, just can’t, by definition, like JJ Trek. TOS, DS9, and the TMP movies are the real “original” Star Trek. TNG’s latter seasons once in awhile captured a bit of the original concept of Star Trek. Voyagers and Enterprise were so far removed though from real Trek, that they nearly killed off the franchise.

The reason Trek is now successful again is because JJ has take us back to original real Star Trek type of “Action and Message” stories. Sure, STID stumbled a tad, but nevertheless, it’s light years better than Voyager and Enterprise, and better than the horrid TNG movies, for sure.

276. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 14, 2013

@274

Nope. Here is the overall ratings trend chart for the entire Trek franchise of shows.

http://www.trekcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9355

You will note int the TNG par of the graph where the major dip in ratings occurs right where I said it did –about 40% down in Season 2. I don’t know where your data come from, but mine are from the official Nielsen ratings.

And look up the Nielsen ratings for MacGuyver for 1988 — those will show exactly what I said to be true — that MacGuyver was getting ratings 50% above TNG, thus completely refuting your claim that TNG was “as phenomenally popular as any program on television at the time ”

277. Meni - September 14, 2013

I agree with the article with one exception: the best Star Trek at its core includes socially progressive commentary. For example the groundbreaking original casting was itself a comment on race and gender. Similarly ‘The Devil in the Dark’ is considerd one of the best original episodes because it has something sobering to say about human arrogance. In fact human arrogance is a bit of a thematic runner in all of Star Trek, and when handled with intelligence and restraint, can be quite compelling. Abrams himself said he wanted to include some kind of social commentary in his second Trek outing, yet wanted to avoid the stereotypical “on the nose” preaching so connected with the franchise. ‘Into Darkness’ pulled off just that. The film carefully and smartly handled themes of preemptive attack and drone warfare without a hint of heavy handedness. It also serves as the perfect model of how Star Trek can work in the 21st century, where deliciously great entertainment can also have something meaningful to say just under its gorgeously photographed surface. And no, Star Trek certainly is not broken. As a matter of objective fact, it’s bigger and better than ever.

278. Dave H - September 14, 2013

Hey Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,

Ahmed is using some of that “funny math” that some Star Trek fan used to claim that adjustments needed to be made in the Nielsen ratings to make it seem like TNG had higher ratings. That’s completely bogus, and is not respected by anyone outside of TNG fans. LOL

279. Keachick - September 14, 2013

I did not agree with Joseph Dickerson’s view nor do I agree with the “Stig”‘s view.

I do not understand the need to put down something that appears to be different, eg TNG being a bit different in tone to TOS, in order to make other iterations seem better. Various iterations of Star Trek either stand on their own or they don’t. Whether what stands on its own is as much a matter of subjective determination as anything else.

All Star Trek iterations are a product of their time/decade.

This is yet another example of making comparisons can be rather odious, stupid and even inflammatory.

BTW – I just watched the TNG episode “The Loss” from season 4. Good episode. However, one of my favourites of all Star Trek is the TNG episode “Tin Man”… One of my least favourite series is DS9 – war is boring. However, that is not to say that there aren’t some great episodes in that series, because there are.

Favourite captain is Kirk, both universes, followed by Captain Archer, then Captain Picard. Captains Sisko and Janeway come in about even – never really liked either of them that much.

Takes all sorts…

280. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 14, 2013

Dave H,

Thanks. I was wondering why those numbers looked so wrong. I remember myself, back then, that the ratings went down in Season 2, and I even remember some more casual fans starting to check out of the show some (although they were back by Season 3 when the show started to improve significantly).

I don’t understand the need here to “fudge the numbers” to claim some result to prove your point. Any fan or detractor could come up with their own supposed “adjustments” which might sound credible, but I’m sure which could either increase or decrease the ratings based on their personal point of view.

281. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@ 278. Dave H – September 14, 2013

“Hey Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,

Ahmed is using some of that “funny math” that some Star Trek fan used to claim that adjustments needed to be made in the Nielsen ratings to make it seem like TNG had higher ratings. That’s completely bogus, and is not respected by anyone outside of TNG fans. LOL”

Hey genius, try to ACTUALLY READ THE POST FIRST. I didn’t come up with that “funny math” of yours, this was an article from TrekToday website.

282. Dave H - September 14, 2013

“I don’t understand the need here to “fudge the numbers” to claim some result to prove your point. Any fan or detractor could come up with their own supposed “adjustments” which might sound credible, but I’m sure which could either increase or decrease the ratings based on their personal point of view.:

Exactly. That’s why everyone who has any credibility will always refer to the “Nielsen Ratings.”

283. Dave H - September 14, 2013

@281

Ah. now we are name-calling. Great. Weren’t you claiming last week that you were glad that people using those tactics had left the site?

You were the one who posted those numbers — so you essentially endorsed them by presenting them as “the numbers” here.

If you are backing off from them now, great — then we are in agreement on this.

284. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@ 283. Dave H – September 14, 2013

“You were the one who posted those numbers — so you essentially endorsed them by presenting them as “the numbers” here.”

Nope, I’m not backing off, I’m telling you to actually read the post & the link.

The article is posted on Trektoday. Greg Fuller, the guy who wrote the article, was as it is indicated at the end of the article “the webmaster of the Star Trek Nielsen Rating Information Database, the source of the most in-depth and up-to-date Trek Nielsen ratings on the internet.”. Meaning that he is know a thing or two about Nielsen ratings.

Go back & read the article, please

http://www.trektoday.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml

oh & don’t give me that “name-calling” crap, read your original comment.

285. Dave H. - September 14, 2013

@284. LOL Like I said, a “Star Trek fan” adjusted the Nielsen ratings to give a better result for TNG.

You just proved my point for me. Thanks.

286. Ash - September 14, 2013

@35 Steve

My thoughts exactly!

@189

1.) The break up of the big three in favor of a Spock-Uhura love subplot. Ethos, Pathos, Logos. The Warrior, the Doctor, and the Priest. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were the core of the original series and much of what was best in that show sprung from the friendship and interaction of these three characters (here is where I say that Karl Urban is so good as McCoy that I cannot believe that this choice was ever made).

THIS. I love the reboot film but this is my major problem. McCoy has been widely regarded (if the comments and polls here and in other sites are anything to go by) as the best of the reboot characters and the one people wish to see more of, along with the triumvirate that Gene created. It’s not so much the Spock and Uhura thing that bothers me, stupid fights and time wasting aside, it’s that this wonderful character has been reduced to comic relief and one liners.

They had the perfect opportunity to at least show how important McCoy and the trio is if they had it be him who came running down along with Spock to the warp core. Instead the have Uhura and Scotty standing around for..what? Ok Scotty was already there but it was so forced to have Uhura standing there crying instead of his best friend. What was the point of her being there? They are friends now and I’m glad but Uhura being there held no emotional weight. They had a great chance for a real, emotional moment for Kirk, Spock, and Bones to come together and they freaking wasted it. Disappointed.

Lets hope they can get it right in the next film.

287. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@ 285. Dave H. – September 14, 2013

“@284. LOL Like I said, a “Star Trek fan” adjusted the Nielsen ratings to give a better result for TNG.”

How about you show me an article that support what you say, not a fan post on a BBS, but an article ? You show me that & I will be happy to change my view.

288. Zirclet - September 14, 2013

@274 & 276:

To be a bit clearer, I wasn’t referring to ratings alone when it came to TNG; in the early 90′s it was kind of akin to what, say, The Walking Dead is today – it broke double-digit ratings for a time, but was also culturally present in ways that went above and beyond other mainstream shows with larger audiences – there was merch everywhere you turned, a syndicated Trek column running in many newspapers, actors on the cover of things like Entertainment Weekly several times a year, etc. It seemed to me (up here in Canada, at least) that every kid was obsessed with it & everyone’s parents were having watercooler conversations about the Klingon Empire.
That’s my personal experience, anyhow – I remember being kind of surprised that I could have conversations about the show with just about anybody, without the word ‘Trekkie’ coming up once. I haven’t had experiences like that since – sure, there was a lot of common chatter when the Abrams movie debuted, but for most ‘laypeople’ it had simply been a fun movie they checked out on the weekend – being a one-off (at the time), of course it didn’t stick around from week to week so they could form thoughts and opinions about what the Trek universe was attempting to say. It would be nice to have that again.

289. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 14, 2013

Dave H and Ahmed,

Seriously, in typical political campaigns, this is common practice. While say a Gallup Poll presents an objective measurement with transparent calculations for say a regional political contest, each party’s candidate has their own posters (usually not full-time professional pollsters), who will use a bit of “clever math” to provide some differences (versus Gallup) in the poll results in their candidates favor.

So I’m sure if there was someone out there who didn’t like Star Trek, they could just as easily come up with a seemingly logical system of adjustments that could show that TNG got worse ratings than the Nielsens. And that person, whether they were a 711 worker or a psychology professor, could label themselves “Ant-Star Trek Nielsen Data Webmaster” of whatever make-believe title they wanted to come up with.

So if the choice is between using the Official Nielsen Ratings or using the “Star Trek Webmaster Data Maven-Wizard” numbers, I’ll stick with the Nielsens.

290. Dave H - September 14, 2013

@287. Nice try!

However, I am using the published official Nielsen ratings. You are using “fan adjusted ratings.” Therefore, the onus in on you to defend, explain and validate your “alternative rating system,” not me.

291. Dave H - September 14, 2013

“So if the choice is between using the Official Nielsen Ratings or using the “Star Trek Webmaster Data Maven-Wizard” numbers, I’ll stick with the Nielsens.”

Yep! This is a no-brainer for any “objective” person.

292. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@289. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle

“Seriously, in typical political campaigns, this is common practice. While say a Gallup Poll presents an objective measurement with transparent calculations for say a regional political contest, each party’s candidate has their own posters (usually not full-time professional pollsters), who will use a bit of “clever math” to provide some differences (versus Gallup) in the poll results in their candidates favor.”

Yeah, I seen that a lot in the 2012 elections where in one poll, Obama was ahead & in another poll, Romney was sure the winner!!

“So if the choice is between using the Official Nielsen Ratings or using the “Star Trek Webmaster Data Maven-Wizard” numbers, I’ll stick with the Nielsens.”

The guy in the article indicated that he used Nielsen ratings.

@ 290. Dave H – September 14, 2013

“However, I am using the published official Nielsen ratings. ”

Great, then show me the link to these official Nielsen ratings, please.

293. Corylea - September 14, 2013

Stig, I think maybe you’re evaluating Star Trek’s social commentary and big ideas out of context. Sure, most of the ideas and social commentary of the TV show seem like no big deal NOW. I assure you that things were different in 1966, when the show first aired.

The world has changed enormously in the past 47 years — partly due to Star Trek — and the things you dismiss as trite now were not so during their era. And some things still aren’t. I think some episodes — “The Devil in the Dark” comes to mind — have an important lesson to teach, even 47 years later, while still being entertaining and exciting.

The TOS movies weren’t all that fabulous, because the budget necessary for a major motion picture requires that they appeal to the lowest common denominator, and intelligent, thoughtful, idea-driven science fiction will never be the choice of the masses. I’d love to see Star Trek either return to television or become more of an low-budget, thoughtful, art-house kind of movie. I’m pretty sure Paramount will never want the latter, but I guess we can still hope for the former.

As long as Star Trek comes in the format of the big-budget movie, I think we’ll have more explosions than ideas, not because this is what Star Trek is or should be, but because of what Hollywood is. But I hope the script writers for the next movie can sneak a little more Trek in between the explosions: more character development, more ideas, more character interaction. Hey, I can dream, right? Star Trek taught me that. :-)

294. Zaid - September 14, 2013

The biggest issue with the movie for me – it did not make sense. This was not sci-fi. It’s fantasy. Beaming from planet to planet, yet u cant beam to a volcano a few km’s away. Ship underwater for what? Why does Kirk get special treatment. Does the Enterprise not have ANY shielding?
Super lifesaving blood? Emotional Spock?
Sci-Fi normally creates a universe with specific rules or assumptions that stories abide to – which I accept.
This story totally violates the sci-fi universe. It’s fantasy. It’s a mockery to fans.
I’m not even going to go on about how juvenile and silly Kirk is.

295. Danny - September 14, 2013

“242. ObsessiveStarTrekFan – September 14, 2013
I wouldn’t go so far as to say TNG (and DS9, VOY & ENT) aren’t Star Trek. I believe they are, just as TOS is. I’ve watched them all and am fond of them all to a greater or lesser degree. However, they are different flavours of Star Trek. Just as my favourite ice cream flavour is chocolate, my favourite Star Trek flavour is TOS. For me, the 2 latest movies have a definite TOS flavour.”

All Star Trek is Star Trek even the past two films, they are just a different flavored ice cream than the other versions of Star Trek, but in the end they are all ice cream! Just because I don’t like some flavors of ice cream they are there for others to enjoy, and because I don’t like it doesn’t mean they are the wrong flavors.

296. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

===========================
This is a Paramount press release issued in May 1994 to accompany publicity materials for the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation as a TV series

Star Trek – A Short History

Ratings and Demographics Out-of-this-World

Since its premiere in 1987, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION has been breaking non-network boundaries and setting precedence for syndicated television, while admirably competing in its own right against network series. Comparable to network fare on many levels, the series has won 16 Emmy awards (more than any syndicated series ever), a Peabody, a Hugo, and was the first non-network show to be endorsed by the Viewers for Quality Television. Its 46 Emmy nominations to date make it the most-nominated dramatic series currently on television surpassing “Murder, She Wrote,” “Northern Exposure” and “LA Law.”

A bonafide hit since its first season, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION set ratings history during its sixth season as it ranked number one for an unprecedented four consecutive weeks, marking the first time in Nielsen ratings history that King World’s “Wheel of Fortune” had been shut out of the top spot consecutively.

Ironically, the original “Star Trek” was discarded after criticism for attracting the wrong demographics while STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION has remained the number one hour-long series among the prized demographic groups of men, ages 18 – 49 and 18 – 34. It consistently outdelivers all network prime-time hours including “60 Minutes” and “Northern Exposure.” And, in fact, during the November 1992 sweeps period, beat all network prime-time programming in men 18 – 34 including “ABC Monday Night Football,” “The Simpsons” and “Roseanne.”

In 1993, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION posted stronger household ratings than the average prime-time network hour. The series captured an enormous viewing audience, 66 percent of which were between the ages of 18 – 49.

The seventh season premiere captured an extraordinary 15.4 rating/22 share in Los Angeles beating season premieres of CBS’s “Murphy Brown” and “Love & War,” with other markets mirroring Los Angeles’s success with their own airings.

As STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION finishes its seventh season, it remains one of television’s top 10 hour-long series, amassing some of its highest ratings to date.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101205052936/http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/SciFi/StarTrek/history.html

297. Disinvited - September 14, 2013

#167. Aurore – September 13, 2013

Filthy rich? Hmm…I’d be more inclined toward that notion if Paramount increases the budget for the next installment, barring that, I think Trek films are just doing what STAR TREK itself has always managed to do for its corporate master overlords: maintain a steady reliable source of income that pays they rent and keeps the lights lit while they get filthy rich off of other, far more lucrative, productions.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3724

“Star Trek Into Darkness: The 2009 Star Trek reboot is one of the most well-liked Summer movies of the past decade, so there was an assumption that sequel Star Trek Into Darkness was going to improve dramatically on its predecessor. That didn’t really pan out: the movie earned a bit less at the domestic box office (around $230 million), and its overseas gains weren’t quite as big as expected. Ultimately, Star Trek Into Darkness will earn less than $500 million worldwide, which is slightly disappointing.” – Ray Subers, BOX OFFICE MOJO

#208. Wrath of Dhan – September 13, 2013

You mean court-martialed as Kirk was in the series original run? I loved the characters and dialogue from that perfunctorily titled episode, but court-martialed because security and the computer monitored internal sensors (not to mention food/oxygen consumption tracking) couldn’t figure out there was an unaccounted for extra person/saboteur hiding aboard?

298. Dave H - September 14, 2013

@292 “The guy in the article indicated that he used Nielsen ratings.”

Now you are grasping at straws. You know that he used his own personal methods to change those ratings. Come on, is that all you got left is this, and a throwaway comment on Obama???

And your post @295 above. Well, of course the ratings were good in Season 6…I agree, and the “real Nielsen data” that I myself provided shows just that. So what is the point of that “cut and paste” article here other than to try to provide filler and cover here for you in your failed argument to defend unexplainable fan adjustments to the TNG Nielsen ratings???

“Cutting and pasting” away the issue isn’t helping you in the core argument here. You can’t defend “fan adjustments” the Nielsen ratings because their is no way to defend them.

Go ahead, post more misdirection “cut and pastes” here, but it is not going to change anything. You don’t have a leg to stand on, and you know it.

299. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@298. Dave H

“Well, of course the ratings were good in Season 6…I agree, and the “real Nielsen data” that I myself provided shows just that.”

At which post did you provided this “real Nielsen data” ?

300. Dave H - September 14, 2013

Now you are asking the right questions:

http://www.trekcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9355

and soucred at:

http://www.madmind.de/2009/05/02/all-star-trek-movies-and-episodes-in-two-charts/

301. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

“. It’s not so much the Spock and Uhura thing that bothers me, stupid fights and time wasting aside, it’s that this wonderful character has been reduced to comic relief and one liners. “

Lol. Both Spock and Uhura are wonderful characters, not just Spock. The triad was featured in STID just as much as S/U were, and Uhura hasn’t taken anything from McCoy. Scotty got more screen time than both of them combined, so if anyone wants to complain about the screen time McCoy (and/or Uhura) didn’t get, then that’s one of many places they can look.

And as for comic relief and one liners. The nearly universally agreed upon worst “one liner” of the film had nothing to do with Uhura or Spock/Uhura. It was–You guessed it: “KHAAAAAAAN!!!”

Many people laughed, and many people cringed. Count me in the cringing group…

302. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

286. Ash

Obviously I agree with you 100%.

303. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

^I’m glad that, from what I can tell, most critics and general audiences don’t…

304. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@300. Dave H

Thank you for providing the links. After reading the source for the data, I agree that TNG suffered in the early 2 seasons but then recovered following changes from season 3.

305. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

@301. Spock/Uhura Admirer

I cannot argue with your contention that Scotty having more screen time. I will quibble with you though about the difference in screen time and my original contention that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy represent iconic characters, not only as American icons, but in the realm of story telling (see post 189).

Also, to further my point, here’s posters from the STID and Star Trek (2009)

http://collider.com/star-trek-into-darkness-banner/

http://torrenceking.blogspot.com/2012/06/movie-posters-star-trek-2009.html

306. Marshall - September 14, 2013

@303 s/u admirer

Actually, most general audiences DO want more of the trio. I see many people asking for more Bones. Those asking/caring about Spock and Uhura making sappy eyes at each other? Lol no so much.

307. Aurore - September 14, 2013

@ 297. Disinvited – September 14, 2013

“Filthy rich? etc, etc…etc…”
_________

:))

Oh, please! I was joking!

Thank you for your post, nonetheless ; I know you are concerned with… “getting me access to more complete and informative info”. Always.

(You did it before.)

:)

308. JitanPren - September 14, 2013

Star Trek was on life support when Abrams and his band came along. They managed to breathe life into the franchise, in name only. In my opinion nothing contained within his two movies came anywhere close to equaling or surpassing what preceded them in any way. They were exactly what I expected from that unimaginative group of people.

However thanks to them there is still a chance that Star Trek’s true essence can yet be harnessed by some far more creative writers and directors who will find new ways to amaze and entertain us with stories set in Gene’s hopeful vision of the future where we all manage to get along long enough to accomplish some amazing things together.

309. Ash - September 14, 2013

@302 whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold (omg what a mouthful lol)

Yea I think the majority of people feel the same way, though some will argue. All you have to do is glance at the comments or look at the polls taken by thousands here and other places and you can see, people miss the triad and Bones. You have new fans who don’t care/ don’t know how much this character means. All they care about is the romance or what have you. But those fans who were there even before Trek came under JJs control remember a much better time with a much better team, one that Gene Roddenberry himself created as the heart of Trek. I don’t mind the AU and you can overlook the romance, but how the hell did anyone think that giving Uhura or Scotty a larger role over Bones or changing the Trio was a good idea? If anything it’s backfiring on them.

310. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@305 whatyoudo…

Well, I’ll just point you to the interview Anthony (when he was here) did with Karl Urban and Scotty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFEEQfpgwA#t=125

And even Anthony, who I’d say is a huge TOS fan, called it a “weird [TOS] fan concern.” He asked about the marketing of Uhura in STID, and they both said that the film was “marketed a certain way,” and that “the marketing is a different beast in a way…” Then, Pegg goes on to say that “the film speaks for itself when it come to that,” so even he knows that Uhura doesn’t get the kind of screen time and relevance that the marketing is suggesting. Karl, since he is talking about his character and he’s smart about knowing who’s typically watching a “TrekMovie exclusive,” said that the triumvirate needs to be respected, which I think it was.

The reality of the situation is that Uhura didn’t get much, and what very little she did get wasn’t good.

And thank you for acknowledging that Scotty got his due in STID. Frankly, I think he got more than his due here, so I expect that other original crew members will get better focus the next time around… But you never know…

@Marshall

That may be what you’ve seen, but that’s not what I’ve noticed and I’ve followed things a lot. I’m not saying that people would be against the three getting the same, or even a little more, screen time, but I haven’t seen it called for much. I have seen people say that Bones should have gotten more screen time. Yes, that I’ve seen, but the trio–not really. And I have read a lot about how S/U was handled and how they need to be handled better going forward, from popular and reputable publications, to blogs, fan reviews, and onward…

311. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

@309. Ash

Bingo!

312. spooky - September 14, 2013

Well to me, Star Trek was never broken.
It was just so homogenized by Berman and company. They never deviated from the TNG formula because it was the safest bet.

Star Trek was rarely allowed to go to those dark places… DS9.

The idea of a Utopian society is fine but Utopia is an island in a sea of darkness.
The further away from paradise our heroes go and into outer space… they would encounter people in darkness, not all but most.
They in turn would start to return to those primal forces of prejudice and acting impulsively, even if it was only for awhile.
Voyager would have been epic if they the producers had cashed in that idea.

As for the reboot camp.

Chucking all the history and canon was very lazy IMHO.
I would’ve been more impressed had someone actually went forward with the canon and created new history.
I am so ready for Star Trek to go 1000 years into the future, travelling between galaxies and seeing strange new things… exploring humanity’s evolution with technology and knowledge.

Anyway, that’s just my little opinion on the topic.

What we have now is what we will have to enjoy until someone can re-evaluate the worth of the nearly 50 years of Trek lore.

:)

313. Aurore - September 14, 2013

@ 297

…I noticed a similar comment of yours on the “Star Trek Is Broken” thread the other day, by the way.

I saw it ….I read it ! It was very informative…

:)

314. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

“All you have to do is glance at the comments or look at the polls taken by thousands here and other places and you can see, people miss the triad and Bones. “

We’re not talking about mainly TOS fan websites like Trekmovie and some other places. Lol. That would be like me trying to justify my opinions by citing polls taken at Spock/Uhura communities… I was talking about general audiences… People tended to really like or love what they saw in the 2009 film, and that included S/U. And I still think of it as a love story, not a romance…

“but how the hell did anyone think that giving Uhura or Scotty a larger role over Bones or changing the Trio was a good idea? If anything it’s backfiring on them.”

Well, Scotty got a larger role, but Uhura sure as “hell” didn’t. She was practically marginalized. There was some “trio” action in STID, just not as much as you wanted. And backfired?? When people complained the most about this film across the board it wasn’t the fact that Scotty got more screen time (even though that was mentioned) or even the notion that Uhura was featured at all that was the complaint. In fact, the main complaints were the incessant action, the poor treatment of the women featured (Carol and yes, Uhura–Read: Better needed to be done, not nothing), but mainly it was Carol in her underwear, and the unrealistic K/S bromance that led the the “Khaaan!!” scene.

My goodness…

315. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

@310. Spock/Uhura Admirer

I understand about the marketing of this film and the previous film (the marketing of this film is a whole other story) and WHO they are marketing to. I will say that in order to bring in another generation of Star Trek fans, the format has to be updated. That said, I must respectfully disagree with you.

What makes TOS work for me is the interaction between the characters that I love. A big part of that was Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

I had a huge problem with the Spock/Uhura romance, but have come to accept it as a choice that was made in order to draw a younger audience.

As a fan of Uhura, I have a problem with her standing in the background gasping with her hand over her mouth and being portrayed as a stereotypical high school girl who’s boyfriend is in danger AND having to be told to do her job by Kirk. This is not the Uhura that I know from Star Trek and never will be.

316. Trek Lady - September 14, 2013

@Spock/Uhura Admirer

” The triad was featured in STID just as much as S/U were…”

Were they? I honestly do not recall many, if any, scenes that really featured the three of them interacting, but I also haven’t seen the movie in months.

“Lol. Both Spock and Uhura are wonderful characters, not just Spock.”

I don’t think Ash was referring to Spock in his comment about a wonderful character reduced to one liners. I think he was referring to McCoy, and I have to agree. This is one of my greatest disappointments with the New-verse overall…McCoy was always my favorite character, and he was much more than a series of annoying/amusing quips – which is rather what he has been reduced to in these new films. He was a feisty curmudgeon, to be sure, but he had a wisdom and depth I haven’t yet seen in the new films.

“Many people laughed, and many people cringed. Count me in the cringing group…”

Cringing right along with you.

Yes, and Scotty did get a great deal of screen time. I think the writers really like Peg. Of all the characters, I think Sulu got shafted the worst. I really can’t recall anything of note that he did in this film.

I know you will disagree, but I really did not like the direction they took with Spock and Uhura in this new universe – odd to think back and realize it was the S/U angle I was most concerned about after ST 2009. I was worried they would put too much focus upon it. As it turned out, that was probably one of the least troublesome issues for me in STID, though I did not appreciate how the shuttle scene made Spock, Uhura and Kirk all come across as unprofessional. I can understand the filmmakers trying to save time by combining scenes, but that conversation should have taken place in a much different setting. It would have been better IMP if it had been a more quiet, intimate scene between just Spock and Uhura… and I suspect the S/U fans might have appreciated that more as well.

317. Marshall - September 14, 2013

@309 Ash

Yep!

318. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

@314. Spock/Uhura Admirer

You make some great points Carol in underwear, unrealistic bromance, AND Khaaaan!. However, Uhura did beam down at the end of the film and help Spock defeat Khan. Right in the middle of the action packed conclusion of the film. Not to mention that Zoe Saldana’s image is plastered all over the marketing for these two Star Trek films, so, again, on this point I’m going to have to disagree with you.

319. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@318 whatyou…

And McCoy started off the film with Kirk running on the Nibiru planet and all of that jazz, wetsuits and all, he worked with Carol to diffuse a bomb, he worked on the tribble, then he created the hypospray macguffin to cure Kirk, and he had some other scenes in the movie too, like the one where he’s on the bridge with Sulu… Now that I think of it. McCoy may have gotten more to do that Uhura!!!

And I never said that she wasn’t all over the marketing. Read my post. I said that the marketing did not reflect what was in the film.

320. Ash - September 14, 2013

@316 Trek Lady

“I don’t think Ash was referring to Spock in his comment about a wonderful character reduced to one liners. I think he was referring to McCoy, and I have to agree. This is one of my greatest disappointments with the New-verse overall…McCoy was always my favorite character, and he was much more than a series of annoying/amusing quips – which is rather what he has been reduced to in these new films. He was a feisty curmudgeon, to be sure, but he had a wisdom and depth I haven’t yet seen in the new films.”

Yes, thank you. McCoy is my (and many others) favorite character as well and that was exactly my point. You don’t take someone as iconic as Bones, the third most important character in the series, and put him in the background.

321. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

319. Spock/Uhura Admirer

I’m sorry, I just disagree with you. I don’t see the same interaction between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that drew me into Star Trek in the first place. I have issues with the way Uhura is portrayed as the stereotypical high school girlfriend at times. I have a problem with things being done in these films, not because they are derived organically from the story, but because they look cool.
I am not alone in stating that McCoy has been supplanted in the marketing and the storytelling by Uhura AND Scotty.
I don’t wish to argue with you. I know you are a die-hard like I am and for that you have my respect. I also agree with 90% of what you have written. Just not the McCoy thing.

322. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@Trek Lady

@Spock/Uhura Admirer
” The triad was featured in STID just as much as S/U were…”
Were they? I honestly do not recall many, if any, scenes that really featured the three of them interacting, but I also haven’t seen the movie in months.

I only saw the film once, and that was months ago, but I do remember some scenes they had together. I remember all three of them together walking and talking together down one of the hallways. I think it’s around the time the Khan is caught maybe. I also remember all three of them together when Kirk wakes up after Bones cures him. He’s in bed, Bones is there, and Spock comes in. Those are the 2 I remember right off. The one time I remember Kirk/Spock/Uhura was the shuttle scene, and that’s all I remember seeing.

“I don’t think Ash was referring to Spock in his comment about a wonderful character reduced to one liners. I think he was referring to McCoy, and I have to agree. This is one of my greatest disappointments with the New-verse overall…McCoy was always my favorite character, and he was much more than a series of annoying/amusing quips – which is rather what he has been reduced to in these new films. He was a feisty curmudgeon, to be sure, but he had a wisdom and depth I haven’t yet seen in the new films.”

Okay, if that’s the case, then I can kind of agree with STID. I don’t think that was the case in ST09, though. Still, it’s not like McCoy is alone with STID. Uhura and Chekov suffered too. (And I think it might be nice to see a scene with Uhura and Bones… Have we seen one?) Sulu is the only one that I think got decent treatment, but he’s also the one that may have had the least to do. So, there’s that… Cho did a good job with his 10 seconds in the captain’s chair, lol. ;-)

”“Many people laughed, and many people cringed. Count me in the cringing group…”
Cringing right along with you. “

We’re not alone. We could start a club… ;-)

Yes, and Scotty did get a great deal of screen time. I think the writers really like Peg. Of all the characters, I think Sulu got shafted the worst. I really can’t recall anything of note that he did in this film.”

Lol. I just said that. I’m responding as I read your post. So I didn’t see this until just now. Just goes to show… ;-) And I agree. They really seem to like Pegg, but it might help if they tone it down next movie.

“I know you will disagree, but I really did not like the direction they took with Spock and Uhura in this new universe – odd to think back and realize it was the S/U angle I was most concerned about after ST 2009. I was worried they would put too much focus upon it. As it turned out, that was probably one of the least troublesome issues for me in STID, though I did not appreciate how the shuttle scene made Spock, Uhura and Kirk all come across as unprofessional. I can understand the filmmakers trying to save time by combining scenes, but that conversation should have taken place in a much different setting. It would have been better IMP if it had been a more quiet, intimate scene between just Spock and Uhura… and I suspect the S/U fans might have appreciated that more as well.”

Well, they didn’t put much focus on them at all this time around. Yes, I agree it wasn’t the worst thing about STID, but for me and quite a few others it was bad. They were reduced to being caricatures of what they were in ST09, and I didn’t like that. The shuttle scene was bad, and I do hope they learn from what they did there with the next film. I agree that it should have been a quiet scene between S/U in a private place, like their living quarters or something. Yes, most of the S/U fans I know and have come across probably would have appreciated that more. I know I would have. I thought it was nice for Kirk, Spock, and Uhura to go on a mission together, though…

323. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@#321 whatyou…

I’m quite alright with us disagreeing on the 10% that we apparently don’t agree on. For the record, I have REAL problems with the way Uhura was portrayed as “the stereotypical high school girlfriend” in STID, and I agree with you that she was. I just don’t think that was done in ST09 is all.

I can respect that we have different opinions on some of the rest, and I also don’t wish to argue.

324. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

@323. Spock/Uhura Admirer

Now that we’ve agreed to disagree, what did you like about STID?

325. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@ 323. Spock/Uhura Admirer – September 14, 2013

“I’m quite alright with us disagreeing on the 10% that we apparently don’t agree on. For the record, I have REAL problems with the way Uhura was portrayed as “the stereotypical high school girlfriend” in STID, and I agree with you that she was. I just don’t think that was done in ST09 is all.”

Uhura as “the stereotypical high school girlfriend” is the best description for her character.

326. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@#324 whatyou…

I liked the turbolift scene with Uhura and Kirk the most, I think. I thought Zoe and Chris played remarkable well off of each other, and the scene made sense and worked well to me. It managed to be serious and also cute and playful, kind of like how they were in ST09. I like that they are friends.

I did like Sulu’s 10 seconds in the chair because Cho’s delivery was good.

I thought “Are you out of your corn fed mind” was funny. But, then I think that’s one of the one-liners from Bones that some people might not like… I liked it; what can I say…

I liked that they seemed to try to give everyone something to do. I just don’t think they did that well for the most part…

I liked Chris’ performance over all. He did a very good job this time around. Better than last time perhaps.

I liked that Kirk eventually listened to Scotty about the torpedoes. At least that showed, or attempted to show, some growth.

I liked that Nimoy got a cameo, but I think better could have been done with it.

I liked Pike, but I think his death came too soon.

So, that’s about it. What did you like? :-)

—————

@Ahmed #325

In STID, I have to agree with you. In ST09, not so much…

327. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

Forget captain Kirk, Picard is the favorite captain in DC :)

=========================
NSA director modeled war room after Star Trek’s Enterprise

Congressional leaders already have a lot of power, but do they secretly want to captain the USS Enterprise? In an in-depth profile of NSA Director Keith B. Alexander, Foreign Policy reveals that one of the ways the general endeared himself to lawmakers and officials was to make them feel like Jean-Luc Picard, captain of the starship Enterprise from the TV series “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

“When he was running the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command, Alexander brought many of his future allies down to Fort Belvoir for a tour of his base of operations, a facility known as the Information Dominance Center. It had been designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic the bridge of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek, complete with chrome panels, computer stations, a huge TV monitor on the forward wall, and doors that made a ‘whoosh’ sound when they slid open and closed. Lawmakers and other important officials took turns sitting in a leather ‘captain’s chair’ in the center of the room and watched as Alexander, a lover of science-fiction movies, showed off his data tools on the big screen.

‘Everybody wanted to sit in the chair at least once to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard,’ says a retired officer in charge of VIP visits.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/nsa-director-modeled-war-room-after-star-treks-enterprise.html

328. Disinvited - September 14, 2013

#313. Aurore – September 14, 2013

I suspected as much in the katra drunk manner you responded to yourself. But could not be sure there wasn’t a puppet involved and I wanted to make a statement on how corporate views and uses Trek – so I erred on the side that allowed me to express it.

Flattered that anything I write resides in your memory for more than a while.

Trying to get myself in a quiet place for your review. Unable to achieve as yet. Trek movies do tend to leave me conflicted.

329. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

@326. Spock/Uhura Admirer

-I liked the McCoy metaphors and love Urban as McCoy.
-I liked the relentless pace of the film.
-I liked the acting of Pine and Quinto and the interplay between them. But the bromance wasn’t quite there yet in relation to how upset Spock gets at Kirk’s death.
-I also liked the interplay between Kirk and Pike. Again, I thought the acting in this outing was better than the last film.
-For some reason, I liked the ‘off color’ language in this film. There was more than any other Star Trek film. I can’t put my finger on why.
I- liked the Scotty scenes and his exasperation with Kirk.
-I liked the scenes on Niburu (minus the Enterprise being underwater) and hope that it’s a glimpse of things to come (strange new worlds and all that).
-I love the uniforms and the way they stay true to the original series with an updated flair.
-I love the choices made with the operation of the phasers and the way the ships go to warp. I also love the huge ‘window’ on the bridge with the heads-up display.
-I loved Cumberbatch as the bad guy, just wish he’d have stayed John Harrison…
-I loved the message of the film and I hope it’s not lost among all of the Khan hoopla, but I’m afraid that it will be.
-I liked less of the engine room-brewery thing and I liked the warp core in this one better than the last one.
-I liked the Klingons, the updated version stays true to the original, much like the uniforms, with some interesting differences that do not detract from the original.
-I have been waiting 35 years for Spock to go off like he did during his fight with Khan. However, it loses its power if he’s gonna do it in every film.

It was a good rousing action packed adventure film with some major plot holes and some canon-busting that has nothing to do with the creation of an alternate timeline (i.e. how far away is the Klingon homeworld anyway?)

I am anxiously awaiting the next movie in 2016, I hope.

330. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

^It sounds like you liked the film a whole lot more than I did, like you actually liked it… I’m glad that they made something that satisfied you.

My hope is that they do better with the next film, but that’s just from my perspective…

331. Dave H - September 14, 2013

@300 “Dave H. Thank you for providing the links. After reading the source for the data, I agree that TNG suffered in the early 2 seasons but then recovered following changes from season 3.”

Ahmed, thank you for this! I appreciate it.

Given you have been reasonable here and accepted my information, I am going to forgive you from my perception that you are at least partially responsible for Orci, MJ, RD Ryan and other “friends” of mine here leaving.

So, perhaps we can both move forward now with no hard feelings?

332. Aurore - September 14, 2013

@ 328. Disinvited – September 14, 2013

“…Flattered that anything I write resides in your memory for more than a while…”
_________

Remembering everything you choose to share with us on this here site is an honour for me.

Flattered that my katra drunk style allowed you to make a statement on “how corporate views and uses Trek”.

…This shall reside in my memory… forever…

:)

333. TrekMadeMeASpockUhuraDetractor (walmart) - September 14, 2013

My local Target here was completely sold out of the STID special Blu-Ray. The guy at the electronics counter told me that he hasn’t seen a Blu-ray sell that well since Avengers last year.

334. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

330. Spock/Uhura Admirer

There were things that really didn’t blow my hair back and really took the jam out of doughnut, but I’m trying to be positive…

335. Gandalf talking to Dumbledore about Saruman. - September 14, 2013

@ 309. Ash – September 14, 2013
@302 whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold (omg what a mouthful lol)

Yea I think the majority of people feel the same way, though some will argue. All you have to do is glance at the comments or look at the polls taken by thousands here and other places and you can see, people miss the triad and Bones. You have new fans who don’t care/ don’t know how much this character means. All they care about is the romance or what have you. But those fans who were there even before Trek came under JJs control remember a much better time with a much better team, one that Gene Roddenberry himself created as the heart of Trek. I don’t mind the AU and you can overlook the romance, but how the hell did anyone think that giving Uhura or Scotty a larger role over Bones or changing the Trio was a good idea? If anything it’s backfiring on them.
———–

If there is anything that backfired on them it is the rehash and rip off of WOK you cant blame a single character for that.

Bones is great but face it, It is and was all about Kirk and Spock.

I don’t think Uhura replaced anyone but it is easy for fan boys to blame her because she is female and a WOC.

You are forgetting that in every film there is always going to be a female lead. Uhura didn’t replace Bones, she is just the female leading character. Bones character is suffering because there are already 2 main leads in Trek.

You guys need to lay off Uhura. The crazy and insane attack on this chick is totally ridiculous and lacking of logic.

It was the fans that requested Uhura become an action character. they told Orci to give her action scenes. The fans didn’t ask for Bones.

HERE IS THE SOLID PROOF.

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2013/09/orci-reacts-to-article-and-online-comments/

this was the fan request for Orci.

•Kirk promoted too fast incorporated as part of the text of Universe.
•Remake Engineering
•Make Scotty more than comic relief
•Give Uhura more action
•Touch upon Prime Directive.
•See more of the ship
•Bring Pike back

SO THERE.

Uhura is just the easiest to pick on because she is not a white male.

its a sad reality however it is true.

this is more of a gender thing.it is not uhura’s fault she is female and a female is required to be in a leading role in every movie. It doesn’t matter if there are 10 guys on the film.

Don;t blame Uhura. Blame Kirk and Spock for not letting anyone get in the way for there epic bromance.

Uhura is not even real person.

336. Aurore - September 14, 2013

@328

…I consider that you had already made a statement on how corporate views and uses Trek, a long time ago.

On the “Will Star Wars Episode VII announcement hurt Star Trek Into Darkness marketing rollout?” thread for example… and many other ones…

Shhhh. Don’t say a word ; I know : you feel flattered…

:)

337. Ahmed - September 14, 2013

@ 331. Dave H – September 14, 2013

“So, perhaps we can both move forward now with no hard feelings?”

Agreed, at the end of the day we all want the same thing, for Star Trek as an idea & a franchise to continue & prosper, even if we disagree on how to achieve that.

LLAP :)

338. Thomas Vinelli - September 14, 2013

Viewing STID a second time. I thought this movie had a lot of heart. Spock fighting his emotions when Pike died. Kirk crying when Pike died. I saw it in 3D in the theater. It was hard to get into the film because the 3D was horrible the way the theater had it set. It was too bright . But viewed it at home ,looks great and right. Many hard core Trek fans ( i one of them) really bashed this film ,the first film and J.J , and the writers. The bashing is where i part company with hard core Trek fans. Sure a rehashed story , but they did very well with it.. I know many non trek folks that loved this film. The old films makers couldn’t say that. They tried to get non treks fans in there, but failed. J.J and paramount have a new fan base ,which they wanted in the first place. Hard core trek fan need to really just shut up and move on. This is not the trek you grew up too, so get over it

339. ME AGAIN - September 14, 2013

@ Ash
————————————————————————————-

What backfired on the writers is the rip off and rehash of WOK. you cant blame a single character for that.

Uhura did not take anyone’s place, Bones is suffering as a character because Trek already has two main male leads and when you add the villain that makes it 3 main male leads.

How can people say uhura is taking bones place when she is a woman. she is acting as the standard female lead that is required in any film. it has nothing to do with Bones who is a man.

The fans of Trek are the ones that requested more Uhura.

Here it is:

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2013/09/orci-reacts-to-article-and-online-comments/

This is a solid proof of what fans requested from Orci:

•Kirk promoted too fast incorporated as part of the text of Universe.
•Remade Engineering
•Made Scotty more than comic relief
•Got Uhura more into the action
•Touched upon Prime Directive.
•Saw more of the ship
•Brought Pike back

They did not mention Bones. It was the fans that wanted Uhura to get more on screen time as an action character.

Honestly the hatred for Uhura on this site is getting ridiculous but then again I am not surprised. Uhura is not part of the white male that dominated TOS trek.

And people keep wondering why star wars trumps star trek.

S/U admirer needs to stop complaining about the romance. what we need to focus on is women in trek doing good work and been good role models for girls. it should not matter if they are dating a guy,

Uhura obviously has it harder because not only is she female she is a WOC.

What seems to piss me off is that this fan boys are giving carol a free pass when carol is far worse of a female lead than Uhura. Only Treklady has called Carol out for been a poor female character.

To this fan boys , the blonde chick is blameless and spotless. they have even cheered her silly strip scene.

I have seen posts on trekbbs asking for Uhura to be killed off and be replaced with Carol.

silly.

340. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@#333 whatyou…

:-) You’re doing a good job of it–Positively.

341. Disinvited - September 14, 2013

#334. Aurore – September 14, 2013

But that was before STID and this is after with its new corroborative evidence and apparently some new eyes here too.

342. David Anderson - September 14, 2013

The chronological approach, from TOS to TNG, DS9 to Voyager, then back to ENT kept the mythos but took us farther and farther from the characters we (older dudes) came to love, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SPOCK. Nimoy was the glue in the continuity, at least through TNG.

Star Trek HAD to do what DC Comics does with its “Crisis” serials (the fanboys know what I mean). Continuity fails as too many decades pass by, and the stories get stale, so what can you do ??? You keep the characters and reset the universe. Kal-L (Golden Age 1930′s Superman), full of grey hair and gravitas, passed the torch in 1986 to New Earth Superman after Earth 1 Kal-El (Silver Age Superman) ceased to exist when his timeline disappeared.

Similarly, Spock-Prime, as the most revered and long-lived character of TOS/TNG, HAD to be the one who visibly handed the torch to Quito’s Spock. Using a series character who possesses great gravitas this way is very, very common technique, btw, whether talking about Q (the MI5 gadget maker in various Bond movies) or Alfred (in the 90′s Batman flicks).

JJ saved the Trek Universe, folks. He preserved the characters, which were always the soul of all things Trek. Without Kirk, Spock and Bones, it’s just another Sci-Fi franchise. And the fact that they are different is fine. Jeezus … was the boringly severe and serene Kirk of 1979′s ST1 even the same hard-drinking party guy from TOS? He sure wasn’t the joker of ST4 or the redeemed late-mid-lifer of ST6. CHILL.

JJ, do this, okay? Make sure to keep throwing us continuity bones, because our egos are fragile. Many of us were (are) nerds of the highest order, and for many of us Kirk and Spock really are some of the most influential characters in our miserable lives. We really do ask our selves WWKD (What Would Kirk Do?) or WWSD. So humor us. We are delicate wittle things, and we need our Trek. Be gentle.

343. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

@336 Thomas Vinelli

I think the thing that perpetuates a schism between those that loved STID, those that liked STID, those that were not impressed with STID, and those who hated STID, is less a love or hate for this particular film, but rather the need to prove that I/we know more about what Star Trek is and/or that we love Star Trek more than others commenting on this site do.

There is a tone that runs through many of these posts that talks down to other fans who disagree with some stated positions. I am perhaps more guilty of this than others with some of my past posts on this website, especially concerning STID. However, it was Bob Orci’s outburst on another thread that got me thinking about what I Star Trek was to me and whether or not I enjoyed the movie or not and what kind of Star Trek fan I wanted to be.

So, what does this have to do with post 336 Thomas Vinelli? I was right there with you, Thomas, critiquing the things about the film that you liked, what you didn’t like about your 3D experience in the theater, and your disdain for fans who bash this film and how the producers of this franchise have managed to open Star Trek to a larger audience. All of this was spot on, in my opinion.

But then you had to end your post by saying that some people need to shut up and move on. And that they needed to accept the situation and get over it.

It is this kind of confrontational posting that I am trying my level best to avoid because it adds absolutely nothing to the conversation except vitriol and it is just obnoxious.

Like the message of STID, we must take care that we don’t become what we are fighting against. I would encourage you to contemplate that.

344. David Anderson - September 14, 2013

Oh, and I loved STID. There WAS story-writing here. This Khan was somewhere closer to the calm, methodical corpsicle awakened in TOS’s “Space Seed”. And he maintained the clannish devotion to his crew. See, the beauty of Khan is that he really isn’t evil. He’s Alexander. His clannish circle is outside of social concerns. He IS history, and he owes nothing to anyone. STID captured this fundamental character perfectly.

345. Basement Blogger - September 14, 2013

Just in case you missed this, NASA’s Voyager has passed out of our solar system making it the first man made vehicle to do so. NASA’s Dr. John Grunsfeld made the announcement with TOS music playing and… used Trek’s opening monologue . Listen to the end. Link. Hail V’ger er… Voyager.

http://www.startrek.com/article/trek-stars-with-nasas-voyager

346. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

“I think the thing that perpetuates a schism between those that loved STID, those that liked STID, those that were not impressed with STID, and those who hated STID, is less a love or hate for this particular film, but rather the need to prove that I/we know more about what Star Trek is and/or that we love Star Trek more than others commenting on this site do.”

I think this is true for some of the people here, and especially for some of the people that “left.” To me, it’s just about preferences, but some people I don’t think can leave it at that. When people star trying to make me think how they think, or start telling me exactly how it absolutely has to be, especially for a rebooted alternate timeline, I just can’t go for that.

I’m also not easily intimidated, and so when I see other people with varying opinions being run off by some of those people, then that’s what makes me dig my heels in and stay because I don’t like bullies. I can say that I appreciate your level tone here and your willingness to agree to disagree. I wish we all could do that more.

347. ted - toronto - September 14, 2013

This is the counter point that trek movie staff thought was a good idea to promote? Clear, concise and level-headed (whatever that means) perhaps, but it misses the point entirely. The article assumes that a re-boot (i.e. remake) is the correct approach to begin with. It fails to opine on what most trek fans yearn for: the next generation adventures.

Abrams did not get it right. He could not have gotten it more wrong. What we need is not another telling of Kirk et al from the time the original series began. We know that story. What we want is the “next” Kirk, or Picard, or….

And if a “re-boot” was what Abrams wanted so badly, why not tell a true “prequel” and connect the events of the Enterprise series with the events leading up to Kirk’s enterprise? Give us something new man. Use your imagination to go along with your big budget and cool directing style.

The stig’s bar must be really low. He is effectively praising Abrams for failing to use his imagination, and instead, use his arrogance to believe that he could re-do the same stories better. It’s actually rather mindboggling when one thinks about. One of Hollywood’s top directors and writing teams, chose not to come up with their own characters, their own stories, their own adventures. Mindboggling indeed, but ultimately very sad for trek fans.

348. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 14, 2013

343. Spock/Uhura Admirer

Thank you. I have found you to be very cogent and insightful. And spirited. I would add that it’s completely unproductive to engage with someone who isn’t willing to take your point of view into account. There’s just no point to it.
I also hate bullies and I can respect that you’ve got to fight for what you believe in.

349. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@344 whatyou…

Thank you. That’s very sweet of you to say. :-)

350. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 14, 2013

@343 / Spock/Uhura Admirer: “I think this is true for some of the people here, and especially for some of the people that “left.””

Well one good thing for the people that left is that they don’t have to read your overly-aggressive know-it-all posts anymore. I wold imagine that from their perspective, concerning your contributions here, “the feeling is mutual.”

;-)

351. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@346

What feeling? We were talking about the general differences in groups of people that have certain views. “Feelings” weren’t a part of it.

I find your hostility interesting. Please point out a time when I’ve purported to “know-it-all” or when I’ve been “overly aggressive” to someone who merely had a different view. You remind of of when I was accused of wanted the next ST movie to be “all about S/U” on the Star Trek is Broken thread. I’ve never said such a thing, and actually I’ve said the exact opposite. However, the person doing the accusing actually did want the next film to be about just 2 or 3 people mainly.

It’s funny how the people here that are the quickest to accuse and label others are usually the ones most guilty of what it is they are accusing other people of.

I leave you to your false accusations and hostility…

352. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle. - September 14, 2013

Nope, not taking your bait.

353. Dave H - September 14, 2013

#347 Well, I’ll respond. You were such a jerk in your smart-ass posts recently to Keachick and Ash here that they decided to leave the site and no longer post anymore.

354. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

^ And that would be wrong. Just look up thread. Ash is still posting, and I wasn’t a “smart-ass” to either one of them. I told Keachick that I wasn’t interested in corresponding with her and asked her to “please” stop talking to me. I didn’t initiate anything with her, and I stopped talking to her even as she kept authoring posts directed at me.

You may want to check your facts before you accuse people, Dave…

355. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

And Dave, since we’re being candid with one another…

In the Star Trek is Broken thread, I also found it interesting how you accused people here of running your “friends” off (when in all actuality, they just decided to leave because Orci left), but when you were confronted with how they treated others, and actually ran them off, you basically said that people needed to deal with that and be big boys and girls. That’s a double standard at the very least…

Like I said. Usually the people making the accusations are the guiltiest ones…

356. Dave H - September 14, 2013

S/U’ is accusing me of making accusations. OK, fair enough. But let’s visit some of S/U Admirer’s recent “accusatory greatest hits”:

“I can’t lose you with something you essentially made up yourself, I’m afraid”

“That, or he might be embarrassed and needs an indefinite break. ”

“I am not interested in receiving more fictitious information from you or the inevitable victim card you always play.”

“Real question here: Are you being facetious?”

“….and did she breast feed (ha ha ha O_o) and of Uhura until JJ finally said “What are you doing?” Apparently, that same mentality was used in writing STID.”

“Said the self-professed Pine Nut…”

“Another post full of lies, poor excuses for bad behavior, desperate projecting, and deflection…”

“I’m not sure what you wanted, but it sure doesn’t seem like it was to have us all treat each other right, especially when you seem to give people like Keachick (etc.) a free pass for their crap, hatred, and vitrol. Take care, Garak.”

“…he might be amused that its the #1, grade-A, gang of bullies that are the ones leaving. They’ve run so many people off in the past that it might be interesting to watch them leave… That’s just my guess.”

“I could also say that a “well-adjusted” person doesn’t need to rely on a youtube clip that they’ve repeatedly posted in the same thread as a way to try to validate their opinion…”

“Enlighten me, please, or did you just come here to insult me and to complain without adding anything of substance to any discussion here? That’s the definition of “trolling.” The irony of your post is amusing…”

“”(and NO! I do not mean slash, as I’m sure you’re so ready to cry about) so don’t act so upset and personally victimized when they put the most focus on those two.”

“Lol, like I said. They’re not gone… Sometimes I think it’s all about theatrics…Give me a moment, Ash… Just a moment… ;-)”

“Wow, you really do assume you know everything. I’m sorry, but that’s the problem with being a part of a “group think” mentality. You get used to the echo chamber….”

“I just don’t have the power to predict the future like you do…”

“I remember them, and they were plentiful. I used my scroll bar efficiently and never complained…”

“You have to correct people when they assume that they know everything about you, and most of it is false…”

” It’s just that some of us won’t allow other people who think they know what they don’t about others to spread lies, that’s all.”

“They’re not gone. For a lot of them this was just theatrics…”

“I think this is true for some of the people here, and especially for some of the people that “left”

“Like I said. Usually the people making the accusations are the guiltiest ones…”

357. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@Dave

And within context I can stand by each one of those. I love how you’re trying to “recut” snippets of my posts together to try to create some kind of–whatever it is you’re trying to do.

I also find it interesting that when I point to your double standard, you start doing your darnedest to try to incriminate me in some kind of way.

That’s a lot of finger pointing you’re doing there, and again, that last quote you posted stands. I’ll even help you with highlighting it.

“Like I said. Usually the people making the accusations are the guiltiest ones…”

Unfortunately, you are proving this to be true. And you can quote me on that…

358. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@352 ….Beagle

It’s not bait; it’s a measured response. I think you were the one hoping to bait me. It certainly seems to be the case when you came out of left field with that post of yours, but who can know…

359. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@Dave

One of those quotes is from Ash, I think… Just letting you know.

360. Dave H - September 14, 2013

“Like I said. Usually the people making the accusations are the guiltiest ones…”

We are in full agreement on this now — YES — as my post #365 shows in full detail.

PS: Nice post to Beagle…have fun with your “usual shenanigans” there.

361. Dave H - September 14, 2013

S/U, just be honest with me on one question, please:

Do you deny that you are sometimes a real “smart-ass” to people here?

A simply “yes” or “no” will suffice. No term-paper-length posts or sarcastic self-congratulatory quips are needed.

362. spockboy - September 14, 2013

The triumvirate of Kirk Spock and McCoy are the essence of TOS.
Stephen Fry explains it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpklo4VLak

:)

363. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

Dave, I think you meant post #356 at this point. We haven’t gotten to 365 yet.

And frankly, you haven’t quoted me “accusing” anyone of anything. Lol.

You’ve quoted me:

- Asking some questions.
-Outlining what actually happens in the ST09 commentary–anyone can check that.
- Speculating, as many people do here…
- You actually quoted Ash once…
- You quoted part of a post where I told someone why I didn’t want to converse with them
- Me pointing out that some of the people that “left” didn’t really leave–again anyone can see that in that thread.
- Me pointing out that someone falsely assumed to know about me when they don’t

Essentially, you quoted me doing everything but accusing other people of things. Out of the 2 of us, you’re the one doing that, and you’re trying really hard to do it. Interesting, Dave. Just interesting…

Now, you want to explain what you meant when you said it was okay for your friends to run people off an mistreat them? Or, do you just want to skip over that?

364. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@#361

“S/U, just be honest with me on one question, please:

Do you deny that you are sometimes a real “smart-ass” to people here?”

I’m always honest, Dave. The short answer would be no, because I’m decent to people who are decent, but I’ll defend myself against people who are not.

Now, here’s my question, and please be honest with me:

Do you think you like to stir things up just to cause controversy and discord? I’m asking because I’m noticing a pattern here, and I just want to know how you see things…

365. Dave H - September 14, 2013

My short answer is no as well. But if you were to say, “yes, I can be a smart-ass at times to people here,” then I could potentially see myself then potentially being more honest with myself in a similar manner, and then saying to you, “yes, I perhaps stir up things from time to time here.”

366. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

“…then I could potentially see myself then potentially being more honest with myself in a similar manner…”

O_o I was honest with you, and you tell me this? So, basically if I told you what you wanted to hear, then you’d tell me “the truth.” ???

And you still aren’t saying anything about how you think it’s okay for your friends to bully and run off people… Wow.

It’s late. Goodnight, Dave… My goodness. :-/

367. Dave H - September 14, 2013

“Out of the 2 of us, you’re the one doing that, and you’re trying really hard to do it. Interesting, Dave. Just interesting…”

That is a bit of a stretch to claim that my question to you was an accusation? Or that my list above was an accusation? And come on, when you tell someone, “Another post full of lies, poor excuses for bad behavior, desperate projecting, and deflection,” then of course you are accusing them of lying, giving poor excuses, and behaving desperately,” duh! ;-)

Also, I never said it was OK to run people off — you of all people (i.e. it looks causally likely to me that you ran Keachick off rather than the Orci thing) know how a fight here with someone can get carried away, with the results being one person leaving. What I said was that people need to stop being wusses and let themselves be run off, and then show up later and bitch about it — I find that cowardly. Surely, someone like you, who I actually admire here for not taking any crap from anyone, can appreciate that?

368. Dave H - September 14, 2013

@366. If you can’t meet with half way and admit something which is objectively obvious to anyone reading your history of posting here, then I am not going to “reward you” by assessing myself in a similarly objective manner.

I’ll stay “comfortably subjective” as well then.

And please stop with the manufactured drama of I am not responding to your questions. If you would have waited 3 more minutes before responding, you would see that I address both of your other questions above.

369. Diskhanbobulated - September 14, 2013

The fact that we’re even having this discussion is proof of how truly broken Star Trek is. The apologists can spin as much as Harry Mudd would, but it doesn’t change the fact that new writers and a new director need to be brought in to give things a fresh take. The current dudes are WAY too comfortable in their positions.

370. Danny - September 14, 2013

@369 Star Trek isn’t broken, the fans are!!!

371. Herkimer_Jitty - September 14, 2013

I stopped reading the moment I saw the words “Gene’s vision”. It’s like an automatic gag reflex.

372. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 14, 2013

@Dave

Now you speak for “anyone reading” here. Let me ask you this: What exactly are you trying to get or achieve because right now it just looks to me like you are trying to create some sort of drama?

“That is a bit of a stretch to claim that my question to you was an accusation? Or that my list above was an accusation?

I didn’t say the question was an accusation, but let’s look at what you said at the top of that list is basically accusing me of making accusations. I think you do like creating issues that don’t exist because you seem to feed off of them.

“I’ll stay “comfortably subjective” as well then.”

You mean you’ll lie so long as I don’t give you the answer you want. Wow…

“And please stop with the manufactured drama of I am not responding to your questions. If you would have waited 3 more minutes before responding, you would see that I address both of your other questions above.”

I asked you that same question repeatedly, and you could have answered at any time. I think you only responded after I pointed out how you kept avoiding it because it was making you look bad.

” And come on, when you tell someone, “Another post full of lies, poor excuses for bad behavior, desperate projecting, and deflection,” then of course you are accusing them of lying, giving poor excuses, and behaving desperately,” duh! ;-)”

You’re trying. I’ll give you credit for that. What I said in that post is just that. What that person said was not true. She made excuses for bad behavior, i.e. name-calling, vulgarity, etc., and on down the line. See, this is the problem with you trying to take quotes out of context without understanding the background of an exchange and then trying to create something out of it.

I notice that you like to accuse people of things–A LOT. And you accuse people of things that they didn’t do, from Ahmed and Joseph Dickerson supposedly “running off’ Orci, to me supposedly “running off” a poster that still posts here and another poster that is free to do whatever she wants. You just want to create victims where there are none.

“Also, I never said it was OK to run people off “

You eluded to it being okay. Post #1890

“And the fact that there were a couple of you who were apparently “scared away” while these people were here says to me more about your intellectual fortitude than about anything they might have done. We are all big boys here, so don’t blame others’ if you can’t handle it please — that is your problem, not theirs, in my humble opinion.”

That sounds like you’re saying them “scaring people away” is okay to me, but that’s just me.

” What I said was that people need to stop being wusses and let themselves be run off, and then show up later and bitch about it — I find that cowardly. Surely, someone like you, who I actually admire here for not taking any crap from anyone, can appreciate that?”

I can appreciate that IF you then don’t go and try to play defense for the people that are supposed to be “big girls and boys.” You said not to blame others if someone can’t handle it, but then here you are trying to blame me for the choices that other people make. I appreciate the compliment, but you can’t have it both ways, Dave. Are we all big girls and boys or not???

The other thing I noticed on the ST is Broken thread is you assuming a self-appointed hallway monitor role, asking what’s your business and why are you here and do you have “a pass?” to or about a lot of people that posted in that thread. These are people that were minding their own business, and just like you are trying to do with me here, you wanted to stir something up with them. I don’t get it. It’s like you have a need for conflict. And that’s not the end of where you started conflicts on that thread, to the point where one of the people you were supposedly “defending” asked you to stop… My guess is because it didn’t look good.

I do believe that we can be reasonable here, and let bygones be bygones, but to do that, people can’t be trying to create conflict. And I feel right now that you are trying to create something from nothing…

I really didn’t pay attention to a lot of your posts, but I came across #1845 and some other, and that was just wrong to me:

And ___ also was the guy who successfully waterboarded Osama’s driver to get the info to Seal Team 6 on Osama’s house location in Pakistan.

I guess you were trying to be cute, but that’s not funny. I edited the name out of the post because I didn’t want to repost that being directed at anyone.

This is what I get for peaking at this again before going to bed. I’ll be back later…

373. Eldon Tyrell - September 15, 2013

Danny: “Star Trek isn’t broken, the fans are!!!”

You hit the nail on the head, Danny. We fans are broken.

Case in point — if Spock/Uhura Admirer and Dave H can’t even take the minor baby step of honesty and admit to each other that they can exhibit smart ass behavior, and stir things up, respectively; then this just shows how myopic and clueless that these “regulars” on this site can be. These fans are broken, as are many others who post here.

374. Forrest Leeson - September 15, 2013

“And the box office success of STID can’t be denied or ignored, at least not by me…”

Hmm…per boxofficemojo, it has thus far, worldwide, done 2.45x its budget. Compare Man of Steel at 2.94x and Iron Man 3 at 6x.

(And from out of history, Star Trek the Motionless Picture: a somewhat ambiguous 4x. Inflation-adjusted, it looks like STID edged STTMP by somewhere around 5%; production team Thank-You notes may be addressed to Benedict Cumberbatch, 221B Baker St.)

375. Dave H - September 15, 2013

“What exactly are you trying to get or achieve because right now it just looks to me like you are trying to create some sort of drama?”

Huih, I am trying to respond to you — and now I apparently have to respond to one of your dreaded S/U “Term Paper-length” posts…argh! I will not respond with 5000 words, as I try to make my points concisely without the need for scoring “my, look how clever I am” points. Here is my concise response:

1. You are the person who has had a real-word experience running people off here, not me. You bullied and humiliated Keachick, and she said here goodbyes immediately following your rather embarrassing “spiraling down the drain” set of arguments with her. So, in this regard, I guess I should accept all of your points regarding being critical of me for my comments on people leaving. So yes, you being the expert on this topic, I will defer to you on this — you are correct!

2.. “I asked you that same question repeatedly, and you could have answered at any time. I think you only responded after I pointed out how you kept avoiding it because it was making you look bad.”

That is just not true. I was responding immediately after my other post in real time. Believe what you want, but I was responding to your comment in real time. (FYI — this is an “accusation” that you are making)

3. “The other thing I noticed on the ST is Broken thread is you assuming a self-appointed hallway monitor role, asking what’s your business and why are you here and do you have “a pass?” to or about a lot of people that posted in that thread.”

I did not appreciate all of the people taking potshots at Bob Orci and my “friends” as they were exiting. If that offended anymore, or maid me look like the Hall Monitor for a time, then so be it. I stand proudly behind my defense of Bob Orci and my friends.

4. The joke you are referring to was never intended as being related to the personal background of the poster, which is what I think you are trying to pin on me? However, I can see now how it might be perceived that way, and so I apologize (to that person — not to you) for that, if they took it that way?

376. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

“I am trying to respond to you “

No, I’m talking about when you first attacked.

“1. You are the person who has had a real-word experience running people off here, not me. You bullied and humiliated Keachick, and she said here goodbyes immediately following your rather embarrassing “spiraling down the drain” set of arguments with her. So, in this regard, I guess I should accept all of your points regarding being critical of me for my comments on people leaving. So yes, you being the expert on this topic, I will defer to you on this — you are correct!”

This is a completely made up lie. If by “bullied and humiliated” you mean asking someone who knows we don’t get along to please stop talking to me after she decided to direct inaccurate and sniping posts my way, then I guess so. If she chose “take a break” after that, then as you said, she’s a “big girl” and you shouldn’t be trying to attack me over her choices. Right now, it seems like you are trying to bully me, and I won’t stand for it. The only “expert” here is you being the expert at stirring up drama and spreading lies, and I’m not the first person you’ve done this to.

You are also being a hypocrite. You think it’s okay to whine and kick over what happens to your “friends,” but when you or any of them attack other people, then all of a sudden people should be big boys and girls because you and your friends, and I think that includes Keachick, aren’t responsible for your actions. Like I said, you can’t have it both ways.

“That is just not true. I was responding immediately after my other post in real time. Believe what you want, but I was responding to your comment in real time. (FYI — this is an “accusation” that you are making)”

No. It is true. The truth isn’t an accusation. Anyone can look up thread and see where I asked you the same question over and over, where you replied and skipped over it until I kept pressing you. I don’t have to believe what I want because you’ve provided the proof with your posts above.

I think you saw that I said that I wasn’t willing to be bullied and you decided you’d try, because your attacked and trumped up charges are paper thin at best. And you seem to want to keep this going instead of admit where you are applying double standards and bullying tactics.

“I did not appreciate all of the people taking potshots at Bob Orci and my “friends” as they were exiting. If that offended anymore, or maid me look like the Hall Monitor for a time, then so be it. I stand proudly behind my defense of Bob Orci and my friends.”

No one was taking “pot shots” at them while they were exiting. Some people were responding to some of their earlier posts, though. So, you stand behind bullies and the behavior of a man where even he had the sense (or someone had it for him) to realized that he went over the line? Okay. Got it.

I don’t think it’s your job to try to “manage” other people. Just worry about yourself and leave others to do the same. If there’s an issue that really needs to be addressed, well then that’s what the mods here are for. I think they’ve done pretty good so far.

“4. The joke you are referring to was never intended as being related to the personal background of the poster, which is what I think you are trying to pin on me? However, I can see now how it might be perceived that way, and so I apologize (to that person — not to you) for that, if they took it that way?”

I’m not asking for an apology because I wasn’t the one you attacked with poor humor. And considering his reply in that thread, he wasn’t amused by it. I’ll leave it to him to decide if he accepts your apology or not.

It would help if you weren’t always so incendiary in your posting!

377. Jim Nightshade - September 15, 2013

Remember that Star Trek The Motion Picture actually did MUCH better than reported because Paramount Folded almost the entire budget for the proposed New Voyages shows into its costs….and a substantial cost for the Special Effects to get done in time after Robert Abel and Assoc spent millions and had nothing to show for it…..they basically had almost ever special efx house out there working 24 hours a day to barely get it done…

Personally I also think Star Trek Aint broken…just watched my blu ray copy of STID….besides being the BEST LOOKING Trek ever made….there are character moments in it deeper than any the original had to go through especially this early in their lives…and the actors all nailed it perfectly….Quinto as Spock with continued emotional compromising was great and Pine as Kirk had to wrestle with incredible insecurity and trusting his team instead of trying to do all himself….I even liked Uhuras arc shes fur shur getting to do more than Nichelle ever did…Yes many scenes have been done before….but when you have almost 50 years of trek…its gotta be tough to be totally original….I also believe the supreme court also thought much of it as a tribute to Khan et al…..Perhaps there were too many fan moments but no movie is ever perfect…..I was very entertained even watching it at home again..cant wait to save up and find a good but cheap 3d tv….any recommendations??

378. Cygnus-X1 - September 15, 2013

The people who love JJ’s version of Trek never address many of the specific criticisms of the people who think it’s broken.

Simply go and read the reviews of STID at RottenTomatoes.com.

Even the GOOD reviews echo the criticisms commonly expressed by fans.

And there are more in-depth, spot-on reviews which specifically analyze the many plot holes and other problems with STID.

If you love JJ’s Trek, good for you. Maybe you loved Generations, STV and Nemesis also.

But if you’re arguing that the people who don’t love JJ’s Trek don’t have valid criticisms, then you should address specifically why some of the criticisms in reviews like this one are in error: http://www.standbyformindcontrol.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-vs-star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan/

379. Cygnus-X1 - September 15, 2013

I would like to see the Abrams defenders address the specific criticisms below, all excerpts from the review linked at the bottom of this post:

“The best part [of Star Trek '09] was the young cast he found to recreate the old characters. The worst was how he jettisoned the science aspect of the show and turned Star Trek into a space fantasy with endless action.”

– — –

“Admiral Pike chews out and demotes Kirk for failing to obey Starfleet Regulations and for believing the blind luck resulting in no crew member deaths is a testament to Kirk’s wisdom. You might, if you had a brain, think this was the set-up of the movie’s theme. It is not. There is no theme. Kirk will learn no lessons about anything in the movie.”

– — –

“…And that’s when Abrams really just up and says “F*CK. YOU.” to anyone who ever liked Star Trek or its characters. He actually replays the end of Wrath of Khan, beat for beat, only he calls “reversies!” and has Kirk sacrifice himself instead of Spock. Really. That’s what happens. Because, you see, Kirk understands that life is, um, no, it’s that he’s learned that disobeying Starfleet regulations is, wait, no, it’s because he saved Spock’s life once before, so, no, that’s not it. Hmm. Okay, here it is: Spock died in Wrath, so Kirk will die here. That’s the logic at work. There is no other meaning.”

– — –

“They take this powerful, meaningful, emotional ending of Wrath, pull a switcheroo in which they transplant Kirk’s character into Spock, and Spock’s into Kirk, make the death scene in and of itself meaningless, having nothing to do with plot or theme (of which there is none in the movie), and then render it still more meaningless by resurrecting Kirk within about five minutes of screen time.”

http://www.standbyformindcontrol.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-vs-star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan/

380. Dave H - September 15, 2013

“This is a completely made up lie.”

Ah, you mean like: “I think you only responded after I pointed out how you kept avoiding it because it was making you look bad.”

“Right now, it seems like you are trying to bully me, and I won’t stand for it.”

Oh, come on. Really? You are the one writing these huge, long diatribes, not me. You the one who tried to infer my bad attempt at humor was more than that.

“No one was taking “pot shots” at them while they were exiting.”

You are straining all credibility here. Here are three examples, and I can provide more at your request: — these posts all came in immediately following Bob’s emotional and classy goodbye to all of us:

++++++++++++++++++++++
1508. trekkintoo – September 8, 2013
wow this orci guy comes across as a real ass. I wondered why the writer had reduced spock from the logical, deep complex enigma he has been to a passive agrerssive cyher of his former self and now I know why since this Orci is obviously this himself. He is not only incapable of any depth , he reduces the characters to their most sterotyped and thin characterizations.Then he hides behind the “im the writer and your not” smokeccrreen and the worst name droppping “his “friend” harrison Ford” as if that justifies his arrogance, narcissism and hubris. Also if making tons of $ were the only criterias for good values then mcDonalds must be haute cuisine. Also his patronizing attitude that he is the “father figure” to the fans is naseating . Obvoiusly the suits have found a vertebraeless hack finally. Oh ? hes a george bush fan?? figures
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1530. Jey – September 8, 2013
@1437 boborci:
For a guy who’s promoting “tolerance” for his Ender’s Game movie, he certainly lacks the very thing he’s trying to convey. But what should you expect from a writer promoting a story written by an outspoken homophobe? If this is indeed boborci’s final appearance here on the site, well, it’s been fun. Don’t think you ever sold me on anything. The only thing I got out of you was that your story’s values are all hinged on your values, and you are really lacking in that department.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1562. PaulB – September 8, 2013
Orci has been sneering at fans around here for a long time, implying or openly stating that critical fans are either drunk or on drugs (because that’s the only explanation for not agreeing with Orci!)… Orci is leaving because he doesn’t have the maturity to interact with fans without behaving like a 12-year-old, and he knows that will hurt his career if he indulges in it. He’s a hack, and he believes some dumb conspiracy theories, but Orci is not dumb enough to destroy his career via social media.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I dare you to defend this shameless crap-vitriol above?

381. Dave H - September 15, 2013

And to further make my point on these three examples above, these posters have been around awhile, but none of them ever said anything close to this level of negative attacks on Bob Orci UNTIL HE DEPARTED. In other words, these people had neither the honor nor the balls to say anything like this “to Bob’s face” when he was previously “around on Trekmovie.com” to defend himself. Only after Bob had parted — in fact within just a few hours of his departure — did these chickenshit cowards finally grow some balls and say their mean-spirited words for Bob — KNOWING THAT HE WAS NOT AROUND NOW TO RESPOND TO THEM.

(and I am not talking about you here — you did not reduce yourself to this level; you have too much integrity to do that)

So again, I am PROUD that I rose to Bob’s defense when these losers took their potshots at him when he was no longer able to defend himself.

And I do it again in a New York Minute.

382. Pauln6 - September 15, 2013

Enterprise should have gone back to the spirit of TOS as well IMO. It was obviously too much like TNG in approach. The flip side is that story-telling and characterisation has evolved since TOS and going back to basics to add in silly, scientifically inaccurate plot devices makes the franchise feel more childish. Also, why go back to basics but upgrade the technology to such a degree? They did the same in Prometheus and it didn’t ring true there either. We don’t need whistles and bells if the story is compelling.

383. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 15, 2013

@376. Cygnus-X1 – September 15, 2013

I have neither the emotional energy nor the wit to respond to your criticisms of the 2 latest movies. I can, however, play ‘duelling reviews’ and point you to an article I found this morning (my time) which I found myself largely in agreement with. I almost posted a link to it here then. I will do so now.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Havencomics/news/?a=87047

384. Aurore - September 15, 2013

@ 341. Disinvited – September 14, 2013

“But that was before STID and this is after with its new corroborative evidence and apparently some new eyes here too.”
___________

Obviously.

I was merely saying that I already knew about (many of) your views on “corporate” etc. I felt I could allow myself to do so since, you know… the post which allowed you to make your statement (@297) was apparently…directed at me…

:)

385. Gandalf talking to Dumbledore about Saruman / ME Again - September 15, 2013

All characters are suffering. everyone else is in 2nd place. Trek 3 needs to be a 3 hour film so that we can see other characters talking about something that has nothing to do with Kirk and Spock.

.

386. Captain Rickover - September 15, 2013

Pointless arguments in that article. If Abrams got it right, ST-ITD would have been a major success like Iron Man 3 or something. But it wasn’t and many fans got angry about it, not to forget that mess of a marketing strategy. So, Abrams didn’t got it right at all.

Give all the fave for TOS and all the awful hate for TNG is everything but helpfull. I wonder why TNG get 7 seasons if everything was wrong about that show.

Dickerson is still right: Star Trek IS broken.

And “The Stig” failed to explain not why it isn’t.

387. Captain Rickover - September 15, 2013

EDIT:
And “The Stig” failed to explan why it isn’t. That’s what I meant of course. Stuipid typo…

388. Lou Sytsma (@OldDarth) - September 15, 2013

I agree that none of the preceding series after the original got it right.

I disagree that JJ Abrams got it right. The previous broken post had the gist of it. Get back to the Mission Statement. Boldy Go and Explore. New things.

Horatio Hornblower. Kids playing on a raft in a pond pretending they are sailing the seven seas and high adventure.

That’s what JJ’s Trek is missing.

389. chrisfawkes.com - September 15, 2013

Spot on Stig.

Abrams Trek is far more like the original series than anything since.

Just one more reason it works on the big screen.

TNG characters were just way too boring for anything beyond tv. I’ve said that all along.

Worf was one of the most boring balless characters from TNG yet with the potential to be the exact opposite.

Tos had genuine conflict, particularly between Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

I do hope though that Abrams and co do not do a Klingon story for the next film. After Khan give us something new, something original but still with the spirit of original Trek.

390. A Pastor - September 15, 2013

@374
I’ m asking before anything else for forgiveness, if you find that I’ am in anyway meddling in yours/others conversations.

I’ am a Pastor who loves Star Trek and when reading these post sometimes I’ feel like commenting on others comments, but after careful consideration I’ often choose not to.

My spelling is the worst and I’m force to use the grammar corrector a lot.

Just my opinion but you all are IDIC ( in my case, as long as its acceptable to God- in my case) , so these fights which can be acceptable sometimes cuz after all we are individuals can be healthy but only if we respect one another. Without putting blame on nobody can we all agree in correcting what we think as a stupid comment by anybody, can we say so without getting personal.

I’ fear we won’t be able to, it is not a lack of faith in my part for saying this but rather an opinion that many Star Trek fans are not in fact subscribers to the IDIC philosophy. Also I’ must and hope you understand that I’ must also state that IDIC is not in the Bible per say, so please nobody accuse me of saying stuff that is not the word of God.
I’ am speaking as a human, ignorant and a sinner.

Live long and prosper.

391. chrisfawkes.com - September 15, 2013

Besides. Roddenberry’s original vision was simply Wagon Train to the Stars.

A western in space.

392. Curious Cadet - September 15, 2013

@344. David Anderson,
“the beauty of Khan is that he really isn’t evil. He’s Alexander. His clannish circle is outside of social concerns.”

Perhaps in the Prime universe he was an Alexander or a Napoleon. However STID paints him as Hitler, and I don’t think there’s any way to label Hitler other than evil.

We don’t actually learn much about Khan in STID, except that his goal is one of mass genocide of any species he feels is inferior.

I do agree with you that in the first part of the movie, Khan was much more like Khan from Space Seed, cool, calculating, intelligent. However, once they actually introduced him as Khan, he became as crazy nuts as Montalban in TWOK, which did a real disservice to the character as well. Once they turned him into Hitler, it was all over. Little of what made Khan interesting remained. He became a complete caricature; not of Space Seed Khan, but even worse, of TWOK. And moreover, completely destroyed what Bob Orci claims he was attempting to do with the character by casting Cumberbatch in the role in the first place.

393. Curious Cadet - September 15, 2013

@386. chrisfawkes.com,
“Roddenberry’s original vision was simply Wagon Train to the Stars. A western in space.”

Except it was never this.

http://www.roddenberry.com/entertainment-star-trek

394. chrisfawkes.com - September 15, 2013

A happy accident then.

395. PaulB - September 15, 2013

#377/378 – Dave H, as usual, you are posting lies about me. I DID talk back to Orci when he was still here, on more than one occasion. I didn’t wait until he was gone, as you lied in your comment.

So, Dave H., you’re an idiot and a liar, and you need to LEAVE ME OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS, MORON. (If you’re going to quote me in one, don’t LIE about it as you just did.)

You are here ONLY to troll and attack, and I’ve stayed out of your conversations until YOU brought MY name up with another of your lies.

Stuff your nonstop hatefulness, stuff your ongoing dishonesty, and LEAVE ME THE HELL OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS.

396. Trek Lady - September 15, 2013

“Hard core trek fan need to really just shut up and move on. ”

Thomas, I understand your frustration, but really, you should recall the Trek foundational principal of IDIC… People are going to have different opinions. That’s life. It is how the express them that matters.

Honestly, I actually like a good debate people, and I can give as good as I get – as long as the debate actually focuses upon aspects of the films or shows and does not become a personal attack. These back and forth snipping fests are frankly rather boring.

However, they really are not new. We went through the exact same thing back when Trek 2009 came out. I recognize some names here, so I know you all were there at the time and can testify to the same. People are passionate about Trek. That is one of the reasons it has endured so long. If folks weren’t passionate about it, it would have faded into obscurity long ago. With that passion comes the need to state what one believes or feels about the franchise, and with that passion comes a tendency to step over the line in defense of one’s viewpoint. I try very hard not to do so, but I imagine I sometimes slip up myself. After all, I have loved Trek since its inception and have some very strong opinions on what makes it work. It hurts to be dismissed by other fans and being not worth listening to or respecting just because my “demographic” is “over the hill.” As I am sure it hurts newer fans to be dismissed because they are too young to “get it”, the implication being that they haven’t invested the time yet to have an opinion worth considering. I mean, ouch!

I would ask newer fans to understand that for us “hard core fans” it isn’t just about this movie. It is not about the momentary excitement of thrills this one movie may have provided; it is about decades of a universe that we have chosen to play in – a concept that in some cases has shaped the direction of our lives. It is not just a “movie” for us – it is a way of looking at the world and towards the future. And it is very unlikely that we are going to just “shut up and move on” when you are dealing with a passion that has been with us for over 40 years. I am afraid you will just have to put up with us… till we all totter off and leave this playground to you. I am hoping we will leave it in good hands, and conversations I have had with some of the NuTrek fans give me faith. But sometimes – like when I am told to “shut up” – I despair.

397. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 15, 2013

@391. Trek Lady

Well said.

398. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 15, 2013

@339. ME AGAIN

Fans want more McCoy. I read Trekmovie.com too.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/12/24/what-do-trekkies-want-in-the-star-trek-sequel/

399. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 15, 2013

@339. ME AGAIN

The relevant quote that contradicts your assertion that Uhura’s elevation was a fan driven decision, from the link I posted in 393 is this:

“[A] majority of fans (56%) want to see more of Karl Urban’s irascible Dr. McCoy. The only other character worth noting for more time would be Scotty, who got 14%”

400. Patrick - September 15, 2013

Trying to equate The Original Star Trek series to JJ Abrams loud, nasty monstrosity is absurd. It’s like to trying to equate “Forbidden Planet” with “Armageddon” because they’re both science fiction movies that have ships in outer space space. Basically, the pro-JJ camp is focusing on the most bare, superficial elements. And glitzy superficiality is all that’s there at the end of the day for those two films. It’s like saying that a Rolling Stones cover band is better than the actual Rolling Stones because the cover band is made up of younger people.

But, JJTrek is not the Star Trek that inspired generations of young viewers to pursue careers in science and technology, or other respectable fields. This is Trek for the jocks, not the nerds. A television series based off the works of Abrams, Kurzman, Orci, and Lindelof would not yield new classics on par with “The City on the Edge of Forever” or “The Inner Light” or indeed *anything* new. What you would get would be riffs on classic Original Series episodes done with a so-called, “modern” sensibility (read: dumbed down). In fact, the sheer haphazard, mindless ethos of JJTrek could not even translate to television (and this is the same medium that gave us subpar Trek like Voyager and Enterprise).

“B-b-but Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness made lots of money! That *proves* it’s a quality product!” Really? So, because The Phantom Menace made the most money of all Star Wars movies, it’s the best of the current six films? This movie series is a flash in the pan in terms of success. It’s the mirror opposite of Original Trek, which was a ratings failure in its day, but ultimately became an entertainment juggernaut in the subsequent decades. And it prospered because it was made up of dedicated, creative team that respected its audience and didn’t settle for being like its television peer, “Lost in Space”–which was a more successful show at that time and now a Trivial Pursuit question. JJTrek is disposable, soulless entertainment that has nothing lasting in its structure, and ultimately will be lost in the shuffle of the hundreds of Hollywood blockbusters that get churned out each year. It has no lasting power as a creative work.

Star Trek *is* broken. And it’s not going to get better in the long run, until the creative forces charged with its care start reaching for the stars and telling intelligent, insightful stories, instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to get “butts in seats”.

401. Red Dead Ryan - September 15, 2013

This is from Jonathan Schermerhorn on the “Star Trek is Broken” thread.

As you can read, it is quite vitriolic. But for some reason, the folks who have been laying into Dave H., MJ, K-7, RSD, Garak’s Pride and myself for the past week or so have conveniently ignored this post that I believe was a big contributing factor for Bob quitting this site.

#1343.

“walked into the 2009 film full of promise and hope. I was excited. I brought my entire family. Then, vulcans, out of Amok Time became violent. I said…WHAT?? I let it slide until spock bled red, kissed Uhura, and Kirk started acting like a juvenile delinquent. Dude, you got the characters all wrong. This isn’t another direction…It’s wrong. It’s like you never watched and episode or a film in your LIFE. It was like you took a huge dump all over everything that we loved about Star Trek.

If you would like to go toe to toe with me in a Star Trek pitch-fest, BRING IT ON. I will smoke your trek and drink your tears. Set it up, contact me, and lets dance – because I owe you a bloody nose for Majel and Rod, whom you have not respected during this ghastly experiment.”

Now, I admit to saying some pretty awful things myself, but at least I owned up to it and apologized. I think its time for Spock/Uhura Admirer and others here to start being objective and see that it just isn’t the “#1 grade-A gang of bullies” (lol) that has supposedly run others off this site.

This “Schermerhorn” guy was threatening violence against Bob Orci — yet all these “righteous” people like S/U Admirer skipped over it like it wasn’t even there.

Please — if you’re going to start calling out folks here, at least be objective and quit being selective in who you criticise and who you don’t. Otherwise, you come off as being biased and uninformed.

Finally, I have decided to end my sabbatical here, after seeing how Dave H. is being unfairly attacked. I cannot stand by and let this go on.

402. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

@377 Dave H.

” Ah, you mean like: “I think you only responded after I pointed out how you kept avoiding it because it was making you look bad.””

That’s the truth. You act like anyone can’t just look up thread and see that and the fact that you support and maintain a double standard. Continuing to deny what anyone can see isn’t going to change anything.

” Oh, come on. Really? You are the one writing these huge, long diatribes, not me. You the one who tried to infer my bad attempt at humor was more than that.”

I haven’t written any “diatribes.” I was having a nice conversation with someone else, and then you and Beagle come along making accusations, seemingly because you need to stir things up and cause controversy. It’s really sad.

” You are straining all credibility here. Here are three examples, and I can provide more at your request: — these posts all came in immediately following Bob’s emotional and classy goodbye to all of us:”

No, that would be you, I’m afraid. Mr. Orci may have had an “emotional and classy” goodbye, but that still doesn’t change the fact that he blew up at someone using profanity, called us all his “children,” and went on a twitter meltdown. I didn’t see the twitter stuff until the other day, and it was bad. Someone screen capped it. If other people want to say how they feel about that, his work, or anything else, then that’s their choice.
You seem to think that you get to determine what other people get to think and say. You don’t.

Don’t worry about me, or try to bait me into, defending what other people have to say for themselves and their opinions and observations. You really do need to stop. Like I said, you just like controversy, and you’re not doing any of the people that “left” any favors by continuously trying to trouble the waters here.

@#378 Dave H (again)

” And to further make my point on these three examples above, these posters have been around awhile, but none of them ever said anything close to this level of negative attacks on Bob Orci UNTIL HE DEPARTED. In other words, these people had neither the honor nor the balls to say anything like this “to Bob’s face” when he was previously “around on Trekmovie.com” to defend himself. Only after Bob had parted — in fact within just a few hours of his departure — did these chickenshit cowards finally grow some balls and say their mean-spirited words for Bob — KNOWING THAT HE WAS NOT AROUND NOW TO RESPOND TO THEM.”

Now you are really overreacting in my opinion. So everyone, or these 3 in particular, that had on opinion just waited until he left to say something? You then go into name-calling, saying that somehow they feared leaving an anonymous message on website while Mr. Orci was here. And what exactly did they fear? A reply? Good luck on that one. He only replied to a certain clique here. Being told to “F*CK OFF,” like what was said to someone else here, or being called “Dumbsh*t” like someone else was called on Twitter? Frankly, I think you’ve done worse than that here with your constant and aggressive attacks.

” So again, I am PROUD that I rose to Bob’s defense when these losers took their potshots at him when he was no longer able to defend himself.
And I do it again in a New York Minute.”

You know, speaking of classy, Mr. Orci said something that I think you should pay attention to. It’s in post #1476:

” Glad we all kissed and made up for the most part. Now, for the good of peaceful relations and Trek in general, I will say good bye here.”

Just my guess, but I don’t think he intended for people like you and Beagle to keep stirring up drama and discord after he left. So, how’s about trying to actually have some “peaceful relations” here in a “New York minute.” It seems like it’s what Bob would have wanted…

Or, you could just keep trolling… The choice is yours, Dave.

403. 1000thghost - September 15, 2013

I still think that the JJ verse would be fine if he had dropped ALL of Trek and just said that this was a different timeline/universe. By having Old Spock and showing that Enterprise did happen his version of Khan just couldn’t work.

It would have been better if John Harrison had been just another agment from Enterprise that “woke up” and was trying to save his friends. They could have left Khan in space never to be found.

What will happen when this crew does meet V’ger? Or the Doomsday Machine? Or the probe from Star Trek 4? They are all still on their way to earth because they always were.

I think by not ditching ALL old Trek before hand it ties their hands alot.

404. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

Oh, and now I see that some people have come out of their “retirement” to keep stirring the waters… Sigh

———————————————

@#385 A Pastor

“I’ fear we won’t be able to, it is not a lack of faith in my part for saying this but rather an opinion that many Star Trek fans are not in fact subscribers to the IDIC philosophy. Also I’ must and hope you understand that I’ must also state that IDIC is not in the Bible per say, so please nobody accuse me of saying stuff that is not the word of God.
I’ am speaking as a human, ignorant and a sinner.

Live long and prosper.”

Thank you. I fear the same because some people seem to thrive on drama and discord. Peace does not seem to be a mode they enjoy. Maybe that’s a part of IDIC too, but it’s not the best part of it, I don’t think. A peaceful discussion and agreement to disagree was being had, and like clockwork, certain posters show up (and now known bullies) to make sure that can’t stay the case. It’s really sad. Really.

Live Long and Prosper as well…

405. PaulB - September 15, 2013

#396 Red Dead Ryan — I’ll be honest, I completely missed that entire comment from “Schermerhorn.” You are 100% right, his attack on Orci is reprehensible and indefensible.

He sounds so self-righteous, with his “I let it slide” crap, and the following threats and challenges are WAY beyond anything reasonable.

If Orci cited that as his reason for leaving, I’d see why.

RDR, you’re right: This jackhole should be getting raked across the coals by ALL of us because he went past criticizing the film and its writers to threatening them–TOTALLY out of line.

I think, with that comment, Schermerhorn became a top contender for #1 “sh**ty fan.”

406. Ahmed - September 15, 2013

@396. Red Dead Ryan

Return of the Sith!

Welcome back dude :)

407. Red Dead Ryan - September 15, 2013

Spock/Uhura Admirer,

I believe that Dave H. took the initiative to settle this dispute with you, so why do you continue to attack him?

Also, did you not read what I just posted? If you’re all for civility and respect on this site, how come you ignored my posting of Shermerhorn’s angry rant threatening violence against Bob Orci? Not one comment from you about that. Interesting. Very interesting.

I believe that since you didnt, you are merely a self-righteous hypocrite who, despite pretending to be civil and respectful, is in the same vein as the others who have driven Bob off of this thread.

408. Red Dead Ryan - September 15, 2013

PaulB. and Ahmed:

Thank you! Glad to be back….though I much prefer talking Trek rather than trash.:-)

409. Ahmed - September 15, 2013

@ 403. Red Dead Ryan – September 15, 2013

“PaulB. and Ahmed:

Thank you! Glad to be back….though I much prefer talking Trek rather than trash.:-)”

Then lets talk about Star Trek, shall we ?
I’m curious to know what you hope to see in the next movie, where they should go from here?

410. Red Dead Ryan - September 15, 2013

Also, I’m willing to bury the hatchet with Spock/Uhura Admirer if he/she decides to admit to being a bully here sometimes (mainly towards Keachick, but also towards Dave H.). I admit to being an asshole here sometimes myself, and would rather not be one.

The offer is out there….if S/U-A is willing to take it.

411. Red Dead Ryan - September 15, 2013

Next movie?

I hope to see something other than a “madman out for revenge”. Four movies in a row featured that device, and STID featured two of them, Admiral Marcus and Khan.

Hopefully, we’ll see something relatively new, while keeping the big action pieces. I wouldn’t mind seeing the Tholians or Gorn, or Andorians even.

But no friggin’ Klingon war, please.

412. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

@ Red Dead Ryan

“I believe that Dave H. took the initiative to settle this dispute with you, so why do you continue to attack him?

Also, did you not read what I just posted? If you’re all for civility and respect on this site, how come you ignored my posting of Shermerhorn’s angry rant threatening violence against Bob Orci? Not one comment from you about that. Interesting. Very interesting.

I believe that since you didnt, you are merely a self-righteous hypocrite who, despite pretending to be civil and respectful, is in the same vein as the others who have driven Bob off of this thread.”

If Dave was really taking the initiative, then he would have allowed me to have the peaceful discussion I was having before he showed up to sir the waters here.

Also, I don’t “owe you” a reply on what some other poster posted. Obviously threats of violence are not good, but I’m not here to attack other posters just for the sake of it. If you or Dave had a problem with that poster’s post, then you could have replied to the poster about his post on the other thread, which perhaps Dave did… There’s nothing left to say or do after that.

What’s interesting is that you want me to reply to you in the way that you want, which is bullying, and I’m not for that. Live and live, RDR. It’s a good thing to do. Now, because I didn’t give you the reply you wanted, that somehow makes me a “hypocrite.” Already you’ve settled back into name-calling and attacking and you’ve only posted a couple of times here recently. I’m sure that no one “drove” Bob off. He was probably told to leave by someone that didn’t want an even bigger PR nightmare, and I wish him the best.

Can you all just stop? It really makes this place unpleasant. Please just stop attacking people and stirring the waters, especially since a peaceful discussion was being had about the movies before you all showed up on this thread.

Can we just get back to the movies???? My goodness…

413. Ahmed - September 15, 2013

@405. Red Dead Ryan

“I hope to see something other than a “madman out for revenge”. Four movies in a row featured that device, and STID featured two of them, Admiral Marcus and Khan.”

Agree, it is becoming repetitive & very boring to have the villain hellbent on revenge in every bloody movie.

“But no friggin’ Klingon war, please.”

Yep, we need see a new & dangerous alien race. Enough with the Klingons, Romulans & all the other races that we seen before.

I don’t mind action pieces but the movie should not be 85% action & the rest is dialogue like Star Wars movies tend to be.

Try to have the right mix of action & character moments like it was done in The Matrix, Inception & many other sci-fi movies.

414. Zach Coty - September 15, 2013

This is simply wrong. You don’t have to hate the new movies but don’t defend them by demonstrating your ignorance of the show. I’m so upset right now.

415. Dave H - September 15, 2013

OK S/U Admirer, now you have left reason completely behind and are getting all emotional on me.

If you want to have a reasoned discussion on this and try to settle our differences, I’ll be here when you have calmed down.

Respectfully, Dave H

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
397. Spock/Uhura Admirer – September 15, 2013
@377 Dave H.

” Ah, you mean like: “I think you only responded after I pointed out how you kept avoiding it because it was making you look bad.””

That’s the truth. You act like anyone can’t just look up thread and see that and the fact that you support and maintain a double standard. Continuing to deny what anyone can see isn’t going to change anything.

” Oh, come on. Really? You are the one writing these huge, long diatribes, not me. You the one who tried to infer my bad attempt at humor was more than that.”

I haven’t written any “diatribes.” I was having a nice conversation with someone else, and then you and Beagle come along making accusations, seemingly because you need to stir things up and cause controversy. It’s really sad.

” You are straining all credibility here. Here are three examples, and I can provide more at your request: — these posts all came in immediately following Bob’s emotional and classy goodbye to all of us:”

No, that would be you, I’m afraid. Mr. Orci may have had an “emotional and classy” goodbye, but that still doesn’t change the fact that he blew up at someone using profanity, called us all his “children,” and went on a twitter meltdown. I didn’t see the twitter stuff until the other day, and it was bad. Someone screen capped it. If other people want to say how they feel about that, his work, or anything else, then that’s their choice.
You seem to think that you get to determine what other people get to think and say. You don’t.

Don’t worry about me, or try to bait me into, defending what other people have to say for themselves and their opinions and observations. You really do need to stop. Like I said, you just like controversy, and you’re not doing any of the people that “left” any favors by continuously trying to trouble the waters here.

@#378 Dave H (again)

” And to further make my point on these three examples above, these posters have been around awhile, but none of them ever said anything close to this level of negative attacks on Bob Orci UNTIL HE DEPARTED. In other words, these people had neither the honor nor the balls to say anything like this “to Bob’s face” when he was previously “around on Trekmovie.com” to defend himself. Only after Bob had parted — in fact within just a few hours of his departure — did these chickenshit cowards finally grow some balls and say their mean-spirited words for Bob — KNOWING THAT HE WAS NOT AROUND NOW TO RESPOND TO THEM.”

Now you are really overreacting in my opinion. So everyone, or these 3 in particular, that had on opinion just waited until he left to say something? You then go into name-calling, saying that somehow they feared leaving an anonymous message on website while Mr. Orci was here. And what exactly did they fear? A reply? Good luck on that one. He only replied to a certain clique here. Being told to “F*CK OFF,” like what was said to someone else here, or being called “Dumbsh*t” like someone else was called on Twitter? Frankly, I think you’ve done worse than that here with your constant and aggressive attacks.

” So again, I am PROUD that I rose to Bob’s defense when these losers took their potshots at him when he was no longer able to defend himself.
And I do it again in a New York Minute.”

You know, speaking of classy, Mr. Orci said something that I think you should pay attention to. It’s in post #1476:

” Glad we all kissed and made up for the most part. Now, for the good of peaceful relations and Trek in general, I will say good bye here.”

Just my guess, but I don’t think he intended for people like you and Beagle to keep stirring up drama and discord after he left. So, how’s about trying to actually have some “peaceful relations” here in a “New York minute.” It seems like it’s what Bob would have wanted…

Or, you could just keep trolling… The choice is yours, Dave.

416. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

@Dave

I’ve been calm and reasonable this entire time. I don’t think we have differences to “settle.” Just know that you have your opinions and that other people have theirs. We are all free to state our opinions and to agree to disagree. That seems simple enough to me. If you are willing to do that, then I can converse with you. If you are not, then I am not interested.

If you would like to talk about the movies in a calm and respectful way, then I’m here for that. Before this whole whatever-it-is started, I and someone else were stating what we actually liked about STID despite its many problems. If you’d like to join in on that, then feel free.

It’s up to you.

417. Dave H - September 15, 2013

All, I refuse to respond to anyone who addressed me in the way that the poster below has lowered himself to.

However, for the record, everything said by the poster below to Bob Orci right after his classy goodbye to all of us, was simply presented in my post — word for word. I did not lie, and you can find the exact shameful words of his post in Post #1562 on this link:

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/01/star-trek-is-broken-here-are-ideas-on-how-to-fix-it/

I’ll repeat, I am simply repeating this person’s own words. Apparently, he doesent’ want to take responsibility for those words now, but that is not my fault.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
390. PaulB – September 15, 2013
#377/378 – Dave H, as usual, you are posting lies about me. I DID talk back to Orci when he was still here, on more than one occasion. I didn’t wait until he was gone, as you lied in your comment.

So, Dave H., you’re an idiot and a liar, and you need to LEAVE ME OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS, MORON. (If you’re going to quote me in one, don’t LIE about it as you just did.)

You are here ONLY to troll and attack, and I’ve stayed out of your conversations until YOU brought MY name up with another of your lies.

Stuff your nonstop hatefulness, stuff your ongoing dishonesty, and LEAVE ME THE HELL OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS.

418. Dave H - September 15, 2013

“If you would like to talk about the movies in a calm and respectful way, then I’m here for that.”

Yes, exactly. That is what I was getting it.

We are in agreement then.

419. Dave H - September 15, 2013

Red Dead Ryan,

Thank God you have returned! :-)

Welcome Back !!!!!

420. Marcus - September 15, 2013

If the “Star Trek” franchise was not broken, time travel and revenge stories would not be the only successful movie concepts. “Star Trek: Enterprise” would not have been cancelled, for its obsessive recycling of plot devices, script outlines, and species.

What does not help is competition. At the end of “Star Trek: Voyager’s” series run, “Stargate SG-1″ was quickly followed by “Stargate: Atlantis”. Do you know the irony? “Stargate’s” success was due to it being a mirror reflection of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”. ..but, with hyper-action. Once “Star Trek: Enterprise” came around, the “Stargate” franchise had already taken its place.

While it does pain me to say this, I personally think that — within twenty to twenty five years from now, “Stargate” and “Serenity” will be more popular than “Star Trek” and “Star Wars”.

Before the “Star Trek” franchise was revived in the 1980s, the “Star Trek: TOS” series was cancelled and considered a failure. “Firefly/Serenity” is going to follow the same pattern. When it comes to the “Stargate” franchise, the original creators of the movie are making a trilogy.

We are living within a new science-fiction age.

While JJ’s fans are saying, “change, change, change”, I think they failed to see that the science-fiction world already has changed. All the seeds for the new franchises have been planted, and its only a matter of time until they take the world by storm.

…and, I am saying this as a diehard “Star Trek” fan.

421. Trek Lady - September 15, 2013

Good grief. Now, not only do we have snipping posts, but we also have re-posts of portions of snipping posts, and re-posts of re-posts of portions of of snipping posts, just in case someone did not know they were actually snipping – all merely generating more snipping! I think I hear Shatner shouting something about “getting a life”! Come on folks, do you really think continually snipping at each other is going to change anyone’s mind? LOL!

Anyway, I doubt very much anyone “made” Orci leave this site – at least not anyone FROM this site. I have seen Orci post comments which I thought were rather unprofessional before, but I chose to ignore them. I figured it might be hard to keep your cool when folks are questioning your work. I personally did not like the writing in STID, but I tried to remain civil about it. Others? Not so much. As a writer, I know a bit of your heart and soul goes into your work, and having it attacked is a bit like having your child mistreated. So I was willing to give the man a pass… Then Orci went off again, but this time it was picked up by the larger net community and began to make the rounds. He also apparently had a bit of a melt down on Twitter, and having read his Tweets I found his comments akin to a child stamping their feet and having a tantrum. I am afraid he did not present himself in a very positive light, which is unfortunate, for what goes on the WEB stays on the WEB, and get re-tweeted and re-tweeted. Again, this made news outside the Trek community. I suspect, at that point, either Orci decided to leave for the sake of his blood pressure, or someone higher up the food-chain stepped in and old Orci to take a chill pill. Paramount and others have a lot of money invested in Trek, and the kind of publicity Orci was generating with his comments was not going to sit well with them.

Granted, this is all speculation, but I imagine that for Trek’s sake, and likely for Orci’s own, he was told to lay off the social media for a bit. After all, Orci likely already has regrets. He can’t take it all back, but maybe he can stay away till he can handle the pressure with a bit more aplomb.

So it is most likely that his decision to leave was either a personal choice made by an adult who is free to make his own decisions, or a request by guys who pay his rent. Either way, I do not think his departure can be blamed on a handful of posters on this site. Not that I am giving those posters a pass. Orci was not at his best, but neither were many others who were responding to him. It generally takes two or more to have an argument.

Personally, I do not care either way. I don’t come here to converse with Orci, and really have no interest in whether he is reading and posting or not. I understand that some folks are very disappointed, but if someone was only coming here because Orci was coming here, I think that is a bit sad. There are a lot of other interesting voices on this site besides his. I tend to visit here frequently, but don’t always post. It took me a long time to post about STID because I was so torn about it, and frankly could not muster the energy to even have my say… I just needed time to process what for me was a very deep disappointment. But I have enjoyed the conversations I have had in the last few days… however, the continual snipping is growing a bit wearisome.

422. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

Some posts just now appeared, so…

@410

I can’t bully people I wasn’t talking to. In both cases, the other person initiated contact with an inflammatory post. If you want bygones to be bygones, and if you are willing to treat people better, then okay. But don’t “require” that I tell you what you want to hear to get that because it’s manipulative in my view, and I don’t appreciate that.

@Eldon Tyrell #373

I don’t think Star Trek or the fans are broken, Eldon. What’s “broken” in my view is the fact that some people can’t accept that not everyone will agree with them, and so they try to make people agree using various tactics. I don’t think that’s okay. Your opinions are your own, and I can accept them as such, but trying to lump completely different posting styles in the same pot doesn’t work to me.

Eldon, I’ve never come into a thread using vulgarity and name-calling and attacking someone just for having a different opinion. I don’t think that’s right. And as far as the “minor baby step” you outlined, I admitted that I was decent to people that are decent, but that I will defend myself against people that are not. If you expect more than that from anyone, then please, tell me what that would be.

Anyway, back to Star Trek. My main thought is that I hope they can do a better job on the next film. I’m of the opinion right now that it will be the last in this series of films…

423. Trek Lady - September 15, 2013

Marcus “All the seeds for the new franchises have been planted, and its only a matter of time until they take the world by storm.

…and, I am saying this as a diehard “Star Trek” fan.”

I agree with you to some extent, and that was one of my concerns with STID. Now, I am speaking as someone who is heavily into online fandom, especially the creative outlets of fandom – the costumers, cosplayers, fanfic writers, fanvid makers, etc. And yes, such aspects of fandom tend to be dominated by women. It is a realm of Trekdom that is generally ignored by The Powers That Be because their focus seems to be on the young, male demographic… everyone assuming women aren’t into science fiction unless you plug in a romance. However, those women have been here all along – going back to the fan generated push to have TOS carried on for a third season. From my observations and experiences, I can only conclude that, whereas ST2009 brought in a lot of new fans and new interest in Trek, STID seems to have “underwhelmed” those same fans. Judging from the lack of traffic on web sites that exploded after Trek 20009, and the overall feeling that STID was lacking something from those few that have posted their impressions, somehow STID failed to hold on to the interest Trek 2009 had generated. Trek is not the only game in town anymore, and those fans have gone elsewhere for their kicks. It may not show up in the short term, but in the long term, think STID squandered a real opportunity. If all Paramount wanted to do was have a successful summer blockbuster, then I guess they succeeded. But if the idea was to entice a new generation of Trek fans to keep the franchise going, then STID dropped the ball. The why is probably multifaceted, but I hope Paramount realizes something went wrong and makes a real effort to figure out what.

424. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

@Trek Lady

” Good grief. Now, not only do we have snipping posts, but we also have re-posts of portions of snipping posts, and re-posts of re-posts of portions of of snipping posts, just in case someone did not know they were actually snipping – all merely generating more snipping! I think I hear Shatner shouting something about “getting a life”! Come on folks, do you really think continually snipping at each other is going to change anyone’s mind? LOL!”

Exactly. I much preferred when the movie and Star Trek were being discussed on this thread, and posters that were here could agree to disagree. All this attacking and finger pointing isn’t productive or necessary. None of us is perfect, but when people are actively trying to keep something going, or create problems, that’s when it can get to be too much, especially when they start lashing out at others.

” Anyway, I doubt very much anyone “made” Orci leave this site – at least not anyone FROM this site. I have seen Orci post comments which I thought were rather unprofessional before, but I chose to ignore them. I figured it might be hard to keep your cool when folks are questioning your work. I personally did not like the writing in STID, but I tried to remain civil about it. Others? Not so much. As a writer, I know a bit of your heart and soul goes into your work, and having it attacked is a bit like having your child mistreated. So I was willing to give the man a pass… Then Orci went off again”

I’m in the same boat as you. I gave his comments here a pass for the most part, and I actually kind of thought the deletion of his twitter account probably wasn’t necessary. Then I saw screen caps of the tweets the other day and then I understood… Personally, I wish him and the rest the creative team and JJ the best.

But I also “dare them to do better.”

” … I just needed time to process what for me was a very deep disappointment. But I have enjoyed the conversations I have had in the last few days… however, the continual snipping is growing a bit wearisome.”

Understandable. I’ve enjoyed many of the conversations I’ve had the last few days, and the relative peace that was here during that time, as well. It would be nice if we could all just live and let live, and I hope we can get to that because right now, I’m tired too.

425. Ash - September 15, 2013

@339 me again

Congrats. You found one article that showed people wanted more Uhura that had no mention of McCoy. That’s really nothing compared to most everything else that shows Bones is the most sought after by fans in the new films. I never go to the TrekBB site though, this site is much larger and active IMO. I’m not saying I’m upset that Uhura gets more time, but people DO ask or more McCoy and give the most praise to Urbans performance.

Also, I kinda take up issue with people who say Carol is useless. She isn’t the best female lead (I don’t think these films have any female lead I am very impressed by) but she had, like Uhura, some shining moments. Uhura spoke Klingon and stabbed one, Carol was able to disarm the torpedo (saving Bones life) and she stood up to her father when she discovered his betrayal. The idiotic pant scene is the fault of the writers. I hope to see a stronger Carol (and Uhura) in the next film, without them being weepy eyed over the men in their life. Carol is a doctor and a genius, and Uhura can speak a lot of languages. I want to see more of their SKILLS, and god forbid we actually get a little interaction between the two female leads.

426. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

“… I can only conclude that, whereas ST2009 brought in a lot of new fans and new interest in Trek, STID seems to have “underwhelmed” those same fans. …”

That’s what I’m seeing and hearing, and that’s what I feel. The S/U fan communities I belong to online (as well as the general ST ones I frequent) have really had to work and keeping interest up. Mainly people complain about not getting what they were hoping for, and that’s not a good thing. Although, there are a few that were satisfied…

I think the next movie should be a team adventure that allows each member of the crew a little of time. It’d be nice to encounter a new civilization, and of course I’d like a better continuation of S/U. The “family” aspect of the crew being developed a little more would also be nice…

427. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

“… Carol is a doctor and a genius, and Uhura can speak a lot of languages. I want to see more of their SKILLS, and god forbid we actually get a little interaction between the two female leads.” …

I can’t say I’m much of a Carol fan, but Ash, this I can actually agree with. If they are going to have her be a “part of the family,” even if Spock has the same expertise, they can still feature her in a better way.

In addition to speaking a lot of languages, Uhura is an engineer, and it would be nice to see them focus on her abilities in that area as the person that overseas and manages the ship’s communications systems.

I think I read somewhere where a person said that the ship didn’t need communications officer, and I almost laughed. Communications is a BIG DEAL. There are the internal communications, external communications, and even the little communicators that each officer wears on his or her uniform. Anyone that thinks that this doesn’t require maintenance and oversight has clearly never dealt with anything involving communications before…

428. Dave H - September 15, 2013

S/U Admirer, I am frankly disappointed here with this post of yours. I thought that we had basically agreed to make peace an move forward in a positive manner, but here you go, cleverly working in a slam against me in your discussion with Red Dead Ryan?

You won’t see me trying this tactic. I was content to shut my mouth and try to start over with your here. This is trolling-like behavior. Again, I am very disappointed.

But, I am committed to having better discourse with you, so I will pretend this did not happen and will be positive will you still, moving forward.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
422. Spock/Uhura Admirer – September 15, 2013
Some posts just now appeared, so…

@410

I can’t bully people I wasn’t talking to. In both cases, the other person initiated contact with an inflammatory post. If you want bygones to be bygones, and if you are willing to treat people better, then okay. But don’t “require” that I tell you what you want to hear to get that because it’s manipulative in my view, and I don’t appreciate that.

429. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

^Dave,

I answered a charge someone made against me in a manipulative attempt to get me to admit to something that was not true. You can choose to see that however you want, but setting the record straight is neither trolling nor a tactic. It’s disappointing to see you say that it is.

I am happy that you are serious about moving forward in a better fashion, because I do think that’s necessary for peace here.

430. Marja - September 15, 2013

BTW, “Stig” – this article may not have gotten as many comments b/c we sort of argued it all out on the “ST is Broken” thread.

I do appreciate your reminder to folks that TOS was a bit “wilder and woolier” than TNG, which, apparently, initially brought many of our commenters to Trek because it was the first Trek they saw.

Lots of people seem to forget how much Kirk I broke the rules when he saw fit. Not me!

431. Red Dead Ryan - September 15, 2013

Captain Sisko “broke the rules” numerous times, as well. Being an accessory to murder after the fact, deliberately poisoning the atmosphere of a Maquis planet, and disobeying Starfleet orders by going into the Gamma Quadrant to rescue Odo (who was taken prisoner by Enabran Tain, commander of the Cardassian/Romulan fleet that was on course to the Founder homeworld to wipe out the changlings).

I think there were a couple of other times when he disobeyed orders as well, but I can’t remember.

432. Marja - September 15, 2013

346 S/U Admirer, I agree with you so often and your points are so well expressed I don’t often “second” you. There are a few points on which we disagree, but overall I find my thinking pretty much in concert with yours. I have to say that last week [?] I was glad you stuck to your guns when others tried ridicule as a means of convincing others that you were “wrong.” Just wanted to let you know.

433. Ahmed - September 15, 2013

@ 430. Marja – September 15, 2013

“BTW, “Stig” – this article may not have gotten as many comments b/c we sort of argued it all out on the “ST is Broken” thread.”

IMO, this article is very much lacking in logical arguments. It basically saying that TOS was all action & TNG was boring, therefore Abrams picked TOS to reboot & all is well & fine in the JJ universe !!

Even people who are fans of STID, admit the movie has some issues. But our friend here, “Stig”, is only interested in glorifying Abrams.

Someone else need to write a more objective article about the current state of Abrams’ Trek that address both positive & negative aspects of his Trek movies.

434. ME AGAIN - September 15, 2013

399. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold – September 15, 2013
@339. ME AGAIN

The relevant quote that contradicts your assertion that Uhura’s elevation was a fan driven decision, from the link I posted in 393 is this:

“[A] majority of fans (56%) want to see more of Karl Urban’s irascible Dr. McCoy. The only other character worth noting for more time would be Scotty, who got 14%”
—————————————–

Uhura role was a fan driven decision, I guess it depends on which fan site you go to. The fans on trek today said Orci should turn her into an action character. Which to me made little sense because she is not a physical person.

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2013/09/orci-reacts-to-article-and-online-comments/

And what I also said was you cant solely blame uhura for Mccoy demise. the blames is more on the 2 main leads which are kirk and spock and the villain khan, Trek already has 3 main leads in a 2 hours film.

Uhura is a female. McCoy is a male, they serve different purposes in the film.

The film is solely focused on the kirk and Spock dynamic, everything else is secondary. uhura is just an easy target for fan boys to pour out their frustration on.

this movie was all about Kirk and Spock.

so blame Kirk and Spock for not inviting Bones to join their little fraternity.

435. Marja - September 15, 2013

431, RDR, Alas, I didn’t stick with DS9 much beyond the third or fourth season … I left before Worf came aboard. Major life change for me around that time. Caught a few DS9 episodes after that, but I cannot lay claim to much knowledge about the series. I may go back to watch it later on, but right now … nah. I remember Garak being one of my favorite characters. A delightful character – so … ambiguous!

436. Marja - September 15, 2013

385 Gandalf Dumbledore Et.Al., Tee-hee! Personally I’d sit still for a 3-hour movie ; )

437. Marja - September 15, 2013

433, Ahmed, You will note that in my post to Stig, I said only that I agreed about his POV on TOS. As to the rest, it may not be so cogently argued as many may like. I would challenge them, then, to write a Pro/Con neutral article. I believe Matt W has said a 3rd article is being worked up also.

438. Barney - September 15, 2013

07. Red Dead Ryan – September 15, 2013
Spock/Uhura Admirer,

Also, did you not read what I just posted? If you’re all for civility and respect on this site, how come you ignored my posting of Shermerhorn’s angry rant threatening violence against Bob Orci? Not one comment from you about that. Interesting. Very interesting.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hahahahahahaha ( Am bitterly laughing sarcastically).

I thought it was Ahmed that attacked and threatened Bob Orci.

The poor man, he must have been scared to death, This is the reason why he left this site.

439. Ahmed - September 15, 2013

@438. Barney

“I thought it was Ahmed that attacked and threatened Bob Orci.”

You are deeply mistaken my friend.

440. Marja - September 15, 2013

426 SUA, “That’s what I’m seeing and hearing, and that’s what I feel. The S/U fan communities I belong to online (as well as the general ST ones I frequent) have really had to work and keeping interest up. Mainly people complain about not getting what they were hoping for, and that’s not a good thing. Although, there are a few that were satisfied…I think the next movie should be a team adventure that allows each member of the crew a little of time. It’d be nice to encounter a new civilization, and of course I’d like a better continuation of S/U. The “family” aspect of the crew being developed a little more would also be nice…”

Agreed, though I must say that in the online communities, many fans dropped off because the FOUR YEAR WAIT was a bit too long.

One of the difficult things for any ST screenwriter to do, I think, is to find adequate critical roles for each beloved character to fulfill. I hope in the next movie to have a “grown-up” continuation of S/U and more McCoy. Yes, it is possible. [a] Less violence/relentless action and [b] more time for our crew vice time devoted to “guest stars”.

Did we really need the 5+ minutes of the scenes in London with the family? I mean, they could have set up the “Khan’s miracle blood!” thing a lot differenntly, and we might have got better McCoy interaction and more “grown-up” interactions between Spock and Uhura [e.g., having That Conversation in private]. Though I do have to say, I liked Spock’s “public” declaration of his esteem for Uhura in that flight to Kronos [whatev]. I thought THAT part of it was kind of neat. But the all-too-convenient “quick convo about significant issues” with the issue’s resolution followed immediately by action! struck me as “cramming in” a character moment to pass some time.
—————————————

I believe Keachick left for several reasons of disappointment, not just a war of words with one or two people here. She said, I believe, that she found the environment of cross-talk and “poster wars” a bit of a downer, along with the dissin’ on BobOrci [who, admittedly, did not respond to his detractors as might other successful gentlemen], and Kea decided to take a break.

==================
I made my statement at #432 in support of SUA’s posts regarding Spock and Uhura and posts regarding the movie. As to the “war of words” between her and Dave, IMHO, the “offense/defense” or “I said/you said” can go on too long. This sentiment of mine does not apply only to those two posters.

441. Marja - September 15, 2013

434, ME! I am with you on much of what you say here, except for the bit about “turning Uhura into an action character, when “she’s not a physical person” … how do we know that? Are you going by the first movie, or by TOS? Because in TOS she neatly took down Marlena Moreau in “Mirror, Mirror.” In the first movie, the action characters were once again [wait for it] Kirk and Spock, with an early assist by Sulu [which was kinda cool].

442. Marcus - September 15, 2013

@ 423. Trek Lady,

Samantha Carter and Teyla are much more intelligent and interesting than the new Uhura. After reading your response, I bet you would agree.

443. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 15, 2013

@434. ME AGAIN

I do not soley blame Uhura for McCoy becoming a secondary character. I get the whole marketing thing and agree that some changes had to be made in order to bring in a new generation of fans.

I am saying that I believe it is a mistake to do what has been done regarding McCoy.

I also concede that you may have something when you contend that Uhura might be an entree for young female fans. And while this may be a shrewd marketing move, the Uhura character has been written as a stereotypical high school girl and when she, Kirk, and Spock interact it’s like a scene from The OC.

I am also tempted to concede that McCoy being the third wheel in keeping with the original series as his role and importance to the story telling was less in the first season, but gained importance as the series progressed.

On the whole, you make some good points, but I’m still wanting more Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Maybe in the next film.

444. Marja - September 15, 2013

392 Curious, “I do agree with you that in the first part of the movie, Khan was much more like Khan from Space Seed, cool, calculating, intelligent. However, once they actually introduced him as Khan, he became as crazy nuts as Montalban in TWOK, which did a real disservice to the character as well. Once they turned him into Hitler, it was all over. Little of what made Khan interesting remained. He became a complete caricature; not of Space Seed Khan, but even worse, of TWOK.”

I would really have liked it if he had remained “John Harrison.” Not sure why he got turned into Khan [I've read things about Lindelof bringing that to the mix]; to me that was stupid. I was interested in the character at first, but when it came to the head-crushin’ bone-breakin’ vengeance-seeking Khan I kinda sighed and thought, “Oh here we go again. Man goes crazy vengeful because of wrongs done him by [fill in the blank].”

445. Dave H - September 15, 2013

@433 “Even people who are fans of STID, admit the movie has some issues. But our friend here, “Stig”, is only interested in glorifying Abrams.”

Ahmed,

This is an EDITORIAL.

And the first editorial, by Joe Dickerson, presented the position that I think you agree with — that Star Trek is kind of broke. Now, this editorial, presents a contrasting viewpoint that I am in closer agreement on (although I love DS9, so I don’t agree with this 100%). But you don’t hear me complaining that Joe Dickerson’s editorial is “only interested in trashing Abrams,” do you?

So you have EDITORIALS presenting contrasting points of views. What is wrong with that? Would you deny those of us who disagree with you on STID and editorial that presents “our side,” given you folks who didn’t like STID already got and editorial here that agreed with “your side.”

Maybe Stig just has an honest opinion on STID that is different from yours, and cared enough to take the time to write and editorial here that described that?

Ascribing to Stig negative motivations (i.e. he is “ONLY” doing this to worship JJ) that he is not doing this editorial for the right reasons to me comes across as insulting to him, and insulting to Matt Wright, who published this editorial.

446. Dave H - September 15, 2013

@442. “Samantha Carter and Teyla are much more intelligent and interesting than the new Uhura.”

Should I have heard of these characters? Doesn’t ring a bell?

447. Dave H - September 15, 2013

@440 “I made my statement at #432 in support of SUA’s posts regarding Spock and Uhura and posts regarding the movie. As to the “war of words” between her and Dave, IMHO, the “offense/defense” or “I said/you said” can go on too long. This sentiment of mine does not apply only to those two posters.”

Marja, I agree 100%. I think we are both moving forward now in a positive manner. I apologize to you and others who had to read this long series of what I imagine would seem boring (i.e. to others) exchanges.

448. Marcus - September 15, 2013

446. Dave H – September 15, 2013
“Should I have heard of these characters? Doesn’t ring a bell?”

Unless you have been living under a rock for fifteen years, you would know the “Stargate” characters Samantha Carter and Teyla. If you are being honest and don’t know, I suggest you become more rounded. Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas are not the only two science-fiction writers to exist.

449. Ahmed - September 15, 2013

@445. Dave H

“This is an EDITORIAL.

And the first editorial, by Joe Dickerson, presented the position that I think you agree with — that Star Trek is kind of broke. Now, this editorial, presents a contrasting viewpoint that I am in closer agreement on (although I love DS9, so I don’t agree with this 100%). But you don’t hear me complaining that Joe Dickerson’s editorial is “only interested in trashing Abrams,” do you?”

What I meant that I wanted to read a more comprehensive & objective editorial. This one is read more like a rant by any of us. Some of you guys, wrote better comments defending STID, that was my point.

450. Ahmed - September 15, 2013

@ 446. Dave H – September 15, 2013

“@442. “Samantha Carter and Teyla are much more intelligent and interesting than the new Uhura.”

Should I have heard of these characters? Doesn’t ring a bell?”

They are characters from the sci-fi series Stargate SG-1 & Stargate Atlantis (Teyla )

451. Marcus - September 15, 2013

446. Dave H

When someone puts science-fiction within the hands of only a few, I think they cheat themselves the opportunity to grow. “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” are not the overall authority of science-fiction. While I may enjoy “Star Trek”, like everyone else, I do not put a box around the entire science-fiction genre. Expand your horizons.

452. Dave H - September 15, 2013

Ahmed and Marcus,

Oh right, I do now remember Samantha Carter from Stargate. That was a fun sort of popcorn action TV show, but a bet forgetablle — hence my memory failed me a bit. Sorry! Can’t place Teyla though from that show; was she in one of those kind of lame spinoffs?

PS: Ahmed, OK, I understand your comment better. I just think when you used the word “only” that you unintentionally insulted the auhtor.

453. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 15, 2013

@448 and 451 Marcus

I would encourage you to take your own advice and ‘expand your horizons’. It is completely possible and even likely that others don’t share your tastes in entertainment beyond Star Trek. Which, believe it or not, is their right. Maybe you should take that into account before you make statements like, “Unless you have been living under a rock for fifteen years…”

In addition, I would hope that you don’t really judge a person’s “well roundedness” on whether or not they can identify characters from Stargate. If so, you should, again, take your own advice.

The cogent and worthy points you make are drowned out by your rudeness and you are reaping what you sow.

454. Ahmed - September 15, 2013

@451. Marcus

“While I may enjoy “Star Trek”, like everyone else, I do not put a box around the entire science-fiction genre. ”

I will second that. After I discovered Star Trek back in early 90s, I looked to similar shows & I was happy to discover & continue to find lot of great science fiction shows out there.

In no particular order, these are some of the shows that I like a lot:

Babylon 5, The Twilight Zone, The X Files, The new Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Dollhouse, Firefly, Stargate (SG-1, Atlantis & SGU) & Farscape.

455. CDR Arch - September 15, 2013

I grade a movie and Star Trek episodes by “rewatchability” Of course “City on the Edge of Forever” “Doomsday Machine” Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country and even TMP are very enjoyable to watch every year. The first Star Trek JJ Abrams did is pretty enjoyable to watch every year, but I think I may not even put the BluRay Into Darkness again for many years! This movie was like Battleship or Transformers with Star Trek ships. When Capt Pike was laying into Capt Kirk for being an arrogant Midshipmen not ready sit in the Captains chair, I totally agreed, that this version of Captain Kirk needs to go back to the Academy and learn the basics of how to lead. This ridiculous Cadet to Captain in one week story is really how we got into the mess of a not very good movie. I have served in US Navy for 19 years and I am just recently mature enough and experienced enough to command a unit or a ship. It is not possible for anyone (even Jim Kirk to be ready for command with out experience of making those “Ensign mistakes”. the one thing the movie got right was Kirk lying on his report about the volcano was an obvious “Ensign mistake” His lesson learned “never trust a Vulcan!” is more of the maturity I have seen of a Freshman Midshipmen. not a Captain of the flagship of the fleet!
Also using the now famous dialog between Kirk and Spock in the Wrath of Khan was lazy and silly. In this time line they just met a year ago and do not have 20 years of service together that made that dialogue so well done.
I think this movie suffered from group think and poor leadership. The special effects wizards showed JJ and the writers what cool effects they could do if the dreadnought crashed into the city and after that they wrote a story with huge plot holes to make the cool special effect shot happen. Remember the end of St6? “Just because we CAN do a thing does not presuppose that we MUST do that thing!” I wish the future writers for Star Trek will listen to that wisdom, until then I think even the poorly done Star Trek 5 The Final Frontier is more watchable than STID…pretty sad.

456. weerd1 - September 15, 2013

Appalled that vehement so-called “fans” have now chased Bob Orci off Twitter. We have this amazing opportunity to interact with creators that fans like me who go back to the 70s don’t take for granted. Bullies under the anonymity of the internet pushed him until he broke. Should he have cursed them? No. But I can certainly understand why he did when I see the venom people who are supposedly mad he didn’t promote “higher ideals” in a Trek fan felt was acceptable to use in public discourse.

Thought we were all supposed to be getting away from this bullying crap. I don’t care if you hated “Into Darkness.” It is no excuse for personal attacks and was as a fan community need to take a close look at ourselves. It’s not Star Trek that’s broken. It’s Fandom.

457. whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - September 15, 2013

@456. weerd1

” It’s not Star Trek that’s broken. It’s Fandom.”

Judging from what I’ve been reading on this site over the last two weeks, I would say that you may be right about that. It’s like the Jerry Springer show on here or an American election cycle. Either way, it’s something that has lost a lot of civility. It’s funny, all of us supposedly love the same thing, Star Trek, a series of TV shows and films of which the core principle is tolerance and acceptance (IDIC).

Live Long and Prosper.

458. Marcus - September 15, 2013

@ 454. Ahmed,

I wholeheartedly agree.

459. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

@#432 Marja

Thank you. I really appreciate that. :-)

@#434 ME

”The film is solely focused on the kirk and Spock dynamic, everything else is secondary. uhura is just an easy target for fan boys to pour out their frustration on.
this movie was all about Kirk and Spock.”

Very true, in my opinion. Uhura really doesn’t deserve the kind of hostility some people have thrown her way, and from what I can tell she’s got a fair bit of fans. I actually think she was cheated a bit with how little she got in the last film. Well, there’s that and the lacking quality of the writing for her in STID.

The film was all about Kirk and Spock with an emphasis on Kirk. Then it featured Scotty, Khan, Carol, and Carol’s dad. No one else really got much.

@#452 Dave

Teyla Emmagan is from the Atlantis show, so that might be why you can’t place her if all you watched was SG-1. We all like what we like. SGA had the highest ratings out of all the Stargate shows, and it won a People’s Choice award, so my guess is a lot of people didn’t see it as “kinda lame.” It’s okay if that’s how you want to see it, though.

460. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 15, 2013

@440 Marja

Oh well I was talking about the fans that are there, but you’re right that many dropped off while waiting for 4 years. And yes, a “grown up” continuation of S/U would be lovely, and I’d actually like to see Uhura and Bones have a scene together because I don’t think they’ve really had one yet, and I’d like to think of them as friends. I don’t know.

I kind of like seeing everybody with everybody, but I know only so much of that can be done in a 2 hour film. I do hope they make the next film longer. I wouldn’t guess that I’d be 3 hours, oh no, but 2 and a half would make sense. They certainly have enough characters and content to work with.

I actually kind of liked the family. I just think they could have done a better job of integrating them into the film. Their scenes, kind of like the Nibiru scenes as well for me, felt fairly cut off from the rest of the film. There was a real issue with flow and pacing in STID to me.

Yeah, it did kind of feel like that convo was crammed in, but I understand what they were getting at. I believe Uhura was taking the opportunity because she said Spock wouldn’t have that conversation with her, and so at that point he couldn’t avoid it, and he had to participate. And of course Kirk just happens to be there (I did like him siding with Uhura because he’s had some of the same issues, though)… I’ve said this a few times before, the scene worked well for the plot, but not so much for the characters. I just don’t think Uhura is unprofessional like that, no matter what’s going on with her and Spock “behind closed doors.”

461. wi-kiry-lan - September 15, 2013

No matter how broken it gets – there will always be some trekkie that needs a ST:heroin fix no matter how ridiculous and out of continuity the story is. Try a thought experiment by telling a hypothetical 1970s trekkie the plot of Enterprise and does anyone seriously think the old trekkie would say that makes sense? If you said yes you probably need another hit of something.

462. a Pastor (A) - September 15, 2013

@456
@457

Thank YOU AND i AGREE, the opportunity to give ideas to Mr. Orci is for now lost to us. but he has too know that not all fans are the same. I’ hope he comes back, the best way to get back at people is to ignore them totally and utterly completely, that is what our Father does to those that hate Him, but of course only if you are a believer would you care about this, I’ m not asking for people here to identify themselves in terms of there own private believes. And it is not up to me to judge, I’ am not the judge…

I’ say Star Trek of the sixty’s is broken for the 21 century, and not broken again for the now times…I’ saw all the flaws of this movie and was not totally happy with it, but I’ got to see my favourite characters again and even in an episode like catspaw, i can enjoy my fantasy of space travel, yea more space travel is what i want but somebody has to pay and only people that go to see these movies can pay for war with the Klingon’s in the next movie (yuck for me, but…) reality for Star Trek.

Yes I saw the flaws and maybe a wee-bit of laziness or lack of writing like a master writer, but they(write) and never, never, never are they going to be perfect writers for Trek, so NOT BROKEN, lets enjoy it all, yes even Nemesis…lol. From an ambassador of the lord Jesus Christ on Earth, who happens to love the science fiction that’s is our beloved Star Trek.

please nobody ask me were was the writing lazy.

463. Colin - September 15, 2013

I think for myself, after rewatching some of the old films, is that I am missing the dialogue. I feel that there was more dialogue in the older films, and the moments between action sets didn’t feel like clip scenes from a video game.

I have been playing video games lately. The action set on Qo’Nos felt like a battle from one of those games. Like those battles, the film battle began with a dialogue between the Klingons (the NPC) and the Federation (the PC). Then, there was the first wave, followed by a second wave.

One of the requirements put forth by the focus groups was that they wanted less dialog. They believed that dialog was an element of Trekiness they could do less with.

464. Timncc1701 - September 15, 2013

I like that Abrams brought back the original cast. TNG and the other series, with the possible exception of ENT, became mostly talk and little action. In short, it got boring. I only fault JJ for casting Cumberbatch as Khan. He didn’t get Ellen DeGeneres to play Kirk. Why shoe horn Cumberbatch into a role not remotely resembling the unforgettable, charismatic Montalban. Cumberbatch is an amazing actor who should have been given another character to make his own. The supreme court should have scrapped Khan when they could not get an actor who at least reminded us of such an iconic portrayal. And flipping the script on the wok death scene was a cheap dilution of the original. It did not work. That being said, I love the rest of JJ Trek and hope they won’t try another implausible portrayal of a past iconic villain.

465. LOFC_Ed - September 15, 2013

TNG is my favourite series and probably always will be. I don’t know why this hates on it so much. You can’t carry on with the same cast forever and the producers needed to do something to prevent what happened to TOS, ie cancelled after three seasons.

If TNG didn’t make it, we would have no Trek at all.

466. a Pastor - September 15, 2013

@463
so so true
at least in this we are in agreement…
dialogue is no good for the cinema, is the new thinking of movie makers, yet at the beginning there was a bit of wonderful Star Trek drama and dialogue and then the video game Star Trek, we can expect more in the Klingon War movie coming next #3.

maybe the title is: Star Trek the Klingon game

467. a Pastor - September 15, 2013

In the original ST we got dialogue about space exploration an aliens and we all fell in love with it. We got it in cinema with TMP, but try that now and the movie won’t make a penny, in the movie Alien we saw a masterpiece of American cinema, try that in Star Trek and it will sell, let the drama (talking) be about the how to survive in such an alien planet and have four people running for there lives (Kirk, Spock, Uhura now and throw in Bones, while Sulu captains the Enterprise and maneuverings her like a master helmsman and well you all get the point…

Dialogue, drama, talking is good Star Trek, but….

action is the king of cinema

How to get ST on TV and have it pay its bill’s is the question?

468. Danny - September 15, 2013

I have to disagree that the Next Generation is bad, and that the concept of the future of humanity will evolve is such a powerful concept. But to have a villain in every movie negates such a hope. For our future to still be in such turmoil and a world to still have such problems is disheartening. I believe in genetic evolution, it exists, since we came from primitive man we too shall evolve into a more civilized species. It’s all we have to look forward to. We are not at a plateau; we will evolve socially, spiritually and genetically. Whether or not those that like entertainment to supply ones interests in the now; the desire to see revenge or meaningless violence in their entertainment or to think we are at the plateau of our evolution is ridiculous. Star Trek has and always at its core is mean to be inspirational and a hope for us as a planet. Whether or not it hasn’t been progressive enough it has made strides to be so in the past, to negate such achievements is ludicrous. At Star Trek’s core it was meant to be inspirational and progressive in it message and thinking, for a better world, a braver world, and a world that is better than what we now, and a world we want to have, that represents our hopes and dreams, a hope that we’ll become a better species! I believe we will, we will evolve out of our primitive ways.

469. Li'l Shat - September 15, 2013

I’ve really been thinking about these reboot movies, and I just can’t get behind the idea that Kirk can go from cadet to captain–just like that!

The writers claim they addressed this absurdity by making Kirk lose his captain’s chair in STID, but what does that mean exactly when he got it back a few minutes later?

STAR TREK: Kirk goes from cadet straight to captain.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS: Kirk gets bumped from captain to cadet, then to first officer, then right back to captain, in all of about fifteen minutes (maybe).

As an aside, Chekov goes straight to Chief Engineer because he “shadowed” Scotty for a while!

What exactly do rank and responsibility mean in these movies?

470. a Pastor - September 15, 2013

Can somebody tell me what color were the lasers of Enterprise in Mirror, Mirror…
Is this new time line MM ?

471. I am to Smurfy - September 15, 2013

who is “The Stig”? I thought MJ was going to be the one to write the rebuttal?

472. a Pastor - September 15, 2013

@468
Yes it’s silly, but I’m letting it go as the way it is in the future, if I’ don’t I won’t enjoy them, so….I’ like this movie.

473. I am to Smurfy - September 15, 2013

The guy is entitled to his opinon, but I greatly disagree with it.
And thats fine.

474. I am to Smurfy - September 15, 2013

Seriously he belittles what TOS did back in the 60s
I dare him to say what he said in his Opinon piece straight in the eye
to Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, and William Shatner.
Because they would not agree with him.

He tries to minimalize what was acomplished with those stories, because its depicted using aliens.

475. Li'l Shat - September 15, 2013

@471

I also enjoyed this movie. I bought it on streaming from Amazon and have watched it several times now. There’s a lot I like about it and the more I see it the more I appreciate it. However, it is undeniable that the movie has its problems.

But even while nitpicking and complaining upstream here and on other threads, I still say that Star Trek is not broken. It could use better writers, I’m glad Lindelof appears to be leaving (and man I hope his fifteen minutes of fame are over), but both of these movies are still immensely enjoyable in spite of their absurdities.

476. I am to Smurfy - September 15, 2013

5)
Dude you lost me right here “Halle Berry made a great Catwomen.”

Did you actually watch CatWoman?

477. Marja - September 15, 2013

463 Colin, and that’s part of what I hate about the “relentless pace” of the movie. It’s like, let’s shoehorn in some dialog and character bits b/c we know we have to please the Paramount money people [who are the market research types] while pleasing fans at the same time.

What has drawn people to TOS again and again is the characters and their interactions, not so much the plot of the week – though we did get some true gems, like Doomsday Machine and Devil in the Dark and Conscience of the King [and I can name about 12 more] … the main thing many of us tuned in to see was, how is Our Crew going to handle this week’s challenge.

If we lose the dialogue, we lose the family of crew, we lose the crew family, we lose a lot of Trekfans.

I was disappointed in the amount of violence and “action” that “had to be” in the movie. How about the action of ideas, of wit, of strategy and tactics. Instead of punching and kicking someone’s lights out.

Amazing how Spock gets kicked in the face and there’s not a bruise on him ….

478. Marja - September 15, 2013

460 SUA, I enjoyed the family somewhat, but as you say, that whole bit felt separate from the rest of the film … I just think their part could have at least been shortened by about half … as to the “fight in the shuttle” the main thing I disliked about it was that it gave people the opportunity to complain about how “whiny” Uhura is [while the guys in the movie emote all over the place and move the action along].

I definitely agree that the movie could be half an hour longer – at least in the States, Europe and English-speaking countries – and a different “cut” version released to the places where they don’t want so much talking and aliens and stuff, y’know, the stuff that makes Trek, Trek. [Gagghhhh! I'm just so sad they have to market research Trek b/c suddenly it's a summer tentpole franchise ... ]

479. a Pastor - September 15, 2013

I saw Return to Tomorrow today and the music, the revelation with the unique music to show a beautiful woman for the first time to Captain Kirk is so uniquely Star Trek and William Shatner’s acting is the best when Sargon gets to walk again, is awesome acting.

This actor deserves an Oscar for his acting performance in the sixty’s Star Trek, its beyond me as to why he didn’t, get one…
And I’m not joking, friends…

Also in the new movies a TOS like bridge would have look better

480. Colin - September 15, 2013

I think one of the weaknesses of Star Trek, both then and now, is that the writers have rarely took advantage of the crew we know exists because we see them as background characters and hear of them in dialog. The focus has been on a small group of people who occasionally get help from this larger group. I think it would be an interesting idea to have a film or tv centered on a small ship with a small crew.

In ST: ID, I did like the body language between the characters, especially the glance Kirk gives to Spock while he is broadcasting the mission requirements to the crew. I wish there were more of those moments.

People have bemoaned the scene with Carol Marcus in her two-piece suit. I understand that the writers intended this scene to be part of a larger sequence in where she and Kirk attempt to investigate the torpedo in space. He walks into a room while she is changing into a space suit. This scene with her had a realistic feel to it. When they knew they couldn’t do it, they should have dropped it. However, I understand that JJ Abrams stepped in and requested that it be kept in. So, the scene was moved, in my opinion, from a realistic event to an unrealistic event. (I am not saying that this hasn’t happen in real life; however, those situations are where the person is in a position of power. It was well known that both Lyndon Johnson and Winston Churchill were seen naked by others, but those people were in a position of “subordination”.I don’t believe a woman, who is a subordinate to another and didn’t know the person, wouldn’t change out of her clothing.)

I have a question. Could the fact that dialog has to be dubbed and that dubbing costs money be cited as one of the reasons that dialog is being reduced?

481. Colin - September 15, 2013

I meant to say in my comment in 460, “would change out of her clothing.”

482. Cygnus-X1 - September 16, 2013

383. ObsessiveStarTrekFan – September 15, 2013

I appreciate your response, but with respect to the review and the points from it that I posted above, the review that you posted is a compilation of straw men. The review you posted doesn’t address any of the most commonly mentioned, most substantial problems with STID. I don’t even bother discussing minor inconsistencies in STID, such as those making up the review you posted, because the humungous, gaping plot holes in STID take up all of my attention; and, like you, I’ve a limit on how much energy I can and am willing to spend critiquing a movie which has given me so little inspiration and satisfaction to begin with.

483. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

For those survey hounds, Bloomberg’s Virginia Postrel:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/why-star-trek-into-darkness-is-smaller-than-life.html

offers an interesting take.

#374. Forrest Leeson – September 15, 2013

You may want to adjust your figures. STARLOG, a credible source, reported in its July 1982, Number 60 issue:

http://archive.org/stream/starlog_magazine-060/060_djvu.txt

that at the end of its run, TMP took in $175 million worldwide and in earlier editions while it was still in the theaters quoted Shatner as noting it had taken in $170 million and wasn’t done. There are even newspaper reports from Nimoy during his promotion of TVH in which he claimed TMP grossed $90 million domestic. However, if we stick with the oft reported $86m domestic then that gives evidence of an $89m international gross for TMP which when adjusted for inflation gives me cause to wonder if all Paramount did was reclaim long ago lost ground with its two most recent pictures?

#441. Marja – September 15, 2013

And let’s not forget she prevailed against “bad” Moreau who was not constrained by any civil restraints such as fighting fair.

#467. a Pastor – September 15, 2013

Perhaps, but one thing’s certain that which sells the popcorn seldom wins the Oscar, and I would like to live to see a Trek screenplay win that.

#470. a Pastor – September 15, 2013

Need more information. The Mirror universe wasn’t featured an either the 2009 or 2013 movies.

#479. a Pastor – September 15, 2013

The reason Shatner can’t win an Oscar for his TV acting is that award is for motion pictures. The Emmy might be what you were thinking about? And be assured he’s won that for his other television acting.

Whether you were mistaken or not there is a petition to get him an Oscar honoring his film contributions:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/oscarforbill/signatures

484. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

I think this throws a monkey wrench into those CBS scapegoaters’ claims:

http://www.inquisitr.com/950845/star-trek-into-darkness-box-office-hurt-by-video-game-says-j-j-abrams/

“We were actually involved from the very beginning, and then we sort of realized that it was not going in a place where we were going to get what we wanted. So we dropped out, and they continued to do it despite. …To me the video game could have been something that actually really benefited the series and was an exciting, fun game with great gameplay, and instead it was not and was something that I think, for me, emotionally it hurt, because we were working our asses off making the movie and then this game came out and it got, this isn’t even my opinion, it got universally panned and I think that it was something without question that didn’t help the movie and arguably hurt it.” – JJ Abrams

While the Game producers claim here

http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=29423

that:

“… that the studio’s [Paramount Pictures'] heavy involvement was a burden. ” – WorstPreviews.com

485. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#480. Colin – September 15, 2013

Looping and redubbing is old hat in motion pictures. I don’t think there are any new inflation isolated to those activities’ costs. Now, however, digitizing the lips of actors in already filmed scenes in which the actors said “Eriksen” to make them fluid with the rewritten “Harrison” was something new and potentially a significant additional cost.

One thing no one has addressed is if that scene’s undressing was so insignificant: why did the filmmakers go back and change the color of her garments in post from the silvery almost shimmering ones she actually was wearing during filming to an almost matte black? My point only being that clearly somebody was concerned about something.

486. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 16, 2013

@482. Cygnus-X1 – September 16, 2013

Thanks for responding. I do not deny the existence of ‘humungous, gaping plot holes in STID’. I could rant over them, and other things, when I get into nitpicking trekkie mode (which I am capable of doing from time to time), but the fact remains I still enjoy the new movies as Star Trek movies with a distinct TOS flavour, despite their various flaws.

We each have our limits and triggers regarding what we will, and will not, accept. Those limits and triggers determine whether we as individuals can love something despite its flaws, or cannot abide it because of those flaws.

As Surak (or his ‘image’) said in The Savage Curtain: “I am pleased to see that we have differences…”.

487. Cygnus-X1 - September 16, 2013

——-A Message To All Who Are Sad and Disillusioned About What Happened with Bob Orci:

It was exciting, during the production of ST’09 and in the year that followed, to see boborci here interacting with the fans. He did appear to be soliciting our opinions ostensibly for the purpose of making a good movie that would be true and respectful to the 40+ year legacy of Trek. I genuinely believe that Bob respects Trek, wants what’s best for it, and believes that his work on the past two Trek movies has been consistent with same. I also believe that Bob believes that he’s written two very good movies.

Until Joseph Dickerson’s recent editorial, the staff of TrekMovie had provided JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and Bad Robot in general with almost unwavering approval and support. When, in the past, the TrekMovie staff had acknowledge dissatisfaction with and criticism of Bad Robot’s Trek, they had done so in a rather meek and curious way, offering issues up for discussion, but making certain not to associate themselves with any unflattering opinions relating to Bad Robot or its version of Trek.

And I can’t really blame them.

TrekMovie has had a relationship of sorts and regular contributions from one of the writers of the very movie that this site was founded to discuss, and why bite the hand that feeds you?

But Bob Orci wasn’t just here for fun. I mean, I take him at his word that he enjoys fan interaction and things Trek generally, but he also had a job to do. Shooting the bull with enthusiastic, die-hard fans can and did go a long way toward generating buzz for his movie. I know that my facebook friends all got large doses of photographs, articles and status updates pertaining to Star Trek ’09 from me, and to a lesser extent the same pertaining to STID.

I’ve been a regular at this site since 2007, going for periods without commenting much but checking in at least several times a week, often several times a day, often for hours at a time. One of the most exciting times for me at this site was when I had a long back-and-forth over the course of a few days with Bob Orci about my criticisms of ST’09. Needless to say there was no meeting of the minds—I’ve never seen Bob Orci agree with any substantial criticisms of his writing—but he was very nice and generous with me.

And Bob Orci’s generosity here has been his contribution to the symbiotic relationship between himself and the TrekMovie staff, which has apparent from the day that boborci made his first appearance here: He scratched their backs by giving them a star attraction and some very generous dialogue with the posters, and they scratched his back by writing supportive, often fluffy articles about Bad Robot and Bad Robot’s Trek.

In the beginning (during the production of ST’09), while there was no shortage of naysayers here expressing disappointment and resentment at the changes that Bob Orci was telling us were coming to Trek—an alternate universe/timeline chiefly among them—the majority opinion was markedly hopeful, optimistic and open-minded. Sure, there was quibbling about the color of Chris Pine’s eyes and other deviations from TOS (some major, MANY minor), but by and large, the attitude of the posters here was enthusiastic, if a little anxious about how the new Trek endeavor would turn out, and we offered lots and lots AND LOTS of advice on how to make the best possible Trek movie, given the changes that we knew were coming.

One common piece of advice offered was basically: “Don’t make a dumbed-down, popcorn-munching action movie with lots of explosions and little substance.” Movies were getting dumber, shallower and replacing substance with action, posters often noted, and they didn’t want Trek following suit.

While some of the recurring advice offered here did seem to have influenced the making ST’09 and STID, complaints of shallowness and vacuousness with regard to Bad Robot’s Trek movies have only grown louder and more frequent with each movie released.

Neither has it been just posters here or Trek fans in general complaining that Bad Robot’s Trek is much more sizzle than steak, but even the POSITIVE reviews by top film critics have also regularly contained a variation on that same complaint, along with additional, regular complaints about plot holes in the stories, and the writing generally.

Recently, Joseph Dickerson went to the 2013 Trek Convention in LV and saw Trekkies & Trekkers vote STID the worst Trek movie in the history of the franchise. Joseph Dickerson is a journalist, mind you. So, what is a journalist with at least a modicum of integrity going to do in response to the aforementioned news and the general trend of complaints coming from posters here and Trek fans generally?

And that’s what he did. He wrote an article talking about what he had observed and heard from fans at the 2013 TrekCon accompanied by his thoughts on how to “fix” what can only rightly be called “broken.” I mean, if your most loyal fans are saying that your most recent Trek project is the worst out of 12 movies, it’s fair to say that your Trek isn’t working, unless you don’t care about the opinions of your most loyal, die-hard fans.

So, Joseph wrote his article, and it was a polite, even-tempered article, in no way mean-spirited, resentful or begrudging. And what was Bob Orci’s reaction to TrekMovie’s rare deviation from 5 years of unwavering support and promotion (not just for Bad Robot’s Trek, but for Bad Robot generally)?

We all saw Bob Orci’s reaction. He didn’t address the specific criticisms in the article, nor the fan vote at the ’13 TrekCon. He didn’t like the “tone” of the article, a tone which was, for the first time, not fluffy and flattering of Bad Robot’s Trek and Orci’s work in relation thereto. And then Bob Orci, it appears, decided to drop out not only from this site but from fan outreach in general.

And, you know what? I’m glad that this site won’t have to kiss Bob’s ass any more. I won’t miss the sycophancy from posters here one iota. Maybe people who were previously reluctant to express dissatisfaction with Bad Robot’s Trek generally and/or elements thereof, because they were more concerned with being board-buddies with Bob Orci, will now be more candid about their feelings regarding all of the aforementioned.

In closing, I would like to applaud Joseph Dickerson for having the integrity to write his article and for his graceful, if brief exchange with Bob Orci. And, I’d just like to add that I did not intend anything mean-spirited toward Bob Orci by this post, nor do I encourage or approve of posters being mean-spirited toward Bob, Joseph, Matt, Anthony or anyone else.

TrekMovie has been and will continue to be a great site, true to Trek, with lots of great articles and discussions, and if anything about it is to change, it’s that it will only have more integrity going forward.

And if you’ve actually read this whole, long-winded post, my hat’s off to you as well!

Cheers!! :-)

488. Cygnus-X1 - September 16, 2013

486. ObsessiveStarTrekFan – September 16, 2013

Well said!

Cheers!!

489. BatlethInTheGroin - September 16, 2013

#96: No, that distinction does NOT go to Nichols and Shatner. As I said, it’s a common myth. Sammy Davis Jr. and Nancy Sinatra had already kissed on television. There were other shows that had interracial kisses prior to the Kirk-Uhura kiss–including a few on Star Trek itself.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P
The episode features a kiss between James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols). This is often cited as the first white and black interracial kiss depicted on a scripted television series,[1][2] but took place after Sammy Davis, Jr. had briefly kissed Nancy Sinatra on the variety program Movin’ With Nancy in December 1967;[3] and an interracial kiss on Emergency Ward 10, a British drama series, in 1964;[4] a kiss between Asian American actress, Victoria Young and David McCallum in the 1966 The Man from U.N.C.L.E episode, “The Her Master’s Voice Affair;” September 16th, 1966, and a kiss between multi-racial actress Barbara Luna and William Shatner in the October 6th, 1967 Star Trek: The Original Series episode, “Mirror, Mirror”, as well as another kiss between Shatner and Vietnamese actor France Nuyen in “Elaan of Troyius.” Predating, in America, all of these but the “Man from U.N.C.L.E”, the November 3rd, 1966 episode of “Daniel Boone” where the title character leans in to take a kiss on the cheek (audible smack) from a little black girl who Boone had saved from slavery, along with her family and friends. The episode and the little girl are both called “Onatha”. And, even predating that Daniel Boone episode is the 1959 episode of Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer with Darren McGavin, titled “Siamese Twinge,” where a white male (named “Gary”) kisses his Asian fiancé (“Sandi”) on the forehead.

490. TracyH - September 16, 2013

The Op Ed is nicely written and quite true. Star Trek is NOT broken. It is reborn, and growing up to be strong and tall. It is different from the other Treks, but it is a LOT like the original. Still the first and best.
JJ and his crew of writers are headed in the right direction. I’ll continue to support them at the theater, and give them room to grow, explore and become more mature with time. The future of Trek right now looks very bright indeed.

491. James - September 16, 2013

Its not broken. Because.
1. It made a ton of money.
2. Overall it’s critically lauded – check out scores on rotten tomatoes.

Just ’cause a portion of crazy trekkies have taken a dislike to it does not mean it’s broken.

492. Curious Cadet - September 16, 2013

@485. Disinvited,
“digitizing the lips of actors in already filmed scenes in which the actors said “Eriksen” to make them fluid with the rewritten “Harrison” was something new and potentially a significant additional cost.”

Do you know if in fact this was done?

The mouth does not visibly change position when pronouncing these names, so I doubt any visual effects were required to execute this.

493. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#489. BatlethInTheGroin – September 16, 2013

You left out I SPY which I am almost certain had more than a few scripted scenes that met your criteria viz a viz Culp/Nuyen.

But, as I have said before, this wasn’t what made it significant from a historical civil rights perspective. In the twisted illogic of the Jim Crow South of my youth, reinforcing the stereotype that black men lust after white women, while objectionable, was not seen as objectionable as a hinting in any way shape or form in a prime time scripted tale that a white farm bred American male hero would appear to find something attractive in an unmistakeable black woman written to have been from Africa, no less! And science-fiction, which everyone knows is children’s programming! Well, that was cause to let the network know that you would pull such programming.

This Wikipedia entry gives a flavor of what was going on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLBT#Opposition_to_civil_rights

494. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#491. Curious Cadet – September 16, 2013

Well the first indication I had that something was done:

http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/15/sticky-star-trek-into-darkness-arrives-in-north-america-and-most-of-the-world-open-thread/

” 58. boborci – May 15, 2013

54. Not a coincidence. Inspired by Ericsen. In fact, we shot the movie using the name Ericsenn but decided it would give it away so we cheated the name Harrison into everyone’s mouth!”

And I later believe I read somewhere that CGI was used to obscure the original “Ericsen” in some scenes because someone felt that otherwise whole scenes would have to be reshot because of the mismatch in some scenes were enough to take the audience out of the story. I just assumed it was the lips but maybe it was the “Ka” in “Ericsenn” that needed obscuring?

495. Damian - September 16, 2013

I have to ask, why does it always come down to Abrams vs. Berman era Trek. I like each iteration of Star Trek for what it is.

Each version was a reflection of it’s time period and excellent for what it was at that time. Abrams version of Trek would probably have had people scratching their heads in the 90′s.

I actually liked all 12 movies for different reasons. I also liked all the TV series. For me, it comes down to, was I entertained, was it a good ride. Yes, there were a few duds out there (“Threshold” anyone) but Star Trek has been fun more times than not. Enough so, that in addition to watching the movies and series, I continue to read the continuing stories in the novels, and I’ve loved it all.

For me, there is no us vs. them. Abrams has simply continued the Star Trek story, and in a few years, hopefully, someone else will take Star Trek into the next generation.

496. Marcus - September 16, 2013

487. Cygnus-X1
“Until Joseph Dickerson’s recent editorial, the staff of TrekMovie had provided JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and Bad Robot in general with almost unwavering approval and support. When, in the past, the TrekMovie staff had acknowledge dissatisfaction with and criticism of Bad Robot’s Trek, they had done so in a rather meek and curious way, offering issues up for discussion, but making certain not to associate themselves with any unflattering opinions relating to Bad Robot or its version of Trek. ”

As I said in a previous thread, “Star Trek” is bigger than one writer, director, producer, and editor. Even though it was great to have Orci around, I think his presence hindered TrekMovie.com’s potential.

While trying to protect the integrity of TrekMovie.com, Anthony Pascale may have accidentally lured too many like minded individuals. In order to build a strong and growing community, you need to have a wide diversity in opinion. Its only healthy to have conflicting perspectives. “Star Trek” is all about people with conflicting perspectives trying to live together.

If Anthony Pascale allows TrekMovie.com to keep going, I think this site will evolve into something overall better. I like how TrekMove has two different articles, which present two different perspectives. I think they were enjoyable to read, and I can respect both individual’s opinion.

Bad Robot (JJ & Orci) are only temporary guests to “Star Trek”. Even though they want to be more, I do not think it would be wise to hand them the overall keys. “Star Trek” has had many writers, producers, and directors.

I want “Star Trek” to be taken over by someone who:
(1) want to move the timeline forward,
(2) has an actual theoretical perspective of the future,
(3) and, wants to honor canon by evolving it forward.

After seeing how “Serenity” turned out, I think Joss Wheldon should be the next caretaker of “Star Trek”. Joss knows all about that ‘wagon train to the star mentality’.

497. vjeko1701 - September 16, 2013

What the f*ck? The guy writing this has absolutely no idea what Star Trek is all about and writing that abramsTrek is closer to the original Trek than TOS is a bag of bull*hit…

There is nothing truer to the Trek spirit than Picard and TNG and all that don’t see this apparently never truly understood what Star Trek is and what it’s all about.

498. Curious Cadet - September 16, 2013

Oh KNOW I understand why Orci felt the way he did about Khan.

The internet has exploded with HATE for the new Miss America — Miss New York — who is of Indian descent. She has been described as an “Arab” and an “Indian”, and she should not have won because she is “not American”.

Hard to believe … then again it’s hard to believe we’re still holding nationally televised female beauty contests.

499. MJB - September 16, 2013

@487
The first half of your comment was well done. Then you turned 180 degrees into a hater with “we won’t have to kiss Orci’s a$$ anymore.” Nice try, but you just couldn’t help turning your post into a negative. Blah, blah, blah.

Also, I couldn’t help but laugh when you said Joseph Dickerson is a journalist. Come on, dude.

500. Dave H - September 16, 2013

“What the f*ck? The guy writing this has absolutely no idea what Star Trek is all about and writing that abramsTrek is closer to the original Trek than TOS is a bag of bull*hit…”

Wow, we have a real MENSA here with us. Thanks, MENSA, for setting this all straight for the rest of us here.

;-) LOL

501. Red Dead Ryan - September 16, 2013

#487.

“Recently, Joseph Dickerson went to the 2013 Trek Convention in LV and saw Trekkies & Trekkers vote STID the worst Trek movie in the history of the franchise. Joseph Dickerson is a journalist, mind you. So, what is a journalist with at least a modicum of integrity going to do in response to the aforementioned news and the general trend of complaints coming from posters here and Trek fans generally?

And that’s what he did. He wrote an article talking about what he had observed and heard from fans at the 2013 TrekCon accompanied by his thoughts on how to “fix” what can only rightly be called “broken.” I mean, if your most loyal fans are saying that your most recent Trek project is the worst out of 12 movies, it’s fair to say that your Trek isn’t working, unless you don’t care about the opinions of your most loyal, die-hard fans.”

C’mon, the poll at the Las Vegas was total nonsense. The guy in charge of it included “Galaxy Quest” for crying out loud. And one poster on this site who attended it called the poll “a gong show”. Conventions don’t tend to be the be the best forums anyway, as a lot of anti-nuTrek folks take over the place and force their opinions upon everyone else.

And clearly Joe Dickerson didn’t do his homework in regards to STID and its commercial and critical success at the box office. If he did, then he wouldn’t have posted his “Star Trek Is Broken” article.

To me, the fact that the article was based on what he saw at the convention lends it no credibility whatsoever.

Please — Trek was broken in after “Nemesis” and “Enterprise”. It was irrelevent. Now, it may not be experiencing the heights that it did in the early to late nineties, but it ain’t broke. Not by a long shot.

502. star trackie - September 16, 2013

#495 “What the f*ck? The guy writing this has absolutely no idea what Star Trek is all about and writing that abramsTrek is closer to the original Trek than TOS is a bag of bull*hit…

There is nothing truer to the Trek spirit than Picard and TNG and all that don’t see this apparently never truly understood what Star Trek is and what it’s all about.”

Oooookay. Haven’t watched Star Trek in awhile, I gather. lol Maybe you should try it sometime. And I meant Star Trek, not the spinoffs. Maybe even read the TOS writer’s bible. Or even Bob Justman and Herb Solow’s excellent Inside Star Trek. And you might even read an article or two from Bjo Trimble. Then come back, with an informed opinion, and we’ll talk.

503. Ahmed - September 16, 2013

@ 500. star trackie – September 16, 2013

“Oooookay. Haven’t watched Star Trek in awhile, I gather. lol Maybe you should try it sometime. And I meant Star Trek, not the spinoffs.”

Are you somehow implying that TNG & the other spinoff are NOT Star Trek , or that was a wrong impression on my part ?

504. REM1701 - September 16, 2013

Let me 1st say that I’m no fan of “Alternative” storylines. However “Into Darkness” was a good film. An interesting take on the WOK. A latin or Hispanic actor would been more preferable (only because the race of the original character). Cumberbatch “pulled-ti-off”. The only reason this movie is taking “heat” is the hatred of J.J.Abhrams. That’s it that’s all! HATE it all U want, BUT it made money. That, my fellow “Trekkies” is the “bottom-line” for CBS\Paramount.
Can’t wait to see the HATE from the “Star Wars” universe! LOL! :-)

505. Dave H - September 16, 2013

Ahmed,

I have to say that I agree with startrackie 100%.

When someone comes here and tries to lecture us, after dropping some overly dramatic and unnecessary F-bombs, that that basically the real Star Trek is TNG, then they are not going to be met with a positive reception from many of us.

The heart of Star Trek is TOS. This is a given. Some of the spin-off material is pretty good, but there is a reason why they are called “spin-offs.”

506. Horatio - September 16, 2013

What’s broken is fandom.

This website is exhibit A.

507. Fubamushu - September 16, 2013

I agree that Star Trek isn’t broken. Broken implies that it can be fixed or repaired.

Rather, for me Star Trek is shattered. Star Trek is damaged beyond economical repair.

It is time to let this version die. We need to be without Star Trek in any shape or form for 5-10 years. We need time to allow this bastardization to fade from view. We need time to remember what it was about Star Trek that made us love it. We need time to mourn and miss it.

Once we’ve gotten beyond missing Star Trek, then it can be reborn.

508. Ahmed - September 16, 2013

@ 503. Dave H – September 16, 2013

“When someone comes here and tries to lecture us, after dropping some overly dramatic and unnecessary F-bombs, that that basically the real Star Trek is TNG, then they are not going to be met with a positive reception from many of us.

The heart of Star Trek is TOS. This is a given. Some of the spin-off material is pretty good, but there is a reason why they are called “spin-offs.””

I don’t agree that TNG is the only real Star Trek. I think that TOS, TNG & DS9 are the best of Star Trek, VOY & ENT are not so great IMO.

I do feel it is really inaccurate when people say that TOS is the only & real Trek. I loved TOS but I grew up with TNG & I happen to like it as much as I like TOS.

Also, DS9 by any standard is closer to TOS, I don’t understand why some people are so dismissive of that show.

I just hope that we are not going to have another “war” between the TOS wing & the TNG wing here!

509. Damian - September 16, 2013

TNG, at least in the first 2 to 3 years, portrayed humanity in the way Gene Roddenberry wanted it portrayed in the future. The Federation was an absolute utopia that was as close to perfection as one could get. That was Roddenberry’s vision, for better or worse. In a way, he got to portray Star Trek the way he wanted it portrayed. Also note, the first 2 years are generally considered the weakest of TNG. There are good episodes in those 2 years, but ironically for some Berman haters here, it wasn’t until Berman exerted more influence (reportedly with Roddenberry’s blessing) that TNG got on track.

After season 3, the Federation and humanity, while still idealistic, wasn’t quite as perfect as they were in season 1 and 2. Deep Space Nine probably did the best job portraying a realistic political situation for the Federation, especially during the Dominion War. Here you had a Federation that was willing to sanction Sisko’s methods for brining the Romulans into the war, and willing to look the other way when Section 31 was involved.

I think it’s important that Star Trek portray the future positively. To stay true to Star Trek, humanity should be a growing species. Humans, and in turn, the Federation, should show some maturity compared to today, but that there is always room for growth. And of course, we still make mistakes.

I’m happy to consider all the series and movies as part of the larger Star Trek universe. Gene Roddenberry had a great vision for Star Trek, but frequently needed others to bring that vision to reality. I think it was great that Abrams and his team decided not to clean house by doing a true reboot. They decided to do 2 movies that co-exist with all that came before, to avoid a true us vs. them battle for Trekkies.

510. Marja - September 16, 2013

I am bothered by the plot holes in STiD, just as I was bothered by them in ST2009.

What I said many times to Bob Orci was that I liked his “take” on the characters – who are younger than those we know from TOS, in an AU and living different lives – and I expressed appreciation for his knowledge of Trek as a fellow fan.

I did not praise him for any of the elements of Trek 09 or STiD that I found lacking; I found the good and praised it. There were plenty of people taking up the plot holes arguments and other criticisms, so I didn’t feel a need to “pile on.”

Though that could be considered “kissing up,” I note that never once has Orci replied to me even with a one-word answer, so I didn’t do it with any hope of an interaction with him. I just wanted him to see that there were things in Bad Robot Trek I, fan for decades, felt he was getting absolutely right [imho].

511. Marja - September 16, 2013

Well, Cygnus “Recently, Joseph Dickerson went to the 2013 Trek Convention in LV and saw Trekkies & Trekkers vote STID the worst Trek movie in the history of the franchise. Joseph Dickerson is a journalist, mind you. So, what is a journalist with at least a modicum of integrity going to do in response to the aforementioned news and the general trend of complaints coming from posters here and Trek fans generally?”

I believe a journalist with at least a modicum of integrity would include the facts that the panel was run by a reboot Trek hater, that approximately 100 fans out of thousands at the con voted STiD the “worst Trek ever” and that it was not even a balloted vote, but a raised-hand vote.

That being said, Dickerson did not “report” as a journalist, but wrote an editorial, a different breed of cat from a news story.

512. Colin - September 16, 2013

Red Dawn Redemption,

Box Office Mojo reports,

“Star Trek Into Darkness: The 2009 Star Trek reboot is one of the most well-liked Summer movies of the past decade, so there was an assumption that sequel Star Trek Into Darkness was going to improve dramatically on its predecessor. That didn’t really pan out: the movie earned a bit less at the domestic box office (around $230 million), and its overseas gains weren’t quite as big as expected. Ultimately, Star Trek Into Darkness will earn less than $500 million worldwide, which is slightly disappointing.”
(http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3724&p=.htm)

So, the film wasn’t as successful as people were expecting it to be. I keep hearing that a factor for the movie falling short of expectatoins was the lousy marketing.

Keep in mind that we live in an age of unrealistic expectations. A game like Tomb Raider, which sold 3.4 million copies and had a rating in the mid-80s on Metacritic, was considered a flop by its distributor Square Enix because it failed to meet forecasted sales. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-26-tomb-raider-has-sold-3-4-million-copies-failed-to-hit-expectations)

The Holy Grail of box office success for films is now $1 billion dollars. Paramount might have expected ST:ID to get a $1 billion in ticket sales, but they wanted to be closer than they were.

513. Steve - September 16, 2013

Spock would have travelled in time to prevent the events of ST09 from ever happening and SAVE HIS HOMEWORLD – just like he and Kirk had on previous occasions for Earth. Nothing else makes sense in terms of that character with nearly 50 years backstory. Did no one else watch City On The Edge of Forever? So STID would not have happened. I am trying to ignore the JJverse. If you like recycled sub-moron Trek good for you.

514. Colin - September 16, 2013

Ugh, I am tired when I wrote that last sentence. It should have read, “Paramount might not have expected ST:ID to get a $1 billion in ticket sales, but they wanted to be closer than they were.”

Only one film this summer joined this exclusive club, Iron Man 3.

515. Marcus - September 16, 2013

When I think about this new “Star Trek” series, the “Highlander” franchise keeps popping into my head. Its weird.

516. Marja - September 16, 2013

480 Colin “People have bemoaned the scene with Carol Marcus in her two-piece suit. I understand that the writers intended this scene to be part of a larger sequence in where she and Kirk attempt to investigate the torpedo in space. He walks into a room while she is changing into a space suit. This scene with her had a realistic feel to it. When they knew they couldn’t do it, they should have dropped it. However, I understand that JJ Abrams stepped in and requested that it be kept in. So, the scene was moved, in my opinion, from a realistic event to an unrealistic event.”

Agreed, Kirk “walking in” on her – and IMMEDIATELY turning around – would have been a lot less sexist, IMHO.

485 Disinvited, “if that scene’s undressing was so insignificant: why did the filmmakers go back and change the color of her garments in post from the silvery almost shimmering ones she actually was wearing during filming to an almost matte black? My point only being that clearly somebody was concerned about something.”

Where do you guys get all this info? I’d love to find this stuff, being interested in costumes. And, institutional sexism … which apparently, is not repugnant to Mr Abrams.

As a side note, Marcus’s “two-piece” [generous term for undies] appeared to me to have a silk-like sheen. I don’t think it was “matte black.”

517. Basement Blogger - September 16, 2013

@ 487

Cygnus X-1,

A few things. Stop citing the Las Vegas “poll” as if it was some type of serious survey of Trekkers. Let’s take a look at it, shall we? The source of the “poll” was Devin Faraci. He hates Star Trek Into Darkness. It was done at Jordan Hoffman’s forum One Trek Mind. It was , and I repeat was not a convention wide poll. There were no numbers associated with the poll. Leading me to deduce it was done applause style. (A poster on the convention story, said it was done Gong Show style.) But this is important. How many people were at the forum? One hundred. Yep, that’s right, one hundred. Link.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/08/11/the-star-trek-movies-as-ranked-by-star-trek-con-goers/

But how many people attended the Convention? According to Bill O’ Reilly of Fox News, it was approximately twelve thousand. Link. Sorry for citing O’Reilly; the story below is smarmy. Just watch the first thirty seconds.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/15/jesse-watters-beams-star-trek-convention-levar-burton-spews-vulgarity-oreilly

So, the “poll” was done with one hundred Trekkers at a convention of twelve thousand. No numbers so it’s a majority of one hundred. It’s hardly the ringing sign of dissatisfaction that Joseph Dickerson implies it was. But here is a fact from Wikipedia. Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing movie of the Star Trek franchise.

I read your post, and as I’m reading, it’s mostly civil. Until you say this.

“And, you know what? I’m glad that this site won’t have to kiss Bob’s ass any more. I won’t miss the sycophancy from posters here one iota.”

That’s not cool. Just because fans love Bob Orci’s work or Bad Robot’s Star Trek doesn’t turn them into sycophants. For example, I love Christopher Nolan’s work. Does that turn me into a sycophant for Nolan? No. There may be a day he will produce something bad. Making an ad hominem attack is not civil. By the way, ending with “Cheers” doesn’t make your attack any nicer.

So you know that I am no mere sycophant, I agree with some of your criticisms of Star Trek 2009. But STID is a different movie that has ideas. I am saddened by the loss of Bob Orci. If you weren’t mean about your criticisms he was civil to you. The great thing about Bob was that he’s on the inside of Star Trek. He loves Star Trek. And he was willing to talk to fans here. He not only talked about Star Trek but engaged with us on other topics too.

So while you are dancing on Bob Orci’s grave, think about what he brought to this site. He gave Trekmovie gravitas. He was a source for the current state of filmed Star Trek. He was fun to be around. And now he’s gone. I would love to see him come back.

518. Dave H - September 16, 2013

Ahmed, I don’t think we are that far apart. DS9 was the ST spinoff closest to the TOS.

The way that vjeko1701 clown came in an try to lecture on how TNG in the core of Star Trek — that I take extreme exception to.

TNG and TOS groups should not try to bully each other into saying they can and must only be right. That’s what vjeko1701 was trying to do, with his F-bomb-laced lecture to us TOS fans.

519. Dave H - September 16, 2013

Cygnus X-1,

If you had been paying attention here, you would have clearly seen that that supposed “poll” of Star Trek fans at the Vegas convention was in fact a deliberately orchestrated fan event by a fan who was determined to embarrass nuTrek and it’s fans. It was a complete joke. See Basement Bloggers post above for more details on what actually happened regarding this facade of a poll.

Respectfully, Dave H (aka one of those “Orci Ass-Kissing Sycophants”, as you like to name call people who just happen to honestly disagree with your opinions here)

520. Dave H - September 16, 2013

“and its overseas gains weren’t quite as big as expected.”

Well that is getting pretty persnickety. Paramount was on record as saying the goal was to double foreign box office, and STID came within just $12M of achieving a doubling of the foreign box office.

521. star trackie - September 16, 2013

#501 “Are you somehow implying that TNG & the other spinoff are NOT Star Trek , or that was a wrong impression on my part ?’

No, that’s exactly what I meant. By definition, the spin-offs can’t be Star Trek. There is only one. They can be spin-offs…much like Lou Grant, the series was not The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Not even close. Nor did Trapper John equate to being MASH. (Showing my age here lol) Star Trek is what the movie was based on. Those that expect the new movies based on STar Trek to be like TNG or the spin-offs will never get their wish. They aren’t the same. And to say that the author didn’t know what he was talking about is hogwash. The shows are apples and oranges.

522. Dave H - September 16, 2013

“No, that’s exactly what I meant. By definition, the spin-offs can’t be Star Trek. There is only one. They can be spin-offs…much like Lou Grant, the series was not The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Not even close. Nor did Trapper John equate to being MASH. (Showing my age here lol) Star Trek is what the movie was based on. Those that expect the new movies based on STar Trek to be like TNG or the spin-offs will never get their wish. They aren’t the same. And to say that the author didn’t know what he was talking about is hogwash. The shows are apples and oranges.”

WELL SAID !!!!!

523. Ahmed - September 16, 2013

@ 518. star trackie – September 16, 2013

“No, that’s exactly what I meant. By definition, the spin-offs can’t be Star Trek. There is only one.”

TNG was created by Gene Roddenberry, the same guy who created TOS. For you to say that TNG is not Star Trek is like being more loyal than the king !!

Anyway, you are entitled to you views.

524. Ahmed - September 16, 2013

@ 518. star trackie

oh & don’t take it personally, but you come off as a fanatic when you say stuff like that.

525. P Technobabble - September 16, 2013

514. Basement Blogger

For what it’s worth, I agree with you 100%. At the risk of having somebody accuse me of kissing your a$$, excellent post.

526. Red Dead Ryan - September 16, 2013

What is “real” Star Trek? Well, that’s easy. None of the series or movies. It ain’t real, folks. It’s all fiction.

However, TOS is the core — the heart and soul — of the entire franchise. No one can argue with that.

TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT are all “additions”. The quality of these shows vary in my opinion.

TOS and DS9 are both great series, and the best of the shows. TNG and ENT are good/above average series (both starting off mediocre but getting better as the seasons went on), and VOY is a subpar rehash of TNG. TAS is good, but the flimation style is really stiff and dated. Could use new animation.

As for the movies, the two NuTrek films, TWOK, TSFS, FC, and TMP are really the only truly good movies. The rest are either just okay, or plain suck.

#512.

Hey Einstein, it’s Red Dead Ryan. Please learn how to read. Also, your statements about STID are way off base.

527. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#499. Red Dead Ryan – September 16, 2013

By this logic:

“To me, the fact that the article was based on what he saw at the convention lends it no credibility whatsoever.” – Red Dead Ryan

Your mention of an anonymous commenter’s “Gong Show” observation is equally incredulous

528. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

The number shuffler now has the comment I was responding to at in 527 at 501.

529. Aurore - September 16, 2013

“Oh KNOW I understand why Orci felt the way he did about Khan.

The internet has exploded with HATE for the new Miss America — Miss New York — who is of Indian descent. She has been described as an ‘Arab’ and an ‘Indian’, and she should not have won because she is ‘not American’….”

____________

The Internet has exploded with hate?

Meanwhile in “real life”, I suppose many people voted for her for they believed she was American enough for them. That may be why there is a Miss America of Indian descent today…despite all this “explosion” of hate…on the Internet.

I personally still don’t understand why Mr.Orci felt the way he did about khan, or rather I should say that I was never convinced by the explanations he gave regarding the change in ethnicity of Khan Noonien Singh.

“…Hard to believe …then again it’s hard to believe we’re still holding nationally televised female beauty contests.”

I believe I understand what you are saying. Although I must confess I am not opposed to such contests, but, I digress…

What I do find hard to believe however is that apparently we went from people making the following type of statement (about Star Trek) *:

“…Doing Star Trek, that made me incredibly happy. Because without Star Trek, people would still think there were no Black people in the future…O.K?…Before 63, which is when I think Star Trek appeared on American television, from the inception of film and television, until 1963, in any Sci-Fi movie, there were no black people. And that always bothered me etc…”

…To people saying things like that:

“Basically, as we went the casting process and we began honing in on the themes of the movie, it became uncomfortable for me to support demonizing anyone of color , particularly any one of middle eastern descent or anyone evoking that. One of the points of the movie is that we must be careful about the villain within US, not some other race.”

…Hence the change in ethnicity of a character in the last Star Trek movie.

…As the songwriter used to say ; “…The times they are a-changin’”…I suppose…

*
(Second video. Starts at 19 : 51) :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/03/12/watch-autistic-star-trek-fans-emotional-meeting-with-whoopi-goldberg/

530. Red Dead Ryan - September 16, 2013

#527.

“Your mention of an anonymous commenter’s “Gong Show” observation is equally incredulous”

Well, here you go — this is from the Terry Farrell thread from a month ago:

“92. Gary Seven – August 18, 2013
Re: the World Record – the moment was electric and Terry Ferrell’s appearance was a great capstone! Suspect we will be leap-frogging the record for some time to come – so plan to enjoy the next ride!
Re: The poll – which seems to be the primary topic of conversation – it wasn’t a poll. I applaud Jordan Hoffman and the StarTrek.com group for engaging those who were able to make their OneTrekMind sessions in spirited discussions, but the attendees could not hope to represent the fan universe and there were no ballots; no counts. Jordan and crew offered up Galaxy Quest and while it was supported by the Okuda’s it did not originate from the group. The “scoring” was based on a Gong-show type assessment of the audio response to Jordan’s placements. Accuracy was subject to where you were seated in the room. Seated in the room, there was clearly a group that hated STID. A clear majority – I’m not so sure. So, great fun – yes! Meaningful at a level that merits the preceding discussion – no.”

Eyewitness testimony from the actual “polling — CASE CLOSED!!!

531. Dave H - September 16, 2013

“Your mention of an anonymous commenter’s “Gong Show” observation is equally incredulous.”

Actually, the “Gong Show” analogy is right on. That’s about the level or rigor that was applied to this so-called “poll.” The whole thing was done with the organizer setting it up to get the answer he wanted. It was a complete joke, and should not be taken remotely seriously. Like a Miley Cyrus music video — all flash and no substance.

532. Dave H - September 16, 2013

“The “scoring” was based on a Gong-show type assessment of the audio response to Jordan’s placements. Accuracy was subject to where you were seated in the room. Seated in the room, there was clearly a group that hated STID. A clear majority – I’m not so sure. So, great fun – yes! Meaningful at a level that merits the preceding discussion – no.”

Yep. EXACTLY !!!!!

533. Dave H - September 16, 2013

““…Hard to believe …then again it’s hard to believe we’re still holding nationally televised female beauty contests.”

Get real. As long as guys get hard-ons and woman dress to please guys, this will keep happening. Look at the silly Marcus and Uhura underwear scenes in nuTrek, all of the skin in TOS and TNG, and even Illia in a shower in the hard sf TMP — Star Trek itself is always having its little “beauty contests.” We may not like it, but “hard to believe.”….come on???

534. Oscar - September 16, 2013

David Mack, maybe the best trek author right now, did not like STID and other very important trekkers ,as Robert Greenberger,say the same thing. I mean, it’s not only a few fans in Las Vegas who say STID not is good trek. There is a lot of trekkers and trek sites very disappointed. If you want to read Mack’s article, search in his blog (June,6).

535. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#530. Red Dead Ryan – September 16, 2013

Sorry, RDR but you are really losing me as I am finding it difficult to follow your train of thought.

The staff here that posted Joseph Dickerson’s editorial said he was in attendance at that same Las Vegas Con that Gary7 says he attended.

Right here:

http://www.josephdickerson.com/blog/2013/01/12/going-where-no-joe-has-gone-before/

he says he gave two presentations which means he was just as qualified as Gary7 to measure the crowd and the people attending his two presentations’ STID temperatures.

Also it is reasonable to assume that he was more in on what was happening on stage and behind the scenes than Gary7 in the crowd could have ever possibly have been.

536. Basement Blogger - September 16, 2013

@ 527

Disinvinted,

Stop defending the Las Vegas convention “poll’ as being a serious survey. Okay, you won’t accept the testimony of a poster. Yet, you continue to ignore the facts.

1. Devin Faraci is the source for this nonsense. He hates STID.
2. He reported it was done at a forum by Jordan Hoffman of One Trek Mind.
3. Faraci cites no vote count to the” poll.”
4. Faraci doesn’t tell you how the “poll was done.
5. This is important so don’t ignore this one. According to him, there was only one hundred fans in the forum.
6. There was about twelve thousand fans at the convention.
7. Galaxy Quest which is not a Star Trek movie was included in the “poll.”

Sources listed at 517. Red Dead Ryan is right. (530) And by the way RDR and I have had our disagreements.

Conclusion. The “poll’ was done from about one hundred Trekkers out of twelve thousand. Those who participated chose to be there at the forum. It’s not a valid survey such as one that might be taken by Public Policy Polling. The poll that we do know is this. Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing Star Trek movie in the franchise. Wikipedia.

It’s okay for you to dislike STID. But to cling to a poll that is not serious is intellectually disingenuous. One might think you have another agenda here. Is it to sow discord? Please sop it. Again, feel free to dislike STID but stop using erroneous information to back up your claim..

537. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

Yep this whole poll thing from Vegas is quite ridiculous. It’s hardly in anyway helpful in an argument about STID, because it’s hardly representative.

It’s a group of 100 people that were free right then during a huge convention.

It was in no way random (in the correct statistical use of the word).

Since the convention is huge and has ongoing events all over, those that came to the “mind meld” session were likely because of word of mouth. Which then means it is plausible that those 100 people were of a similar mindset, since they’re likely friends of friends of the person moderating the event, etc.

This is called convenience (or accidental) sampling and is cannot be used to make generalizations about a population.

Now if a random number generator were used and a large random sample was taken out of the 12,000 attendees by ticket number (or something similar) and people were polled as they entered the convention (so there would be a high response rate), it would be a much better source of data.

538. Trek Lady - September 16, 2013

504 “The only reason this movie is taking “heat” is the hatred of J.J.Abhrams.”

Please, please, PLEASE do not presume to tell people what they think or why they think it. It is certainly not the ONLY reason for people having issues with this movie. I personally have no feelings about Abrams one way or the other. My problems with STID have to do with the MOVIE itself as it was shown on the screen.

539. Phil - September 16, 2013

My son’s high school theater does Comedy Sportz, which also uses the ‘applause meter’ to register opinion, and it’s frequently subject to interpretation. It’s fun for the show, and that’s it. RE: the dubious Vegas ‘poll’, the Gong Show analogy has been confirmed from numerous sources – sufficient for me to conclude it’s not a legitimate survey of the popularity of the movie. I get some people don’t like it, and they are entitled to that opinion. However, the poll has been thoroughly discredited, it’s time to stop referring to it as legitimate proof of fan dislike of the new movies.

540. Basement Blogger - September 16, 2013

@ 535

Disinvited,

The post you cite is totally misquoted. Dickerson announces he will be giving two presentations. That’s it. You imply that he was at the ACTUAL FORUM where the “poll” took place. I just read his Trekmovie piece again. I’m not sure he was at the forum. Whereas Gary Seven says he was.

Regardless, Dickerson fails to note these points.

1. Does not cite how the “poll” was done.
2. Does not tell the vote count.
3. Does not note how many people were at the forum. (Jordan Hoffman’s One Trek Mind.)
4. Does not tell us overall attendance of the Convention so we can judge how many really hated STID.

Please feel free to tell everybody that you hate STID. But if you’re going to make factual arguments, make accurate ones. If you make intellectually dishonest arguments, one might think you’re here to needle people. Not good.

541. Dave H - September 16, 2013

@537 / Matt Wright: “Since the convention is huge and has ongoing events all over, those that came to the “mind meld” session were likely because of word of mouth. Which then means it is plausible that those 100 people were of a similar mindset, since they’re likely friends of friends of the person moderating the event, etc.”

Yes, that is what most of us here have concluded. I don’t get why Disinvited is so hung up on pretending that this poll is something to be taken seriously, when what we know about it points to it being just a silly orchestrated fan event?

542. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#536. Basement Blogger – September 16, 2013

I wasn’t trying to defend the poll per se but Dickerson’s equally valid right to that of Gary7 to make an observation on the mood of the crowd and comment on it.

Also, I have read both Dickerson’s Blog and Trekmovie editorial in neither does he cite what you claim are his “sources.”

#537. Matt Wright – September 16, 2013

An excellent and valid point about most polls bandied about here in general. Does internet polling truly have access to a random sample?

543. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#511. Marja – September 16, 2013

I could be mistaken but I think you are confusing the badass reporter with the person that ran Con dais. Those were two different people I believe. I haven’t run across anything that indicated Jordan Hoffman was biased against STID, but I am open and willing to being enlightened.

544. Dave H - September 16, 2013

@542. Sheesh, give it up, Disinvited. You argument is at the point of diminishing returns now.

Enough already!

545. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#541. Dave H – September 16, 2013

Well, obviously I acknowledge the poll itself may be wanting. But neither do I see it as a reason to exclude Dickerson’s personal observations from being at the Con itself.

And I don’t have a problem excluding that poll from consideration as long as everyone acknowledges that the polls held on this very site also suffer from random sampling deficiencies.

546. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

Oh yes the polls here are hardly indicative of things. So I hope people are not using them in an argument either. There’s a huge selection bias in a site called “Trek Movie” after all.

So let’s all agree to move on to more interesting points of discussion (that don’t use polls) shall we?

547. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

@543

What are you talking about? Jordan Hoffman has written publicized articles on nuTrek hate, including one this year with such a wonderfully homophobic title of:

“Why I’m Butt-Hurt About J.J. Abrams”

Yes, that is the actual title of of one of this “professional Star Trek journalists” articles. What kind of jackass uses the homophobic term “butt hurt” in any sort of article on Star Trek???

Yes, this is the “unbiased journalist” that you keep defending here.

548. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#546. Matt Wright – September 16, 2013

Agreed. And perhaps it would have been better if I had just let Joe speak for himself:

http://www.josephdickerson.com/blog/2013/09/12/so-i-wrote-this-article-for-trekmovie/

549. Dave H - September 16, 2013

“What are you talking about? Jordan Hoffman has written publicized articles on nuTrek hate, including one this year with such a wonderfully homophobic title of: “Why I’m Butt-Hurt About J.J. Abrams” Yes, that is the actual title of of one of this “professional Star Trek journalists” articles. What kind of jackass uses the homophobic term “butt hurt” in any sort of article on Star Trek???Yes, this is the “unbiased journalist” that you keep defending here.”

WOW!

CASE CLOSED!

550. Mike_J - September 16, 2013

To say this is going to be a lengthy post would be an understatement.

So you know how, as time goes on and societal attitudes change, you look back at past media and wonder how they thought certain things were ok, even when the people responsible for it genuinely thought they were forward thinking? I’m going to throw a grenade into the room here and say that yes, Star Trek is broken because its’ starting point was demonstrably, awfully, flawed and therefore all that proceeded from it was tainted.

Original series examples:

- The sexism on display by Pike towards Number One and Yeoman Colt in “The Cage”, or that line in “Turnabout Intruder” where they state that a woman cannot command a starship. Obviously the female captain of the Saratoga in Voyage Home, not to mention Janeway, addressed these sexism problems (even if they didn’t acknowledge the prior mistakes in dialogue), then to further complicate the matter you’ve got Erika Hernandez commanding the NX-02 a full century before “Turnabout Intruder”. If Gene Roddenberry had really wanted to push peoples’ buttons with “The Cage” he would have had a female captain even then.

- The more than slight hypocrisy of Bones regularly making racial comments towards Spock, while having episodes that addressed racism, both human and alien? Did nobody think “If Kirk is calling Stiles out on his bigotry in “Balance Of Terror”, why is he not similarly cutting McCoys’ nuts every time he remarks about the colour of Spocks’ blood or the shape of his ears?” If Trek regularly used allegory to push social issues, I can only imagine how anyone of mixed race

- The way the show dealt with the issue of sexual assault, on at least two separate occasions.
The manner in which Yeoman Rands’ allegation against Kirk is dealt with in that episode is just flat out appalling, and I can’t imagine how it would have been seen as ok even when it first went out in 1966. Grace Lee Whitney blasted that episode herself (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Enemy_Within_%28episode%29#Reception), and for good reason. Under no circumstances should the man accused of the attack have been placed in the same room with Rand, much less allowed to outright interrogate her a foot away from her face, with only two officers present who were 1) his friends and 2) not legal counsel, and 3) no other female officer there. How the hell, even in the sixties, did that part of the script ever make it to production?
Behind the scenes was no better than the episode;
“Grace Lee Whitney recounts that while shooting the scene when a distraught, tearful Janice Rand accuses Captain Kirk of trying to rape her, William Shatner slapped her across the face to get her to register the proper emotion. As they shot the rape scene days earlier, Whitney couldn’t get into the same emotion successfully, and it was Shatner’s “solution” to the problem. – Memory Alpha”

And a follow up outrage, Chekov under the influence of the Beta XII-A entity in “Day Of The Dove” tries to rape Mara. The only consequences of that are getting a slap from Kirk. Spock can somehow deduce simply from a visual examination that Chekov wasn’t in control of himself, and the horror of the act is never addressed again in the episode. At the very least, Chekov should have been immediately thrown in the brig while someone in the crew who is not his acknowledged friend goes through his psych evaluations with a fine tooth comb to be absolutely damn sure that this entity hasn’t awakened a pre-existing predilection in Chekov towards sexual assault, for the protection of the rest of the crew.
It gets worse though, because mere minutes after that, McCoy and Spock remark about racial bigotry being “most distatseful”. The original series wasn’t just unevenly written, it was swerving all over the road.

You may easily say “It was the sixties”, and to some extent you may be correct. The Civil Rights Movement was still ongoing, sexism was rife, combating homophobia in any way whatsoever was virtually unheard of. But here’s the thing; I’m starting to see the same creeping ick-factor in episodes of TNG.

- The experience David Gerrold had in pitching his AIDs allegory script “Blood and Fire” has reached a certain level of infamy, in part because it’s been seen as TNGs’ producers refusing to do an episode tackling homophobia. That Gerrolds’ script was itself a ham-fistedly offensive approach to the subject matter where one of the two gay men was written as “the wife” should not detract from the knowledge that Gene Roddenberrys’ lawyer was apparently about as bigoted as they come and had a hand in sabotaging any attempts to tackle the subject.

Moving on to episodes that actually were produced, let’s jump ahead to “Galaxys’ Child”, which I now cannot see as anything other than “Geordi laForge is guilty of stalker like behaviour and is damn creepy to his victims’ face about it.” Levar Burton and Susan Gibney do their best with what they’re given here, but take a step back for a moment. The episode as written tries to present Geordi to us as a lonely guy whose work life has thwarted his romantic life. Which is a perfectly legitimate plot thread.But the scene where Brahms confronts him about Holo-Brahms (“It’s like you’re touching me…” *shudder*) ends with him angrily telling her that she should be grateful for his attention and how dare she criticise him for it. Do industrial tribunals exist in the 24th century? Because Brahms would be perfectly within her rights to demand a restraining order at that point. To compound the creepiness of the writing even further, by the end of the episode they are sitting at a table together laughing about it.
Because that’s what women usually do when they discover that someone has created an artifical representation of them bordering on a shrine, prior to even meeting them in real life, right – go for a drink with their stalker, rather than punching them in the face and demanding they stay at least a hundred yards away at all times?

Season 5. The Outcast. What would we do without Memory Alpha;
“Rick Berman tried not to let perceptions of what the public would find acceptable “influence us too much” in the choice of Riker’s opposite, adding “but having Riker engaged in passionate kisses with a male actor might have been a little unpalatable to viewers.” (San Jose Mercury News, Grapevine, March 14, 1992)
Nevertheless, Jonathan Frakes felt otherwise and would later criticize the decision to cast women in the roles of the J’naii, as a love affair apparently shared between two men would have made the statement of the episode stronger.
Two lines of dialogue were cut from the final release: Noor explaining to Riker that the J’naii are by all measurements an enlightened race and Riker asking “Then how is it that Soren has no choice about her sexual orientation?”

Not even DS9 was immune to bouts of irrational hypocrisy where “taboo” relationships were concerned. Why is it that in the Mirror Universe, lesbianism seems to be far more prevalent? This is the universe that the show depicts as the evil, dark alternative to the regular “good” universe, and in that evil universe Kira, Ezri and Leeta prefer each others company. What are we supposed to interperet from that, exactly? Lesbians are evil? Or is the audience supposed to just be happy that homosexuality gets any screen time representation whatsoever, even in so clumsy a fashion? I must have blinked and missed the scene where two of the male Mirror characters pair up, so it’s only a percentage of representation anyway. BUT ONLY IN AN EVIL UNIVERSE. WHY.

Would it have been so incredibly difficult to have at least one scene in the entire run of any of the five Star Trek shows or any of the films where people of the same gender are shown, sitting quietly in the background of Ten Forward, or Quarks’, or the Replimat, or Voyagers’ mess hall, expressing some form of affection like a kiss or even just holding hands, without it being adressed by dialogue or even having any kind of attention drawn to it, to show that homophobia, like racism, is gone by the 24th century?

Apparently it would have, according to the background notes about “The Offspring”;

“In one of the scenes with Guinan tutoring Lal about Human sexuality, Whoopi Goldberg altered one of her script lines in order to turn a strictly heterosexual explanation into a gender-neutral version: “According to the script, Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, ‘When a man and a woman are in love …’ and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands[...] But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, ‘This show is beyond that. It should be ‘When two people are in love.’” It was also decided on set that the background of the scene show a same-sex couple holding hands, but “someone ran to a phone and made a call to the production office and that was nixed. [Producer] David Livingston came down and made sure that didn’t happen.” (TNG research assistant Richard Arnold)

—-

Now here’s the thing, and apologies if it goes slightly tangential;

As much as I’ve condemned these example where the show wasn’t as “politically correct” as it could have been, I couldn’t actually give a rats’ undescended testicle about political correctness. I despise the right and left wing establishment in almost equal measure, and there is no political party I’m aware of that I align with. I am quite militantly of the belief that racism, sexism, homophobia and religiously motivated bias are simply flat out wrong wherever and wherever they occur. To me, there is only one human race with varying levels of melanin accounting for skin pigmentation, and homosexuality being a trait found to be naturally occurring in swathes of mammalian species.
And to give credit where it’s due, the influence of Star Trek in its’ many incarnations may have been one of the contributing factors to that attitude. To that end, I’m quite prepared to use language that shocks people in order to deliberately offend them if I feel they deserve it, and my speech patterns are just as likely to include elaborately vicious insults as they are reasoned and logical debate. I don’t keep it PC because my beliefs are not politically motivated.

I probably identify more with the punk on the bus (who by the way, deserves justice for what was done to him).

It’s because of this perhaps, that I enjoy seeing more complex writing in TV and film. If something is being done, I want to see it done right. Angles explored, conclusions not jumped to, layers stripped away, perspectives analysed. And I long ago stopped thinking of TOS as being complex. It wasn’t. As laudable as some of its’ goals were/are, it was still an inconsistenly written patchwork of ideas that didn’t always gel and often contradicted itself not just from episode to episode, but from scene to scene, and there were occasions where its’ producers were outright cowardly. To hold either the original show or the franchise as a whole up as a shining example of all that is good and pure about either aspirations towards the future or (just about producing good, quality television for that matter) is analogous to being a member of the Flat Earth Society.

Would I like to see a future where humanity explores interstellar space, free of bigotry and predjudice? Wholeheartedly yes. Do I want to see that come about in the manner depicted by Star Trek? I’d rather sink every recording of the show to the bottom of San Francisco bay in a replica Bird Of Prey.

551. Mike_J - September 16, 2013

There’s an end of a sentence missing from post #550 regarding mixed race viewers potential response to one of the supposed heroes of the show making prejudicial remarks towards a character of mixed heritage. Not sure how it ended up getting lost.

552. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#547. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – September 16, 2013

Thanks for the enlightenment on his JJ hurt, but the article you cite bears little evidence of this nuTrek hate of which you speak:

“At the end of the day, though, Star Trek ending up being, in my opinion, a fantastic film. Yeah, the red matter stuff and Nero waiting around the parallel-universe black hole for a bunch of years doesn’t quite make sense (even if you did read the tie-in comics) and having Uhura order Slusho reeked of hubris, but it is still a miraculous achievement.” – Jordan Hoffman

And reflects pretty much what little I know of him from startrek.com

However if there’s some meat to him hating STID, I have faith Marja will provide.

553. Marja - September 16, 2013

543, Dis, I confused Devin Faraci and Jordan Hoffman. Sorry. I personally would be very interested to read the “summary” of the “One Trek Mind” panel, written to attract fans to that panel. It would be from the programming line-up. Many such summaries are written to attract people who want to listen to the panelist’s or panelists’ point of view for the reasons I give next. Most people attending are in agreement with the presenters, or want to politely debate them.

Just curious, y’know?

554. Oscar - September 16, 2013

Ok. if you want to read David Mack’s article.
http://www.davidmack.pro/blog/?p=4532#more-4532
Mack is not a hater, Mack is not an anti Abrams,Mack is a bestseller trek author, Mack liked ST 2009, but he did not like STID and his point is very good.
If you want to know why a lot fans are disappointed, Mack’s reasoning is better than a bunch of fans in Las Vegas. Las Vegas convention is only a bit of fever, and fever means ill.

555. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

@552

Nice try. That’s him talking about Star Trek 2009, not STID, which is what your old quote is about. Here’s an example of a typical comment of his on STID:

“You can practically see Abrams in story meetings, sixteen cellphones held by assistants up to his head as he closes deals on television shows, saying “yeah, yeah, we gotta have the line!” with no actual understanding about what it means”

And while he does claim he likes some of the movie, he obviously, as you can see from my previous post, has major issues with JJ Abrams.

This guy thinks he is “some big deal” on the Internet; but he aint!

556. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#549. Dave H – September 16, 2013

Look:

http://www.startrek.com/article/exclusive-interview-damon-lindelof

that is what I know of him and I don’t see any evidence in that that Bad Robot or Damon view him as some sort of antiSTID hitman reporter.

I find it refreshing that he can lay his JJ cards on the table and still praise nuTrek as “miraculous.” Doesn’t seem to be a case of total negative bias to me.

557. Dave H - September 16, 2013

@554. Sure, I like Mack and accept his opinion and comments. But that doesn’t translate in the slightest for me assigning anything more than a fart to that atrocity in Vegas that some claim was a poll.

And David Mack, while most of his Trek novels are very highly rated, frankly slipped a bit with a couple of mediocre Trek novels in that Trek Corps of Engineers series. So he has first hand experience with producing some Trek works that weren’t quite as good as some of his better efforts on Trek (i.e. just like STID isn’t quite as good at Trek 2009); so he, if anyone, should appreciate that!

558. Dave in RI - September 16, 2013

Star Trek is not broken, but may be more accurate to say its needle is stuck– (those born after 1980 may have to Google the reference).

The last three movies were all about a villain bent on revenge, using a big, black ship. Someone needs to tap the needle so we can go on to something new and different.

559. Dave H - September 16, 2013

Disinvited,

My sense on this is that Jordan likes “internet fame,” dislikes JJ, and that his mission at the Vegas Con was to make a splash that would embarrass JJ, while also giving himself more fan credo/fame on the internet.

And, look now, he’s largely achieved this — case in point, we have been hearing about this poll for weeks here, and now we all know this previously unknown fat guy nerd who thinks he’s a big shot Trek fan on the internet.

(and I say this as an unknown fat guy nerd myself…lol)

560. Dave H - September 16, 2013

One could certainly argue that Jodan’s “poll” led to a lot of animosity that was already festering between fans who like JJTrek and who don’t like, which the led to the “Simon Pegg F-bomb Incident,” which then led to the now famous “Amhed – Orci Confrontation” on this site, which then led to Orci leaving this site.

So, what I would say to Jordan to his face if I saw him in person would be this:

Great job with that “poll,” there, Mr. “JJ’s Damaged My Anus Guy” — you are to Bjo Trimble in Trek fandom, what Miley Cyrus is to Adelle in music.

561. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#559. Dave H – September 16, 2013

So far all I’ve gotten is that he is mad at JJ for leaving him at the prom for STAR WARS.

In his review which I dug up out of impatience:

http://screencrush.com/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

he takes some shots but ultimately concludes:

“If you are looking for snappy quotes, I can look you in the eye and say this picture moves, dazzles and delights. The Enterprise and all the people on it are gorgeous. It’s just that by front-loading so much on the visceral thrills and our affection (adoration? exaltation?) of these characters, there’s just no room for the rather tangled storyline.

The ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ roller coaster will get you gasping and being with our beloved Starfleet pals again will make you laugh and cry. It’s when you start unraveling the script that you may need your deflector shields. When you consider how many moving parts there are in a production like this (and just how easy it would have been for this to be plain awful) I think it’s time to invoke Meat Loaf’s Law: two out of three ain’t bad.” – Jordan Hoffman

You may well be right about his motivations but if that is the case somehow, this far, he’s managed to not step over the line that would eject him from startrek.com

And of one thing I am certain, Joseph Dickerson doesn’t reflect that with regards to himself.

562. Marja - September 16, 2013

554 Oscar, David Mack’s words sound mighty familiar. Could he actually have been appearing on this board under a nom de guerre? Or did fans crib from his review … hmmm

As to Jordan Hoffman and Devin Faraci, MORE than enough said. GAGHHHHH!

563. The Keeper - September 16, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness may have been a good movie, unfortunately it wasn’t a story that needed to be told.
The entire retelling of the Khan story almost worked for as long as it was being done in a totally new way, But it was ruined by the inclusion of lifting and mixing up scenes and dialogue for Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan and masquerading it as an “Homage” which only created a cringe effect for both old and new fans.
It was a scene that was completely unneeded and ineffectual, so badly tagged on that it became infuriating to watch.
It was a poor attempt at a gimmick.

Now I am sure Orci is still popping in even if only to read what other comments might be aimed at him and his writing partners.
Maybe just maybe he’ll read comments suggesting moving on with the 5 yr mission and present us with something totally mind blowing and new…but I am sure he and his writing team will interpret that as us wanting another Khan vs. Klingons vs. Federation story…then lie throw his teeth up to the release date that the story is not about Khan vs. the Klingons vs. the Federation.

Naturally they will force every one involved in the production to swear silence on the matter and lie throw their teeth to every one including the media…oh lets face it, they are just going to lie to us no matter what.

564. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#553. Marja – September 16, 2013

Agreed.

FWIW, so far he seems to have a JJ bias that he’s open about but he gives a thumbs up to the two films and so doesn’t appear to be the rabid Khanish STID hater that some try to paint.

He may be a Chuck Barris type opportunist as Dave H surmises. Can’t say at this point. But if we had the information you seek, I’m certain we could.

565. Disinvited - September 16, 2013

#560. Dave H – September 16, 2013

Ssssshhhhh! I thought we were going to put that 4 letter word on hiatus for a while.

FWIW he didn’t solely target STID he had various types:

http://www.startrek.com/article/star-trek-las-vegas-2013-day-1-recap

Even defended Keenser.

566. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

500 posts and not ONE of you could take a momemnt to view and comment.

Never forget, my ass.

—-

previously…

67. Other Guy – September 13, 2013
This one’s for you @39. Russell Meyers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HlUmmPBoLg

If you have the time to sit through an hour and twenty minutes. But then again you did sit through Star Trek into Darkness.

567. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

And thanks for NOT deleting that post, TrekMovie. : )

That does say something.

568. Dave H - September 16, 2013

OMG,

I wish you had not sent me that link, Disinvited. Would you believe that “another poll” at that convention rated TOS music last place in all Trek series, even below that of Enterprise? Yes, Enterprise — with that horrid opening song?

Seriously, what morons voted on polls at that convention? It’s like,sheesh, ANOTHER COUNTER-INTUITIVE STAR TREK POLL FROM VEGAS ???

You know, now I understand the saying, “What Happens in Vegas, Stays In Vegas”, as the polls I am seeing from that convention are just jackass-level wack???

569. A parallel universe co-existing with ours on another dimensional plane. - September 16, 2013

Who Does it better?

http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/original-star-trek-vs-new-star-trek/

570. Dave H - September 16, 2013

@566. You should have been in Vegas. You are the kind of person they need to vote nonsensical responses in polls.

571. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

@ The Keeper

“but I am sure he and his writing team will interpret that as us wanting another Khan vs. Klingons vs. Federation story…then lie throw his teeth up to the release date that the story is not about Khan vs. the Klingons vs. the Federation.”

Yea, I remember a similar incident several years ago where Bob lay down and then threw his dentures at someone. It has horrible.

I’m just glad that Ahmed didn’t up with cuts in his face from Orci’s flying teeth during their little brush up several weeks back.

572. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

Yeah, and you know your type. And if you knew STiD you would realize just how realivant that post was.

Just like some have critisized boborci and JJ’s STiD for saying no one would allow a Marcus-type to get away with such madness, Well You have all illustrated this point perfectly, by not caring enough to even post a single logical response to why or how this could be explained.

I hope you all enjoy your high militarized despotic futures. You all deserve it.

And double-nonsensical0dittos to you too, Dave.

573. Dave H - September 16, 2013

@571. I’m still not going to view your wackjob link.

574. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

Eyes wide shut, eh dave?

575. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

pussy.

576. Dave H - September 16, 2013

There coming to get you soon!

577. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

@ Other Guy

Roger, ID-10-T

1033 Renegade Oscar

Twin-T-Clean Procedure 9-12-01

Falsify-Falsify-Deadman

Confirm?

578. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

Tell you what Dave. Your sounding a bit Troll-like. But I will propose an honest deal with you,

IF you watch the full one hour and twenty minutes, and post your comments on why you think this video is wrong, in a logical manner that even partly makes sense, THEN if you like, I will never post here again.
As TrekMadeMeWonder, or as Other Guy, or as anyone else ever.

But it has to make sense.

579. Dave H - September 16, 2013

I don’t feed zealots.

580. Dave H - September 16, 2013

@576

LOL

Yep! :-))

581. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 16, 2013

You lose, Dave H.

Now, I can move past you in all future debates. Troll.

582. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 16, 2013

Or, more accurately, pussy-troll.

583. Dave H - September 16, 2013

I’ve never been so happy to lose something.

THANK YOU !!!

“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for…move along.”

584. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 16, 2013

No one is laughing, Dave.

585. Dave H - September 16, 2013

@581, Well, back in my twenties, perhaps. Good times !!

586. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 16, 2013

Dave, seriously. Take a moment to watch and review. Thanks.

587. MJB - September 16, 2013

@ Other Guy
“I hope you all enjoy your high militarized despotic futures. You all deserve it.”

Why thank you, OG, I will enjoy it!

588. Dave H - September 16, 2013

With all due respect, you should be confident enough in your own political/conspiracy views, whatever they are, that you shouldn’t feel the need to convert Star Trek fans on a fan site (this is not a political conspiracy internet site) about this. The fact that you are practically begging me to review your internet conspiracy theory video shows me that you are desperate for validation — and desperate to convert others to your view. Sorry, but I am not going to provide you “your fix,” and give you the platform you seek here to expand on your nutty views.

pros·e·lyt·ize
ˈpräsələˌtīz/Submit
verb
1.
convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

589. MJB - September 16, 2013

@ Other Guy
This fake moon landing video is right up your alley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

590. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

Pussy-Troll with eyes wide shut. In other words. Your a pathetic coward.

Oh well. Wrong avenue on the wrong forum.

I thought this was a place for people that cared about the world and thought alot about how to improve the future.

591. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

@586 “Why thank you, OG, I will enjoy it!”

MJB — I like it! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Yea, I’m also living the military-industrialist dream, and loving it. ;-)

592. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

You too MJB. AKA Dave H.

593. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

590. Admiral Archer’s Prize Bitch

Pathetic.

594. Dave H - September 16, 2013

“Pussy-Troll with eyes wide shut.”

Tom Cruise’s character in that Kubrick film?

595. Dave H - September 16, 2013

Who really is the poster here who is actively assuming two identities here today?

(Clue: YOU)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
591. Other Guy – September 16, 2013
You too MJB. AKA Dave H.

596. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

When you guys want to discuss the video in a logical way instead of your cowardly teen spirited responses. Post me.

Until then, take a moment to watch. Its not all that exciting, nut I love the way the maker of this vid sets things up for the finale. Great Job! And, its not just another one of your average 911 vids.

Ok. One last time. Because I still believe there is good in you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HlUmmPBoLg

597. Curious Cadet - September 16, 2013

@529. Aurore,
“I personally still don’t understand why Mr.Orci felt the way he did about khan, or rather I should say that I was never convinced by the explanations he gave regarding the change in ethnicity of Khan Noonien Singh.”

Let’s just thank our lucky stars Orci didn’t have anything to do with “Life of Pi”, otherwise we would have had Daniel Radcliff as Pi in order to avoid demonizing someone of color as both a murderer and a cannibal.

598. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

595. Dave H

Dave. Wow! You spotted a conspiracy. Don;t say anything again, OK. Cause people will call you a bad name.

599. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

Okay enough! Things were going mostly okay before I went to dinner, now I come back to find all kinds of attacks going on.

Warnings to Other Guy and Dave H, TrekMadeMeWonder and MJB.

600. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

597. Curious Cadet

You still did not get the message of Trek into Darkness?

IT’S THE WHITE GUY THAT DID IT.

Just like dave and everyone else here. It’s just too in your face.

601. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

You may want to rewatch IM3 again, as well.

602. Other Guy - September 16, 2013

Just defending myself here, Matt. Cause there seems to be little moderation when people say unfounded nasty things.

603. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

And no one here is sockpupetting, unless they’re going to a lot of trouble. All of the posters here originated from different IP addresses.

So drop that right now.

604. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

@ 602 – No need to defend, notice I caught it and warned people. If I started deleting posts I’d get attacked for censorship. Feeding into the negativity just makes it worse.

605. Dave H - September 16, 2013

@603. Matt, actually “Other Guy” is switching back and forth between TrekMadeWeWonder and Other Guy.

And also, he is trying to bully people into watching his 911 Truther video, which is totally inappropriate. I tried to handle him with humor, but he insisted on keep trying to force me to watch his crackpot video.

That’s all. Later….

606. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

Nope, as I said, I can see the comments in detail that you cannot. It’s not the same guy unless he’s using an anonymizing proxy or VPN, etc. to post one set of comments.

607. Dave H - September 16, 2013

OK, Matt, but he even admitted that he is both of these people previously.

Anyway, I won’t belabor this. Thanks for your efforts, Matt. I am calling it a night now.

608. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

@ OtherGuy/TrekMadeMeWonder — you’ve posted your video a few times now, either people will watch it and comment on it or they won’t. That’s enough of that.

609. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

Yikes, my mistake, OtherGuy and TrekMadeMeWonder are indeed the same person. I dunno what I was looking at when I made the other comments.

This is a serious warning OtherGuy/TrekMadeMeWonder, play around with two screen names simultaneously again and you’ll be banned.

You’ve been using TrekMadeMeWonder the longest (since 2007), so I suggest you stick with it.

610. Phil - September 16, 2013

@541. John Edward, the guy who professes to speak with the dead, had (has??) a show where he was, well, speaking with the dead. And his audience was screened – if you did not have someone close to you pass away in the previous couple of months, you didn’t get in the studio. So, when Mr. Edward would start the show, throw out some bulls**t question about grief, and a half dozen audience members would start sobbing, it sure as hell looked like he was on to something.

Further evidence the mind meld survey (won’t call it a poll any more), if the participants were hand selected, was a complete farce. Switch out the topic, if everyone in the room was lactose intolerant, and the first question was, ‘who hates milk’, why would we not be surprised at the response? What a headline – ‘Trekkies Hate Milk’…stupid, to be sure, but a few people see perfectly happy to believe what they are told.

611. Phil - September 16, 2013

@609. Yep, he’s been pretty open about that for a few weeks now…

612. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 16, 2013

Oh, Matt. I am always VERY open about who I am posting as.

I agree, it could cause confusion and yes it has. My apologies are offered.

I will eliminate use of the Other Guy. Although, he does have anger issues.

613. MJB - September 16, 2013

@Matt
Sorry – - I’ll try to behave myself.

614. Matt Wright - September 16, 2013

@ TrekMadeMeWonder – Yep, I see you’ve playing the little two-name-game for about a year now. That’s my fault for not really paying that much attention to it until now.

I hope behind your cute response about discontinuing your use of “Other Guy” is sincerity. Failure to comply means a ban from commenting.

615. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

TrekMadeMeWonder,

Dealing out “confusion and trickery” is not an honorable way to carry yourself on this site.

And please stop trying to convert people to your political conspiracy beliefs. This is a Star Trek fan site.

Thank You!

616. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 16, 2013

C’mon Matt. That was an “Avengers” reference. But I hear ya.

Concerning the YouTube link above. I do believe it is fair fodder for discussion in this forum since Star Trek into Darkness did touch on such obvious 911 themes. And if some are still with the idea that we should jest about such a touchy topic, or call a name at someone when someone is saying. “hey better look out for this stuff.” then it is still time to call out this type of propaganda as being proper as a topic of discussion – and not fear being ridiculed.

Seriously, Take a look at that video. I found it very telling. And, If I may presume that you have an interest, I’d sure like to here your thoughts too, Matt.

Peace.

617. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

Matt, I do not think this is the appropriate site for TrekMadeMeWonder to be spewing his political conspiracy beliefs.

And really, how many more times do we have to listen to him begging us to watch this political conspiracy advocacy video?

I feel like some Mooney is trying to force me into a cult here. It’s unseemly, and beneath the Spirit of Star Trek.

618. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 16, 2013

@Mike_J #550
”Not even DS9 was immune to bouts of irrational hypocrisy where “taboo” relationships were concerned. Why is it that in the Mirror Universe, lesbianism seems to be far more prevalent? This is the universe that the show depicts as the evil, dark alternative to the regular “good” universe, and in that evil universe Kira, Ezri and Leeta prefer each others company. What are we supposed to interperet from that, exactly? Lesbians are evil? Or is the audience supposed to just be happy that homosexuality gets any screen time representation whatsoever, even in so clumsy a fashion? I must have blinked and missed the scene where two of the male Mirror characters pair up, so it’s only a percentage of representation anyway. BUT ONLY IN AN EVIL UNIVERSE. WHY.”

It wasn’t only in the Mirrorverse, and the fact that it’s a different universe doesn’t automatically make it “EVIL.” They just had different things going on. There was an episode where Jadzia and another woman were kind of in love because their past selves had been married. Yes, one was a man and one was a woman, but I think the episode was trying to say, by using 2 female characters to display this love, that gender doesn’t matter because love is love. I think that was a very daring point to make at that time.

The same love their former selves felt for one another as a heterosexual couple was still very strong for both of them as 2 women. Some people try to criticize the fact that the episode drew on their former hosts, but I thought it was a great way to send a message about love and how it transcends…

If you want to really pick the one episode that was problematic out of somewhere close to 180 episodes that were filmed and aired, then that would be Profit and Lace… But even that wasn’t as bad as what I’ve seen other places…

”Would it have been so incredibly difficult to have at least one scene in the entire run of any of the five Star Trek shows or any of the films where people of the same gender are shown, sitting quietly in the background of Ten Forward, or Quarks’, or the Replimat, or Voyagers’ mess hall, expressing some form of affection like a kiss or even just holding hands…”

Well, to be honest, I can’t recall (from what I’ve seen) any couple displaying much public affection to my recollection, but I trust you’ve seen all of all 5 series to make your assessment.

The only thing that comes to mind for me is Jadzia and Worf’s wedding where I think they kiss… That’s a special occasion, though… Mostly you had people on duty, and even off duty, they were still professionals, so most affection was behind closed doors. That was true for Jadzia and her former lover/wife. I believe they were affectionate in one of their quarters.

They really wanted to be together and they were the same gender. Considering the time, that may have been as much as they were allowed to do on the show, kind of like Kirk kissing Uhura had to be because of some kind of influence on TOS… However, I do think a step is a step.

”Would I like to see a future where humanity explores interstellar space, free of bigotry and predjudice? Wholeheartedly yes.”

Here, here. :-)

@551 Mike_J

When did that happen, and on what show??

619. Garak's Pride - September 16, 2013

Hello All,

Took a few days off. Back now, and see some of the same kind of nonsense that I was trying to help Matt calm down last week is still going on.

I am particularly disappointed to see a person using sock-puppeting to aid his outreach campaign for people to sign on to his political conspiracy beliefs. That is not appropriate here, and I would urge everyone to not feed that person’s sycophantic need for attention.

Matt, my friend, I hear you on your policy of not censoring, but I think when people start posting things that are not Star Trek related (e.g. 911 Truther videos), you certainly can remove those “not applicable” posts without any concern. Because censorship here would apply to Star Trek topics only, since that is the topic area for this site.

620. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 16, 2013

Matt,

Except the “other” guy posting the link said it had something to do with STID, iirc. So, it’s related in some way… Lots of people talk about Star Trek in ways that shoot off in different directions, and I don’t think you need help modding. I don’t plan on watching it myself, but I don’t see the harm in posting it (once) if people want to see it. That’s just my opinion.

621. Marja - September 16, 2013

Other Guy/TrekMadeMeWonder: wow, so you’re the same person, huh? So the first one is nasty and the other one is sometimes almost reasonable.

In either case, I not only find the word “pussy” relating to anything but a cat [felis domesticus] pejorative,sexist, inappropriate and highly offensive.

Please stop using it. Matt will not censor this site, so please “check yourself before you wreck yourself.”

622. TrekMadeMeWonder (for others - Intollerant) - September 16, 2013

Save you guys the trouble.

In closing I would say that these last two Treks have taken 911 thories as a theme for their stories and therby made it part of discussion here.

I guess we are NOT suppossed to talk about such things, Eh, Spock/Uhura Admirer, Garak’s Pride, Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle and Dave H.
You will have the floor here to shoot down everything I’ve said now.

But saying you think I am a truther or something cause I posted a video link, That is unbalanced and illogical. It would have made more sense to rebut the video for its message. But I see that intellecual discussion about Trek or some events on 911 are just a taboo topic around here, for what ever reasons, I don’t know.

But I am beginning to understand why others have stopped posting here. boborci, buckaroohawk (remember him?), others. There just is not ANY room for real topics that matter. Even if the topic inspired a good part of your recent Star Treks into Darkness.

Thanks, All! It was fun here.

peace.

623. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 16, 2013

^You know, I almost said something about the use of that word, Marja, but I didn’t want to get into an argument. Needless to say, I totally agree. It’s essentially insulting another male by calling him a female, as if that’s bad or something…

624. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

@621. Agreed, Marja.

This is poor behavior. “TrekMadeMeBehaveLikeAnAss” would be the current name that I would give this guy. He has a lot of fence-mending here to do with many of us at this point.

A good start would be an apology from him to all of us on this site, for both the sock-puppeting confusion, and the use of sexist and insulting language to others.

625. Garak's Pride - September 16, 2013

Ref: Admiral Archer’s PrizeBeagle

That is a great idea. A major apology from TrekMadeWeWonder to the community here would certainly be a good start for him to start rebuilding his damaged image here.

626. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 16, 2013

He already apologized for the double screen names.

TrekMadeMeWonder Post#612

“I agree, it could cause confusion and yes it has. My apologies are offered.”

I don’t think anyone needs to make this more major than it is. If he chooses to apologize for the sexist term, then okay. The best thing, though, would be simply not to use it again. The apology would be the cherry on top. And frankly, he’s not the only one guilty of name-calling, which at this point I think is a bigger problem here and involves multiple people… Once again, just my observation and opinion…

627. Garak's Pride - September 16, 2013

@625. Spock/Uhura Admirer, if I ruffled your feathers last week in my attempt to bring some peace to this site, I apologize. I certainly hope you aren’t interjecting yourself in this discussion just to “pay me back” for that?

628. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 16, 2013

@625. Easy for you to say. He didn’t call you a “bitch,” like he did me.

And well all know that your response would no doubt be “nuclear” if anybody here ever dared to call you that. ;-)

629. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 16, 2013

^More senseless baiting… I was called a “b*tch” by another “semi-retired” poster here, and my response was not “nuclear” in the least. It was mainly disappointment that a woman, supposedly a mature woman, would call another woman that… So your assumptions are unfounded and false.

But thank you for your concern, Beagle…

630. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 16, 2013

And I didn’t expect or even ask for an apology from her. In fact, I knew I wouldn’t get one…

631. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 17, 2013

@627. Do you even understand what the ;-) means?

Lighten up. My god, you are melodramatic with the Perry Mason-like “your assumptions are unfounded and false” stuff.

Sorry, for Christ’s sake.

632. StelArian - September 17, 2013

I really don’t think TrekMovie.com is a place to find out if Star Trek is broken or not. For me TrekMovie.com is my daily Star Trek Newspaper. And I really hope will stay like that!

633. Garak's Pride - September 17, 2013

#627. “More senseless baiting”?

AAPB and others were called very nasty names, and you come in here out of nowhere (wasn’t really any of you business?) and pretty much infer: ‘hey don’t worry about it, and go ahead and watch the guy’s creepy video too while your at it, folks’

I don’t really get your act here? What is your point. Why are you even involved in this discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with you?

And, by the way, I won’t play your game and go back and fourth with you on this. This will be my only post on this subject.

Shame of you, Spock/Uhura Admirer. I hope Matt is seeing this?

Have a nice day!

634. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

496. Marcus – September 16, 2013

Good points.

I loved Firefly and Serenity also. But can you imagine Ron Moore’s Star Trek?
I don’t know if something that gritty and “real” would work for Trek—maybe something in between Pollyanna and Moore’s dark, gritty BSG (which I loved)—but it sure would be exciting to see what he came up with…and obviously he has plenty of Trek experience, knowledge and cred.

635. This Blog Is Bad And You Should Feel Bad - September 17, 2013

The title of this article might as well have been “Bob Orci got pissed off that we allowed the editorial that made him look like an insensitive a-hole to be posted, so here’s our attempt at making him happy.”

636. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

499. MJB – September 16, 2013

—@487
The first half of your comment was well done. Then you turned 180 degrees into a hater with “we won’t have to kiss Orci’s a$$ anymore.” Nice try, but you just couldn’t help turning your post into a negative. Blah, blah, blah.—

I appreciate you reading it all.

That’s basically how I’ve felt about Bob Orci’s presence here since 2009, that TrekMovie had been kissing his ass. Not the most sophisticated phrasing, but accurate. It wasn’t a positive statement because I found the arrangement to be something of a turn-off. The positive part was where I said that I was glad to see it discontinue. ;-)

—Also, I couldn’t help but laugh when you said Joseph Dickerson is a journalist. Come on, dude.—

Well, he’s not writing for the NY Times, but he’s not a plumber, either. What he’s doing is journalism, notwithstanding that it’s for an internet fan site. He went to an event (TrekCon ’13) observed, interviewed people and reported back, adding his own thoughts about it all. That’s what journalism is.

637. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

501. Red Dead Ryan – September 16, 2013

—Please — Trek was broken in after “Nemesis” and “Enterprise”. It was irrelevent. Now, it may not be experiencing the heights that it did in the early to late nineties, but it ain’t broke. Not by a long shot.—

Have you seen Season 4 of Enterprise? When it originally aired I stopped watching Enterprise halfway through Season 2 because I’d just lost interest, but when it came to Netflix I watched Season 4 at the urging of some people here and it was awesome! In fact, it was so good that it made me re-watch the entire series just to get more context and backstory to the events that take place in Season 4. And Season 3, when Manny Coto was first brought in, was also a marked improvement over Season 2.

But I totally agree with you about Nemesis…and all of the TNG movies, for that matter. Even First Contact had some bad plot holes.

I’m not saying that Trek was better immediately before Bad Robot took it over than it is now. It’s definitely a more lucrative commercial endeavor now, but it’s also not Star Trek; it’s a Bad Robot space-action-movie franchise exploiting the 50-year history, iconic characters and images of Star Trek. And it also happens to be poorly written. But that’s fine. I’m totally cool with badly written action movies whose main appeal is titillating visuals and fast-cut chase scenes. What I’m not cool with is it being a Trek changeling (in the original meaning of the word).

638. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

511. Marja – September 16, 2013

I haven’t read anything about those kind of details of the TrekCon vote, but if your info is accurate, your points are all fair. But it’s good that he wrote the article even if it was slanted in favor of his personal opinion. And you can’t deny that a bulk of the complaints about BR’s Trek coming from fans are also expressed by top film critics.

Maybe “broken” wasn’t the best word, but there’s definitely something rotten in Denmark. Spock was the most popular character from TOS. NBC got more fan mail about Spock than about Kirk, even. The fans LOVED Spock. He became an iconic character in Western pop culture, a literary archetype, even. And now the iconic, emotionless, uber-logical character breaks down and cries in every movie because Trek has been taken over by someone who never understood TOS or its appeal. That’s just one small example, but it’s emblematic of the “brokenness” that JD was describing.

639. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

517. Basement Blogger – September 16, 2013

Someone else also took the “kiss Bob Orci’s ass” bit as mean. It does stand out as less polite than what came before it in my post, but I think it gets the point across effectively. And consider that bit in context: after years of reliable advocacy and support and almost no criticism from TrekMovie, Bob Orci became angry and took offense at the first article that was seriously critical of his movie. Doesn’t that seem to you like someone who’d gotten used to having his ass kissed?

—Just because fans love Bob Orci’s work or Bad Robot’s Star Trek doesn’t turn them into sycophants.—

It doesn’t but it’s not the love expressed about his work that was coming across as sycophancy. I’d see posters here complaining in a thread about something in ST’09 or STID, and then boborci would make an appearance and those same posters who’d been critical of his movie would do a 180 and have nothing but nice things to say about it and Bad Robot’s Trek in general. It was a real turn-off and wasn’t doing Trek any good.

Also consider that after he regained his composure, Bob Orci told JD that he respected this site even more because of the “broken” article. Even Bob Orci knows that this site had been kissing his ass.

640. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

——————————About “The Poll”——————————

I believe you!

I mean, it still might be relevant that a minority faction felt strongly enough to bash STID at a TrekCon, but let’s put that aside and stipulate that the poll was total bunk and irrelevant.

All of my friends had the same complaints about STID that I did and that a lot of posters here have expressed. Top critics have expressed those same complaints, even as many of them recommended the movie for entertainment value: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

And then there are the in-depth reviews, one of which I cited in a previous post, which list those very same problems with STID and Bad Robot’s Trek in general. What am I driving at? They all say the same thing. There are criticisms coming from many directions and sources which are all in agreement. Among those who find serious problems with STID and with BR’s Trek in general, a consensus has formed. And it’s only right and good that this consensus be represented at a Trek fan site such as this one. I’m sure that JD’s article could have been done better, but it got his point across, and his point is shared by a growing number of Trek fans.

Yes, it was exciting at first to have Bob Orci here posting regularly. But I’d rather have good quality, respectable true-to-Trek movies than a rare back-and-forth with a famous guy.

How do I feel about BR’s Trek? Plinkett said it best in his ST’09 review: Trek has become a guilty pleasure. Did I have a fun time in the theater watching ST’09 and STID? Yes. But the following day I could barely remember what the movies were about because they were so lacking in thematic development and character arc and their plots were so poorly constructed. And the whole STID rip-off of the classic death scene from Khan actually OFFENDED me. Yes, it actually feels like a gross injustice was perpetrated by Bad Robot. And I’m not alone in this feeling either.

Bad Robot makes fun, titillating space-action movies which the majority of top film critics find to be less than well written. And that’s all totally fine. I can appreciate fun eye-candy schlock as much as anyone. I don’t need Hamlet every time. But Bad Robot’s fun eye-candy schlock style of filmmaking is not compatible with the 45 years of Trek that preceded it; it merely exploits the iconic characters, imagery and backstory of those 45 years of Trekdom. And if you don’t think “broken” is the best word for movies that make lots of money, fine. But there’s definitely something rotten on Ceti Alpha V.

641. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

P.S. I know what you’re going to say…

So, you’re saying that Nemesis and Insurrection and Generations and STV weren’t schlock?!? Is THAT what you want a return to???

No.

There’s no shortage of schlock in Trek’s past. What I want is something better going forward that is also true to Trek.

Are BR’s Trek movies well made? Absolutely. They’re the height of slickitude in action/fantasy filmmaking. As I said, I had a fun time in the theater having my eyes take it all in.

But it wasn’t a Trek movie. Neither was ST’09. I’d like a well-made movie which is also true to Trek. And I’ll gladly give up some of the sizzle for some more steak. And a cohesive plot.

642. Oscar - September 17, 2013

@562
Oh, Marja, This is not a conspiration antiAbrams. My point is there is a lot of trekkers who dislike this movie. Not only a few vocal fans, and they have arguments. Good arguments. Not bias, but arguments. For instance, David Mack.And for instance the most important treksite in Europe
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/trekxi.htm
If you search, you will find a lot of treksites and trekpeople who did not like STID.
In my opinion, a vast majority of fans are disappointed. Some fans, a bit, some fans, tons. But a vast majority. It is not a tragedy. ST IV was a good film, ST V a mediocre movie, ST VI, a good film again. Next film will be better.
ST is not broken, ST is devoid of soul, right now. And you can not buy a soul with a megabudget. You need love and good ideas.

643. Aurore - September 17, 2013

@ 597. Curious Cadet – September 16, 2013

“Let’s just thank our lucky stars Orci didn’t have anything to do with ‘Life of Pi’, otherwise we would have had Daniel Radcliff as Pi in order to avoid demonizing someone of color as both a murderer and a cannibal.
___________

Daniel Radcliffe?

Enough with the nonsense, Curious Cadet !

…Only actors born in 1937 in Wales can competently portray murderers and cannibals.

I thought you knew that !

(Joking aside, I did not see “Life of Pi”, but heard some good things about it.).

644. star trackie - September 17, 2013

639 “If you search, you will find a lot of treksites and trekpeople who did not like STID.
In my opinion, a vast majority of fans are disappointed. ”

From what I’ve seen you’re right, but to an extent. One, it’s usually a handful of the same offended fans, repeating endlessly AND on multiple trek sites, the same song and dance. So the illusion is there, of huge dissatisfaction, but it’s not really indicative of reality. And the other thing is, this majority of fans are usually from one of two groups. 24th century fans who have sour grapes that their era is over. They are so unfamiliar with TOS and brainswashed by almost 20 years of Bermanized Trek, they honestly believe TOS was cut from a similar cloth. Which is total hogwash.
JJ’s Trek’s honor TOS and that is all they are required to do. The other group of Into Darkness bashers are the Khan obsessed fanatics. “…Different race!”… “stolen dialog…”, ” half-assed WOK remake!” etc etc. We’ve all heard this nonsense from day one. But what I’ve heard from long time fans…fans that I consider to be informed fans…fans that understand what TOS was all about both on screen and behind the scenes, is that they love the movie. “Exciting!” “Thrilling” “Fun” “Love these characters” etc. So, yes, I agree that a lot of Trekkers dislike Into Darkness. But, I’d wager MORE TOS fans absolutely love Into Darkness. And even more casual fans absolutely love it! (witnesss the bluray sales) Since Into Darkness WAS based off of TOS and IS supposed to represent TOS, I’d day to Bad Robot and all involved, job well done!

645. Russell Meyers - September 17, 2013

They liked STID better when it was called Space Seed, TWOK and Transformers, I’d wager…

646. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

Ru-u-u-sel Meyers.

JUST IN TIME. I was WONDERING. Did ya’ see my video I linked for you?

Please take the time to review and reflect on how this impacts your enjoyment of Star Trek into Darkness, as you will have a NEW understanding of false flag operations as you will see one in its discovery* by all people (including several police officers*) in the video linked below.

Seriously, it will improve your opinion of STiD dramatically.

67. Other Guy – September 13, 2013
This one’s for you @39. Russell Meyers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HlUmmPBoLg

If you have the time to sit through an hour and twenty minutes. But then again you did sit through Star Trek into Darkness.

My apologies again to you too, Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle and Dave H.
Sincerely,
TrekMadeMeWonder (AKA, and formerly Other Guy)

—–

And seriously people. I apologize profusely for letting your indigenous remarks – about something you have no understanding of – affect me.

647. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

indigenous = insidious. typo!

648. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

Oh, yes. If that was not clear. And I apologize for not making it very clear.

Here it goes again…

I apologize for getting testy and swearing. It will never happen again.

Please forgive me for the unkind words I typed above.

649. Jason Medeiros - September 17, 2013

The following is a combination of comments I recently made in another thread and thought they were appropriate for this article:

This is for you Bob Orci:

You would think the following would be big news on this site:

STID is currently sitting at #1, 2 and 18 ( various editions) for Blu Ray Sales in the U.S., when adjusted for worldwide sales, it sits at #1, 2, and 18 and worth noting ST09 has shot back up to #12 due to the popularity of STID ( http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/top.php ). STID is not only owning home video sales, it was also the #7 movie of 2013 ( http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm ). Too bad Star Trek is “Broken” huh? It was doing WAY better than this before you guys came along. Sarcasm at maximum power Captain.
The yellers and screamers (I’m not including people whose opinion differ from mine but can have intelligent debate) have to realize they are a very vocal minority. The people have spoken with their wallets and Star Trek is not only successful but it’s actually cool again and certainly not “Broken” I’ll never forget when ST09 came out and while some of the same yellers and screamers were angry that JJ didn’t shoehorn Shatner in somehow, my two female cousins (at the time ages 18 and 14) showed up at my house and excitedly asked me if they could borrow my DVD’s of TOS. They not only loved ST09 and STID, but they retroactively fell in love with everything that came before. You see, this is how you grow a franchise, so kudos to Orci and company for Boldly taking Star Trek in a new direction and building a whole new generation of fans. I actually greatly appreciate the fact Bob even engages us despite the venom he sometimes encounters. Name any other Hollywood person who would do the same. I’m actually surprised he didn’t blow up sooner.

650. Curious Cadet - September 17, 2013

@640. Aurore,
“I did not see “Life of Pi”, but heard some good things about it.”

I hope I did not spoil anything for you then … I don’t think I did, as you’d have to know how it ends to understand what I wrote.

While I enjoyed the movie, I understand that the book was better. Afterall, how can any CGI spectacle compete with one’s imagination? Strike that, I guess it all depends on one’s imagination, and studio executives seem to really need CGI.

But may I just point out Life of Pi is a perfect example of how they totally screwed up with the casting of Cumberbatch:

Pi had NO major stars, and not only that, the lead was an unknown Indian teenager. The only thing going for it was good word of mouth based on the original book, and then execution of the film. Yet the film grossed over $609 million worldwide. There were some disturbing scenes in the film, though not as many as in STID, and yes there are implications that really do raise concerns similar to Orci’s defense of Khan’s whitewashing.

And I’m not kidding when I say the story does not require that the main character be Indian. Few in the US especially would have known the difference. However, Ang Lee and the writer were respectful of the original source material and the character as established for the fans of the book. And truly Lee’s casting decision proves that the color of one’s skin and international celebrity have no impact on acting ability, box-office draw, or racial stigma.

Had they cast Daniel Radcliffe, they might well have gotten a larger US audience, but the film’s modest $120 million budget would have more closely approached that of Abrams films. And when you see what Pi did for $120 million, you will further wonder what they spent that extra $70 million on in STID. But the worst thing about casting a white teenage boy would have been the loss of diversity this film brings, both to the perceptions of the audience and the loss of yet another major Hollywood role to a white male.

651. Ahmed - September 17, 2013

@646. Jason Medeiros

“I actually greatly appreciate the fact Bob even engages us despite the venom he sometimes encounters. Name any other Hollywood person who would do the same. ”

J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of Babylon 5. He started that way back in 1991 in the Usenet group rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5. And to this day, JMS is still interacting with the fans through his Facebook page & twitter.

652. Oscar - September 17, 2013

@641
Abrams’trek honors trek? Uh, in my opinion, no. Why? I quote from ex astris scientia:
«Because STAR TREK should tell genuine science fiction stories. STAR TREK has stopped exploring and it is about chasing villains. The old Star trek had some 600 episodes and few movies that were not about going to war against a villain, while abransverse does not know anything so far. The new star Trek neither explores strange new worlds, nor does it seek out new life and new civilizations. And most obviously it only goes where previous trek stories have gone before. The general setting of the abramsverse, that you only win if you are defiant and reckless and still can not change your destiny.»
Bottom line: STAR TREK was all about outsmarting, not outpunching the enemy. In TOS, violence is the last resort, not the only resort.

653. filmboy - September 17, 2013

I disagree completely. Abrams did not get it right and neither did Orci, Kurtzman, or Lindelof. STID was a mess of a film. It was lazy from a screenwriting perspective (I’m looking at you Facetime with Old Mr. Spock!). But the thing that bothered me the most about it was that it lacked heart.

I didn’t care what happened to the crew of the Enterprise or to “Harrison”. And I should! I have been a fan of Trek since I was 10 years old. I love these characters and this world. It should be easy for me to care about these versions of the original series characters. And where I did care in 09 Trek, I simply did not here.

All the charm and energy of 09 Trek was missing from STID. Replaced with a convoluted story that was neither engaging nor particular entertaining. I was lukewarm on STID after seeing it the first time, now I am just done with it. I think it is the equivalent to how I felt after seeing Star Wars Episode I back in 99. A shoulder shrug, a shake of the head, and just disappointment.

Star Trek is broken. Paramount entrusted it to people who don’t respect it or understand it. It is time to take Trek back to TV where it belongs.

654. Aurore - September 17, 2013

@ 647. Curious Cadet – September 17, 2013

“I hope I did not spoil anything for you then … I don’t think I did, as you’d have to know how it ends to understand what I wrote.”
___________

From what you wrote (@ 597), I inferred that “Pi” was a “non-white” character.

I also inferred that he was a murderer and…a cannibal, hence my joke. But, from what I heard about the movie, the story might be a little more complicated than that.

I appreciated your remarks on the film, especially on the issues of, imagination, casting, and budget .

Thank you.

655. The Keeper - September 17, 2013

Latino Review is days away from announcing that Roberto Orci and writing partner Alex Kurtzman will in fact be bringing Khan and his crew back for the 3rd installment of the new series.
After being awaken again, they head off to the Klingon home world, where they soon conquered it and begin their assault on the Federation.
It’s reported that Dr. McCoy will die with Sulu yelling out Khans names in yet another spin of the Wrath of Khan.
But instead of using Khan’s blood this time to resurrect McCoy Commander Spock will use a new substance called Yellow Matter, described as an advanced and stable form of Proto Matter with life giving properties.
Patrick Steward is said to be in the running to play the Klingon Chang.
Remember you heard it here first!

656. Oscar - September 17, 2013

@646
Yes, STID has earned a lot of money, but it is a very expensive movie, I mean, STID total budget (marketing included) $240 millions. And not all of that 443 millions goes to Paramount, a lot of this money goes to theaters. And you must pay taxes. And, overseas, a significant percentage goes to theaters, taxes, distribution and other things..
And you know, money and quality is not the same thing. Ok, I know..rottentomatoes says…er, rottentomatoes is not god, it is not a scientific method, and rottentomatoes did not say STID, was a good film, said it was a fun blockbuster.But is STID a good film? ( I mean, good art)
STID: complete lack of originality? Yes.
Reliance of cheap tricks? Yes.
Too many elements result in an unsatisfying hodpodge? Yes.
Cliché actions scenes? Yes.
A lot of hole plots? Yes
Spectacle over content? Yes
Cartoonish caricature of the original characters they are supposed portraying? Yes
I mean, not a vocal minority, but and vast majority of the fans are disappointed because of it.

657. MJB - September 17, 2013

@652 Oscar
“Vast majority” are disappointed? Show me the facts. How did you come to that conclusion? Just because you say something it doesn’t mean it’s true.

658. Curious Cadet - September 17, 2013

@651. Aurore,
“From what you wrote (@ 597), I inferred that “Pi” was a “non-white” character. I also inferred that he was a murderer and…a cannibal, hence my joke. But, from what I heard about the movie, the story might be a little more complicated than that.”

You mean Shirley Bassey? She was quite the cannibal! ;-)

Yes, Pi was non-white, and the circumstances you infer are quite a bit more complicated than that. Suffice it to say, it only makes sense at the end. Try to ignore it as you read the book or watch the film, since it will only distract you unnecessarily as you futilely try to puzzle it out.

659. Oscar - September 17, 2013

@654
Maybe you should search into more and better…

660. Dave H - September 17, 2013

Looks like my “Hall Monitor” job here has been subsumed now by S/U Admirer. LOL

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
625. Spock/Uhura Admirer – September 16, 2013
He already apologized for the double screen names.

TrekMadeMeWonder Post#612

“I agree, it could cause confusion and yes it has. My apologies are offered.”

I don’t think anyone needs to make this more major than it is. If he chooses to apologize for the sexist term, then okay. The best thing, though, would be simply not to use it again. The apology would be the cherry on top. And frankly, he’s not the only one guilty of name-calling, which at this point I think is a bigger problem here and involves multiple people… Once again, just my observation and opinion…

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
620. Spock/Uhura Admirer – September 16, 2013
Matt,

Except the “other” guy posting the link said it had something to do with STID, iirc. So, it’s related in some way… Lots of people talk about Star Trek in ways that shoot off in different directions, and I don’t think you need help modding. I don’t plan on watching it myself, but I don’t see the harm in posting it (once) if people want to see it. That’s just my opinion.

661. falcon - September 17, 2013

The nerve has been struck …

It’s not that JJ et.al. don’t “get it” in terms of Star Trek and the adventure quotient, but the last two movies were way too derivative of the original. There wasn’t any real “creativity” in the stories presented, it was all about action, monsters, planets blowing up (or being imploded), danger, adventure, and old Spock.

Really?

The biggest problem in terms of Star Trek over all these years has never been the adventure quotient, it’s been about telling meaningful, well-written stories with meaningful, well-written characters. DS9 probably came the closest, and even it was only successful about 20% of the time.

The third Trek movie needs someone at the helm (no pun intended) who can get the most out of characters even if the story is not all that stellar (again, NPI) and make this one resonate with both fans and non-fans alike. We don’t need “nods” to the original series – we get that, this is an alternate reality, let’s move on and start actually going boldly where no one has gone before. Stop telling old stories and putting them in a new shiny wrapper.

And don’t be afraid of shaking up the status quo a little. This is an alternate reality, remember. You’ve already blown up Vulcan, there’s nothing that says anything else is untouchable or immutable. Space is a dangerous place, and if risk truly is their business then not only should we see the results of that risk, but also the rewards.

And no more magic blood, please.

662. Jim Cannon - September 17, 2013

STAR TREK IS NOT BROKEN, THE FANS ARE BROKEN. Many should be ashamed for their posts on here. You talk of Gene’s Vision,,,but how small you have made it when you say that Trek can only be one way. You, the fans have negated it. Not JJ, Bob or Alex. The only thing they are “guilty” of is trying to get you, the fans to understand IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

I say again, it is not Star Trek that is broken, it is the fans.

663. Dave H - September 17, 2013

Apology accepted.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
645. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 17, 2013

I apologize for getting testy and swearing. It will never happen again.

Please forgive me for the unkind words I typed above.

664. Aurore - September 17, 2013

@ 655. Curious Cadet – September 17, 2013

“You mean Shirley Bassey? She was quite the cannibal! ;-)…”

_______

:))

Yes, she was.

Not to mention that her rendition of the theme song to the film I had in mind Cold Fingers was nothing short of spectacular…

“…Yes, Pi was non-white, and the circumstances you infer are quite a bit more complicated than that. Suffice it to say, it only makes sense at the end. Try to ignore it as you read the book or watch the film, since it will only distract you unnecessarily as you futilely try to puzzle it out.”

I’ll try to remember that. Thanks again!

665. Curious Cadet - September 17, 2013

@444. Marja,
“Not sure why he got turned into Khan [I've read things about Lindelof bringing that to the mix]; to me that was stupid.”

Do we know how Lindelof came to be a writer?

I know he was brought in as a producer in ST09, and in that role had ample influence over the script. So is that how it happened? Abrams was like: “great idea Damon, you should be a writer on the next one, you wouldn’t mind that would you guys (K&O share nervous glances)”. Or did Paramount bring him in as a “script doctor” (K&O smile wanly at Paramount executives)?

666. Curious Cadet - September 17, 2013

@659. Aurore,
” Cold Fingers”

Ha! I see what you did there.

667. Curious Cadet - September 17, 2013

Anybody notice the publicity photo from TOS used in the article?

Kirk, Spock, Uhura and McCoy are featured most prominently. Chekov is standing in the same place as Scotty on the left side. Chapel is almost entirely obscured by shadow. The group of three actors on the right are all dead. Nimoy is on the right …

Is this picture somehow prescient, or mere coincidence?

668. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

Thanks Dave.

I am still amazed that no one took the time to properly reply to my questions about that video that I posted. I was not saying that it was right, just saying that I wanted another smart persons thoughts on that video.

669. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 17, 2013

@629 Beagle

”@627. Do you even understand what the ;-) means?
Lighten up. My god, you are melodramatic with the Perry Mason-like “your assumptions are unfounded and false” stuff.
Sorry, for Christ’s sake.”

Considering your last post toward me, I have no clue what that means coming from you. I don’t think you accuse someone of potentially going “nuclear” if you are trying to be polite.

And me telling the fact of the matter, which is that your assumptions were unfounded and false, is not “melodrama,” but simply stating a fact. Calling that “melodrama” is dismissive, and I don’t appreciate that.

Thank you for the apology. Perhaps we can move on now…

————–

@631 Garak

”AAPB and others were called very nasty names, and you come in here out of nowhere (wasn’t really any of you business?) and pretty much infer: ‘hey don’t worry about it, and go ahead and watch the guy’s creepy video too while your at it, folks’”

No, I’d been commenting. Out of the 2 of us, you’re the one that said you “came back” after taking “days off.” And what do you know? Your first post is to jump into the middle of thread drama instead of actually commenting about the content of the article. That wasn’t exactly your business, Garak. And you are not a moderator, and the real mods here, at least from my view, do not need your help…

Now you go on to lie. I didn’t say or infer not to worry about it or to watch what you’re calling a “creepy video.” You shouldn’t try to put words in people’s mouths. That just looks bad, Garak, especially for someone who claims he’s promoting better behavior here… Actually, what you do is you seem to jump in and take sides and add to the problem instead of help… Not good.

”I don’t really get your act here? What is your point. Why are you even involved in this discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with you?”

It’s not an act; I’m a woman. And like the other woman here, that term was offensive to me, as a woman, so it had something to do with me, but I don’t believe in attacking the other poster and taking sides and proclaiming that he needs to offer all kinds of public mea culpas, etc., etc., simply because he got into an argument with someone I support.

That would be what you did, and I don’t think that’s necessary, especially when you proclaim that he needs to “apologize” for things he already apologized for. And you would have noticed that if you had actually bothered to read the thread instead of just jumping on a bandwagon…

Yes, he called people names, and other people are guilty of name-calling too, but it’s interesting that he’s the only one you single out…

”And, by the way, I won’t play your game and go back and fourth with you on this. This will be my only post on this subject.
Shame of you, Spock/Uhura Admirer. I hope Matt is seeing this?
Have a nice day!”

It’s not a game. Maybe that’s what you would like it to be, for your sake, but it’s not. I just call it like I see it, and I don’t like inequity or playing favorites, which seems to be something you participate in…

The shame is all yours, Garak. And yes, let’s hope the mods do see this behavior for what it is eventually…

I appreciate your well-wishes, as disingenuous as they might be…

670. star trackie - September 17, 2013

641 “Abrams’trek honors trek? Uh, in my opinion, no. Why? I quote from ex astris scientia:
«Because STAR TREK should tell genuine science fiction stories. STAR TREK has stopped exploring and it is about chasing villains. The old Star trek had some 600 episodes and few movies that were not about going to war against a villain, while abransverse does not know anything so far… ”

Well, I don’t need ex astris scientia to tell me their opinion of what Star Trek is, which they are certainly entitled to. I have 79 episodes that tell me exactly what Star Trek is, Again, we have the misguided view of some poor soul lumping in 600 hours of the sequels with the original body of work from TOS and then comparing JJ’s Trek to all of it.

First off, without a TV series, churning out an hour week after week, you really can’t accurately compare any of it. But the remark about chasing villains is so far off the mark, I have to wonder how much of TOS you have actually watched?? Mudd, CHarlie X, Ruk, Khan, Garth, Finney, Flint, Trelane, Romulan Commander, Dr. Adams,Kor, Kang, Silvia, Ma’ab, Jack the Ripper, Captain Tracy, Parmen…geez I could go on and on. Yes, they had an occassional Immunity Syndrome and I agree, they are a good change of pace, but they are not, exclusively, what TOS was about. TOS was about exploring and it was about dangers of space and that includes, yes, mean… nasty…evil…. and sometimes just misunderstood, villains. But in the context of driving the story, all were villains nonetheless. All this jibber-jabber about how real Star trek isn’t about “chasing villains” is just hogwash.

671. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 17, 2013

@ 635. Cygnus-X1 – September 17, 2013

”Maybe “broken” wasn’t the best word, but there’s definitely something rotten in Denmark. Spock was the most popular character from TOS. NBC got more fan mail about Spock than about Kirk, even. The fans LOVED Spock. He became an iconic character in Western pop culture, a literary archetype, even. And now the iconic, emotionless, uber-logical character breaks down and cries in every movie because Trek has been taken over by someone who never understood TOS or its appeal. That’s just one small example, but it’s emblematic of the “brokenness” that JD was describing.”

Well, and this is just from my view, I think they got the new version of him right in the 2009 film, but this last film was kind of a disaster to me. And he is popular, perhaps even more popular than Kirk, which is why to me it was perplexing that they redid things for Kirk in STID, like the quickie promotion, in lieu of following up where I would have thought the story would have naturally gone, like the after effects of destruction of Vulcan. I’d argue that a little more focus on Spock’s storyline is necessary for the next film, that and addressing his PTSD. That’s why he was supposed to have been all over the place in STID, but it wasn’t addressed very well if at all. In my mind, that’s not good storytelling…

672. star trackie - September 17, 2013

#650 “Star Trek is broken. Paramount entrusted it to people who don’t respect it or understand it. ”

See I feel just the opposite. I think they gave Star Trek to a group who totally understands and respects the original series. I think the problem lies primarily with the fans who don’t understand the original series and expect something more in line with Berman Trek, and well, that just isn’t going to happen. If you’re baking a chocolate pie using a chocolate pie recipe, you don’t make it with apples.

673. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 17, 2013

@Oscar #653

“Yes, STID has earned a lot of money, but it is a very expensive movie, I mean, STID total budget (marketing included) $240 millions.”

I think it cost more than that because the 50 million you’re counting on top of the 190 million production budget is in addition to what they originally spent on marketing with ST09. At least that’s what I read. Supposedly, they increased the marketing budget for STID by 35%, and it was this 35% that equated to 50 or 60 million dollars.

I don’t know what the real numbers are, only Paramount knows that, but this film wasn’t cheap…

674. Anthony - September 17, 2013

The star trek “fans” of trekmovie are not only broken, but intolerant. Typical of the extreme left. Very, very sad:(

675. Phil - September 17, 2013

@663 The Pentagon video? 99.99% of this stuff is relegated to background noise because it barely rises to the standard of bad fiction. That’s why no one commented, because no one is wasting their time to watch it.

I’ll save you the time of typing a reply… blah blah blah, sheeple, blah blah blah wake up, America…..

676. Marcus - September 17, 2013

Lets all be honest. Does anyone actually care? If only five people liked what I liked, I would be jumping up and down for joy. When ‘cult classics’ become popular ‘mainstream’ franchises, the whole lure of them becomes less and less attractive. In order for “Star Trek” to become popular again, the studio had to sacrifice its original qualities.

According to what I have heard, Paramount always wanted to turn “Star Trek” into “Star Wars”. Since Gene Roddenberry fought to protect the franchise, Paramount was not able to have their way. Reality is that Gene is no longer here to stop Paramount and Bad Robot. Gene would praise the studio for injecting money into the franchise, but he would protest against it being turned into “Star Wars”.

…and, that is reality.

Gene always tried to create intelligent storytelling. Even though he would sometimes inject implausible science, Gene would do everything in his power to keep things rationally and creatively grounded.

While Gene would have built engineering from the ground-up, Abrams found a beer brewery to utilize. As one man had an ‘actual’ vision, the other man was thinking about getting smashed.

“Star Trek” is epic in so many ways. Time Travel and Revenge stories must not replace good quality storytelling. “Star Trek” deserves better.

677. denzel - September 17, 2013

“Gene” was a hack that was too busy womanizing to give a rats ass about his show. Star trek was only good as a result of those that he hired…..not the “great turd of the galaxy” that he turned out to be.
JJ saved trek….PERIOD.
If you cant see that then you can go where none have gone before

678. Ahmed - September 17, 2013

Trek article/News :

Unused Trek 2 prop designs reveal alien civilization cut from script

Concept artist John Eaves has revealed some new sketches from J.J. Abrams’ latest Trek sequel, and dropped some knowledge about how that opening changed during the development of the film.

Apparently the opening on the alien world (which is a catalyst for a lot of the narrative with the young Enterprise crew) was originally conceived as a much larger segment. So Eaves was commissioned to develop some designs for the alien civilization. From spears and weapons to weird saddles, he did a lot of work that wound up on the cutting-room floor.

Another cool tidbit? He also designed the badass phasers used by the crew of the U.S.S. Vengeance. Check out Eaves’ explanation of the designs below:

“As time went on, script changes started coming in and the grand alien nation and village shrunk in size drastically to fit budget constraints. By the time the film came out there was not much more than a chase scene through the jungle and the interior of a massive volcano. A great deal of the props we designed also got the axe and very few got any screen time. As in any art department, the process is design away like there is no limit and then, as budgets start to be put in place, the art is toned down by leaps and bounds.”

http://www.blastr.com/2013-9-17/unused-trek-2-prop-designs-reveal-alien-civilization-cut-script

679. Oscar - September 17, 2013

@668
According to boxoffice.com STID total budget was $ 250 millions.
This movie has earned in USA 222 millions…and 466 millions in 62 countries (Nemesis was released only in 11, and, obviously, not in China…)

680. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 17, 2013

@#656 Dave

“Looks like my “Hall Monitor” job here has been subsumed now by S/U Admirer. LOL”

No, Dave. I welcome all people to post here, and I haven’t taken issue with anyone and their privilege to do so. I’m not asking how long anyone has posted, or if they’ve ever posted before, or what’s their business here… The situation you’re alluding to is completely different.

In fact, one of the 2 replies you quoted was me saying that the moderators here don’t need anyone’s help. Not mine, not yours, not Garak’s, etc.

You can “LOL” on that one if you want to…

——————————

@#645 TrekMadeMe…

Thank you.

681. Jim Cannon - September 17, 2013

STAR TREK IS NOT BROKEN, THE FANS ARE BROKEN. Many should be ashamed for their posts on here. You talk of Gene’s Vision,,,but how small you have made it when you say that Trek can only be one way. You, the fans have negated it. Not JJ, Bob or Alex. The only thing they are “guilty” of is trying to get you, the fans to understand IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

I say again, it is not Star Trek that is broken, it is the fans.

682. Kell Myers - September 17, 2013

Here’s how I explained my POV on this to a friend. So far down, I wonder if anyone will see it. :)
I finally saw it, and thought it was a good summer blockbuster, action flick. It’s like Commando, Avatar, or Independence Day, fun to watch but ultimately futile to really think about in serious detail, or search for any deeper philosophical meaning. Avatar was a Christmas holiday movie, but it’s in the same vein.

What I got from the “Star Trek is Broken” article, and the whole Abrams-Trek incarnation in general, is that it is very Hollywood. Hollywood blockbusters start out strong. The first movie does well, and so they make a sequel. The problem is that the sequels usually end up having to be explode-ier, action-ier, and booby-ier. (and Smurfier for Avatar 2)The sequel has to top the first, the second sequel then has to top the previous sequel, and eventually that pyramid collapses under its own weight. We saw that in the Rami Spider-Man movies. We also saw it kind of happen with the Pierce Brosnon Bond movies. The fresh new reboot of the Bond universe starting with Golden Eye only lasted four films before it became old hat.

Like the article said, the smarter, more interesting stories being told on film are found on TV these days. (Check out Continuum, if you want to see some really well written, thought provoking Sci-Fi. Season 1 is on NetFlix.) That’s the format that I, and many Star Trek fans would rather see the franchise done in.

One thing about Abrams-Trek that bugs me is the meta-issue it personifies; the watering down of a property for the sake of more profit in the mass market. People often point to the financial success and positive critical reception of these watered downed IPs as justification. What do we get out of this process? A good example is the Resident Evil series. RE4 and RE5 were huge financial successes that were also critical successes, but the heart of what the series was ripped out and eaten by Capcom’s accountants as the series went from survival horror to Chris Roidfield and Sheva McPretty-Ass versus the monster horde. Between the self-cannibalizing nature of Hollywood sequels and this watering down, I don’t think Abrams-Trek is going to be viable in the long term. The next movie may not be the Spider-Man 3 or RE6, but if they stick with it, it’s coming.

683. Keachick - September 17, 2013

“Butt-hurt”? Until this very morning, it NEVER occurred to me that this term could have any (homo)sexual connotation at all. Jeepers – such gross-out sex obsession.

Oh, and such a sin to show skin – except that it ain’t. Skin is just that. The real *sin* is in the mind and hearts…

The American of Indian descent who won the Miss American competition showed little in the way of skin when she performed her Indian dance, something I did see on the TV News last night. She was covered in a beautiful dance costume.

I would presume that only people born in the USA or someone who has become a naturalized American citizen would be allowed to enter such a competition. She represents the vast majority of Americans today, who are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. That is how it is in the “New World”. It’s been that way for quite a while.

684. Keachick - September 17, 2013

People would often criticize me for doing long posts – rambling rants was the favourite description. However, I cannot recall my doing as many long rambling posts as the ones here. Some seem to go on and on and old ground is being trodden over and over – a big black hole is forming.

Careful that you don’t fall in or maybe some of you have already done so and are busy creating yet another hole.

Perhaps I am depressed, maybe for good reason…

685. Jason Medeiros - September 17, 2013

@652 Oscar
“Vast majority” are disappointed? Show me the facts. How did you come to that conclusion? Just because you say something it doesn’t mean it’s true.”

Thank You MJB. Oscar, all of the things you said are your opinion and while I’m sure many here on the message boards may agree that does not make a majority of the movie going audience, in fact, how many people actually do this that aren’t hardcore fans like us? You can talk about how much it cost to make, market, etc.. but the bottom line is that STID was the 7th grossing movie of 2013 and is dominating Blu Ray sales. It is also critically acclaimed, When do I get to say it was a success and that the majority accepted it? Does it have to be the #1 movie of the year? is top 10 not a success? Is having the #1 Blu ray in the world not a success? I guess Star Trek is “Broken” as long as a vocal minority say it over and over again.

686. Keachick - September 17, 2013

”I don’t really get your act here? What is your point. Why are you even involved in this discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with you?”

Non-sequitur. This is an open discussion board, therefore anything written here can be commented on by anybody else who reads and wishes to comment.

Sometimes it becomes obvious that two or more posters may be involved in a discussion, even altercation at times, and many people find it better/wiser to refrain from commenting and allow the discussion/whatever to play out just between those two or three people. However if another person does enter, it is rude and inappropriate for one or more of the initial commentators to say that what is being written has nothing to do with them.

If what is being discussed is really between those two or three people, then those people should take the discussion off the site and find another place to continue their discussion and/or altercation.

687. Bill Peters - September 17, 2013

http://www.blastr.com/2013-9-10/darkness-writer-defends-his-favorite-moment-trek-purists

The success of Star Trek Into Darkness also secured Kurtzman and Orci the job of writing the third installment in August, and he says they are just beginning the work of breaking that script, albeit in a new dynamic.

“Things have changed a little bit,” Kurtzman explains. “Damon [Lindelof] is working on other things now. J.J. [Abrams, who will only produce the next film] is obviously doing Star Wars but is still very involved in the process of Star Trek and making sure the story is going correctly. It’s his baby as well, and I know that he looks at it that way. So it will be different this time, but that’s OK, because we’re on the third movie now and it’s OK to shake things up.”

688. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

I’m glad to see Garak’s Pride return. Welcome back dude! :-)

As for nuTrek haters, I think there is several categories:

1. The TNG-only fans. These folks are the ones who go to the Las Vegas conventions and ridicule TOS fans. TNG fans also abide by “Gene’s Vision” as a sort of holy scripture, somewhat like how the Taliban regard Sharia Law as the end-all, be-all of Islam.

2. TOS-as-it-was-in-the-sixties fans. This group should be wholly embracing the new movies, but since William Shatner isn’t starring in them, and since the bridge of the J.J Enterprise doesn’t match that of the 60′s tv show, they’ve cried heresy. Again, a sort of fundamentalist mindset here. These folks can’t seem to grasp that most of the old cast are, well, too old to (credibly) run around and shoot phaser beams at Klingons while wrestling Gorn.

3. Then there is the group that complains about everything…even TOS. These folks are never happy……unless they have something to bitch about. You have to wonder how they consider themselves Trek fans in the first place.

On another note, it seems that Creation-held Trek conventions are the worst. TNG fans and TOS devotees seem to be at each others’ throats. On the other hand, the non-Creation events are better managed, with fans of all the series getting along.

I dunno…..seems like Creation has somehow managed to divide the fans into warring factions.

689. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

I could not be happier as a Trekkie knowing that we are getting a number three from this same crew.

690. Jack - September 17, 2013

STID wasn’t terrible, but I was hoping for a classic. Something I could add to that list of a few popcorn movies I can watch over and over (Raiders, the Matrix, the Dark Knight, Star Wars, Trek 2).

What bugged me is that it didn’t do precisely what they said it would have to do in interviews — that they’d only add Khan if it made sense and the character wouldn’t need fan knowledge to make sense. I don’t mind that they put Khan in this thing, I mind that he was barely a sketch of a character. Crazy mass murderer. I would have minded just as much if he’d been just John Harrison sketched out that way, Just a couple more lines or an extra scene could have fleshed out the character a little.

The character of John Harrison was more interesting when he was just John Harrison, especially if he’d been trying to stop a corrupt Starfleet (and not just a single corrupt Admiral). What if Pike had been in on it too, against his better judgement? It would have been fun to get a bit more into politics.

BTW, I’d be thrilled with a pre-Kelvin miniseries or series (will never happen) — that’s more BSG/Starship Troopers/Forbidden Planet, basically what Enterprise should have been, but wasn’t.

691. MJB - September 17, 2013

I’ve been to around 12 Sci-Fi/Star Trek conventions….8 of them were Creation Cons. I agree with RDR, Creation Cons are THE worst. The only thing they are good for is getting all the stars, but non Creation Cons get them too but their cons have much more heart and fun to them.

692. emend - September 17, 2013

http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies/55029434/roberto-orci-rant-star-trek-into-darkness

well said

693. Disinvited - September 17, 2013

#516. Marja – September 16, 2013

The source for the information on Eve’s wardrobe during the shoot was Eve herself in an interview on THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH CRAIG FERGUSON. She lamented the color change stating that the original hue was far less “boring” I believe was the word she used while enthusiastically describing the original for Craig.

I haven’t watched it since viewing it live but Basement Blogger provided a link that may include the segment:

http://www.cbs.com/shows/late_late_show/video/sLz7ENyC7CUcIv0dstVB3FlmXN6GtO0X/the-late-late-show-9-09-2

694. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

McCoy: Underwear? My God, the man’s talking about underwear; we’re talking about universal Armageddon! You green-blooded, inhuman…

695. Keachick - September 17, 2013

No, not really. The article says that Bob Orci was trolling trekmovie to call out people who did not like his movie(s). Anyone who has been a regular here for a few years will know that not to be true. Although most of Orci’s comments have tended to be short, even a little cryptic at times, I would NOT have called him a troll.

Yet another so-called internet *journalist* (blogger whatever) who is jumping on the bandwagon of those who only notice the “bad” stuff that someone might say or do, whilst ignoring everything else, including the context of this so-called Orci “rant” on that one particular Trekmovie thread.

From the little I read of the twitter conversation between Bob Orci and a twitter *follower* that someone posted here, I would agree that this engagement may have caused Bob Orci to close his twitter account. It seemed that this person tweeting Bob Orci was being deliberately provocative, hoping that Bob Orci might let out the “F U” on twitter as he had done on this trekmovie site to ONE poster. I suspect Bob Orci did not want to repeat his faux pas, no matter how sorely this particular tweeter needed to be told “where to put it”, as it were. This tweeter, like Ahmed, did not/would not answer Orci’s simple question and I personally found the attitudes of both the tweeter and poster offensive and intellectually insulting. Orci, being somewhat brighter than me…well, we saw how he regarded Ahmed’s goading replies and Lord only knows how he felt about this tweeter’s aberrant responses…

Not impressed, just disgusted. So sick of all this negative verbiage coming from the keyboards of those who appear to be no-nothings other than have the capacity to sort of cut and paste and have little new to offer, except more negativity and half-truths.

696. rogue_alice - September 17, 2013

My daughter’s (25) take on the reboots -

“I don’t think I enjoy the originals very much, but these two remakes have been some of my favorites. Probably partly because if your influence, :) but I also think they’re just done so well. I don’t like superhero movies at all because I often think the acting and character development is so cheesy. But these have it all! Good characters and good plot and just the right amount of action.”

“I wonder how long it will take for us to look back on these special effects and think they’re dated. Not sure, but for now I think it’s all beautiful! I might watch it again tonight too. :)”

697. Dave H - September 17, 2013

@672, Sure, whatever you say, S/U-A. :-)

@676 So you tell us you are leaving, Keachick, but then you all of a sudden show up to lecture and be snotty to other posters here — posters who never “quit” on all of us here like you did. You are a real piece of work, quitter.

@669 / Phil

“The Pentagon video? 99.99% of this stuff is relegated to background noise because it barely rises to the standard of bad fiction. That’s why no one commented, because no one is wasting their time to watch it. I’ll save you the time of typing a reply… blah blah blah, sheeple, blah blah blah wake up, America…..”

LOL — Exactly, Phil.

698. crazydaystrom - September 17, 2013

@678. Red Dead Ryan
There’s at least one other category, that would be -

4. Fans who loved TOS and TNG and DS9 and ST09 and didn’t hate but were disappointed by STID. Who felt the latest movie wasted the bounty of potential garnered by having the reins of the franchise.

The fact of the matter is trying to put all Trek fans into one neat and neatly defined box or other will lead one to draw erroneous conclusions, as false assumptions tend to do, and is one of several (if not many) reasons there’s been so much discord on this site.

I’m surprised you narrowed it down to three and don’t realize there’re a great many ‘categories’ of Trek fans. But in truth I have to believe that you do.

699. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

@669 / Phil

“The Pentagon video? 99.99% of this stuff is relegated to background noise because it barely rises to the standard of bad fiction. That’s why no one commented, because no one is wasting their time to watch it. I’ll save you the time of typing a reply… blah blah blah, sheeple, blah blah blah wake up, America…..”

LOL — Exactly, Phil.

Exactly, Phil and Dave. EYES WIDE SHUT!

To me you are the ones that sound paranoid.

Let me guess. You guys do not have children of your own, eh? If you did you might feel differently about dismissing someone’s warnings about the future, based purely on a foolish assumptions.

700. Curious Cadet - September 17, 2013

@677. Bill Peters,
“Things have changed a little bit,” Kurtzman explains. “Damon [Lindelof] is working on other things now.

THANK GOD!!

701. crazydaystrom - September 17, 2013

OK Red Dead Ryan -
I do see now that I misread, slightly, what you wrote. You did say categories of ‘nuTrek haters’. But that notwithstanding I still stand by my post.

702. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

Just sad that you can’t give it a moment of your time.

Ya think I am just saying that this something that might be right. Looks pretty damning to me. I guess it takes you guys out of your comfort zone.

I wonder how you sat through Into Darkness. You guys musta’ been saying to yourselves at the movies, “C’mon, this stuff only happens on the internet!” LOL!!!

Its a wonder you guys gave STiD a fair shake.

703. Dave H - September 17, 2013

@688. I’m not going to feed your need.

I love talking to Phil about this though.

704. Dave H - September 17, 2013

@691

“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for…move along.”

705. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

I’ll make a dealeo with you two.

I’ll pay you guys $20 each for a review of that video..

706. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

Try this video then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9rrgJXfLns

Oh, yeah. Like the other vid. You have to watch it till the end to get. It takes concentration and attention.

BTW, Spock/Uhura Admirer, Marja, there are some bad words there, too.

707. Dave H - September 17, 2013

@694. You need to have more confidence in whatever the heck you believe in, guy. You shouldn’t need to be so desperate for “converts” to your conspiracy gig that you have to stoop for paying people to believe what you believe in. And your begging here just reinforces to many of us your desperation for attention on this.

Thanks for the offer, but no.

708. Oscar - September 17, 2013

@675
Vocal minority? Just because you say something it does not mean it is true. My point: you should search in more trek sites, more trek webs, more trek blogs and more trek forums. A vast majority of trekkers are disappointed. Some fans a bit, some fans tons. But a huge number of fans are disappointed. Nu trekkers and old school fans.
Last but NOT least, transformers 2 earned 836 millions and it dominated dvd and blue disc sales…do you think transformers 2 is a good movie? And rottentomatoes said STID it was a fun summer movie, but NOT a good movie (as art, because cinema is not only «fun» it is an art). If a movie has a bad plot, a plot with a lot of huge holes can be a fun movie, but not a good movie.
Money earned and «rottentomatoes said» are very weak arguments.

709. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

Look. I don’t know if that vid is accurate. I’m just asking for someone else, ANYBODY, to just watch the whole thing and teel me, logically, if they think it is as intriguing as I.

It’s just really weird that I’ve been posting here for 6-7 years and no one will even have the common decency to watch it and give me some feedback.

And Yes, I believe it WILL broaden your appreciation of STiD and the heroic actions of our favorite crew (and production crew, as well).

710. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

@crazydaystrom:

I was talking about the most vocal (angry and bitter) groups of Trekkies. I pointed out that the nuTrek haters are made up of at least three demographics.

@TrekMadeMeWonder:

I believe Matt Wright asked you to knock it off. I saw that you apologized earlier, but now you have resorted back to your trolling behaviour? Your link has nothing to do with this thread…..or the site in general. Please stop with the “used car salesman”-style harrassment.

711. Dave H - September 17, 2013

@698. No thanks.

712. Disinvited - September 17, 2013

#678. Red Dead Ryan – September 17, 2013

#681. MJB – September 17, 2013

I am so glad you reminded me to focus on that this was a Creation event.

I’ve already commented on the outrageous things they do in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and that CBS and Paramount before it just rubber stamps them their license.

Dave H speculated that Hoffman may have orchestrated things seeking to make and benefit from an internet splash and I don’t know about that, but I do know the Creation people wouldn’t hesitate to do such a thing. I agreed with Marja before on this: It would be most informative to see what Creation put out in their materials to attract Con attendees to this One Trek Forum. Were they trying to stack the deck? From my experience, this is a very real possibility but I would like to have the smoking gun.

713. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

#698.

“Look. I don’t know if that vid is accurate.”

And yet you insist on the rest of us watching it…LOL!

You obviously don’t know what you’re selling…just like a used car salesman doesn’t know what he’s selling, either.

What kind of car do you drive, anyway? A Pinto or an Edsel? :-)

714. Keachick - September 17, 2013

#686 – I did not say I was actually leaving. I wrote that I was weaning myself off this site. There is a difference.

I was merely commenting on what I, me, Keachick, perceive seems to be going on. I am uncertain as to which of my posts you are referring to as being “snotty”.

It appears that one of my posts is awaiting moderation because it was here but is no longer.

What Pentagon video?

715. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 17, 2013

Look. I tried to write the perfect message for you guys last night but it was deleted. In closing, it basically said all the important thoughts I had about Star Trek, into Darkness, the recent past, the future, and our responsibilities as Americans going forward. But it looks like my words are not appreciated to well here, so reluctantly, I am signing off.

Yes. I do see how ridiculous it is to expect some comradery around here in an anonomous Trekkie forum, but I thought we could all agree that we were a bit smarter than the average joe and take each others requests SERIOUSLY.

I see that I am trying too hard to elevate this discussion, or my attempt to perhaps raise the consiousness of some here, are met with deaf ears and an eyes wide shut attitude. That just smacks me as WEIRD!!!!

So, I bid you all a good day. So long Trek community. So long boborci, I know your still reading this, and so long Buckkaroohawk (another TrekMovie guys that was forced out by some bad sophmoric personalities). This site just got a little smaller, and has been getting smaller by the result of some sad attitudes, here. I am thinking that you are all a bit stronger without me.

Live long and prosper.

TrekMadeMeWonder… OUT.

716. Keachick - September 17, 2013

#701 – “Dave H speculated that Hoffman may have orchestrated things seeking to make and benefit from an internet splash and I don’t know about that, but I do know the Creation people wouldn’t hesitate to do such a thing.”

If this kind of thing is actually happening at Creation events perhaps this might be another reason why actors like Chris Pine refuse to attend Creation organized events. Chris Pine stated that the main reason why he would not attend such events is because of how Creation people treated his father, Robert Pine, way back when. Maybe little has changed within the administration of Creation in the last 20-30 years.

717. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

#703.

See you back here…….tomorrow, then?

And I’ve never heard of this “Buckkaroohawk” fella.

718. Keachick - September 17, 2013

#704 TrekMadeMeWonder

None of the posters here are responsible for your post being deleted or otherwise. You need to query Matt Wright on that issue.

I agree with you about some of the sad attitudes etc, but to quit just because a post appears deleted is not a good reason, imo.

Anyway, take care…until we read you again, here!

719. Marja - September 17, 2013

At the risk of sinking into the Black Hole of which we’ve been warned by Keachick – good to see you back, and I love your comments on Miss America btw – I’m making some long posts. Some are long b/c they contain extensive quotes with which I take issue.
————————————————————————————–
635 CygnusXI, But it’s good that he wrote the article even if it was slanted in favor of his personal opinion.
First, a strict “journalist” does not express opinion. S/he tells us What, Where, Whom, When and Why. They report on events without bias, e.g. “The local School Board voted to accept the Texas Social Studies text which does not cover [Issue] in history.”
Editorial writers write about their REACTION to an event. Dickerson writes here about his reaction to BR Trek, his observations about present-day fandom, and offers some ideas about what he believes are solutions needed for Trek now. He wrote an Editorial, clearly marked as such, e.g. “The local School Board voted to accept the Texas Social Studies text which completely ignores [Issue] and refuses to consider the impact of [Issue] on US society. Texas has often supported creation of textbooks which reinforce the social and religious views of [people in a demographic], and this is completely unacceptable in [our state] and should be in Texas as well.”

Sorry if I’m lecturing to people who know this stuff. It just burns my britches when people confuse journalism with opinion writing or use the terms interchangably.

And you can’t deny that a bulk of the complaints about BR’s Trek coming from fans are also expressed by top film critics.

Nope – can’t deny it. Because a lot of “journalists” and “critics” don’t find a lot that’s original to say about things. In fact I suspect that many read the reviews and echo them. Sure, some saw the movie without preconceptions. And hurrah for those who wrote original reviews and didn’t jump on the bandwagon of a certain opinion because they read the same website as someone else.

Let’s take the example of the infamous “LV Poll.” How many “journalistic” sources did we see on the web that “reported” exactly the same thing? “Fans at the Las Vegas Con [no number] voted STiD the worst film in ST history.” There were no critical facts, such as, the fans attending a panel at the con, who numbered about 100, out of 12,000 fans attending, voted. By applause. Nor were there any originally sourced reports on this. Those people on the websites had not attended the convention.

Well, let’s see … the bulk of the complaints by “top critics” regard the crazy storyline, I think. Admittedly there are huge plot holes and illogical story progressions. But one of the things many critics jumped on [because it was easy to jump on it] was that damned “whiny girlfriend” scene, Uhura, Spock and Kirk in the ship on the way to Kronos.
Never mind that men and their “Big Important Emotions” like the desire for revenge [Big Number One] and their fear [Adm Marcus] and rage [Khan] move the story along; never mind that Uhura was concerned about her lover. No, no. Smack her – the main female on the movie – with the easy charge that she’s whiny and comical. Because a lot of young men, the primary audience, have little patience for women and their worries, it’s not cool to concern yourself with women, it’s not cool to regard their feelings as legitimate. So target that character, cos that won’t piss most of the viewers off.

And it’s truly amazing to see how one critic followed another with the “whiny girlfriend” phrase, the “needs to be rescued” phrase [whut?] and lately with the “High school romance” phrase. Jump on the bandwagon, folks, and diss Uhura. [Sarcastic rant] because after all she’s a woman, thus “less than” any man in the movie, with those outta control girly emotions, and who wants to pay attention to those. Plus she’s a damn pushy character, why if Uhura had stuck to her communication station, McCoy would be part of the vaunted triad again! So yeah, let’s knock Uhura. Screw her, she’s just a girl and doesn’t belong anyways.[end sarcastic rant]

The other thing they jumped on, at least the popular critics from comics and Sci-Fi backgrounds, was the “rehash of Khan” … we’ve said a-plenty in here about that, and have varying views, and fine, the criticisms were somewhat warranted or very warranted, depending on your POV.

720. Marja - September 17, 2013

635 Cygnus [part 2, sorry folks] Spock was the most popular character from TOS. NBC got more fan mail about Spock than about Kirk, even. The fans LOVED Spock. He became an iconic character in Western pop culture, a literary archetype, even. And now the iconic, emotionless, uber-logical character breaks down and cries in every movie because Trek has been taken over by someone who never understood TOS or its appeal. That’s just one small example, but it’s emblematic of the “brokenness” that JD was describing.

No, Spock is not a “small example.” But here’s my problem. I’ve loved Spock for over 40 years, okay? Perhaps you have too. There seem to be two take-aways from the character:

[1] he was emotionless and uber-logical, or;
[2] he used logic to control his emotions.

You will find, no doubt, some stories that depend on the first idea. (I think many people who idealize this Spock struggle with expressing emotion themselves, either expressing too much, or being found wanting by their emotional loved ones.)

You will find rafts of stories that depend on the second. Why? Because the second idea is more interesting, fictionally. It involves emotional underpinnings. We readers and filmgoers like stories with emotional underpinnings because we’re human. Roddenberry himself wrote that Spock’s struggle with emotion made the character interesting to people and that people related to Spock because of it.

I invite you to view “The Naked Time,” “This Side of Paradise,” “Amok Time,” and other TOS episodes as I think of them, to see just how emotionless Spock is. Sure, I know what some folks are going to say: He was under the influence! Why yes, yes he was. And when people are under the influence, whatever it is disinhibits one’s normal controls. In the first two episodes I cited, what did Kirk do to free Spock from the influence of first, the virus, and second, the spores? He made him angry. A person without emotions does not get angry. When Spock realized he was about to kill Kirk, in “This Side…” some control snapped into place, he apologized after his fashion and got back to “normal.”

Uber-logic was Spock’s way of functioning, and was the way most Vulcans functioned in TOS. But they used it to control their emotions.

We did not see a great many Vulcans in TOS, but T’Pau didn’t get testy with Spock in “Amok Time” because she was old. She got testy with Spock because he was trying to get Kirk out of a Vulcan traditional contract. It was a violation of their tradition to bring outworlders, and a worse violation to have them selected for Kal-i-fee only to have their opponent ask for them to be excluded from combat. I wouldn’t say T’Pau got angry exactly, but she asks that awful question, “Are thee Vulcan, or are thee Human?” This displays some sort of negative emotion toward Humans, with which she was trying to shame Spock. Shame is an emotion. Prejudice, illogical in the extreme, is founded on fear. T’Pau shamed Spock with her prejudice toward his Human side, and shamed him for his friendship with Kirk.

Desire is also an emotion. T’Pring “wanted Stonn. I wanted him.” Why? A want is a desire. We could even infer that T’Pring would feel humiliated in her society by a husband who went away and left her only with his property so he could fly around in a starship. So she found a logical way to meet her desires. A logical way to control her emotions, if you will.

Oh, yeah, and let’s not forget that last two minutes in the episode. Spock is happy – nay, overjoyed! – to see that Kirk is alive.

721. Marja - September 17, 2013

637. Cygnus-X1, But the following day I could barely remember what the movies were about because they were so lacking in thematic development and character arc and their plots were so poorly constructed.

Well, golly, Cygnus, I guess the whole poor-bum-makes-good theme in ST2009 wasn’t memorable. Nor the “revenge is pointless” theme. Nor the “love will get you through” theme.

And then here’s STiD with its lack of character arcs and thematic development. Y’know, that whole thing when Kirk is Spock’s friend and saves his life but Spock doesn’t get it, then Kirk saves everybody left on the ship after he totally screwed the pooch and sacrifices his own life, and Spock does something Kirk might have done to stop Khan …? Nah, no character arcs there.

Nor I suppose was Kirk’s thirst for vengeance [which we know is useless, and in this case is being used against Kirk] that causes him to argue with the principles that got him into Starfleet [Scotty: “I thought we were explorers!”]… then at the end he realizes exploration and curiosity are better life models than fear and violence. Oh, yeah, and that “family” thing? Not a theme either, I guess.

Story development is perhaps what you mean. Yeah, the story development kind of went here, there and everywhere; silly things were implemented [Red Matter, ejecting the warp core, Trek09 … trans-warp beaming – oh wait, that happened in ’09 – KHAAANNN!, 72 cryogenic torpedo tubes, magic blood! STID]; the plots didn’t flow as they should have. And would have, had there been fewer action set pieces, more reasoning, less violence, more discussion among our treasured crew. AND MORE TIME IN THE MOVIE, say, two hours 15 minutes?

Bad Robot’s fun eye-candy schlock style of filmmaking is not compatible with the 45 years of Trek that preceded it; it merely exploits the iconic characters, imagery and backstory of those 45 years of Trekdom.

So, let’s see, we need to go back to the ‘80s and ‘90s for good Trek films? These films would be stultifying to most audiences, the majority of which are not Trek fans. While I agree Trek shouldn’t play to “the lowest common denominator” of iPhone-obsessed youth, I feel strongly that it was a mistake in the first place to open Trek as a [excuse me if the term makes me titter] Summer Tentpole movie.

Trek is better a fall or winter holiday release. A little more time for characters and their interactions, instead of great characters being pulled along by relentless action in service of more relentless action, destruction and violence. I agree with this part emphatically. However, I’ll wait to see the success of “Gravity” and other thoughtful-looking Sci-Fi before I judge how successful Trek could be in the Fall/Winter timeframe. Not that Paramount’s going to settle for fewer dollar$ now.

I’m not saying I’m in full support of BR’s relentless action and violence. But yeah, I like the “shiny,” the new, updated Enterprise, the new gadgets, and trust me, I love the “eye candy” – those actors are demmed good looking folks, including Mr Greenwood, who is six days younger than me!

Boy, I get that you’re offended by the “Khan rip-off.” I’m offended for various reasons that they felt a “need” – I think a Lindelof-let’s-make-more-money-induced need – to use an iconic character, when the Harrison/Ericcson one was more believable and equally serviceable to the story, perhaps even moreso. As one in the minority, I was not offended by the “twist” on the TWOK death scene. It was touching and gloriously acted. And I was completely into it, right up till KHAANNN! I saw TWOK numerous times and the end of their 20-year friendship in sacrifice to all touched me unto the point of tears. As did NuKirk’s sacrifice of 20 years’ potential in a sacrifice to all.

722. Marja - September 17, 2013

639 Oscar, Oh, Oscar, Oscar, Oscar [people my age will understand the “Odd Couple” reference]. “If you search, you will find a lot of treksites and trekpeople who did not like STID.” Umm, okay. And if I search, I can probably find a lot of the same who DID.

It is your opinion that “a vast majority of fans are disappointed.” But in what? The action? The violence and wholesale destruction? [Count me disappointed in those. These are the “marks” a Summer Tentpole must hit right now. Or it won’t make money.] The characters? Well … I’m somewhat disappointed. I’m a little disappointed that there wasn’t time to really put Kirk in the hot seat, take a secondary position, and rise to greatness. In this movie he screwed up many times until the end when he finally put his life to good use, atoning for his mistakes and saving the remaining Enterprise crew.

Sure, you can say a “vast majority of FANS are disappointed.” But how much of a percentage of disappointment? See what I’m getting at here? I was probably about 30-40% disappointed because of all the action and violence and destruction and the cock-eyed story flow. I was, however, really thrilled with the characters’ emotional arcs, acting, costumes, cinematography, and more, all parts of what make a good movie to me.
————————————————————————————————–
652 Keeper, You’d better be kidding ; P
————————————————————————————————–
Spock Uhura Admirer, I agree, some focus on Spock and PTSD in the next film would be welcome indeed. What happened to the Vulcans? I hear they’re on New Vulcan, but what’s going on there? How is Spock affected by the loss of so many of his people?

Good questions all, probably not to be answered b/c massive violence action and destruction must take place :p

723. Marja - September 17, 2013

670 Marcus, According to what I have heard, Paramount always wanted to turn “Star Trek” into “Star Wars”. Since Gene Roddenberry fought to protect the franchise, Paramount was not able to have their way. Reality is that Gene is no longer here to stop Paramount and Bad Robot. Gene would praise the studio for injecting money into the franchise, but he would protest against it being turned into “Star Wars”.
…and, that is reality.

So, if I have an opinion on what GR wanted or would protest, I guess that’s reality too?

“Star Trek” is epic in so many ways. Time Travel and Revenge stories must not replace good quality storytelling. “Star Trek” deserves better.

Yeah, like these “terrible” episodes: “Tomorrow is Yesterday,” “City on the Edge of Forever,” “Assignment: Earth,” and “STIV: The Voyage Home” – all time-travel stories. Admittedly some are not top-notch, but come on, “City…” is one of TOS fans’ top-rated episodes.

And then there’s the “awful” “Obsession,” in which TOS Kirk struggles for mastery over his desire for revenge on the honey-scented cloud creature.

724. Matt Wright - September 17, 2013

LOL you guys still like to claim things were deleted. I dunno how many times I have to tell you that it’s just been put in moderation. I just approved 14 posts that were waiting since last night.

Sorry I sleep at night and go to work in the morning…

TrekMadeMeWonder posted under yet another name, which meant it wasn’t approved by default. He used a variant of the name: “TrekMadeMeWonder (for others – Intollerant)” so it was considered a first time commenter, thus I had to approve it.

Now can we all move on?

Especially you TrekMadeMeWonder, you done now? So we (which includes you, if you can behave) can go back to discussing Trek?

725. Keachick - September 17, 2013

Maybe Bob Orci is still reading our posts, perhaps not. He can be quite a busy person. If you are reading this, Bob Orci, I shall attempt to tell you how STID ended, given that the tweeter could not/would not -

One year had passed since Captain James Kirk was revived from the clutches of death as a result of Dr McCoy’s painstaking efforts in isolating the life resuscitating serum from Harrison/Khan’s blood and then providing Kirk with multiple transfusions and other life-saving medical assistance.

I am not sure if all of the destroyed part of San Fransisco which contained Starfleet Headquarters had been rebuilt, however the closing scenes showed a well looking young Captain James T Kirk preside over Starfleet members and give a speech which cautioned against seeking revenge for revenge sake, warning against doing things that are as bad, or even worse, than what we are supposed to be fighting against…A *memorial flag was laid in honour of all those who died as a result of the terrorist actions of Harrison/Khan and of those who stopped H/K and others from causing even greater harm and death. The speech then segued into the famous TOS Mission Statement said by Captain Kirk (this time, the first time by Chris Pine). Viewers were shown the Enterprise and they heard the TOS Alexander Courage theme music…

* The film makers also honoured all the US servicemen around the world who have fought and fight against terrorism.

* My memory may be a wee bit wonky on exact details.
The DVD/Blu-Rays of STID are not yet in the shops here in NZ. The NZ TV Guide has said that they will be for sale in September. I await with great anticipation.

726. Dave H - September 17, 2013

Seriously, I am sorry to see you go on such terms, and wish you could have stayed and just discussed Star Trek with all of us. But if you can’t help yourself but to constantly incessantly insist (i.e. to the point where I personally felt I was being badgered) that we watch your “911 Truther Advocacy Video,” then maybe it is for the best that you depart.

I wish you all the best, TrekMadeMeWonder. And I hope you can find some truth and moderation in your life, moving forward.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
715. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 17, 2013

727. MJB - September 17, 2013

Bob Orci signed off from Trekmovie a week or so ago but perhaps he’ll be back someday. I hope so!!! At the very least, Bob should start an new Twitter account. I’m going through Orci withdraw (and don’t call me an a** kisser. I just find him an interesting person!)

728. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

676. Marcus – September 17, 2013

—“Star Trek” is epic in so many ways. Time Travel and Revenge stories must not replace good quality storytelling. “Star Trek” deserves better.—

Exactly.

And I’m afraid you may also be right about Paramount and Bad Robot not caring about these sort of of complaints. As long as the movies are profitable, they’ll make them as schlocky as is their wont. For my part, I personally promoted STID much less than I did ST’09. Half of my friends who are Trek fans haven’t even seen STID yet. ST’09 hasn’t held up that well on repeat viewings over the ensuing years, so they aren’t particularly excited about STID. Hearing about the Khan rip-offs in STID was also a demotivator.

729. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 17, 2013

@ ”686. Dave H – September 17, 2013
@672, Sure, whatever you say, S/U-A. :-)”

Thank you, because what I said is what the posts reflect…
—————————————————————————————

@#708 Marja

Well said.

@#709 Marja

”Spock Uhura Admirer, I agree, some focus on Spock and PTSD in the next film would be welcome indeed. What happened to the Vulcans? I hear they’re on New Vulcan, but what’s going on there? How is Spock affected by the loss of so many of his people?
Good questions all, probably not to be answered b/c massive violence action and destruction must take place :p”

Yes, I mean this was no small planet with an insignificant race. All beings are significant, but Vulcans operated within the heart of the federation and were very prominent. Six-billion people gone, and STID didn’t seem to follow up much at all…

I do hope more than just 10,000 survived. I do wonder how they are holding up, what losing their planet has done to their position in the federation, and how that all has affected them. It’s like they went from top to bottom in some ways, and that has to be hard. They have to rely on a LOT of help to rebuild and relocate, and even though they’re supposed to be above it, I’ve always seen them as somewhat of a proud people…

There’s definitely a lot to work with there, especially with developing S/U better and more, and it can be done without violence or destruction. They are in rebuilding mode, and recovery mode, and after having lost so much, I think they’ve paid their due in that department in this universe. I know you were just kidding with that last little bit, but with what happened in the last film, one can never know what they’ll do.

730. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 17, 2013

@Marja

I always enjoy reading your well-reasoned posts and find myself agreeing with most, if not all, of it.

Sometimes, I find myself getting a bit depressed at what is written (and how it is written) on these threads, and tell myself maybe now is the time to stop reading them.

…and then posts like yours come along that make my day – there is someone else in the universe who, by and large, shares my Star Trek perspective, and who can be eloquent about it.

Thanks for brightening up my morning.

731. Phil 2 - September 17, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4#t=280

This about sums up it!

STID IS the worst Trek film. A rip off.

New writers please. Tell Bob, Jeff and whats’s his name to get out!

732. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

692. emend – September 17, 2013

http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies/55029434/roberto-orci-rant-star-trek-into-darkness

well said —

Hear, hear.

And here’s a noteworthy quote from that article:

“…mindless nonsense like Into Darkness that barely even resembles a Star Trek movie. Oh, and Orci will probably go on to point out the many references in that movie to Trek of old, like Section 31 or the Enterprise NX-01 model sitting on a desk. But if the spirit of Trek isn’t there, if Roddenberry’s exploratory ideals and social commentary are replaced two movies in a row with tired revenge narratives, then they’re not going to be happy. Recreating a classic scene from a 30-year-old movie, the way Into Darkness restages Spock’s death with the roles reversed, will only make us wish we were watching that movie instead.”

Yet another film critic echoing the same complaints about BR’s Trek as fans and other critics. STID repeated the very same problems that people had with ST’09…and made them even worse. Plot holes, weak villain motive, lack of thematic development — check, check and check.

733. DiscoSpock - September 17, 2013

Phil, you need to stop “missing staff meetings” here. :-) That link was posted weeks ago here.

734. DiscoSpock - September 17, 2013

@732. Nothing new there, guy. We get it — this has all been covered here before. Got anything new?

735. Marja - September 17, 2013

730, Obsessive, many thanks : )

736. MJB - September 17, 2013

732. Cygnus-X1
Also nothing new there. Go away until you have something new to talk about. Seriously.

737. DiscoSpock - September 17, 2013

I mean, come on, Cygnus, you’re pushing twenty posts now here covering what is wrong with STID that have repeated a number of your points several times. We get it, OK? Do you have any new material?

Also, you called me something like an “Orci worshiping sycophant” awhile back. Last me ask you a question — what would be a good term for a fan that posts twenty times how they can’t stand something in Trek, with the same themes repeated continuously?

So do you have a good term for yourself that I could use to call you in the spirit of you calling me an Orci Sycophant?

738. DiscoSpock - September 17, 2013

And yes folks, I AM BACK!

739. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

Cygnus-X1,

Please stop with the tired “cut and paste” STID complaints. It gives the impression that you have nothing constructive to say.

740. MJB - September 17, 2013

@ 738. DiscoSpock – September 17, 2013
“And yes folks, I AM BACK!”

GOOD! We need the other people to come back too!

741. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

Glad to see you back, DiscoSpock!

742. Phil - September 17, 2013

@733. Hey, that wasn’t me. Still very much of the opinion that my bottom three of Generations, Final Frontier, and Insurrection is quite safe.

743. Trek Lady - September 17, 2013

Gee wilikers! I wish people would stop condescendingly “explaining” why folks who disagree with them have the opinions that they do…while dismissing those opinions without addressing them. Doing so is presumptuous, contemptuous, and rather rude. I had some REAL problems with STID, and with the direction these new films are going and no, it is not because “I hate change” or because “Shatner wasn’t in it” or “because the bridge didn’t look right” or because I just “complain about everything” or because “engineering looked weird” or because I “only watched TNG” or because “insert generic, dismissive, silly reason here”.

Furthermore, I am an original TOS fan who did not find this movie “brilliant” and “fantastic” and “perfect”. Did I like parts of it? Absolutely, but the parts that did not sit right with me were so egregious in my opinion that could not truly enjoy watching the film. At worst, STID upset and depressed me. At best, it acted like a sugar high, leaving me momentarily giddy, but with a crash that hit hard, and left an unsatisfying sense of “meh”. That is not something I have felt before at a Trek movie.

I was sooooo excited to know they were going to bring back my favorite crew by remaking TOS era Trek…. Those of you who are not old school TOS fans very likely are unable to really understand that feeling. When they reboot your favorite franchise after 40 years of loving, maybe you will. It hurts me to see what I consider to be such wasted potential of the new films. I can see the suggestions of brilliance in the NuTrek – moments that transcend… but like a struggling rocket which fails to slip beyond earth’s gravity, it just never quite reaches the stars. The moments that are fantastic are too few, and the stuff that is wrong, seems so wrong to me. It is just crushing in some ways.

If you loved STID, great. I am happy for you. I wish I could say the same. I really do. However, I didn’t love it. Sometimes I barely like it. I fear in time, I may come to hate it – not for what it is, but for what it isn’t. And I would really appreciate if others could just accept that with the understanding that I am neither delusional nor a moron. Please, do me the courtesy of not marginalizing me and others like me by shoving us into various easily dismissed category of pathetically disillusioned fans.

744. Matt Wright - September 17, 2013

FYI: Near as I can tell DiscoSpock never left, he just decided to change names for a while. I really wish people would stop playing around with their names.

745. THX-1138 - September 17, 2013

#743 Trek Lady

I agree with everything you said here. I am in the same camp. Now prepare to be vilified.

#744 Matt Wright

That’s funny.

746. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

#743.

TrekLady,

You have posted repeatedly many times that you have “problems” with the new movies. We get it. No need to keep ramming it down our throats.

747. Phil - September 17, 2013

@744. Yeah. I like my name.

748. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

I’m sorry if I’m rude, but I see a lot of constant negativity towards the new movies, and in particular, STID.

We finally got two huge, modern Trek movies that appealed to the mainstream audience, and also proved to be the most critically and financially successful in the entire franchise.

749. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

719. Marja – September 17, 2013

—Sorry if I’m lecturing to people who know this stuff. It just burns my britches when people confuse journalism with opinion writing or use the terms interchangably.—

People commonly referred to as “journalists” do both. They observe and report facts. They might also offer their perspective on those facts, either as an editorial or as part of the reporting, though when it’s the latter it will usually be much more subtle, subdued and implied rather than explicitly stated. JD did both. He observed and reported back. He also offered opinion.

—Nope – can’t deny it. Because a lot of “journalists” and “critics” don’t find a lot that’s original to say about things. In fact I suspect that many read the reviews and echo them.—

I posted a link to rottentomatoes filled with reviews by film critics. The reviews were posted there before the film opened to the public. You can ignore all of the negative reviews and positive reviews which make the same complaints as I and many fans have made, if you like. But you’re just reaching here for a reason to dismiss them.

—You will find rafts of stories that depend on the second. Why? Because the second idea is more interesting, fictionally. It involves emotional underpinnings.—

I am well aware of the “Spock controlling his emotions” facet to the character, and I find it compelling. But BR have gone so far in the direction of emotionalism that Spock’s emotional breakdowns are no longer the shocking rarity that they were in TOS, TNG, etc. And I can’t help but think that the reason for Spock getting emotional in every BR movie is that BR’s CEO never understood TOS, TNG, etc.

—Well, golly, Cygnus, I guess the whole poor-bum-makes-good theme in ST2009 wasn’t memorable. Nor the “revenge is pointless” theme. Nor the “love will get you through” theme.—

The Kirk arc was not unmemorable. It was OK. Not great. Not salient. Not compelling. Kinda cliche, but decent.

The revenge theme in both ST’09 and STID was very badly constructed. In both movies the villain had a weak and confused motive for his revenge. In ST’09, Nero devotes his entire life to waiting around in a space ship next to a black hole for the guy who tried to save his (Nero’s) home planet but failed. Nero’s buddies all just go blindly along with the ridiculous situation, for no particular reason other than an implied loyalty to Nero which is never explained nor justified.

In STID, Khan shoots up Star Fleet HQ (which is totally unprotected from and fails to spot Khan’s 20th Century aircraft approaching) because…why exactly? Because he thought that maybe Admiral Marcus had hurt his 72 buddies? Then we’re led to believe that it’s going to be a Kirk revenge story, but that never really pans out. Kirk goes after Khan but dies in the utterly shameless TWOK-rip off scene. Then Spock has his emotional meltdown, which by now has become typical of his character, and goes after Khan. Neither Kirk nor Spock learn much of anything in the story. Neither of them has much of an arc. I guess Kirk kind of learns not to violate the Prime Directive? But his whole rationale for doing so to begin with was so stupid to begin with that I can’t even remember it. And Spock learns…what does Spock learn? Eh, who cares…this movie sucks without the 3D.

—As one in the minority, I was not offended by the “twist” on the TWOK death scene. It was touching and gloriously acted. —

Then you and I are never going to have a meeting of the minds on this movie and probably on movies in general.

750. Trek Lady - September 17, 2013

Red Dead Ryan,

And that is fine if your sole measure of success is how “huge,” “mainstream,” and “finacially successful” something is.

I see things differently.

751. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

739. Red Dead Ryan – September 17, 2013

Cygnus-X1,

—Please stop with the tired “cut and paste” STID complaints. It gives the impression that you have nothing constructive to say.—

Are you serious? I wrote a bunch of long posts filled with nothing but my own words, and you can’t handle me including one quote from a film critic in support of what I’ve said?

752. Brevard - September 17, 2013

Absolutely wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Does the author even like any of the Star Trek series? It doesn’t seem so. I’m not sure which series he’s been watching, but it ain’t Star Trek.

753. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

I’m loving these “go away, I don’t like what you’re saying” posts.

754. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 17, 2013

Cygnus-X1,

Hey guy/gal, I think it” just that, with all your lengthy posts (someone mentioned 20 now?) here, we kind of have like a “book-length” report from you collected now on the failings of STID. Maybe it’s time to either come up with some fresh stuff, or take a break from it…just saying. You’ve made your point!

755. Trek Lady - September 17, 2013

Red Dead Ryan: “You have posted repeatedly many times that you have “problems” with the new movies. We get it. No need to keep ramming it down our throats.”

Obviously you don’t get it, or you would not toss all STID detractors into the same narrow categories into which I personally do not fit. I apologize if you do not find my comments palatable, but it is your choice whether to read them or not.

756. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 17, 2013

#753

No, it’s more like “I don’t like what your saying the 3rd, 4th and 5th times over.”

;-)

757. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

#750.

You ignored the “critically successful” part. 84% on Rotten Tomatoes, and 8.1 on IMBD. You can’t dispute these facts.

758. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

I agree that Cygnus X-1 tends to write book-length posts about the “failings” of STID like he’s a best-selling author or something.

759. THX-1138 - September 17, 2013

*Helpful Hint*

You don’t have to read all of the posts. They can be easily skipped by scrolling past them.

Besides, after around 3,000 posts on the “Star Trek Is Broken–No It’s Not” threads, it’s pretty much a guarantee that EVERYBODY is repeating themselves. Especially when they use two different screen names.

760. Red Dead Ryan - September 17, 2013

If you post something, then you allow others to read and respond to it. If you want people to “skip” your posts, then you shouldn’t post here if you’re highly sensitive to criticism.

It’s not rocket science, folks.

761. MJB - September 17, 2013

Sure hope something new happens in the Trek universe. This subject is soooo played. ~sigh~

762. Keachick - September 17, 2013

Marja – I agree with just about everything in all of your last four posts, particularly what you wrote in the last three paragraphs of #719 re complaints about Uhura’s “whining” but not about the guys and their “big emotions”. Absolutely spot-on. If Star Trek can have bromance (friendship/love that two men can share as if they were brothers), then there is also room for romance (friendship/love that two people can share which could include sexual intimacy). Bromance! Romance! It’s all good!!!

Is there is a word to signify the same kind of relationship that two females can and do share that does not involve any kind of sexual intimacy?

763. Trek Lady - September 17, 2013

You know, I would never imagine telling anyone, “Boy am I cheesed off about all these posts from people saying how much they loved STID and how great it is. I am so tired of all that praise being crammed down my throat. What’s up with all the positivity? I wish those posters would just all go away and give us a break! These STID lovers need to move on and shut up!”

I mean, how silly would that be?

Not only would I not imagine saying it, I wouldn’t want to say it because I realize that, in the end, we are all Trek fans, and if we all were alike, that would be boring. Thus, I try to actually practice IDIC.

This is a Trek-movie discussion site, is it not? Does a discussion only consistute one point of view? Or am I mistaken, and this is Trek Movie Priase-Only.com site? People are going to have different opinons. That’s life. It is how you deal with differences which helps define you as a person. Yeah, I guess I keep cramming that one down throats as well! LOL!

764. Ahmed - September 17, 2013

@ 744. Matt Wright – September 17, 2013

“FYI: Near as I can tell DiscoSpock never left, he just decided to change names for a while. I really wish people would stop playing around with their names.”

Interesting. I guess most of the people, with the exception of MJ, who said they are leaving the site after Bob left, didn’t actually leave at all!

765. Ahmed - September 17, 2013

@760. Red Dead Ryan

Since you have the right to defend STID & express your views, Cygnus-X1 is also entitled to the same right in expressing his own views in whatever way he/she wants.

766. Ahmed - September 17, 2013

@763. Trek Lady

“This is a Trek-movie discussion site, is it not? Does a discussion only consistute one point of view? Or am I mistaken, and this is Trek Movie Priase-Only.com site? People are going to have different opinons. That’s life. It is how you deal with differences which helps define you as a person. Yeah, I guess I keep cramming that one down throats as well! LOL!”

Well said.

767. Marja - September 17, 2013

743, TrekLady, forgive me, but I’m going to cop your quote for those of us who are tired of being patronized because we’re okay with NuTrek … “And I would really appreciate if others could just accept that with the understanding that I am neither delusional nor a moron. Please, do me the courtesy of not marginalizing me and others like me by shoving us into various easily dismissed category of pathetically disillusioned fans.”

I think Trekfans who disagree can remain cordial, and I have said something much like your quote above in other threads on these boards. “Check your brain at the door!” and other phrases have been used for fans of the new movies, so I’m in full support of your request, as long as it applies equally to me ….

Yours in the spirit of agreeing to disagree and a spirit of healthy debate.

768. Cygnus-X1 - September 17, 2013

754. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – September 17, 2013

I’m just responding to points people are making to me. If people make points that I have already covered I might still respond to them anyway. But that aside, I fully admit that I am long-winded, strident in my opinions and a blowhard.

But at least I haven’t told anyone to “F*CK OFF.” bada-bing.

769. Marja - September 17, 2013

762 Keachick, Thanks, you and Obsessive have made my day : )

Re: the female friendship thing, I really don’t know, I’ve heard “Besties,” “Best Friends Forever (BFFs),” for close friends and “she’s my Girl Crush” for a woman who really admires another. But no, no handy term like “bromance” ….

770. Keachick - September 17, 2013

The only criticism I have about the Spock screaming “khan” scene is that I think it would have sounded better if he had screamed “Noooo!!!” when he saw Kirk die. The rest was a lovely homage and twist on a well-known scene from another Star Trek film. Well done, Bob Orci and co.!

Later, when Spock had caught up with H/Khan on the barge, he could have angrily screamed “Khaaaannn!” followed by a very crude Vulcan expletive. I assume that Vulcans have swear words, though there would be some who would be loath to admit to it…:)

The negativity towards STID expressed here is getting tiresome. How can people spend so much time talking about something they really don’t like or even hate? That has never made sense to me.

771. THX-1138 - September 17, 2013

#760 Red Dead Ryan

But that’s where you get it twisted.

The complaints are coming from people who don’t want to read the posts, not from people who write them. I have no problem with anybody writing a novel here to express their opinion. If I want to read it I will and if I don’t I’ll skip it. If I feel like commenting on it or debating it’s finer points, I will.

But who am I to tell someone that their posts are too long? That would be like coming on here and acting like the spelling/grammar police.

It’s when the comments become personal attacks that this site falls to pieces. So, having said that, could I suggest that you not get too wrapped up in the length of a post. And if any of us have differing view-points maybe we can debate like grown-ups. Both sides.

772. Marja - September 17, 2013

Cygnus, “Then you and I are never going to have a meeting of the minds on this movie and probably on movies in general.”

Trust me, if you see a great movie and I see a great movie, I think we might just have a meeting of the minds. The fact that this is Trek will lead to some entrenchment on both sides of the fandom. Just the way it is among us. I’m sorry to find us directly opposed [I know for sure I've agreed with you on some things in these threads] but it is a pleasure debating issues with you.

You’ll note I never said STiD was the best-written film of Trek. It was well-written in places, but a writer friend and fellow fan of mine did not see the movie more than twice, the writing bothered her so. I can understand that! Believe me. But we see movies for different reasons sometimes. She very much takes account of writing in Trek, and thus was disappointed in STID.

I’ve said previously that acting, writing of character, costume, and more are things that I look at in liking a movie. Unlike my friend I’m able to get past plot holes [it is Trek, after all] as long as things are well-acted.

773. Marcus - September 17, 2013

@719. Marja,

You need to open a blog. rofl… You made three to four blog styled responses.

774. Trek Lady - September 17, 2013

Marja “…but a writer friend and fellow fan of mine did not see the movie more than twice, the writing bothered her so. I can understand that! Believe me. But we see movies for different reasons sometimes. She very much takes account of writing in Trek, and thus was disappointed in STID.

I find this comment very interesting, as I too am a writer, and was very disappointed in the writing aspect of STID. It just felt sloppy to me – like certain elements were included more for the “cool” factor than for “contributing to the overall plot” or even “makes sense”. In my opinion, too many events in both films just seem to occur because they are an easy fix or are used to set up a later situation, without any real consideration for the consequences of such elements. Vulcan gets blown up, but we really never see much of the fall-out of that or its effect upon Spock. It might explain his erratic behavior, but we are never told that, so the potential of that explanation for his emotional lack of control remains unrealized. Transwarp beaming over long distances comes in handy as a way for Khan to end up on the Klingon homeworld, but it also makes redundant the need for space travel at all. It is never really explained how a supernova could “destroy” a galaxy, or a volcano “destroy” a whole planet.

Perhaps that is one reason I find it hard to just ignore my problems with the film. In an episode on TV, I can kind of forgive more, as shows have to be written quickly, have a much smaller budget, and shorter turn-around time, etc. But I expected more from a big budget film. I wonder if others who are used to writing stories and have some experience with having to work out the twists and turns of realistic plots are more likely to find flaws in STID.

775. Trek Lady - September 17, 2013

Keachick “How can people spend so much time talking about something they really don’t like or even hate? That has never made sense to me.”

When you have been in love with a series for over 40 years… when you display your Star Trek lunchbox from childhood (signed by William Shatner) proudly on your bookshelf for all visitors to see…. when your coworkers regularly tell you to “Live long and prosper”… when you ringtone says, “Kirk to Enterprise….Kirk to Enterprise”….when you grew up watching that series with your father beginning by sitting on his lap, and ending by going to see every movie in theaters with him…. when you have watched that father, who taught you to love Trek, fight cancer, but still make a date to go see the latest Trek film with you ….when you make you whole family crazy with glee when you find out they are re-making the show that is your original fandom…only to be disappointed in how it all turned out….

Then maybe it will make sense to you. :)

776. Keachick - September 17, 2013

#774 – Sometimes using common sense deduction may help in answering such queries that you have.

Of course, we see the effect on Spock when Vulcan is destroyed. Uhura’s response to Spock’s behaviour is how it is shown. She clearly was angry that Spock even went into the volcano to place the device that could put an end to the volcanic eruption. Knowing what we know of Spock and Kirk, it was probably as likely to have been Spock’s idea to place the device in the volcano. It is also likely that he would have volunteered for the mission, with Dr McCoy, among others objecting to his undergoing such a mission because of its very real, inherent danger. We also know that Captain Kirk would not have forced any crew member to undergo such a venture. He would have sooner done it himself – yes, even this young so-called jerk of a Kirk. Spock’s responses as in quoting “the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few or one” is him being uber-logical and he seemed quite upset/shocked that Kirk did not heed such logic and indeed violated the strict tenets of the Prime Directive.

Next there is the lift scene where Kirk makes observations about Spock second-guessing all of his commands to Lt Uhura and wonders if he is the one who is imagining that all is not well with Spock. Lt Uhura assures Kirk, by saying, “No. It’s not you.”

Then, there is the most important scene of all – the conversation the three characters have on board a VERY PRIVATE shuttlecraft, billions of miles from anywhere, therefore hardly a public place, despite the fact that the three are at the controls of a shuttlecraft on its way to Kronos. Here, Lt Uhura confronts Spock and his erratic behaviour. Kirk realizes that Spock’s behaviour is not only affecting Uhura in a more personal way, but also Kirk in a more professional way. Spock explains the effect that the destruction of Vulcan, along with the loss of his mother, has had on him. It was a most poignant of revelations on the part of Spock, something that he needed to say and that everyone else (Kirk, Uhura, us the viewers) needed to hear. Spock had to TRUST.

Later on, we see that new understanding and trust bear fruit when Kirk trusts Spock by revealing his misgivings about his own capacity to properly command the Enterprise in those particular circumstances and passes on that task to Spock. Spock then becomes Acting Captain. Trust encourages trust…

This post is long enough. I shall address other aspects in another post.

777. Ahmed - September 17, 2013

“Then, there is the most important scene of all – the conversation the three characters have on board a VERY PRIVATE shuttlecraft, billions of miles from anywhere, therefore hardly a public place, despite the fact that the three are at the controls of a shuttlecraft on its way to Kronos.”

The shuttlecraft can’t be “billions of miles” away from the Enterprise. It is a shuttlecraft not a spaceship.

“the conversation the three characters have on board a shuttlecraft”

It was not “VERY PRIVATE” or even private. Beside the 3 characters, 2 security guards were on shuttlecraft with them.

778. Keachick - September 17, 2013

TrekLady – The first time I ever saw Star Trek was in about 1967/68. I recall getting our very first television set in 1967 – a b/w Admiral. Colour television did not come to NZ until 1974 to coincide with the filming of the Commonwealth Games held in Christchurch of the same year.

Star Trek was screened on NZ television over the next three or so years. All episodes ever made was shown on NZ television. Star Trek had a timeslot of Thursday, 8.00pm and then later on Saturday, 8.00pm. I think I watched just about every episode and couldn’t wait for next Thursday or Saturday evening to come around. I loved Star Trek and I loved the Captain of the Enterprise – “my captain”.

When the third series ended, I waited in vain for the next series to come to our screens. I wrote a *letter to the NZBC and asked when we could see the fourth series and if we could see repeats of the episodes from the earlier series. I received a reply which devastated and nonplussed me. The *letter told me that the series had been cancelled and they would/could not show repeats. My family could not believe that probably the best television programme to come from the USA had been cancelled by its makers. Unbelievable – then and now.

It was not until the early 1980s that I got to see a TOS episode in colour for the very first time. The TOS series has been repeated on NZ television several times since then – either some series or all three. Karl Urban recalls watching a repeat of TOS in the late 1980′s while he was in Wellington. I was watching those very same episodes up in Auckland – Saturday, 11.00 am (TV2 – I think).

I did not have Captain Kirk lunchboxes or other merchandise. News of any kind was almost non-existent. I recall having a magazine article which gave information about the main actors – William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForrest Kelley (with pictures) but it turned out that not all the information was accurate, eg they got the names of William Shatner’s daughters wrong. You have to wonder what else the article writers got wrong…Duh.
(William Shatner has three daughters – Leslie, Lisabeth and Melanie)

Some parts of these new movie iterations disappoint, but they are mostly to do with there being too many action/violent scenes. However, these movies are a product of this time, as were the other Star Trek films and TV series a product of their decade(s).

The stories are fine and I am enjoying watching Kirk, Spock et al grow, evolve into very similar people to their prime counterparts – with an occasional interesting, even pleasant, twist perhaps.

I do not believe my affection/love is that blind. I only need glasses at minimal strength for reading, otherwise my sight is still more than fine…

* I do wish now that I had kept a copy of my letter and the reply I received from the NZBC. Then again, life at the time was upended…

779. Keachick - September 17, 2013

#777 – It was a more private place than being on the Enterprise. I think the security officers were in the next compartment. They were not shown to be in the same room having the conversation.

The other aspect is that people even now can be privvy to what might be deemed confidential, whether by accident or because of the nature of their work. Signing confidentiality clauses or better still showing good manners and discretion means that something considered personal/private does not get repeated.

Anyway, I find the objections to that scene ridiculous and illogical. Life would/could not be so compartmentalized, especially when these people’s entire lives for long periods of time are spent on space faring vessels which require continuous monitoring and/or maintenance.

780. THX-1138 - September 17, 2013

#775 Trek Lady

Again, you seem to have given voice to my sentiments. I don’t hate the new movies. I’m disappointed in them. There are elements I enjoy, to be sure, but they are outnumbered by the stuff that disappoints me. And it starts with the AU. I just don’t like it. I understand why it’s being used, I just don’t like it. I was all set for an origins story and I got an alternate origins story. In the back of my head I think that there is the AU version and the Prime Universe version, and I just happen to be more emotionally invested in the Prime Universe.

And I know that not everybody feels the same way.

The real problem lies in the fact that because of my lack of empathy for the characters in this AU, I start to notice other things that bother me, both significant and small. I could list all of them but apparently it is not a welcome subject. But I could just as easily list all of the eye rolling moments from every Star Trek movie because they are all flawed. But again, nobody wants to hear about it. And besides, the subject isn’t exactly all of the movies.

It’s STID.

781. Keachick - September 17, 2013

#774 – “Transwarp beaming over long distances comes in handy as a way for Khan to end up on the Klingon homeworld, but it also makes redundant the need for space travel at all.”

This is an often repeated complaint and one of the most stupid. Transwarp beaming does not make the need for starships redundant. Khan was travelling through space in order to get to the Klingon homeworld. It is just that he was using his own method of transportation – a very dangerous one at that.

Transwarp beaming was developed by Engineer Scott in the prime universe. Prime Spock brought the calculations to make such a possibility when he inadvertently ended up in the alternate universe. He gave the calculations to prime Scotty younger alternate Scotty. It was considered and is still considered in this alternate universe an unreliable and dangerous mode of transportation. It is also of no use where destination co-ordinates are unknown or cannot be reasonably guessed. Therefore, transwarp beaming cannot replace what an explorer vessel like the Enterprise is capable of.

Really, this argument re transwarp beaming is a most specious one, lacking credibility.

782. Marcus - September 17, 2013

“It’s because TNG Trek and beyond never actually continued the original series….” ~ “the Stig”

—–

After rereading that particular line, I am starting to see what may have happened. “Star Trek: the Next Generation” did continue older storylines, which began within the original series. When it comes to plot holes and timeline gaps, I think some things are best left to the imagination. Example: Before George Lucas created the prequels, the mysteries behind Darth Vader and Boba Fett were rather fascinating. Once we learned that there was a kid behind the mask, rather than an older adult, the lure of those characters quickly faded. Instead of an adult becoming corrupt, Darth Vader was revealed to be a whinny adolescent. “Star Wars” went from adults having adult issues to adolescent kids kicking the sand.

I personally think prequels and reboots are a result of a lack of ideas. Since the franchise writers could not think of something new, they decided to go back and fill in missing pieces. “Star Trek” has always been about evolving to the next level; therefore, going backwards seems contrary to the overall goal.

Creating a “Star Trek: The Third Generation” series would have made more sense, for it would have given the writers a clean slate. Many “Star Trek” fans gave upon on the franchise, for it was not moving the timeline steadily forward. You do not read part two, so you can go back to read part one.

“Star Trek: Into Darkness” feels like Orci took all the good aspects of the franchise, and he decided to cannibalize them into a hallmark card. I do not call that creative. I call that a big middle-finger to fans.

783. THX-1138 - September 17, 2013

Keachick

Transwarp beaming was first mentioned in 09Trek. It never made any appearance in any iteration of the Prime Universe. It is a Macguffin created by Orci, Lindelof, Kurtzman et al.

Even though most of the technology of Star Trek is fictional, it makes the most effort to be consistent. It has set up rules that need to be followed by every writer who enters the Star Trek universe in order for the stories to remain logical to the viewer. I will grant you that it would not replace exploration vessels but it would also eliminate the need for any space travel within the solar system, seeing as coordinates for any destination would be readily available.

I find the arguments supporting transwarp beaming to be as lacking in credibility as you do the opposite. Since it never existed prior to 09Trek I personally find every supporting argument to be specious at best, and apologetic at worst.

784. Who cares - September 17, 2013

Hey Cygnus, the aircraft Khan used to attack Starfleet HQ was not a 20th century craft, it was an emergency response vehicle that he stole from the people who responded to the explosion at the Kelvin Archive, you see him steal it in the security video during the meeting, dunno where you would get the idea it was some kind of antique, it didn’t have projectile weapons on it either (I mention because I have seen people make that claim), likely stolen disruptors he acquired during the “Praxis Incident” mentioned in his redacted file (was on the movies website before release).

I have seen STID 6 times now, twice in theaters, and 4 times since I bought it on Xbox Video, not the greatest Trek movie ever, but very, very far from the worst, here is my ranking.

1. First Contact
2. ST09
3. TWOK
4. STTUC
5. STID
6. STTSFS
7. STTVH
8. STGEN
9. STTFF
10. STNEM
11. STTMP
12. STINS

It doesn’t matter to me who disagrees with me, my own opinion is all that matters to me, and you are naturally welcome to disagree with me, it won’t hurt my feelings.

785. Who cares - September 17, 2013

Umm, THX, what would you call all the times in previous Trek series where people beamed onto or off of ships travelling at warp? Starting with “The Schizoid Man” and “Emissary” in TNG, and continuing on through all the other series. Any act of transporting onto or off of a ship at warp is “transwarp beaming” by definition. If you mean the interstellar application of that tech, well then go back to season 2 of TOS and “Assignment Earth”, “Prime Factors” on Voyager, and the Trek novel “Best Destiny” by William Shatner.

There are more examples, take a look and see.

786. Keachick - September 17, 2013

I understand how some of you might feel disappointed, but there is also a need to let go. To continue to repeat the anger and disappointment, to keep criticizing what you don’t like, is not healthy. Surely, there are better, more positive and praiseworthy things that you could be discussing…

Sorry – but I still don’t get it. It makes me sad and depressed.

When I first came on the Internet and saw what was being written by *fans* of Star Trek, I thought I had walked into a Star Trek Hate-fest. It still feels that way some of the time – people vehemently disliking or hating this or that Star Trek; often writing such hateful comments about people like Rick Berman, JJ Abrams, Gene Roddenberry, William Shatner, Damon Lindelof and on and on…I guess a lot of people prefer writing about what they don’t like and many won’t or can’t let go of their animosity towards this or that actor, writer, producer, director, film, TV series…

I am so tired of it – honestly, I am. Give it a rest!

787. Marcus - September 17, 2013

“Star Trek 2009″ and “Star Trek: ID” feel like “Metellica” and “Megadeth” in 1994. As a result of listening to the studios, the bands sold out to enter into the mainstream. Anyone who jumped onto the bandwagon, during this period of time, was considered a poser. As a result of getting hit with backlash, “Metallica” and “Megadeth” were forced to return to their old styles. Sure, the bands sold a record number of albums; however, they also lost loyal and passionate fans. History seems to be repeating itself.

788. Marcus - September 17, 2013

@ 783. THX-1138, “Transwarp beaming was first mentioned in 09Trek. It never made any appearance in any iteration of the Prime Universe. It is a Macguffin created by Orci, Lindelof, Kurtzman et al.”

—-

“Star Trek” was all about humanity overcoming great technological obstacles, so it can build ships for space exploration. Transwarp beaming technology removes the whole logic behind why “Star Trek” exists. Heck, the franchise should just be named “Stargate” now. Since the transwarp beaming technology removes the concept of ‘treking through the stars’, Orci and company should slap a sticker on a stargate that says, “U.S.S. Enterprise”.

789. THX-1138 - September 17, 2013

# 785 Who Cares

Well first, let’s not get derailed by semantics. We both know that the issue here isn’t what the thing is called, it’s what it does.

I have an issue with being able to beam from one star system to another. Until these two movies it did not exist within the technological ability of the Federation or it’s direct antagonists. To address your Prime universe examples, Gary Seven was from an advanced race that was possessed of a technology vastly superior to anything the Federation could muster. It is unlikely that it came to exist in the Federation in an AU. At least it’s hard for me to swallow. The same argument can be made for Prime Factors; they are alien technologies. And since I kept getting told that the novels aren’t a part of canon I’ll leave Best Destiny on the bookshelf.

The point is to me, it was just a Macguffin and nothing more. It’s inclusion took me personally out of the story.

#786 Keachick

How are you so informed that you know how I spend my days and what I discuss outside of this one website? I empathize with your expression of weariness of the criticism but may I offer a simple solution? Don’t read comments from people who are critical. Perhaps you are too wrapped up in STID. Maybe you would be best served by “giving it a rest.”
Personally, I have music. I record, tour, and perform. It is a wellspring of energy and positivity and a fantastic outlet for my own self-expression. This site, and my own mis-givings about this movie are but one small piece of my overall daily world view.

And honestly, I’m not trying to upset anybody with my opinions. I’m trying to find like-minded people. I want to see if how I felt about what I saw was shared by anybody else. That, to me, is the real purpose of this site: To find somebody on common ground whose opinion you share. I have never considered Trekmovie.com to ever be akin to fansites that only serve to be flag wavers for the franchise. From it’s very inception this site served to be a place where several different views were routinely expressed and where arguments about Star Trek occurred but rarely got out of hand. That didn’t happen until Star Trek 09.

790. Keachick - September 17, 2013

#783 – Who said that I “supported” transwarp beaming and since when are my statements apologetic?

It is simply a reality within the two Star Trek universes, as has been pointed out in post #785. It would appear that transwarp beaming was a theory that Montgomery Scott had and was working on. Perhaps the terminology was a bit different, but the effect of this technology was the same.

Once again, you and Marcus seem to think that by having a certain piece of (unreliable and dangerous) technology removes other concepts like “trekking through the stars”.
“Orci and company should slap a sticker on a stargate that says, “U.S.S. Enterprise”.”

Yet more illogical and specious arguments to the point of idiocy. If we were to follow your logic, then the Enterprise would not be using impulse drive since that is slower than warp drive. However, as has been demonstrated on many occasions, both kinds of propulsion are in common use. What’s more, both shuttlecraft and transporter beaming are both used by the Enterprise and other vessels, even though transporting beaming technology is a later development.

We have air travel today, but that has not removed the need for cars, trucks, trains, ships, even the horse, as legitimate modes of transportation and ones that may be preferred by many people over air travel.

It is not too improbable to assume that similar would apply in Star Trek’s 23rd and 24th centuries. All that this transwarp beaming technology does do is to provide yet another option for speedier travel, albeit a less reliable or safe form.

791. Keachick - September 17, 2013

I was not directing my comments at #786 specifically at you, THX-1138. In fact, I was addressing TrekLady, as well as making a general observation directed at no one in particular.

I have no idea what any of you do outside of this site, but my statement still stands. Why do YOU seem to NEED to constantly criticize what you clearly don’t like, because is that not what you have been doing for some weeks now?

No, I don’t have to read anything. Nobody has to do anything…

792. Keachick - September 17, 2013

Where was it mentioned that transwarp beaming could take someone from one star system to another? I cannot recall any such statement being made in either movie.

793. Marcus - September 17, 2013

During Orci’s major meltdown, while on Twitter, he also exploded on a long time “Star Trek” writer. You can find his tweets in the comment section of this page: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/81322476.html

794. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 17, 2013

@792. Keachick – September 17, 2013

That is the assumption to be made when you consider Harrison used it to get from Earth to Qo’noS…

In the movie novelization, the transwarp was actually a series of hops, but even then, one of those hops was from an unmanned vessel in orbit around the moon all the way to Qo’noS (at great risk to the individual)…

795. Who cares - September 17, 2013

Actually THX Gary Seven was a human being born on Earth and raised by an advanced alien culture, sorry gotta pick the nit. There are more examples of interstellar beaming in the Prime U though, I personally include the Iconian Gateways in the group (the “Demons of air and Darkness” whose virus destroyed the USS Yamato, early TNG).

I also do not have any major issues with the alternate universe having a much more rapid technological progression than the Prime, due largely to the early 25th century technology that Nero brought into the past, which was studied for 25 years by the Klingons, and undoubtedly their utilization of what they learned has forced the Federation to step up their technological research, the 23rd century Romulans have also gained access to the Klingon database on the Narada, which again accelerates their tech, and forces the Federation to work even harder again, who knows what effect this has all had on the Cardassians, Gorn, Tholians, or any of the other hostile powers of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants.

Anyway, I respect your right to your opinion, though I don’t share it.

796. Marcus - September 18, 2013

After rereading the link I made, I think I made a slight mistake in identity. Robert Meyer Burnett was a filmographer for several “Star Trek” documentaries. Instead of holding his frustrations back, Orci lashed out at him on twitter.

Screenshots on the page I provided in post #793 show why Ocri deleted his twitter account. See the comment section for the twitter account screen shots. I think Robert Orci should be fired.

797. Cygnus-X1 - September 18, 2013

772. Marja – September 17, 2013

I appreciate your effort to meet me halfway. Very Trek of you.

There were certain scenes in ST’09 and STID that were well (enough) written and, as per usual, well acted such that I found them very effective and enjoyable. Pike’s death scene was touching. I enjoyed all of the acting in STID, particularly Cumberbatch, and I even enjoyed Peter Weller, who some have complained about. What bothers me about the touching scenes in both movies, however—and I’ve read critics complain of this as well—is how they seem more like surgically inserted ploys to elicit emotional reactions from the audience rather than being form-following-function scenes arising naturally as necessary consequences within a well-constructed, cohesive plot. It leaves the impression that your propensity for compassion and willingness to care are being taken advantage of by writers unable to write a deep, meaningful, well-constructed story which couldn’t help but touch you.

798. PaulB - September 18, 2013

786/791. Keachick “Why do YOU seem to NEED to constantly criticize what you clearly don’t like, because is that not what you have been doing for some weeks now?”

By the same logic, Keachick, why do YOU continue to constantly praise what you clearly love, which you’ve been doing for weeks now? How do you like being a hypocrite?

Seriously, GET OVER THE NEGATIVE POSTS, Keachick. Some fans didn’t like STID. Deal with it.

And enough with the histrionic reactions to everything. You say you’re “sad and depressed” because fans on a site keep complaining about the movie you like! If you are THAT susceptible to others’ opinions, then you shouldn’t be playing on the Internet at all. YOU are the one who needs to step away, take a break, and get some perspective.

When YOU post so many long, repetitive comments that endlessly restate EXACTLY what you’ve been saying for weeks, you have ZERO right to call for anyone else to give anything a rest. If you have the right to constantly gush love, they have the right to constantly spout hate.

799. Cygnus-X1 - September 18, 2013

784. Who cares – September 17, 2013

—Hey Cygnus, the aircraft Khan used to attack Starfleet HQ was not a 20th century craft, it was an emergency response vehicle that he stole from the people who responded to the explosion at the Kelvin Archive—

Nevertheless, it looked like a helicopter which casually flew right up to the window of the Star Fleet HQ and easily shot right through the windows of a building which should have been the most heavily guarded and fortified location on Earth. In the 20th Century Khan’s air craft would have been spotted on radar as errant miles before it even got within the vicinity Star Fleet HQ. The whole scene is ridiculous and one of the many examples of lazy writing and lack of scientific/technological consulting in the movie.

800. Cygnus-X1 - September 18, 2013

793. Marcus – September 17, 2013

—During Orci’s major meltdown, while on Twitter, he also exploded on a long time “Star Trek” writer. You can find his tweets in the comment section of this page: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/81322476.html

Wow.

He must be hearing/reading a lot of the criticism about his writing in STID and finally got fed up.

801. P Technobabble - September 18, 2013

I love the way some of these blogs have been reporting the “incident” that took place here on Trekmovie. Their reports skim over the details in order to suit their summary. They all seem to start off with the “ST fans say STID is the worst Trek movie, ever.” They don’t bother saying it’s just SOME fans and they don’t bother to mention that the so-called poll contained the opinion of only a 100 people, dismissing all the other people at the convention who did not vote. That little detail doesn’t matter, hm? And then, of course, they quote everything Orci said without mentioning that he’s been taking s**t from disgruntled posters on Trekmovie since 2008. I think he’s entitled to have some sort of reaction to all the negative criticism and name-calling, don’t you? I mean look at all the arguing and name-calling that goes on in Trekmovie (and other sites) on a daily basis. The day-in, day-out people who post abusive comments, one after another, and consistently bang heads with as many people as they can seems to be pretty acceptable — for them only. God forbid Orci — just because he’s the writer — have a reaction to all the verbal abuse he’s had to put up with. And he never had to join us in the first place. Unfortunately, there is a faction of fandom that is just vicious. They have no real interest in anything other than waiting for their moment, laying their s**t on everybody else, causing as much unrest as they can. Big deal…

802. Oscar - September 18, 2013

@800.
Interesting stuff, Cygnus. Man of steel is a very criticized movie and a lot of Superman’s fans are angry but Man of steel creators do not insult them. A creator must accept critics. You can not insult customers. Some creators do not want fans, but acolytes…I quote Josh Whedon: «This is a sad sad reflection on our times, when people must feed off the carcasses of beloved stories, just because they can not think of an original idea of their own»

803. Alexander_R - September 18, 2013

It’s a shame to see all this “fans” of Star Trek denies 40 years of saga only because it’s JJ “Lost” Abrams.
The 2 movies are just piece of shit, they haven’t the spirit of Star Trek, it’s just a lot of explosion, crappy punchlines, lens flare, lens flare, explosion. The Abrams’s ST are more like Star Wars…
STID is a reboot of the reboot, he stole entiere scène of a lot of movies, even the deleted scene of Star Trek Nemesis,

I’m sad to see that, I’m sad…

804. Marcus - September 18, 2013

@801. P Technobabble,
It doesn’t matter at this point. Regardless about any theoretical reasons why Orci exploded, the main issue is that he went off on innocent “Star Trek” fans and documentary filmographer. Orci went off on people asking innocent questions. He didn’t care about who got hurt.

When I first learned about what happened, I didn’t realize Orci went off on innocent fans. I also didn’t know he went off on a “Star Trek” documentary filmographer. This changes everything.

Orci should be fired.

805. P Technobabble - September 18, 2013

803. What precisely do you mean by “innocent?” Innocent as in bystanders who just got in the way? I think they must’ve had something to do with getting Orci’s back up. And what kind of “hurt” are you referring to? I don’t think Orci’s been charged with assault, right? Just because he got angry and blew his stack doesn’t make him the monster he’s being portrayed as, him? I just see this as another instance of the media game ” gotcha.”
But I suppose you are correct that it doesn’t matter at this point.

806. Marcus - September 18, 2013

804. P Technobabble,
Go back to the link I posted in 793. If you head to the comment section, you will find screenshots of Orci’s twitter account. Look at what is happening. Orci is getting frustrated over ‘questions’. Instead of discriminating between an innocent question and someone trolling, Orici is just ripping into random and innocent bystanders. One of those bystanders is a professional “Star Trek” filmographer.

Orci is far from innocent. If we had an employee explode like this in public, the owner of our company would have them fired. Its not as cut and dry as you think.

807. P Technobabble - September 18, 2013

“…he’s being portrayed as, hm?” …Not “him.”

808. Spock's Bangs - September 18, 2013

803. “Orci should be fired.”

The only thing I love more than the fact that Orci IS writing the next movie, is the fact that it pisses you off! Too bad so sad. :)

809. MJB - September 18, 2013

800. Cygnus-X1

Which Star Trek writer?

810. MJB - September 18, 2013

796. Marcus
His name is Roberto Orci, not Robert Orci.

811. Phil - September 18, 2013

@803. Theoretical? The atmosphere in general he’s had to deal with here was pretty much always toxic – if AP got a buck every time someone referred to him as a talentless hack AP would be a wealthy man. Kudo’s to the guy for ignoring 99.99% of the personal attacks while engaging fans with a certain level of grace he was not shown in kind. In particular, the exchange leading up to Orci’s rant was directed at an individual, who frankly, baited him into it. Orci didn’t unload on fans, innocent or otherwise, just one individual….who, in my opinion, deserved it.

I took more exception to the parent/child comparison, which I found condescending, instead of the f**k off rant, which was easily attributed to someone losing their composure – it’s happened to every single one of us, so yeah, I’d invite someone without sin to cast that first stone. Yep, no takers there, either. Orci is a professional, and as such I’d expect him to own that not everything he does is going to be a masterpiece. However, one should not be judged solely on when they are at their worse. There is a reason forgiveness is a virtue, it allows for redemption and growth. I’m hoping we all learn something from this, and move on. I’m the first to acknowledge that I’ve been rather blunt with some people here, and that contributed to the negative atmosphere. I’m making the effort to be more aware of that, and to try and avoid that in the future. Let’s call it a lesson learned.

812. Oscar - September 18, 2013

809.
This is not about forgiveness, this is about intolerance, this is about arrongance, this is about a smug man, this is about a man who does not accept critics…never.
Do you remember Orci saying «f…you, Berman?» He insults fans because they do not like STID, then he says «I’m so sorry…you are not sh..fans, you are only a congregation of morons» It is enough. Fans buy tickets and mechandasing. We are customers, we, the trek people, pay him.
Dickerson’s article is a good article, with solid points. Dickerson is a free man, he has not to say STID is a good film only because Orci can not accept critics. Free speech and critics are good things. You can not find neither free speech nor critics in a dictatorship. A man who does not accept critics can not be a good trekker. STAR TREK is tolerance, it is diplomacy over war, tricorder over phaser and arguments over bigotry.
Truth is truth to the end of reckoning

813. Aurore - September 18, 2013

…I remember cheering on when Mr. Orci said what he said regarding Rick Berman. Shameful I know. And yet, I regret nothing.

Besides, I have already forgiven…myself.

:)

I posted a link to that post of his on the “Star Trek is Broken” thread.
Here it is again…

(Post 49):

http://trekmovie.com/2011/02/10/more-from-rick-berman-reflects-on-his-tng-films-calls-star-trek-2009-wonderful/

It is directed at the people interested in the whole story, so to speak. For, I also remember him saying this (amongst other things), afterwards :

“160. boborci – February 11, 2011
158. Love Berman’s work.
Pay attention.”

:)

814. THX-1138 - September 18, 2013

#790 Keachick

I wasn’t trying to infer that you were apologetic. I was trying to imply that you are a STID apologist. I stand by my assertion, however, that the Federation did not have the technology to do this in the Prime Universe. There has been zero evidence that they could perform such a feat. All examples of “transwarp beaming” were executed by alien civilizations far more advanced than the Federation. That’s why the concept does not ring true for me in STID. I won’t be changing my mind about that and I’m sorry if that offend anybody. And could you please lay off the terms inferring that someone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

As far as the difference between warp drive and impulse drive, there has been a long standing explanation that ha been pretty much in existence since TOS. Warp drive is to be used to cover the vast distances between star systems. Since it creates a “warp” or “fold” in the fabric of space it is dangerous to use it within the gravity well of a celestial body such as a planet. Also, when leaving a space dock it wouldn’t make much sense to go plowing away at light speed from the get go. There is invariably going to be a lot of traffic around an orbital facility or space station. It would be sort of like living in a neighborhood and bolting out of your driveway at freeway speeds during the morning rush hour.

#795 Who Cares

A couple of little issues that I have with the acquisition of future technology:
In 09Trek the Klingons did indeed have access to the advanced and apparently Borg enhanced technology of the Narada, but apparently this knowledge did little to prepare them for Harrison’s transwarp beaming arrival. Indeed, since it looks like Praxis has already been obliterated I can only assume that the Klingons were attempting to prepare for war in the same traditional sense as their counterparts in the Prime Universe utilizing their current technology. Otherwise I would think that they could have avoided destroying their own moon since you would think that they would have found some information about that happening in the Prime Universe in the Narada’s data banks. And as far as the Romulans are concerned, Nero stated pretty clearly that the Romulan Empire and he stood apart, so again I am left to assume that they didn’t have access to any advanced technology.

Anyway, that’s the way I see it.

815. Who cares - September 18, 2013

Oscar Bob wasn’t talking to the fans he was talking to Ahmed, and only Ahmed, I was part of the conversation, and what other people said to Ahmed makes Bob’s F— off look positively tame. Ahmed had every bit of this reaction coming with his behavior, and the fact that he is just sitting back and enjoying seeing people attack Bob for something he and he alone caused without ever attempting to claim responsibility for his own actions just proves how he is lacking in honesty and integrity.

816. Spock's Bangs - September 18, 2013

#812 This is not about forgiveness, this is about intolerance, this is about arrongance, this is about a smug man, this is about a man who does not accept critics…never.”

I’d day it’s more about spoiled little babies who are throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get the toy they wanted. And then when they keep on crying about it and stomping their little feet because big bad boogie man Bob Orci forces them to take a dose of their own medicine! Oh, cry me a river. All of the detractors drone on and on, like a broken record with endless prattle about how “bad” Orci is or how “bad” into darkness is…attacks that bear little scrutiny…if any. Go find a pacifier, already.

817. Who cares - September 18, 2013

Sorry THX, but the IDW comics, overseen by Orci, and per Paramount “official” material for the new timeline, specifically state that the 23rd century Romulan Empire purchased the Narada database from the Klingons. The “After Darkness” storyline currently going on has shown Section 31 trying to acquire Red Matter from the Romulans, which they wouldn’t have been able to make without the Narada database (and natural resources found only in the Romulan Empire).

Regarding Praxis, it is possible that Harrison/Khan is responsible for the moon being fragmented already, with a heavily redacted mention of him being involved in an “incident” (exact same wording as STVI) on Praxis. Additionally the increased technological advancement of all the major powers in the alternate universe is directly tied to the Narada as stated directly by Bob Orci right here on trekmovie story comments.

818. Oscar - September 18, 2013

815
Interesting choice of words, but I read Orci’s insults. «Sh..fans» «congregation of…» Producers, or directors or writers can not insult fans. Never. Nunca. And they can not say,« journalist:, you must write only good critics, otherwise…» Tons of arrogance, a problem to correct. Fans are not acolytes. If Orci wants good critics, he must write good and original trek stories. But if he turns ST 2016 into ST versus Supervillain III..Beh

819. star trackie - September 18, 2013

#803 “The 2 movies are just piece of shit, they haven’t the spirit of Star Trek, it’s just a lot of explosion, crappy punchlines, lens flare, lens flare, explosion. The Abrams’s ST are more like Star Wars…”

Just more mindless, cut-and-paste blathering with no real basis. Considering your ridiculous parroting of the same-o same-o, I don’t think you would know the “spirit” of Star Trek if Gene L. Coon hit you over the head with it.

820. Kenji - September 18, 2013

@379. Cygnus-X1 – September 15, 2013

- “he jettisoned the science aspect of the show and turned Star Trek into a space fantasy with endless action”

ST has always been fantasy.
- the planet of Romans
- the planet of Chicago gangsters
- the planet of the babes that need Spock’s brain
- the planet that is the Gunfight at the OK Corral
- the planet of Nazis

As for the action aspect, David Gerrold goes into considerable detail in his book about how NBC fundamental reconceived the show as ‘action adventure’ from its original postulation as ‘drama’

BTW there is nothing inherently wrong with fantasy, as long as there is sufficient consistency in the made-up world that the stories remain coherent and able to create plausible tension.

“Admiral Pike chews out and demotes Kirk for failing to obey Starfleet Regulations and for believing the blind luck resulting in no crew member deaths is a testament to Kirk’s wisdom. You might, if you had a brain, think this was the set-up of the movie’s theme. It is not. There is no theme. Kirk will learn no lessons about anything in the movie.”

Are you serious? STID hammered us over the head with lessons for Kirk. Pike says that Kirk doesn’t deserve the chair because he lacks humility and because he never takes responsibility.

Kirk then proceeds to be physically humiliated by Khan, who gently mocks the strength of his arm, ethically schooled by Spock to modify the Admiral’s kill order, ethically schooled by Scotty to admit that he made the wrong call on the torpedo controversy, and then twice personally takes the ultimate responsibility, offering himself for his crew to the Admiral and then saving the Enterprise in a suicide gambit.

That’s the arc of the Kirk story.

“…And that’s when Abrams really just up and says “F*CK. YOU.” to anyone who ever liked Star Trek or its characters. He actually replays the end of Wrath of Khan, beat for beat, only he calls “reversies!” and has Kirk sacrifice himself instead of Spock. Really.”

That bugged me too, but I never felt it was a fuck you. I felt it was over-pandering to the nerd core of Trek; “fan service” was the apt phrase used by commentators above.

You have to be blind not to see the reverence that Bad Robot put into the small textures of their Trek films. The young moviegoer of today, the target audience, is highly unlikely to recognize the references to hitting your head on an overhead beam, of Scotty’s hunger for food, the Vulcan rapid-question computer, Sarek and Amanda, “wessels”, transwarp, “fencing”, apple-eating, Kobayashi Maru, katras, “fascinating”, bosun’s whistle (Trek 09); or the tribbles, Section 31, Mudd, Caitians, Christine Chapel, Prime Directive, the number of frozen augments from Space Seed (72), or the helmet design of the spacesuit from The Tholian Web, but there they are. There they are.

STID has problems but a lack of devotion to Trek is not among them.

821. MJB - September 18, 2013

803. Alexander_R
You are being totally ridiculous. You don’t like it. Fine. MOST people DO like it so that style of feature film WILL continue. Deal with that FACT or go look online for fan-fiction, which will likely be what you are looking for. Just make sure you have a gallon of coffee before watching any of the fan videos.

822. THX-1138 - September 18, 2013

#817 Who cares

This is one of those things that I guess we will respectfully disagree on. Not so much that there is a comic book explanation (Are the comics really going to be included in the new canon? To me, that makes following what the writers intend really difficult and may be one reason why there is divisiveness among the fanbase: confusion over just what is happening and why.) but that I am not so keen on the idea and that you are OK with it. And that’s OK, as they say.

Anyway, I certainly appreciate debating with you. Thank you for the courtesy.

823. star trackie - September 18, 2013

#816 “I’d day it’s more about spoiled little babies who are throwing a tantrum”

boy you can say that again! It’s a chore to read through this nonsense. I can’t tell you how utterly ECSTATIC I am, that Orci and JJ are bringing us the 50th anniversary movie and not these backseat drivers that couldn’t put a youtube video together, much less a $190 million motion picture. Clueless, the lot of them. It’s lunch time, I’m out of here.

824. Ahmed - September 18, 2013

@ 815. Who cares – September 18, 2013

“Oscar Bob wasn’t talking to the fans he was talking to Ahmed, and only Ahmed, I was part of the conversation, and what other people said to Ahmed makes Bob’s F— off look positively tame. Ahmed had every bit of this reaction coming with his behavior, and the fact that he is just sitting back and enjoying seeing people attack Bob for something he and he alone caused without ever attempting to claim responsibility for his own actions just proves how he is lacking in honesty and integrity.”

Here is a timeline of how this thing started:

Bob first attacked Dickerson’s article & didn’t address any of the issues in the article itself:

310. boborci – September 2, 2013

I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.
Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of “broken.” And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. Sorry, Joseph. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.
Respect all opinions, always, nonetheless.

311. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

@307. boborci
“And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. ”
If you are the real Bob, I say this, you guys didn’t listen to the fans before & will always do what the studio want; which is a movie that has more action & less thinking.
So, the tone & attitude of the article doesn’t mater one bit.
Four years was wasted, I just hope you are not going to waste more time before we see the 50th anniversary movie.

312. boborci – September 2, 2013

308.
Ahmed, I wish you knew what you were talking about. I listened more than any other person behind the Trek franchise has EVER listened. And guess what? Glad I did becuase it lead to 2 biggest Trek’s ever.
You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive. Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?

315. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

@ 309. boborci – September 2, 2013
“You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive.”
No, we can have a movie with both action & brain, case in point Inception & Indiana Jones movies. What I’m saying that STID was a movie that has lot more action & explosions than a coherent story or character developments.
“Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?”
I’m sorry but what plot ? Khan was found & used by Section 31 & then he put his own people in the torpedo to save them or whatever & the rest of the movie follow in the same illogical way.
No disrespect to you guys, STID made tons of money but it was worse than ST09 in many aspects.

Then came the famous meltdown:

318. boborci – September 2, 2013
312 Shitty Dodge. STID has infinetly more social commentary than Raiders in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend. You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the FUCKING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!

332. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

#318 boborci
Well, if you are the REAL Bob, then you do have a problem taking criticism.
But I do think this is just another imposter. And since AP is not around & Matt didn’t deny or confirm if that is the real Bob or not yet, there is no way to know for sure.

Then Matt confirmed it was the real Bob

334. Matt Wright – September 2, 2013

Near as I can tell it’s really Bob Orci, and yes his post did indeed get trapped by the filter, I approved it, so there it is for all to see.
Also since there were so many comments to this article and many needed approval I’m afraid things have gotten a bit wonky with the comments. I believe Bob was responding to what is now #315.

Then I responded in kind to Bob

338. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

Thanks Matt for clearing that up.
@ 318. boborci – September 2, 2013
“as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!”
Very classy response to which I will only say: GO F**K YOURSELF A**HOLE
Now, that is out of the way, why you don’t go back writing a decent script for a change.

Then Bob posted this

398. boborci – September 2, 2013

don’ take me too seriously. if you’ve been on this board for the lar 5 years (as I have beeb) you know that twice a year I explode at the morons. today, there seemed to be a congregation, so it seemed like a good time.
you are the most listened to fans ever. That doesn’t mean you will get is to do what you want. just means what I said: I listened. Then we decided, having heard as many opinions as possible. To paraphrase of one of my great and beloved heroes, George W. Bush, “we’re the deciders….

——————————–

Take a look at this part “you know that twice a year I explode at the morons. today, there seemed to be a congregation, so it seemed like a good time.”

So, he wasn’t just attacking one fan, nope. He was after the “congregation of morons” who didn’t like his movie.

And I already talked about that in the other article, I didn’t feel like repeating what was already said.

825. P Technobabble - September 18, 2013

I’m sure most would agree that human beings, being what they are, can get pretty riled up at times, over all kinds of things, and their reactions are whatever they are based on their character. I don’t know Mr Orci personally, but I always found him to be personable, humorous and serious about his work. I never saw him drop out of that character right out of the gate to attack anyone. I did, however, see some people making mean-spirited comments directed at Orci, using words like “hack,” “sucks,” and other derogatory remarks. It was quite a long time before I ever saw Orci address any of these detractors. Orci never attacked anyone, despite the fact that he was being attacked by this certain faction regularly (and still is). I’m sure, in hindsight, he probably wishes he hadn’t said anything but I completely understand why he lost it. Probably any of us would have lost if we were in his shoes.
I’m also not sure who the detractors are even talking to, other than preaching to their own choir. Their dislike for STID is certainly not going to change my feelings, nor is likely to change anyone else’s who liked it. So all the detractors have left is their argument, which is of no consequence to me (or others who enjoyed the film, or like Mr Orci).

826. Ahmed - September 18, 2013

@ 822. star trackie – September 18, 2013

“I can’t tell you how utterly ECSTATIC I am, that Orci and JJ are bringing us the 50th anniversary movie and not these backseat drivers that couldn’t put a youtube video together, much less a $190 million motion picture. Clueless, the lot of them.”

LOL, so I guess ONLY moviemakers can criticize a movie, the rest who can’t “put a youtube video together” should shut off & count their blessing!!

827. MJB - September 18, 2013

Mr. Orci obviously had a VERY bad day when he made those remarks. He also said some bizarre statements to a moron on Twitter that same day. Unfortunately for Bob, he vented big-time on Twitter and Trekmovie. He did attempt to apologize before he signed off of Trekmovie and I think he did the same on Twitter.
I’d like to see him make a comeback – this site and Twitter aren’t the same without him. But I fear the d**kheads will pounce on him if he returned so he’s probably done with us. D**kheads win, the rest of us lose.

828. Marcus - September 18, 2013

808. Spock’s Bangs: “The only thing I love more than the fact that Orci IS writing the next movie, is the fact that it pisses you off! Too bad so sad. :)”

———

I have no problem with Orci writing the next “Star Trek” movie. What I do have a problem is with him going off on innocent people. Even though I may have a problem with “Star Trek: Into Darkness”, I respect Orci as a human being, writer, and professional. I support and encourage him to get better.

Entertainment and art is subjective. Regardless about our overall difference in opinion, the way we view art is correct onto ourselves. Ever since the day I arrived to TrekMovie.com, I have been repeating this theme over and over.

When it comes to what Orci has done, while responding to twitter followers, I think his passion had gotten to the best of him. If we were representing a particular company or body of work, we would be held responsible for the things we say and do. Instead of putting his anger into check, Orci went off on people asking harmless questions. No one called him names. No one threatened him with harm.

Another interesting this is that “Star Trek” speaks to all age groups. If one of those twitter followers was a teen, asking questions about his movie, Orci’s reaction would be completely unacceptable. Instead of trying to put the person’s questions into context, Orci automatically called everyone a moron, jerk, etc… Orci didn’t speak before responding.

I would fire or suspend him for the rant.

829. Ahmed - September 18, 2013

@826. Marcus

I think that the suits at Paramount/Bad Robot advised Bob to knock it off, that why he deleted his twitter account & stopped posting on forums & sites.

830. Marcus - September 18, 2013

Fixed: Orci didn’t ‘think’ before responding.

831. Marcus - September 18, 2013

827. Ahmed – “I think that the suits at Paramount/Bad Robot advised Bob to knock it off, that why he deleted his twitter account & stopped posting on forums & sites.”

You make a very good assumption. If we were to approach this from a public relations point of view, I think Paramount and/or Bad Robot would try to go into damage control. One of the individuals he responded to was a “Star Trek” documentary filmographer. Imagine if that individual was a Paramount executive? All hell would break loose.

832. THX-1138 - September 18, 2013

#816 Spocks Bang’s

Your entire post is as hyperbolic as the posts you intend to criticize. That would be the proverbial pot and kettle example. The fact that you are taking joy from your perspective that some people are unhappy speaks more to your character than theirs.

#825 MJB

I get what you’re saying, but is it possible to not call people “d**ckheads?”

833. Bob Tompkins - September 18, 2013

So the site is now moderated?
Or is this directed at me?
Either way, I am done.
It’s been unreal.

834. Bob Tompkins - September 18, 2013

Don’T need any babysitter.

835. Marja - September 18, 2013

797 Cygnus, I noticed this a lot more on my 5th and 6th viewings. I felt rather like I was put thru the emotional wringer, and that it was wringing my emotions for some plot reasons I don’t agree with. Plus put thru the ACTION! VIOLENCE! wringer, which to me was much worse.

Plot holes abounded, but as we both know, the acting was superb, especially in light of things like KHAAANNNN!

836. THX-1138 - September 18, 2013

#831 Bob Tompkins

Is what being directed towards you? I presume that since my post directly precedes yours that you think I am directing my post towards you. But I pretty clearly try to type the post number and name before any response. Then again you aren’t clear on who you are upset with so that leaves your statement as a bit ambiguous as to whom IT is directed.

In any event, you’re not reading this since you’re done.

So….yeah.

837. Who cares - September 18, 2013

No worries THX, LLAP

838. THX-1138 - September 18, 2013

#835 Who cares

Right on. PALL.

839. Cygnus-X1 - September 18, 2013

804. Marcus – September 18, 2013

—When I first learned about what happened, I didn’t realize Orci went off on innocent fans. I also didn’t know he went off on a “Star Trek” documentary filmographer. This changes everything.—

What’s the name of the filmographer? Is Orci’s angry tweet at him posted in the comments section of that page that you linked above?

840. Keachick - September 18, 2013

“Since it creates a “warp” or “fold” in the fabric of space it is dangerous to use it within the gravity well of a celestial body such as a planet. Also, when leaving a space dock it wouldn’t make much sense to go plowing away at light speed from the get go. There is invariably going to be a lot of traffic around an orbital facility or space station. It would be sort of like living in a neighborhood and bolting out of your driveway at freeway speeds during the morning rush hour.”

Good grief. This is not what I was talking about. It was not uncommon for both Captains Kirk and Picard to order the use of impulse drive, as opposed to warp drive, when the ship was nowhere such planets, space stations or other facilities which saw heavy traffic. They engaged impulse engines when charting new star systems or as another example, in the case of TOS episode Elaan of Troyius, to delay the Enterprise’s arrival at a planet so that Elaan could be taught manners. I think Kirk ordered one-eighth impulse – I’m not sure how slow a ship like the Enterprise can go without stalling, but his orders did raise one or two eyebrows…

PaulB – “If you have the right to constantly gush love, they have the right to constantly spout hate.”

I guess this comes down to one’s moral perspective and understanding. Experiences and expressions of both love and hate have their own short and long term consequences. Call it Karma…

841. Marcus - September 18, 2013

837. Cygnus-X1 – September 18, 2013
See Post 793

While you are looking through the comment section, look for the twitter screenshots from Ocri’s account. Robert Meyer Burnett asked a question about Zhan’s ethnicity, and Orci treated him like absolute crap.

I find it interesting that you so no compassion for the other innocent people involved.

842. Marcus - September 18, 2013

I meant to write *show – not – *so

843. Cygnus-X1 - September 18, 2013

I don’t begrudge Bob Orci for losing his temper and lashing out at fans, per se. But his having done so is, I think, symptomatic of him just not understanding how so many people could possibly find fault with his writing.
He’d say that he read “every single comment” posted here, and maybe he did, but he sure didn’t understand them all. If Orci were able to meet minds with the people who’ve been complaining about his writing, he wouldn’t have become frustrated and lost his temper.

Orci doesn’t understand what the likes of me have been complaining about since ST’09. I say this because instead of correcting commonly complained about problems in ST’09, especially those pertaining to plot holes and character motivation, the BR writing team not only repeated most of those problems in their STID script, but actually made some of them (such as plot holes) worse.

The one complaint of mine which I did notice an effort by the writers to address was the lack of a strong, overarching theme in ST’09 (no, I don’t consider “the gang coming together to save the day” to measure up). I did notice and appreciate the writers’ attempt in STID to make “family bonds” the overarching theme of the movie.

Unfortunately, however, they just didn’t do a very good job of developing that theme. They basically just had characters reference “family” in their dialogue throughout the movie, but we never actually saw the strong, emotional family bonds which the characters spoke about, alluded to or reacted to.

Remember the scene where Khan has a touching, meaningful exchange with one of his 72 “family” members that drives home how much they care about and mean to each other? No, you don’t. Because there was no such scene. Remember the emblematic scene that really evinced the familial feelings between Kirk and Spock of which the later Khan-rip-off death scene was a naturally flowing, logical plot consequence? No, you don’t. Because there was no such emblematic scene between Kirk and Spock. And so on…

844. Cygnus-X1 - September 18, 2013

839. Marcus – September 18, 2013

OK, I do remember seeing that Twitter screen shot of Orci lashing out about Khan’s ethnicity.

—I find it interesting that you show no compassion for the other innocent people involved.—

You find it interesting that I haven’t shown compassion for all of the people that Orci was nasty to? I mean…I’m sure they’ll all recover and be alright. If anything, they’re probably deriving satisfaction from all of the articles indicting Orci for lashing out at the fans.

845. Marcus - September 18, 2013

After seeing people blindingly supporting Orci, without showing the innocent posters some empathy, I find this whole incident to be very alarming. I guess “Star Trek” is so important to some people, and they are willing to hurt everyone to get what they want. Its like a reflection of what is happening in politics. Instead of tolerating people’s opinions, sections of our society have digressed to the deepest parts of the human psyche. Its dark. Its primitive.

“Star Trek” will survive at the end. Even though this movie got a mixed reaction, Orci still has a shot at making a successful and unique story. No one got harmed. Our world didn’t suddenly blow up.

Always remember that art and entertainment is subjective. Even though one person might like the color blue, someone else may like the color red. ….and, that is okay.

846. Red Dead Ryan - September 18, 2013

Geez, so much hatred for NuTrek here. I guess I had it right when I mentioned the various demographics of haters.

#787.

Marcus – September 17, 2013

” “Star Trek 2009″ and “Star Trek: ID” feel like “Metellica” and “Megadeth” in 1994. As a result of listening to the studios, the bands sold out to enter into the mainstream. Anyone who jumped onto the bandwagon, during this period of time, was considered a poser. As a result of getting hit with backlash, “Metallica” and “Megadeth” were forced to return to their old styles. Sure, the bands sold a record number of albums; however, they also lost loyal and passionate fans. History seems to be repeating itself.”

Dude, nobody has cared about Metallica and Megadeth since the eighties. And even then, their music was overrated. Comparing these groups to “Star Trek” is like comparing The Monkees to the original “Star Wars” movies.

847. Keachick - September 18, 2013

“boborci – February 10, 2011
everyone is entitled to an opinion,
and if any fan said what he said about the heart of trek, I would say, “much respect to your opinion.” But from a former Court Justice, I can only say:
F#&! you, Berman.

50. boborci – February 10, 2011
and i love you”

These were the actual Bob Orci quotes and then as Aurore mentions, scroll further down to see what Bob Orci also said.

In this context, I took the “FU” comment in a similar fashion as to how kiwi men can refer to each other, often over a beer, as “Ya bastard”.

However, Bob Orci’s “FU” to Ahmed was not written in any similar vein or context.

Many people have come to this site and used pseudonyms in order to write arrogant, mean-spirited, stupid comments, some of which are falsehoods, and clearly show little awareness, let alone conscience or remorse, about what they have written. Many of these comments have been directed at Bob Orci and/or one or other of his co-workers at Bad Robot. Somehow, it seems that only some, the ones like us hiding behind pseudonyms, have the right to criticize, cajole, goad, bitch, humiliate, swear at, lie etc but this same right does not extend to other individuals like Bob Orci to respond in similar fashion.

In fact, of all the posters frequenting this site over time, I actually think that Bob Orci has had more aggression, criticism, nastiness directed at him than any other poster coming here. I have actually felt for him at times. Some of what has been written seemed so unwarranted and needless.

This is unjust, unfair, unkind…then again, if people were not so busy goading, lying, bitching, they would be able to see how unkind and unreasonable they were being and would surely stop…one could hope.

Yes, Bob is a “big boy” just as I am a “big girl” (SUA). I guess being well armoured against varying kinds of insults is a necessity, but harnessing the energy to protect oneself can get wearisome and is not necessarily that healthful over the long term. It is also somewhat wasteful.

I also think that this commonality of behaviour across the planet may be one of the reasons why we are not yet space explorers and may never become such people, irrespective of what technologies might be available or not.

Did you not hear and pay attention to the speech given by James Kirk at the end of STID? I really don’t think most people did or if they did, it was a speech that they love to mock, such is their hate.

Yes, PaulB – I am sad at times and I can get depressed when I see what can go on and I make no apologies for stating such here. You know – the truly saddest aspect is that someone like you actually made the comments you made at post #798. Get a perspective, you say? Really?

Oscar (a new poster, I assume) thinks he knows the truth. Oh boy, if only…

848. THX-1138 - September 18, 2013

#838 Keachick

This is what you posted in #790

Yet more illogical and specious arguments to the point of idiocy. If we were to follow your logic, then the Enterprise would not be using impulse drive since that is slower than warp drive. However, as has been demonstrated on many occasions, both kinds of propulsion are in common use. What’s more, both shuttlecraft and transporter beaming are both used by the Enterprise and other vessels, even though transporting beaming technology is a later development.

It is apparent that you are having difficulty following my point. What I did was explain why and when within the Star Trek universe that different types of propulsion are used, since that seemed to be thrust of your rebuttal.

Here is my point, one final time:
In the whole 47 years of Star Trek stories, the transporter is a device with a limited range due to the amount of data it needs “beam” from it’s point of origin to it’s destination. While other “advanced alien” cultures have been able to solve this problem, the Federation, it’s allies and enemies have not been successful. And let’s not forget that the reason that “beaming” the crew via a transporter came into existence was because the shuttlecraft effect was too expensive to use week after week.

In a nutshell, I just don’t buy this concept of beaming from one star system to another (I assure you that Earth and Qo’nos are in two separate star systems). A reasonable explanation for this leap in technology was not provided within the movie, at least one that made sense to me. If it’s Borg technology then why don’t the Borg use it instead of relying on getting their cubes or spheres close enough to the place they want to beam?

849. Keachick - September 18, 2013

I don’t think Bob Orci ever lashed out at innocent posters. When you look at the context in which Bob lets fly, he does have a fairly valid reason.

I have been ganged up on, bullied and trolled on this site more than once. In one instance I was told repeatedly to “F*CK OFF” and to “GET THE F*CK OF THIS SITE” – Yes, just like that. The poster has since apologized thankfully. The poster swearing at me was not Bob Orci. In fact, Bob Orci was put in a rather peculiar position as a result of this other poster’s outburst.

Interestingly, a poster who did not always agree with my viewpoints, realized that I was a victim of bullying/trolling at times. So I guess I may have some reason to express sadness, not only for what is going on in general, but also for myself. I know – nobody these days is permitted to be a victim, self-pity is a no-no and so it goes on and on…the only way to survive is to be an aggressor, to bite and snarl back, but god forbid that you might also be a writer or producer, then the Ahmed’s, bloggers seeking hits and momentary glory and newbies like Marcus and Oscar leading the way in rolling out the big guns and cannonballs…

And PaulB wonders why people should not have as much right to hate on something as those who might express love for something?

850. Keachick - September 18, 2013

The transwarp beaming device that Harrison used was experimental. He made it for his own use – only.

Admittedly, the movie did not fully explain how he managed to get from one star system to another by using this device, but clearly he did and as far as the plot of the story goes, that is all we needed to know. The fact that he bunny hopped certainly helps us make more sense of the how to’s. Harrison was making a quick escape, hence he made use of the technology available that could give him the fastest means of escape. Neither the Borg, starship in Starfleet, Klingons, Romulans nor any other space faring people are necessarily looking for the fastest means of escape.

“And let’s not forget that the reason that “beaming” the crew via a transporter came into existence was because the shuttlecraft effect was too expensive to use week after week.”

That is not a valid comment. It is irrelevant as to how any of this came about. Captain Kirk and crew certainly never knew that. As with all these people from the fictional 23rd Star Trek universe(s), all they know is what is shown on screen, ie they had access to both transporting beaming technology and use of shuttlecrafts. For example, does Captain Kirk know Gene Roddenberry. Certainly, William Shatner did, but not Kirk.

Once again, this new technology would be deemed another OPTION, not a replacement.

851. Spock's Bangs - September 18, 2013

#830 ” The fact that you are taking joy from your perspective that some people are unhappy speaks more to your character than theirs.”

Thanks for your free analysis, Dr. Phil! Make no mistake, the fact that all the whine-bag, back seat drivers are getting, not JUST another Trek movie from Orci, but the fact that it’s THE FREAKING 50th anniversary film, delights me to no end! The bitch-and-moaners are a powerless minority, and it eats at them like a cancer. So they stir their pot of ilk, constantly seeking validation of their whacked ideas, and easily finding it with like-minded fanatics who jump at any chance to spew their tainted pablum. Too bad all the pitching -a-fit fanatics have absoletely no say in anything other than buying a ticket. Fortunately, their participation is not required…the rest of the world will continue to make Trek tons of money without them!!

852. Keachick - September 18, 2013

#841 – “Remember the scene where Khan has a touching, meaningful exchange with one of his 72 “family” members that drives home how much they care about and mean to each other? No, you don’t. Because there was no such scene.”

Of course, there was no such scene as you suggest, because the rest of Khan’s 72 other family members were still in cryostasis. However, just as Harrison told Kirk, “I am Khan” he went on to explain what Admiral Marcus had done and what those 72 other people meant to him. He was shown to be weeping…

“Remember the emblematic scene that really evinced the familial feelings between Kirk and Spock of which the later Khan-rip-off death scene was a naturally flowing, logical plot consequence? No, you don’t. Because there was no such emblematic scene between Kirk and Spock. And so on…”

I think the scene on the shuttlecraft where Spock let his guard down to reveal how he felt Vulcan’s implosion, Pike’s dying and his acknowledgement and understanding of Uhura, not only in front of his girlfriend, but also in front of Kirk. Later, Kirk trusted Spock with his own misgivings about his capacity to command and turned the ship over to Spock…Giving and receiving trust to and of another is quite emblematic, imo.

These scenes might not appear so obvious and in your face, but they gave an attentive viewer an insight into what made these people tick, by themselves and with others.

853. THX-1138 - September 18, 2013

Keachick

It appears that we have reached an impasse. Nothing wrong with that. Have a great day!

854. Marcus - September 18, 2013

I am rewatching the film now. I am currently going through the Starfleet attack scene. Since I am watching it from the comfort of my home, I am relaxed and drawn into the story. The movie is visually outstanding. I love the whole nod to “Blade Runner” and “Total Recall (2012)”. I didn’t notice this the first time around, but the lens flare usage seems to be at a minimum. I am trying to see what others are seeing. When it comes to Kirk and Spock’s promotion, demotion, and promotion, I think it happens way too quickly and for awkward reasons. “I am upset with you, I cannot do anything, but I have convinced them to make you my first officer. Now, I am dead, and now you are the captain again.” It feels a little awkward and rushed.

*puts movie on pause*

I am going to finish it up later. I am going to try my damnedest to see past certain things, which I noticed the first time around.

855. MJB - September 18, 2013

850. Marcus
I would just stop looking for things and sit back and let the movie present the story to you. Don’t go into it looking for things that bother you. You’ll probably enjoy it more!

856. Marcus - September 18, 2013

851. MJB

I am trying my best to breakthrough certain cognitions. At this point in my re-watch, the only complaint I have is the story’s pacing. Everything is happening very fast. Sometimes you cannot appreciate everything that is happening in each scene. I do like how Section 31 was used. *thumbs up*

857. Marcus - September 18, 2013

Kirk and Uhura remind me of Tom Paris and B’Elanna Torres.

858. Marcus - September 18, 2013

Fixed: Spock and Uhura remind me of Tom Paris and B’Elanna Torres.

859. Aurore - September 18, 2013

On the “Star Trek Is Broken” thread, I was surprised to find links to articles about Mr. Orci’s comments.

Indeed, to me, his posts were not newsworthy. His “tone” was nothing new, either.

” 1025. boborci – September 12, 2012
….Disclaimer: boborci is an internet character designed for entertainment pusposes only. Any similarity to Roberto Orci is strictly coincidental.”

“1205. boborci – September 13, 2012
Boborci is a trademarked internet character designed for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to Roberto Orci is grounds for a legal action.”

That is what he stated (on an impostor-infested thread), a while back.

Then, on the same thread, there was this:

“1683. Boborci – September 19, 2012

the conversation about Canada and who invented what has been so much more important and relevant than the discussion about the most important event of our lifetimes. half of u f#*ckers make me sick. unreal. you will get everything you deserve as u sleep your life away.”

This really was an informative discussion from my perspective ; there was so much going on…

For example, at some point, a link to a video, where Mr. Orci shared “insights on the crossroads of entertainment and marketing” in a presentation at the 2011 Mid-West Hispanic Conference in Minneapolis, was posted ( @1976 ). I found what he had to say very interesting…

[The entire discussion (thread) was, in my opinion] :

http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-title-confirmed/

…Anyway, regarding what occurred of late, why did Mr. Orci really “left”?

Maybe because the “show ” was over, as “Boborci” (?) said on the thread I just linked to ( @ 1363 ) :

“Anyhow, shows over. Thanks for participating in this performance art…”

…Nah…’Can’t be.
‘Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, to me…

:)

860. Aurore - September 18, 2013

855. Correction.
why did Mr. Orci really “left”?
=
why did Mr. Orci really “leave” ?

861. Ahmed - September 18, 2013

@855. Aurore

“…Anyway, regarding what occurred of late, why did Mr. Orci really “left”?

Maybe because the “show ” was over, as “Boborci” (?) said on the thread I just linked to ( @ 1363 ) :

“Anyhow, shows over. Thanks for participating in this performance art…”

…Nah…’Can’t be.
‘Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, to me…

:)”

Interesting, that reminded me of a post on reddit from a Transformers fan called “Making_stuff ” about Bob Orci interaction with them.

==============

“I absolutely need to make sure that you guys are aware that he has done this more than once.

Without getting into any tit-for-tat comparisons of fandoms, let me just say this: en masse, Transformers fans are just as faithful, rabid and lovingly nitpicky as Trekkies. We love our big dumb fighting robots, the comic mythos, the outrageous kids-toy-ness of the whole affair, etc.

The folks at Paramount – no clue where in the press world this responsibility lied – knew about this and enough to pander to the Transformers websites on the net. In some way shape or form, when ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ – another Orci/Kurtzman joint – was close to release, Orci was directed to TFW2005 (a transformers fansite) to answer questions about the characters, the storyline, his ideas about writing for Transformers, etc.

Dude answered a ton of questions pre-release about his writing style, stuff about his previous body of work and how he felt it applied to Transformers, if he was a TF fan, what his favorite character was, would it be in the film, etc. He was happy to play along and bait the hook and make us all feel like he was one of us – a nerd amongst nerds, lucky enough to play with the big guys.

Then the movie came out. Reaction was mixed, but for the most part, Transformers fans were like “What the f**k was that!?”

…aaaaand his TFW2005 account went silent. (I edited his account username out…just didn’t feel right to leave that.)

Later on, you’d see him quoted in press articles about the mixed reaction to ‘Revenge of the Fallen’ saying stuff pretty much along the same lines as what he’s saying about ‘Into Darkness’ now: “They don’t know what they want, I know what they want, the fans need to trust that this is part of something bigger, don’t give up hope, etc.”

F**k you. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you’re not getting a dollar of my ticket/DVD/promotional sales money.”

=====================================

862. Marcus - September 18, 2013

Time Index: 00:44:59

I think that nebula gave everyone the finger.

O.O

I am liking this movie more on my second time through.

863. Marcus - September 18, 2013

856. Aurore

If you go to blastr.com, you will find an apology from Orci. He admitted it was him.

864. Keachick - September 18, 2013

http://www.blastr.com/2013-9-9/roberto-orci-says-hes-sorry-telling-star-trek-fans

It was a not-so-pleasant exchange. Bob Orci is OK.

865. Cygnus-X1 - September 18, 2013

848. Keachick – September 18, 2013

Your rebuttal is exactly the sort of response that Bob Orci gave me when I had my long back-and-forth with him a few years back about the writing in ST’09.

You missed the point entirely with regard to the Khan facet, but…

With regard to the Kirk/Spock relationship…I mean, there’s virtually no way for me to convince you that the scene you’re referencing is superficial and insufficient for the purposes of its presumed contribution to developing the familial-bond theme of the movie. I suppose I could re-watch the movie and note more specific details, such as the brevity and sparse dialogue of the scenes in question and that what is lacking from the dialogue is not compensated for even by a purely visual representation such as a long, meaningful look between characters or something else along that line. But to be perfectly frank, I don’t particularly want to watch that movie again any time soon.

But if the writing in ST’09 and STID is sufficiently deep and well developed for your taste, then that’s pretty much the end of it as far as debating the issue is concerned. Suffice it to say that you and I will probably not meet minds on issues relating to criticism of the writing in the BR Trek movies.

866. Aurore - September 18, 2013

“If you go to blastr.com, you will find an apology from Orci. He admitted it was him.”
______

I know it was him. That was not the point of my post @ 856.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned, there is no need to go to another site ; unless I’m mistaken he apologised on this very site, on the “Star Trek Is Broken” thread.

867. Disinvited - September 18, 2013

#859. Marcus – September 18, 2013,
#860. Keachick – September 18, 2013

FWIW in it’s original setting:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gEGzAEimG7sJ:https://twitter.com/boborci/status/375835648436879360+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

”roberto orci ‏@boborci

@masteractor not my finest moment. agreed. what can I say? i’m more than half human.”

Where he also said in reply to masteractor:

”roberto orci ‏@boborci 5 Sep

“@masteractor:just breathe & step back from internet sometimes. People get passionate.Very.” Ur right-mom giving me earful as Iwrite this.”

868. Marcus - September 18, 2013

Okay, I finally finished my second viewing of the film. “Star Trek: Into Darkness” is not a successful “Star Trek” movie. “Star Trek: Into Darkness” is a successful “Star Wars” meets “Total Recall (2012)” movie. Even though the movie contained “Star Trek” elements, “Star Trek: Into Darkness” was about an entirely different franchise. I think it might have to do with the environmental designs, sound affects, and some themes. Several of the scenes visually looked like they were plucked out of “Total Recall (2012)” and “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones”. Several of the ship and phaser sounds also came right out of the “Star Wars” library.

Even though “Star Trek: Into Darkness” carries elements from “Wrath of Khan”, the movie felt like it came from several different franchises. “Star Trek: into Darkness” is a great film; however, the design, sounds, pacing, and some themes are not related to the franchise. Its weird.

I had fun watching the film. I enjoyed everyone moment. I just do not see the “Star Trek” in “Star Trek: into Darkness”.

Nice job overall.

869. MJB - September 18, 2013

‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Debuts at No. 1 on Home Entertainment Charts:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/star-trek-darkness-debuts-at-631840

“The sci-fi film, which grossed $228.8 million in U.S. theaters, nearly as much as 2009’s Star Trek, debuted at No. 1 on both national sales charts — Nielsen VideoScan’s First Alert, which tracks overall disc sales, DVD and Blu-ray Disc combined, and Nielsen’s dedicated Blu-ray Disc chart — as well as Home Media Magazine’s weekly rental chart.”

Star Trek clearly is NOT BROKEN!

870. Forrest Leeson - September 18, 2013

Using boxofficemojo’s numbers, 2009 did ~172%/257% budget (domestic and global); 2013 is currently at ~121%/245%.

871. Marcus - September 18, 2013

869. MJB,

Since “Star Trek” had abandoned the brand to emulate another franchise, in order to become successful, the “Star Trek” brand is very-very much broken. Roughly 5% to 10% of “Star Trek: Into Darkness” carried the “Star Trek” brand. It was five to ten minutes at the end of the movie.

See my post #868

872. Spock's Bangs - September 18, 2013

#871 “Since “Star Trek” had abandoned the brand to emulate another franchise, in order to become successful, the “Star Trek” brand is very-very much broken. ”

…spoken like a true Berman fan. Revisit TOS sometime if you want to understand why Trek, TOS STYLE, is very much A-ok!

873. Marcus - September 18, 2013

“Star Wars: Into Darkness” emulated movies like this:

“Total Recall (2012)”
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekE9LBqoIA

874. Ahmed - September 18, 2013

@ 873. Marcus – September 18, 2013

““Star Wars: Into Darkness” emulated movies like this:

“Total Recall (2012)””

Total Recall (2012) was far worse than STID & I’m not really sure about the similarities between the two movies. Except for the fact that lens flares are used & that John Cho was in both movies.

875. Keachick - September 18, 2013

Well, I have just watched my brand new DVD of STID – very good. I went to my local Warehouse and there was a small stand of DVDs and Blu-Rays. Alongside was a big poster of Captain (Pine)Kirk in yellow tunic and pants holding a phaser. Fortunately he was pointing it at the ground. He had a serious, determined expression. Ah yes, to see “my captain” standing there, kind of above it all, just as it should be…:)!

Cygnus X1 – “I mean, there’s virtually no way for me to convince you that the scene you’re referencing is superficial and insufficient for the purposes of its presumed contribution to developing the familial-bond theme of the movie. I suppose I could re-watch the movie and note more specific details, such as the brevity and sparse dialogue of the scenes in question and that what is lacking from the dialogue is not compensated for even by a purely visual representation such as a long, meaningful look between characters or something else along that line. But to be perfectly frank, I don’t particularly want to watch that movie again any time soon.”

So you need tons of dialogue to explain what everyone is feeling and thinking. You are not able to pick up/intuit anything at all from a character’s meaningful look or gesture and yet you call this film superficial and insufficient…”Fascinating” as Spock would say.

Even more “fascinating” is the fact that you appear to relying on memory in order to call out a movie that you do not like and don’t intend to watch again any time soon. How much longer will you be doing this and why?

I do hope your constant criticisms do not become a habit that is difficult to break. Some people are still expressing their animosity toward ST09 for more than four years now. Sadly, I suspect the same will apply to STID.
This kind of behaviour points to a disturbing pathology…

In general, I tend to respond to what I read. I am not one for initiating much, for better or worse. So, if I appear to repeat myself, it is more than likely that I am responding to someone who has either repeated themselves or has written something similar to what someone else may have already written. Believe me, PaulB – I am not the only one who goes round in circles.

876. MJB - September 18, 2013

871. Marcus
I respect the old Trek and I have loved most of it since 9/8/66….but any of the old Trek would be a financial failure on TV or theaters if they tried to release them in today’s global market. This has been proven with the last two NextGen movies and the last two Berman-Trek TV series. So, what would you have, absolutely no Trek movies or TV shows or a revamped, energized alternate (universe) version of Trek that today’s audience will pay money to see? The BO and DVD/Blu-ray sales are proof that ONLY nuTrek will work in today’s global market. It’s an alternate version. Who cares if it doesn’t follow canon? Who cares if it copies canon? Who cares if it doesn’t follow canon exactly like the prime universe? Logic tells me that an alternate universe will have similarities but also some big differences. That’s what nuTrek is. Deal with it and if you don’t like it then go watch the 700+ hours of old Trek.

The reality is this: I will never be able to change your mind and you will never be able to change my mind. And that’s OK!

877. Who cares - September 18, 2013

Hey THX, I forgot earlier about one instance of interstellar beaming that was performed by Starfleet in the Prime universe, and I mention it now only because it was Starfleet tech. On Voyager the USS Relativity, a Federation timeship from the 29th century, beamed Seven of Nine from Voyager at Earth Space Dock to Voyager in the Delta Quadrant two years later, and later beamed her and Janeway to Voyager in a different time. Now granted we are talking 29th century tech, but they also have the temporal transport aspect in there, so I would suspect that the interstellar angle was figured out earlier. Additionally several pieces of 29th century tech fell into the hands of the Voyager crew, in various episodes (likely part of Berman’s efforts to create a 29th century Trek series, much like the Temporal Cold War on Enterprise).

I only mention this because it is a Prime U example of the Federation having such technology, even if in a future era. Later

878. Marcus - September 18, 2013

876. MJB,

Since I have been exposed to other science-fiction franchises, I wonder if that is also contributing to my view of “Star Trek”. Weird. Perhaps its time to move onto another franchise entirely. I may have grown away from the franchise, and I didn’t even noticed it happened.

*shrugs*

I guess that is life.

I know my tastes in storytelling has matured. As a result of growing and going to college, I started to reading complex and sophisticated novels.

Thank you everyone for opening my eyes.

I guess its time to put “Star Trek” away for awhile.

You guys have given me allot of things to think about.

Thank you.

879. Aurore - September 19, 2013

Addendum ( @ 866 ).

Besides, as far as I’m concerned, there is no need to go to another site ; unless I’m mistaken he apologised on this very site, on the “Star Trek Is Broken” thread.
______________

“1303. boborci – September 7, 2013
1296 not good at self analysis… i’m just a regular dude who is still suprised that a momentary tirade and moment of immaturity is news worthy. Kinda weird. But I also know it is one of the clearest signs of how lucky I am.”

“1437. boborci – September 7, 2013
Joseph,

Wanted to make something clear in the middle of this moment. I hold nothing against you. I have loved Trekmovie from day one, and your article does not change that. I respect the site even more for that. And I hope some remember that out of the thousands (literally) of valuable interactions I’ve had here with great Trekkieas, my inelegence represents less than one percent of my interactions.”

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/01/star-trek-is-broken-here-are-ideas-on-how-to-fix-it/

880. Aurore - September 19, 2013

Addendum. @ 866.

“Besides, as far as I’m concerned, there is no need to go to another site ; unless I’m mistaken he apologised on this very site, on the ‘Star Trek Is Broken’ thread.”
_________

(Posts 1303 & 1437) :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/01/star-trek-is-broken-here-are-ideas-on-how-to-fix-it/

881. Cygnus-X1 - September 19, 2013

869. MJB – September 18, 2013

— ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Debuts at No. 1 on Home Entertainment Charts:

Star Trek clearly is NOT BROKEN!—

Bad Robot Productions is not broken. They are making money doing what they do. But what they do is not Star Trek, despite their labeling it such and heavily borrowing from Star Trek to do what they do. Bad Robot is calling what they do “Star Trek” and that is the crux of the problem.

882. Cygnus-X1 - September 19, 2013

875. Keachick – September 18, 2013

Charming.

883. Oscar - September 19, 2013

880.
True. Earned money and sales mean Nu Trek is a good business, not a good trek film. The question , the only important question, is: Star Trek is broken?
Yes, Why? Because is aiming at the lowest blockbuster common denominator.Period.
Star Trek deserves more. Asimov said ST was the most intelligent sci fi show ever. Right now is loud and with lot of action, but it is irrelevant. My hope: Interstellar. A group of explorers make use of a newly discovered worm hole to surpass the limitations of human space and conquer the vast distances involved in an interstellar voyage. It sounds true star trek. This is boldly go. And if a non star trek movie can try this, Why not Star Trek?

884. PaulB - September 19, 2013

#875 Keachick: No, you aren’t the only one, just one of the biggest culprits. But the real problem is how you constantly lecture us about how pathological it is to complain about STID nonstop, while not admitting that YOU ARE BEING JUST AS PATHOLOGICAL.

You, Keachick, really need to lay off the attacks on fans who don’t like STID. Your obsession with silencing critical opinions–sorry, your deeply felt emotional response to hatefulness–is YOUR problem, not OURS.

So, please stop lecturing us about how YOU feel it’s so unhealthy to gripe about the movie. It’s just as unhealthy to gush the stuff YOU do about STID and specifically about Chris Pine.

It’s that simple: If it’s okay and healthy for YOU to gush endlessly, it’s okay for the haters, too. If they are unhealthy for being obsessed with their hate, YOU are unhealthy for being obsessed with your love. (Spare me your protestations: You are OBSESSED and we have thousands of pages of your pages to prove it.)

Will you PLEASE knock off the attacks on people who don’t like the film? Just skip their posts and move on! Stop trying to enforce YOUR love of the film on others!

885. Cervantes - September 19, 2013

Now that I’ve caught up with it, this follow-up rebuttal to the recent ‘Star Trek is broken’ article has proved to be equally entertaining! ;)

‘IDIC’ (Infinite Diversity in Infinate Combinations) is indeed alive and well on these boards, where differing views on various ‘Star Trek’ is concerned, it seems!

886. Colin - September 19, 2013

Okay. How many of you have seen this video from Vimeo – http://vimeo.com/72019454?

Did you know that starships have metaphysic shields?
Did that you know that the Organian Peace Treaty was in existence by 2259?
Did that you know that starships, looking something from the late 24th century, are in existence during this time? (See DB-5)

887. star trackie - September 19, 2013

880 “Bad Robot is calling what they do “Star Trek” and that is the crux of the problem.”

…for you.

888. star trackie - September 19, 2013

#883 “You, Keachick, really need to lay off the attacks on fans who don’t like STID. ”

Hogwash! When these pablum pukers get on a rant against Orci, or JJ or anyone who isn’t here to defend themselves, I say go get ‘em Keachick!

889. Jai - September 19, 2013

Re: The thread here: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/81322476.html

The cached screenshots of Bob Orci’s tweets during the last few weeks before he deleted his Twitter account are…interesting stuff. I’ll quote the tweets about STID:

Jeffrey: What about the one they remove to freeze Kirk?

Bob Orci: Got us there!

Sean Wade: Maybe you should rewatch the episode again. I’m not much an ST fan, but I watched the episode twice before ID came out.

Bob Orci: Perhaps they weren’t sure? They had no friggin idea, even after they knew his name!

Bob Orci: A lot of “maybe” and “perhaps” in your criticisms. Perhaps and maybe you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

Bob Orci: Sadly, Damon is busy. Will miss him.

Revengeance OnQD: Maybe the next one might actually make sense.

Bob Orci: Or maybe you’ll gain IQ points and understand it next time, dumb shit.

Bob Orci: @C5_Tim @CullyHamner: Uhuh. Your “logic” is evidence for why I get to write the movies and you don’t.

Bob Orci: @C5_Tim @CullyHamner: You are the lazy embarrassment, friend. Stay away from my Trek, please.

Bob Orci: @ColonelLanda As they look up Hitler?! Yeah, what a tantalizing scene to have them Google K. Reason I get to write the movies and u don’t.

Sean Wade (@ColonelLanda): No, a great scene that would have had Spock, Bones, and Kirk look up Khan and then have a nice old Star Trek reason vs logic dis.

Bob Orci: @ColonelLanda Conversation over. Ba-bye!

Robert Meyer Burnett: How about his in continuity ethnicity, as a Sikh, from the prime universe you preserved in TREK ’09?

Bob Orci: Why aren’t you writing your congressman for failing to launch Eugenics wars in the 90s? Canon violation!

Robert Meyer Burnett: What does that even mean? When you play in a fictional universe and go out of your way to PRESERVE it…why then…not?

Bob Orci: Best actor available wins. Period. Also, BC’s ethnicity not mutually exclusive with canon.

890. star trackie - September 19, 2013

Gotta love me some BobOrci!! And guess what Jai, he still gets to write the next movie! lol Too bad. Now go pour yourself another cold glass of hator-ade!

891. free dremel woodworking projects - September 19, 2013

To be fair, it’s great to see other cartooning majors trying to make money, blogging is a community strategy.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, also looks rather unanimated. Second of all, the entire rest of the state of things even at this stage is throw a little salt and a little shorter than those delivered by President George W.

892. THX-1138 - September 19, 2013

#877 Who cares

OK, you’re reaching now. But it’s all good, I had an actual “lol” moment.

893. THX-1138 - September 19, 2013

Jai

Well that certainly was an eye-opener.

894. MJB - September 19, 2013

Maybe we should add “Star Trek” to this:
“…avoid talking about religion and politics.”
So it would read:
“…avoid talking about religion, politics & nuTrek.”

Or bring back the old debate:
“Which is better and why: Star Wars, Star Trek, Dr. Who or Battlestar Galactica”
Seriously, I went to a panel discussion on this at a Sci-Fi convention back in the 80′s. It was an entertaining and lively debate!!!

895. Keachick - September 19, 2013

#884 – You will also find “thousands of pages” of other posters’ comments here as well. Many are as vocal in their like/dislike as I have been; some even more so.

I have been accused of “rambling rants”. Maybe the reason why there seem to be so many posts of mine here is that because I don’t always write about Star Trek at all nor about Chris Pine or any other Trek actor. Shortly before Bob Orci left this site, I wrote a piece about race/ethnicity/culture and who could *rightly* claim to belong to such. This was based on my own family’s experiences. The post was topical and even though I was not necessarily looking for any feedback from Bob Orci in particular, he did give it – the only person who did actually.

I also write about where I live, how I came upon the pseudonym Keachick etc. Actually one or two posters here asked me about the name.

What I have found disturbing is that so many here are not willing to tell anything about themselves or where they live, even what the *time is at the time of writing. Most of you live in or near cities with millions of people and yet stating seems of so little relevance, or is it fear that someone might recognize you or something? I also realize that I can relate too much about myself and circumstances than is probably wise…people are not that kind always…

I realize this is a site dedicated to discussions about Star Trek (I believe that Anthony Pascale set up this site for discussion of Bad Robot Star Trek movie iterations in particular), however, sometimes topics can segue into other things, especially when there has been little to report. Unfortunately, what this has often meant is that posters then bitch about the fact there is no news and then go on about AP has abandoned the site, doesn’t care, blah, blah….Is it any wonder the guy has *buggered off*?…Duh

I am not as obsessed with “gushing” as you might think…

*BTW – Today here is Friday morning, 8.20am, 20/9/13.

896. Phil - September 19, 2013

You know, how much or how little Bob was barking at individuals is getting a little tiresome – and I’m really not that interested to cross check bits of a conversation that may or may not be taken out of context. The guy mouthed off, got some blowback (which in several instances was manipulated as well), he apologized and is laying low for a while. It adds nothing to the conversation now to keep pointing out he got pissed off. We know….we know.

897. Phil - September 19, 2013

@893…
“Which is better and why: Star Wars, Star Trek, Dr. Who or Battlestar Galactica”

Yes. How’s that for a generic answer?

:-)

898. Basement Blogger - September 19, 2013

@ 889

Jai, stop it. We get it. You’re a Sikh and are really, really, really upset that Khan was not played by an Indian. It’s becoming a one issue crusade for you. You post Bob Orci’s comments about Khan which he has said on this site before. He didn’t even make it recently. So it’s not news.

I say this respectfully. You’re worse than Captain Neill, a guy I defended. You see he criticized Star Trek 2009 a lot. But at least he talked about other things. But whenever I see your name lately, the issue you bring up is Khan’s ethnicity. Enough already. You’ve become a one issue poster. You see I’ve defended Benedict Cumberbatch’s casting but you want to know something? I’m getting tired of talking about it. It’s my understanding that the movie has already been made and they cast BC.

GET EXCITED ABOUT OTHER INDIANS.

Jai, I don’t know why you want a megalomaniac tyrant associated with your race. I’m Chinese American. If Hollywood whitewashed a story about a Chinese mass murderer, I wouldn’t be upset.

But there are two Indian women who are doing great things in America that you should get excited about.

1. Nina Davuluri. Recently won the Miss America contest. But here’s the beautiful thing. She did a Bollywood dance with Indian music for the talent portion. Indian music! And she was joyous.

2. Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina. She’s racially a Sikh.

HERE’S A KHAN WE CAN ALL SUPPORT

Here’s a Khan that’s making a difference. He was recently on 60 Minutes. Bill Gates is an admirer. He’s Pakistani-Indian and an American. Like Star Trek’s Khan, he has worldwide ambition. But his worldwide ambition is to educate the world online for free. His name is Salman Khan. Link.

A Khan we can all support in his worldwide plan to educate the planet..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Khan_(educator)

899. 47 - September 19, 2013

@Jai

Wow. Orci really comes off as an arrogant prick there. I never followed his twitter feeds (nor would I ever want) but he surely gives the impression of having a superiority complex. I’m actually surprised he didn’t use “#winning” in his twitter feeds and comments. Oh boy.

Those people can be pretty aggressive towards fans and criticism. I remember Nimoy few years ago calling fans who didn’t like Star Dreck (2009), “dickheads”. And now Pig, excuse me, Pegg tells those who say something against this movie to “f*** off”. Huh? I can understand Nimoy, he is an old man who probably has some form of dementia brought about by the old age which prevented him from seeing that Star Trek fans have always been a vital part of the franchise and that you can’t treat them like that, but it’s a bit surprising to see that young actor and that writer communicate like that. But I guess it’s not that surprising considering how devoid of morality their current version of Star Trek is.

I wouldn’t call Star Trek “broken”, as Mr. Dickinson did, although I considered his article a pretty accurate assessment of the situation, but I’d say it’s been turned into a fast-food restaurant which produces low quality food, low on nutrients and vitamins. People consume that junk and feel happy for a while, and the makers of that junk are happy as well since they earn a lot of money on people massively consuming that junk, but that actually cannot be considered proper food. You eat that on a regular basis and you will get sick. Star Trek is Fast Food now.

I guess the nu people in charge of the nu Trek are sort of reflection of the state Star Trek is currently in. The movie they produced might as well be called Star Trek into Emptiness. Because it is empty. Empty of originality. Empty of Roddenberry spirit. Empty of everything that made Star Trek interesting, intelligent and great.

900. Keachick - September 19, 2013

Sikh is a religion, not a race.

901. Gary 8.5 - September 19, 2013

893.
Back in the 80s?
So that discussion was about the original Battlestar Galactica?
That does sound interesting .

902. Keachick - September 19, 2013

#884 – Are you saying that constantly expressing hatred is as valid and as healthy as expressing love on certain occasions, like acknowledging someone’s birthday? Interesting…

PaulB – You have just proved my point about a disturbing pathology…:( What’s more, you are being inaccurate re my the contents of my posts over time.

903. Ahmed - September 19, 2013

@ 893. MJB – September 19, 2013

“Or bring back the old debate:
“Which is better and why: Star Wars, Star Trek, Dr. Who or Battlestar Galactica”
Seriously, I went to a panel discussion on this at a Sci-Fi convention back in the 80′s. It was an entertaining and lively debate!!!”

We all know the answer to that question, Babylon 5 :)

904. THX-1138 - September 19, 2013

#900

WRONG!

Farscape. Or Firefly. Oh, maybe it was U.F.O.

No, I got it!

Quark! (Not the bartender on DS9, the show starring Richard Benjamin)

No that isn’t it either. Ooh, ooh, this is the one:

http://youtu.be/8ZBaoBFAPRE

905. MJB - September 19, 2013

B5 wasn’t a series in the 80′s, right? I think that was the 90′s.
And yes, Battlestar Galactica TOS.

906. MJB - September 19, 2013

901 THX:
That was hilarious!!!!!!! I remember that show!! Thanks for the link.

907. Ahmed - September 19, 2013

@ 902. MJB – September 19, 2013

“B5 wasn’t a series in the 80′s, right? I think that was the 90′s.”

Yes, B5: The Gathering was aired in 1993 & the first season came out in 1994

@ 901. THX-1138 – September 19, 2013

“Farscape. Or Firefly. Oh, maybe it was U.F.O.”

I never watched UFO, was it any good ?

908. Curious Cadet - September 19, 2013

@889. Jai,
“Bob Orci: Best actor available wins. Period.”

I agree, some “interesting” tweets.

The one you quoted which I include above I found particularly interesting. Maybe Orci brought this up elsewhere, but I don’t remember him on Trekmovie using this particular defense for the casting of Khan. Is this new for him? I thought the “best actor for the role” line was Abrams and Lindelof. If so, Orci has changed his rationale from being uncomfortable demonizing a dark-skinned actor, and ensuring audiences saw him as “one of us”, to towing the Bad Robot company line.

909. Keachick - September 19, 2013

Could not Bob Orci have thought all of it – ie feeling uncomfortable demonizing people of Indian/Arab descent AND thinking that Benedict Cumberbatch was the best actor?

Makes sense to me. Perhaps it does to Bob as well.

910. THX-1138 - September 19, 2013

#904 MJB

On the comments for the youtube video one of the folks said something like,”The 80′s were filled with such terrible shows all because Star Wars came out. Cheesy FX, bad writing, bad acting. And if I missed one single episode I would skulk around all week.” That described me to a T. I used to watch this and Space Academy religiously on Saturday mornings and then build spaceships and play in my backyard and have adventures. Awesomely good times.

#905 Ahmed

U.F.O. might be an acquired taste. It was VERY late 60′s early 70′s and VERY Gerry Anderson. The women all wore skimpy clothes and everyone smoked and drank. It did have a cool opening theme:

http://youtu.be/0XAIXP937Ac

Campy but fun. Gotta dig that all of the women on the moonbase had purple hair for no apparent reason. It was supposed to take place in the 80′s, but I don’t remember having THAT much fun. Of course, I bought the whole darn series on DVD.

911. Ahmed - September 19, 2013

@908. THX-1138

I remember now reading about U.F.O. in the SFX magazine back in mid 1990s, looks very campy indeed.

912. MJB - September 19, 2013

Entertainment Geekly: Why is everyone so upset about ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’?

http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/09/19/star-trek-into-darkness-jj-abrams/

913. Colin - September 19, 2013

Regarding #889 Jai,

I believe that if you are going to reference something else, that you should have the courtesy of including a link so that others can visit the site.

For me, the people who are defending Bob Orci are defending a pattern of behavior that is unprofessional and immature. As a professional writer and producer, Bob Orci is expected to maintain a standard of decorum, regardless of where he is. He has failed to do so repeatedly. One rule I have heard often, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

914. Colin - September 19, 2013

One of the aspects of the film that has troubled me was that John Harewood would choose to become a suicide bomber to save the life of his daughter. I feel, as an audience member, that I was deprived an understanding of why this man would do this act. What occurred in that dialog, which lead John to believe that he was coerced and that he had no other option?

I am relieved to know that I am not the only one who is troubled by this series of events. A writer at WhatCulture was, also, troubled by this, and included it in his list of biggest character overreactions in Summer 2013 films.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-biggest-character-overreactions-in-2013-movies-2.php/9

915. Colin - September 19, 2013

I meant to say, Thomas Harewood. Ugh.

916. Disinvited - September 19, 2013

#909. Ahmed – September 19, 2013

S.I.D.(Space Intruder Detector) – The Hubble Space Telescope with a “Spatial” ship recognizing AI with spoken alerts.

Moon Base manned by the most attractive women the Earth had to offer which gave my teen self cause to wonder if it had something to do with 1/6th the gravity?

Alien spacecraft with engines that sounded like my mom’s top-loading washer on spin/rinse cycle. Every time Mom did a load, and I was home, I had check the skies and the TV (Hey, the show might be on.)

And its moon base evolved into SPACE 1999.

Good memories,,,good times.

917. Aurore - September 20, 2013

“’Bob Orci: Best actor available wins. Period.’
I agree, some ‘interesting’ tweets.

…Maybe Orci brought this up elsewhere, but I don’t remember him on Trekmovie using this particular defense for the casting of Khan. Is this new for him?…”
________________

Not really :

“722. boborci – August 11, 2013
661. aurore

opposite of racism. did not want terrorist to be of color. we were not about to make True Lies 2.”

“723. boborci – August 11, 2013
651. and, obviously we considered him the best actor we saw. I actually have to spell that out for you?

equally obviously, i knew, as a Trek fan, that some fans would find it controversial. So he HAD TO BE GOOD.”

( I gave my reply @ 748 & 779.) :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/08/06/jj-trek-3-possible-director-and-writers/#5149207

“…I thought the ‘best actor for the role’ line was Abrams and Lindelof…”

Damon Lindelof told Mr. Abrams about Mr. Cumberbatch. Mr. Abrams had never watched Sherlock before :

“….He [ Mr. Cumberbatch ] was so good on the iPhone etc…etc…”

(Starts at 51 :36) :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/28/watch-jj-abrams-into-darkness-cast-australia-junket-vids-bizarre-german-interview-paris-masterclass/

“…If so, Orci has changed his rationale from being uncomfortable demonizing a dark-skinned actor, and ensuring audiences saw him as ‘one of us’, to towing the Bad Robot company line.”

You are so…cynical, Curious Cadet…How dare you say things like that ?!

HATER !!!

:)

918. Jai - September 20, 2013

Curious Cadet, re: #906:

“I thought the “best actor for the role” line was Abrams and Lindelof. If so, Orci has changed his rationale from being uncomfortable demonizing a dark-skinned actor, and ensuring audiences saw him as “one of us”, to towing the Bad Robot company line.”

Yep. Sounds like it.

919. Jai - September 20, 2013

Colin, re: #911:

“Regarding #889 Jai,

I believe that if you are going to reference something else, that you should have the courtesy of including a link so that others can visit the site.”

I included the link at the start of #889.

“As a professional writer and producer, Bob Orci is expected to maintain a standard of decorum, regardless of where he is. He has failed to do so repeatedly. One rule I have heard often, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.””

Yes. That’s why I quoted those tweets. This clearly goes a lot further than the sudden outburst at Ahmed, or the condescending “parent/child” remarks in response to Joseph Dickerson’s article. I hadn’t realised this until I found out about his behaviour on Twitter.

Given STID’s storyline, apparently Bob’s online remarks about 9/11 are proving very controversial too, especially with the more obvious 9/11 references throughout STID (including the end credits).

Bob’s exit from the internet is probably damage control from the higher-ups at Paramount and their PR guys.

920. 47 - September 20, 2013

Matt, how much does it take for a comment to appear? I commented approx. 14 hours ago, and my comment is still not there. ?!

I read the note, and that’s fine, thanks, but I wonder how “soon” is…

thanks

921. 47 - September 20, 2013

I meant how long does it take, not how much.

I hope it’s not 24 hours. :)

922. Jemini - September 20, 2013

286. Ash – September 14, 2013

“McCoy has been widely regarded (if the comments and polls here and in other sites are anything to go by) as the best of the reboot characters”

If you look at the actual sites with fandom activity, he’s as popular as Uhura is (with the difference that perhaps Zoe Saldana is more popular as actress)
as for the polls and comments here.. sorry to burst your bubble, but :
1) the fans posting in this site are a minority. It was Orci the one who commented once that only 3% of the fans post in this site and he’s right. At its best a poll in this site can get 5000 votes/clicks, there are pictures over the official facebook page of the movie that have 20.000 likes and condivisions – coming from actual registered users/facebook accounts – . There are posts over tumblr that have way more than 5000 notes and again we’re talking about people with a registered account
2) the same person can vote multiple of times in the same poll and thus skew the results
and my experience in this fandom and others tells me that the star trek fandom is not an exception when it comes to get a tiny bit obsessed about “winning” online polls. The fact that you keep using the polls in this site as some proof that your opinion is the most popular only confirms to me that some fans take this kind of things too seriously

“It’s not so much the Spock and Uhura thing that bothers me, stupid fights and time wasting aside, it’s that this wonderful character has been reduced to comic relief and one liners. “

see I love Bones too and he’s my second favorite male character after Spock but I don’t get why some people act like two things are mutually exclusive. What will you do when in the third movie the writers will, probably, have a kirk/carol romance? better start to think about it…

will you complain that she’s replacing Bones then? But then you should have complained about Carol and Scotty screentime in stid too yet, for some reason it’s only Uhura the one who, if she gets more do to, she’s elevated at the expense of McCoy. It doesn’t compute that this is a modern reboot set in an alternate reality where Uhura is the only more prominent female character in a very male dominated cast.
It makes no sense to complain about that when there are other male characters (Scotty) who actually are the ones who can potentially replace Bones.
Uhura and Bones get the same screentime and there is no reason the writers can’t give Bones more to do without it being to the expense of Uhura, the Spock/Uhura romance or other secondary characters that got more action than him in the last movie.
Besides, I will never stop to say that: this is not TOS. If in this trek the writers want to have different dynamics it’s their prerogative just like it was Elementary writers prerogative to make their John Watson played by an asian woman. It’s their own story. All this talk about how things are supposed to be are getting pretentious, moreso when we already have two movies with different dynamics.

(ps: thank you mods for making it so that now the comments need to get approved! that’s much appreciated)

923. colin - September 20, 2013

Jai

I think that damage control began after comments made by Bob Orci about the Boston Marathon. I haven’t read the comments, but from what I understand he wrote some incendiary comments linking the government to the bombings. I don’t know if he is Alex Jones-crazy, but he does have some trouble I feel with reality. I think when you have this disassociation with reality, i suppose you believe that anything is possible and probable. Perhaps this explains the strange journey of Thomas Harewood. People don’t become terrorists overnight; the thinking and beliefs that lead you to the point where you can take your life and the lives of others takes years to seed within you and mature. I accept that the films aren’t realistic; however, they have to have realistic emotional growth. For me, the film lost its emotional realism with the actions of Thomas Harewood.

924. Anthony Thompson - September 20, 2013

Matt, when are you going to publish MJ’s breathlessly anticipated editorial?

925. Curious Cadet - September 20, 2013

@915. Aurore,
“Not really”

As always thanks for being the Google of Trekmovie and keeping us honest. Too many lies and statements to keep track of.

——————–
“723. boborci – August 11, 2013
651. and, obviously we considered him the best actor we saw. I actually have to spell that out for you? equally obviously, i knew, as a Trek fan, that some fans would find it controversial. So he HAD TO BE GOOD.”

This is an interesting statement … The best WHITE actor they saw? I mean, he already said he wasn’t about to consider a person of color for the role … So clearly they weren’t even in consideration no matter how good they were. Did Orci even see all of the non-white actors, or had he already written them off as a waste of his time? Remember Khan was never intended to be the villain. Orci wrote a story about a white terrorist who is being manipulated by Marcus, in part an allegory to educate audiences on why Muslim terrorists behave as they do — “What wouldn’t you do for your family” was likely the initial premise upon which Orci based his entire story. Khan was then shoe-horned into this at the insistence of Lindelof, presumably much to Orci’s dismay. Given such a substantial bias it’s unlikely Orci viewed the casting process fairly. And “We” is a pretty big scapegoat in any event. “WE decided adding Khan was a perfect fit”, even though we know Orci had to be “convinced”.

Equally as interesting is that this is his third line of defense behind not demonizing a person of color, and depicting the terrorist as “one-of-us” (read “white”). It seems like if the best actor for the role was the primary consideration, he would have led with that, and they would have held an open casting call, not one directed solely at Latinos. I mean, are we aware of any other white actors auditioning for the role, or any other actors of other races and ethnicities in general?

926. Curious Cadet - September 20, 2013

@921. colin,
“For me, the film lost its emotional realism with the actions of Thomas Harewood.”

Harewood’s actions are the easiest to explain in context of what I think is Orci’s primary motif — “What wouldn’t you do for your family?” Indeed Orci manages not only to turn Harrison into a terrorist, but also Harewood, with the same root cause.

The fact that Harewood does it, does not surprise me at all. I feel for Harewood. However, the flaw I see is that Harewood does it, after his child is saved. One can only assume that if Harewood does not follow through with his promise to Harrison that Harrison will then kill Harewood’s daughter he just saved, and perhaps Harewood’s wife. But we don’t see this particular threat. Realistically, once his daughter had been saved, Harewood would warn Marcus as he did, and attempt to delay the detonation until Marcus could act. It’s unfortunate we did not see Harewood being pressured in this manner.

Nevertheless, Harewood presumably does not have a choice. Why Harewood doesn’t know who Harrison is, is a bigger mystery to me, but by the time we figure out all the connections, they’ve already jumped the shark and the opening of the movie is no longer of much concern. (However it all plays into my theory that Marcus orchestrated everything including Harewood’s involvement).

927. 47 - September 20, 2013

Matt, where’s my comment? Is it lost? It’s been 20 hours now since I posted my comment here replying to #889 above. What’s going on? I’d like an explanation, please.

928. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

#911.

“For me, the people who are defending Bob Orci are defending a pattern of behavior that is unprofessional and immature. As a professional writer and producer, Bob Orci is expected to maintain a standard of decorum, regardless of where he is. He has failed to do so repeatedly. One rule I have heard often, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” ”

So its okay for fans to be rude and condescending to Bob Orci, but Bob has to “maintain a standard of decorum” in the face of all the vitriol and venomous comments being directed at him?

What kind of “moral code” is this? Oh, yes — it’s the Fans’ Charter of Rights — that somehow gives fans here the “right” to run Bob Orci and others off this site.

929. Colin - September 20, 2013

I was browsing through images on Jorge Almeida’s site. He was involved with creating the interfaces for this film. In one of the films, there is an image of Admiral Alexander Marcus using his holophone. In the holophone, there is an image of Thomas Harewood. I am thinking that in a deleted scene we would have seen the message left by Harewood – this scene might have clarified what forced Harewood to kill himself along with other people.

http://www.jorgeonline.me/portfolio/star-trek-into-darkness-2/#prettyPhoto

930. Basement Blogger - September 20, 2013

@ 915

Aurore,

Well, Curious Cadet can’t pull one on you. You go girl!

931. Aurore - September 20, 2013

“…Curious Cadet can’t pull one on you…”
______

Bernie?

With all due respect, Curious Cadet wasn’t pulling anything ; he just asked a question, and a very interesting one ( to me ) at that !

He’s curious like that.

:)

932. Phil - September 20, 2013

@926 Here is the corollary – the GIFT that keeps on giving, I suppose.

Pardon the langue on the link.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory

933. Basement Blogger - September 20, 2013

@ 929

Auore, stop using my real name. How can I spew out bile filled comments anonymously when you keep using my real name? (That’s a joke.)

I’ve told this many times. My real name is Bruce Wayne. (That’s another joke.)

934. Aurore - September 20, 2013

Auore, stop using my real name. ”
_______

Alright, Bruce.
(That’s a joke).

My name is Aurore. Not “Auore”
I’ll stop using your real name when you start using my real name, Mr. Wayne.

( That was another joke. ).

:)

935. Trek Lady - September 20, 2013

#926 Red Dead Ryan “So its okay for fans to be rude and condescending to Bob Orci, but Bob has to “maintain a standard of decorum” in the face of all the vitriol and venomous comments being directed at him?
What kind of “moral code” is this?”

It is called the code of “being a professional” and anyone who works with the public in any capacity understands how it works. It may be frustrating as heck, unfair ,and hell on your bloodpressure, but yes, professionals are supposed to “maintain a standard of decorum” at all times. Orci even had the choice to simply avoid the confrontation all together. For many of us, that is not a choice at all….

936. Matt Wright - September 20, 2013

@ 924 – Well MJ never actually contacted me with his editorial, so there ya go…

937. Matt Wright - September 20, 2013

@ 927 – I’ve checked on the site twice today and approved all comments waiting.

Something unusual happened to yours. I had to do some digging to find your comment but it has been approved. I need to look into why a couple of legit comments ended up tossed out around the same time yesterday.

Anyway it’s back. You’ll see it where it should be according to the submitted timestamp, so it’s comment #899

Also please don’t repeatedly post comments about your missing comment. I don’t read every single comment that’s posted. I typically focus on those that need approval. If it’s been missing for the better part of a day then send an e-mail to my TrekMovie contact info. That will alert me much quicker. But please don’t abuse it, it may be 4-8 hours depending on the day and my workload in real life, and of course there may be time zone differences.

938. Aurore - September 20, 2013

@ 923. Curious Cadet – September 20, 2013
“’723. boborci – August 11, 2013
651. and, obviously we considered him the best actor we saw. I actually have to spell that out for you? equally obviously, i knew, as a Trek fan, that some fans would find it controversial. So he HAD TO BE GOOD.’

This is an interesting statement … The best WHITE actor they saw? I mean, he already said he wasn’t about to consider a person of color for the role … So clearly they weren’t even in consideration no matter how good they were. Did Orci even see all of the non-white actors, or had he already written them off as a waste of his time?…”

__________________

“CS: I’m on a one-man mission to plant the seed now. If you decide to revisit the character of Khan, two words: Javier Bardem.

Kurtzman: Oh my God!
Orci: Did you know we’ve actually mentioned that out loud as a possibility? What a great idea.
Lindelof: Come on. That’s a no-brainer. That would be the most amazing thing ever. Who would even what to see these [new] guys then? That’s the problem. You would just watch them for scenery.”

http://trekmovie.com/2009/07/04/more-star-trek-sequel-talk-from-orci-kurtzman-is-there-a-leading-candidate-for-new-khan/

Aside from the above excerpt, should you be interested in reading more about what the writers had to say, in May of 2009, about a possible sequel, the interview is available in its entirety online.

(Source : comingsoon.net)

When I first read that interview, I thought “they” were joking/being polite when talking about Khan. However, in hindsight, I believe it was decided a very long time ago that Indian/South Asian actors don’t have iPhones…

“Remember Khan was never intended to be the villain.”

That’s what I read. I don’t believe it.

“…Khan was then shoe-horned into this at the insistence of Lindelof, presumably much to Orci’s dismay…”

I agree to disagree with you on that point.

“…Given such a substantial bias it’s unlikely Orci viewed the casting process fairly. And ‘We’ is a pretty big scapegoat in any event. ‘WE decided adding Khan was a perfect fit’, even though we know Orci had to be ‘convinced’….”

How about this :

“…But while Khan might have been a villain Orci definitely wanted to explore from the beginning, it didn’t always stay that way.

‘We started with Khan, went away from Khan, and then went back to him,’ Orci said.

There was a push early on to do Khan, and even create a rather ‘Heart of Darkess’-type story with the character, Orci said. The Enterprise crew would be sent someplace to catch Khan after a terrible act, and then be forced to work with him…”

If there was “a push”, then why not be specific (in that interview) about the person(s) responsible for the “pushing”, as it were ?

…To be fair, the interview in question was set to be released September 16, he might have said more on the topic…Or not.

(For more, link if authorized, here) :
http://1701news.com/node/427/find-out-how-khan-almost-wasnt-khan.html

“…Equally as interesting is that this is his third line of defense behind not demonizing a person of color, and depicting the terrorist as ‘one-of-us’ (read ‘white’)…”

I would have found the previous lines of defense convincing if the white character had remained “John Harrison”. Indeed, since the character could not afford to look “foreign”, in my opinion, his “foreign-sounding name” had to go as well. Regarding his… “latest line of defense”, as I said a few days ago, in order for the best actor to win, there has to be a real competition.

“…It seems like if the best actor for the role was the primary consideration, he would have led with that, and they would have held an open casting call, not one directed solely at Latinos. I mean, are we aware of any other white actors auditioning for the role, or any other actors of other races and ethnicities in general?”

You already asked some similar questions on other threads.

You know the answer.

939. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

Trek Lady,

Who determines the morals that people like Bob are supposed to abide by? You? Certainly isn’t me.

If fans can dish it out, then Bob has every right to throw it back in their faces.

If the haters had been kinder to Bob, then we wouldn’t be here discussing this, now would we?

940. Curious Cadet - September 20, 2013

@938 Aurore,
“You know the answer.”

I’m afraid I do.

I do appreciate you dredging up all this stuff. If I had to guess, Orci bailed from this site because you are worse than Google at haunting the man with his own words.

The only point we may have to continue to agree to disagree on is whether or not they intentionally set out to write the story without Khan, and then reluctantly shoe-horned him in later.

Let’s face it. Khan makes absolutely no sense in this story (skin color notwithstanding). John Harrison is motoring along as this really fascinating and compelling character until halfway through the movie, when he suddenly becomes Khan for no apparent reason. Orci makes these claims about his intent with Harrison’s character, and not demonizing a dark-skinned actor, and writes this conspiracy story with echoes of 9/11 which we know is close to his heart … so yeah, I do truly think Orci wrote a story he wanted to see and it got perverted into incorporating Khan.

There’s no doubt that Orci at one point was as excited as Lindelof at doing Khan, and with Javier Bardem playing the part. But I kind of think they couldn’t figure out what to do with him. So K&O threw out some other ideas, and STID was based on one of them. But somebody wouldn’t let go of the idea of Khan. That’s how the movie plays to me, so that’s why I say it. I kind of think the things Orci said 4 years ago and what he’s saying now are mutually exclusive.

941. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@939. Red Dead Ryan
” 939. Red Dead Ryan – September 20, 2013

“Trek Lady,

Who determines the morals that people like Bob are supposed to abide by? You? ”

Obviously, you never worked in a place where you have to deal with the public. Public servants learn to control their actions when they are dealing with the public, even if the public is wrong. It come with the job.

942. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

Bob Orci is a writer, not a public servant. His salary isn’t being paid for with taxpayer money.

He doesn’t owe us anything.

943. Keachick - September 20, 2013

#922 – “2) the same person can vote multiple of times in the same poll and thus skew the results”

I do not believe that applies to this site. I have no idea about other sites. In AP’s polls, it has always been one vote per poster/ISP address.

#939 – RDR
This is getting a bit scary. I find myself agreeing with you more often than not…:)

This is the problem that people like Trek Lady have in that they don’t seem to understand the need for a level playing field. Even in retail, the customer is not always right. I recall “blowing my stack” at a receptionist – I was VERY tired and upset. Admittedly, she did not swear at me however she did tell me that she did not deserve to be on the receiving end of my outburst. I realized that I had been unfair to her and apologized. I, the customer, was NOT right.

However, people like actors, writers, producers et al are not in the same category as other people “working in and with the public”. Most, if not all, simply do not engage with other people posting comment to the internet sites like this one, although some may be found on Facebook or Twitter, where comments are briefer and tend to be more superficial/fluffier in nature.

Roberto Orci decided to be the exception and I admire his courage. Unfortunately, he (by virtue of being himself) became an easy target for the venting of anger, frustration, and even sheer stupidity. It is not that other people are not targets because they are and the people who may be targeted often respond in kind. The negative to-ing and fro-ing here, there, everywhere gets so unreal at times. Some of the IMDb message boards can be war zones – seriously, but they are not the only places.

Bob Orci has, on rare occasions, responded in kind, and boy – isn’t he paying for it? – unlike all the other posters who continue to belittle, troll, vent, antagonize, insult intelligences etc everywhere and anywhere on the internet.

When can the Bob Orci’s, JJ Abrams’, Chris Pine’s, Zoe Saldana’s (just to name four out of so many, many others) just be themselves and be allowed to interact on a worldwide web as others do? I do wonder as to whose behaviour should they emulate and how much should they have to put up with if they are getting constantly criticized, called names like “turd” “whore”, “liar” by anonymous people, who, for all they know, might actually be their next door neighbour? Who is to know?

Then there are the people who try to take unauthorized photos and/or demand autographs. If the actor refuses, then he is vilified online. If he speaks out, then he is further vilified.

RDR is right, Trek Lady. Whose, which morality should be in play here, given how unbearably rude and even immoral some joe-blog/internet users can be, when it comes to how some of these people may relate to these writers, actors, producers etc? The Bob Orci’s, JJ Abrams’, Damon Lindelof’s, Chris Pine’s et al are in the “public” eye simply because they have been successful enough to be recognized by one or more of the characters they have played or for the screenplays they have helped pen.

There seems to NEVER be a time when they cannot just be another Trekmovie/internet poster presenting information, opinion or response in a manner similar to how thousands of other people may do, given a particular context.

Bob Orci tried to be one such poster…Go Bob Orci!

944. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@943. Keachick

FYI, Bob Orci is not the only writer who engages with his fans, J. Michael Straczynski was the first writer who did that back in 1993.

Feel free to read some of JMS posts on Usenet

http://www.midwinter.com/b5/Usenet/

http://www.jmsnews.com/

945. Colin - September 21, 2013

I find it amazing that there are people who condone abuse by someone on their side, but will openly criticize people who disagree with them by labeling them and disparaging them. Abuse from either side shouldn’t be condoned; instead, it should be condemned.

On Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, the host spoke about the increase in hatred on the Internet. He believes that some of the hatred is a reaction by people to the realization that they are being screwed by a system that is fixed and the Internet is a safe place to vent for them. I think there is some truth in this.

I have to accept that I am a “hater”, because I don’t have a liking for the new film. It’s not that the film violates my beliefs about what Star Trek is. I don’t like the film because the story is terrible. Is it worse than any other Star Trek film? No. I think Insurrection is the worst film. It’s the only film I have trepidation about seeing again.

946. 47 - September 21, 2013

@ 937. Matt Wright

OK, thanks Matt. I appreciate it.

947. Aurore - September 21, 2013

@ 940. Curious Cadet – September 20, 2013
“…I do appreciate you dredging up all this stuff. If I had to guess, Orci bailed from this site because you are worse than Google at haunting the man with his own words…
________

This is the second point I agree to disagree with you on.

As I was saying concerning his departure, what occured was really strange, from my point of view.

It is not that I think Mr. Orci is infallible. Far from it. Nevertheless, he knows about the Internet and fandom. He’d been dealing with fans for years, from what I understood, some time ago :

Q: Are Transformers fans as ravenous as Trekkies?

BO: Transformers fans taught us how to deal with Star Trek fans. And they’re both heavy-duty. But Transformers fans taught us how to interact, how to turn the conversation constructive a little bit, and not just have it be, “You suck. Go jump off of a building, please.”

(For more, link if authorized, here) :

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2009/06/30/screenwriters-alex-kurtzman-and-bob-orci-compare-trekkies-to-transformers-fans-an-amc-interview/

…And now, “all of a sudden”, we have articles on how he could not find a more “constructive” way to interact with some fans? Again, I find this whole affair “surprising” to say the least. This is just my opinion, of course.

“…The only point we may have to continue to agree to disagree on is whether or not they intentionally set out to write the story without Khan, and then reluctantly shoe-horned him in later.

Let’s face it. Khan makes absolutely no sense in this story (skin color notwithstanding). John Harrison is motoring along as this really fascinating and compelling character until halfway through the movie, when he suddenly becomes Khan for no apparent reason. Orci makes these claims about his intent with Harrison’s character, and not demonizing a dark-skinned actor, and writes this conspiracy story with echoes of 9/11 which we know is close to his heart … so yeah, I do truly think Orci wrote a story he wanted to see and it got perverted into incorporating Khan.

There’s no doubt that Orci at one point was as excited as Lindelof at doing Khan, and with Javier Bardem playing the part. But I kind of think they couldn’t figure out what to do with him. So K&O threw out some other ideas, and STID was based on one of them. But somebody wouldn’t let go of the idea of Khan. That’s how the movie plays to me, so that’s why I say it. I kind of think the things Orci said 4 years ago and what he’s saying now are mutually exclusive.”

Benicio Del Toro, Édgar Ramírez, Jordi Mollà, Demián Bichir*.

Unless I’m mistaken, all these actors were, at some point, considered for a role in the sequel. As you will note, they all have something in common with Javier Bardem, aside from being actors.

You are of the opinion that Khan was “shoe-horned” in the movie. As far as I’m concerned, I believe it is possible that “John Harrison” was the one who ended up being shoe-horned in the story when for some reason, none of the aforementioned gentlemen was cast. Moreover, given the way the story was written from the start, it is I believe, the “last minute” (?) inclusion of “John Harrison” which made absolutely no sense…since he eventually revealed himself to be Khan …

Again, just my opinion.

(I appreciate your sharing yours.).

*
http://trekmovie.com/2012/05/03/nimoy-tweets-on-star-trek-sequel-reports-another-actor-from-villain-casting-search-identified/

948. 47 - September 21, 2013

It is Orci who loses credibility big time when he calls fans “shitty” and tells them to “F### OFF”. What kind of writer is that? He doesn’t respect the fans. Brannon Braga, for example, had to endure far worse criticism, even insults, yet the man never held any grudge nor was rude to fans. Orci should take him as an example. In professional sense as well. And Orci should apologize. But in a way he did, by leaving this site and shutting down his twitter account.

949. Keachick - September 21, 2013

Bob Orci has apologized, even when my comment was not about the not-so-pleasant incident.

“It takes two to tango”, as the saying goes – never forget that!

Oh and he has never told me to F### OFF nor has he called me “shitty” and that goes for thousands of other fans as well.

In the altercation on this site, Bob Orci did not call the poster “shitty”. He referred to the poster’s dismissive reply as being a “shitty dodge”.

Bob Orci has endured insults and name calling. Good for Brannon Braga. Unfortunately, Brannon Braga’s professionalism and meekness has not stopped the tirade of insults from a lot of know-nothings. It is said to be better to “turn the other cheek” but I wonder how much battering should we expect both cheeks to take? Now that is the question…

47 – Your post, with its criticism of one particular person, might be more credible if you actually acquainted yourself with what was actually said in the relevant posts. Now go away and come back when you have something of genuine insight to offer.

I’m sorry, but this kind of stuff really ticks me off…

950. Curious Cadet - September 21, 2013

@945. Colin,
“On Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, the host spoke about the increase in hatred on the Internet.”

I saw that. I’m not sure I agree with Bill’s conclusion, and indeed I think he is as stymied and frustrated by this phenomenon as the rest of us. More than anything I think he just wanted to shine a spotlight on it and get people talking about it. Is it getting worse? Possibly.

But I think the reality is, this phenomenon has always existed, usually in the form of the drunken barfly, spouting off loudly to anyone in earshot. Anonymity on the internet replaced by alcohol and security of his surroundings, holding court in a venue that would tolerate it so long as he paid his bar tab. You might get a reputation around town, but more often than not, people just accepted that you were blowing off steam. The difference now, is that those drunken ravings are published for the world to see, and rarely did the subject of the rant come into direct interaction with the critic. If you didn’t want to subject yourself to that sort of thing, you just went somewhere else when “Charlie” was tying one on. But on the internet, it’s sort of hard to get away from those guys, it’s like one giant international pub with some drunk loudmouth planted on his soapbox in every nook and cranny.

951. Trek Lady - September 21, 2013

Keachick, ” Even in retail, the customer is not always right. I recall “blowing my stack” at a receptionist ….”

I never said the customer is always right. I work with the public, and frequently the “customer” is an obnoxious twit with delusions of gradure. However, had the receptionist “blown her stack” with YOU, then she would likely have lost her job. Whether right or wrong, the playing field is NOT level when it comes to professionals verses the public. I did not say it was a good thing, but that is reality. That is part of the job, and part of the expectations of the job. If Orci had been an employee at my job, he would no longer be employed. In a way, he *is* held to a different standard, a far more forgiving one than us peons.

Frankly, I never personally insulted the man… I have issues with his writing, but I have never addressed him and my criticisms are aimed at his products, not him personally. He has, however, replied to me, and I will just say, I was put off by how snarky I found his reply – and it was aimed at me as a person. At the time, I did not even realize who he was… I figured he was just another knee jerk supporter who felt the need to jump on anyone who did not love the film unconditionally. When I realized who he was, I was even more surprised that someone of his statue would react in that manner to something that was bascially a civil disagreement. I figured he was just fed up with all the negativity and let it slide, but it left me with a sour taste. However, his response to me seemed to be part of a pattern, and I saw similar snark in his replies to others who did not sing his praises. And no, not all of them were cussing him our or calling him a jerk. I certainly never did. Thus, this latest snafu is not the first time I have been less than impressed with his replies on this blog. I have found other posters here much more civil, even when we did not agree. For them most part, I have been able to discourse in a polite manner with most posters.

I think that he has made a good choice for himself in deciding to back away for a while. Psychologically, it cannot be good for someone to be so invested in the judgment of others, postitively or negatively. One needs to have confidence in themselves and be able to judge their actions without that kind of feedback loop.

952. Trek Lady - September 21, 2013

#942 RDR “Bob Orci is a writer, not a public servant. His salary isn’t being paid for with taxpayer money. He doesn’t owe us anything.”

You and I have a very different philosophy when it comes to human interaction. I *am* a “public servant” but I do not choose to maintain my decorum because I “owe” anybody anything, or based upon who pays my salary. I would do so regardless of who pays my salary, because I choose to hold MYSELF to a certain standard of behavior. I see myself as a professional and choose to behave as such. I choose to treat others civilly because I feel humans should strive to be civil to each other. I do not see any point in meeting rudeness with more rudeness. It solves nothing, and usually deteriorates further. Generally, if someone lashes out at me, I try to respond calmly but firmly. I have found such an approach can often deescalate a situation, rather than exacerbating it as meeting an attack with a counter-attack seems to do.

That said, I also take medicine for high blood pressure, because there is a price to be paid for keeping it all inside when someone is yelling in your face. :)

953. Trek Lady - September 21, 2013

P.S. I have dealt with “customers” who were angry, upset, and frustrated, but generally we can sit down and work through things if they are willing to try. The ONLY people I have ever had pull the “I pay your salary” card are those who came to me already gunning for trouble. They seem to take the “servant” part of “public servant” literally, and appear to have decided those in the public sector are somehow lesser beings than those in the private sector and do not deserve common courtesy. I do my best to convince them otherwise. :)

954. wewow - September 21, 2013

It’s like you’ve never seen the original series, but have seen many parodies of it.

Anyone who agrees with this really needs to re-watch the original series.

955. Keachick - September 21, 2013

Trek Lady – I agree with your comments. As I said, it is usually better to “turn the other cheek”. Jesus did not give that timeless advice without very good reason. However, you as a public servant are not being insulted, called names like lazy hack writer, having your work publicly pulled apart, misinterpreted, explanations given by others ignored, misrepresented, for weeks, months, even years on end. The reality is that if someone started doing that to you it is likely that they might get arrested for harassment.

However, not the case on the internet. Unfortunately, Bob Orci may not be suited to handle a lot of the crap that happens here, especially when a good deal of it has been directed at him and/or one of his co-workers. I am upset at what happened. I feel that some people see Bob Orci and co. as lesser beings because, in reality, actors, writers, producers are often the objects of people’s envy. The role of envy cannot be discounted. They are also put on pedestals by people, almost with the hope that they will fall…

What you are dealing with is a rather different scenario from what does go on in the *wonderful* world of the worldwide web…This is a whole new *beast*.

956. Keachick - September 21, 2013

I find this sad and ironic. Almost three weeks after William Shatner tweeted a Happy Birthday message to Chris Pine and further tweeting that since Chris is now 18…LOL he can sign up to Twitter, there is a meltdown which leads Bob Orci to bid us bye bye and then soon after close his own Twitter account.

You can’t tell me that Chris Pine is not aware of what has gone down. Unfortunately, this has only gone to prove his long held misgivings about social networks etc…

957. Trek Lady - September 21, 2013

Keachick “However, you as a public servant are not being insulted, called names like lazy hack writer, having your work publicly pulled apart, misinterpreted, explanations given by others ignored, misrepresented, for weeks, months, even years on end. ”

Actually, my reality is not much different.

958. Invited - September 22, 2013

Trek Lady

You have been a writer, a social worker , a medical assistant, a customer’s service person and a person with a military background. How many lives do you have exactly?

959. Trek Lady - September 23, 2013

Invited…

I have never claimed to be any of those things, other than “writer” which is a hobby. I said I “work with the public” – I am not sure where you got the others. Military background? Medical assistant? ????? Can you please remind me of where I claimed to work in those fields, because I certainly do not recall doing so….

960. Rebecca - September 23, 2013

I have enjoyed Star Trek in all its incarnations! TNG is my favorite series, and I have always felt that Star Trek is better on television! STID, to me, is better than the first movie! I like seeing how characters overcome their struggles and the morality plays. STID is stronger in this regard! I implore fans to stop bashing each other and just pick what you like from one of the most diverse franchises I have ever seen!

961. Basement Blogger - September 23, 2013

I would like to say I agree with the author that Star Trek is not broken but the rest of this article is tone deaf wrong. Let’s start with the first whopper he says.

“I ’d argue that if we’re expecting cutting social commentary or big ideas, Star Trek isn’t (and never has been) particularly effective on that front.”

At this point, I would wonder if The Stig ever watched Star Trek. The sixties show was full of cutting social commentary. You want to talk about American foreign policy and Viet Nam? See “A Private Little War.” “The Omega Glory.” How about race and prejudice? See “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.” What about war? “A Taste of Armageddon.” What about arms control? “The Doomsday Machine.” These ideas at the time were cutting edge because the media was largely conservative when discussing social ideas in mass entertainment. . See The Smothers Brothers and their fate. And I haven’t even started with The Next Generation.

Then the Stig takes a shot at TNG and DS9. It’s clear he’s not a fan. Stig says,

“Even the much-vaunted Deep Space Nine failed to actually create the moral grey area that fans give it credit for. ”

Okay, either Stig didn’t watch DS9 or fell asleep during some of the episodes. What about the episodes Homefront and Paradise Lost? Starfleet personal stage a coup to keep earth safe from Changelings. Sacrifice liberties for security. Sounds familiar? Yeah, that’s a debate we’re having now.

Stig’s argument seems to be, ‘Well, the main characters didn’t engage in the bad behavior so there’s no moral grey area.” Now I know this guy didn’t watch “Enterprise.” In “Enterprise” the whole third season was a 9/11 and war on terror allegory. Captain Archer actually resorts to piracy and torture to reach his goals.

The last whopper indicates to me Stig doesn’t really get Star Trek. I’m sorry Stig but do you really know what Roddenberry wanted for the series? You say this.

“The rub is that, when Abrams looked at reviving Star Trek, he didn’t look to TNG-era Trek. He looked back, way back, to the 60′s and an action-adventure series that captured the imagination and attention of a generation.”

So according to Stig, Star Trek is Star Wars. If we’re going back to the sixties and what Star Trek was about, we need to listen to Gene Roddenberry. In defending the pilot, “The Cage” Gene wanted a show that would be a mass entertainment but also have “meaningful drama” and “substance.” It wasn’t Flash Gordon or Star Wars. Link.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/

The rub as Stig might put it is that Star Trek Into Darkness has social commentary. It’s a move in the right direction. If Stig was only attracted to STID’s action, he missed the ideas. The Prime Directive. War. The war on terror. Death. Friendship. The beauty of Star Trek Into Darkness is that it worked on many levels. These levels are what Leonard Nimoy talks about many times. I boil it down to this. Heart. Adventure. Intelligence. I love the injection of ideas in Star Trek Into Darkness. It was not Star Wars.

962. Mitchell - September 24, 2013

When Paramount turns to gimmicks for pure financial reasons, writers and actors are telling fans to F*** Off off and the director is now blaming video games for their shortcomings, Its Broken.

Selling Star Trek’s soul for short term headlines was going to backfire eventually. Abrams and co. provided a “firecracker” spark and now its over.

963. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - September 24, 2013

A tempest in a teapot. “Star Trek is Broken” is the agitprop of nostalgic consumers. In other words, they’re just trolls that have gotten hold of a bullhorn.

As with all trolls, just don’t feed them.

This is the reality: Star Trek is a science fiction franchise that, despite ups and downs in the market, has been able to maintain itself through various series and movies over the last 40+ years. The reboot movies have been very successful, which ensures the franchise’s continuing presence.

There is no soul-searching to be had. All is well.

964. Enterprising Voyager - September 26, 2013

It is nearly impossible for me to disagree with this editorial more. It is well written, but inaccurate on many things that have already been pointed out.

The writers seem to have cherry picked facts, as did the “Star Trek is Broken” article.

I love to meet Trek fans, old and new, and I must remark on a trend I see. In my experience, those fans, introduced to Trek by JJ, who get so excited by the idea they go back and begin watching the series, mostly decide that JJ has the buget and special effects, but does not present the soul of Trek in the slightest degree.

In my opinion, everything since the first time Enterprise aired, was just taxidermied Trek. Not that trek is dead, just they tried to recreate the past and failed, while making some money. Trek is about the FUTURE not the past.

965. bassmaster22 - October 4, 2013

Interesting. However, even not thinking about the most recent movie in the grand scheme of Star Trek as a whole, it’s pretty horrible by most standards of movie writing, consistency and pacing as many movies are these days.
So maybe people are more afraid to just say it was a bad movie without using the Roddenberry arguements.

If Gene Roddenberry himself had written it, I’d still say it was a bad movie.

Time always pulls back the curtain and the more people have digested the movie, the more it seems they’re saying “Wait a minute. What just happened?”

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.