Oh FFS... they all woke up... 
Here's the Entertainment Weekly article:
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Aaaahhhh... six more months of this...
It's been going on long before this... it will go on so long as there are trek fans out there.
Another "Good point" here. At least it'll only be 6 more months of speculation on this film. Then comes the debates over it...
And speculation over the next film/show...
To this day I think that was a little bit of a playful shot toward us trek fans. Not mean spirited mind you, but a bit of a "called on your bs" moment friends do.
I can see that lol
3D Master
Rear Admiral
And I blame you for every sombrero I had to pick up and dispose of on Station K-7.
That's fair comment, and a good deal more observant than a lot of the self-congratulatory nonsense that fan-friendly writers and bloggers post on a daily basis about the Franchise (check out "Soul Of Star Trek" for an example of taking it all Way Too Seriously).
That Trek has become "an irrelevant cultural joke," unimaginative, timid and interesting mainly to the self-styled keepers of its minutiae and Defenders of the Faith...personally I blame folks like Captain Robert April.
Star Trek has become an irrelevant cultural joke, because its producers from Voyager onward were corporate suits yes-sayers, and produced bland, uninteresting, irrelevant crap, because according to the suits "Star Trek" is following TNG formula over and over again and make no changes whatsoever. The same scenes, the same music, the same stories, so the same they even reused episodes of the first four series in Enterprise with but a slight rewrite to fit the new characters, and that last movie is the same way. And, oh yes, god forbid, NEVER do ANYTHING relevant to the times, DON'T deal with difficult subjects, DON'T address homosexuality, do NOTHING that can only remotely be considered a risk.
Interestingly, quite the opposite of what Star Trek was doing, what Star Trek and indeed SF is meant to be doing.
And this has NOTHING to do with any fan; it's all the suits, and the yes-men who didn't have the guts to say, "No, and if you try to force me, I quit."
The "fans" indeed, the fans who more and more quit watching the derivative pile of irelevant junk, are the ones who made this reboot possible. If all the fans were still dutifully watching Voyager and Enterprise and the movies after FC with the same dillegence and urgence as the shows before them, we'd be watching the sixth Star Trek series now filled with the joke that is irrelevant meaningless repeat stories junk, along with, no doubt, another movie or two of the same pile of crap the suits degenerated Star Trek into.
Wait, wasn't Dennis constantly singing the praises of ENT, the most putrid of gaseous exhalations (open to debate, of course--Voyager's stench was so thick you could chew it) to escape the stinking corpse of Star Trek: The Irrelevant Cultural Joke? I just don't understand...
It's funny how people seem to not see the out and out incredible smelly pile ENT was... 'A Night In Sickbay' alone, heck, the theme song. Here was a show that was simply badly done end to end, as in laugh out loud bad. Blue gel room porn scenes anyone?
Love how the Vulcans became jerks who somehow held earth back from space exploration and only discovered religion thanks to a sex diseased mind-meld on Capt. Archer. Yea Archer! Our commander and chief, no matter how stupid.
Oh, the EW article was great. Thanks for posting Starship Polaris.
Love how the Vulcans became jerks who somehow held earth back from space exploration and only discovered religion thanks to a sex diseased mind-meld on Capt. Archer. Yea Archer! Our commander and chief, no matter how stupid.
Oh, the EW article was great. Thanks for posting Starship Polaris.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Funny, the theme song, and the Vulcans (minus the aids-stigmata idiocy) were about the only things they did RIGHT.
I agree. I like the idea of a Reformation of their "religion." The rest of the show (and yeah, the blue goo nonsense too) was insane. The last season, however, seemed to actually start putting things on the right track. If they were smart, they woulda' put Coto in charge from the start.
~String
As I stated up thread:
I appropriated it from David Gerrold, who once stated something similar what was wrong with ModTrek in an interview many moons ago.
Thank you!
I enjoyed "Enterprise" and have never been really impressed by the criticisms of it.
Seems like bad news to me. Doesn't seem like JJ got it. Hope I'm wrong. But the bridge seems wrong for example. I'm getting a bad vibe and I was hopeful before.
Really? It's not what I would have done, but I do think that new is good.
~String
Exactly so. What Abrams has done isn't what I would have done, but I think mainly in terms of pleasing myself and people who share my tastes and enthusiasms - I have neither Abrams' experience or his responsibilities with regard to this movie (nor, for that matter, do any of us here).
And I think people need to realize... as the producer he is held responsible
in all way for the success of this film, and if that does in part rely on the
non-fans acceptance of it he'll do it right or be fired. So you'll get your
way regardless, either a good film or a head which you so desperately seek.
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
This is typical of most ST forum boards I've been on. It reminds me of the days when I used to post at StarTrek.com. I eventually stopped because I found myself having to wage a defensive war against trolls and flame-throwers. The little bit of intelligent dialogue that I gained wasn't worth the aggravation.
It's kind of amusing to be accused of "stirring up shit" because my opinion is unpopular for whatever reason. Even funnier because the people that usually do most of the posturing and casting themselves as the voice of reason, are usually the ones who are hurling profanity and insults. That's a constant at most ST forums I've been to.
It's an easy trap to fall into. I've been tempted to start writing more and more negative responses each time I come back to post. Eventually, I'll sink to the level of a McCain rally if I'm not watching it.
Anyway, It's time to bow out with no hard feelings. I've enjoyed...er, some of the posts here. If anyone wants to look me up I'm hanging my hat in the fan fiction forum.
Best wishes.
Actually, just about every other article and interview I've read supports what I've said, it was you who assumed that I was only quoting one source. And I've laid out my argument more than once directly and specifically, not as a ranting tirade.
This is typical of most ST forum boards I've been on. It reminds me of the days when I used to post at StarTrek.com. I eventually stopped because I found myself having to wage a defensive war against trolls and flame-throwers. The little bit of intelligent dialogue that I gained wasn't worth the aggravation.
It's kind of amusing to be accused of "stirring up shit" because my opinion is unpopular for whatever reason. Even funnier because the people that usually do most of the posturing and casting themselves as the voice of reason, are usually the ones who are hurling profanity and insults. That's a constant at most ST forums I've been to.
It's an easy trap to fall into. I've been tempted to start writing more and more negative responses each time I come back to post. Eventually, I'll sink to the level of a McCain rally if I'm not watching it.
Anyway, It's time to bow out with no hard feelings. I've enjoyed...er, some of the posts here. If anyone wants to look me up I'm hanging my hat in the fan fiction forum.
Best wishes.
Well, I didn't say that the witty ones never made me laugh.
Well, I didn't say that the witty ones never made me laugh.
I'm just glad that my forum motto is suddenly relevant again.
Sombreros, meet Entertainment Weekly.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses
Oh, please.
M:I was a worn-out one trick show/'franchise' that was nothing but apologia for the CIA's interventions in the affairs of other countries. Plus, the format was quite stale; IMF gets a mission, does their thing, then gets out without any consequences whatsoever. If the show was made today the same way it was made yesterday, people and critics alike would denounce it as being unrealistic, mainly for that getting away with it every time. Having the aforementioned thing happen in every episode was great for '60's and early '70's TV; for a movie, it would be fatal, and would cause it to be laughed off of the screen. What DePalma/Cruise/Wagner did in the three movies revitalized the M:I format/franchise by putting a little danger into it, and that's not a bad thing. I consider the three M:I movies to be something on the order of Casino Royale in the way that they revitalized the concept the same way that the character of James Bond was revitalized. To be frank, now that I've seen the first four seasons of the TV show, I prefer the movies somewhat.
As for the Star Trek movie? I'd rather see a new movie with new characters set in the 24th century, but as it is, I will try to enjoy the new movie when it comes out. I only wish it was coming out this Christmas and not summer of 2009.
Oh, please.
M:I was a worn-out one trick show/'franchise' that was nothing but apologia for the CIA's interventions in the affairs of other countries. Plus, the format was quite stale; IMF gets a mission, does their thing, then gets out without any consequences whatsoever. If the show was made today the same way it was made yesterday, people and critics alike would denounce it as being unrealistic, mainly for that getting away with it every time. Having the aforementioned thing happen in every episode was great for '60's and early '70's TV; for a movie, it would be fatal, and would cause it to be laughed off of the screen. What DePalma/Cruise/Wagner did in the three movies revitalized the M:I format/franchise by putting a little danger into it, and that's not a bad thing. I consider the three M:I movies to be something on the order of Casino Royale in the way that they revitalized the concept the same way that the character of James Bond was revitalized. To be frank, now that I've seen the first four seasons of the TV show, I prefer the movies somewhat.
As for the Star Trek movie? I'd rather see a new movie with new characters set in the 24th century, but as it is, I will try to enjoy the new movie when it comes out. I only wish it was coming out this Christmas and not summer of 2009.
Similar threads
