Abrams Trek review thread *HEAVY SPOILERS*

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

A writer in the Chicago Tribune wrote of the new movie that to many fans, "any Star Trek is better than no Star Trek."

This seems to be a true observation. Although I would obviously not count myself in the "many fans" category. I'd rather have no Trek than this but the question is moot since we now have this. Trek 2.0 is just not my Trek and it never will be.

I have a continuity question. Has it EVER been mentioned before that Vulcan was blown to smithereens? Or did I somehow miss that?

No

[Asso]

Excuse me, but there's a "RU" or not?
I don't know, maybe I'm too simplistic, but if a timeline is erased, the other timeline is "RU".
So...

[Aquarius]

Right, they're totally going to undo everything they think has made this movie a financial success.

Um...yeah, they would. If they thought they could make a lot of money doing it. Remember, that's the bottom line.

And to be really blunt, I don't particularly care for that question given the mentality of the people who have been asking it to me since information about this movie started coming out, so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from going there.

I think it's a legitimate question, and I don't think Alelou displayed any kind of poor "mentality" by asking it. I think it's perfectly valid to ask if a person is knocking something they haven't tried.

ETA: I don't know wtf is wrong with the coding for the quotes. I've looked and looked and it seems right so sorry it's all crunked.

[Alelou]

Have you actually seen it, CX?

I know the plot of the movie. Just as with TGTMD and *the_abomination* before it, it's not going to matter if I actually see it for myself at this point, and to be frank I am not going to spend any of my money or allow anyone else to spend their money on this movie for me to see it. If I'm up for some self-torture I'll watch it when someone makes a DVDrip of it.

And to be really blunt, I don't particularly care for that question given the mentality of the people who have been asking it to me since information about this movie started coming out, so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from going there.

To be really blunt? What, blunter than usual? You're jumping down the throat of anything anybody says positively about it and you haven't even seen it. I respect your desire to vote with your feet, but why you feel the need to respond with such bitterness and certainty when you haven't even seen it just boggles my mind. KTR saw it, thought about it, wrote a review, and makes a reasoned case. You're pouring out all this vitriol based solely on hearsay. It's one thing to argue your opinion of any details you know from what you've heard about it and quite another to declare it trash. If you really want to do that -- fine -- I enjoy arguing, obviously -- but I really don't see why you should be offended (or surprised!) by the question.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Well, there are quite a few out there (if I'm not mistaken here as well) who say they hate These Are the Voyages and haven't seen it, and have no intention on seeing it, based on what they know about it.

That's a reasonable course of action. Everyone does it all the time when they decide to watch or not watch this or that, read or not read this or that, etc. There are a lot of things I don't like (like "reality" TV) that I've barely seen anything of.

[Aquarius]

^ You're right. And it's just as ignorant to hate on *the_abomination* without actually seeing it. It's one thing to say you don't have high hopes for something based on what you've heard/read about it, it's quite another for a person to make it their business to try and make people feel stupid for liking a movie, especially when that person hasn't even seen it.

If someone posts here and says they like *the_abomination*, more power to 'em. It doesn't mean that I have to agree...and at least mine will be an informed opinion, because I've seen it. I'm also not going to try to make that person feel like a dumbass for liking it...I may present logical, cogent examples of out of character behavior, storyline that doesn't make sense, etc., but it will be based on what I observed for myself and therefore reasoned out. I hadn't seen it yet when I started posting here, so when it aired I tried to keep an open mind and tried not to have too many preconceived notions about what it would be like. Turned out it was worse than I expected, but now that I've seen it, I have room to talk about it.

I think not caring for a particular genre of TV or film is apples and oranges here. I generally don't like chick flicks as a rule...but I'm not going to try to make someone feel dumb for liking them, nor am I going to dismiss one out of hand as garbage if I haven't seen it for myself. Since I generally don't like the genre it's unlikely that I will see it for myself, but that's not a reason to get all freaked out and judgmental, right?

[justTripn]

Right! Aquarius.

Oh, what did I come on here to say? A friend of mine at work made an interesting comment. She said, "The first two Star Trek movies were reboots." According to cannon, the adventures of the crew took place when they were young. They were on a 5-year mission. Instead of going out and getting young actors to play the same characters on their 5-year mission, they went with the actors. So they had to show that they were all still working together in middle age, not quite plausible. That's a reboot of the original concept.

Every Trek movie, comes up with some lame excuse, to throw everyone we want to see back together, and the audience goes, HURRAY! Why, because the writers/producers gave us what we wanted to see. Previously people wanted the exact same actors. Now we miss the characters the actors can no longer portray: the youthful versions of Kirk and Spock. And the youthful feel of the OS. So they give us that! Hurray for free enterprise, no pun intended. The consumer is king.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

^ You're right. And it's just as ignorant to hate on *the_abomination* without actually seeing it.

I disagree. While the opinion would obviously be more informed after seeing whatever it is, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have an opinion on something based on other information, like spoilers. I knew Trip was going to die and a lot of other things before I ever saw *the_abomination*, and I hated it for all those reasons. I knew before seeing Abrams Trek that it was going to be a reboot and I didn't like that either. Did that make me predisposed not to like those pieces when I eventually saw them? Yes, of course, but I still think my earlier views had a lot of merit.

I think not caring for a particular genre of TV or film is apples and oranges here. I generally don't like chick flicks as a rule...but I'm not going to try to make someone feel dumb for liking them, nor am I going to dismiss one out of hand as garbage if I haven't seen it for myself. Since I generally don't like the genre it's unlikely that I will see it for myself, but that's not a reason to get all freaked out and judgmental, right?

Just to clarify, I didn't mean just different genres, even if that was the example I gave. I also meant specific storylines or plot developments within a genre. I can hate the thought of AinT without ever having seen it actually happening on screen (thank God).

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Oh, what did I come on here to say? A friend of mine at work made an interesting comment. She said, "The first two Star Trek movies were reboots." According to cannon, the adventures of the crew took place when they were young. They were on a 5-year mission. Instead of going out and getting young actors to play the same characters on their 5-year mission, they went with the actors. So they had to show that they were all still working together in middle age, not quite plausible. That's a reboot of the original concept.

No, the TOS TV show was the five year mission. The TOS movies came after that mission was completed. That's not a reboot. That's following the original timeline.

A reboot then would've been hiring younger actors to play the characters on that five-year mission from the beginning. Which is more or less what Abrams has done now (although I don't recall a mention of a five-year mission in the movie, perhaps they'll save that for Abrams Trek II?).

[Aquarius]

^^ Your earlier views probably did have merit. I knew Trip was gonna die, too, before I saw it...and I knew I didn't like that already because I liked the character. However, in my opinion, I would have lacked the credibility to just start spewing on about it without having actually seen it and getting everything in its proper context. Rather than going along with everyone else like a sheep, I chose to see it and decide for myself, and I think it's understandable why I would have more respect for the opinion of someone who'd done likewise.

I am not criticizing you, KTR. Yeah, you had some opinions before the fact--we all did. But you saw the movie, so the bottom line is you are making a credible, informed opinion. Whether or not others agree is a whole different thing.

[Asso]

And once more nobody receds from his opinion.
Why debating?
Better, for me, enjoying fanfictions.
We are "Monades", but we can find some consolations in someone who is capable of making free the feelings we want to see and feel.

[CX]

To be really blunt? What, blunter than usual? You're jumping down the throat of anything anybody says positively about it and you haven't even seen it. I respect your desire to vote with your feet, but why you feel the need to respond with such bitterness and certainty when you haven't even seen it just boggles my mind.

That's because I know the information already, so watching it is irrelevant at this point. What boggles my mind is the idea that somehow watching something you already know everything about would change anything. As for what pisses me off about that question in particular, I've found that it tends to be a double-edged sword because more often than not if someone said yes, the response would be to question why the person saw it if they knew they were going to hate it, that they only watched it to get ammunition to rant about, or something generally along those lines. After all, it's perfectly cool to see all the same information I have and decide that it sounds good, but if you think it sounds awful, well, you just better watch it to make sure. Of course that wasn't the case when it came to *the_abomination* - I saw the spoilers, knew it was going to suck, and watching it changed nothing, other than I got to see the suckiness with my own eyes.

It's one thing to argue your opinion of any details you know from what you've heard about it and quite another to declare it trash.

I am arguing my opinion on plenty of details, you can see them in my posts both here and on other boards, and generally speaking my opinion is that this movie is trash.

If you really want to do that -- fine -- I enjoy arguing, obviously -- but I really don't see why you should be offended (or surprised!) by the question.

Because it's a weak argument usually used in an attempt to invalidate someone's opinion you don't agree with.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

A review on the science of Abrams' Star Trek.

The Shatner Scene You Never Saw In Abrams' Star Trek revealed.

[thecursor]

Alright, I'm still on the fence about this reboot but I now, honestly believe that I liked the movie.

I really am one of those "something better then nothing" guys and I'm frankly just happy to have some kind of new product rather then just worshiping a dead franchise.

This whole thing has to grow at some point and while I'm still not sure if I actually LIKE the changes, I like having Trek. Period. The good news here is that Abrams is not making a TV show. J.J. Abrams is a better as a film director then a television producer (Lost is unwatchable now, Alias was unbearable after season two, Fringe has some cracks in it)

[Alelou]

A review on the science of Abrams' Star Trek.

The Shatner Scene You Never Saw In Abrams' Star Trek revealed.

Thanks for that link. I was expecting it to really rip into the science, so it was kind of nice to see it written by a guy with enthusiasm (even though of course he still had to rip into a lot of the science).

I'm not sure how I would have felt about that Shatner thing. It sure would be piling it on pretty thick at that point. But then I'm no Shatner fan.