Star Trek was long dying. It needed a reboot. I still think it was the best way to do it. And like I said earlier, there's always Star Trek Online which takes place in the prime timeline 40 years after Nemesis and acknowledges the events of Abrams' Star Trek before the time travel.
You guys are missing the point. Star Trek is great and all but it's something its not now, it's been diminished to a flashy space action film with little intellectual property left for it, it doesn't make an impressive quantum argument for itself, fans of the film do that for it.
If anything it takes beloved characters and rewrite their entire backgrounds and uses it as a excuse to make a new Star Trek movie. He's a hack....
Who the FCK cares what he thinks alternate universe or not he's hack, he took the franchise as his own, made lame excuses under artistic license, changed, ruined, hacked everything Star Trek is about. He should of used his own material but instead he took nostalgia and ruined it...
Any true fan would be like , meh...
Stupid changes, as bad as Jar Jar and little Anakin Skywalker. Oh My God...
The argument he has made is weak, and ultimately self serving and it comes down to him milking a franchise in his own vision , and he single handedly destroyed everything star trek stood for to make his alternate universe BS that Hollywood will now feed off of. *BEEEP* him!
In the 60s, Gene had such amazing , deeply intellectual ideas that they couldn't even air the episodes! This guy is no visionary, people give him too strong of a case, argument, when in actual fact his argument, case is WEAK and he is a WEAK artist milking nostalgia and warping and perverting everything that nostalgia is about.
*BEEP* him!
I rather see it die, honestly. I rather would, than some half brained artist come along, take Gene's TOS and just create his alternate Star Trek. WTF?
He should have thought of something more original or made his own movie series inspired off of star Trek, I could have respected that.
URGH! What the hell....what the hell?
Updating the content for future generations would have been one thing, but warping and perverting the material to a flashy, low substance, I've seen it once in my life film,ooooh it's modern and all colorful....oooooh. WHAT A INSULT! It's not even the same sort of material as before, it lacks most if not all intellectual substance a film could have!
It focuses on writting the characters in a common, practical , mostly expected way, that is typical of movies, but not even true to the star trek character universe. *BEEEEEEP* him
There are no real similarities here , there is no star trek, it's not rebooted, it's not saved. It's ARGHGHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGH!
What you're saying Doodo is that you're a more philosophical/cerebral kind of person, and from your point of view, shows from the Prime universe are largely more thought provoking while this new movie is conversely filled with eye candy.
I can see why you might be upset, but I really do disagree. Star Trek needs to do more than appeal to only its hardcore fanbase. I've recently watched several behind the scenes clips on youtube for this movie, and at one point they talk about how they had various people such as a very hardcore Trek fan, a moderate fan, a casual fan, and a newbie to the franchise and how they tried to develop Trek such that it would have appeal to each one of these people.
Where I come at it is this: I loved Enterprise, and I was very disappointed when they cancelled it after season 4 (when TNG, VOY and DS9 had seven). Unfortunately, I could see how one might not get into it if they weren't already a Trek fan held over from other shows (given the level of wonderful fanservice), and so I can see why Trek needs to evolve if it plans to stay alive and successful for future installments. If the existing fanbase can't support Enterprise past the fourth season, then Trek needs to widen its fanbase by creating wider appeal.
I'm really impressed, you showed me respect even when I trashed something you enjoy, love. Impressive! I'm very impressed, most people would have attacked me. I don't want to imply I'm cerebral philosophical, my friend. I'm very impressed.
I let myself go on this, just to see that interaction. I hadn't expected such a impressive result. Thank you.
I feel strong vibrations in you, the force is strong with this one (XD) . Wow, that was not a typical or anticipated response to such a rant.
I'm really impressed, you showed me respect even when I trashed something you enjoy, love. Impressive! I'm very impressed, most people would have attacked me.
You're not required to like the new movie. I'm just saying that there is evidence to support that Trek can't survive if it doesn't find appeal to the market, which apparently Enterprise did not (much to my dismay.)
I don't want to imply I'm cerebral philosophical, my friend. I'm very impressed.
But you are. Why else would you have so many "musings" on these forums? As such, I can see why something with less philosophy and more action would have lesser appeal.
However, [insert humorously facetious "I'm right and you're wrong" line here]
You know what doodo, I'm going to say that you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. Every person that's been involved in Star Trek over the past 50 years has said that it has remained true to Roddenberry's vision. And that's including Gene's son.
Also, a lot of old school Trek fans enjoyed it. Second time I went to see it, an older gentleman was sitting nearby and he said as the credits rolled, "I've been a fan of Star Trek since the first episode aired, and this was fantastic."
So yeah...what is it that he saw in the film that you apparently didn't?
Speaking about the new film, I'm actually pleased that Damon Lindelof is involved with writing it this time around as I feel that he was one of the better writers for Lost (even including the finale) and the script/story can only benefit from his involvement.
Well, even if the reboot wasn't to the liking of some of the die-hard fans, they do have hundreds of episodes to fall back on to watch instead.
Personally, I view films on their own merits. Sure Star Trek XI wasn't pure star trek, but it was still a fantastic film. I loved it. (Although not as much as I liked "First Contact, the motion picture or the one with the refugees.) That's probably the reason I love the Star wars prequels. Sure they're different from the originals (focussing on one man's life struggles as he turns to the darkside, turning against hundreds of allies, instead of a small group turning against an evil dictator from the get go. One trilogy is all about emotions, whilst the other more about purpose.)
You know what doodo, I'm going to say that you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. Every person that's been involved in Star Trek over the past 50 years has said that it has remained true to Roddenberry's vision. And that's including Gene's son.
Also, a lot of old school Trek fans enjoyed it. Second time I went to see it, an older gentleman was sitting nearby and he said as the credits rolled, "I've been a fan of Star Trek since the first episode aired, and this was fantastic."
So yeah...what is it that he saw in the film that you apparently didn't?
You named one person, not really convincing, even if it's his son, who didn't write episodes, mind you or work on them, as far as I'm concerned. Not the mention the fat check that went to the family.
And a lot of old school Trek fans didn't enjoy it.
Wheres your argument? I don't see it...
Peace....
Musically Inspired, the way I look at I'm not glued to any word, moment, my whole life is a illusion or lie, or acting, or speaking, and then speaking like math it adds up or subtracts from idea and then I interpret things in my own way and this whole reality is rather pointless, because I honestly don't even feel truly alive.
But my friend, couldn't I ask the same thing, I could say some random guy in the theater said I've been a star trek fan all my life (assuming I didn't make it up to argue) and I loved this movie, it's better than Wrath of Khan, hot damn..
Wouldn't really add anything. I mean it's implied, the truth, the real truth about reality? Arguing is logically flawed. I know that sounds stupid, BS, but it's more or less true for most things, especial simple things like a movie where opinions aren't unified even though they aren't really divided.
It's implied people like the movie, people don't, if it weren't implied we'd all be exactly the same.
Which one is that? Generations? Insurrection? The Final Frontier? Wrath of Khan?
Only one of these has "refugees" in it, but they play such a small part in the overall movie that I'm confused.
"Such as?" Doodo. :P
Insurrection. Where the enterprise interfere with the planned movement of a small civilization and they all turn into refugees trudging through the countryside. Then worf goes through puberty.
And Generations holds a special place in my heart for being the first piece of star trek I ever saw.
Does it really matter? My family doesn't like it that much, Trekkie, can quote the episodes and knows all the trivia and he's pretty involved, and then my brother another Trekkie doesn't like it. But my sister and my other brother do, and so does my mother who is a Trekkie herself .
But, it's the same type of argument as :
A. This is not a ufo, it's some jewish kid's frisbee
B. Prove it
C. can't...
See what I mean, it's just two sets of opinions to one issue that don't ultimately prove anything. So arguments of this nature are really just designed to share an opinion.
I'm sure people enjoy it, but my brother a Trekkie doesn't, my father is sort of meh about it. And I am a some what Trekkie, not enough to be tried , but enjoy TOS and other series and movies.
I like lots of traditions or ...um...I like alot of things to be pure, original, there in lies my own personal opinions, which don't even really exist as if I thought about them, I soon realize how dumb it is to argue something that is in this world with multiple different opinions, perspectives.
BUT, morals are different I don't compromise those, but a movie? I just ranted for fun, I was bored...
In case that post was directed at me: I don't really care whether you like it or not (well, it's interesting to hear what you have to say, but it doesn't matter.) I like it, and as long as enough people like it to get a sequel or two going, I'm happy!
My post ""Such as?" Doodo. :P" was just me being smart-arsey and naming you as one such disliker.
Yes, well if everyone was cool with that no one would be needy, insecure with subjects like this or argue silly things. But, I suppose if you're into Star Wars, Bluray could still rightfully piss people off.
I soon realize how dumb it is to argue something that is in this world with multiple different opinions, perspectives.
What is the point of conversation then?
Debate, even pointless heated debate with no foreseeable resolution, is part of having relationships with other people. If all we ever said about things was: A:"Hey, check this out." B:"Okay." A:"Do you like it?" B:"No." A:"Why not?" B:"It doesn't matter/I don't want to talk about it/It's only my opinion so who cares"... well, then life would be rather dull and boring.
Take Dashing, for example. He knows what he likes, and is adamant about maintaining his point of view. If all he ever said about BTTF (for example) was "It sucks, but it's only my opinion so who cares why you should agree with me?" then that would be the end of the conversation. The same can be said for why he thinks every MI2 is the best Monkey Island game and CMI is crap. It's not that I agree with him, but at least I get to know the man the more he talks about his position and why he feels the way he does.
This is called getting to know someone. Debate and arguement are important parts of developing friendships. Without it, how can anyone really be sure how someone truthfully feels about a certain issue if they don't ever get emotionally invested in defending their position, and why should anyone care what anyone else has to say if no one's opinion means enough to argue about?
People argue. That's part of life. It's part of getting to know other people, and expanding ones understanding of the thoughts and feelings of those around them.
This is why it bothers me for people to say "It's just an opinion so why argue." If my opinion doesn't matter enough for you to argue with me about it, and your opinion doesn't matter enough for me to argue with you about it, then why do we bother to talk at all?
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk, I'm saying we should and that people who say opinions don't matter enough to argue about have no concept of what having a relationship really means.
Thanks for sharing with me. Still, I think we could respect one another opinions. But I was immature just our of boredom, and there you have it. We have a strange sense of amusement.
Some of the old Star Trek Original Series adventure games were tops. That 25th Anniversary one is awesome.
Agreed, those are great... I love how they're even voiced by the original actors.
I also like the cheesy FMV ones, like the Klingon one... that comes with that incredibly lame CD containing Klingon language learning lessons - now that I think of it, I believe I still have that CD in my closet somewhere
Thanks for sharing with me. Still, I think we could respect one another opinions. But I was immature just our of boredom, and there you have it. We have a strange sense of amusement.
I apologize, but I get annoyed by some "Trekkies" dismiss the movie out of hand. It just seems like a lot of Trek fans are forgetting one of the key philosophies of the Trek universe. IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
Now, I will say this. At least you gave it a chance. I do know someone who absolutely refuses to watch it and has even left the room when his brother played it.
I apologize, but I get annoyed by some "Trekkies" dismiss the movie out of hand. It just seems like a lot of Trek fans are forgetting one of the key philosophies of the Trek universe. IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
Now, I will say this. At least you gave it a chance. I do know someone who absolutely refuses to watch it and has even left the room when his brother played it.
It's easier to be human, than it isn't. So I was human. Well, than it is to try not to be human. No hard feelings. I'm weird, I mean no complex, or conceit, I can change my opinions, feelings, within the hour or 5 minutes.
I don't feel real, nothing feels absolute. I assume if I saw the movie in a different light I would enjoy it. These words are superficial. I know , I like you guys, I want to be your friends, but you can't really hold me to my words, XD can you hold me to that?
Peace everyone. I do have a few core beliefs, I do, but not when it comes to arguing some one else's interests, opinions. Unless, I think that person is twisted and evil.
I think the other side should only be accessed when necessarily and both sides should be real, true, honest, thought about, if possible pure.
Loss of soul is only a product of the fact that we are moving into the future, a place where people have no soul or morals, but do have tons of neat gadgets if Red vs. Blue is to be believed as an authority on the subject. Which they probably aren't.
Of course it did. It wasn't the same person nor team that made it. That doesn't mean it doesn't have soul at all, though.
Yeah but the loss of it means something especially to people who grew up with it. I don't think it's too far right of the arguments being held in the King's Quest forum about 'what is' King's Quest.
That's a good point. However, King's Quest doesn't have NEAR the amount of material that Star Trek does. Star Trek had five iterations of spin-off shows with multiple seasons worth of stories, a cartoon, 10 full length feature films, dozens upon dozens of video games, countless novels, comics, and parodies as well as fan fiction, consistent multiple conventions a year, and more and it all lasted for decades and is still going strong despite the Abrams reboot. King's Quest had a fraction of that. I think Star Trek is allowed to be a little bit different now. King's Quest barely had over a decade's worth of games with only 8 titles. It never had a chance to reach the potential it could have.
Yeah. I won't argue that. The truth is that Star Trek was choking on itself. The fans weren't happy even when producers gave them what they thought they wanted. The throwback Enterprise never had the right chemistry after the first season, and it went with long arcs over short ones. Voyager stumbled hard toward the end of its run. And DS9, love it though I did, put Trek on a path I don't think was sustainable. Trek isn't inherently going to reach the action heights of BS9 or Galactica, not in that universe. The tone for Trek in that vein was set.
Every true Trek fan knows that Star Trek was dying slowly, and we were partly culpable. After Enterprise we were in the midst of having the first time in a long time where there was NO Trek on television and no movies planned. People were saying maybe the franchise needed a rest for a while. And, I think that especially in that light, it's good to have a fresh approach to classic characters. It's not like this iteration damages the standard Trek continuity or leaves no room to go back to that universe in the future.
I just think the new Star Trek lost some of the soul that the old ones had.
Certainly true. Abrahams did not really know the series and just constructed a movie around the most popular things about the franchise. That way, I can understand the Trekkies' disappointment with the "new" Star Trek. Personally, I saw this movie as some kind of ST parody - the best kind, mind you. I really liked it, for its characters, on its own. Just as I liked Spaceballs without even knowing Star Wars.
This is why it bothers me for people to say "It's just an opinion so why argue." If my opinion doesn't matter enough for you to argue with me about it, and your opinion doesn't matter enough for me to argue with you about it, then why do we bother to talk at all?
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk, I'm saying we should and that people who say opinions don't matter enough to argue about have no concept of what having a relationship really means.
I don't know. I for instance don't care whether people like or hate something, so long as they can support their arguement. I learnt a long time ago that you can't make someone like something they don't with words. Imagine me trying to convince you that marge simpson is the love of your life, or that marmite and jam pizza is really nice (which in incidentally it is.) Or athat any food you hate is actually really nice. It can't be done. People feel what they feel when they watch a film. You can't change that with words.
That said, I do enjoy reading people's views and present my own. I still argue if something they said was untrue or or untrue for me.
On that note: what was everyone's first episode, and what would you suggest are good starting points for newbies?
Certainly true. Abrahams did not really know the series and just constructed a movie around the most popular things about the franchise. That way, I can understand the Trekkies' disappointment with the "new" Star Trek. Personally, I saw this movie as some kind of ST parody - the best kind, mind you. I really liked it, for its characters, on its own. Just as I liked Spaceballs without even knowing Star Wars.
Except Abrams didn't write the movie. And the writers are fans and know the material well.
The problem the way I'm seeing it is that it suffered from a lot of First Movie Syndrome. We have to introduce these characters and places to people who don't know them(the non-Trekkies), and we have to make it feel like there's a reason for this crazy mix-match of people can work together, so we throw in a threat to Earth. That's the big problem with Trek movies and why they have a hard time fitting in with the themes of the shows. They can't focus on something like a diplomatic meeting or something like that for a 2 hour movie.
Comments
If anything it takes beloved characters and rewrite their entire backgrounds and uses it as a excuse to make a new Star Trek movie. He's a hack....
Who the FCK cares what he thinks alternate universe or not he's hack, he took the franchise as his own, made lame excuses under artistic license, changed, ruined, hacked everything Star Trek is about. He should of used his own material but instead he took nostalgia and ruined it...
Any true fan would be like , meh...
Stupid changes, as bad as Jar Jar and little Anakin Skywalker. Oh My God...
The argument he has made is weak, and ultimately self serving and it comes down to him milking a franchise in his own vision , and he single handedly destroyed everything star trek stood for to make his alternate universe BS that Hollywood will now feed off of. *BEEEP* him!
In the 60s, Gene had such amazing , deeply intellectual ideas that they couldn't even air the episodes! This guy is no visionary, people give him too strong of a case, argument, when in actual fact his argument, case is WEAK and he is a WEAK artist milking nostalgia and warping and perverting everything that nostalgia is about.
*BEEP* him!
I rather see it die, honestly. I rather would, than some half brained artist come along, take Gene's TOS and just create his alternate Star Trek. WTF?
He should have thought of something more original or made his own movie series inspired off of star Trek, I could have respected that.
URGH! What the hell....what the hell?
Updating the content for future generations would have been one thing, but warping and perverting the material to a flashy, low substance, I've seen it once in my life film,ooooh it's modern and all colorful....oooooh. WHAT A INSULT! It's not even the same sort of material as before, it lacks most if not all intellectual substance a film could have!
It focuses on writting the characters in a common, practical , mostly expected way, that is typical of movies, but not even true to the star trek character universe. *BEEEEEEP* him
There are no real similarities here , there is no star trek, it's not rebooted, it's not saved. It's ARGHGHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGH!
I can see why you might be upset, but I really do disagree. Star Trek needs to do more than appeal to only its hardcore fanbase. I've recently watched several behind the scenes clips on youtube for this movie, and at one point they talk about how they had various people such as a very hardcore Trek fan, a moderate fan, a casual fan, and a newbie to the franchise and how they tried to develop Trek such that it would have appeal to each one of these people.
Where I come at it is this: I loved Enterprise, and I was very disappointed when they cancelled it after season 4 (when TNG, VOY and DS9 had seven). Unfortunately, I could see how one might not get into it if they weren't already a Trek fan held over from other shows (given the level of wonderful fanservice), and so I can see why Trek needs to evolve if it plans to stay alive and successful for future installments. If the existing fanbase can't support Enterprise past the fourth season, then Trek needs to widen its fanbase by creating wider appeal.
I let myself go on this, just to see that interaction. I hadn't expected such a impressive result. Thank you.
I feel strong vibrations in you, the force is strong with this one (XD) . Wow, that was not a typical or anticipated response to such a rant.
But you are. Why else would you have so many "musings" on these forums? As such, I can see why something with less philosophy and more action would have lesser appeal.
However, [insert humorously facetious "I'm right and you're wrong" line here]
Also, a lot of old school Trek fans enjoyed it. Second time I went to see it, an older gentleman was sitting nearby and he said as the credits rolled, "I've been a fan of Star Trek since the first episode aired, and this was fantastic."
So yeah...what is it that he saw in the film that you apparently didn't?
Personally, I view films on their own merits. Sure Star Trek XI wasn't pure star trek, but it was still a fantastic film. I loved it. (Although not as much as I liked "First Contact, the motion picture or the one with the refugees.) That's probably the reason I love the Star wars prequels. Sure they're different from the originals (focussing on one man's life struggles as he turns to the darkside, turning against hundreds of allies, instead of a small group turning against an evil dictator from the get go. One trilogy is all about emotions, whilst the other more about purpose.)
You named one person, not really convincing, even if it's his son, who didn't write episodes, mind you or work on them, as far as I'm concerned. Not the mention the fat check that went to the family.
And a lot of old school Trek fans didn't enjoy it.
Wheres your argument? I don't see it...
Peace....
Musically Inspired, the way I look at I'm not glued to any word, moment, my whole life is a illusion or lie, or acting, or speaking, and then speaking like math it adds up or subtracts from idea and then I interpret things in my own way and this whole reality is rather pointless, because I honestly don't even feel truly alive.
Such as?
Which one is that? Generations? Insurrection? The Final Frontier? Wrath of Khan?
Only one of these has "refugees" in it, but they play such a small part in the overall movie that I'm confused.
Um...lots of people, but you wouldn't know any of them and I don't talk about them because that would be mean.
<.<
>.>
But my friend, couldn't I ask the same thing, I could say some random guy in the theater said I've been a star trek fan all my life (assuming I didn't make it up to argue) and I loved this movie, it's better than Wrath of Khan, hot damn..
Wouldn't really add anything. I mean it's implied, the truth, the real truth about reality? Arguing is logically flawed. I know that sounds stupid, BS, but it's more or less true for most things, especial simple things like a movie where opinions aren't unified even though they aren't really divided.
It's implied people like the movie, people don't, if it weren't implied we'd all be exactly the same.
Insurrection. Where the enterprise interfere with the planned movement of a small civilization and they all turn into refugees trudging through the countryside. Then worf goes through puberty.
And Generations holds a special place in my heart for being the first piece of star trek I ever saw.
But, it's the same type of argument as :
A. This is not a ufo, it's some jewish kid's frisbee
B. Prove it
C. can't...
See what I mean, it's just two sets of opinions to one issue that don't ultimately prove anything. So arguments of this nature are really just designed to share an opinion.
I'm sure people enjoy it, but my brother a Trekkie doesn't, my father is sort of meh about it. And I am a some what Trekkie, not enough to be tried , but enjoy TOS and other series and movies.
I like lots of traditions or ...um...I like alot of things to be pure, original, there in lies my own personal opinions, which don't even really exist as if I thought about them, I soon realize how dumb it is to argue something that is in this world with multiple different opinions, perspectives.
BUT, morals are different I don't compromise those, but a movie? I just ranted for fun, I was bored...
My post ""Such as?" Doodo. :P" was just me being smart-arsey and naming you as one such disliker.
I'll leave this here.
What is the point of conversation then?
Debate, even pointless heated debate with no foreseeable resolution, is part of having relationships with other people. If all we ever said about things was: A:"Hey, check this out." B:"Okay." A:"Do you like it?" B:"No." A:"Why not?" B:"It doesn't matter/I don't want to talk about it/It's only my opinion so who cares"... well, then life would be rather dull and boring.
Take Dashing, for example. He knows what he likes, and is adamant about maintaining his point of view. If all he ever said about BTTF (for example) was "It sucks, but it's only my opinion so who cares why you should agree with me?" then that would be the end of the conversation. The same can be said for why he thinks every MI2 is the best Monkey Island game and CMI is crap. It's not that I agree with him, but at least I get to know the man the more he talks about his position and why he feels the way he does.
This is called getting to know someone. Debate and arguement are important parts of developing friendships. Without it, how can anyone really be sure how someone truthfully feels about a certain issue if they don't ever get emotionally invested in defending their position, and why should anyone care what anyone else has to say if no one's opinion means enough to argue about?
People argue. That's part of life. It's part of getting to know other people, and expanding ones understanding of the thoughts and feelings of those around them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk, I'm saying we should and that people who say opinions don't matter enough to argue about have no concept of what having a relationship really means.
I also like the cheesy FMV ones, like the Klingon one... that comes with that incredibly lame CD containing Klingon language learning lessons - now that I think of it, I believe I still have that CD in my closet somewhere
I apologize, but I get annoyed by some "Trekkies" dismiss the movie out of hand. It just seems like a lot of Trek fans are forgetting one of the key philosophies of the Trek universe. IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
Now, I will say this. At least you gave it a chance. I do know someone who absolutely refuses to watch it and has even left the room when his brother played it.
I don't feel real, nothing feels absolute. I assume if I saw the movie in a different light I would enjoy it. These words are superficial. I know , I like you guys, I want to be your friends, but you can't really hold me to my words, XD can you hold me to that?
Peace everyone. I do have a few core beliefs, I do, but not when it comes to arguing some one else's interests, opinions. Unless, I think that person is twisted and evil.
I think the other side should only be accessed when necessarily and both sides should be real, true, honest, thought about, if possible pure.
Yeah but the loss of it means something especially to people who grew up with it. I don't think it's too far right of the arguments being held in the King's Quest forum about 'what is' King's Quest.
Every true Trek fan knows that Star Trek was dying slowly, and we were partly culpable. After Enterprise we were in the midst of having the first time in a long time where there was NO Trek on television and no movies planned. People were saying maybe the franchise needed a rest for a while. And, I think that especially in that light, it's good to have a fresh approach to classic characters. It's not like this iteration damages the standard Trek continuity or leaves no room to go back to that universe in the future.
Certainly true. Abrahams did not really know the series and just constructed a movie around the most popular things about the franchise. That way, I can understand the Trekkies' disappointment with the "new" Star Trek. Personally, I saw this movie as some kind of ST parody - the best kind, mind you. I really liked it, for its characters, on its own. Just as I liked Spaceballs without even knowing Star Wars.
I don't know. I for instance don't care whether people like or hate something, so long as they can support their arguement. I learnt a long time ago that you can't make someone like something they don't with words. Imagine me trying to convince you that marge simpson is the love of your life, or that marmite and jam pizza is really nice (which in incidentally it is.) Or athat any food you hate is actually really nice. It can't be done. People feel what they feel when they watch a film. You can't change that with words.
That said, I do enjoy reading people's views and present my own. I still argue if something they said was untrue or or untrue for me.
On that note: what was everyone's first episode, and what would you suggest are good starting points for newbies?
Except Abrams didn't write the movie. And the writers are fans and know the material well.
The problem the way I'm seeing it is that it suffered from a lot of First Movie Syndrome. We have to introduce these characters and places to people who don't know them(the non-Trekkies), and we have to make it feel like there's a reason for this crazy mix-match of people can work together, so we throw in a threat to Earth. That's the big problem with Trek movies and why they have a hard time fitting in with the themes of the shows. They can't focus on something like a diplomatic meeting or something like that for a 2 hour movie.