JJ ABRAMS AND THE NEW STAR TREK >> Don't you just hate messing with History?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Darth_Siskel on June 14, 2009 at 2:32am

that depends...

are you(like my girlfriend)a Star Trek Purist? or me a guy who watches Star Trek.
She feels that she's been betrayed. because what they did with the new movie, is wipe the continuity clean and
"dumb it down" for everybody.
I can see her point of view, but nethertheless found the movie very entertaining. And that was the whole point of this.

a creatively bankrupt Hollywood aint into giving you something NEW. they wanna give you something thats a tried and tested formula that has and already built in audience, which guantees some kind of box-office.

and if anything hasn't history proven that financially this is the way to go?
the last 3 Trek movies were not well received. so lets give it to someone else who aint into Trek.
imagine the Star Wars we coulda had if Lucas had given it to someone else

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by MDS on June 14, 2009 at 7:34am

Someone OTHER than Lucas doing Star Wars would end up like this.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lab Rat on June 14, 2009 at 7:49am

That is like a diamond encrusted cat turd.
The sheer mass of its FAIL causes a singularity which pulls it through a black hole to an alternate universe where it is now pure WIN.
A Star Wars knock-off with Plummer and The Hoff. I must seek it out at all costs.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by MDS on June 14, 2009 at 8:37am

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Darth_Siskel on June 15, 2009 at 2:49am

but dude...did you see those titties?!?!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by MDS on June 14, 2009 at 7:40am

Here's the issue I have with Abram's version of Star Trek.

While I fully welcome a NEW start of the franchise name, I think that there should be something of importance associated WITH that franchise name. Abrams gave people an entertaining movie that was a welcome relief from the last few Star Trek movies. But I don't think that we have anything that qualifies in using the NAMESAKE of Star Trek. I think that he would have easily been able to rename his movie into something else completely and it would have been just as entertaining to people to see. But, due to it's importance in both TV/Film as well as the whole genre of Sci-Fi, there should have been something with more "meat on the bones" than what we got.

While not being a "purist" when it comes to Star Trek, I do hold it in high regard for it's historical importance.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Q on June 15, 2009 at 2:55am

Meat on the bones? Are you kidding me? Last I remember, boneless chicken tends to taste a little bit better than the usual variety. Tastes fuller!

And man...the new Star Trek was some damn good boneless wings.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lab Rat on June 15, 2009 at 2:58am

Boneless chicken is an abomination against God.

▶ Reply to This