Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Eldarain wrote:
Is this the first time they've had to contend with fighters? All my memories of Trek space combat has always been capital vs capital.

Nemesis had fighters hangared on the Romulan ship, but aside from the one Picard stole they weren't actually used.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like we have two groups here:

Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.

Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.

I'm a Star Trek fan, and I think this looks pretty awesome.

 insaniak wrote:

I'm a Star Trek fan, and I think this looks pretty awesome.

Me too!

Though not it almost sounds as if we're at a meeting.

Are we at a meeting?

 d-usa wrote:
Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.

Word up.

I think it looks great. I know the purists don't seem to like the newer movies and I can see why, but I like action and explosions and even lens flares I liked the last 2 so I'm sure I'll like this one too

 Alpharius wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

I'm a Star Trek fan, and I think this looks pretty awesome.

Me too!

Though not it almost sounds as if we're at a meeting.

Are we at a meeting?

That depends... are you about to tell us how long it's been since you last watched Star Trek?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Utter utter crap, this movie looks awful and seems to be continuing to trample on everything that made star trek decent, if they want to appeal to mindless morons that only want "pew pew" then just make a generic sci fi film and leave star trek alone.

So.... all of us who think it'll be pretty good are "mindless morons".... good to know

Yep




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like we have two groups here:

Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.

Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.

There are also Star Trek fans who realize that there are many different interpretations and aspects of Star Trek between all the different series and movies and who are looking forward to another Star Trek to add to the mix.

Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.

I resemble that statement good sir!!!

Looks like a fun action SF movie that looks like star trek but ignores all the original gist of the original star trek.

 d-usa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like we have two groups here:

Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.

Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.

There are also Star Trek fans who realize that there are many different interpretations and aspects of Star Trek between all the different series and movies and who are looking forward to another Star Trek to add to the mix.

Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.

There are many ST fans who wildly overrate and overstate the cerebral nature of the various series. Action and adventure have always been key components of the ST formula, and in fact many of the best films, show runs and episodes have been more action-oriented.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Looks like a fun action SF movie that looks like star trek but ignores all the original gist of the original star trek.

The 'general gist' of the original Star Trek was largely 'Crew winds up in a difficult situation, Kirk punches something, shoots something and/or sleeps with something, roll credits'.

With a liberal sprinkling of 'most illogical's and 'dammit, I'm a doctor, not a wilderbeast!'s scattered through for dramatic effect.



Trailer looks pretty spot on, to me.


The issue that most old-school Trek fans seem to have with the new stuff is that it's more action-oriented. Which, frankly, is unavoidable, I think... Today's audiences are more action-oriented. But I don't really have a problem with it... I enjoy action movies and story-driven movies for different reasons, and I think there's plenty of room for both in the Trek universe.

The movies have always been action oriented though, so deem rosey glasses . Ever since the first one kind of doggy paddled out the gate, every film that followed was more fast paced and tense. Save the 5th film, which everyone knows sucked horribly

... and the 10th - Nemesis.
Which ended the "even numbered ones are good" theory.


"The same heart beats in both our chests ..."

Picard had an artificial heart - and had for years - due to a defect in his natural one. It was mentioned in several seasons and operated on a couple of times.

 chromedog wrote:
... and the 10th - Nemesis.
Which ended the "even numbered ones are good" theory.

I don't know what you mean. Galaxy Quest was the 10th Star Trek movie, and was awesome. Nemesis was the 11th

due to a defect in his natural one.

I'm not sure a knife in the heart counts as a defect but good point

 LordofHats wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
... and the 10th - Nemesis.
Which ended the "even numbered ones are good" theory.

I don't know what you mean. Galaxy Quest was the 10th Star Trek movie, and was awesome. Nemesis was the 11th

Then the First reboot was decent (#12) and into Darkness was Terrible (#13), so I am optimistic for this one!

 Breotan wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
The farther they get from captains lecturing on the finer points of Federation protocol over tea, the happier I am.

As long as uhura doesn't travel back in time and dance naked, i'll be happy.

Interestingly, I actually wouldn't have a problem with that. Unless you're talking about Nichelle Nichols. Then I'd have a problem. Yea, I'd be very sad to see that.

I was sad to see it the first time. I'm not sure i could unsee it a second time.

 Formosa wrote:
Utter utter crap, this movie looks awful and seems to be continuing to trample on everything that made star trek decent, if they want to appeal to mindless morons that only want "pew pew" then just make a generic sci fi film and leave star trek alone.

After watching the trailer again...this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like we have two groups here:

Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.

Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.

There are also Star Trek fans who realize that there are many different interpretations and aspects of Star Trek between all the different series and movies and who are looking forward to another Star Trek to add to the mix.

Then there are people who think that they are the authority on what makes people a fan or a nonfan based on their ultimate knowledge of all things Trek.

Then there are those who don't care what other people do, and think this movie looks like poo.

Ok I'm gonna try to articulate why I loved star trek, I'm not great at this so bare with me.

Star trek (to me) was all about hope, showing people of all races and creeds working together to try and make the best of a nasty universe, humans learning that war isn't the answer and trying to bring peace and diplomacy to the for, sure this didn't always work, but it was the first and most important tenent of the star trek universe, it had morals and while initially the o's scripts were not great, next gen showed this very well.

These new movies lack what made trek great, I don't know if it's the bad scripts, bad acting (spock and bones being the only good ones) or total lack of true exploration of the universe, I understand that as a feature film it needs to appeal to a larger audience and having a very simple plot and bright lights brings in the kids as well as the adults, but does it need to do this at the expense of good writing, character exploration (again spock was good) and intelligent thought provoking ideas, no, it's lazy, it's bolter porn, and that has its place, but not with the star trek logo on it.

Where the hell are the Klingons?

I thought the whole idea of building warships and sending the crew to Kronos in the second part, was to prepare us for the third part which was supposed to be the Federation at war with the Klingons?

I'm confused as hell!

Yes, Admiral Garth taking down the Klingons with lots of fleet battles would have been epic.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, Admiral Garth taking down the Klingons with lots of fleet battles would have been epic.

The whole point of bringing Khan out of stasis was for him to design new ships to fight the Klingons...and now they're saying there's no federation/Klingon war!

Worf is not pleased

Maybe the Klingons and Federation sat on their borders, Bunker Hill style when outta nowhere these dudes showed up in their tiny ships and all hell broke loose?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like we have two groups here:

Star Trek fans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are sad.

Star Trek nonfans who think this movie won't be like Star Trek and are excited.

Add a third category: long-time Star Trek fans who were shocked by the first reboot film, understand the new vision for Star Trek is inferior to what we grew up with, but just got over it and decided to allow ourselves to enjoy the new Star Trek for what it is.

I'm a long term Trek fan and I've really enjoyed the rebooted movies. But then again I'm not deep on movies with space ships and aliens in them. I just want to like the characters and have cool stuff happen so meh. I'm in

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm a long term Trek fan and I've really enjoyed the rebooted movies. But then again I'm not deep on movies with space ships and aliens in them. I just want to like the characters and have cool stuff happen so meh. I'm in

I liked the first one. The second one I thought was abysmally bad.

I can see people not liking the second one if they love Wrath of Khan. But while I liked Wrath of Khan, Into Darkness was actually better to me. Bear in mind I'm to young to have been around during ToS so I didn't have any more depth to the animosity than the movie gave me.

I like the current crew more than the ToS crew. I like the style more, and honestly I felt like Cumberbatch (sp?) was an amazing super human.

So to each their own I guess.

The main problem I have with the Khan portrayal is that Ricardo Montelban played a flamboyant, virile, and charismatic leader, while Cumbercrunch played a brooding, sullen, loner-type figure, and IIRC you never once encounter a single one of his followers in the new film.

If there was never an original Khan to compare against, the new Khan wouldn't have been shocking at all.

 jasper76 wrote:
The main problem I have with the Khan portrayal is that Ricardo Montelban played a flamboyant, virile, and charismatic leader, while Cumbercrunch played a brooding, sullen, loner-type figure, and IIRC you never once encounter a single one of his followers in the new film.

If there was never an original Khan to compare against, the new Khan wouldn't have been shocking at all.

True. Had they changed the premise to Star Fleet having found other superhumans from the era (another group then Botany Bay) that would have been better. It still would have been replete with 1,500 plot holes though, but would have been less annoying.

My favorite Star Trek Episode is DS9 first season. Progress.
Kira has to deal with an old man who is refusing to leave. Kira has to deal with the fact she is no longer an Underdog and is now part of a system that oppresses people still, even if it is for progress. Only one phaser is shot during the whole episode.
IF the New Trek made that episode. They would beam down with motorcycles phasers and knife and charge the old people compound which would turn out to be a secret kabal of gun smugglers and the whole episode would be a war movie......
I hate new trek, it has lost the nuance and the flavor of old trek and replaced it with generic action.

Star Trek used to be morality plays that happened to take place in space. Even in the older feature films, every one of them had some underlying moral to the story. The big difference between Old Trek and New Trek is that Abrams jettisoned that formula entirely in preference of Marvel-style, save-the-universe action with no morale to the story whatsoever. But once you allow yourself to abandon your expectations of any kind of intellectual stimulation, and just watch the movies like you'd watch a Marvel movie, they're really not so bad.

Looks like crap.

 jasper76 wrote:
Star Trek used to be morality plays that happened to take place in space. Even in the older feature films, every one of them had some underlying moral to the story. The big difference between Old Trek and New Trek is that Abrams jettisoned that formula entirely in preference of Marvel-style, save-the-universe action with no morale to the story whatsoever. But once you allow yourself to abandon your expectations of any kind of intellectual stimulation, and just watch the movies like you'd watch a Marvel movie, they're really not so bad.

In essence, he turned Star Trek into Star Wars.