Topic: ‘Star Trek’ is popcorn perfection

[knightstorm]

I was wondering; does anyone in this thread dress up in spandex and go to conventions?

When I was in high school and wanted to win free autographs in the costume contest.  Although I always drew the line at paying to listen to Leonard Nimoy read his poetry. (no joke this was actually an option at one convention).

[knightstorm]

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

And a double digit IQ is necessary to enjoy it.

[toasty0]

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

And a double digit IQ is necessary to enjoy it.

Better'n the single digit IQ it takes to pass judgement on something someone has neither seen nor heard. I paste that one right up there with "if men were meant to travel in space he wouldn't need a space suit."

[knightstorm]

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

And a double digit IQ is necessary to enjoy it.

Better'n the single digit IQ it takes to pass judgement on something someone has neither seen nor heard. I paste that one right up there with "if men were meant to travel in space he wouldn't need a space suit."

I've said it before, but you people keep making me repeat myself.  If there was anything in this film that indicated it was not what I think it is, Abrams would have leaked it.  The fact that he didn't is proof that it doesn't exist. Also, I just read the plot on wikipedia.  If its really as idiotic as it sounds, I'm definitely better off saving $15, and not seeing it in theaters.

[Sirgod]

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

And a double digit IQ is necessary to enjoy it.

Better'n the single digit IQ it takes to pass judgement on something someone has neither seen nor heard. I paste that one right up there with "if men were meant to travel in space he wouldn't need a space suit."

I've said it before, but you people keep making me repeat myself.  If there was anything in this film that indicated it was not what I think it is, Abrams would have leaked it.  The fact that he didn't is proof that it doesn't exist. Also, I just read the plot on wikipedia.  If its really as idiotic as it sounds, I'm definitely better off saving $15, and not seeing it in theaters.

More power to you brother. Just please, all I ask is you let those who want to see it, enjoy it, and post here with out this turning into a flame war. This goes for everyone. We have had way to many in the past guys, is all I'm saying.

Stephen

[knightstorm]

They're the ones who started it.

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

Its not my fault that they can't defend their point of view without taking a jab at me.

[Ravok]

They're the ones who started it.

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

Its not my fault that they can't defend their point of view without taking a jab at me.

 Yea but the thing is, you hate it sight unseen. And seem to belittle anybody that disagrees with your concept,of what Trek should be.

 Personally I find it exceptionally close minded, to judge,and denigrate something sight unseen.
 And then bash people for not sharing your views.

 As Spock would put it its NOT Logical.

 I have heard the same complaining, are cries of blasphemy,since the first Movies came out. And the same arguments.

 But still  Star Trek lives on, and evolves. Its the way Gene intended. To open our minds to new possibility's.
 Not to cling to the past, or live there.

 Some people can't accept change. They should have the wisdom to realise this is a limitation, and while it suits them. Not try to force it on everybody else.

 We know you hate, and can't tolerate, the concept they used for this movie. You have made that abundantly clear.

 But let people have their own opinion and enjoy it.

 The world is for the young anyway. We have to turn it over to them,and use their own imagination and vision.
 Thats how we all evolve as a culture, and species.

 If we didn't there would be NO Star Trek at all.

[knightstorm]

They're the ones who started it.

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

Its not my fault that they can't defend their point of view without taking a jab at me.

 Yea but the thing is, you hate it sight unseen. And seem to belittle anybody that disagrees with your concept,of what Trek should be.

 Personally I find it exceptionally close minded, to judge,and denigrate something sight unseen.
 And then bash people for not sharing your views.

 As Spock would put it its NOT Logical.

 I have heard the same complaining, are cries of blasphemy,since the first Movies came out. And the same arguments.

 But still  Star Trek lives on, and evolves. Its the way Gene intended. To open our minds to new possibility's.
 Not to cling to the past, or live there.

 Some people can't accept change. They should have the wisdom to realise this is a limitation, and while it suits them. Not try to force it on everybody else.

 We know you hate, and can't tolerate, the concept they used for this movie. You have made that abundantly clear.

 But let people have their own opinion and enjoy it.

 The world is for the young anyway. We have to turn it over to them,and use their own imagination and vision.
 Thats how we all evolve as a culture, and species.

 If we didn't there would be NO Star Trek at all.

I don't belittle them.  I just reply in kind when they derisively dismiss my point of view by saying things such as "oh he's just a cannonite", or "he's cannon crazy".  I haven't heard you complain about any of the obnoxious things they've said about me.  I'm sorry if my refusal to be kicked around offends you.  Some people argue that I should not sink to their level.  I argue that I am already above their level because I wasn't the one to throw the first punch.  As for Gene's intent on open minds, when he died, he was about to commence legal action to have scenes that he objected to removed from Star Trek VI.  As for your opinion on my "hate" what would you prefer I do?  Stay quiet and watch Star Trek die?  If people had spoken out more when the first hints of what Abrams was doing became known, he might have shelved  his ideas.  I know I may be fighting a losing battle, but I have no intention of going gently into that good night.  As for the sight unseen thing, I DON'T NEED TO SEE THE FILM TO RECOGNIZE THAT ABRAMS HAS RELEASED NOTHING REASSURING IN ANY OF HIS TRAILERS OR INTERVIEWS.  Also, a synopsis of the plot is up on wikipedia now if you care to read it.

[IndyShark]

I saw it last night. I liked it. There were parts I didn't like or wish they had done better, but it was a good, not great movie. I'll watch it again on blue ray. It's also a sure thing there will be sequel. That's the best news of all.

[Calexandre]

While I can see that the film did live up to its namesake's hype in some respects, I don't have any good things to say about a director who couldn't be bothered to reference the original.

This implies that the young in future will be equally disrespectful of others, being inclined to do things their own way at their own time. Which would lead me to predict that future Trek would be likewise engineered for mass appeal and not the work of art I'd sit down for a couple hours each night to research lore on.

[Sirgod]

They're the ones who started it.

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

Its not my fault that they can't defend their point of view without taking a jab at me.

That is why I said this goes for everyone. Remember the rules, there is a report button there that anyone is free to use.

also Two wrongs don't make a right, I think it's in the rules there somewhere.

Stephen

[Grand Master of Shadows NCC37385]

To all those who are complaining about us not liking it having never seen it. Well, I dont have to get shot in the nads to know that I wouldnt enjoy it. 

[Sirgod]

To all those who are complaining about us not liking it having never seen it. Well, I dont have to get shot in the nads to know that I wouldnt enjoy it. 

Eh , same could be said for using a defibrillator.

I heard when Scotty is first seen, you can see a tribble next to him.

Stephen

[toasty0]

To all those who are complaining about us not liking it having never seen it. Well, I dont have to get shot in the nads to know that I wouldnt enjoy it. 

That's because you can extrapolate the experience of others 'getting shot in the nads'. Making a judgment about something that has not even occured yet strikes me as just too old-lady like.

[EmeraldEdge]

Well, I personally haven't seen anyone get shot in the nads before.  I have seen people get hit in the nads before, and while I haven't seen anyone get shot before (in real life) I imagine from the fictional accounts of it, that the two combined wouldn't be good.

Similarly, I have the experience of other attempts to remake a classic (most of which fail in my mind), and have seen clips, trailers, stills, of this material, which all allow me to extrapolate the experience in much the same way you would make that extrapolation about getting shot in the nads.  Who knows, it might actually feel good.  Afterall, it's not your dad's tired old shot to the groin.  Maybe you just need to stop being nitpicky about what "pleasure" is and adjust to what you're given.  Some people could be into that.

[Green]

I was around to watch TOS first run. I just saw the movie and give it a 9 out of 10.

Agreed,  9 out of 10.

Best part of the movie, imo, Bones.  Urban did a great job.

NAME: Karl Urban
CHARACTER: Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
WHERE YOU'VE SEEN HIM BEFORE: In The Lord of the Rings trilogy; The Bourne Supremacy.
NEXT UP: The crime drama Black Water Transit opposite Laurence Fishburne.

The New Zealand-born actor, 36, playing the ship's irascible doctor, proclaims himself a genuine Trekkie. "I am definitely the resident geek," says Urban, who toted a childhood Trek toy along on the cast's international press tour. "I watched it as a boy, religiously, every Saturday morning." Two days after being cast, he was at a Santa Monica stoplight when "a gentleman in a Star Trek outfit walked across the road. And I think it was just on a random day! It struck me at that point, the effect of this wonderful series has had in our popular culture."

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20277342,00.html

[KOTH-KieranXC, Ret.]

They're the ones who started it.

Maybe we should say that a life is required to go and see it, and leave it at that.

Its not my fault that they can't defend their point of view without taking a jab at me.

 Yea but the thing is, you hate it sight unseen. And seem to belittle anybody that disagrees with your concept,of what Trek should be.

 Personally I find it exceptionally close minded, to judge,and denigrate something sight unseen.
 And then bash people for not sharing your views.

 As Spock would put it its NOT Logical.

 I have heard the same complaining, are cries of blasphemy,since the first Movies came out. And the same arguments.

 But still  Star Trek lives on, and evolves. Its the way Gene intended. To open our minds to new possibility's.
 Not to cling to the past, or live there.

 Some people can't accept change. They should have the wisdom to realise this is a limitation, and while it suits them. Not try to force it on everybody else.

 We know you hate, and can't tolerate, the concept they used for this movie. You have made that abundantly clear.

 But let people have their own opinion and enjoy it.

 The world is for the young anyway. We have to turn it over to them,and use their own imagination and vision.
 Thats how we all evolve as a culture, and species.

 If we didn't there would be NO Star Trek at all.

I don't belittle them.  I just reply in kind when they derisively dismiss my point of view by saying things such as "oh he's just a cannonite", or "he's cannon crazy".  I haven't heard you complain about any of the obnoxious things they've said about me.  I'm sorry if my refusal to be kicked around offends you.  Some people argue that I should not sink to their level.  I argue that I am already above their level because I wasn't the one to throw the first punch.  As for Gene's intent on open minds, when he died, he was about to commence legal action to have scenes that he objected to removed from Star Trek VI.  As for your opinion on my "hate" what would you prefer I do?  Stay quiet and watch Star Trek die?  If people had spoken out more when the first hints of what Abrams was doing became known, he might have shelved  his ideas.  I know I may be fighting a losing battle, but I have no intention of going gently into that good night.  As for the sight unseen thing, I DON'T NEED TO SEE THE FILM TO RECOGNIZE THAT ABRAMS HAS RELEASED NOTHING REASSURING IN ANY OF HIS TRAILERS OR INTERVIEWS.  Also, a synopsis of the plot is up on wikipedia now if you care to read it.

Well, frankly, if you haven't actually seen it(and are judging it only from several 30 sec. ads and 2 min. trailers) then I don't see how you are qualified to judge. I don't listen to what movie critics say, either... but at least they go out and see the movie in question before they start tearing it apart in a fit of pique. I haven't seen it yet, either... which is why I plan to keep my mouth firmly shut until I do, so I can avoid doing things like making myself look like a t00l on the internet. At least then if I don't like it I can actually post a reasoned, logical list of reasons why instead of commencing on a knee-jerk rant that only succeeds in making me look bad.

Let it go and quit trying to ruin it for the people that actually enjoyed it/are hoping to enjoy it. You've made your point.

[Villa64]

Who are you and what have you done with Kieran?

[knightstorm]

Well, frankly, if you haven't actually seen it(and are judging it only from several 30 sec. ads and 2 min. trailers) then I don't see how you are qualified to judge. I don't listen to what movie critics say, either... but at least they go out and see the movie in question before they start tearing it apart in a fit of pique. I haven't seen it yet, either... which is why I plan to keep my mouth firmly shut until I do, so I can avoid doing things like making myself look like a t00l on the internet. At least then if I don't like it I can actually post a reasoned, logical list of reasons why instead of commencing on a knee-jerk rant that only succeeds in making me look bad.

Let it go and quit trying to ruin it for the people that actually enjoyed it/are hoping to enjoy it. You've made your point.

Well, as I've said before, the absence of anything positive in the trailers and pre-release interviews is proof that it doesn't exist.  As for why I won't see it the facts are quite simple.  If this film is successful, Star Trek will be dead.  All of the materials, interviews, and synopsis of the film which I have read make clear to me that this is not Star Trek.  Anyone who tells me I should see this film before posting is saying that I should help kill Star Trek.  I can't do that in good conscience.

[Sirgod]

To be fair, I can't blame Knightstorm for standing up for what he believes. I really respect that in a person, However, and I don't mean to cause an argument here, it is speculation based on one persons opinion.

The way I see it, is if you like the movie good, if you don't cool, If you want to see it , Bon Voyage, If not, stay at home, and watch CSI or something. It's not gonna be a make it or break thing here for me.

In my opinion, The same argument could be made for TNG and the shows that followed. Heck until they brought in the Borg, I didn't care for TNG at all. Seeing guys running around in skirts, The Enterprise-D reminded me of a hood ornament off some fat cats car, etc. etc.

Eventualy It did grow on me, and I learned to enjoy it, but it took a long time. One saving grace, was we still had the TOS crew making movies then also.

One ething I am wondering is if these youngens can pull off the classical overtones of the old movies ie. Shakespeare, Classic literature, etc. etc.

Stephen