Which is fair, but entirely subjective. I referred to actual math that tells a different story.
Why do so many people think Star Trek: Into Darkness was bad?
- Thread starter GBA
- Start date
Which is fair, but entirely subjective. I referred to actual math that tells a different story.
It certainly is and there's nothing wrong with that.
I ride a fine line myself. I enjoy the films but I really don't see them as Trek movies. They have none of that feel for me.
I went to see the movie again today at a 12:04pm matinee. I was alone in the theater until a Dad and his young son walked in to watch the film together. As credits rolled, the kid was clearly animated and excited. All I could think about was watching moments like this having the opportunity to share my love for Star Trek and Star Wars with my son in a few years. These films will help make that possible.
Last edited:
Some awful auto-correct in there but I get the meaning I think. :lol
I'll likely be taking my son to see it this weekend. I took him to see the "Best of Both Worlds" screening and he loved it. He also likes TOS and TNG so we'll see what his reaction to this is.
nightwind1
Well-Known Member
Most of the thinking Roddenberry did was with his penis and his bank account.
Not here to justify it based on math. I answered the OPs question since I am exactly who they we're wondering about.
If asked I will give details why my view is the way it is.
No, that's not where I was going. The point simply being that if a film, using what is so often considered an fair and impartial source of data accumulation, would indicate a film is being viewed from a critical and audience response in a VERY positive light, surely the film has succeeded to be what it should be, entertainment. Clearly not for you, so you would be in the afore mentioned 11% who disliked it. So are the 89% simply wrong? Idiots? Have no taste? How shall we refer to them? Sheep? Would it help if I went "Baaaaaa"?
That's a lot of men.
Abrams of course is a monk? LOL
Roddenberry was a decorated combat B-17 bomber pilot and airline pilot, commendations for rescuing others when he was in an airline crash he was passenger on, also he was a Los Angeles police officer for years, an accomplished writer for television before Trek of course. Obviously well known he pushed for the diverse crew for the Enterprise, this alone painted an entirely new picture of what the future should be.
"Gene changed the course of everyday life in the cast, and he's also changed the lives of God-knows-how-many thousands of other people who view what he's done. I think that will continue to happen for some time to come". - DeForest Kelley
“It is the struggle itself that is most important. We must strive to be more than we are. It does not matter that we will not reach our ultimate goal. The effort itself yields its own reward.”
― Gene Roddenberry
“Reality is incredibly larger, infinitely more exciting, than the flesh and blood vehicle we travel in here. If you read science fiction, the more you read it the more you realize that you and the universe are part of the same thing. Science knows still practically nothing about the real nature of matter, energy, dimension, or time; and even less about those remarkable things called life and thought. But whatever the meaning and purpose of this universe, you are a legitimate part of it. And since you are part of the all that is, part of its purpose, there is more to you than just this brief speck of existence. You
are just a visitor here in this time and this place, a traveler through it.”
― Gene Roddenberry
Abrams is making his money off another man's creation.
That is fact.
I'm more curious to see what percentage of that 89% who are not Star Trek fans would actually go back to watch any of the previous Star Trek shows.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
I STILL STUCK ON WHY NERO DIDN'T WARN ROMULUS!!!
[ducks]
:lol
[ducks]
:lol
Gene Roddenberry was certainly a visionary who had a lot of neat ideas that helped give Science Fiction one of it's most recognizable icons, but if I had to choose between who was the better person both personal and professional wise, I'd have to go with JJ. JJ sounds like he's really open to suggestions from writers who are doing work on the shows he's created, and he sings high praises for just about everyone that works with him. Gene was a nightmare to work with in the writing room due to his insistence on how humans should act and how there should be no conflict between any of the characters. And despite your accurate comment on Abrams making his money off another man's creation, JJ still worked to bring it to the screen. Gene on the other hand wanted more than just his fair share of money from Star Trek. He wanted other people's share as well. Ever wonder what part of the Star Trek theme Gene Roddenberry contributed to since his name is listed as creator of the theme with Alexander Courage? Not a dang thing. The reason Gene gets credit for the theme is because he took advantage of a contract detail where if he wrote lyrics to the theme music, half of the theme's royalties would go to him. And that's exactly what he did. He wrote lyrics to the theme with the intention of never using it in any depiction of Star Trek and successfully took half the royalties away from Alexander Courage. Now I may criticize the heck out of JJ's treatment of Star Trek, but I don't think he's the type of person who would rip people off who are just trying to make a living using their unique talents.
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
Why do so many people think Star Trek: Into Darkness was bad? Well, because the anonymous nature of the internet makes it easy for people to bash things and throw around their discontent rather loudly without having to deal with any actual consequences.
That, and a lot of folks who are happy with the product that they have consumed (whether it be seeing a movie or buying a physical item) tend to not really go around speaking/posting passionately about said product. Think about how when someone tells you that they had a good meal at a restaurant, they generally just mention it casually in passing during a conversation...but if they had a horrible dining experience, they will go into every single detail about why they didn't enjoy the meal. Movies are the same way, in my experience...unless, of course, you are talking to someone else that is a fan of said movie, then you can go on and on about it with that person.
I really enjoy the old Star Trek films...I was not a big fan of the series of films that went along with The Next Generation, however. I also have REALLY enjoyed the two new Star Trek films by JJ Abrams. In fact, before I went to see Star Trek in 2009, I hadn't watched any of the Shatner films in YEARS...however, since the 2009 film came out I have watched all of the original movies once again and remembered why I liked them the first few times I saw them.
What I don't understand is why so many people think that you should really only be able to like one or the other. I see a lot of things that seem like people are saying if you like Shatner, Nimoy, and TOS, then you can't like the JJ Abrams visions of the franchise. If you like the JJ Abrams visions, then you can't like TOS and it's films.
I guess I can't wrap my head around that. I thoroughly enjoy both the new Abrams films and all of the old original stuff. In fact, I've started going back and watching TOS from beginning to end again...and about the time I get done watching that in a few months (I don't have a ton of time to devote to watching shows) Into Darkness will be out on Blu-Ray, and I'll be watching that again!!!
That, and a lot of folks who are happy with the product that they have consumed (whether it be seeing a movie or buying a physical item) tend to not really go around speaking/posting passionately about said product. Think about how when someone tells you that they had a good meal at a restaurant, they generally just mention it casually in passing during a conversation...but if they had a horrible dining experience, they will go into every single detail about why they didn't enjoy the meal. Movies are the same way, in my experience...unless, of course, you are talking to someone else that is a fan of said movie, then you can go on and on about it with that person.
I really enjoy the old Star Trek films...I was not a big fan of the series of films that went along with The Next Generation, however. I also have REALLY enjoyed the two new Star Trek films by JJ Abrams. In fact, before I went to see Star Trek in 2009, I hadn't watched any of the Shatner films in YEARS...however, since the 2009 film came out I have watched all of the original movies once again and remembered why I liked them the first few times I saw them.
What I don't understand is why so many people think that you should really only be able to like one or the other. I see a lot of things that seem like people are saying if you like Shatner, Nimoy, and TOS, then you can't like the JJ Abrams visions of the franchise. If you like the JJ Abrams visions, then you can't like TOS and it's films.
I guess I can't wrap my head around that. I thoroughly enjoy both the new Abrams films and all of the old original stuff. In fact, I've started going back and watching TOS from beginning to end again...and about the time I get done watching that in a few months (I don't have a ton of time to devote to watching shows) Into Darkness will be out on Blu-Ray, and I'll be watching that again!!!
Most people are not TOS purists.
Far from it. I am however.
TOS was and is very meaningful to me, I think it was one of the most important Science Fiction creations there has been, I therefore have high expectations of something leveraging directly off the source material of the Star Trek franchise. A good writer could deliver that AND please the crowds.
Is that too much to personally expect? Guess so. Shut up and enjoy the Spock beat down. Everyone else is.
Lord Boron
Sr Member
Even if you took the name Star Trek off of it, it's still an incredibly dumb and not well thoughts through script. There are just to many things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Jamming people into torpedoes....really...that's your plan????
I would say that is a relatively useless metric. More on point, how many of that 89% would come back for another film and it be supportive if a new TV series featuring these characters and situations. These are the questions at Paramount and CBS.
See my comment above. And as someone who was also raised on TOS reruns in the '70's and cherish it as well, I don't look at the franchise with a "Only Pure Fans Need Apply." What the hell does that even mean? Who defines what constitutes a Pure Fan? Absurd and really obnoxious.
While there's no doubt these questions are being asked, I highly doubt that they're going to just completely ignore the potential of newer fans wanting to experience the older Star Trek series. If CBS only cared about what they could do with this new take on Star Trek, you'd think they'd go through all that trouble in re-building all 176 episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation from scratch? Heck, they've been re-releasing select episodes into theaters and I still say that "The Best of Both Worlds Parts 1 & 2" is the best Star Trek thing to hit theaters this year.
I can guarantee you that the new Trek producers have almost no concern over whether the new fans will watch old Trek. The market they're making these movies for is a different market than they are restoring TNG for. They have a captive audience with Trek fans, they know those blurays are going to sell well. Their concern for the films is getting people who never liked Trek before to watch it and future installments and thus far they have done very well.
If they want to check out old Trek as well that's icing on the cake but nowhere near their priority.
Put simply, I'm not their target audience (although I watch the new ones anyway). I can accept that. I don't necessarily have to like it, but I can accept it.
Similar threads
