Author Topic: Star Trek fans bash new film as "fun, watchable" (Read 37682 times)

Human Snorenado · « **on:** May 05, 2009, 04:07:40 PM »

[youtube=560,345]02LgdXVkXgM[/youtube]

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2009, 04:23:02 PM »

Eric P · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2009, 04:31:38 PM »

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/05/ace_of_cakes_show_makes_star_t.php

Tauntaun · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2009, 04:31:58 PM »

"...an elderly black woman is still following President Obama around and shedding a single tear whenever he does anything."

Himu · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2009, 05:03:13 PM »

haha

star trek SUCKS

but this movie looks awesome

OptimoPeach · « **Reply #5 on:** May 05, 2009, 05:08:31 PM »

Hah, it took me about 45 seconds before I realized that it was from The Onion.

I still can't get over how douchetastic the guy playing Kirk looks

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #6 on:** May 05, 2009, 05:16:19 PM »

Quote from: Jinfash on May 05, 2009, 05:14:19 PM

It's just funny watching these people panic as their unique nerdy interests are about to become more popular and mainstream. They're afraid of not being special or not represent the fanbase anymore.

Cheebs · « **Reply #7 on:** May 05, 2009, 05:21:27 PM »

I love me some Star Trek but fuck the crazy trekkies. I want me a Star Trek full of tons of action, sexy, and pretty people. Based on the insanely good reviews Abrams delivered. Can't wait for Thursday.

Cheebs · « **Reply #8 on:** May 05, 2009, 05:22:02 PM »

Quote from: Jinfash on May 05, 2009, 05:20:12 PM

What? did I pull an Arvie, or just said something stupid? $:-\$

It's the Onion, of course it wasn't real lol.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #9 on:** May 05, 2009, 06:24:23 PM »

Quote from: Jinfash on May 05, 2009, 05:20:12 PM

What? did I pull an Arvie, or just said something stupid? $:-\$

No, it's just a highly relevant comment and not just in regards to Star Trek fans.

The Sceneman · « **Reply #10 on:** May 05, 2009, 06:44:44 PM »

Jesus christ that woman (Bree he called her I think) was gorgeous! fantastic teeth

Boogie · « **Reply #11 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:02:43 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 05:21:27 PM

I love me some Star Trek but fuck the crazy trekkies. I want me a Star Trek full of tons of action, sexy, and pretty people. Based on the insanely good reviews Abrams delivered. Can't wait for Thursday.

Shut the fuck up, Cheebs.

Cheebs · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:16:52 PM »

The stale 24th century trek that trekkies masturbated to got boring after a while, I missed the girls in short skirts/go-go boots getting on with kirk swashbuckling style of 60's Trek, glad it's back to an extent. It needed to come back.

Boogie · « **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:22:00 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 07:16:52 PM

The stale 24th century trek that trekkies masturbated to got boring after a while, I missed the girls in short skirts/go-go boots getting on with kirk swashbuckling style of 60's Trek, glad it's back to an extent. It needed to come back.

Shut the fuck up, Cheebs.

What Trekkies "masturbate" to Voyager and Enterprise?

TNG + DS9 = Pinnacle of Trek

VOY + ENT = shithole of Trek

Cheebs = annoying sycophant

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:35:56 PM »

I am going to side with the Star Trek fans on this one

why do you have to take Star Trek from us, normal people? YOU ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE

Eric P · « **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:37:27 PM »

"nice franchise you have here. would hate for anything to happen to it. i know a guy a Fox who was looking for something remarkably like this right here..."

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #16 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:39:12 PM »

boogie

now help me punk some starbucks haters

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #17 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:39:18 PM »

Quote from: Boogie on May 05, 2009, 07:22:00 PM

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 07:16:52 PM
The stale 24th century trek that trekkies masturbated to got boring after a while, I missed the girls in short skirts/go-go boots getting on with kirk swashbuckling style of 60's Trek, glad it's back to an extent. It needed to come back.

Shut the fuck up, Cheebs.

What Trekkies "masturbate" to Voyager and Enterprise?

TNG + DS9 = Pinnacle of Trek

VOY + ENT = shithole of Trek

Cheebs = annoying sycophant

One of the things that I really like about Star Trek, especially in the later series, is that it actually focused on the SCIENCE aspect of science fiction as well.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #18 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:43:30 PM »

guys, science is boring! who cares what sort of people we'll be in the 22nd century? I want to know what kind of multi-staged overly elaborate EXPLOSIONS we'll have! just say it's nanomachines, set up 30 seconds of physics-based materials animation, and -- GO!

Cheebs · « **Reply #19 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:45:19 PM »

I could understand that point of view if Star Trek didn't DIE. The franchise was done and dead. It was either this mainstream blockbuster or no more Trek ever. Your DS9/TNG trek isn't going anywhere and it's not like it is replacing some trekkie nerdfest film/tv series that could have been.

It's getting fantastic reviews, Would someone like Peter Travers give it a gushing review if it was some soulless action blockbuster? Look at Transformers, that got meh reviews.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #20 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:45:51 PM »

also, I was on record as hating the Borg Queen in First Contact.

The Borg are a homogenous intelligence where no one cell is more or less important than any other! Introducing a Queen and a hive-based social structure completely undermines what made the Borg so frightening in the first place! The Borg HAVE no Queen! They HAVE no leaders! They're not enslaved to anything or anyone EXCEPT the pure mindless perfection of being a Borg!

The Borg Queen was introduced into Star Trek canon as a poor excuse to provide a role for a scantily clad female and as such I WILL HAVE NO TRUCK WITH IT, SIRS

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #21 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:46:53 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 07:45:19 PM

It's getting fantastic reviews, Would someone like Peter Travers give it a gushing review if it was some soulless action blockbuster? Look at Transformers, that got meh reviews.

What? Peter Travers is a fucking hack with shit taste in movies! Why do I care what Peter Travers likes! I don't WANT Peter Travers to like the movies I want to see! I want him to hate them, that's how I know they're good!

Cheebs · « **Reply #22 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:49:14 PM »

oh so this is going to be like the dark knight? where a film gets fantastic reviews so eb decides it has to hate it?

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #23 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:52:48 PM »

I'm sure that The Dark Knight was better than Star Trek, so don't go building a double-headed strawman before the movie's even out.

Nolan likes Batman and wanted to make a great Batman/Joker movie.

Abrams, on the other hand, is on record as being eye-rollingly dismissive of Star Trek.

I'm gonna go on record right now:

"Galaxy Quest" is a better Star Trek film than "Star Trek" is a Star Trek film.

You can call it "Star Trek" but that doesn't mean it IS Star Trek, dammit.

Cheebs · « **Reply #24 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:55:12 PM »

you know who else was dismissive of star trek? the guy who directed khan.

and wtf is this high and mighty nonsense about the franchise. STAR TREK IS A JOKE! Its about people exploring space and doing shit. It isn't real! It is just sci-fi fluff. Which is why the Shatner era stuff was the best, because it didn't take itself seriously like the 90's stuff.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #25 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:56:23 PM »

"Sci-fi fluff" is, by definition, shit.

Science fiction is about ideas; if you don't have ideas then go fuck yourself in the fantasy section, thank you very much.

Please imagine I am saying "fantasy" in the most sarcasm-dripping, dismissive tone of voice possible.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #26 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:57:08 PM »

To be fair, I started the hate train long before any early reviews came in!

Cheebs · « **Reply #27 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:57:22 PM »

This sooooo much like Transformers was in 2007. Trekkies are the same as the people obsessed with the 80's Transformers cartoon. Obsessed with a out of date dead franchise and freaking out over it being changed to appeal to a modern audience. Get. over. it. Abrams made what basically EVERYONE who has seen it have said, a great summer blockbuster.

The Sceneman · « **Reply #28 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:57:32 PM »

jesus christ cheebs have you even seen this new Star Trek? buububbu the internet said it was fantastic

And if its a JOKE then why are you using so much energy defending this new hollowood cgi shitfest version of it?

The Sceneman · « **Reply #29 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:58:40 PM »

Did you like Juno, cheebs?

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #30 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:59:23 PM »

so you're saying that the new Star Trek will be as good as Michael Bay's Transformers?

finally, some common ground!

P.S. I never liked the 80s Transformers cartoon and I don't even particularly like Star Trek outside of a few seasons of TNG.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #31 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:00:05 PM »

See, at least when I like Transformers, I was willing to admit that it was a guilty pleasure at best.

Cheebs · « **Reply #32 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:01:08 PM »

Quote from: Willco on May 05, 2009, 08:00:05 PM

See, at least when I like Transformers, I was willing to admit that it was a guilty pleasure at best.

Which is what I just said! I feel the same way about star trek. I cant see how anyone could take it seriously. it's silly but I find it fun.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #33 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:02:12 PM »

god forbid we ever try to do anything with ourselves as a species

which is kind of the POINT of star trek

no, let's just have fun!! spaceship blow up go boom tee hee

this isn't about cheesy vs. not-cheesy or exciting vs. boring or accessible vs. mainstream

Star Trek, at its core, is about GIVING A SHIT, and Abrams clearly doesn't

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #34 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:03:05 PM »

I kind of agree. Michael Bay gave us a big, dumb action movie based on a series of toys from the 80s.

There's some legitimacy to Star Trek that this new film kind of undermines.

Boogie · « **Reply #35 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:03:29 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 07:45:19 PM

I could understand that point of view if Star Trek didn't DIE. The franchise was done and dead. It was either this mainstream blockbuster or no more Trek ever.

So what? So Trek is dead. Who says a franchise has to live forever, anyway?

Quote

Your DS9/TNG trek isn't going anywhere and it's not like it is replacing some trekkie nerdfest film/tv series that could have been.

Again, you say that like we give a flying fuck

My concern is with the quality of the product, not its popularity or financial success. And I say that as someone who, while very skeptical of this new movie, is looking forward to it and hoping it is good.

But I don't need to shit on 14 seasons of quality Trek in order to look forward to this movie like you do.

Quote

It's getting fantastic reviews, Would someone like Peter Travers give it a gushing review if it was some soulless action blockbuster? Look at Transformers, that got meh reviews.

Yes, its getting good reviews. That's promising. It doesn't change the fact that your soulless, sycophantic cheerleading for this movie has been the most annoying thing on the internet for these past 6 months.

Yes, good Trek has action. But it also has, as Cohen put it, an inherent earnest nerdiness. The Undiscovered Country had lots of explosions, fist fights, and action. But it also had a villain who quoted motherfuckin' Shakespeare.

First Contact had tons of explosions and action. But its key scene had Patrick Stewart reciting lines from Moby Dick.

It's that element that I am concerned may be missing from this new Trek, because I'm not sure JJ Abrams really gets it. But you just want your fucking go-go boots and sex, so fill your boots.

I'm not even fucking hating on the movie. It's not even out yet, for crying out loud. I'm going to give it a chance. I'm just fucking sick of your incessant homer-istic worshipping at the altar of JJ while gleefully throwing any and all of the quality Trek of the past 20+ years under the bus.

edit: For example:

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 07:55:12 PM

and wtf is this high and mighty nonsense about the franchise. STAR TREK IS A JOKE! Its about people exploring space and doing shit. It isn't real! It is just sci-fi fluff. Which is why the Shatner era stuff was the best, because it didn't take itself seriously like the 90's stuff.

SHUT THE FUCK UP CHEEBS.

Cheebs · « **Reply #36 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:06:27 PM »

It has little to do with this movie. I gleefully threw a lot of trek under the bus and preferred the more light-hearted style of shatner-trek long before this movie was coming

The Sceneman · « **Reply #37 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:07:21 PM »

I think the problem is that Cheebs is so dead set on arguing the merits of the 'summer blockbuster'

Boogie · « **Reply #38 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:07:26 PM »

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on May 05, 2009, 08:05:03 PM

i said earnest nerdiness

Whoops! my bad.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #39 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:08:15 PM »

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on May 05, 2009, 08:05:03 PM

also cheebs doesn't have any idea why some people are so enamored of Star Trek

go-go boots, right?

Boogie · « **Reply #40 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:09:03 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 08:06:27 PM

It has little to do with this movie. I gleefully threw a lot of trek under the bus and preferred the more light-hearted style of shatner-trek long before this movie was coming

You are such a tool.

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on May 05, 2009, 08:05:03 PM

also cheebs doesn't have any idea why some people are so enamored of Star Trek

He really doesn't. It is clear he is looking forward to this movie because it is a "SCI FI ACTION MOVIE BY JJ ABRAMS" and not because it is a Star Trek movie.

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #41 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:10:05 PM »

Personally, i don't see what's so appealing about this one. More phaser guns, yay. I don't like Star Wars because shit blows up, i like star Wars because they put dudes in robes againts other dudes in robes, and they fight each other with lightsabers.

That's all, and the amount of lens flare in this Star Trek won't change that. And the main dude looks like such a douche, even in the interviews, dude, stop being such a douche, and what's up with Spock anyway. Guy looks fake.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #42 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:10:53 PM »

I NEED SHORT SKIRTS IN MY SCIENCE FICTION OR ELSE ITS DUMB PHILLIP K DICK CRAP

Fresh Prince · « **Reply #43 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:13:26 PM »

Quote from: WrikaWrek on May 05, 2009, 08:10:05 PM

Personally, i don't see what's so appealing about this one. More phaser guns, yay. I don't like Star Wars because shit blows up, i like star Wars because they put dudes in robes againts other dudes in robes, and they fight each other with lightsabers.

That's all, and the amount of lens flare in this Star Trek won't change that. And the main dude looks like such a douche, even in the interviews, dude, stop being such a douche, and what's up with Spock anyway. Guy looks fake.

Dude, the dude that plays Kirk is like a blonde version of you, dude.

Cheebs · « **Reply #44 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:16:32 PM »

Quote from: Scenester on May 05, 2009, 08:07:21 PM

I think the problem is that Cheebs is so dead set on arguing the merits of the 'summer blockbuster'

people here say I obsess over the fall drama oscar bait films and now I also defend the idea of empty summer blockbusters? I can have it both ways?

you guys put too much effort into hating and classifying movies.

The Sceneman · « **Reply #45 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:25:18 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 08:16:32 PM

Quote from: Scenester on May 05, 2009, 08:07:21 PM
I think the problem is that Cheebs is so dead set on arguing the merits of the 'summer blockbuster'
people here say I obsess over the fall drama oscar bait films and now I also defend the idea of empty summer blockbusters? I can have it both ways?

you guys put too much effort into hating and classifying movies.

Wow you can enjoy a drama film, a 'little indie gem' and you can just kick back and enjoy a summer blockbuster! You know, because its just light popcorn fare! Such eclectic taste!

Eric P · « **Reply #46 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:36:27 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 08:06:27 PM

and preferred the more light-hearted style of shatner-trek long before this movie was coming

i think you mean ham-fisted

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #47 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:37:09 PM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on May 05, 2009, 07:56:23 PM

"Sci-fi fluff" is, by definition, shit.

Science fiction is about ideas; if you don't have ideas then go fuck yourself in the fantasy section, thank you very much.

Please imagine I am saying "fantasy" in the most sarcasm-dripping, dismissive tone of voice possible.

THIS. Can't be stressed enough. Star Trek has always been about boldly going, overcoming age-old biases and preconceptions, finding common ground with intelligent beings that differ drastically, and making the universe a better place to live for everyone. Not about explosions and go-go boots.

Diunx · « **Reply #48 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:25:38 PM »

This movie looks like a cgi shitfest, the guy that plays kirk looks like a complete douche and I hope that the rumors of him playing Hal Jordan aren't true, sylar is spock LOL, also Cloverfield and MI3 where both shit, jj Abrams can go fuck himself.

Bloodwake · « **Reply #49 on:** May 05, 2009, 10:25:38 PM »

Honestly, I'm looking forward to it now, and I didn't think it was going to be any good at first.

Barry Egan · « **Reply #50 on:** May 06, 2009, 01:47:43 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 08:16:32 PM

Quote from: Scenester on May 05, 2009, 08:07:21 PM
I think the problem is that Cheebs is so dead set on arguing the merits of the 'summer blockbuster'
people here say I obsess over the fall drama oscar bait films and now I also defend the idea of empty summer blockbusters? I can have it both ways?

you guys put too much effort into hating and classifying movies.

You're basically Access Hollywood made flesh.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #51 on:** May 06, 2009, 01:52:53 PM »

I'm definitely going to watch this. Hopefully that R5 gets out there quick, don't wanna be spoiled.

BlackMage · « **Reply #52 on:** May 06, 2009, 02:01:24 PM »

dayum you all are...

wait for it...

fuken distinguished mentally-challenged

Cheebs · « **Reply #53 on:** May 06, 2009, 02:04:30 PM »

Quote from: Chipopo on May 06, 2009, 01:47:43 PM

Quote from: Cheebs on May 05, 2009, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: Scenester on May 05, 2009, 08:07:21 PM
I think the problem is that Cheebs is so dead set on arguing the merits of the 'summer blockbuster'
people here say I obsess over the fall drama oscar bait films and now I also defend the idea of empty summer blockbusters? I can have it both ways?

you guys put too much effort into hating and classifying movies.

You're basically Access Hollywood made flesh.

If that means I don't hate every fucking movie that comes out outside the weird cult genre films, and hate films even more if they get good reviews than I am glad to be that way.

Being negative about every movie is not a enjoyable way to watch films. It takes a lot for me to dislike a movie, Watchmen being the only one so far this year I despised.

BlackMage · « **Reply #54 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:00:00 PM »

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on May 06, 2009, 02:49:00 PM

I'm somewhat negative on almost every movie i watch and i love watching movies.

i do say!

Bloodwake · « **Reply #55 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:04:12 PM »

Cheebs, heads up.

This is the internet. Everyone, especially here, is going to bash the shit out of decent films if they aren't weird or obscure.

For example:

The Dark Knight. In reality, it's probably the best Batman film. On EB, it sucks because of a plethora of reasons: it's overhyped, Heath Ledger shouldn't have won Best Supporting Actor, Christian Bale's voice sucks, etc.

Even though Star Trek is probably going to be the Casino Royale of Trek movies, it's still going to suck on this forum, even though there's enough people here that like Trek.

Eric P · « **Reply #56 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:14:00 PM »

it can be the best batman movie and still suck

Tauntaun · « **Reply #57 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:17:27 PM »

Quote from: BlackMage on May 06, 2009, 02:01:24 PM

dayum you all are...

wait for it...

fuken distinguished mentally-challenged

Yeah? Well....you're a dog! OHHHHH SNAP!

Cheebs · « **Reply #58 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:18:42 PM »

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on May 06, 2009, 02:49:00 PM

I'm somewhat negative on almost every movie i watch and i love watching movies.

That is a bit different than trashing any big movie that gets good reviews which tends to be the MO of Evilbore.

Quote from: Bloodwake on May 06, 2009, 03:04:12 PM

Cheebs, heads up.

This is the internet. Everyone, especially here, is going to bash the shit out of decent films if they aren't weird or obscure.

For example:

The Dark Knight. In reality, it's probably the best Batman film. On EB, it sucks because of a plethora of reasons: it's overhyped, Heath Ledger shouldn't have won Best Supporting Actor, Christian Bale's voice sucks, etc.

Even though Star Trek is probably going to be the Casino Royale of Trek movies, it's still going to suck on this forum, even though there's enough people here that like Trek.

Which confuses the shit out of me. I don't get the logic behind this.

tehjaybo · « **Reply #59 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:19:53 PM »

The internet is a very confusing place. I don't think any of us will ever understand it.

News:

Author Topic: Star Trek fans bash new film as "fun, watchable" (Read 37682 times)