Is it wrong to love the JJ Abrams Star Trek Movies

Post Reply New Topic

I get the feeling that some people don't like these movies especially the trekkies. They say because it ruined continuity, the cast members are not good etc. Personally I think they''re awesome. They may have a few tiny little nitpicks but non the less I love them and is that so wrong? I mean we are entitled to our own opinion right? I wouldn't call my self a trekkie. I've been into Star Trek ever since I saw the first JJ Abrams movie back in 2009 and the week leading up to that movie's release I was watching some old episodes of the original series on Sy Fy and was also watching episodes of TNG, VOY and ENT and soon DS9 on virgin and now I own all episodes of each show and the first 11 movies on DVD and Star Trek Into Darkness on Blu Ray. I will admit to saying that Star Trek Deep Space Nine is probably my favourite of all the shows and I know alot of people would go for the original series and the Next Generation but again aren't I entitled to my own opinion? I guess if I was into Star Trek before JJ Abrams first Trek Film came maybe I would have seen that and it's sequel in a different way. But we'll never know.

I grew up with, and am a fan of, the original series. (Wow. I am old!)

I like the two Abrams movies, too. They're actually spot on. This business about young Spock talking freely to old Spock is a bit weird and hard to get used to, but whatever. Still fun movies.

The first movie was MEH.

I've not seen the second.

That they were building a starship ON EARTH was mind-boggling stupid.

The starships in Trek are not planetfall capable (on the whole) and really aren't intended to even enter an atmosphere.

I like the 2009 movie and have seen it a few times. I think the actors did well as the characters Spock and Kirk.

Not seen the new one.

I have been a Star Trek fan since high school (I am in my late 20s now). My favorite series is TNG. I post on a popular Star Trek messageboard and many people there debate quite frequently about the worth of the new movies.

Personally I don't have a strong opinion about them either way. I have never really liked the character of Kirk in TOS, so I have not been that interested in the new movies. But I do think they are entertaining from an action-adventure film standpoint.

You are most certainly entitled to your own opinion, and do not let other trekkies tell you what it means to be a "real" trekkie!

I only saw the 2009 reboot once, and wasn't too impressed. I hope he does a much better job with "Star Wars".

I think that the 2009 Star Trek movie is a true gem.

Zachary Quinto as Spock is probably one of the most brilliant casting decisions in modern Cinema. And he was approved by Leonard Nimoy himself.

And "Sabotage" by Beastie Boys when introducing Kirk... Epic.

Star Trek: Into Darkness, on the other hand, suffers from a serious problem... Khan is a quite unimpressive character by modern standards.

I seriously don't understand the problem some people have with The Enterprise being built on Earth.

The Enterprise is not fragile. It's made out of material that is many times stronger, and perhaps lighter, than steel. Is gravity seriously a challange for 23rd century engineering? And, would anyone actually prefer to undertake a massive construction project, in a zero G environment, wearing a bulky environmental suit? I don't think so.

As for the first movie being "meh" I must convey my strongest dissagreement. It literally saved the franchise.

It's a matter of basic physics. The bigger something is made, the "stronger" it has to be to survive any amount of velocity or shift in inertia.

More so, to do anything to exceedingly accurate standards, zero-G is almost mandatory.

The whole basis for "structural integrity fields" is because there is no way for any ship shaped in something other than a disc or a sphere to survive movement at space-traversing speeds without being torn apart.

A small ship, like the Defiant or Voyager MIGHT be buildable on a planet, but the more "artistic" designs with engine nacelles (weighing many, many tons) being supported on a relatively thin pillar mounted to another section of hull just doesn't hold up (literally and figuratively). Never mind the energy needed to ship a completed product of that size up into orbit compared to smaller and lighter components to be assembled in orbit.

Respectfully, no. You cannot rationally support such an analysis given:

Faster than light travel.
Force fields
Transporters
Gravity plates
Inertial dampers

This is heroic fantasy with technological flavors and styles... Recognizing this is part of what made Galaxy Quest so funny.

I am a Trek fan. Watched TOS as a child in England. TNG for years as a young adult. DS9 and Voyager. I have a strong negative reaction to Mr. Bakula, so Enterprise did not grab me. I did watch every episode of Enterprise last year, in a marathon enabled by Netflix, by the end, I was a fan of that show, too.

I really like both of the new movies. Scotty is probably may favorite from the new crew, but I like them all.

I don't understand this nonsense about messing with the timeline. This is a different universe. No problem. How many copies of the Enterpise showed up after Worf's tournament?

EXCEPT we're talking about building a starship under earth gravity...in which you have no technology in place to negate the inherent stress that would put on the ship while being assembled. You could argue that there's an anti-gravity field around the ship to negate the problem, but they indicate no such thing.

One could argue that the abillity to build a Star Ship on Earth is evidence in itself of anti-gravity technology. And, once again, The Enterprise is NOT fragile. Whatever it's made of, is strong enough to withstand the pressures of gravity.

I really like the new movies, Can't wait for Star Trek 3. The people that have a problem with it are probably people that like Voyager

I think it's pretty clear that those pylons at the construction site serve to both to lift personnel to the hull and as a scafolding for the EPS waveguides that power the structural integrity fields, inertial dampers and anti-grav plates that enabled the construction of USS Enterprise on the surface.

[img][800:653]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090529133447/memoryalpha/en/images/1/12/USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)_under_construction.jpg[/img]

Of course, if you have schematics or somesuch that prove otherwise, we'll just have to take 'em out to Starfleet in San Francisco and see if they can be verified. Get me that, and I'll believe your story, otherwise, I'll believe the evidence of my eyes.

As I understand it, and I got this from a conversation I heard between an Andorian and a Vulcan in a bar on Polk Street, the reason Starfleet started building ships in orbit was because they began using more ores from asteroids and fewer from Nevada and China... just a supply chain management problem.