|
Post by 04Thirteen on May 13, 2009 2:49:14 GMT -7
RIP Star Trek: Sept 8, 1966 - May 8, 2009
|
|
|
Post by Visitor on May 13, 2009 10:24:52 GMT -7
[glow=red,2,300] Was it bad? I heard it was good.[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by 04Thirteen on May 14, 2009 14:10:37 GMT -7
Effectively? They gave up integrity and instead did what was popular to get new fans, more money and more fame. So in that respect, to new viewers and maybe some veterans, it might be good and sadly it was successful - its in cereal boxes, fast food places and on mugs and t-shirts everywhere. But for half of those of us whom have sat with them 40 years through crummy movies, amazing movies, good and poor endings to so many promising series - through thick and thin, good and bad, those of us who still supported them even through the bad -- -- it was a stab in the back. And they knew it would be. You do not delete a man's dream. Especially if that man is Gene Roddenberry. You do not delete 40 years of the life's work of so many people. You do not delete the inspiration of so many thousands if not millions of people. Especially if you have never written for Star Trek much less if you never even watched it. As Spock said once, "Just cause you can, doesn't mean you should." We all know that Trek has been dying, but they should have let it die with what dignity it had left instead of bestowing on it this fragile crippled form. I think it has to do with the fact that Majel Barrett-Roddenberry died last year, considering this movie has been finished for a year before they decided to release it on the 8'th. My verdict will always remain the same: RIP Star Trek - Sept 8, 2006 - May 8, 2009
|
|
|
Post by kbs on May 14, 2009 17:41:19 GMT -7
WOW. That is quite a statement! I was wondering about it, too. I saw on TV and have overheard coversations that it was fabulous. The interviews with the people who portrayed the new Kirk and Spock said they tried to stay true to form. Now I am wondering if I should see it. I was thinking over all that I probably wouldn't because it wouldn't be the same, but now I am curious.
|
|
|
Post by 04Thirteen on May 14, 2009 21:12:53 GMT -7
"True to form," doesn't matter - anymore. And you are right - if you see it it will never be the same, but not in the way you think. I wouldn't suggest it.
|
|
|
Post by kbs on May 15, 2009 17:51:17 GMT -7
I get it, other people I know don't.
|
|
|
Post by ourthoughts on May 16, 2009 7:57:42 GMT -7
We have not seen it but are excited to do so. Sorry that you are angry about it but we all know that old becomes new again and sometimes they just don't leave well enough alone. It will be alright though even if we don't like it, at least we tried.
|
|
|
Post by 04Thirteen on May 16, 2009 8:54:30 GMT -7
...old becomes new again... funny you should mention that. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by route66 on May 17, 2009 7:58:16 GMT -7
:-/Will wait and see movie before final judgment
|
|
|
Post by 04Thirteen on May 17, 2009 23:58:15 GMT -7
For me, going to see the movie or not doesn't make a difference. What it is - is the storyline itself, the concept, the idea of what they did and why they did it - and at what cost?? Also, I am a Trek fan, yes, but that isn't the biggest factor behind my opinion - it wouldn't matter if it was Star Trek or Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or any of that for example -- the biggest factor for me is that I am a writer myself and I could not imagine what it would feel like to have everything I've ever done to become pointless. Think about it this way - if you don't like a song, it doesn't matter who's singing it - but its the type of the music and what the song says. But that is just me. Everyone is entitled to their own of course and I think I've about said all of mine - for now.
|
|
|
Post by Visitor on May 19, 2009 13:15:42 GMT -7
[glow=red,2,300]I SEE. KINDA MAKES SENSE. THANKS. [/glow] ;D
|
|
|
Post by coykil on May 20, 2009 6:47:43 GMT -7
I don't see what all the fuss is about. It is a movie. Watch it or don't watch it.
|
|