[ SECRET POST #2436 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2436 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.
[The Book Thief, The Days of the Deer, Neil Gaiman's Sandman]


__________________________________________________



02.
[Macklemore & Ryan Lewis]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Glades]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Revenge]


__________________________________________________



05.
[The Killing (AMC)]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Star Trek]


__________________________________________________



07.
[TRON: Uprising]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Paul McCartney]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Les Miserables]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Mud by Yamashita Tomoko]


__________________________________________________



11.
[The Beatles]


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 036 secrets from Secret Submission Post #348.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

For me, the problem is that it wasn't Star Trek. It was a generic action movie. And to make matters worse, it had a ton of plot holes, ripped things off from Wrath of Khan but didn't make them emotionally pay out in this movie, and had the whitewashing of Khan.

So, while I can understand people liking this movie. I really can't understand Star Trek fans (at least people who have seen things (movies, shows, whatever) other than the reboot) liking it. At least not as a Star Trek movie.

(I mean JJ Abrams even said that he didn't like Star Trek, and it shows in how he made this movie. I was willing to go with the original reboot, in hopes that there would be more development later, but nope. Generic action movie with the characters I've known and loved since I saw Wrath of Khan in the theater as a kid tossed in there.)

[(Anonymous)]

Eh. I wouldn't have minded so much that it wasn't very Star Trek if it was at least a decent movie. That's how I felt about the first one; it had at least some Star Trek flavor, and it was a decent action movie. This one was, I thought, just a bad movie, and also not particularly Star Trekkish.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Well yes, that. I'd take a not-so-good Star Trek movie or a good action movie masquerading as Star Trek (like the first reboot). This one? Starting from the impossible/unnecessary scene of the Enterprise coming out from under the water? Neither a good action movie nor a Star Trek movie, imo.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Meh, Abrams did better than a fair number of old-school Trek directors, including Roddenberry, Shatner, and Frakes who crumbled into incoherence given a feature-film budget.

[(Anonymous)]

This is true.

[(Anonymous)]

At least none of them has a lens flare fetish.

[veronica_rich]

Eh, I take issue with the lumping criticism of Frakes as director. "Insurrection" was nothing to hand out awards for, admittedly, but "First Contact" was pretty solid, and his TV episodes were more than competent (and this and DS9 were shows where the episodes had quite large budgets for the 90s per episode). Frakes's "bad" was about on par with the other two's "regular" directing, which I think says something.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed, so much about if it were a decent movie, it wouldn't be so unpalatable. The sheer number of plot holes and fuckery. Star Trek's always been "we put the science in the fiction" even if it's fictional science, they go through the motions. This was...there was no science. I watched that movie, I critiqued it with a bunch of fans and non-fans and I can't even tell you the plot of this movie. It flew around so fast because if you thought about it for a second, it fell apart. SPOILERS SPOILERS Why did this guy blow up a building so he could get them into an emergency room where he *missed* his main target and then somehow teleports all the way to Qo'noS to start a war with the Klingons which doesn't work and is never addressed after he surrenders himself after learning there are 72 super torpedos onboard the Enterprise. What, were they going to fire all 72? Why did he try to smuggle them out in torpedoes anyway? And then when they're operating on the torpedos, "Don't touch anything but this!" and then it all goes haywire and she just starts yanking wires and whatnot? /END SPOILERS END SPOILERS

(sorry, I have no idea how to do the invisible text thing)

[nyxelestia]

I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure DW doesn't have an invisible text thing.

The plot holes kind of made my eye twitch, but not nearly as much as the way the movie treated female characters (two movies later and I still can't take them seriously due to the female uniforms - seriously, like every show since TOS has had unisex uniforms, or at least relatively equal ones, what the hell were they thinking?!) Mostly, though, the Star Trek franchise has a decent legacy of progression, and with the movies, they really could've taken the opportunity to go even further forward, or to at least stay where they were. But no, they had to take a running leap backwards to right back where we started. -_-

[dragonimp]

The treatment of the female characters made my jaw ache I wanted to grind my teeth so much. I'm even willing to overlook the miniskirts on the excuse of them being a callback to the original series, but there's no excuse for the overall sexist tone.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, JJ Abrams attitude is what made me decide to not watch this movie. And I liked the first one.

Hopefully, the next re-boot in twenty years will have someone that actually liked Star Trek.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Sadly, I wanted to watch anyway, as I didn't think it could be that big an issue. I was wrong.

I agree. There is so much to the Star Trek universe above and beyond "space action movie" and I'd love to see it explored.

[dragonimp]

Abrams' attitude about a lot of things is starting to sour me. So far I still find the movies entertaining enough but if it goes at all downhill that will likely change.

[(Anonymous)]

5th season of Fringe pretty much cemented me not liking him too much anymore.

[nyxelestia]

I actually hadn't known that Abrams didn't like Star Trek until this thread. Looking back on the movies, this explains A LOT - the movies feel a lot less like Star Trek and a lot more like what people think Star Trek should be (in particular, what butthurt fanboys think it should be, especially given the ridiculous uniforms - years later and I STILL see BS sexist crap about Voyager!)

I'm still curious if those rumors about Abrams editing the male characters' bodies to be less sexualized have any merit to them. I used to just dismiss those rumors but this thread is making me start to rethink that...

[dragonimp]

I hadn't heard that one! It would fit with the sexist mentality (how to get women to watch the movie? Put in a baby scene!!).

To be fair, the quote about him not liking Star Trek is more along the lines of him not being a fan before he got the director job, at which point he looked into it and decided he liked it. But it seems to me it would explain his rather shallow understanding of some things, like Kirk's character.

[(Anonymous)]

And I'm a Star Trek fan who liked it. Opinion is opinion, and it is okay for people to like things you don't like and disagree with your opinion on that thing.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Did you like it as a generic space action movie? Or as an actual Star Trek movie? Because I really would have liked more thoughtfulness/philosophy/characterization in there for it to go with previous incarnations of Star Trek.

I'm really not trying to be snarky or anything. I just have a hard time wrapping my brain around Star Trek fans liking it as a Star Trek movie. (Other than they like the characters, so they like seeing them, even if the story isn't there.) If you don't feel like spelling out why you like it, that's fine, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess for me I don't expect it to be exactly the same because it is an alternate universe. I see the same characters, but in a universe where Vulcan was destroyed, the Romulans were met face to face much earlier, and in general there is a much more militaristic viewpoint. It is still Trek, but different.

[(Anonymous)]

Because Star Trek isn't a monolithic canon. Each series is different. So, there's a lot of different ways to appeal to Star Trek fans.

[(Anonymous)]

Except for Enterprise. Fuck Enterprise.

[(Anonymous)]

Hey now. Enterprise is a damn sight better than DS9. DS9 was just a more boring version of Babylon 5 with some characters from TNG thrown in.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, them's fightin' words.

[(Anonymous)]

So, while I can understand people liking this movie. I really can't understand Star Trek fans (at least people who have seen things (movies, shows, whatever) other than the reboot) liking it. At least not as a Star Trek movie.

Ok, I am one of those people. Honestly all the criticism seems to come from Trek fans from way back who are so annoyed that their fabulous TOS got rebooted in a way they didn't like, it happens every time anything with a significant fandom gets rebooted. I mean just look at all the comic book movies- existing fans are always divided whenever a reboot comes out. I love TOS and adore the original movies and maybe I'm wrong because I've come at this backwards (started with reboot then watched TOS) and maybe it doesn't make me a "star trek fan" in your eyes but I'm so over all the shit the reboots get when imo they are pretty great movies.

[(Anonymous)]

Well I'm old enough for a time when there was only TOS! I remember being excited about the first feature film. I loved Into Darkness, it got good reviews, it did well, I think this is just a few people. I don't care if they don't like it, but don't tell me I can't like it as a fan.