I already do. I also have more appreciation for it. The only thing I don't have is your man-crush on Cumberbatch. Though he was dreamy in Sherlock, that's true.
You trying to divide Trek does it a disservice that can't be undone until you accept the truth.
This link is the first attack on the NuTrek fans. From what I gather it was voted the worst by just one hundred old Trekkies gathered together. Such a small company of men is such a worthless,small sampling that makes me happy the sales of the blu ray and the ticket sales both laugh in the face of. Into Darkness is a financial success and the show will go on. I can only hope the torch Abrams has started will continue much in the same vein.
Trying to get it rebranded as "nuTrek" like it's some separate entity, doesn't work, as even the fans of older Trek that still hate the new stuff, still recognise that it's in the same multiverse.
It's Star Trek. You're gonna have to just deal with it. At this point you just sound like one of those TNG fans that hated TOS until they got some sense.
You act as if you are unaware of the clear distinction made by fans across the planet.
http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums...ead.php?t=10006
--------
Everyone already knows by now that I have very little "love" for NuTrek. I think it was a fun and fast paced space action adventure flick, but poor Trek. I understand it was supposed to introduce non-Trek-fans to the world of Trek and therefore could not get too preachy or waste it's time with a "brainy" story. I get that. I actually like action and adventure. What I don't like is the lame attempt to attach this film to the trek universe through the use of the multi-verse theory and time travel, then the obvious trashing of 40 years of TV and movies.
So many things changed simply for the sake of change. If a non-fan can't tell the difference, why completely throw out what came before? Do sets, effects, and sounds really make or break a movie? WTF is with a $150 film not being able to maintain scale? That's a stupid mistake that many seem to not be bothered by, yet mention a four wheeled vehicle driven by Picard and everyone thinks THAT is stupid!
So... Nutrek sucks because it is Trek only because it is named Trek. It lacks the "soul" of Trek. It lacks the "brain" of Trek. And it lacks everything else that makes fans (like me) feel as if they are in a familar place. Some may say that familiarity is what doomed Trek, but I disagree. Good stories and great plots make or break a movie, not the little things like a thrumming warp core or beam type phasers.
---------
Acting like it is just me making a clear distinction when it is the fans, JJ Abrams actually admitting he isn't a fan of the older movies, etc.
It's out there whether you acknowledge it or not. NuTrek is better and is clearly different IMO.
You can pretend Abrams Trek is the same formula as the older Treks but don't expect the majority of the fans or anyone else to believe as much. It isn't the same at all hence my interest in Nu trek.
__________________
Last edited by quanchi112 on Oct 1st, 2013 at 05:36 AM
It is Nu trek and while its in the same continuity it is far different. That was the agenda of Paramount to reach new fans. It worked but in the process alienated a lot of the older fans. I love the NuTrek since it is so different to the original Trek which I always found to be boring, lame, and uneventful.
NuTrek is my playground and the Nufans are here to stay. The older ones better stay out of my way!!
You know what would've made Into Darkness the best Trek film of all time?...More lens flare! And Benedict Cumberbatch over-pronouncing words and moving his mouth more when speaking.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 1st, 2013 01:34 AM
