Ever since Star Trek 2 the same old tired formula has been trotted out whenever Star Trek needs a good comeback movie.
Mad genius with a personal vendetta/connection against a crew member gets ahold of a super weapon and destroys/threatens to destroy an entire planet. Wrath of Khan, Generations, Nemesis, Insurection, XI - All variations on the same plot. Khan was the only one with originality and an actor worth watching.
I was totally into this comic until I realized I was supposed to be cheering for the beardy opinionated guy. I can never cheer for the beardy opinionated guy. Unless it's something like "WHOO! You go, beardy opinionated guy! You can TOTALLY eat that broken glass and anyone who tells you different is a FOOL!" And then I still usually run out of patience for the opinionated beardy guy before he's even finished dying.
Also, the new Star Trek lacked even the cheap hamfisted *pretense* of social consciousness that redeemed the original series, time travel plots are a crutch for lazy writers and Trek has never done them well, Old Spock conveniently turning up on that ice planet was totally implausible, and as I noted, no opinion held by a guy with a goatee is ever correct, ever. All of these points, especially the last one, are so damning that they even negate the fact that... the new hypochondriac alkie McCoy was pretty cool actually.
dude. So awesome. SO so awesome. I personally thought the new Star Trek movie was great...resetting everything with an alternate timeline was a fantastic idea, it really lets them open up and do whatever their creativity allows. Your work is great stuff, I'm going to check out the rest:-)
My theory for this comic is that Scott realized many, if not most, of his audience disliked the latest Star Trek movie. He wrote his comic about that belief being wrong to give us the opportunity to utilize his teachings. That makes you commentors...WRONG.
I disliked the new star trek. But I'm not a teenager anymore and it was clearly made for the that mindset. Or for people in their 30s who still think like teenagers.
Interesting correlation, the same people who adore the new Star Trek are the same people who adore Twilight. And I'm being serious (true / false)
Rodenberry Star Trek and even to some extent TNG before all the Berman crap had a philosophical interest in the future reflected in the present. We're not talking deep meaning here but at least it was science fiction that motivated the imagination and tried to challenge present conventions.
The new Star Trek movie was just a popcorn cowboy movie with some nudity and pseudo-f*cking thrown in for good measure. And it was extremely I dunno, girlish. If that's what you like to watch, good for you. Get a new label, start your own franchise. Just don't call it Star Trek.
Of course, if you like a reboot of a richly textured, decades-old mythology then-definitely-the Star Trek movie was awesome. The only thing that could have possibly made it better was a Hannah Montana cameo. And not Miley Cyrus, no, I'm talking the real thing awesome teen-licious girl power kick-ass Jem wannabe Hannah Montana. Totally. She could have been in the cave, you know, the one in which Kirk inexplicably met the old Spock in. Just as likely, and twice as awesome.
I got confused right at the beginning... Why would you rent Star Trek? The only reason I could think of was so you wouldn't have to actually break the shrink wrap on your personal copy. Of course, your personal copy is a Pre-Order Combination Special Edition WS DVD / Blu-Ray w/ digital copy direct from the studio and arrives in its own hyberbaric chamber while your viewing copy is the mere $23.99 Full Screen Edition from Wal-Mart.
Well, perhaps I'll "Suspend Reality" and see if reading some of the other text and possibly reading the other boxes helps, but I'll warn you, your premise seems highly unrealistic.
Sorry Scott, I'm with your friend, for the reasons Malimar outlined. The Trek reboot was a muddled mess.
AND, I don't like Bond movies either. For much the same reasons -- they, too, usually come off as an incomprehensible mess to me. The only one of them that I ever really liked is Goldfinger, and that came out almost half a century ago!
Hum...I remember Scott talking about a guy that believed that Han did not shoot first, and defended his point because 'he had the DVD' (the redux obviously)....is that guy and this strip's 'monster' the same?
Oh, and again, milk-out-of-the-nose funny brilliance - again!
i've had this conversation to many times to count. kansas is proof that hell is full, and the dead are walking the earth.
but back to the point... the lens flare was on purpose. to make it look like your seeing it through your car window. like the old drive-in movies. your a heathen if you don't already no this. and everybody knows, heathens are monsters.
Question: Shouldn't the date at the bottom left be 2010? I guess I don't know how far ahead you make the comics... The footer for the site also has a 2009.
.... except that the newest Star Trek movie WAS crap. They needlessly nuked the canon Star Trek continuum and then hit fast-forward on the plot to get a completely irresponsible James T. Kirk into the captain's seat of the Enterprise. They could have promoted him to Lt. JG and then fast-forwarded five years and a couple of promotions and made him first/second officer of the Constellation or the Reliant or something, and done so in the established Trek universe.
There was no need for them to say "TIMELINE CHANGE NOW WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT" and also be in a huge ridiculous hurry to get Kirk the Enterprise captaincy. Instead of having a good thing going making Star Trek prequels, an area that the movies had as yet never explored, they got impatient, took a dump on existing canon, and prepared themselves to make movies that are literally in a different universe than any of the TV series or movies.
I didn't like the newest Star Trek movie, but I LOVE Star Trek in general. There were parts of it that just didn't seem to mesh, although the special effects were cool. The plot was just.... Yeah it could have been better.
The thing about Star Trek XI was that the writers know it was a ham fisted attempt at a reboot. For them to do a reboot properly, it would have to have taken more than one film. If the movie had been the first part of a multi-parter, Star Trek would have died. With only 2 hours, I feel they did the best they could. Since the next one doesn't have to be 50% character introduction, I expect it to be a whole lot better. Plus, the sets haven't been torn down, so they can build a proper engineering set with the next film's budget.
Besides, I do like it's a new canon. The old stuff is still there in case Abrams screws it up, but the new stuff enables him to not have to mess up the old canon.
The comic is right in stating that Scott's co-worker is both wrong and a monster.
January 17, 2010
Reader Comments (74)
@patrick: first question: do you wear glasses? if yes, are you sure it wasn't the reflections off of your glasses?? just sayin'.
Ever since Star Trek 2 the same old tired formula has been trotted out whenever Star Trek needs a good comeback movie.
Mad genius with a personal vendetta/connection against a crew member gets ahold of a super weapon and destroys/threatens to destroy an entire planet. Wrath of Khan, Generations, Nemesis, Insurection, XI - All variations on the same plot. Khan was the only one with originality and an actor worth watching.
You are wrong!
You're a MONSTER! almost made me spit my drink out!!
soooooo wrrrrrong!
That man's hoodie has no pockets.
Creepy.
Fanboys!
I was totally into this comic until I realized I was supposed to be cheering for the beardy opinionated guy. I can never cheer for the beardy opinionated guy. Unless it's something like "WHOO! You go, beardy opinionated guy! You can TOTALLY eat that broken glass and anyone who tells you different is a FOOL!" And then I still usually run out of patience for the opinionated beardy guy before he's even finished dying.
Also, the new Star Trek lacked even the cheap hamfisted *pretense* of social consciousness that redeemed the original series, time travel plots are a crutch for lazy writers and Trek has never done them well, Old Spock conveniently turning up on that ice planet was totally implausible, and as I noted, no opinion held by a guy with a goatee is ever correct, ever. All of these points, especially the last one, are so damning that they even negate the fact that... the new hypochondriac alkie McCoy was pretty cool actually.
your a MONSTER
dude. So awesome. SO so awesome. I personally thought the new Star Trek movie was great...resetting everything with an alternate timeline was a fantastic idea, it really lets them open up and do whatever their creativity allows. Your work is great stuff, I'm going to check out the rest:-)
http://www.livingwithanerd.com
I like the idea of explaining
why some one is wrong,
because it clearly points
out why its wrong unless
it really is right.
Prove it to be wrong.
thanks from tony
I just realized I haven't received any B.I. comics in my RSS feed in a while.
Did Scott change his RSS feed?
If so, did he change it without announcing a new news feed?
If so, does he not care about his readers?
If he doesn't care, why does he bother publishing his stupid crap in the first place?
I don't like attention, bond movies, star trek, puppy dogs or B.J.'s
My theory for this comic is that Scott realized many, if not most, of his audience disliked the latest Star Trek movie. He wrote his comic about that belief being wrong to give us the opportunity to utilize his teachings. That makes you commentors...WRONG.
I disliked the new star trek. But I'm not a teenager anymore and it was clearly made for the that mindset. Or for people in their 30s who still think like teenagers.
Interesting correlation, the same people who adore the new Star Trek are the same people who adore Twilight. And I'm being serious (true / false)
Rodenberry Star Trek and even to some extent TNG before all the Berman crap had a philosophical interest in the future reflected in the present. We're not talking deep meaning here but at least it was science fiction that motivated the imagination and tried to challenge present conventions.
The new Star Trek movie was just a popcorn cowboy movie with some nudity and pseudo-f*cking thrown in for good measure. And it was extremely I dunno, girlish. If that's what you like to watch, good for you. Get a new label, start your own franchise. Just don't call it Star Trek.
Of course, if you like a reboot of a richly textured, decades-old mythology then-definitely-the Star Trek movie was awesome. The only thing that could have possibly made it better was a Hannah Montana cameo. And not Miley Cyrus, no, I'm talking the real thing awesome teen-licious girl power kick-ass Jem wannabe Hannah Montana. Totally. She could have been in the cave, you know, the one in which Kirk inexplicably met the old Spock in. Just as likely, and twice as awesome.
Hay monster!
Love your monsters!
Love,
Monster.
This is wrong! The guy should have punched his adversary in his face!
I got confused right at the beginning... Why would you rent Star Trek?
The only reason I could think of was so you wouldn't have to actually break the shrink wrap on your personal copy. Of course, your personal copy is a Pre-Order Combination Special Edition WS DVD / Blu-Ray w/ digital copy direct from the studio and arrives in its own hyberbaric chamber while your viewing copy is the mere $23.99 Full Screen Edition from Wal-Mart.
Well, perhaps I'll "Suspend Reality" and see if reading some of the other text and possibly reading the other boxes helps, but I'll warn you, your premise seems highly unrealistic.
Sorry Scott, I'm with your friend, for the reasons Malimar outlined. The Trek reboot was a muddled mess.
AND, I don't like Bond movies either. For much the same reasons -- they, too, usually come off as an incomprehensible mess to me. The only one of them that I ever really liked is Goldfinger, and that came out almost half a century ago!
Liked the TREK movie - but not as much as I love your strip.
I hereby challenge you to do a Rocket Hat/Moon Men strip in the style of the Star Trek movie - IE: With loads of LENS FLARE in each panel!
Gingerbread Boy even said, "You're a MONSTER!"
Hum...I remember Scott talking about a guy that believed that Han did not shoot first, and defended his point because 'he had the DVD' (the redux obviously)....is that guy and this strip's 'monster' the same?
Oh, and again, milk-out-of-the-nose funny brilliance - again!
i've had this conversation to many times to count. kansas is proof that hell is full, and the dead are walking the earth.
but back to the point... the lens flare was on purpose. to make it look like your seeing it through your car window. like the old drive-in movies. your a heathen if you don't already no this. and everybody knows, heathens are monsters.
Great stuff! Also like the bald guy being the hero in this one.
The other option, of course, would have been to have the monster say something along the lines of "I liked that new Twilight movie." You are WRONG!
Loved the first panel!
Awesome!
Question: Shouldn't the date at the bottom left be 2010? I guess I don't know how far ahead you make the comics... The footer for the site also has a 2009.
Thanks for the comics!
.... except that the newest Star Trek movie WAS crap. They needlessly nuked the canon Star Trek continuum and then hit fast-forward on the plot to get a completely irresponsible James T. Kirk into the captain's seat of the Enterprise. They could have promoted him to Lt. JG and then fast-forwarded five years and a couple of promotions and made him first/second officer of the Constellation or the Reliant or something, and done so in the established Trek universe.
There was no need for them to say "TIMELINE CHANGE NOW WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT" and also be in a huge ridiculous hurry to get Kirk the Enterprise captaincy. Instead of having a good thing going making Star Trek prequels, an area that the movies had as yet never explored, they got impatient, took a dump on existing canon, and prepared themselves to make movies that are literally in a different universe than any of the TV series or movies.
they re made star trek into in star wars.....like it's hard to pawn off an action flick with bright lights and loud sounds to Americans.
I didn't like the newest Star Trek movie, but I LOVE Star Trek in general. There were parts of it that just didn't seem to mesh, although the special effects were cool. The plot was just.... Yeah it could have been better.
This is based on an actual conversation. That guy IS A MONSTER. This is my fav comic I've read here so far
The thing about Star Trek XI was that the writers know it was a ham fisted attempt at a reboot. For them to do a reboot properly, it would have to have taken more than one film. If the movie had been the first part of a multi-parter, Star Trek would have died. With only 2 hours, I feel they did the best they could. Since the next one doesn't have to be 50% character introduction, I expect it to be a whole lot better. Plus, the sets haven't been torn down, so they can build a proper engineering set with the next film's budget.
Besides, I do like it's a new canon. The old stuff is still there in case Abrams screws it up, but the new stuff enables him to not have to mess up the old canon.
The comic is right in stating that Scott's co-worker is both wrong and a monster.
Most of these commenters don't understand you Scott. There is no debating this, he is wrong.
Welp, YOU are a monster! no... you are a beast!
who in the world can dislike Star Wars and Star Trek?
AND AT THE SAME TIME?! HOW??
YOU ARE WRONG!!