View Single Post
Old January 1 2013, 07:08 PM   #251
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Cartoonist wrote: View Post
UFO wrote: View Post
thumbtack wrote: View Post

Then we must also praise the reboot for weeding out the Star Trek universe fans, or at least exposing them, as I have no intention of ever becoming a canon fan.

I can't even imaging myself treating each new movie or series like the next chapter of galactic history.
You have lost me. How will "weeding out" or "exposing" Star Trek universe fans* save you from becoming one of them? Is it like homosexuality, where some people are afraid of it being made compulsory? Now if your intention is to stone them to death, I could see how the so-called "reboot" might be helpful in identifying them.

The distinction is of course ridiculous anyway. I doubt there are many fans of TOS who would not want to see those characters back on screen, provided they were indeed faithful to the originals, as opposed to just getting the names right. Sure there are probably some fans who don't like Star Trek divided up in to neat little commercial packages, but if the latest film did anything, it showed us how to avoid that. Where is the problem?

Besides, there was room in the old universe for more stories with TOS characters (I doubt most causal viewers even realised this was a new one, as I think has been said). What they probably couldn't have done, and didn't succeed doing convincingly* in ST09, was make them ten years younger. That was the main goal of course.


* Yes, I know some will claim to be "convinced".
I can't agree with any of that. First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.

Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.

And lastly, since nobody's conducted a scientific study about the efficacy of rebooting the franchise... all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Mine is this: I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness. Just going from my small sampling, I'd say Paramount made the right decision.
Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', or a guy that teachs a class wherein 'you either think or sink'*. And also I didn't think Pine 'nailed' Kirk, but rather came up with his own fine completly useful interp.

Seriously, if that were a brand new series and you renamed him, not for one second would I think he was supposed to be Captain Kirk (minus the obvious historical refs, and his fun "Bones!" at the very end)

Again, this is in no way a slam on Pine or the interp he came up with.

I am worried about the future of the character though. You take away his relationship with Spock and inflate the ladies man/cowboy diplomacy stuff and I'm afraid he's going to come off as a little shallow.

*Yes, I know the timeline changed.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote