View Single Post
Old January 2 2013, 04:34 AM   #346
Cartoonist
Captain
 
Cartoonist's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

I'll just address your substantive points and ignore your smarmy tone, because I lost interest in trying to out-pompous people on the Internet years ago (ok, I lied. But I'll ignore it starting...... now):

UFO wrote: View Post
Cartoonist wrote: View Post
I can't agree with any of that.
So you also believe thumbtack was in grave danger of becoming a "Star Trek universe fan" had their insidious subculture not be "exposed".

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.
Sorry, I was imprecise, but I would never have anticipated your interpretation of my comments in a million years. Certainly they were ten years younger, that’s the problem. I meant the idea of putting the entire crew on the bridge of a capital ship, combined with the way they did it, ten years before it happened in TOS was unconvincing. Kirk himself was the most prominent example of course, but in addition, the original cast were made the ages they were for a reason.
The academy graduate shakedown cruise and Kirk's elevation to power was convincing enough given the circumstances presented in the film, especially when you consider Old Spock's observation that there are some pivotal situations the universe essentially WANTS to happen, and the makeup of the Enterprise 1701 crew was one of those situations. And if you believe Spock's observation was implausible, I'll remind you that we're talking about a series of shows and movies that depict alternate universes, time travel, a device that built a planet out of a nebula (a planet that just so happened to be perfectly suited to magically turn Spock's decaying corpse into a living body just in time to restore his soul that McCoy was carrying around in his head). A series that portrays a galaxy filled with HUMANOID aliens, and features small crystals that allow faster than light travel, crews that routinely defeat godlike opponents, and countless other motifs that demand an awful lot of suspension of disbelief. Kirk becoming Captain because Pike promoted him to First Officer before Spock lost control of his emotions was the epitome of "believable" compared to all that. And it wasn't even all that far-fetched on its own merits, either. I'll add to that that even if it WERE far-fetched, that's what fantasy, scifi and action films are supposed to contain: far-fetched moments. We don't go see movies to see business proceed as usual.

Those were Trekkies who liked the movie I take it?
That's why I wrote "consensus" instead of "unanimous opinion."

To me only Bones seem more or less the same person and I believe there was some criticism because of that (as well as praise of course). Sulu and Chekov didn’t register much one way or the other from my point of view. Spock started well enough but got "nobbled" (in more ways than one). Kirk, Uhura and Scotty were just unrecognisable, except for a glimpse of "Kirk" at the end.
I don't know what you were looking for. I was hoping to see the essence of the characters in these performances, and I saw it. Except in Scotty. I felt they took a side of Scotty that did exist but that we rarely saw (usually involving a scene with Romulan ale or a fight with Klingons to defend his ship's honor), and made it his entire character, subsuming his more hard-nosed persona from TOS.


Well I might be too restrictive when it comes to definitions but reboot to me means "To discard all previous continuity and start anew". That didn’t happen. OK, most seem to feel that "reboot" is close enough. More likely it is just the currently fashionable term and is used for everything. What I am more interested in is how your friends found out it was a "reboot" as opposed to a "prequel", which was the impression I got before I saw the movie? The official promotion came across as a prequel, though I doubt anything actually stated that. Was there anything in official publicity to say it was a reboot, or even mention the new universe? My guess is your friends found some entertainment sites that may have been speculating along those lines but I never bothered with those.
What are you talking about? Everyone was referring to it as a reboot at the time. The news, the entertainment sites, the late night talk shows… "reboot" was ubiquitous in talk of Abrams' Trek. The fact that it actually fit into the existing canon by preserving the classic timeline was an unexpected surprise. To this day, some people on this very site stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the classic timeline still exists, probably because they went into it believing they were watching a reboot.

Heck, I’m not even the sort of fan who would immediate start worrying about how they could fit such pretty young things into the original time-line! But despite being a fan of all past Trek, I could tell from official material this was likely a major departure in substance as well as style, and almost didn’t see it. I had no idea at that point it would promote a relatively "pessimistic" version of Trek from a number of pionts of view. In any event I doubt your friends wanted to see it simply "because" it was a reboot or a prequel. More likely they just though it looked good (ie. more "mainstream").
I didn't say they "simply" wanted to see it "because" it was a reboot and NOT because it looked good. You're right, the tone looked different to them than the Treks of the past. But they also heard that they didn't have to know anything about Trek to appreciate this, because they were restarting it. That was how they sold the movie.

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.
Hmmm. And that doesn’t tell you anything? No, I suppose not.
Um… it actually does. That's why I wrote it. It tells me Abrams may have saved Trek with his "soft reboot" (as it was described at the time) by creating a Trek universe that even people who hated Trek can enjoy. That does not mean it's not Star Trek, as evidenced by the fact that it also appealed to - and struck the right chords with- most long-time Trek fans (including myself). No, I'm not going by a scientific study for that claim, I'm going by the box office take and the rabid anticipation of the sequel you can find in all the Trek forums.

I think I managed to respond with a minimum of smartass-itude.
Cartoonist is offline   Reply With Quote