View Single Post
Old January 2 2013, 09:41 AM   #355
UFO's Avatar
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Cartoonist wrote: View Post
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):
That's telling me!

OK, I can think of one place (maybe two) where I was at least a bit condescending so my apologies.

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). …
I would be sincerely grateful if you could let me know where Old Spock made that observation because I thought he said something like that too, but I can’t locate it (he refers to destiny around 1:22:28 but that’s as close as I have gotten). However it would make no difference because I have never seen any reason to believed the Star Trek universe (except maybe this one) is intended to be a pantheist's paradise. ST is science fiction not fantasy even if it sometimes appears to be otherwise. As for your reminders, look at it this way: Most SF stories postulate certain scientific breakthroughs, many of them standard things like FTL drives, which allow their plots to take place. But in a respectable SF work, that is definitely not the same as saying all science as we know it goes out the window whenever the plot demands it. It's certainly is no excuse for people or organisations behaving irrationally.

I mean, can you imagine what it would do to a plot if the very universe was helping the writers achieve their ends? Actually we don’t need to imagine that do we? You end up with something like ST09, full of ridiculous coincidences and the feeling the characters are just being railroaded at every turn in to their inevitable final positions. As you point out, other ST works have their share implausibilities but ST09 out does them all both in quantity and er, "quality", in my view.

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.
Well, that’s a novel argument. To me there is far-fetched, and then there is absurd to the point of believing that any crazy thing could happen whenever the plot demands it. Moreover, I would say there is a difference between star fleet doing something as stupid as promoting Kirk based solely of a rush of euphoria (actually the plot poking through the surface on one of its numerous visitations) and something that is just unexplained to us. But at least the latter are supposed to be posited on scientific principles, not metaphysical mumbo jumbo, however unlikely they may seem. Anyway, Starfleet itself should act reasonably, and we should have some confidence in the neutrality of the very universe they live in! In other words if you have to have that level of crazy, don’t do it all the time and don’t do it when it will make the organisation the characters work for look like a joke.

Those were Trekkies who liked the movie I take it?
That's why I wrote "consensus" instead of "unanimous opinion."
We may be on the wrong wavelength again. I just meant if you like something you might be more willing to overlook "imperfections". It works the other way as well of course, except with me. My judgment is completely objective.

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.
I was going on their personalities and behaviour. Anyway, I guess we will mostly have to disagree, except for Scotty of course (he had something of the court jester about him too I thought).

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.
See, I missed most of that, all I saw were a few trailers on TV and maybe an advert or two in the paper. But it could still be that "reboot" is simply a more fashionable phrase than prequel, which itself may have been my assumption given the youth of the characters.

… 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.
That is understandable, but that could still have made it a prequel. The idea of a reboot just never occurred to me for some reason. Of course I didn’t hear any of the business about not being your father’s Trek either.

… 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 find in all the Trek forums.
Well as you can imagine I am left with mixed feelings about that. Not that I begrudge anyone their enjoyment, but in my view there are one or two essential parts of previous Trek that wouldn’t have taken a lot of effort to put back in. Naturally I would also question your assumption that something even old fans of Trek like has to be "Star Trek" or at least a "complete Star Trek". Another possibility is that religion isn’t the only "opium" of the masses.

By the way, why was it called a "soft reboot" if no-one knew about the alt universe? Even if it wasn’t anticipated to be too different from the original, that’s still a reboot isn’t it?
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote