View Single Post
Old June 17 2013, 08:28 AM   #54
Quantum_Penguin's Avatar
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Quantum_Penguin wrote: View Post
I'd just like everyone who loves nuTrek to stop telling me how fresh everything is. This reboot features the same goddamn tropes and plot points everyone complained were dragging down storytelling in the Prime universe ten years ago. At the end of the day, STID was basically a pastiche of TWoK and TUC, and they even managed to throw in TSFS at the last minute. There's nothing wrong with making a pastiche, and it's nice that Star Trek is in the spotlight again, but don't tell me the Prime universe was devoid of new stories or that what Abrams has done represents necessary change.
I'm going to treat this post seriously and I hope you'll do the same. The whole point of my essay isn't that Star Trek 2.0 is fresh and new. The point of my essay is that Star Trek 2.0 is written for newcomers to the franchise as much as the old fogies of Trek. It's written for the explicit purpose of attracting a new generation as well as appeasing old fans. A new Trek series could have been fine but if you would object to being told what a Ferengi, Klingon, or transporter is like my wife needed to be told--then you are not going to be the kind of audience the franchise needed to be appealed to.
I appreciate your candor and I apologize for letting my frustration bleed through in my first post. My frustration is not directed at you in particular and I should have stayed more on point with your OP. Part of that frustration has came from sharing my criticisms with friends online and off and then having them brushed away as the rantings of a "fanboy" just because I reject to Trek 2.0 on its own merits.

I'm not a fanboy. I'd have preferred a total reboot with no relation to prior continuity in fact, and I feel that JJ Abrams' decision to reference the prime universe works to Trek 2.0's deficit.

You are right that continuity has been a sticking point for some fans, but I don't think devotion to continuity has ever been the issue for the production staff or the public at large. The powers that be played fast and loose with it during the production of Enterprise, even having the Borg show up and be defeated by the crew of a vessel from 200 years before TNG. And from the beginning in TOS, there's the problem of how long ago Khan left the Earth, or whether the Enterprise is an Earth ship or a UFP vessel, or whether they are operating under UESPA or Starfleet. Continuity frequently went out the window for the sake of telling the story they wanted to tell and the fans invented explanations to tie up the loose ends.

Would some fans object to a prequel featuring Kirk and Spock which had a larger than expected Enterprise, or Delta Vega close enough to see Vulcan, or any number of other "continuity nods" in Trek 2.0? Sure. But the general audience wouldn't know the difference (and they didn't) and I doubt the majority of fans would care either. Star Trek continuity has always been plastic, much like Doctor Who, which has managed (up until recently perhaps) to tell new and exciting stories in the original universe.

And I also don't see why it would be necessary, in the scope of any particular story set in the Prime universe, to explain who the Cardassians are or how many factors are on the warp scale. If a story was set in the Prime universe the writers would only bring up the continuity which was relevant to the story and then condense that into a few establishing lines, as they did with Khan in TWoK or Locutus in FC. Most people probably hadn't seen Space Seed before TWoK or didn't know Picard's history with the Borg when they saw First Contact, but the films simply established how the characters knew one another and moved on. It wasn't necessary to go into the whys and wherefores of how it happened, it was just a premise of the story and the basic story would still have been comprehensible if it involved completely different characters.

I do think STID came closer to a nice balance of action and character than the first film did and got very close to standing on its own as a good film. The relationship between Spock and Kirk was very well fleshed out to the point that I felt like I was watching really well written characters who just happened to be named Kirk and Spock. They felt new to me even though I'd seen TOS. Even bringing in
Although they were using the same basic premises and personalities, the writers created something fresh and interesting that hadn't been touched upon in quite the same way before.

And then they piled on the homages,

These moments disrupted the flow of the film for me and evem brought up the bitter taste of The Search for Spock which did a great job of ruining the dramatic impact of TWoK. As much as I love Spock up and kicking in the 24th century, I think bringing him back was an artistic failure of Prime Trek. And lo and behold

You sum up the reasoning for the reboot as [QUOTE=Charles Phipps]
They're cherry picking from the best of the franchise and letting us remember the good without the bad [QUOTE]

My point is that the reboot didn't eliminate the bad. The last minute conflict resolution, the bad science, the miraculous ressurections. It's all still there, and it's competing with the good changes that have been done in the reboot. It frustrates me that Trek 2.0 goes to such lengths to establish itself as different and "cool" and then retreads the exact same things which are supposed to have made Trek lose its credibility and relevance in the first place. So, yes the reboot was necessary but the execution so far has made the reboot itself irrelevant. In my opinion, JJ Abrams could be just as flashy and action oriented in the old universe as in the new. I wish he'd just pick one and stick with it.
Quantum_Penguin is offline   Reply With Quote