View Single Post
Old October 24 2013, 07:03 PM   #459
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
That's what nuTrek did, though. They invented a "new" Kirk, Spock, etc. that are not true to the original characters.
They're the same characters. Every time a new writer, director, and actor take on an existing character they're going to be slightly different, of course. Different people play Hamlet, for instance, and every different performance is going to highlight a different aspect of the character. A thin, wispy little goth kid is going to play a different Hamlet than a big burly guy. It's still the same character.
The thing is, the characters can have the same names, they can say the same lines, but what they look like and how they say their lines and perform the actions make a huge difference. For example, Hamlet: I loved the Mel Gibson movie. It seems more period, more authentic. But Kenneth Branagh's version? Hated it, and that's saying something, because I enjoyed his Henry V, and Much Ado About Nothing.

They can call it Star Trek, but if it doesn't FEEL like Star Trek, I'm not going to accept it as such. To me it has the feel of Abrams saying, "I'd like to make a space movie, with lots of young, pretty people as the crew. Nah, it doesn't matter if they can act. Nobody cares about that, as long as we have enough FX and explodey things. Now what's the best marketing angle we can use to get people to see this thing? Oh, yeah - use the character names from Star Trek! Sure, we'll make the actors look sorta vaguely like the originals, rip off elements of the old TV episodes, and tell everybody it's new and fresh! Who's gonna notice?"
Now I'm really confused about your point. You don't like the Abrams movies; neither do I. But is it Abrams specific vision you dislike or would you hate any reboot? If you'd hate any reboot, then you wouldn't have accepted Abrams movies no matter how good they were. If it's merely Abrams version you hate, then in that case what would be your objection to a good reboot?
When I watched the 2009 movie, I wanted to find something to like about it. After all, even an abomination like Star Trek V had a few good quotable lines. Unfortunately, I didn't even find that in the 2009 movie. Yes, I hate the Abrams stuff. It's like he dressed up a bunch of people and gave them lines to say, but nothing feels right.

Others have mentioned the "show, not tell" aspect of storytelling. We're told a lot about nuKirk. But I never actually saw it. If any Star Trek TV show or movie is going to tell me that a character is smart, savvy, friends with someone, etc. they need to do more than say it - the characters' voices, facial expressions, and body language have to make me believe it. And the Abrams' movie actors failed to do that.

As to your question of whether I'd hate any reboot? That depends on the reboot, doesn't it?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
They can call it Star Trek, but if it doesn't FEEL like Star Trek, I'm not going to accept it as such.
It felt like "Star Trek" to me and many other fans of TOS.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. There are other people who feel the opposite. I'm not the only person on this forum who doesn't think it feels like Star Trek.

Big Boo wrote: View Post
The alternate reality angle makes it feel like "Star Trek" to me. Does the Mirror Universe feel like "Star Trek"?
Not really. It feels experimental - a "what if" that may be fun to play with, but I can't imagine such a society being viable for long - certainly not producing the same characters in the same settings.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
You're missing the point. It isn't about Batman or Sherlock Holmes or any other particular character or series. Feel free to substitute Tarzan or Dracula or Robin Hood or The Three Musketeers or the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew or the Arthurian mythos or whatever perennially popular works of fiction you are familiar with. My point is that the basic idea-- a human child raised by apes to be king of the jungle or whatever--is not dependent on the specific "continuity" of whatever the last theatrical version was. Tarzan is Tarzan, regardless if some new versions picks up where the previous movies or TV series left off. And there's no reason to invent a "new" ape-man every time you want to revive the series.

Ditto for Star Trek. It's a concept, not a history book.
I vaguely remember seeing Tarzan movies as a child. As a teenager, I collected and read the novels, along with some other Edgar Rice Burroughs books. As I recall, the comics I read were quite faithful to the books (I still have some of those comics, and all the books). I've seen Greystoke, although it was a long time ago and I don't remember much of it.
Again, the point isn't your familiarity with Tarzan or any particular series. I'm trying to talk about enduring characters and series in general.

For the sake of argument, let's invent an imaginary series, Teenage Samurai Vampires, that had a good long run but is now in need of a facelift.

What I'm saying is that as long as you have the Teenage Samurai Vampires doing teenage samurai vampire stuff, you're still doing Teenage Samurai Vampires. You don't have to set it in the same "timeline" as the previous cycle of movies, tv shows, and comic books, or accept every previous episode as "canon."

And, please, don't reply by saying that you don't care about teenage vampire samurais. That's not the point.

Rebooting STAR TREK is no different than rebooting any other beloved fictional property, be it PLANET OF THE APES, LOGAN'S RUN . . . or TEENAGE SAMURAI VAMPIRES.
It depends on HOW you do it. It depends on whether or not the new actors can make it convincing. It depends on whether the storyline makes sense and is respectful of what's already been established.

Let's take Logan's Run, for example. I've read the original novels. I've seen the Michael York movie. The movie is different from the book, but the major elements are still intact - the society is controlled by a computer, and people have a limited number of years they're allowed to live. In both of them, Logan is a Sandman who decides to run, and both he and Jessica are pursued by Francis. Logan and Jessica fall in love, and in the end they prevail against the computer that controls everything.

The TV series changes a few things - adds characters and other SF elements. However, the essential core of the series is similar to the movie and true to the spirit of the original novel, so I would count that as a "reimagining" that works. I still prefer the original, mind you. But I love the movie and don't hate the TV series.
__________________
"Let's give it to Riker. He'll eat anything!"

For some great Original Series fanfic, check out the Valjiir Continuum!
Timewalker is offline   Reply With Quote