RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,445
Posts: 5,507,806
Members: 25,131
Currently online: 434
Newest member: xunixan

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 18 2009, 09:09 PM   #1
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
 
Location: ANS Yamato, Sector 5, Sol System
STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Yup, yet another blogger with an ax to grind about the new movie as usual:

Of all the holies in the geek realm, Star Trek was a major pillar of geek culture. Before George Lucas combined the works of Frank Herbert, J.R.R. Tokein and Akira Kurosawa to create Star Wars, geeks pored over the original Trek episodes with the fine tooth combs of their intellect, piecing together the facts and events to create a history and time line, a canon that was adhered to strictly. Books and fanfic expanded on the original, three-year run, conventions were created and attended. The minutiae of the Trek universe were obsessively cataloged and dwelled upon by fans the world over. You weren't any kind of a Trek fan if you didn't know that Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri was the inventor of warp drive, that Kirk was from Iowa, that Scotty was an "old Aberdeen pub crawler," that Mark Lenard, who'd played Spock's father Saarek in the second season episode "Journey to Babel," had also played the Romulan commander in the first season episode "Balance of Terror." It was this familiarity that became the foundations of early geek subculture.

But that familiarity is completely gone now. They've turned Trek into something sexy, edgy, flawed and totally unfamiliar, using the brand name to make it something marketable to a new generation. The movie relies on the fact that geeks the world over have made these characters pop culture icons, yet does everything it can to change them from what the geeks know and love. While this isn't the first time in the Trek universe that this has happened, it's a definitive event. The geeks can't blame J.J. Abrams for the breaking of the trust, but they can blame him for making it impossible to go back.
STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

One of the reasons why, as one poster said, J.J. Abrams & Co. had better only make about three or four films and then leave before their names are blasted online while three sheets to the wind, and why I still have the same signature at the bottom I've always had:

Last edited by Dusty Ayres; December 19 2009 at 12:48 AM.
Dusty Ayres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 09:22 PM   #2
Tomalak
Vice Admiral
 
Tomalak's Avatar
 
Location: Liverpool
View Tomalak's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

The thing is, all of that history, continuity and minutiae is still there for geeks to pour over. Only now there's an eleventh film to add more to it.

This just smacks of someone resentful of the film's popularity because now he or she can no longer claim ownership over Star Trek. They have to share it with everyone else who saw and enjoyed the film.
__________________
She bought her first new car and you hit her with a drunk driver. What, is that supposed to be funny?
Tomalak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 09:27 PM   #3
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Uk
View startrekrcks's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

oh dear the movie is not good to another Prime Trek fan why can people just think of it as a addition to the Trek family I thought the film was a loving homage to the original series and a fast paced fun action packed adventure.
startrekrcks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 09:56 PM   #4
St. William Of Levittown
Vice Admiral
 
St. William Of Levittown's Avatar
 
Location: Rush Limborg is prepping for Christmas on The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Oy vey.

Do I have to quote William Shatner, and tell the "Purists" to GET A LIFE?!?

C'mon. Read all the testimonies of "newbies" who had never given a moment's thought to Trek--until THIS film came along, and suddenly they're interested in looking into THE REST of Trek?

Count your blessings, folks. At least now...it's becoming COOL to be a Trekker, again.
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
St. William Of Levittown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 10:00 PM   #5
Corran Horn
Vice Admiral
 
Corran Horn's Avatar
 
Location: I-L
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

It killed me that Abrams broke into my house and tossed all my DVDs into the fire.

I mean, how did he even know where I lived? Can you track people over the Internet?
__________________
"I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do drugs. I play video games, which I think is a far superior addiction to any of those other ones. "
Corran Horn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 10:07 PM   #6
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

If only these same people cared as much about health care.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 10:13 PM   #7
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
Oy vey.

Do I have to quote William Shatner, and tell the "Purists" to GET A LIFE?!?

C'mon. Read all the testimonies of "newbies" who had never given a moment's thought to Trek--until THIS film came along, and suddenly they're interested in looking into THE REST of Trek?

Count your blessings, folks. At least now...it's becoming COOL to be a Trekker, again.
Yeah, I was in a Barnes and Nobels the other day and the guy in the DVD section said the Trek TV series DVDs were selling really well since the new movie came out.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 10:23 PM   #8
Penhall99
Lieutenant Commander
 
Penhall99's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

I don't really understand this kind of thinking. Its not like they just completely remade Trek and started over.

They rebooted it while keeping everything that came before intact. Hell, even the "real" Spock is still around in the new universe!

This is the movie that Trek needed. It not only boosted interest in the Star Trek brand, but it boosted interest in everything else that came before. It's a win-win situation, IMO.
__________________
"Our species can only survive if we have obstacles to overcome...Without them to strengthen us, we will weaken and die" -Captain James T. Kirk
Penhall99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 11:18 PM   #9
St. William Of Levittown
Vice Admiral
 
St. William Of Levittown's Avatar
 
Location: Rush Limborg is prepping for Christmas on The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

^What amuses me is that these are the SAME people who regularly dissed Rick Berman and Co.

Now, they actually sound nostalgic for the good ol' days--when all they could whine about was the fact that Berman, Braga, and the rest never let a good story get in the way of the facts--canon, technobabble and all.

(I happen to be less critical of B&B than many, BTW....)

It seems to me that JJ and the Supreme Court are as different from the old gang as night and day.

So...in the end, there are some people who will never be satified.

No...matter...what.
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
St. William Of Levittown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 11:31 PM   #10
DEWLine
Commodore
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Send a message via AIM to DEWLine Send a message via Yahoo to DEWLine
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

You know, when you see reports of sales going through the roof for every single branch series in the Franchise to date...as a direct consequence of this movie...it tells me at least one thing: we're not done with any of them yet. And we've got new toys to play with as well.

So I'm good with this.
__________________
Yours,

Dwight Williams
Illustrator/Writer
DEWLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 11:42 PM   #11
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

One can only assume some people actually enjoyed being shunned and ridiculed. I was loved Star Trek shamelessly when it was super-nerdy to do so. I still love Star Trek now that it's vaguely more cool to do so. I have no qualms with people not liking the movie: as they say, there is no accounting for tastes. But it sounds more and more that some people hated it exactly because it made Star Trek more popular. That, I can never understand.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 11:50 PM   #12
St. William Of Levittown
Vice Admiral
 
St. William Of Levittown's Avatar
 
Location: Rush Limborg is prepping for Christmas on The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

^Hating prosperity is a curious thing, mate. It's an interesting psycological problem, indeed. Ayn Rand, as I recall, analyzed this a great deal. She diagnosed it as simple envy--hatred of success because it wasn't your success.

To wit...maybe they're just all, "Where were you pop-culture types when we needed you most? Where were you when Voyager and Enterprise were tanking? Where were you when Insurrection and Nemesis failed to reach the numbers of First Contact? Where were you when Paramount decided to give Trek a rest, because it seemed like people were tired of Trek?"

And so on.

In short, "Better Never Than Late".

Plain. Simple. Envy.
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
St. William Of Levittown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18 2009, 11:51 PM   #13
Qonos
Captain
 
Qonos's Avatar
 
Location: Long Pond Pa
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
^What amuses me is that these are the SAME people who regularly dissed Rick Berman and Co.

Now, they actually sound nostalgic for the good ol' days--when all they could whine about was the fact that Berman, Braga, and the rest never let a good story get in the way of the facts--canon, technobabble and all.

(I happen to be less critical of B&B than many, BTW....)

It seems to me that JJ and the Supreme Court are as different from the old gang as night and day.

So...in the end, there are some people who will never be satified.

No...matter...what.
<---- Blasted Rick Berman...


LOVE the new movie. It was an awesome fast paced action movie with all the things I thought made trek great. Didn't take itself super serious, and it didn't bore you with long drawn out psuedo-science.
__________________
This post is brought to you by The Soylent Green Biscuit company. Soylent Green our people have GREAT Taste.
Qonos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2009, 12:14 AM   #14
St. William Of Levittown
Vice Admiral
 
St. William Of Levittown's Avatar
 
Location: Rush Limborg is prepping for Christmas on The EIB Network
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

^Fascinaing...
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
St. William Of Levittown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2009, 12:19 AM   #15
BriGuy
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

You know, I like the new movie, too, saw it twice, and enjoyed it a lot, and bought the DVD, but even I can see it had problems/issues and was not perfect.

I'm disturbed by the apparent boiler-plate insults, chiding and belittling many of you have for anyone who dares question the movie. Gives the impression gushing praise is all that's allowed here.

It's possible to like the film while still seeing its faults.

A massive starship being built on the ground?
The ridiculous engineering set and its nonsensical "layout," if it has a layout at all. (Where the hell was Uhura when big-hand, numb tongue Kirk found her anyway?)
A glass window on the bridge.
From engineering to bridge via turbolift in 1.5 seconds. (I know, speed of plot)

The appearance, size and weaponry of Nero's ship does not seem to jive with it being a mining ship. I remember reading that there's something out there indicating the weapons are Borg, but that's not mentioned in the movie.

There are valid points on the coincidences mounting up to nearly remarkable levels.

Every time I come into this forum I see few if any new threads. I'd think there'd be tons. Maybe it's this "love it or we'll call you names" mentality that is silencing discussion.

Last edited by BriGuy; December 19 2009 at 12:52 AM.
BriGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
bloggers, fandom, star trek (2009 film)

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.