RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,565
Posts: 5,514,209
Members: 25,147
Currently online: 398
Newest member: Wolfspaw

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

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


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 29 2012, 07:27 PM   #46
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post

That is was a reboot and/or a TOS reboot didn't matter. It could have been a TNG film. With that kind of promotion, and the new style, wouldn't have been a problem.
TNG had the stink of failure on it. More than that, many people thought the movies were dull.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 07:30 PM   #47
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Star Grinch wrote: View Post
^
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little substance.
But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 07:30 PM   #48
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Distant Thunder
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Star Grinch wrote: View Post
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little Johnny Knoxville.
Fixed.
__________________
Do you know what this is? What this means?
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 07:43 PM   #49
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Yes! Star Trek was all but dead and they needed to do something different. I am so happy they did what they did and very happy with the results.
__________________
My Science Fiction-Fantasy movie review Blog: http://foleyfunfilmfacts.wordpress.com/
Gojira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 07:46 PM   #50
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Now, I agree that most standalone TREK episodes and movies are actually more accessible than people think they are, but even if people just think that Trek is for Trekkies only, and that you need to have seen all five zillion movies and TV shows to understand the latest movie, you have a marketing problem. A reboot offers newcomers a chance to get in on the ground floor, as it were, which is a lot less intimidating to the average viewer.
It's only a marketing problem. With Star Trek 2009, the audience was bombarded with BAM! THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT! BAM! THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S STARTREK! BAM! YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT! BAM! YOU CAN EVEN WATCH IT WHEN YOU HATED STAR TREK!.
But that's exactly what was needed at this juncture.

Speaking as someone who has written waaay too much advertising copy, sometimes you really need to go with the "brute force" technique--especially when you need to overcome preconceptions or resistance in the marketplace. Subtlety is not a virtue when you're trying to get a simple, straightforward message across to a mass audience.

In this case the message was: "Not just for Trekkies only!"

Mission accomplished.

As to whether you could do with that with a brand new crew and ship, as opposed to the iconic TOS crew, that's another issue. But you can definitely make the case that Kirk and Spock have a lot more marquee value, even among casual viewers, than Captain Fingal O'Hara of the Starship Intrepid . . . .
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; December 29 2012 at 08:37 PM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 08:32 PM   #51
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

The Overlord wrote: View Post
Star Trek 11 essentially rebooted the franchise, do you think that was the right move?
Of course it was.

Starfleet was right to overhaul the original Enterprise, and Paramount was right to refit the original Star Trek. And they even reactivated Spock to help iron out some of their canon-design difficulties; without his assistance, the script probably would have been hugely unbalanced and the entire film would have vanished into a wormhole, never to be seen again.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 08:43 PM   #52
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Star Grinch wrote: View Post
^
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little substance.
But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.
So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 08:49 PM   #53
Lord Garth, FOI
Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
^It included a character from the original show, continuing the part he played in a Next Generation episode. By that alone it can't be a 100% clean reboot.
And golem Craig bond had Judy dench from Remington steel bond and yet that was considered a complete reboot

And your own magnificent Jjverse starship upscaling sizes, a 650 m kelvin before the Narada supposedly changed the time line

It's a reboot brother. I love ya and I will forever be greatful for your starship size upscaling (which is cannon in my personal fantasy land along with a number of the better novels, the animated series, Farragut and Exeter and the great fact that in my personal Trek canon, next gen and voyager never actually happened and were both a bad drunken dream of Scotty's)
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 09:23 PM   #54
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Star Grinch wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Star Grinch wrote: View Post
^
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little substance.
But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.
So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?
I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 09:37 PM   #55
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Star Grinch wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.
So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?
I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?
So by that definition all discussion and opinions of NuTrek shouldn't happen until JJ is done making movies? That doesn't make any sense.

The 09 movie(that I wish had a name at the very least) had more of a Star Wars feel, graphics and cheap humor over substance, to it. It really didn't feel to me like I was watching Kirk and Spock as opposed to two other people pretending to be them either. That perception could change over time, ut until I've more material to go on, that's my view. The previews for Into Darkness seem like it's going to be action heavy, but maybe it'll have a good story driving it. I hope so at any rate.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 09:42 PM   #56
wissaboo
Captain
 
wissaboo's Avatar
 
Location: canada
View wissaboo's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Star Grinch wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.
So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?
I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?
I always find it so amusing for people to complain about the new look and the new ship and omg it isn't star trek.

that's exactly how I felt when I heard about the plans for tng. Worst idea ever. Turned out to be not so bad. I'd even go so far as to say that stylistically this one is about as different from the tng series spinoffs as tng was from tos.
wissaboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 09:55 PM   #57
StarMan
Vice Admiral
 
StarMan's Avatar
 
Location: ... in another place.
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
But, rightly or wrongly, there was a perception out there in the general public that Star Trek was too "complicated" for ordinary people, that you needed to be a hardcore Trekkie with a degree in Klingon linguistics to understand the shows. I used to run into this attitude all the time at family reunions, Fourth of July barbecues, etc.
QFT.

Star Trek wasn't cool. Being a Trekkie certainly wasn't in vogue. Most people I would know would struggle to distinguish between any of the Next Generation era series. The volume of material and perceived "technicality" made for a product not easily accessible to regular folk.

When your product isn't accessible to the majority, it's not going to reach it's profit potential.
__________________
Let's rock!

Last edited by StarMan; December 29 2012 at 10:07 PM.
StarMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 10:03 PM   #58
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

wissaboo wrote: View Post
I always find it so amusing for people to complain about the new look and the new ship and omg it isn't star trek.
The only pure Star Trek is The Cage. Everything after that made changes to the concept/characters/universe. Early TNG is different from TOS, late TNG is different from early TNG, DS9 is different from TOS/TNG, Voyager is different from DS9 and Enterprise is different from what came before. Then you add the movies to the mix and "what is Star Trek?" is always a moving target.

Star Trek 2009 is average for me, there is better Trek and there is worse. But I don't doubt that it's Trek.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2012, 10:26 PM   #59
ROBE
Commander
 
ROBE's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Trek needed to go back to the beginning and they needed a new cast as the originals were either too old or too dead.
Where was there to go Star Trek: The Generation after the Next Generation, Even Deeper Space 9a, Voyaging and Getting Lost Again or The Spaceship called Enterprise that existed before Enterprise?
ROBE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30 2012, 12:27 AM   #60
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

BillJ wrote: View Post
wissaboo wrote: View Post
I always find it so amusing for people to complain about the new look and the new ship and omg it isn't star trek.
The only pure Star Trek is The Cage. Everything after that made changes to the concept/characters/universe. Early TNG is different from TOS, late TNG is different from early TNG, DS9 is different from TOS/TNG, Voyager is different from DS9 and Enterprise is different from what came before. Then you add the movies to the mix and "what is Star Trek?" is always a moving target.

Star Trek 2009 is average for me, there is better Trek and there is worse. But I don't doubt that it's Trek.
I don't say "It isn't Trek", I say "Where is the Trek?" a movie every 2-3 years? I'll watch the movies. They're fine for what they are. But there's no Trek.

That is not a disparagement on the movies at all, but where do they go? Bond movies are about Bond..and M a little. This is an entire cast and any emotional dynamic is built on our memories of other people, whereas they devoted the first entire two Bond movies making us care about Bond and M.

What we need it a TV series.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 09:31 AM.

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