Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[lurok]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I think setting it 100 years after TNG and having Will Smith or whoever as the new captain could have been a big enough success. It'd still have to be an action movie though I admit.

I think that's potentially interesting idea but could also be seen as Will Smith/Whoever generic SF action movie-but-with-Trek-branding (unless got some cameos/nods in). Heck, they could even have done VOY/DS9/ENT movies; just recast them with box office names. I still think Paramount took the best/wisest route, even if safest. For all its faults, '09 is a Trek movie first and foremost. And I suspect the sequel moreso.

[Dale Sams]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I have no time for hecklers and internet white knights, address my points intelligently and maturely or I won't respond. If you want to spend your time spouting inane, blunt, irrational aggression then take your posts to the YouTube comments section where they belong.

That's better .

I guess it depends where they go with this. The alt. timeline angle does open up some interesting story possibilities. It's just that despite the destruction of Vulcan, the last film soon rushed the situation to the status quo. I have a similar issue with the last X-Men movie rushing things to the status quo at the end.

Killing Kirk instead of Spock would be a pretty cool move .

It's a good thing the last movie, and upcoming one appears to be, so well filmed and done...because I maintain, the premise is built on a house of cards. I care about NuSpock some because of the time spent on his backstory (on the flipside he's really an asshole). I care even less about NuKirk and his death would have even less resonance with me than the crappy send-off they gave Shatner.

But I would be 100% behind a TV series with the NuCast. It's not like they're huge stars, and they'll all probably be doing TV series in five years anyway.*

*This is in responce to the suggestion that the cast would be too expensive to pay.

[The Mirrorball Man]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I have no time for hecklers

That's understandable and I'm sure you realize that it's something we all have in common.

Dale Sams wrote:

---

I reject the idea that Nuverse is a canon-free Valentine's card for new viewers. The movie ITSELF doesn't even make any sense unless you get on the internet/buy the related comics/read what scenes were cut.

It made perfect sense to me, and I haven't read any comic or seen any cut scenes.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I have no time for hecklers and internet white knights, address my points intelligently and maturely or I won't respond. If you want to spend your time spouting inane, blunt, irrational aggression then take your posts to the YouTube comments section where they belong.

You simply turned yourself into a joke. Not because you had a change of heart about a movie but because you talk down to those who still do like it.

[Dale Sams]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

That's understandable and I'm sure you realize that it's something we all have in common.

It made perfect sense to me, and I haven't read any comic or seen any cut scenes.

So what happened to Nero between his encounter with Thor and the destruction of Vulcan?

Anyway, I admit I conflated the truth, that you don't get a full explanation until the film is halfway over (Meeting Old Spock) with the idea that you don't get a full explanation at all. My bad.

So I'm changing from 'it doesn't make any sense' to 'it's got a deleted scene plot hole and is kind of confusing until you meet Old Spock'*

*Unless, like most people (IMO) you have some idea of the plot just from stumbling across it.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

But I would be 100% behind a TV series with the NuCast. It's not like they're huge stars, and they'll all probably be doing TV series in five years anyway.*

*This is in responce to the suggestion that the cast would be too expensive to pay.

They may not be huge stars but they're all working movie actors. You could afford one or two of them for your series but not all of them. Zoe Saldana, to name just one, was in Avatar and Pirates of the Caribbean, she's been appearing in movies for twelve years and has a net worth of several million dollars.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Are you even capable of making relevant points in a debate beyond inarticulate mud-slinging?

What debate? Your having an opinion with which I choose to disagree is not a debate so much as simply disposing of the matter at hand.

Reminding you that you absolutely loved Abrams's first Star Trek movie and stated as much doesn't constitute "mud slinging" by any rational use of the phrase; it's not as if you're being accused of something deplorable or that some terrible untrue allegation is being made.

It is, however, entirely relevant to evaluating how seriously one ought to regard your unequivocal and rather strident statements of opinion at any given moment. When you assert that various aspects of the movie are clearly objectionable on their face or that it's being directed at an audience of some sort that you regard as unimportant or less perceptive than yourself, then you're contradicting the fact that when you watched it none of that was part of your own initial aesthetic response to the movie. As one minor example, complaining about stuff like the use of lens flares as distracting or on some other grounds makes no sense at all when it clearly didn't bother you a bit in the summer of 2009.

[nightwind1]

The Overlord wrote:

---

Okay but lets go into why you think Star Trek needed a reboot or not.

Now Star Trek had two bad movies in a row and two rather bland TV series, was there no way to get past besides a reboot?

Because to MOST people- the general audience the new movie was trying to reach- Star Trek IS Kirk, McCoy, Spock, Scotty...

So if they showed up at a theater for a STAR TREK movie, and there was no Kirk, no Spock, no McCoy, the majority of the audience would just wonder where the Star Trek was they paid good money to see.

[Dukhat]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

What debate?

Reminding you that you absolutely loved Abrams's first Star Trek movie and stated as much doesn't constitute "mud slinging" by any rational use of the phrase; it's not as if you're being accused of something deplorable or that some terrible untrue allegation is being made. It is, however, entirely relevant to evaluating how seriously one ought to regard your unequivocal and rather strident statements of opinion at any given moment.

I've already stopped taking him seriously.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

So what happened to Nero between his encounter with Thor and the destruction of Vulcan?

We don't know what happened, it's a loose end. But loose ends are not plot holes.

[Dale Sams]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

We don't know what happened, it's a loose end. But loose ends are not plot holes.

I could argue that it becomes a plot hole when he could have done whatever it is Nero's want to do at anytime in the next 20 years....but I see your point.

The loose end also becomes loosier because we're wondering why the hell Nero is fighting a Klingon fleet of 50 ships.

edit: For myself, I thought him being in a Klingon prison (and ESPECIALLY having a psychic connection with the borgified* Narada) was dumb, and since it didn't make it to the screen...my fanwank was he just tooled around waiting for Spock to appear**

*Just being future tech is better

** There's your TV series!!

[nightwind1]

Star Grinch wrote:

---

... cheap humor over substance...

Yes, because TOS didn't ("I, Mudd") have ("The Trouble with Tribbles") humor ("The Squire of Gothos") over ("Shore Leave") substance.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

edit: For myself, I thought him being in a Klingon prison (and ESPECIALLY having a psychic connection with the borgified* Narada) was dumb, and since it didn't make it to the screen...my fanwank was he just tooled around waiting for Spock to appear**

As it stands, that's the explanation the movie leads us to believe, in my opinion.

[DalekJim]

Dukhat wrote:

---

I've already stopped taking him seriously.

Good, now both of you kindly stop talking to me as you will never have anything interesting to add to this or any discussion beyond blunt heckles.

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

As it stands, that's the explanation the movie leads us to believe, in my opinion.

I think it would have made sense for him to have been waiting for Spock if he didn't also have the ultimate goal of destroying Earth. Surely he'd have got that over with first? If only to pass the time .

[Balrog]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I think setting it 100 years after TNG and having Will Smith or whoever as the new captain could have been a big enough success. It'd still have to be an action movie though I admit.

So, your answer to saving Trek, instead of the JJverse, is to make Star Trek a Will Smith franchise?