RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,170
Posts: 5,435,319
Members: 24,939
Currently online: 449
Newest member: katlynwomack

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 January 1 2013, 03:56 AM   #241
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

teacake wrote: View Post
I think a lot of Trek is just step up from Tolkien in sexiness, as in very much not so.
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in The Hobbit puts the lie to that.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 04:02 AM   #242
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
teacake wrote: View Post
I think a lot of Trek is just step up from Tolkien in sexiness, as in very much not so.
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in The Hobbit puts the lie to that.
And of course there's Figwit.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 04:10 AM   #243
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

teacake wrote: View Post
Oh and I don't think by today's standards Star Trek is even remotely "sexually super charged".
And yet I've run into fans who insist that sex has no place in "real" Star Trek--conveniently forgetting all the scantily-clad love interests and passionate clinches in TOS.

Which strikes me as a fine example of the way the naysayers tend to compare the reboot to some idealized, cerebral, utopian idea of STAR TREK rather than actual Original Series that aired in the sixties . . . which (gasp!) actually had imperfect characters and fist-fights and explosions and space monsters and romance. All that stuff we keep being told doesn't belong in the new movies 'cause Star Trek is strictly about science and exploration and progress, damnit!

Never mind that the old shows and movies got away with the very same things that are condemned as deal-breakers when the reboot does them.

A double standard, like I said.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; January 1 2013 at 04:27 AM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 04:27 AM   #244
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Its time has come...again.

Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 05:15 AM   #245
M.A.C.O.
Fleet Captain
 
M.A.C.O.'s Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

^
I haven't been posting on Trekbbs for weeks because of the fan bashing, and fan speculation of STID. It's too much and makes me feel like I have an aneurysm. My god we are like Star Wars and Dr. Who fans who can't accept the prequels/sequels and the r continuation of of these long running franchises.

Star Trek lives because of JJ Abrams. Yes Star Trek needed a reboot. Just like Dr Who needed a reboot. My only complaint with JJ is that he doesn't do more with his films. Paramount wants 5, but we'll be lucky to even get 3 films
M.A.C.O. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 05:41 AM   #246
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Its time has come...again.
Much like people will watch a 9 hour Hobbit film, I eagerly await three hours of Chris Pine standing around talking to the Andorian ambassador.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 06:01 AM   #247
FarStrider
Commander
 
FarStrider's Avatar
 
Send a message via Yahoo to FarStrider
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Dale Sams wrote: View Post
My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Its time has come...again.
Much like people will watch a 9 hour Hobbit film, I eagerly await three hours of Chris Pine standing around talking to the Andorian ambassador.
And you'll be waiting a long time.


~FS
__________________
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style. . . "
FarStrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 12:38 PM   #248
Cartoonist
Captain
 
Cartoonist's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

UFO wrote: View Post
thumbtack wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I took it to mean a fan of the setting and continuity of Trek vs. a fan of Kirk, Spock and the rest of the characters that inhabit the Trek universe.

Fans of the universe want to know what happens after Nemesis, not really caring who's involved, and of course despise their continuity being reset. Fans of the characters want more stories with their favourite characters and don't mind the continuity being rewritten in order to do that.
Then we must also praise the reboot for weeding out the Star Trek universe fans, or at least exposing them, as I have no intention of ever becoming a canon fan.

I can't even imaging myself treating each new movie or series like the next chapter of galactic history.
You have lost me. How will "weeding out" or "exposing" Star Trek universe fans* save you from becoming one of them? Is it like homosexuality, where some people are afraid of it being made compulsory? Now if your intention is to stone them to death, I could see how the so-called "reboot" might be helpful in identifying them.

The distinction is of course ridiculous anyway. I doubt there are many fans of TOS who would not want to see those characters back on screen, provided they were indeed faithful to the originals, as opposed to just getting the names right. Sure there are probably some fans who don't like Star Trek divided up in to neat little commercial packages, but if the latest film did anything, it showed us how to avoid that. Where is the problem?

Besides, there was room in the old universe for more stories with TOS characters (I doubt most causal viewers even realised this was a new one, as I think has been said). What they probably couldn't have done, and didn't succeed doing convincingly* in ST09, was make them ten years younger. That was the main goal of course.


* Yes, I know some will claim to be "convinced".
I can't agree with any of that. First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.

Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.

And lastly, since nobody's conducted a scientific study about the efficacy of rebooting the franchise... all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Mine is this: I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness. Just going from my small sampling, I'd say Paramount made the right decision.
Cartoonist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 06:42 PM   #249
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

AllStarEntprise wrote: View Post
Yes Star Trek needed a reboot. Just like Dr Who needed a reboot.
Doctor Who wasn't rebooted in 2005. Unless you're making some obscure reference to the 60s Cushing movies...
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 07:01 PM   #250
ROBE
Commander
 
ROBE's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Well you could say Doctor Who has been rebooted 10 times.
Everytime the Doctor regenerates it is a sort of reboot within the same universe.
ROBE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 07:08 PM   #251
Dale Sams
Fleet Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Cartoonist wrote: View Post
UFO wrote: View Post
thumbtack wrote: View Post

Then we must also praise the reboot for weeding out the Star Trek universe fans, or at least exposing them, as I have no intention of ever becoming a canon fan.

I can't even imaging myself treating each new movie or series like the next chapter of galactic history.
You have lost me. How will "weeding out" or "exposing" Star Trek universe fans* save you from becoming one of them? Is it like homosexuality, where some people are afraid of it being made compulsory? Now if your intention is to stone them to death, I could see how the so-called "reboot" might be helpful in identifying them.

The distinction is of course ridiculous anyway. I doubt there are many fans of TOS who would not want to see those characters back on screen, provided they were indeed faithful to the originals, as opposed to just getting the names right. Sure there are probably some fans who don't like Star Trek divided up in to neat little commercial packages, but if the latest film did anything, it showed us how to avoid that. Where is the problem?

Besides, there was room in the old universe for more stories with TOS characters (I doubt most causal viewers even realised this was a new one, as I think has been said). What they probably couldn't have done, and didn't succeed doing convincingly* in ST09, was make them ten years younger. That was the main goal of course.


* Yes, I know some will claim to be "convinced".
I can't agree with any of that. First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.

Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.

And lastly, since nobody's conducted a scientific study about the efficacy of rebooting the franchise... all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Mine is this: I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness. Just going from my small sampling, I'd say Paramount made the right decision.
Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', or a guy that teachs a class wherein 'you either think or sink'*. And also I didn't think Pine 'nailed' Kirk, but rather came up with his own fine completly useful interp.

Seriously, if that were a brand new series and you renamed him, not for one second would I think he was supposed to be Captain Kirk (minus the obvious historical refs, and his fun "Bones!" at the very end)

Again, this is in no way a slam on Pine or the interp he came up with.

I am worried about the future of the character though. You take away his relationship with Spock and inflate the ladies man/cowboy diplomacy stuff and I'm afraid he's going to come off as a little shallow.

*Yes, I know the timeline changed.
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 07:09 PM   #252
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

ROBE wrote: View Post
Well you could say Doctor Who has been rebooted 10 times.
Everytime the Doctor regenerates it is a sort of reboot within the same universe.
Why I suggested merely having a new crew post-TNG/DS9/VOY. A Doctor Who-esque reshuffle while still being core Star Trek.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 07:13 PM   #253
The Mirrorball Man
Vice Admiral
 
The Mirrorball Man's Avatar
 
Location: Switzerland
View The Mirrorball Man's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Why I suggested merely having a new crew post-TNG/DS9/VOY. A Doctor Who-esque reshuffle while still being core Star Trek.
I don't think that would have been nearly enough to get rid of the stigma Star Trek had accumulated. Hell, I don't think I would have been interested in yet another new watered-down permutation of the Trek formula, and I'm a fan.
__________________
Check out my deviantArt gallery!
The Mirrorball Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 07:21 PM   #254
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Dale Sams wrote: View Post
Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', .
On the other hand, we never actually saw "the stack of books with legs" onscreen. That was one line of dialogue in one episode, as opposed to 79 episodes and 7 movies in which Kirk was a dynamic, swashbuckling leading man. So, yeah, when you think of Kirk, does anybody really think of him as a "stack of books with legs." The "fact" that Kirk used to be a book worm is a bit of trivia, not the essence of the character in the popular imagination. It has nothing to do with the character we actually grew up watching.

So, yeah, I think the movies should feature the Kirk the audience expects to see, regardless of some obscure bit of trivia from one old episode.

"When the legend becomes the truth, print the legend."
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; January 1 2013 at 07:54 PM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 1 2013, 07:24 PM   #255
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

The Mirrorball Man wrote: View Post
I don't think that would have been nearly enough to get rid of the stigma Star Trek had accumulated. Hell, I don't think I would have been interested in yet another new watered-down permutation of the Trek formula, and I'm a fan.
I think if you liked the characters then you'd have dug it just fine. Who knows, you might even have liked them more than Kirk and Spock .
DalekJim 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 09:59 AM.

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