Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[YARN]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

How are they "looking down on you"? Because they aren't tailoring the film to fit a very narrow demographic of Star Trek fans who have historically been shown to be unable to support a successful film or series. You guys are the ones who show constant disdain for any one who deviates from your narrow definition of "Star Trek" and used pejorative language to describe them.

I think it has more to do with the panicky disavowal of Trek fans. JJ's fall back to "this film is not made for Star Trek fans." This line does not refer to a narrow demographic of fans, but rather "fans."

[Nerys Myk]

YARN wrote:

---

I think it has more to do with the panicky disavowal of Trek fans. JJ's fall back to "this film is not made for Star Trek fans." This line does not refer to a narrow demographic of fans, but rather "fans."

Disagree, it's aimed at the narrow group of fans who think they have an exclusive proprietary claim to Star Trek.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

YARN wrote:

---

I think it has more to do with the panicky disavowal of Trek fans. JJ's fall back to "this film is not made for Star Trek fans." This line does not refer to a narrow demographic of fans, but rather "fans."

Holy out-of-context, Batman.
You missed a word in your quote: "necessarily", as in "The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of 'Star Trek,' necessarily".

Here is the entire context of what he said about making the first film for more than just Star Trek fans:

Improving Star Trek means appealing to more than just the devoted Star Trek fan. "The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of 'Star Trek,' necessarily," said Abrams. "If you're a fan, we've got one of the writers who's a devout Trekker, so we were able to make sure we were serving the people who are completely enamored with 'Star Trek.' But we are not making the movie for that contingent alone."

Source:
http://www.trektoday.com/news/020508_01.shtml


I don't think you necessarily deliberately (overtly) left out that word, but I think in your mind, you so badly want Abrams to be this villain who has an agenda to stomp on 45 years of trek history that you actually think he said "this film is not made for Star Trek fans."

[Dale Sams]

King Daniel wrote:

---

He's right. One of the film's considered titles (and the one they're using in Russia) is Star Trek: Vengeance which sounds like just another Trek sequel. Star Trek Into Darkness sounds like they're doing something a little different.

Remember the poster for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which had "THE VOYAGE HOME" in huge letters with a tiny "star trek iv" underneath it, AND Kirk and Spock in civvies? Clearly they were ashamed of Star Trek as well!

All I know is that if I'm playing Chekov, you arn't putting me in pink.

http://whatculture.com/wp-content/up...ekfashion6.jpg

[Inline image converted to link. Please don't hotlink images not resident on your own web space or image-hosting account. - M']

[Jackson_Roykirk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

They've even found a way of getting the characters out of uniform. No doubt because the TOS uniforms are seen as too nerdy and they wanna aim for that wider audience .
Honestly, it feels like this film is doing just about anything possible to distance itself from resembling Star Trek.

You should go to Washington DC and work in politics as a spin doctor. You can take any situation and spin it in such a way that meets your purposes (or your pre-conceived notions).

If someone has an agenda to show how Abrams is crapping all over established Star Trek history, they will find fault in every tiny move Abrams makes by spinning it to suit their agenda.

King Daniel wrote:

---

Remember the poster for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which had "THE VOYAGE HOME" in huge letters with a tiny "star trek iv" underneath it, AND Kirk and Spock in civvies? Clearly they were ashamed of Star Trek as well!

That's the way, Daniel.
You DO understand the art of spin-doctoring.


************
EDIT TO ADD:

It isn't that hard to dig down and find problems with just about ANY Star Trek Film or TV show.

Heck, I think If TWoK was never made in 1982, and Abrams made it today instead -- shot for shot, word-for-word, even magically using the same actors as TWoK -- people who have this "thing" against Abrams would call him a hack for totally screwing with the character of Khan, saying things like:

"The Khan in TWoK is totally unrecognizable as the same character from 'Space Seed', except for the fact they were both played by Montalban"

And that would be a true statement. If Nick Meyer back in 1982 didn't use Montalban or call him "Khan", it would be very hard to see him as being the character from 'Space Seed'.
Some parts of the Star Trek fan base today would crucify Abrams for changing an established character like that.

It would probably go something like this:

"Abrams and his writers are hacks. They took the hyper-intelligent ruler of billions who has a focused and
calm mind from 'Space Seed' and turned him into a madman hell bent on revenge. What happened to his
focus of mind? How could this raving lunatic have ever been a ruler of billions?"

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kevin W. wrote:

---

Obviously I wasn't talking about myself specifically. Don't be ridiculous.

The statement you made is ridiculous unless you're including yourself, specifically.

Star Trek isn't and never has been "great science fiction" by the standards of the print sf being published at any given time in its production history. At the time that it was launched in the late 1960s it represented a dramatically simplified version of prose science fiction as it had existed about twenty years earlier, and it's been falling further behind ever since.

Yeah, I think first-generation TOS fans are more likely to accept and enjoy Abrams's movies than some younger folks partly for the reason Jackson Roykirk describes: we've watched Star Trek evolve into what it is one episode, one movie at a time. To some extent we participated in building it - or, at least, in constructing our expectations of it.

Even the majority of the TOS-onlies who are vociferously opposed to nuTrek seem to be folks who were born in the 1960s or 1970s and who encountered and absorbed TOS as a preexisting fait accompli.

Me, I've waited since 1969 or thereabouts for someone to make a movie actually based directly on the TV series I watched in junior high, and Abrams finally has done it.

[Donald Draper]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

But, I suppose, if you're expecting something like TNG, the new movie might come as something as a shock. As I've said before, the reboot added a bit of a rock-n-roll vibe to a franchise that was starting to feel like chamber music . . .

I like that analogy. I grew up with reruns of TOS and the movies on TV at the same time TNG. But even I was too young to watch religiously when it first was on. I probably see Trek just a little more from a TNG pov. But my enjoyment of the new movie has grown since it can out, remembering what Star Trek really started out as.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Believe me, Thursday night after NBC ran "The Doomsday Machine" for the first time none of us kids gathered to watch it had any thought of discussing utopias, the Prime Directive or anybody's grand "vision of the future." We were just on a sugar high, metaphorically and literally (nobody under 30 drank diet soda in those days.)

[YARN]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Holy out-of-context, Batman.
You missed a word in your quote: "necessarily", as in "The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of 'Star Trek,' necessarily".

Here is the entire context of what he said about making the first film for more than just Star Trek fans:

Source:
http://www.trektoday.com/news/020508_01.shtml


I don't think you necessarily deliberately (overtly) left out that word, but I think in your mind, you so badly want Abrams to be this villain who has an agenda to stomp on 45 years of trek history that you actually think he said "this film is not made for Star Trek fans."

Actually, I was thinking of another quotation from the New JJ Abrams interview thread:

"This movie was not made for 'Star Trek' fans; it was made for movie fans."

He does go on to say

"But if you're a 'Star Trek' fan, I think you'll be really happy"

but this is yet another instance of ghettoizing traditional fans. The prioritization is clear. The film is not made for Star Trek fans, but "movie fans," however, even though the film is not targeted at Star Trek fans, they should like it too.

I wonder what it would be like for a James Bond film to be billed as not made for James Bond fans or if Serenity were billed as not for Firefly fans or if a Star Wars films was billed as "not for Star Wars fans."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/169...j-abrams.jhtml

He is kinder in the citation you mention, but once again it is a rhetorical distinction separating us from them and assuring the casual theater goer that it is made for them.

[Dale Sams]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Believe me, Thursday night after NBC ran "The Doomsday Machine" for the first time none of us kids gathered to watch it had any thought of discussing utopias, the Prime Directive or anybody's grand "vision of the future." We were just on a sugar high, metaphorically and literally (nobody under 30 drank diet soda in those days.)

Ditto "The Night Stalker". And of course packs of kids running in slow motion going "nuhnuhnuhnuhnuhnuhnuh"...what do kids play today? "Glee"?

[BillJ]

YARN wrote:

---

I wonder what it would be like for a James Bond film to be billed as not made for James Bond fans or if Serenity were billed as not for Firefly fans or if a Star Wars films was billed as "not for Star Wars fans."

Well, Serenity was a box office bomb only generating a 39 million dollar worldwide gross.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm

After you factor in advertising and theater share, it lost a ton of money, much like Star Trek: Nemesis.

And I thought the whole reason they rebooted Bond was to give people a jumping on point in the franchise?

[Dale Sams]

BillJ wrote:

---

Well, Serenity was a box office bomb only generating a 39 million dollar worldwide gross.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm

After you factor in advertising and theater share, it lost a ton of money, much like Star Trek: Nemesis.

And I thought the whole reason they rebooted Bond was to give people a jumping on point in the franchise?

I think Bond's 'jumping on point', is more of a fictional construct. What really changes? There's some lip service...they use the first story, but that's really about it. It's certainly not like Bond Begins or anything.

[BillJ]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

I think Bond's 'jumping on point', is more of a fictional construct. What really changes? There's some lip service...they use the first story, but that's really about it. It's certainly not like Bond Begins or anything.

A movie doesn't have to be an origin story to provide people a jumping on point for a long-running franchise. It simply needs to strip the concept itself down to its basic components.

[UFO]

I would have thought the "jumping on point" for any Bond movie is buying a ticket.

[Dale Sams]

BillJ wrote:

---

A movie doesn't have to be an origin story to provide people a jumping on point for a long-running franchise. It simply needs to strip the concept itself down to its basic components.

I would (and I'm sure Bond fans love to hear this) call it 3/4rths The Bond Identity and 1/4rth Dalton's Bond.

But I still love it. And absolutely adore Casino Royale. Just so there's no confusion.