Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

mos6507 wrote:

---

There isn't any sort of vandalist deconstruction that will be able to take that away.

Since no one is doing the first or trying to do the second it's not a concern that need be addressed.

[BillJ]

mos6507 wrote:

---

I agree with you that the TNG era went off the rails. At best, it was watchable, not must-watch TV. I don't agree with you that the nu-Trek approach was the right solution. I think it's possible to hate how Berman and Braga slowly ground the franchise to dust while not welcoming JJ Abrams and his lens-flare with open arms. All they really needed to do was find a better steward of the franchise without having to pass the ball to someone who saw Trek itself as something that was broken and needed a hip-hop ADD do-over.

The problem with what your saying is that J.J. Abrams didn't have twenty-six, or even thirteen, episodes to hook the audience on Star Trek 2009. He had two hours and likely a laundry list of things that had to be accomplished in that time frame...

• Reset the universe.
• Do origins for Kirk and Spock.
• Introduce the minor characters.
• Introduce the Enterprise.
• Have Kirk as the Captain by the end of the film.
• Plus introduce a villain and give us a reason for the events to unfold.

Are there things I'd do differently? Sure! I loathe the Academy section of the film for a bunch of reasons I won't go into. But I thought both the Kelvin and Enterprise sections of the film were well done with a couple of nitpicks. I thought Abrams did a competent job directing and thought only Pegg and Saldana felt wrong for the roles they were given.

When they were actually making this film there was no guarantee of a sequel, so they had to make it count. And I think for the most part they did.

[AloriaDax]

I'm gonna say no for extremely selfish reasons. I like Star Trek perfectly the way it was. My whole life has been all about Star Trek and now I could give a shit about the "NuTrek" that has been coming out. I am not at all looking forward to the new movie and it pisses me off to no end that JJ Abrams is doing Star Trek now even though he was never a fan before. I know that in order to get more fans a reboot was necessary, but to be honest, I don't care about new fans. I want my Star Trek to be the way it always was. I don't want or care for this "NuTrek", it means nothing to me.

[The Stig]

AloriaDax wrote:

---

I'm gonna say no for extremely selfish reasons. I like Star Trek perfectly the way it was. My whole life has been all about Star Trek and now I could give a shit about the "NuTrek" that has been coming out. I am not at all looking forward to the new movie and it pisses me off to no end that JJ Abrams is doing Star Trek now even though he was never a fan before. I know that in order to get more fans a reboot was necessary, but to be honest, I don't care about new fans. I want my Star Trek to be the way it always was. I don't want or care for this "NuTrek", it means nothing to me.

Shatner has a few words for you.

[BillJ]

AloriaDax wrote:

---

I'm gonna say no for extremely selfish reasons. I like Star Trek perfectly the way it was. My whole life has been all about Star Trek and now I could give a shit about the "NuTrek" that has been coming out. I am not at all looking forward to the new movie and it pisses me off to no end that JJ Abrams is doing Star Trek now even though he was never a fan before. I know that in order to get more fans a reboot was necessary, but to be honest, I don't care about new fans. I want my Star Trek to be the way it always was. I don't want or care for this "NuTrek", it means nothing to me.

One way to look at it is that there was never going to be new movies/TV set in the Prime timeline. So you have a complete story and need not worry about the Abramsverse.

[SeerSGB]

AloriaDax wrote:

---

I'm gonna say no for extremely selfish reasons. I like Star Trek perfectly the way it was. My whole life has been all about Star Trek and now I could give a shit about the "NuTrek" that has been coming out. I am not at all looking forward to the new movie and it pisses me off to no end that JJ Abrams is doing Star Trek now even though he was never a fan before. I know that in order to get more fans a reboot was necessary, but to be honest, I don't care about new fans. I want my Star Trek to be the way it always was. I don't want or care for this "NuTrek", it means nothing to me.

Bolding, mine.

I've always been curious about that POV in fandom (really any Fandom, not just Trek). Would the person rather the franchise whether and die out than be retooled and retold for new generations?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, really.

The old version was done. There's no difference between just not paying attention to Abrams's movies and those movies not existing. So why be upset?

[The Keeper]

The Stig wrote:

---

Shatner has a few words for you.

Try to relax?

[lurok]

It's only a movie?

[AloriaDax]

SeerSGB wrote:

---

Bolding, mine.

I've always been curious about that POV in fandom (really any Fandom, not just Trek). Would the person rather the franchise whether and die out that be retooled and retold for new generations?

To answer your question: The franchise would never die out to me because I have the DVDs to watch over and over so it would always be a part of my life. And I think it is that way with a lot of people. It will always be a part of their lives. They will teach their children to love it. It wouldn't die out if they didn't make any more movies. I don't believe that at all.

[Dale Sams]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Yeah, really.

The old version was done. There's no difference between just not paying attention to Abrams's movies and those movies not existing. So why be upset?

Exactly and AGAIN...it's 6-10 frigging hours in an 'alternate timeline'. Big frigging deal. To use a baseball analogy, it's not like NuTrek is blocking any Trek on the farm. On the contrary, the existance of NuTrek will accelerate any plans to make a new TV series.

[The Keeper]

To answer your question: The franchise would never die out to me because I have the DVDs to watch over and over so it would always be a part of my life. And I think it is that way with a lot of people. It will always be a part of their lives. They will teach their children to love it. It wouldn't die out if they didn't make any more movies. I don't believe that at all.

*stated in 'cough'* Con-tri-dict-ion. Then why are you so pissed? Go live happily ever after with your DVDs, right?

[SeerSGB]

AloriaDax wrote:

---

To answer your question: The franchise would never die out to me because I have the DVDs to watch over and over so it would always be a part of my life. And I think it is that way with a lot of people. It will always be a part of their lives. They will teach their children to love it. It wouldn't die out if they didn't make any more movies. I don't believe that at all.

Oh it'd die out. It already was losing relevance to younger generations--hence the reboot. Star Trek is a product--no matter how much we enjoy it--and if the product doesn't sell they don't make anymore of it.

[Noname Given]

DalekJim wrote:

---

People in this thread are acting like TNG was some obscure cult show but it's actually one of the most famous TV shows ever aired. By any measure it was more successful than TOS. A genuine pop culture phenomena when it aired and still widely beloved today. Among young folk, TOS is thought of as the goofy predecessor to real Trek.

Except TNG fans tend to forget that without TOS and the TOS films - TNG WOUULD NEVER have been made. And personally, TNG Season 1 was TERRIBLE all around. When it was in first run syndication trhe station showing first run TNG episodes in my area sandwiched them between two TOS episodes (IE one aired prior to TNG and one aired afterwards.)

Yes, TNG did manage to survive and gain a following; but if not for TOS, it may not have.

[Franklin]

AloriaDax wrote:

---

To answer your question: The franchise would never die out to me because I have the DVDs to watch over and over so it would always be a part of my life. And I think it is that way with a lot of people. It will always be a part of their lives. They will teach their children to love it. It wouldn't die out if they didn't make any more movies. I don't believe that at all.

Your opinion has a sort of, "You kids and your modern music!" ring to it, but you have a perfectly legitimate point of view. If I hadn't liked ST09, or Abrams had taken it in what I thought was a ridiculous direction (female Scotty, or whatever), I probably wouldn't have been interested in it, either. I may have thought it more of an opportunity lost rather than not caring at all, though.
But I happened to like ST09 a lot, and so far the next movie sounds intriguing, too. So -- .

BTW, have you seen ST09? It's not clear from your post. If you didn't like it, you're hardly alone here.