Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[T'Cal]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Read the novels! 24th century Trek never went away, and the current stories have a better hit/miss ratio than the TV shows did.

Sound advice for most but I just don't have the time. I do, however, enjoy audiobooks and have about three dozen Trek ones but they stopped making them a while ago. Too bad. I'd be listening to anything TNG (Titan included) and I'd probably give DS9 and VOY a try as well. For some strange reason, iTunes has Titan novels in German only. Crazy.

Thanks!

[Ryan8bit]

I think anything in the 24th century following Voyager was somewhat ruined. A lot by "Endgame", but also DS9 changed a lot of things and set a lot of expectations. Every viewer would be wondering about the Dominion, but that shouldn't be a focus of Star Trek anymore.

[Shazam!]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

WOK is conceptually weak. Its entire plot teeters over a massive chasm of contrivance. It relies heavily on wizardry to create (and resolve) conflict. And the wishy-washy theme stumbles in several parts to the inevitable point where the conceit contradicts the set-up.

Trek XI is conceptually weak. It's entire plot teeters over a massive chasm of contrivance. It relies heavily on wizardry to create (and resolve) conflict. And the wishy-washy theme stumbles in several parts to the inevitable point where the conceit contradicts the set-up.

[CorporalClegg]

Shazam! wrote:

---

Trek XI is conceptually weak. It's entire plot teeters over a massive chasm of contrivance. It relies heavily on wizardry to create (and resolve) conflict. And the wishy-washy theme stumbles in several parts to the inevitable point where the conceit contradicts the set-up.

First, you're doing wrong. If you're going to troll, at least do it right. Jesus.

Second, you missed the point of the entire exercise. But then again, you didn't read it.

[YARN]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

Second, you missed the point of the entire exercise. But then again, you didn't read it.

You mean your geological rant? You're punny.

[Franklin]

Take the two most popular Trek movies in general. TWOK is a thirty year old movie. TVH is over twenty-five. When I paid money to see them in the theater when they were released, I walked out feeling thoroughly entertained. My friends and I would talk about the good and bad parts, then decide when we could get together to see them again.
Now, when I watch TWOK for maybe the twentieth time, parts can get tiresome. Heck, I'm thirty years older, too, and I'm bringing a different perspective to the movie every time I view it. Few things ever become timeless. That TWOK or TVH still provides any enetertainment value at all is probably amazing.

All I know is TWOK and TVH, flaws and all, have stood the test of time better than a lot of the music I listened to in the early and mid-1980s. "Classic Rock" my ass.

[Ovation]

There's your first mistake. "Classic Rock" is NOT from the 1980s. It is, of course, from the 1970s.

[Dale Sams]

I want to point out also that as very very good that Trek 2009 is...a large part of it is its budget, and the ability of Abrams to use his budget of course. But watch it again, man....look at all those great shots and locales!!

Shatner couldn't even get some damn rock creatures for TFF.

[Dale Sams]

Franklin wrote:

---

Take the two most popular Trek movies in general. TWOK is a thirty year old movie. TVH is over twenty-five. When I paid money to see them in the theater when they were released, I walked out feeling thoroughly entertained. My friends and I would talk about the good and bad parts, then decide when we could get together to see them again.
Now, when I watch TWOK for maybe the twentieth time, parts can get tiresome. Heck, I'm thirty years older, too, and I'm bringing a different perspective to the movie every time I view it. Few things ever become timeless. That TWOK or TVH still provides any enetertainment value at all is probably amazing.

All I know is TWOK and TVH, flaws and all, have stood the test of time better than a lot of the music I listened to in the early and mid-1980s. "Classic Rock" my ass.

Well, a lot better than '80's movies' too, but there's a lot of good about new wave. Watch URGH! A MUSIC WAR. ****ing Nicki Minaj only wishes she could be so innovative.

[Nerys Myk]

Ovation wrote:

---

There's your first mistake. "Classic Rock" is NOT from the 1980s. It is, of course, from the 1970s.

You're both wrong. "Classic Rock" is from the 1960s.

[SalvorHardin]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

You're both wrong. "Classic Rock" is from the 1960s.

Damn old people. You can't even remember the right decade. Make up your minds.

[Nerys Myk]

Get off my lawn!!!!!

[Dale Sams]

By the way...since this seems to be the catch-all' talk about Trek 2009 thread...Having just watched the film again. I figured out what I like most about it.

My biggest complaint about modern cinema and TV is the death of the normal-looking/ugly character actor.

The cast of Trek 2009? That is one bunch of normal, almost ugly looking fellas. with the exception of Uhura of course. Pine is weird though. You see him in publicity photos and he's almost stunningly good-looking, but the film showed him in all his pock-marked glory.

Congrats also to Abrams for getting very good jobs out of Hemsworth, Cross, Greenwood and even Ryder.

[King Daniel into Darkness]

Ugly? Fanlore.org dubbed them GQMFers!

fanlore.org wrote:

---

GQMF stands for GQ motherfucker: a gorgeous, talented, kick-ass, all-around awesome humanoid being who would not look out of place on the cover of GQ magazine.

Well... maybe not Scotty...

[M'Sharak]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Ugly? Fanlore.org dubbed them GQMFers!

I'm pretty sure that originated at ontd_startrek, but I could be mistaken. Was all over there by end of May/early June 2009, anyway.