RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,168
Posts: 5,344,828
Members: 24,601
Currently online: 583
Newest member: Capt_n_Admiral

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 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 TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 9 2013, 06:20 PM   #121
BeatleJWOL
Commander
 
BeatleJWOL's Avatar
 
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Send a message via AIM to BeatleJWOL Send a message via Yahoo to BeatleJWOL
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

T'Bonz wrote: View Post
I want the parachuting Spock!
Clearly Abrams and company jumped the gun not having Spock parachute into the volcano...
BeatleJWOL is offline  
Old June 10 2013, 09:56 AM   #122
Kirk1980
Fleet Captain
 
Kirk1980's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Send a message via AIM to Kirk1980 Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Kirk1980 Send a message via Yahoo to Kirk1980
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Ignore it? Yeah, pretty much. People enjoy the new Trek stuff. I don't like it and think it's pretty much compost. But it doesn't bother me that people like it these days. If the people who like it end up watching more of TOS as a result then... well, bravo
__________________
Live in the Connecticut/SW Massachusetts area? Need a tutor for you or your kids? PM me!

Let's see what's out there...
Kirk1980 is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 01:00 AM   #123
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

To the creator of this thread:

Thank you.

Thank you for not saying racist and sexist things about nuUhura.

Thank you for not calling me a "moron".

Thank you for not calling me "not a true fan".

Thank you for not saying I've "never watched Star Trek".

Thank you for not complaining that physical models should be used instead of cgi models.

Thank you for not making stuff up.

Thank you.

I want a parachuting Spock.
newtontomato539 is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 01:17 AM   #124
DCR
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Wentworth Hall, Tellus of Sol
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

ATimson wrote: View Post
DCR wrote: View Post
For me, the casting was for the most part good, but not perfect. I liked Karl Urban the most, and Simon Pegg the least.
I used to agree with you; however, the more I thought about it, the more I think my problems with Scotty lay with the script and not with Simon Pegg. Into Darkness only furthered that theory, since I liked his role there.
You may have a very good point there (I haven't seen Into Darkness yet, so I can't comment on it). However, whether it's the script or the performance that's the underlying cause, and I'm perfectly willing to believe it's the script, I still have to say that I did not enjoy the interpretation of Scotty I saw in the 2009 film.

newtontomato539 wrote: View Post
To the creator of this thread:

Thank you.

Thank you for not saying racist and sexist things about nuUhura.

Thank you for not calling me a "moron".

Thank you for not calling me "not a true fan".

Thank you for not saying I've "never watched Star Trek".

Thank you for not complaining that physical models should be used instead of cgi models.

Thank you for not making stuff up.

Thank you.

I want a parachuting Spock.
I think we all want a parachuting Spock.

And you're absolutely right, there are more than enough real things to like or dislike about the 2009 reboot that no one should have to resort to making stuff up.

I guess it's a side-effect of the idea that everything has to be justified. I don't get it, why can't people either like or dislike things just because they don't appeal to them? There's nothing wrong with saying that you don't care for something without making any judgments of its quality.
DCR is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 04:21 AM   #125
Sector 7
Rear Admiral
 
Sector 7's Avatar
 
Location: McCrory/Hitler's Republic of North Carolina
Send a message via AIM to Sector 7
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Wow! Thanks for the memories, KingDaniel... I had one of these!!

To answer the OP:

No, you are not alone.
Yes, I believe the new Star Trek movies ARE Star Trek.
Yes, I grew up on TOS. I was introduced to Trek through The Animated Series, then reruns of TOS.
Yes, I enjoyed all the other series, except DS9 [Because of a personal reason, I was never willing to give it a chance... and because I prefer episodic television over long story arcs.]
__________________
“When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.” -Pres. Obama
"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon." -Pres. Clinton
Sector 7 is offline  
Old June 13 2013, 04:49 AM   #126
AllStarEntprise
Captain
 
AllStarEntprise's Avatar
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?



Hey kids be sure to tell your parents to buy you Sugar Smacks cereal.
AllStarEntprise is offline  
Old June 14 2013, 06:13 PM   #127
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Sector 7 wrote: View Post
Yes, I enjoyed all the other series, except DS9 [Because of a personal reason, I was never willing to give it a chance...]
Oh, come on, you've got to elaborate that.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline  
Old June 14 2013, 07:36 PM   #128
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
Star Trek WAS originally aimed at adults.

It was picked up by kids (like me, Generation X) in reruns.
The figures didn't come along until 1975, but Gold Key began publishing Star Trek comic books (which the Parachuting Spock box borrows art from) in 1967. They were most definitely not aimed at adults.

Trek was a family show.
I wouldn't call it a family show, but there were elements that as a kid I liked. ( fights, spaceships, aliens) GR intent was to do a SF spin on Adult Westerns ( Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Have Gun Will Travel) and "free" the genre from the kiddieland ghetto.
I wonder: has anyone ever gotten hooked on Trek as an adult, or did we all catch the bug when we were kids?

I was probably seven when I first caught "Mantrap" on NBC. Been a Trekkie ever since . . ..
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline  
Old June 14 2013, 08:50 PM   #129
CaptJimboJones
Vice Admiral
 
CaptJimboJones's Avatar
 
Location: Hotlanta
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
The figures didn't come along until 1975, but Gold Key began publishing Star Trek comic books (which the Parachuting Spock box borrows art from) in 1967. They were most definitely not aimed at adults.

Trek was a family show.
I wouldn't call it a family show, but there were elements that as a kid I liked. ( fights, spaceships, aliens) GR intent was to do a SF spin on Adult Westerns ( Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Have Gun Will Travel) and "free" the genre from the kiddieland ghetto.
I wonder: has anyone ever gotten hooked on Trek as an adult, or did we all catch the bug when we were kids?

I was probably seven when I first caught "Mantrap" on NBC. Been a Trekkie ever since . . ..

I did watch the show as a kid, but completely ignored it in my teens and 20s - I returned and started watching again when I was in my early 30s or so. Not sure if that counts ...
__________________
"Do not fear mistakes. There are none." - Miles Davis
CaptJimboJones is offline  
Old June 16 2013, 02:34 PM   #130
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post

I wonder: has anyone ever gotten hooked on Trek as an adult, or did we all catch the bug when we were kids?

I was probably seven when I first caught "Mantrap" on NBC. Been a Trekkie ever since . . ..
Well, I don't want to make you feel old (even though I'm an old man now....) but the answer to your question in my case is "yes". I was born a little less than four years after that first airing of "The Man Trap", and the original NBC run of TOS is the only part of of Star Trek that I was not there for when it was new.
RandyS is offline  
Old June 16 2013, 03:55 PM   #131
Athena28
Commodore
 
Athena28's Avatar
 
Location: The City that Never Sleeps, New York City, NY USA
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

I don't ignore it, but don't feel about it the way I do the older stuff. I watch it but not as the Star Trek I know & love.
Athena28 is offline  
Old July 11 2014, 06:22 AM   #132
ralfy
Lieutenant
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Yet you'll find few fans talking about the FX - have a read through the XI+ forum. I've read hundreds of comments about the crew, their interactions and the drone weapon allegory.
The fact that you have a "few fans talking about the FX" proves my argument.

You never answered me in the Future of Trek thread - do you similarly dislike Wrath of Khan? It has very similar nitpicky complaints and plot holes your articles point out in Into Darkness, like the Reliant somehow confusing Ceti Alpha VI for V (when V exploded, leaving the system without a sixth planet), Khan remembering Chekov who hadn't yet joined the crew, Kirk's overwhelming incompetence (if he'd raised the shields when he should have, Khan's entire scheme would have failed), victory hinging on Khan failing to understand the worst code of all time ("Hours will seem like days"), and Khan somehow not realizing that space is a three-dimensional battleground (which is frankly impossible to believe for a layman, let alone a character with a supposed superior intellect). Not to mention the Genesis Device which briefly elevated Federation science to the level of Q and somehow turned a nebula into a planet, completely unlike it's earlier stated programming.
I did not argue that I dislike Wrath, and I think it's a lot better than the new ST. Reasons are given in various reviews, but I think the one that stands out does not involve plot holes but heavy reliance on spectacular reliance on action scenes. The same problems appear in various sci-fi and even superhero movies today.
ralfy is offline  
Old July 11 2014, 06:36 AM   #133
JimZipCode
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

CrazyMatt wrote: View Post
Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?
Yep.

Don't get me wrong: I've seen them. #2 had some good stuff in them.

But it certainly isn't Star Trek. On the AV Club comment threads, when Zach Handlen was reviewing TOS, we called #1 "Star Trek 90210". That's how I think of them.
JimZipCode is offline  
Old July 11 2014, 06:55 AM   #134
Last Redshirt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Last Redshirt's Avatar
 
Location: On the Starship Enterprise
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

I've seen the Lensflare Universe movies but I just can't get into them like I can with the Prime Universe stuff. It's hard to explain, but, I just feel like it's a bastardization of Star Trek. It gets the concepts of the characters, it has a ship called the Enterprise, but, it just doesn't feel like Trek.
Last Redshirt is offline  
Old July 11 2014, 07:02 AM   #135
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

JimZipCode wrote: View Post
CrazyMatt wrote: View Post
Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?
On the AV Club comment threads, when Zach Handlen was reviewing TOS, we called #1 "Star Trek 90210". That's how I think of them.
Which still seems awfully silly to me, frankly. Who had the romantic drama? Two consenting adults, not high school teenagers. And it was only two of them. And in a nice twist to convention, Kirk was the third wheel. There was no competition whatsoever, and Kirk and Spock never dueled for anyone's affections.
__________________
“You do not use science in order to prove yourself right, you use science in order to become right.”
Cyke101 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:12 AM.

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