RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,908
Posts: 5,477,832
Members: 25,051
Currently online: 537
Newest member: GrammaticalFict

TrekToday headlines

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21


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 June 17 2013, 08:53 PM   #61
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Ovation wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

Rip off or not, I really enjoyed the "Into Darkness" take on the scene. Actually, I think the "Into Darkness" was the more emotionally resonant one.

Whether they ripped it off or not, they played it pitch perfect.
It's phoney emotionalism. The only reason it works is because people play back the scene from Khan in their heads. It doesn't stand on its own, nor does it suit a story of two glorified cadets who have barely really gotten to bond.
Really? So the people I've talked to who've never seen WOK (yes, there are quite a number of such people--many of whom have seen the latest Trek film) who found the scene compelling--they're what, lying? The scene may not work for you, but you are hardly the arbiter of what works for everyone else.

As for "barely really gotten to bond", how the hell would you know? I "bonded" with my two best friends within weeks of meeting them--to the point where I would have sacrificed just about anything for either of them then (more so today). Kirk and Spock have been "out there" well more than a few weeks and have experienced any number of "bonding moments" to which you are not privy. Who are you to decide how well they've "bonded"? You can decide you don't find it is compellingly portrayed, of course, but your attempt at arbitrarily fixing the amount of time necessary to bond is rather flimsy.

Yea, STID is set 1 year after ST'09.

I think most great bonds are formed well before 1 year in the trenches together. Matter of fact, most great bonds are formed pretty early in a relationship.

I can't imagine a Captain and First Officer who haven't formed a great bond within a year serving together will ever form a great bond.
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 12:37 AM   #62
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Cadet49 wrote: View Post
Trek had lost some of that "adventure" element over time ... it became about politics, and diplomatic negotiations that get interrupted, or studying quasars, or preventing a war through impassioned speeches ... all of which were important elements of TOS, but they weren't the core focus, in my opinion - the focus was on exploring, and bizarre or unusual sci-fi adventures!
Unfortunately that gets old and dry real fast. They were already running out of ideas in TOS, and after TNG that was 10 years of episodic stuff. It didn't leave much for VOY and ENT to work with.

throwback wrote: View Post
The argument in favor of a reboot is dealt a serious blow I think when the writers have to resurrect scenes from a older movie to complete their new movie.
No, it's not. Just because you think your franchise needs a reboot doesn't mean you don't get to play with its past a bit.

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Personally, I found the STID version had no emotional resonance since the entire time I'm thinking of "Wow, they're doing this? Seriously?"
Maybe thinking that was the cause of you finding no emotional resonance in it. Just a thought.

mos6507 wrote: View Post
It's phoney emotionalism. The only reason it works is because people play back the scene from Khan in their heads. It doesn't stand on its own, nor does it suit a story of two glorified cadets who have barely really gotten to bond.
I'm sorry but that's just not true.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 12:49 AM   #63
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Hugh Mann wrote: View Post
If a movie requires you to watch it several times before you like it, then it's a crap movie.
That's so silly I had to take a few seconds to reboot my mind before answering. Seriously ? Many movies you'll like LESS after watching more than once. Does that make it a great movie ? I'd rather a movie that grows on me, like many Trek movies, than movies that I appreciate less and less, like The Dark Knight.

Your comparisons are meaningless since you compared unlike things--a movie is neither a drink nor a song.
Yeah, but by that logic NO comparison can ever work, because you necessarily compare things that aren't each other. Otherwise it's not a comparison.

I'll add my own example: music. Music is the kind of thing that grows on you over years. You can find a piece of music quite mediocre on the first listen, but ten years down the road you love it. Movies can also be like that.

wjaspers wrote: View Post
Bullshit. You do not rewrite/reboot Mozart-Bach-Beatles-Elvis, just to please new fans.
That's not what he said. He said you can rearrange a franchise to make the product more marketable, while retaining enough of its original "spirit" to appeal to the old guard.

You not became a trekkie because the show was cool.
I did.

The only reason why I watch movies and television is because I want to be entertained. Thinking, I can do on my own, and I don't need anyone to try to imprint morality onto my brain. Trek should stick to entertainment.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 12:57 AM   #64
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Belz... wrote: View Post
Thinking, I can do on my own, and I don't need anyone to try to imprint morality onto my brain. Trek should stick to entertainment.
I don't know about you, but people in bright pajamas are usually the last folks I take morality lessons from.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 12:57 AM   #65
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

BillJ wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Thinking, I can do on my own, and I don't need anyone to try to imprint morality onto my brain. Trek should stick to entertainment.
I don't know about you, but people in bright pajamas are usually the last folks I take morality lessons from.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 08:24 AM   #66
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Yea, STID is set 1 year after ST'09.

I think most great bonds are formed well before 1 year in the trenches together. Matter of fact, most great bonds are formed pretty early in a relationship.

I can't imagine a Captain and First Officer who haven't formed a great bond within a year serving together will ever form a great bond.
I think NKirk and NSpock's relationship is "barbed" as opposed to being shallow. NKirk and NSpock have bonded in the fact that NKirk avenged the destruction of Vulcan, which NSpock is grateful for. The two of them have a prickly relationship, however, because NSpock is trying to do things by the book and NKirk is fully willing to engage in criminal activity as long as it's for the greater good. Falsifying documents goes above and beyond what should be expected from bending the book and OKirk would have beaten the crap out of his younger self for that (or phasered him on stun).

They're friends but Kirk is the guy who wants to cheat on a test (and, in fact, is literally that guy).
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 11:42 AM   #67
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Belz,

I am flattered that you thought to include some of what I had written back on page 2. However, I have a question. Did you read my complete post, or did you latch onto the first sentence and ignore the rest?

I do not find fault with people rebooting a franchise. I have come to accept that this is the normal in today's Hollywood. My issue is with how it was done for Star Trek: Into Darkness. This issue is shared by others, so I am not alone in my opinion.

In my post, I mention two films - Batman and The Dark Knight. (I erred when I wrote The Dark Knight Rises; this was the film I meant.) Both films involved Batman's arch nemesis, the Joker. These films, however, went different directions with the history and depiction of the Joker. They were successful films for their day. More importantly for our discussion, the director and writers of The Dark Knight didn't feel the need to lift whole scenes from the first film, so that they could alter them to meet the demands of the new film.
I believe this is the sin that the director and writers of Star Trek: Into Darkness committed.

I won't be wading into the discussion about whether or not Kirk and Spock were friends. I don't have enough personal experience in that arena to make a qualitative judgement on their friendship.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 08:36 PM   #68
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

throwback wrote: View Post
The Dark Knight didn't feel the need to lift whole scenes from the first film, so that they could alter them to meet the demands of the new film.
I believe this is the sin that the director and writers of Star Trek: Into Darkness committed.
I wonder about that:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/33...knight-trailer

I concede the obvious that this meant to be humorous, and trailers =/= film. However, that doesn't diminish its significance. Nolan borrowed plenty of visual cues from Batman to create visual parallelism. I could write up a whole long analysis with screencaps and the whole works, but it'd just be a waste of time. I think the video is enough to make the point. He didn't use dialog, but it was unnecessary and would have just been superfluous.

I will also add that TDKR was bloated with both visual and verbal cues from his previous two films.

In Abrams case, the dialog was important because it added clarity and weight to the scene and its thematic significance. Without the familiar lines, the two-way mirror is just a pane of glass. Non the less, the visual juxtaposition is still the primary component here because, in motion pictures, the picture is ALWAYS the central artistic element.

It's pretty nearly impossible to find a film--any film--made within the last 60 years that didn't lift a scene, visual, or line of dialog from someplace else. TWOK, I might add, had plenty of all three. This is the reality of the art form.

I think people are so upset over the radiation scene because they believe it infringes upon something they hold beloved and sacred. I'm sure there was a literary scholar or two who, after leaving the theatre in 1982, introduced palm to face.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 09:55 PM   #69
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

throwback wrote: View Post
Belz,

I am flattered that you thought to include some of what I had written back on page 2.
That was a few days ago. Page number doesn't matter. It's not like it's a three year-old post. Anyway, you're welcome.

However, I have a question. Did you read my complete post, or did you latch onto the first sentence and ignore the rest?
No, I read it. Why ?

I do not find fault with people rebooting a franchise. I have come to accept that this is the normal in today's Hollywood.
I have come to accept it, also. I understand why it's sometimes necessary, though often I think they are overdoing it. There's no arguing with the financial success of the strategy, however.

My issue is with how it was done for Star Trek: Into Darkness. This issue is shared by others, so I am not alone in my opinion.
My issue was not with your opinion that this bothers you, but that it somehow tears down the reboot argument. Trek wasn't rebooted because they ran out of ideas and had to reboot, because then they'd still be out of ideas (and I'm sure many could make the argument that they actually are.) Star Trek was rebooted to make it more accessible to new viewers. Re-using old villains, mirroring scenes or plots from old movies or shows, etc. does not work against this idea.

These films, however, went different directions with the history and depiction of the Joker. They were successful films for their day.
I believe we can say that Into Darkness did something very different with the few elements it re-used. It's my opinion that people are taking what is an admittedly important but short moment of the film and blowing it out of proportion.

More importantly for our discussion, the director and writers of The Dark Knight didn't feel the need to lift whole scenes from the first film, so that they could alter them to meet the demands of the new film.
They could have, though. That they didn't was a choice, not an indication that doing so was a bad idea.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2013, 03:17 AM   #70
slappy
Commodore
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

I like the reboot, but I honestly think that a smartly written film/tv show could accomplish everything Trek 09 did without a reboot. If you think about it TNG did just that.
__________________

slappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2013, 03:19 AM   #71
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

slappy wrote: View Post
I like the reboot, but I honestly think that a smartly written film/tv show could accomplish everything Trek 09 did without a reboot. If you think about it TNG did just that.
Problem is you completely eliminate any thrills from seeing Kirk and Spock in danger because you know they go on to work on the Enterprise for another thirty years.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2013, 03:49 AM   #72
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

BillJ wrote: View Post
Problem is you completely eliminate any thrills from seeing Kirk and Spock in danger because you know they go on to work on the Enterprise for another thirty years.
A coworker of mine who wasn't really into Trek said he was amazed by how his wife would get so pulled into a Trek episode because of its teaser, knowing full well that the main crew would never die (save Tasha, of course). Sometimes people go into things knowing the outcome and they just don't care except for how it's told, hence adaptations of books or other various prequels. I'm not sure if anyone really expects Kirk and Spock to die for good, reboot or not. It'd be interesting if they did, but I just don't see it unless that's the end.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2013, 02:44 PM   #73
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Star Trek was in critical condition and on life-support. JJ Abrams saved Star Trek and there is no doubt about it. His movies have been a breath of fresh air and they rekindled what it felt like to watch Star Trek for the first time once again.
__________________
My Science Fiction-Fantasy movie review Blog: http://foleyfunfilmfacts.wordpress.com/
Gojira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 03:17 AM   #74
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

I think that JJ Abrams has stabilized the patient; however, the future is still murky and it is still too early to say if he saved the franchise. This film made significant in-roads on the foreign market front, yet it struggled with the 18 to 24 demographic. For the franchise to succeed, it needs to make itself appealable to this demographic.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 09:56 AM   #75
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

I do believe that's a realistic way of putting it.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
star trek reboot

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 04:20 AM.

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