Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

I'm old enough to have watched TOS on NBC and I like nuTrek fine.

Yes, the so-called Prime Universe is over and done. We're moving on.

 

I started watching in 1975 during strip syndication and I like the Abrams films as well.

 

I would think a 5 would be the definition of lackluster, frankly.

See, I'd argue that the Yaeger Class is one of the reasons to abandon the Prime Universe altogether!

Yes, yes, you've made it quite clear in essentially every thread that you hate the nu-Movies, but you're making some pretty large leaps here, and perhaps unaware that IMDB's aggregate data voting only produces weighted means and a filter to avoid ballot stuffing. With that said, it means that 7.8 people out of 10 like Into Darkness, not necessarily that it's considered a better movie. You clearly fall in the 2.2 people who don't like it, and that's perfectly fine.

 

If you say so. But then I don't imagine you really know what smart writing is...

 

So we should ignore the next generation of fans? In the long run, capturing the "young fans" takes priority over catering to us old coots.

And what's wrong with rebooting things every generation or so? As you pointed out, it works for Batman, Spider-Man, Sherlock Holmes, Zorro, etc. So why not STAR TREK, too?

In general, it often seems as though the aversion to reboots comes down to generational chauvinism. "The old version was good enough for me, darn it! Kids these days don't know real STAR TREK when they see it!"

I mean, nobody is demanding that the next TARZAN movie return to the continuity of the old Johnny Weissmuller movies. Or that the next MUMMY reboot should pick up where the original Karloff movie left off!

And clearly I am not remotely a young fan!

 

Dammit! The only real Spider-Man was the one that drove a '64 Rambler and had a rotary phone!

 

So you know the ages of the 337,255 users who voted and what movies they've watched? Amazing.

Do I really think STID is superior to TWOK? No, but my singular opinion isn't what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the opinion of people who've seen the films and voted on IMDB. Based on the voting there, the films are close to even. The folks at Metacritic places them fairly close as well. Does that mean you have to change your mind? Nope. But it would appear the audience ( or least those voting on those sites) hold the films in near equal regard.

 

How many time s should we even reboot such a great property like Star Trek? The TOS universe had many great stories to tell with other crews both past and future. What is the sense of rebooting something and completely changing it and dumbing it down? Why not create a whole new science fiction franchise for the kids? George Lucas did it. Do you think they should reboot Star Wars now because the young kids can't relate to the original Star Wars Trilogy? NuStar NuTrek won't last and won't have the legacy of the old because the people playing the characters now will not want to do many more movies. The kids as you call them probably wont rush to see a television version of these characters being played by someone else and probably wont accept a new crew in the NuTrek universe either. Basically NuTrek will be short lived and will not spawn sequels or other television series with different crews as the original did. It will not have a 50 year lasting power.

IMDB allows multiple accounts and vote stuffing. Every hear of the Godfather, Shawshank Redemption and Dark Knight war over there? The other sites you mentioned have similar problems. The only solid fact is the last movie did not do as well as the first and the third will probably do even less business. I see the third being the last because some of the actors on NuTrek are at this point most likely starting to worry about being typecast.

Obviously I must have angered you to take such a ridiculous and sophomoric shot at me. Sorry you don't like different opinion but maybe your parents didn't teach you that is part of being a adult.

 

As many times as possible. Because it shows that people are still interested.

Those stories still exist. Nothing Abrams does can change that.

Because Star Trek has name value that draws general audiences.

Then you replace the actors. Other TV and movie franchises do it.

But they'll accept another generic crew on another generic starship with 50 years of continuity baggage?

You have to reinvent. Because without the youngsters, your franchise is dead in the water.

Who knows? Fifty-years is a long way off. I doubt anyone associated with Star Trek in the 1960's thought it would still be going in 2015.

 

Most of the 'young people' I know (the ones who would care enough about Star Trek to vote) were inspired to check out TWOK because of STID. That is, the ones who hadn't already seen it - which quiet a few had after getting into Trek via '09.

Every Star Trek series has been a reboot. New casts, new plot directions, new concepts, no direct plot threads from one to the other (unless you count the Marquis, which didn't exactly 'lead' anywhere). The TOS films themselves rebooted a reboot after TMP. There's a reason TWOK's promotion tried to pretend TMP didn't exist.

I was under the impression STID did the exact same business as '09, and managed to do so against more competition. Whilst that result was a dissappointment to the execs who wanted it to grow and had invested more money in the sequel, it's hardly proof of diminishing returns.

 

An infinite number of times Just like most long lived franchises. Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes...well the list is endless.

To tell new stories. As I told you before the changes made aren't that significant ( barely blip really). As for dumbing down? Been down that road too. The evidence supporting this accusation is slim at best.

Both ways are equally valid and George was "rebooting" Saturday morning serials with Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

Yes, Star Wars should and probably will be rebooted someday. I've no problem with that.

You've no idea what the future will bring. Right know the concentration is on movies using the TOS characters. And that may never change. We may never see spin offs like TNG, just new takes on TOS. I'm fine with that.

Could you use your powers to give me some lotto numbers?

 

Just wait. Fifteen years from now, people will be complaining that the new Kirk as nowhere is good as the one they grew up on. You know, the one played by Chris Pine . . .

 

I don't spend a lot of time on IMDB and don't care about the squabbles there.Cyke101's post would seem to dispute the ballot stuffing accusation.

The second film improved the on the international take of the last. That's important to the studio.

It the studio thinks the third one isn't quite what they want they might might hire some new people. I don't see them ending the franchise.

 

I think Lin and Pegg were brought in to give us a bit of a lighter outing after two rather dark films. Plus, there is precedent with The Voyage Home and Insurrection both coming after dark films.

 

It's funny. Back in 1982, I remember people complaining that THE WRATH OF KHAN had "dumbed down" STAR TREK because it wasn't as "cerebral" as TMP and had more action and violence.

And I remember people predicting that nobody would ever watch a STAR TREK tv show that didn't feature Kirk and Spock and Co. And then TNG came along.

Everything gets reinvented from time to time. STAR TREK is no exception.

 

Hope for the former!

 

Most definitely!

 

Coming in 2016: Star Trek Into Lightness.

Meanwhile, it's perhaps worth belaboring the fact that the choice of timeline doesn't determine the quality of a movie. We got good and bad and so-so movies out of the Prime Universe. We're bound to get good, bad, and so-so movies out of nuTrek or whatever version of STAR TREK comes next.

Continuity does not guarantee quality. "Spock's Brain" and "Turnabout Intruder" are both set int the Prime Universe. Doesn't help them one bit.

 

I love the new movies, and I've been a fan since September of 1966. Where are you getting your stats? Cites, please?