STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS - Page 7

CDR6 · December 28 2009, 04:36 AM

Dusty Ayres wrote:

Yup, yet another blogger with an ax to grind about the new movie as usual:

Of all the holies in the geek realm, Star Trek was a major pillar of geek culture. Before George Lucas combined the works of Frank Herbert, J.R.R. Tokein and Akira Kurosawa to create Star Wars, geeks pored over the original Trek episodes with the fine tooth combs of their intellect, piecing together the facts and events to create a history and time line, a canon that was adhered to strictly. Books and fanfic expanded on the original, three-year run, conventions were created and attended. The minutiae of the Trek universe were obsessively cataloged and dwelled upon by fans the world over. You weren't any kind of a Trek fan if you didn't know that Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri was the inventor of warp drive, that Kirk was from Iowa, that Scotty was an "old Aberdeen pub crawler," that Mark Lenard, who'd played Spock's father Saarek in the second season episode "Journey to Babel," had also played the Romulan commander in the first season episode "Balance of Terror." It was this familiarity that became the foundations of early geek subculture.

But that familiarity is completely gone now. They've turned Trek into something sexy, edgy, flawed and totally unfamiliar, using the brand name to make it something marketable to a new generation. The movie relies on the fact that geeks the world over have made these characters pop culture icons, yet does everything it can to change them from what the geeks know and love. While this isn't the first time in the Trek universe that this has happened, it's a definitive event. The geeks can't blame J.J. Abrams for the breaking of the trust, but they can blame him for making it impossible to go back.

STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

One of the reasons why, as one poster said, J.J. Abrams & Co. had better only make about three or four films and then leave before their names are blasted online while three sheets to the wind, and why I still have the same signature at the bottom I've always had:

Ok folks, we're tilting at windmills here. This arguement is getting old...and stale. J.J. and company got the characters right, he made the single engine starships cool...(to borrow a phrase, "light years ahead of anything else...including the the big "E" herself.") At least Starships are now driven by some sort of thrust instead of "double talk generators".

Beyond that, we lost 40 years of story/history to a couple of hack writers. The devil is in the details...ship's interior, fork lifts, blimp hangars, breweries, "I" beams and bridge rivits. Stolen special effects from Star Wars...etc-etc. I have been in film since the days of cine 8 and here to tell ya, his camera work is at best... amaturish.

And for this he gets lauded for saving Star Trek. (Boy are we in trouble.)

My arguements will never be excepted by the "new wave" Trekkies. (They can't even figure out how to spell "new" yet.) Conversely, I will never except their Trek arguements either.

Therefore we need to live with it, good or bad in our respective opinions, and get on with what's next...if anything... End of angry rant...

Admiral Buzzkill · December 28 2009, 04:42 AM

CDR6 wrote:

I have been in film since the days of cine 8 and here to tell ya, his camera work is at best... amaturish

You're not actually establishing any credibility at all with that claim.

CDR6 wrote:

My arguements will never be excepted by the "new wave" Trekkies. (They can't even spell "new".) Conversely, I will never except their Trek arguements either.

On the other hand, as a very very "old wave" Trek fan I can not only spell "new" but also "amateurish," "argument" and "accept."

I'm pretty happy with the new film, too.

Devon · December 28 2009, 04:47 AM

CDR6 wrote:

Ok folks, we're tilting at windmills here. This arguement is getting old...and stale. J.J. and company got the characters right, he made the single engine starships cool...(to borrow a phrase, "light years ahead of anything else...including the the big "E" herself.") At least Starships are now driven by some sort of thrust instead of "double talk generators".

Right.

Beyond that, we lost 40 years of story/history to a couple of hack writers.

Nope. Maybe you lost 40 years of Trek history, on your merit of course, but I didn't. It's amazing that these supposed "hack writers" have supernatural powers.

The devil is in the details...ship's interior, fork lifts, blimp hangars, breweries, "I" beams and bridge rivits. Stolen special effects from Star Wars...etc-etc. I have been in film since the days of cine 8 and here to tell ya, his camera work is at best... amaturish.

So you "lost 40 years of story" because of cinematography choices that you didn't like?

And for this he gets lauded for saving Star Trek. (Boy are we in trouble.)

We?

My arguements will never be excepted by the "new wave" Trekkies. (They can't even spell "new".) Conversely, I will never except their Trek arguements either.

Oh boy.....

CDR6 · December 28 2009, 09:08 PM

Devon,

The "40 years" remark was in reference to all that material/back story that has been built up during that time, and the writers couldn't find anything to write about, even with all that available to draw on.

In theory one could write the story about how the group got together by just using original back story as source material, instead of what we were treated to. Of course it would have lacked the fire works, but hey, that's what Star Wars is for.

Regards,
Chuck

Nerys Myk · December 28 2009, 09:23 PM

CDR6 wrote:

Devon,

The "40 years" remark was in reference to all that material/back story that has been built up during that time, and the writers couldn't find anything to write about, even with all that available to draw on.

In theory one could write the story about how the group got together by just using original back story as source material, instead of what we were treated to. Of course it would have lacked the fire works, but hey, that's what Star Wars is for.

Regards,
Chuck

If they were going to use the TOS characters they needed a clean slate. The 40 years of backstory is a bit of a straightjacket. They managed several nods to that backstory though.

Rush Limborg · December 28 2009, 10:15 PM

^"Ex-wife took the whole dang planet in the divorce..."

(Reference to Fandom tradition, as is Riverside Iowa, Winona & George Kirk, etc.)

"...all I got left is my bones...."

MANT! · December 29 2009, 02:08 AM

Wow..But hey, opinions are like assholes..

I have a total NON Trek movie fan that works next to me..20 years old and typical of his generation..

He liked it so much in the theater, he got the Blu-Ray..and loaded the digital copy on his Ipod..he watched it at work during breaks..and couldn't stop talking about the movie..
His friends (according to him) are the same way..
we are getting new fans..who are now interested in the old series..and movies
it's no longer an exclusive club anymore, and I'm very glad to see it..

I liked the new movie..the most important thing to me was a GOOD MOVIE, not adherence to the aspects of "continuity"(AKA Canon as if it's some form of religion or something) after all,even the Original series had continuity issues between the 3 seasons..

It was a nice way to free up the writers, without jettisoning all that went before..

and a good summer blockbuster..

If one doesn't like it, that's fine..keep to your old Trek series and movies..the rest of us will move on..including this TOS First Run fan from September 1966 to today..

Devon · December 29 2009, 03:50 AM

CDR6 wrote:

Devon,

The "40 years" remark was in reference to all that material/back story that has been built up during that time, and the writers couldn't find anything to write about, even with all that available to draw on.

Of course they did, as mentioned above.

In theory one could write the story about how the group got together by just using original back story as source material,

They did.

instead of what we were treated to.

Terrific.

Of course it would have lacked the fire works,

Or the reason for making it.

pookha · December 29 2009, 04:44 AM

My arguements will never be excepted by the "new wave" Trekkies. (They can't even figure out how to spell "new" yet.) Conversely, I will never except their Trek arguements either.

still find this attitude amusing since some of the people i know in person who loved the movie were all fans of first run star trek.

Starbreaker · December 29 2009, 05:17 AM

CDR6 wrote:

In theory one could write the story about how the group got together by just using original back story as source material, instead of what we were treated to.

That movie would have never been greenlit.

Admiral Buzzkill · December 29 2009, 05:37 AM

Starbreaker wrote:

CDR6 wrote:

In theory one could write the story about how the group got together by just using original back story as source material, instead of what we were treated to.

That movie would have never been greenlit.

Really - because who besides a Trekkie gives a fuck about Finnegan and Gary Mitchell?

Aragorn · December 29 2009, 05:49 AM

^ One poster on this board said (before it was released) the entire movie would be ruined for him if Gary Mitchell wasn't in it.

Admiral Buzzkill · December 29 2009, 05:56 AM

Aragorn wrote:

^ One poster on this board said (before it was released) the entire movie would be ruined for him if Gary Mitchell wasn't in it.

Trek developed a lot of throwaway backstory over the decades, and very little of it was intrinsically interesting - the few details we're given about Mitchell and Kirk at the Academy, for instance, are commonplace trivia. They serve the purpose of establishing a grounding for the relationship that is interesting, that of Kirk in comflict with his best friend in the present.

The Kobyashi Maru was at least a bit interesting, as an incident, because it was specifically revelatory about Kirk's essential character. It was handled about as well as it could be, in this movie - the problem with Kirk cheating, after all, is that if he expected to get away with it he's an asshole. The only way he doesn't come out badly is if the cheating is an act of defiance intended to be recognized as such.

Starbreaker · December 29 2009, 06:22 AM

If this had been a movie about Kirk and Dr. Piper and Kelso I would have probably been bored to tears.

Rusty0918 · December 29 2009, 06:29 AM

Well, as for the blogger who comments on it, I can see where he's coming from.

To me though, the real test of this reboot will be the sequel. Now that they got all the introductory stuff out of the way, it will give us more a feel for these folks.

December 28 2009, 09:08 PM	#94
CDR6 Lieutenant Commander	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS Devon, The "40 years" remark was in reference to all that material/back story that has been built up during that time, and the writers couldn't find anything to write about, even with all that available to draw on. In theory one could write the story about how the group got together by just using original back story as source material, instead of what we were treated to. Of course it would have lacked the fire works, but hey, that's what Star Wars is for. Regards, Chuck __________________ Ahead, warp factor six!

December 28 2009, 10:15 PM	#96
Rush Limborg Vice Admiral Location: The EIB Network	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS ^"Ex-wife took the whole dang planet in the divorce..." (Reference to Fandom tradition, as is Riverside Iowa, Winona & George Kirk, etc.) "...all I got left is my bones...." __________________ "I have been wounded but not yet slain. I shall lie here and bleed awhile. Then I shall rise and fight again." "Forget it, Jake...it's Chinatown."

December 29 2009, 02:08 AM	#97
MANT! Rear Admiral Location: Mare Island Naval Shipyard	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS Wow..But hey, opinions are like assholes.. I have a total NON Trek movie fan that works next to me..20 years old and typical of his generation.. He liked it so much in the theater, he got the Blu-Ray..and loaded the digital copy on his Ipod..he watched it at work during breaks..and couldn't stop talking about the movie.. His friends (according to him) are the same way.. we are getting new fans..who are now interested in the old series..and movies it's no longer an exclusive club anymore, and I'm very glad to see it.. I liked the new movie..the most important thing to me was a GOOD MOVIE, not adherence to the aspects of "continuity"(AKA Canon as if it's some form of religion or something) after all,even the Original series had continuity issues between the 3 seasons.. It was a nice way to free up the writers, without jettisoning all that went before.. and a good summer blockbuster.. If one doesn't like it, that's fine..keep to your old Trek series and movies..the rest of us will move on..including this TOS First Run fan from September 1966 to today.. __________________ "Young lady, human/insect mutation is far from an exact science..."

December 29 2009, 05:49 AM	#102
Aragorn Admiral	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS ^ One poster on this board said (before it was released) the entire movie would be ruined for him if Gary Mitchell wasn't in it.

December 29 2009, 06:22 AM	#104
Starbreaker Fleet Admiral	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS If this had been a movie about Kirk and Dr. Piper and Kelso I would have probably been bored to tears.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

December 29 2009, 06:29 AM	#105
Rusty0918 Lieutenant	Re: STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS Well, as for the blogger who comments on it, I can see where he's coming from. To me though, the real test of this reboot will be the sequel. Now that they got all the introductory stuff out of the way, it will give us more a feel for these folks.