RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,641
Posts: 5,427,726
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 521
Newest member: Rom

TrekToday headlines

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15


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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 11 2013, 10:23 PM   #1
Noitartst
Cadet
 
Trek & Pseudo-Trek

I don't consider myself a true Trekkie, and am more of a Star Warrior, if you catch my drift, but all the same have a deep admiration for the franchise dubbed "Star Trek."

Star Trek, as I understand it, is not exploration of space, but ideas, and big ones, at that. Oh, and wonderful characterization, making it watchable, other simply creepy and mysterious, ala The Twilight Zone. And an optimistic sense of idealism, too.

Action? In measured amounts, there was. Nowadays, there's -plenty of action, but the guardians of the Trek have forgotten what the journey was all about.

J.J. Abrams wasn't a true fan of Star Trek, which helps explains his creative choices, and they are for the epic, but without any sense of aesthetic, or wonder. Yes, Abrams likes myseries, but they're plot mysteries. (Such sensibilities are nothing I don't like, but they're not Trek's.)

DS9 is the only Trek I regularly watched, but I know Trek, even at its least Trek-like, stands for something more than big booms, and rebelliousness always getting the last word. In short, Abrams made Star Trek into a parody of itself, and fan or not, it grieves me.

WHat saddens me most, though, is that this pseudo Trek'll garner fans unto itself. Remaking Kirk or Spock--fine, recasting them, yes, but lacking any appreciation for what made them great? Slay me.
Noitartst is offline  
Old March 11 2013, 10:35 PM   #2
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek

Noitartst wrote: View Post
J.J. Abrams wasn't a true fan of Star Trek...
Neither were Nick Meyer, Harve Bennett, Rick Berman or Michael Piller. They, like Abrams, simply knew how to produce Trek that satisfied audiences for the most part.

I thoroughly despise the true Trek/true Trek fan non-sense.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old March 11 2013, 10:36 PM   #3
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek

Don't believe the hype. The Original Series was a fun action-adventure in space with likable characters first and foremost. That's what Abrams captured perfectly with Star Trek.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old March 11 2013, 10:57 PM   #4
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek

Star Trek was action/adventure/scifi with strong characters. The only difference thus far between Abrams movies and the original 1964 pitch is that the Enterprise ain't doing much exploring at the moment :P

The characters are spot on imho, their character traits have been dialled up a notch. The action is great! I am damn sure Roddenberry would have had lots of action in TOS if he could afford it, infact I think there are interviews around with other members of the 60s team that said so.

Spock/Uhura romance I could do without

Majority of TOS episodes had phaser fights and hand to hand combat and ships fighting/people dying. Week in week out. It was action/adventure.

If Trek had started as a movie franchise in 1966 instead of on TV they would have had a heck of a lot more action & special effects etc imho! They where restricted by the budget. A restriction now gone.
Flake is offline  
Old March 11 2013, 11:01 PM   #5
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek

Flake wrote: View Post
Star Trek was action/adventure/scifi with strong characters. The only difference thus far between Abrams movies and the original 1964 pitch is that the Enterprise ain't doing much exploring at the moment :P
Actually, Kirk didn't do much exploring of strange new worlds in ST II, IV, V, VI or "Generations" either.

JJ's "Star Trek (2009)" was "action/adventure/scifi with strong characters".

I am damn sure Roddenberry would have had lots of action in TOS if he could afford it...
He could afford it with ST:TMP and TNG's "Encounter at Farpoint". Huge budgets! Both of them are high on talk and low on action.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline  
Old March 11 2013, 11:07 PM   #6
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
Star Trek was action/adventure/scifi with strong characters. The only difference thus far between Abrams movies and the original 1964 pitch is that the Enterprise ain't doing much exploring at the moment :P
Actually, Kirk didn't do much exploring of strange new worlds in ST II, IV, V, VI or "Generations" either.

JJ's "Star Trek (2009)" was "action/adventure/scifi with strong characters".

I am damn sure Roddenberry would have had lots of action in TOS if he could afford it...
He could afford it with ST:TMP and TNG's "Encounter at Farpoint". Huge budgets! Both of them are high on talk and low on action.
I am referring to Roddenberry of 1966 not the later one !
Flake is offline  
Old March 11 2013, 11:13 PM   #7
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek

No, this is Pseudo Trek...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIfNv9qLvy4

... and it might even count as canon as filmed with Shatner and Doohan.
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek
SonicRanger is offline  
Old March 11 2013, 11:22 PM   #8
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Trek & Pseudo-Trek

Noitartst wrote: View Post
[...] Slay me.
Nah, I don't think that'll be necessary.

However, this really isn't about the movie, and would perhaps have made a better blog post than it does the premise for a discussion thread in this forum, so I'll just close this now.
__________________
"Recently my 8 year-old cousin asked me, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, if I'd ever microwaved a banana. I'm terrified to try, but I'm sure whatever happens—splattering, abrupt, radioactive—sounds exactly like an Annie Clark guitar solo."
M'Sharak 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 04:57 AM.

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