RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,392
Posts: 5,505,469
Members: 25,130
Currently online: 453
Newest member: OneOfFour

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 May 30 2013, 05:44 PM   #211
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Why did they bother...

Franklin wrote: View Post

TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.
And then some Klingon calls the Enterprise a garbage scow . . .
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 05:52 PM   #212
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Why did they bother...

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post

TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.
And then some Klingon calls the Enterprise a garbage scow . . .
I also forgot to add that the true TOS geeks actually start trying Vulcan neck pinches.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 05:59 PM   #213
sj4iy
Commander
 
sj4iy's Avatar
 
Location: US
Re: Why did they bother...

OpenMaw wrote: View Post
sj4iy wrote: View Post
Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?

Many of these characters were iconic when they first appeared, but many other actors have portrayed the same character throughout the years (Dracula is the oldest). However, people will have their personal favorites. It doesn't mean they can't appreciate the other renditions, though. But it's definitely NOT the actor that makes the show. If you are saying that it IS the actor that makes the show, that means that the show is rubbish, because the story can't stand without the original actors. But I've noticed that people want the original stories, NOT the original actors, and that they are miffed that the characters were put in an alternate universe.
See, just about all of those are very unlike the Trek cast. The Doctor had changes to his character within the original series run, before the show had a chance to be digested by longevity the idea of his face, his entire persona, changing was established. It's actually an active part of the excitement of Doctor Who, that he can and will change.

Superman, Batman, and Bond had so many changes and iterations even early on that again, it's not quite the same thing.

Whereas with Star Trek, you had the original series run for 3 seasons, then syndication, then the animated series, followed by more syndication, then the movies. It wasn't until the 4th TOS movie, nearly 20 years after the show had first aired, that an entire new set of faces were brought into Star Trek with TNG.

It's not that Pine and Quinto can't be iconic, it's that they are not yet iconic in these roles. Shatner and Nimoy are. If time is good to the new guys, and they get to do more stuff, then they probably will be. Lord knows they seem to be giving it their all in both movies. However, if it ends abruptly with movie three, it won't be Pine and Quinto who will continue to endure. It'll be the same ol' TOS run in syndication.
Star Trek IS altered- the whole story is different. Exact same for all of those above. Changes have been made to each version to "fit" the time it was shown in. You can't say Star Trek is different than any of those others because it's not.

And I know many people who love Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan, too. I despised Moore, but he's my Mom's favorite. I don't like any of the Doctors up until Tennant, but Smith is my favorite. But it has nothing to do with the actors...it has everything to do with the stories they are given. Skyfall is now considered one of the best Bond movies by many, but neither of Craig's previous ones ranked very high. I loved Goldeneye, but none of Brosnan's other movies. Without a good story, the whole thing fails, despite the best actor in the universe.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not others find Pine or Quinto "iconic" or how many other movies they do, because to me, Into Darkness is the best Trek movie I've seen. Some will agree, some won't- just like some won't agree with me on who the best Doctor is, or the best Superman, or Batman, etc. Just a matter of taste.
sj4iy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 06:14 PM   #214
Captain Nebula
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Robert_T_April wrote: View Post
For one, you don't have much of an imagination.
If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie. I think what you were poorly reaching for there is similar to a 'suspension of disbelief'.

Robert_T_April wrote: View Post
Did you really need to ask that question?
15 pages of discussion about it so far pretty much says it was a question that needed asking.
__________________
In space, no one can hear you Die Hard.
Captain Nebula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 06:17 PM   #215
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why did they bother...

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post

If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 06:24 PM   #216
AnnLouise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Wisconsin
Re: Why did they bother...

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
I tried watching TNG, but just could not get into the characters. For me, they were very bland, and faded into the beige carpeting of the new Enterprise. But I did find the "less perfect" DS9 characters watchable; it helped that DS9 was set in a very un-utopian part of the Trekverse.

The nuTrek versions of Kirk, Spock, etc., have just enough of what I remember to make them watchable in their own way. I sure hope they don't get Utopianized into TNG-era blandness.
__________________
(it is) in the denial of moral choices that we commit our worst offences.
Matthew Scully
AnnLouise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 06:38 PM   #217
Jack Frost
Commodore
 
Jack Frost's Avatar
 
Re: Why did they bother...

"Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these movies?"

Perhaps because it hadn't been done before.

No, TOS movies are NOT the same thing. Honestly, as much as I liked them when I got them there was always a sense of something missing.

To the best of their ability in these times, these films achieve what OS films never could, even in the best of times, recapture the spirit of TOS.

These are TOS adventures on the big screen like never before, IMO.
__________________
The Keeper
Jack Frost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 07:23 PM   #218
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie.
That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here... aside from the poster who said Paramount should CGI Scotty's mustache out in TMP.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 07:25 PM   #219
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Why did they bother...

sj4iy wrote: View Post

Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?
The BBC, EON, WB/DC, Public Domain, WB/DC.



Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
I guess Leonard Nimoy will just have to write another book - this one called: "I am not Spock... Again."

Or how about: "For the last time, I am not Spock!."

Or maybe he could go the Borg route and call it: "We are Spock. You will be assimilated..."

He will start his own religion: "Everyone is Spock."

Self-help books: "You too can be Spock."

Shakespeare wrote Hamlet specifically for one man--even taking his parlance into consideration. He was probably the most recognized actor (in Europe) of the 17th century. The popular convention was "Burbage was Halmlet." Then he retired.

Since then countless men (and women!) have played the Prince of Denmark. None of them ever owned the character or was Hamlet any more than the others.

In fact the iconic image of Hamlet is of him holding Yorick's skull. His clothes, his face, all those other little things don't matter. But show a picture of someone kneeling holding a skull in his hand to people all around the world, and they know who it's supposed to be.

Belz... wrote: View Post
you're likely to end up with a picture of Sean Connery ('most familiar') or Daniel Craig (current).
FTFY
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 07:39 PM   #220
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Why did they bother...

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
I've been on the Star Trek Online forums aka TNG-era central and there seems to be a lot of bashing of the JJ films, so yeah it looks like you guessed right.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 08:27 PM   #221
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Why did they bother...

Belz... wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie.
That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here...
To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

This notion seems to be a relatively recent development, however, and certainly doesn't reflect the way most filmmakers in the history of the art have approached their craft. An engaged imagination has typically been a huge and important part of the experience of watching a movie.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post

TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.
And then some Klingon calls the Enterprise a garbage scow . . .
And, as the sh*t is hitting the fan, you've still got to keep an eye on that scalawag Cyrano Jones, or he'll surely be absconding with all the beverages he can carry.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 08:37 PM   #222
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
I've been on the Star Trek Online forums aka TNG-era central and there seems to be a lot of bashing of the JJ films, so yeah it looks like you guessed right.
It also makes sense because the Abrams movies result from Paramount calling "Time of Death" on modern Trek after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 08:46 PM   #223
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Why did they bother...

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
I've been on the Star Trek Online forums aka TNG-era central and there seems to be a lot of bashing of the JJ films, so yeah it looks like you guessed right.
It also makes sense because the Abrams movies result from Paramount calling "Time of Death" on modern Trek after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise.
Abrams and his magic blood.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 09:15 PM   #224
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.
And also to be fair, I'm someone who complains about 2001 being too cryptic, but I thought that Into Darkness left some questions to our interpretation without making the story a big WTF, so that's good.

Thing is, Robert T April's comment about imagination didn't even seem to be about that at all, so I don't understand Captain Nebula's answer.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 09:18 PM   #225
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why did they bother...

Hell, trekkies have spent forty-odd years filling in the gaps and trying to bring logic to a lot of what went on in TOS. We can at least extend that courtesy to Trek in the present day.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:10 AM.

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