RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,212
Posts: 5,437,444
Members: 24,952
Currently online: 508
Newest member: secondhandmeth

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 28 2013, 02:31 PM   #61
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
And, with all due respect to Shatner, no actor is irreplaceable.
Sandra Smith might agree. She played a pretty cool Kirk, too.
__________________
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 May 28 2013, 03:52 PM   #62
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

I can understand someone not particularly liking a continuation/update of a series they loved. Hell, I've had a hard time with both the Futurama and Arrested Development continuations. I just hate when they hammer on it for things that were actually in abundance in the originals.

It really comes down to nothing more than does it feel right/wrong to an individual viewer. I'm lukewarm on Star Trek 2009, it feels both right and wrong at the same time in comparison to the original Star Trek. I find myself loving Star Trek Into Darkness a little more every time I see it because it simply feels right.
__________________
"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  
Old May 28 2013, 09:54 PM   #63
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

To me, Abrams' Trek has more in common with the Transformers films than it does with Star Trek. But I am glad he's at least doing Kirk and Spock instead of yet another crew on another ship nobody gives two craps about.

The new BSG was a breath of fresh air. The first couple years were interesting, but then it stumbled and it seemed that, if the writers knew the ultimate destination of the series, they were unclear on exactly how to get there.

The series began as sort of the anti-Trek. Firmly established limitations to the technology. Fallible characters who don't always get along. Prejudice. Religious beliefs. Ambiguity. Separate classes of people. Limited ammo and supplies. That stuff was all great. Can anyone imagining Scotty trying to take over the ship and then Kirk having him executed in front of a firing squad?

Then it all went to crap and turned into a show about ghosts and Judeo-Christian-style angels.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline  
Old May 29 2013, 01:47 AM   #64
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

If you're a Trek fan then anything with Trek's name on it could likely pique your curiosity. Whether you end up liking it or not is another thing altogether.

You cannot really ignore "new" Trek because eventually you'll find yourself talking about it in one way or another and either for or against.

I didn't at all like ST09, but having seen it my dislike comes more honestly rather than just rebelling against it without having seen it.

Now, do I "ignore" it in terms of continuity? Hell yeah! But then I also ignore absurdities like FC and (all of) ENT and VOY time travel episodes in that regard as well.

Nowhere is it written that you have to accept anything and everything labeled Trek. So in that regard you are certainly not alone.

Are you being narrow minded? Well, you like what you like and if you've given the "new" a look and it doesn't work for you then I don't see what the problem is.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old May 29 2013, 03:16 AM   #65
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Warped9 wrote: View Post

Nowhere is it written that you have to accept anything and everything labeled Trek. So in that regard you are certainly not alone.

Are you being narrow minded? Well, you like what you like and if you've given the "new" a look and it doesn't work for you then I don't see what the problem is.
Bravo! Well said.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline  
Old May 29 2013, 04:25 PM   #66
starburst
Fleet Captain
 
starburst's Avatar
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

See I am different to many of your opinions, I really quite like the new Trek movies (as you can tell by my avatar, and in case I change it by the time your reading this its the USS Kelvin).

Yes there not perfect but I find them enjoyable, exciting and much more in the spirit of the Original Star Trek than any series that came after, including the TOS movies (personal opinion).

My favourite series, the one I grew up watching and loved, was TOS, as someone born in the 80's you would normally expect TNG or maybe DS9 to be my show, but for me it was all about Kirk, Spock and the first Enterprise crew.

To me it was a forgone conclusion I would like this new take on the classic crew, yes its not the same but I am fine with that as I can enjoy them separately, after all the first 6 movies didint 'feel' the same as Star Trek and how could it they were filmed 2-3 decades later and things change.

I think Star Trek is different to BSG, I liked the original the first time around but now love the remake. With Star Trek however I can find enjoyment (admittedly to varying degrees) in all its iterations, but the crew I most enjoy seeing is Kirks, be it in a post Nero Bad Robot timeline or the original Gene Roddenberry universe no matter their own flaws.
starburst is offline  
Old May 29 2013, 05:32 PM   #67
General_Phoenix
Commander
 
General_Phoenix's Avatar
 
Location: Bespin
Send a message via ICQ to General_Phoenix Send a message via AIM to General_Phoenix Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to General_Phoenix Send a message via Yahoo to General_Phoenix
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

I enjoy the new movies, just wish we had something in the way of a series (even an animated one) to fill in the gaps between movies. I would like to know more about the new timeline, source material, differences in the timeline, alien race bios, etc.
__________________
Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed.
General_Phoenix is offline  
Old May 29 2013, 06:14 PM   #68
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

General_Phoenix wrote: View Post
I enjoy the new movies, just wish we had something in the way of a series (even an animated one) to fill in the gaps between movies. I would like to know more about the new timeline, source material, differences in the timeline, alien race bios, etc.
When someone gets around to producing a new Trek TV series, I'm hoping it's a new Kirk/Spock reboot standing on its own.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline  
Old May 30 2013, 12:27 AM   #69
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
Lulz. Have you ever seen Star Trek?
If CrazyMatt comes under fire for asking a rethorical question (an invitation to weigh in, nothing more or less), then yours is most definitely not that much better.

Of course, you may feel free to educate me where in TOS I overlooked endless action, circus stunts (like driving cars over cliffs etc.), vengeance and one goofy moment that is worse than a character being flushed down a toxic fuel pipe and coming out of it unharmed. Well, that wasn't the only thing being flushed down in this flick, metaphorically speaking.

Just because you stick the label of a franchise on a product doesn't mean the content is automatically the same.

And I'd really like to know what made the new BSG "so much better than the original". Characters that do not seem to think and reflect what may be the consequences of their actions?

Bob


One more time for the hard of thinking....

J. Allen wrote: View Post
(TMP) Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt.
TWOK) Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
TSFS) GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk's son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!
TVH) They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.
TFF) Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!
TUC) Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!
GEN) Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!
FC) BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
INS) Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!
NEM) Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

I have highlighted two of the most popular pre-JJ Trek movies in the fandom.
Trek was an action franchise from the second movie installment onward. To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore everything beyond The Motion Picture.
Actually, Star Trek was an action franchise from the original pilot episode, but I guess that people forget.

Last edited by Shaka Zulu; May 30 2013 at 12:47 AM.
Shaka Zulu is offline  
Old May 30 2013, 01:40 AM   #70
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

CrazyMatt wrote: View Post
For whatever reason, I just can't get into this "re-imagined" or "re-imaged" business, so I simply ignore all of the hype surrounding the new Star Trek movies... in fact, I ignore the new movies period. I can't make myself believe that any actor besides Shatner could ever be Kirk, etc...

I felt the same way about the updated Battlestar Galactica when it aired, even though I love Ron Moore.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I just too closed minded?
I was worried about the reimagined Battlestar while it was in development (a lady playing Starbuck - WTF?), but once I saw the miniseries, I was hooked.

I am trying to like the NuTrek. There are times when that is more difficult than others.

What do I like about it? The pacing, energy, effects, spectacle, score, acting.
What do I dislike about it? It's derivative, has stupid science, and still, after two films, seems not to know what kind of world it is.
Irishman is offline  
Old May 30 2013, 02:37 AM   #71
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Deckerd wrote: View Post
Excellent Godwin, sir.
And it only took 3 posts!
Irishman is offline  
Old May 30 2013, 06:29 PM   #72
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

TOSalltheway wrote: View Post
Too many changes.
I was looking forward t seeing the original sets and props done "big screen".
I couldn't disagree more. If you want that, there's those youtube fanwank movies. Knock yerself out.

I didn't think there were enough changes in Abrams' Trek. I wish they'd gone in a different direction with Spock instead of trying so hard to be Leonard Nimoy's version. They should have ditched the lame Nimoy time travel plot and just did an honest unapologetic reboot.
J. Allen wrote: View Post
(TMP) Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt.
TWOK) Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
"Moby Dick" then was just a story about a crazy guy and a whale.

No one is against the inclusion of action in a Trek film. To suggest otherwise is silly.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike

Last edited by Hober Mallow; May 30 2013 at 08:49 PM.
Hober Mallow is offline  
Old May 31 2013, 08:31 PM   #73
The Black Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Black Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

RandyS wrote: View Post
That, and the fact that I HATED Kara with a passion. No, I didn't mind that they made Starbuck a woman. I hated that they made her a whiny little bitch that did nothing that whine and bitch. If they had killed her in a different way at the end of every episode, I might have like the show a little more.
Kara was, hands down, the most compelling, interesting and fully-realized character on BSG. Of all the things that RDM got right, she was the best.

As for ignoring the new Trek, most assuredly not. It's by far the most faithful rendition of the TOS formula in all of the subsequent Trek productions.
__________________
Some say that he haunts the halls of the Top Gear production office and that, if you listen closely, you can hear his wails around Gambon.

All we know is that he's not The Stig, he's The Stig's drowned predecessor.
The Black Stig is offline  
Old June 3 2013, 12:28 PM   #74
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

One member said this thread should be in the movie section discussing the film. I disagree.

Since it's labelled "Star Trek" and presumably uses characters of TOS, TOS fans are entitled to discuss the films in a TOS-devoted thread.

My best friend came over the other night and asked me why I wouldn't go and see the movie.
He accused me of being biased because of my preference for the original TOS.

I told him that while this is correct and would definitely weigh in watching this "Darkness" flick, I would nevertheless be able to enjoy a good science fiction film regardless and switch off the "TOS mode" in my brain.

Therefore I asked him whether it's a good science fiction film to watch, regardless of the "Star Trek" letters on the package or not.

His reply: "No"

Apparently, that was the wrong answer to attract me to this movie.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline  
Old June 3 2013, 12:35 PM   #75
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

It's not uncommon for roles to be recast, lets examine some

How many actors have played Sherlock Holmes? Hasn't he been played by more actors than any other character? For me Jeremy Brett is Holmes, that doesn't mean I can't enjoy other portrayals.

What about James Bond?

And of course The Doctor, gets recasts every few years.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod 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 01:04 AM.

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