RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,195
Posts: 5,436,574
Members: 24,949
Currently online: 440
Newest member: Lauran

TrekToday headlines

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

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
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 June 6 2013, 12:45 PM   #91
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

However, if you've seen the other Star Trek series and enjoyed them, but won't dare view the 2009 or 2013 JJ Abrams versions of Star Trek, then you're a hypocrite. Really. This is just another incarnation of Star Trek. Yes, it reuses the original TOS characters but it is clearly a "reboot", a modern day version. It is not invalidating TOS, but simply telling an alternate story. Is it perfect? No. Heck no. But it has plenty of good qualities.
Needless to say I don't fall into the category of ignoring the JJ Trek films myself, but I totally understand the sentiment of not wanting to accept other actors taking over hte roles of the TOS actors, or just not wanting to see a reboot, period. Very rarely do remakes meet or exceed the original, and yes that DOES include Star Trek 2009 and ID, at least in my opinion!

The new films, to me, are good, and I enjoy them. But have I embraced them like I have with TOS, TNG, and the other shows? Heck no! Sure we may be two films deep into a new Trek franchise, but when you have 2 new films VS not just TOS, but Star Treks 1-6, TAS, and the entire SUBCULTURE that sprung up around them, I can totally see WHY someone may be inclined to not see the JJ Trek films as any more legit than online fan films\series, and not want to accept them as canon. For example, to me, William Shatner IS Kirk, Nimoy IS Spock, and to me, the new films (and actors in them), despite being as good as they are, have yet to reach the iconic status of the original, and probably never will.

Again, not saying I am in that "anti-NuTrek" camp, but I do get the mentality.

You know, I don't really mind when someone posts stuff like this. What I do mind is when the OP initially speaks his mind, then never bothers to return to his own post to debate other people's responses to him. It makes me wonder why I should even bother replying to him.
I agree with you, and I don't like people who "drop a bomb" then leave either, but is it any wonder the guy never came back? Immediately after he\she posted, this thread was mobbed with the "How dare you not accept JJ Abrams as your new lord and savior" crowd. Ironic how those who criticize Star Trek fans who do not accept the new JJ films as canon, and call them close minded, reveal themselves to be just as dogmatic and close-minded about their position.
TheSubCommander is offline  
Old June 6 2013, 04:02 PM   #92
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?

ralfy wrote: View Post
The latter point is most difficult: why a reboot? Why not start afresh?
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

That's like asking why the creators of the British SHERLOCK series insist on using Sherlock Holmes instead of making up some new character, maybe Holmes' great-great grandson. Or why the filmmakers behind "Clash of the Titans" just used the same old Greek gods Homer used; why didn't they make up brand new gods?
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline  
Old June 6 2013, 07:00 PM   #93
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
ralfy wrote: View Post
The latter point is most difficult: why a reboot? Why not start afresh?
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

That's like asking why the creators of the British SHERLOCK series insist on using Sherlock Holmes instead of making up some new character, maybe Holmes' great-great grandson. Or why the filmmakers behind "Clash of the Titans" just used the same old Greek gods Homer used; why didn't they make up brand new gods?
And why did they? It's not a rhetorical question.
JarodRussell is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 01:10 AM   #94
Yeoman Basha
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Hambone wrote: View Post
Just treat all the various Star Treks like a huge galactic buffet. Pick out what you like and leave the rest.
This. I happen to love the new films, but I can sympathize with those who don't. Enjoy what you like in the Star Trek universe, ignore what you don't -- and don't worry about it. Life is too short to waste time agonizing over this kind of thing.
Yeoman Basha is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 02:17 AM   #95
Praetor Baldric
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Yeoman Basha wrote: View Post
Hambone wrote: View Post
Just treat all the various Star Treks like a huge galactic buffet. Pick out what you like and leave the rest.
This. I happen to love the new films, but I can sympathize with those who don't. Enjoy what you like in the Star Trek universe, ignore what you don't -- and don't worry about it. Life is too short to waste time agonizing over this kind of thing.
I agree with you both, but it is difficult for many to do because it requires them relinquishing their sense of co-ownership in the series and its universe. This is a feeling that runs very deep.
Praetor Baldric is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 03:52 AM   #96
Mr Pointy Ears
Captain
 
Location: Adelaide,australia
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

no u are not alone-I don't care for this so called new star trek,people talk about bringing Abrams's star trek to the small screen but I don't think the way it is it wont work as a tv show.
Mr Pointy Ears is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 04:24 AM   #97
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Hambone wrote: View Post
Just treat all the various Star Treks like a huge galactic buffet. Pick out what you like and leave the rest. There's plenty for all and something there for everyone. TOS is my "meat and potatoes", while the new movies are "pizza and beer."

Who doesn't enjoy a little junk food now and then?

And remember, today's meal that doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily ruin last week's sumptuous feast.
Not to mention a nice big juicy ham hock.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 04:34 AM   #98
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I'm curious, do you similarly ignore the TOS episodes that are bad science fiction?
What would be left?
About half a dozen episodes.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 05:21 AM   #99
ralfy
Lieutenant
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
^You say that like TOS was aimed exclusively at adults. You must be assuming they were the intended audience for items like this?
There are teens who can recognize bad writing and aren't entranced by special effects. There are also adults who are the opposite.
ralfy is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 05:24 AM   #100
ralfy
Lieutenant
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

That's like asking why the creators of the British SHERLOCK series insist on using Sherlock Holmes instead of making up some new character, maybe Holmes' great-great grandson. Or why the filmmakers behind "Clash of the Titans" just used the same old Greek gods Homer used; why didn't they make up brand new gods?
The two are mutually exclusive, as one can create new stories.
ralfy is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 11:14 AM   #101
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

ralfy wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
^You say that like TOS was aimed exclusively at adults. You must be assuming they were the intended audience for items like this?
There are teens who can recognize bad writing and aren't entranced by special effects. There are also adults who are the opposite.
That's nice and smug of you. And Parachuting Spock was aimed at which, please? Certainly the thinking man's TOS would never lower itself to target such unwashed masses. We're an elite community, don't you know.

E plub nista!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 11:50 AM   #102
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Star Trek WAS originally aimed at adults.

It was picked up by kids (like me, Generation X) in reruns.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 11:58 AM   #103
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

mos6507 wrote: View Post
Star Trek WAS originally aimed at adults.

It was picked up by kids (like me, Generation X) in reruns.
The figures didn't come along until 1975, but Gold Key began publishing Star Trek comic books (which the Parachuting Spock box borrows art from) in 1967. They were most definitely not aimed at adults.

Trek was a family show.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 02:58 PM   #104
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
Star Trek WAS originally aimed at adults.

It was picked up by kids (like me, Generation X) in reruns.
The figures didn't come along until 1975, but Gold Key began publishing Star Trek comic books (which the Parachuting Spock box borrows art from) in 1967. They were most definitely not aimed at adults.

Trek was a family show.
I wouldn't call it a family show, but there were elements that as a kid I liked. ( fights, spaceships, aliens) GR intent was to do a SF spin on Adult Westerns ( Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Have Gun Will Travel) and "free" the genre from the kiddieland ghetto.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline  
Old June 7 2013, 07:30 PM   #105
T'Devilish
T'Bonz - Romulan Curmudgeon
 
T'Devilish's Avatar
 
Location: Across the Neutral Zone
Re: Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

I want the parachuting Spock!

No reason why and it makes no sense.
__________________
Live long and suffer! - Ancient Romulan greeting.

Romulans aren't paranoid. We're merely proactively cautious.
T'Devilish 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 08:01 AM.

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