RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,700
Posts: 5,213,774
Members: 24,208
Currently online: 721
Newest member: meshman63


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 June 17 2013, 05:12 AM   #46
Hugh Mann
Lieutenant
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

If a movie requires you to watch it several times before you like it, then it's a crap movie.
Hugh Mann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 05:18 AM   #47
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

mos6507 wrote: View Post
It's phoney emotionalism. The only reason it works is because people play back the scene from Khan in their heads. It doesn't stand on its own, nor does it suit a story of two glorified cadets who have barely really gotten to bond.

They play it over and over again until they will-themselves into liking it.

If something is good, it's gonna seem good the very first time around.
Please don't try to tell me what's going on in my head when I watch a movie. It's incredibly fucking rude. Though I doubt you really care whether you come off as rude or not.

You know why I like any given movie? Because they're enjoyable to watch. I disliked This is 40 because I didn't have fun watching it. I like Star Trek Into Darkness because I had fun watching it. Nothing more, nothing less. For some reason you seem incapable of recognizing that people want to have fun when they go to the movies.

I can respect that you dislike Star Trek Into Darkness but I'm honestly tired of you looking down your nose at people who do.

You can't seem to let go of the fact that people don't respect your genius by liking the same things you do. Get over it, people are unique creatures and different things stimulate us in both positive and negative ways.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 05:21 AM   #48
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Hugh Mann wrote: View Post
If a movie requires you to watch it several times before you like it, then it's a crap movie.
This is simply bullshit.

Saw Anchorman with my wife in the theater and hated it. Was up sick one night a year later and watched it and loved it.

Sometimes things can effect how we see a form of entertainment.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 05:22 AM   #49
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Hugh Mann wrote: View Post
If a movie requires you to watch it several times before you like it, then it's a crap movie.
Why? How is a movie fundamentally different than any other art form where one's appreciation for a particular example of a form can change from one instance of exposure to others? I've already listed a number of examples where I began with an intense dislike of something and came to enjoy that thing immensely. Was my list of examples not compelling because I didn't include any movies? Or do you simply think I was lying?
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 05:28 AM   #50
Hugh Mann
Lieutenant
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Your comparisons are meaningless since you compared unlike things--a movie is neither a drink nor a song.
Hugh Mann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 05:31 AM   #51
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Hugh Mann wrote: View Post
Your comparisons are meaningless since you compared unlike things--a movie is neither a drink nor a song.
Keep hanging onto that single-mindedness.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 05:43 AM   #52
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Hugh Mann wrote: View Post
Your comparisons are meaningless since you compared unlike things--a movie is neither a drink nor a song.
If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd have noted I was responding to an observation that claimed
If something is good, it's gonna seem good the very first time around.
which is something I dispute (and will continue to dispute, given the numerous times this has proven false in my life. "something" is not terribly specific, so I provided examples from a number of categories--including music as that was one of the alleged proofs for the assertion.

As analogies seem insufficient to make my point, I will include movies:

Blue Velvet
The Shining
Smokey and the Bandit
Alphaville
Thin Red Line

Each of the above is a film that I did not like (in some cases, viscerally so) upon first viewing. Each is now in my collection and gets reasonably regular repeat viewings (and I don't do that to torture myself). I await a persuasive and articulate explanation for why my examples remaining meaningless.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 06:44 AM   #53
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Quantum_Penguin wrote: View Post
I'd just like everyone who loves nuTrek to stop telling me how fresh everything is. This reboot features the same goddamn tropes and plot points everyone complained were dragging down storytelling in the Prime universe ten years ago. At the end of the day, STID was basically a pastiche of TWoK and TUC, and they even managed to throw in TSFS at the last minute. There's nothing wrong with making a pastiche, and it's nice that Star Trek is in the spotlight again, but don't tell me the Prime universe was devoid of new stories or that what Abrams has done represents necessary change.
I'm going to treat this post seriously and I hope you'll do the same. The whole point of my essay isn't that Star Trek 2.0 is fresh and new. The point of my essay is that Star Trek 2.0 is written for newcomers to the franchise as much as the old fogies of Trek. It's written for the explicit purpose of attracting a new generation as well as appeasing old fans. A new Trek series could have been fine but if you would object to being told what a Ferengi, Klingon, or transporter is like my wife needed to be told--then you are not going to be the kind of audience the franchise needed to be appealed to.

Star Trek: The Wrath of Nero and Star Trek: Into Darkness aren't great movies. They're mindless popcorn spectacle which are impressive less because of their plots (which have massive holes in them) than because they're very effective MPS. Compared to the Star Wars Prequels, they're about a thousand times better at being pretty but brainless fun. There's a message in ST:ID about drones, terrorism, and fear which is a bit on the late side but at least it's Star Trekky.

The thing is that franchises need to be living things and a franchise with no outgoing product is going to die. Star Trek created the serial science fiction drama as we know it but it's been ripped off wholesale to the point we have several critical series which never would have existed without it. Whole sections of film and television as well as RL tech have been influenced by it and its activities. None of that is going to prevent it from rotting on the vine if material which doesn't create fans isn't produced.

ST:TOS, ST:TAS, ST:TNG, STSP, ST:VOY, ST:ENT, and ten movies is a pretty vast canon for new fans to have to devour in order to understand the series. Creating a new jumping-on point is vitally important. There's enough in the Prime Universe already to go well beyond most series. Ending it isn't a bad thing other than in terms of fanboy continuity love.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Charles Phipps; June 17 2013 at 06:59 AM.
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 08:28 AM   #54
Quantum_Penguin
Lieutenant
 
Quantum_Penguin's Avatar
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Quantum_Penguin wrote: View Post
I'd just like everyone who loves nuTrek to stop telling me how fresh everything is. This reboot features the same goddamn tropes and plot points everyone complained were dragging down storytelling in the Prime universe ten years ago. At the end of the day, STID was basically a pastiche of TWoK and TUC, and they even managed to throw in TSFS at the last minute. There's nothing wrong with making a pastiche, and it's nice that Star Trek is in the spotlight again, but don't tell me the Prime universe was devoid of new stories or that what Abrams has done represents necessary change.
I'm going to treat this post seriously and I hope you'll do the same. The whole point of my essay isn't that Star Trek 2.0 is fresh and new. The point of my essay is that Star Trek 2.0 is written for newcomers to the franchise as much as the old fogies of Trek. It's written for the explicit purpose of attracting a new generation as well as appeasing old fans. A new Trek series could have been fine but if you would object to being told what a Ferengi, Klingon, or transporter is like my wife needed to be told--then you are not going to be the kind of audience the franchise needed to be appealed to.
I appreciate your candor and I apologize for letting my frustration bleed through in my first post. My frustration is not directed at you in particular and I should have stayed more on point with your OP. Part of that frustration has came from sharing my criticisms with friends online and off and then having them brushed away as the rantings of a "fanboy" just because I reject to Trek 2.0 on its own merits.

I'm not a fanboy. I'd have preferred a total reboot with no relation to prior continuity in fact, and I feel that JJ Abrams' decision to reference the prime universe works to Trek 2.0's deficit.

You are right that continuity has been a sticking point for some fans, but I don't think devotion to continuity has ever been the issue for the production staff or the public at large. The powers that be played fast and loose with it during the production of Enterprise, even having the Borg show up and be defeated by the crew of a vessel from 200 years before TNG. And from the beginning in TOS, there's the problem of how long ago Khan left the Earth, or whether the Enterprise is an Earth ship or a UFP vessel, or whether they are operating under UESPA or Starfleet. Continuity frequently went out the window for the sake of telling the story they wanted to tell and the fans invented explanations to tie up the loose ends.

Would some fans object to a prequel featuring Kirk and Spock which had a larger than expected Enterprise, or Delta Vega close enough to see Vulcan, or any number of other "continuity nods" in Trek 2.0? Sure. But the general audience wouldn't know the difference (and they didn't) and I doubt the majority of fans would care either. Star Trek continuity has always been plastic, much like Doctor Who, which has managed (up until recently perhaps) to tell new and exciting stories in the original universe.

And I also don't see why it would be necessary, in the scope of any particular story set in the Prime universe, to explain who the Cardassians are or how many factors are on the warp scale. If a story was set in the Prime universe the writers would only bring up the continuity which was relevant to the story and then condense that into a few establishing lines, as they did with Khan in TWoK or Locutus in FC. Most people probably hadn't seen Space Seed before TWoK or didn't know Picard's history with the Borg when they saw First Contact, but the films simply established how the characters knew one another and moved on. It wasn't necessary to go into the whys and wherefores of how it happened, it was just a premise of the story and the basic story would still have been comprehensible if it involved completely different characters.

I do think STID came closer to a nice balance of action and character than the first film did and got very close to standing on its own as a good film. The relationship between Spock and Kirk was very well fleshed out to the point that I felt like I was watching really well written characters who just happened to be named Kirk and Spock. They felt new to me even though I'd seen TOS. Even bringing in
Although they were using the same basic premises and personalities, the writers created something fresh and interesting that hadn't been touched upon in quite the same way before.

And then they piled on the homages,
.

These moments disrupted the flow of the film for me and evem brought up the bitter taste of The Search for Spock which did a great job of ruining the dramatic impact of TWoK. As much as I love Spock up and kicking in the 24th century, I think bringing him back was an artistic failure of Prime Trek. And lo and behold
.

You sum up the reasoning for the reboot as [QUOTE=Charles Phipps]
They're cherry picking from the best of the franchise and letting us remember the good without the bad [QUOTE]

My point is that the reboot didn't eliminate the bad. The last minute conflict resolution, the bad science, the miraculous ressurections. It's all still there, and it's competing with the good changes that have been done in the reboot. It frustrates me that Trek 2.0 goes to such lengths to establish itself as different and "cool" and then retreads the exact same things which are supposed to have made Trek lose its credibility and relevance in the first place. So, yes the reboot was necessary but the execution so far has made the reboot itself irrelevant. In my opinion, JJ Abrams could be just as flashy and action oriented in the old universe as in the new. I wish he'd just pick one and stick with it.
Quantum_Penguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 10:22 AM   #55
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

I appreciate your candor and I apologize for letting my frustration bleed through in my first post. My frustration is not directed at you in particular and I should have stayed more on point with your OP. Part of that frustration has came from sharing my criticisms with friends online and off and then having them brushed away as the rantings of a "fanboy" just because I reject to Trek 2.0 on its own merits.

I'm not a fanboy. I'd have preferred a total reboot with no relation to prior continuity in fact, and I feel that JJ Abrams' decision to reference the prime universe works to Trek 2.0's deficit.
I understand your opinion and I actually have an interesting line of thought for it. Star Trek is sixty years old and has influenced pop culture ridiculously, as I mentioned, but that total reboots have already happened. Babylon Five, IMHO, is literally just JMS' version of Star Trek. It's the same program, only with none of the copyrighted elements. Ron Moore has been more or less clear his version of Battlestar Galactica is "his" version of Voyager. Even the writers of Mass Effect have gone out of their way to state that their video game world is how they wanted to see a Star Trek series.

Much like James Bond has influenced every single spy work since Doctor No was released, either in opposition to or in like to, Star Trek saturates science fiction/fantasy. A reboot that creates a mostly new universe isn't that new a concept when you have a franchise that is almost omnipresent in our lives today. Re-imagining Star Trek must be done in a way that makes it recognizably the same property but also fresh, IMHO.

You are right that continuity has been a sticking point for some fans, but I don't think devotion to continuity has ever been the issue for the production staff or the public at large. The powers that be played fast and loose with it during the production of Enterprise, even having the Borg show up and be defeated by the crew of a vessel from 200 years before TNG. And from the beginning in TOS, there's the problem of how long ago Khan left the Earth, or whether the Enterprise is an Earth ship or a UFP vessel, or whether they are operating under UESPA or Starfleet. Continuity frequently went out the window for the sake of telling the story they wanted to tell and the fans invented explanations to tie up the loose ends.

Would some fans object to a prequel featuring Kirk and Spock which had a larger than expected Enterprise, or Delta Vega close enough to see Vulcan, or any number of other "continuity nods" in Trek 2.0? Sure. But the general audience wouldn't know the difference (and they didn't) and I doubt the majority of fans would care either. Star Trek continuity has always been plastic, much like Doctor Who, which has managed (up until recently perhaps) to tell new and exciting stories in the original universe.
Funny, you should mention ENT and the Borg because "Regeneration" is basically the moment where the series gave up the ghost for me. Not that it was BAD, mind you, but the fact that it occurred to me they were attempting to win over fans by using fan-favorite characters because they didn't have the confidence in their own programming to continue the story. It's like Wolverine being in so many Marvel comics, he's a popular character and we want people to "tune in" so to speak.

For me, ENT's problems were primarily the fact they wanted to recapture the glory of TNG, DS9, and even TOS without actually having anything to build for themselves. It's "borrowed glory" to create a phrase where the creators had a jumble of contradictory ideas that turned off fans because it was obvious they wanted you desperately to like them without really being willing to earn it. It's why the gratituous sex in both ENT and VOY turned off so many people--it was obvious they were pandering because they didn't think you'd like them otherwise.

Any new entry in the franchise needed to have confidence in itself and being full-speed-ahead. To an extent, this means that it wasn't necessary to have Chris Pine's Kirk and Spock anymore than Captain John Colt of the U.S.S Whatever but JJ Abrams walked into the franchise with a radical idea he pulled off. Despite a movie completely based on time travel, it was apparently easy enough for the audience to comprehend that general movie-goers weren't confused while Trekkies were paid attention to.

I liken Old Spock to McCoy's appearance in "Encounter at Farpoint." A way of saying that they're welcome.

And I also don't see why it would be necessary, in the scope of any particular story set in the Prime universe, to explain who the Cardassians are or how many factors are on the warp scale. If a story was set in the Prime universe the writers would only bring up the continuity which was relevant to the story and then condense that into a few establishing lines, as they did with Khan in TWoK or Locutus in FC. Most people probably hadn't seen Space Seed before TWoK or didn't know Picard's history with the Borg when they saw First Contact, but the films simply established how the characters knew one another and moved on. It wasn't necessary to go into the whys and wherefores of how it happened, it was just a premise of the story and the basic story would still have been comprehensible if it involved completely different characters.
This is the Doctor Who formula, in a nutshell, but New Who functions on a slow reintroduction system. Season 1 was the Return of the Daleks, Season 2 was the Return of the Master, Season 3 had Davros, and there were other things too. You're right the Wrath of Khan didn't need Space Seed to be enjoyed. Likewise, a lot of TREK fans don't know Zephram Cochrane wasn't invented by ST:FC. I do think, however, that the basis of a good jumping on point is there's an immediate hook.

They COULD have done it differently but they chose to do it this way to give audiences a sense that they don't need to be familiar with the entirety of the franchise to fully understand it.

My point is that the reboot didn't eliminate the bad. The last minute conflict resolution, the bad science, the miraculous ressurections. It's all still there, and it's competing with the good changes that have been done in the reboot. It frustrates me that Trek 2.0 goes to such lengths to establish itself as different and "cool" and then retreads the exact same things which are supposed to have made Trek lose its credibility and relevance in the first place. So, yes the reboot was necessary but the execution so far has made the reboot itself irrelevant. In my opinion, JJ Abrams could be just as flashy and action oriented in the old universe as in the new. I wish he'd just pick one and stick with it.
I'm not trying to force this reboot down your throat. There's a lot of things I would have done differently (and probably made the film half its budget back). I'm just saying that I think the "Crisis on Infinite Treks" they did versus a total reboot or a new series/movie in the main universe gave new fans an introduction to the setting. That it was an easy introduction into the setting for fans of JJ Abrams other works and open to the public at large.

Much like the Marvel superhero movies that made Marvel superheroes not only mainstream but semi-popular ones like Iron Man massively famous.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 10:56 AM   #56
wjaspers
Lieutenant Commander
 
wjaspers's Avatar
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
The point of my essay is that Star Trek 2.0 is written for newcomers to the franchise as much as the old fogies of Trek. It's written for the explicit purpose of attracting a new generation as well as appeasing old fans.
Bullshit. You do not rewrite/reboot Mozart-Bach-Beatles-Elvis, just to please new fans. If you rewrite/reboot Elvis you call it Elvis vs JXL, not Elvis.

You became a trekkie because you saw a bright future, others went for SW because they liked the fighting going on in a fairy tale. You not became a trekkie because the show was cool. You want a cool ST? then do not call it ST, or at least have the decency to call it JJ ft. ST.
wjaspers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 11:07 AM   #57
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

wjaspers wrote: View Post
Bullshit. You do not rewrite/reboot Mozart-Bach-Beatles-Elvis, just to please new fans. If you rewrite/reboot Elvis you call it Elvis vs JXL, not Elvis.

You became a trekkie because you saw a bright future, others went for SW because they liked the fighting going on in a fairy tale. You not became a trekkie because the show was cool. You want a cool ST? then do not call it ST, or at least have the decency to call it JJ ft. ST.
I take that bet and raise you 3 bars of latnium. Star Trek is being reimagined/rewritten ALL THE TIME. Every series brought something new to the table in hopes of creating something lasting and while it stumbled over itself, let's not pretend the JJ Abrams universe is anything REALLY new. It's just an extension of what's gone before taken to the next logical step.

I will agree, however, it's kind of amusing to see countless non-Trekkies heading to the Star Trek movie for Good vs. Evil plus non-stop action while Star Wars' last three films were about trade disputes and separatism.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 11:21 AM   #58
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Would Star Trek fans be willing to sit through an explanation of what Ferengi, Klingons, Bajorans, Prophets, Organians, Q, Augments, and so on are?
I'd prefer all future Trek reboots leave out the Ferengi, Bajorans, Prophets, Q, and every other alien created for the Berman-era spinoffs. (And I don't even know what an Augment is. Something from VOY or ENT?)
Augment = augmented human. ENT's term for Khan's people. They did a trilogy of episodes in their 4th season involving Arik Soong (Brent Spiner) and a group of them, which works as a prequel to Space Seed/Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 11:42 AM   #59
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

I don't know if we're ever going to return to Star Trek Prime Universe or if 2.0 is the future forever, I will say, though the franchise has been breathed new life into and we should be grateful for that. I have the novels and MMORPG as an "epilogue" for the setting (rather than a continuation) and all good things must come to an end.

But I feel confident the setting will continue and a new series will happen now.

Which pleases me.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 06:24 PM   #60
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

wjaspers wrote: View Post
Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
The point of my essay is that Star Trek 2.0 is written for newcomers to the franchise as much as the old fogies of Trek. It's written for the explicit purpose of attracting a new generation as well as appeasing old fans.
Bullshit. You do not rewrite/reboot Mozart-Bach-Beatles-Elvis, just to please new fans. If you rewrite/reboot Elvis you call it Elvis vs JXL, not Elvis.

You became a trekkie because you saw a bright future, others went for SW because they liked the fighting going on in a fairy tale. You not became a trekkie because the show was cool. You want a cool ST? then do not call it ST, or at least have the decency to call it JJ ft. ST.
I personally don't care for the new JJ version of Star Trek, but I'm all for rebooting Trek. It's the only way to keep it alive. Sherlock Holmes has been kept alive for over a century because new writers have kept it going. Sometimes it's set in the 19th century, sometimes in the 20th century (where Holmes foils Nazi plans) now in the 21st Century with the Cumberbatch series, and there was even an animated series in which Holmes and Watson are solving mysteries a couple hundred years in our future. Superman gets a film reboot every few decades or so.

All that aside, let's stop pretending Star Trek hasn't already been rebooted before. The movies with the original cast were a reboot. TNG and the Berman-era spinoffs were a further reboot. Star Trek fans need to decide why it is they watch Star Trek in the first place: to be entertained by a story involving Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise or to simply have a delusion reinforced that Star Trek is somehow real and must be represented as a consistent universe which can never be tampered with. The latter is a waste of time when you realize the various ST TV and film series never have been one consistent narrative.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
star trek reboot

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 08:54 AM.

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