Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by The Overlord, Dec 28, 2012.
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in The Hobbit puts the lie to that.
And of course there's Figwit.
And yet I've run into fans who insist that sex has no place in "real" Star Trek--conveniently forgetting all the scantily-clad love interests and passionate clinches in TOS.
Which strikes me as a fine example of the way the naysayers tend to compare the reboot to some idealized, cerebral, utopian idea of STAR TREK rather than actual Original Series that aired in the sixties . . . which (gasp!) actually had imperfect characters and fist-fights and explosions and space monsters and romance. All that stuff we keep being told doesn't belong in the new movies 'cause Star Trek is strictly about science and exploration and progress, damnit!
Never mind that the old shows and movies got away with the very same things that are condemned as deal-breakers when the reboot does them.
A double standard, like I said.
Its time has come...again.
I haven't been posting on Trekbbs for weeks because of the fan bashing, and fan speculation of STID. It's too much and makes me feel like I have an aneurysm. My god we are like Star Wars and Dr. Who fans who can't accept the prequels/sequels and the r continuation of of these long running franchises.
Star Trek lives because of JJ Abrams. Yes Star Trek needed a reboot. Just like Dr Who needed a reboot. My only complaint with JJ is that he doesn't do more with his films. Paramount wants 5, but we'll be lucky to even get 3 films
Much like people will watch a 9 hour Hobbit film, I eagerly await three hours of Chris Pine standing around talking to the Andorian ambassador.
And you'll be waiting a long time.
I can't agree with any of that. First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.
Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.
And lastly, since nobody's conducted a scientific study about the efficacy of rebooting the franchise... all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Mine is this: I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness. Just going from my small sampling, I'd say Paramount made the right decision.
Doctor Who wasn't rebooted in 2005. Unless you're making some obscure reference to the 60s Cushing movies...
Well you could say Doctor Who has been rebooted 10 times.
Everytime the Doctor regenerates it is a sort of reboot within the same universe.
Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', or a guy that teachs a class wherein 'you either think or sink'*. And also I didn't think Pine 'nailed' Kirk, but rather came up with his own fine completly useful interp.
Seriously, if that were a brand new series and you renamed him, not for one second would I think he was supposed to be Captain Kirk (minus the obvious historical refs, and his fun "Bones!" at the very end)
Again, this is in no way a slam on Pine or the interp he came up with.
I am worried about the future of the character though. You take away his relationship with Spock and inflate the ladies man/cowboy diplomacy stuff and I'm afraid he's going to come off as a little shallow.
*Yes, I know the timeline changed.
Why I suggested merely having a new crew post-TNG/DS9/VOY. A Doctor Who-esque reshuffle while still being core Star Trek.
I don't think that would have been nearly enough to get rid of the stigma Star Trek had accumulated. Hell, I don't think I would have been interested in yet another new watered-down permutation of the Trek formula, and I'm a fan.
On the other hand, we never actually saw "the stack of books with legs" onscreen. That was one line of dialogue in one episode, as opposed to 79 episodes and 7 movies in which Kirk was a dynamic, swashbuckling leading man. So, yeah, when you think of Kirk, does anybody really think of him as a "stack of books with legs." The "fact" that Kirk used to be a book worm is a bit of trivia, not the essence of the character in the popular imagination. It has nothing to do with the character we actually grew up watching.
So, yeah, I think the movies should feature the Kirk the audience expects to see, regardless of some obscure bit of trivia from one old episode.
"When the legend becomes the truth, print the legend."
I think if you liked the characters then you'd have dug it just fine. Who knows, you might even have liked them more than Kirk and Spock .
I think it's fair to call 2005 Doctor Who Revival a Reboot. First, it was not obvious at first that it was indeed a continuation, Eccelston could've very well been the first Doctor or beginning of our journeys with The Doctor (Sans Susan, Ian, Barbara and the Junkyard). Additionally, a big part of the Classic Series was about the Doctor being on the run from his people and having to keep a low profile for that reason, as well, as to keep his interference on the downlow and having to deal with them plucking him up and "sending" him on missions of their own design. RTD completely removed this from the Series by destroying the Time Lords which had the added of effect of being a weight on The Doctor's soul, since he's the one who killed them all.
Eccleston was marketed as The Ninth Doctor and the first 2005 episode has a sequence where he looks in to a mirror and comments on his newly regenerated features.
I'd say it was pretty obvious.
The Time Lords are barely ever mentioned by the first 2 Doctors. Also, The Doctor is completely pardoned by them for everything while in his third incarnation, following the events of The Three Doctors.
The episode we find out he's on from the run from his own people (The War Games) is the exact episode he stops running from them.
I don't know, I like Kirk and Spock quite a bit.
But... this is a completely sequel move, not a reboot one. If it was a reboot, the Doctor WOULD be on the run from his own people yet again, not having encountered them or Omega or etc. But RTD's new status quo directly follows from the old one. The Time Lords used to be the protectors of the universe but between the old show and new one, they're dead. It's the exact opposite of a reboot approach; it's creating a new status quo that still acknowledges the old one happened before it.
While growing up, my idea of Kirk's past, given the events of Conscience of the King, and Obsession, given he doesn't seem too broken up over Sam...and that his "I lost a brother once (in ST:V)" is referring to Spock and not Sam...given his parents are never mentioned once in the whole series. Given that he gets set up with a girl and almost marries her and that he gets command of one of the 12 Heavy Cruisers in the fleet at a very young age, and already has a ton of awards including diplomatic ones:
My impression of Kirk was that he was very much an obsessive, loner self-made man that was in no way an arrogant, cocky lothario.
AGAIN, (I feel i have to keep saying these disclaimers so i don't get flamed or people think I'm slamming NuKirk or Pine) I'm fine with Pine's interp. It's certainly reasonable given the changed timeline. And I think you make good points. I just wanted to touch on some of "Kirk's legends" that even some fans buy into.
I once pointed out to some people saying "Come on! everyone knows Kirk slept with every girl he saw!" When it was like two, maybe three. Mayyyybe four.
Separate names with a comma.