Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by The Overlord, Dec 28, 2012.

  1. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    You really need to let go of TNG expectations/comparisons when judging Abrams films, because they are TOS Era films, they are not supposed to be compared to TNG. If you prefer TNG to TOS, that's understandable, it's your era, but, expecting Abrams films to conform to TNG era is a very strange decision indeed.
     
  2. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    I've always disliked any of the Star Trek: titles (I much prefer the serial 'The..' titles) but Star Trek Into Darkness sounds like a Broadway show.

    Plus, it has Star Trekin' in it.
     
  3. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Well, I suppose a Broadway show could be made out of "Star Trekkin' Across the Universe" -- and it could even feature Beatles songs (e.g., "Across the Universe")

    "Star Trekkin' to Darkness"
    would be the obvious Broadway Sequel, and could feature Spider Man.
     
  4. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    How are they "looking down on you"? Because they aren't tailoring the film to fit a very narrow demographic of Star Trek fans who have historically been shown to be unable to support a successful film or series. You guys are the ones who show constant disdain for any one who deviates from your narrow definition of "Star Trek" and used pejorative language to describe them.
     
  5. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    Meh, I'm 24 and while I like TNG, I like TOS more so I liked the new movie.
     
  6. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    I think it has more to do with the panicky disavowal of Trek fans. JJ's fall back to "this film is not made for Star Trek fans." This line does not refer to a narrow demographic of fans, but rather "fans."
     
  7. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Disagree, it's aimed at the narrow group of fans who think they have an exclusive proprietary claim to Star Trek.
     
  8. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA

    Holy out-of-context, Batman.
    You missed a word in your quote: "necessarily", as in "The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of 'Star Trek,' necessarily".

    Here is the entire context of what he said about making the first film for more than just Star Trek fans:
    Source:
    http://www.trektoday.com/news/020508_01.shtml


    I don't think you necessarily deliberately (overtly) left out that word, but I think in your mind, you so badly want Abrams to be this villain who has an agenda to stomp on 45 years of trek history that you actually think he said "this film is not made for Star Trek fans."


     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2013
  9. Dale Sams

    Dale Sams Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    All I know is that if I'm playing Chekov, you arn't putting me in pink.

    http://whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/trekfashion6.jpg

    [Inline image converted to link. Please don't hotlink images not resident on your own web space or image-hosting account. - M']
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2013
  10. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    You should go to Washington DC and work in politics as a spin doctor. You can take any situation and spin it in such a way that meets your purposes (or your pre-conceived notions).

    If someone has an agenda to show how Abrams is crapping all over established Star Trek history, they will find fault in every tiny move Abrams makes by spinning it to suit their agenda.


    That's the way, Daniel. :techman:
    You DO understand the art of spin-doctoring. ;)


    ************
    EDIT TO ADD:

    It isn't that hard to dig down and find problems with just about ANY Star Trek Film or TV show.

    Heck, I think If TWoK was never made in 1982, and Abrams made it today instead -- shot for shot, word-for-word, even magically using the same actors as TWoK -- people who have this "thing" against Abrams would call him a hack for totally screwing with the character of Khan, saying things like:

    "The Khan in TWoK is totally unrecognizable as the same character from 'Space Seed', except for the fact they were both played by Montalban"

    And that would be a true statement. If Nick Meyer back in 1982 didn't use Montalban or call him "Khan", it would be very hard to see him as being the character from 'Space Seed'.
    Some parts of the Star Trek fan base today would crucify Abrams for changing an established character like that.

    It would probably go something like this:
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2013
  11. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    The statement you made is ridiculous unless you're including yourself, specifically.

    Star Trek isn't and never has been "great science fiction" by the standards of the print sf being published at any given time in its production history. At the time that it was launched in the late 1960s it represented a dramatically simplified version of prose science fiction as it had existed about twenty years earlier, and it's been falling further behind ever since.

    Yeah, I think first-generation TOS fans are more likely to accept and enjoy Abrams's movies than some younger folks partly for the reason Jackson Roykirk describes: we've watched Star Trek evolve into what it is one episode, one movie at a time. To some extent we participated in building it - or, at least, in constructing our expectations of it.

    Even the majority of the TOS-onlies who are vociferously opposed to nuTrek seem to be folks who were born in the 1960s or 1970s and who encountered and absorbed TOS as a preexisting fait accompli.

    Me, I've waited since 1969 or thereabouts for someone to make a movie actually based directly on the TV series I watched in junior high, and Abrams finally has done it. :lol:
     
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Behind the mask of Donald Draper
    I like that analogy. I grew up with reruns of TOS and the movies on TV at the same time TNG. But even I was too young to watch religiously when it first was on. I probably see Trek just a little more from a TNG pov. But my enjoyment of the new movie has grown since it can out, remembering what Star Trek really started out as.
     
  13. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Believe me, Thursday night after NBC ran "The Doomsday Machine" for the first time none of us kids gathered to watch it had any thought of discussing utopias, the Prime Directive or anybody's grand "vision of the future." We were just on a sugar high, metaphorically and literally (nobody under 30 drank diet soda in those days.) ;)
     
  14. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Actually, I was thinking of another quotation from the New JJ Abrams interview thread:

    "This movie was not made for 'Star Trek' fans; it was made for movie fans."

    He does go on to say

    "But if you're a 'Star Trek' fan, I think you'll be really happy"

    but this is yet another instance of ghettoizing traditional fans. The prioritization is clear. The film is not made for Star Trek fans, but "movie fans," however, even though the film is not targeted at Star Trek fans, they should like it too.

    I wonder what it would be like for a James Bond film to be billed as not made for James Bond fans or if Serenity were billed as not for Firefly fans or if a Star Wars films was billed as "not for Star Wars fans."

    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/169...j-abrams.jhtml

    He is kinder in the citation you mention, but once again it is a rhetorical distinction separating us from them and assuring the casual theater goer that it is made for them.
     
  15. Dale Sams

    Dale Sams Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Ditto "The Night Stalker". And of course packs of kids running in slow motion going "nuhnuhnuhnuhnuhnuhnuh"...what do kids play today? "Glee"?
     
  16. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Well, Serenity was a box office bomb only generating a 39 million dollar worldwide gross.

    http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm

    After you factor in advertising and theater share, it lost a ton of money, much like Star Trek: Nemesis.

    And I thought the whole reason they rebooted Bond was to give people a jumping on point in the franchise?
     
  17. Dale Sams

    Dale Sams Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    I think Bond's 'jumping on point', is more of a fictional construct. What really changes? There's some lip service...they use the first story, but that's really about it. It's certainly not like Bond Begins or anything.
     
  18. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    A movie doesn't have to be an origin story to provide people a jumping on point for a long-running franchise. It simply needs to strip the concept itself down to its basic components.
     
  19. UFO

    UFO Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    I would have thought the "jumping on point" for any Bond movie is buying a ticket. ;)
     
  20. Dale Sams

    Dale Sams Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    I would (and I'm sure Bond fans love to hear this) call it 3/4rths The Bond Identity and 1/4rth Dalton's Bond.

    But I still love it. And absolutely adore Casino Royale. Just so there's no confusion.