Hated it

[MacLeod]

I would hope that in the spirit of civil conversation that supporters of the re-boot would try and provide a list of redeeming qualities as opposed to just suggesting that I keep my opinions to myself.

Nobody is suggesting that you keep your opinions to yourself, they are however questioning the points you are making and your understanding of the concept behind the reboot and alternate universes etc, as your posts so far seem to point to a lack of understanding of it. I'm not having a go, I'm just trying to play devils advocate.

Prime Trek up to and including Nemesis is one of the biggest passions in my life, so I totally get people who don't like these new movies. I adore the TOS movies, I don't even mind the TNG ones that much.

JJ Trek is just another flavour of it that has come along, just like TNG, and DS9 were both new 'flavours'. I have found both movies to be massively entertaining. Are they perfect? Absolutely not. Some of the writing, plot holes and choices they have made have been a little shoddy at times in both films, but I've still enjoyed the hell out of them and can't wait to see what they come up with for the next one.

I respect that, thank you for clearing it up. I can tell I hit a nerve with some people.

I had the opportunity to work on an episode of DS9 years ago and have since worked with many of the crew on several different productions. One thing that was made very clear is that after Gene Roddenberry's passing, there was a lot of effort made into deconstructing much of what he had created.

Being a lifelong fan of the series, I was able to grit my teeth and deal with a lot of the smaller re-writes, changes, and blatant contradictions... but going back to the beginning of TOS and scrambling the timeline really disappointed me.

Yes, I know, I know it is an "alternate reality/timeline" but re-painting an alternate version of the Mona Lisa - then hanging it in front of the original version of the Mona Lisa will garner the same reaction from traditional art lovers.

Besides all that, I guess I can find a few good points to compliment the re-boots. The casting was phenomenal, and the special effects impressive!

But I still miss Amanda.

But to use your analogy can't you hang this new version of the "Mona Lisa" against the original? It's not as if it's an either or, you can have both the original and the new, surely the best of both worlds.

Star Trek is over 48 years with a film confirmed for it's 50th Anniversary in 2016? Many if not most shows last a few years then are largely quickly forgotten, ST has lasted 50 years for it to have lasted this long a certain amount of re-invention is required. The later shows VOY and ENT came under critisim for basically doing the same thing we had seen done in TOS & TNG and to a lesser extent DSN.

So it seems as if they are damned if they do something different and damned if they don't. Part of the reason for the reset was to allow new people in who might find a film burdned with decades of history difficult to get in to.

Sure as others have said the new films aren't perfect but then again what film is.

 

[bbailey861]

Because of this (as well as the destruction of physical plot devices, planets, ships, characters, etc.) every bit of Trek has been erased. What were they thinking?

Utter balderdash. If you don't like them, that's fine, don't watch them. But to say that because of these two films every bit of Trek has been erased is just nonsense.

For the record, I liked them, and am eagerly awaiting the next instalment. Still love my TOS, too.

 

[M'Sharak]

Am I one of the only ones who hated the Trek reboot?

If you peruse the "Review and Discussion" thread pinned at the top of this forum, you'll see that you're not even close to being the only one.

...

I wouldn't consider this "bashing." This is my opinion as stated. Not all opinions have to be positive, right?

Of course not, and if you'd care to expand upon what you've said so far, this would be the place for it. I might suggest, however, that you dispense with such hyperbolic phrasing as "killed all that is Star Trek" and "pretty much destroyed all the stories that led up to it" (or even the winky "blasphemy against the book of Roddenberry") in favor of language which explains specifically what scenes, characterizations, dialogue, etc. you disliked and why.

I'm not sure this is the sort of tone you want to set, though:

... a "new" foundation has been created, but don't fool yourselves, it is not the same.

Implying that others might have been fooling themselves is neither helpful nor necessary to a civil conversation. People may get the wrong idea, as evidenced by some of the (also less-than-helpful) responses:

...

Yes. And if you want to be a part of this community for very long, opening right out with bashing a movie series will not be a good way to start.

... (provided, of course, you've taken the time to actually watch them at least once. Otherwise you're a damn hypocrite).

Neither of those were really necessary, were they?

... although I do genuinely think you are in a loud minoroity.

xavier, I've talked to you about this before. Please make a more concerted effort to confine your comments to the subject of the movies and the people making them, as you don't seem capable of making remarks about fans and your fellow posters without being insulting or condescending.

 

[KSoldier]

How can you understand that it is an alternate reality and still claim that it contradicts canon?

Well, unfortunately I am now forced to accept that this "alternate reality" is now canon.

It's just a shame that after Roddenberry passed away, things got a little blurry.

 

[BillJ]

Well, unfortunately I am now forced to accept that this "alternate reality" is now canon.

It is all "canon", from "The Cage" to Star Trek Into Darkness. Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman intentionally used the vague "alternate reality" in an attempt not to upset people overly attached to the term "canon".

Honestly, though whether an alternate reality or a full-on reboot, they could never hamper my enjoyment of Star Trek that I've already watched.

 

[KSoldier]

Utter balderdash. If you don't like them, that's fine, don't watch them. But to say that because of these two films every bit of Trek has been erased is just nonsense.

Not erased? Tell that to all the poor innocent people on Vulcan. They will be missed. Never forget.

 

[BillJ]

Not erased? Tell that to all the poor innocent people on Vulcan. They will be missed. Never forget.

How do you rectify stories that have covered the same material in different ways? Specifically, Pocket Books novels "Strangers from the Sky" (first contact with Vulcans) and "Federation" (Cochrane's first warp flight) versus the film Star Trek: First Contact? They all overlap covering the same material in very different ways, yet are all enjoyable.

 

[Set Harth]

Yes, I know, I know it is an "alternate reality/timeline"

Yeah, you keep saying that.

I disagree that the Abrams films are the next chapter and are, instead, a complete re-write of the existing chapters. You see because if this re-write, Star Trek:The Motion Picture and many of TNG episodes can never exist in their original form.

But statements like the above demonstrate that you don't really get it.

Not erased? Tell that to all the poor innocent people on Vulcan.

The ones in the Abramsverse, or the ones doing just fine in the Prime timeline? You know, the whole alternate timeline thing that's been explained to you several times.

 

[MacLeod]

So Vulcan was destoryed, it's not the first time they've desryoed a planet in Star Trek

TOS

Nomad - Malurian System 4bn killed

TNG

Crystaline Entity - Wiped out the colony Data was created on
The Borg - The New Providence colony amongest others.

to name but a few I could cite other examples.

The only real difference is that this time we were familiar with Vulcan.

 

[KSoldier]

How do you rectify stories that have covered the same material in different ways? Specifically, Pocket Books novels "Strangers in the Sky" (first contact with Vulcans) and "Federation" (Cochrane's first warp flight) versus the film Star Trek: First Contact? They all overlap covering the same material in very different ways, yet are all enjoyable.

As much as I enjoy the books, I understand that they come from different authors and will often contradict each other and of course, any future movies or shows which may come up. I enjoy the books and fan fic as well and never expected them to match perfectly.

The new films are not able to distance themselves in the same way since they are closer to the source.

Do you think Gene Roddenberry would have approved of these films? I have a feeling that those who knew him best would say no.

 

[BillJ]

Do you think Gene Roddenberry would have approved of these films? I have a feeling that those who knew him best would say no.

A pair of $400 million-plus dollar films, something that Trek has never accomplished before? I have a feeling he'd be loving it along with the attention and money.

As an addendum: Majel Barrett Roddenberry was the Enterprise computer voice in Star Trek 2009. I can't think of any one closer to Gene and I see it as a seal of approval for the work Abrams did.

As much as I enjoy the books, I understand that they come from different authors and will often contradict each other and of course, any future movies or shows which may come up. I enjoy the books and fan fic as well and never expected them to match perfectly.

Then lower your shields and enjoy the films for what they are. A fun interpretation of the core material. Not many give two shits about Romulans having cloaking devices prior to "Balance of Terror" nor that Picard said first contact with the Klingons was disastrous which was later contradicted by "Broken Bow".

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

So the problem isn't actually the new films. It's that you don't understand the definition of the word "reboot."

Wow, pretty harsh. Yes, I know very well what a reboot means. No need to be insulting, no matter how subtle you imply it.

Do you understand the definition of the word "opinion?"

The point I am trying to make is that IN MY OPINION this alternate reality has taken center stage of the prime reality.

Yes, I favor TOS and TNG a bit more and get a little grumpy when I see the new blood at Paramount contradict Trek canon with new and improved stories, no matter what excuse is given.

I apologize for my negative reaction towards what I feel is blasphemy against the book of Roddenberry.

IN MY OPINION, it would have been so much better had they stuck with the original timeline/reality and expanded the storyline. After all, there were two whole years left of that 5-year mission.

But that is just my opinion.

Ana Gasteyer plays a recurring judge character on the Good Wife that makes every lawyer state the phrase "in my opinion" when addressing the court.

Example: "Your honor, I object! The witness is testifying beyond the scope of her knowledge...in my opinion."

Like that. Every time an attorney address the court.

Ksoldier, while I was reading your post, I imagined you delivering your arguments to Judge Ana Gasteyer on the Good Wife and it made me smile.

Thank you.

 

[KSoldier]

Yes, I know, I know it is an "alternate reality/timeline"

Yeah, you keep saying that.

I disagree that the Abrams films are the next chapter and are, instead, a complete re-write of the existing chapters. You see because if this re-write, Star Trek:The Motion Picture and many of TNG episodes can never exist in their original form.

But statements like the above demonstrate that you don't really get it.

Not erased? Tell that to all the poor innocent people on Vulcan.

The ones in the Abramsverse, or the ones doing just fine in the Prime timeline? You know, the whole alternate timeline thing that's been explained to you several times.

OK, well let me clarify. In my aforementioned OPINION, the alternate reality concept is just an excuse to destroy what Roddenberry had created and re-write a new storyline for the convenience of those who have taken over the franchise.

Yes, I KNOW that it is explained in the films as being an alternate timeline. It is explained by the writes very clearly which will be convenient in future films so you can buy more tickets and merchandise.

The alternate timeline works well as an excuse to soothe those who mourn the disintegration of just about everything Trek prior to the release of the film, but forgive me if I choose to cling to one over another.

I truly respect your opinion that this is Trek, and we should never question the Trek. But that's the cool thing about having your own opinion, no one else can tell you what it is supposed to be.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply... what do you think Gene would say about this little debate?

 

[KSoldier]

Ana Gasteyer plays a recurring judge character on the Good Wife that makes every lawyer state the phrase "in my opinion" when addressing the court.

Example: "Your honor, I object! The witness is testifying beyond the scope of her knowledge...in my opinion."

Like that. Every time an attorney address the court.

Ksoldier, while I was reading your post, I imagined you delivering your arguments to Judge Ana Gasteyer on the Good Wife and it made me smile.

Thank you.

Opinions... the universal disclaimer.

I am happy to entertain.

 

[BillJ]

Yes, I KNOW that it is explained in the films as being an alternate timeline. It is explained by the writes very clearly which will be convenient in future films so you can buy more tickets and merchandise.

I hope you're not under the misconception that any Star Trek is a vehicle for anything other than profit?

The alternate timeline works well as an excuse to soothe those who mourn the disintegration of just about everything Trek prior to the release of the film, but forgive me if I choose to cling to one over another.

Why the need to chose one over the other when both are right there? J.J. Abrams didn't break into your house and steal your Star Trek stuff when the new movies came out.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply... what do you think Gene would say about this little debate?

As an addendum: Majel Barrett Roddenberry was the Enterprise computer voice in Star Trek 2009. I can't think of any one closer to Gene and I see it as a seal of approval for the work Abrams did.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes, I know, I know it is an "alternate reality/timeline"

Yeah, you keep saying that.

But statements like the above demonstrate that you don't really get it.

Not erased? Tell that to all the poor innocent people on Vulcan.

The ones in the Abramsverse, or the ones doing just fine in the Prime timeline? You know, the whole alternate timeline thing that's been explained to you several times.

OK, well let me clarify. In my aforementioned OPINION, the alternate reality concept is just an excuse to destroy what Roddenberry had created and re-write a new storyline for the convenience of those who have taken over the franchise.

Yes, I KNOW that it is explained in the films as being an alternate timeline. It is explained by the writes very clearly which will be convenient in future films so you can buy more tickets and merchandise.

The alternate timeline works well as an excuse to soothe those who mourn the disintegration of just about everything Trek prior to the release of the film, but forgive me if I choose to cling to one over another.

I truly respect your opinion that this is Trek, and we should never question the Trek. But that's the cool thing about having your own opinion, no one else can tell you what it is supposed to be.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply... what do you think Gene would say about this little debate?

So let me ask how would you make ST, last another 50 years? By keeping it the same as it was? Would you change anything?

 

[Lowdarzz]

To answer the original post, no I don't hate the Trek reboot. Hating requires an emotional investment. I just found the new films boring and that, to me, is a cardinal sin for movies.

 

[KSoldier]

So let me ask how would you make ST, last another 50 years? By keeping it the same as it was? Would you change anything?

Personally, if it were up to me, I wouldn't rewrite the entire backstory. There are so many more directions they could have gone without such drastic changes to the history.

The beautiful thing about TOS and TNG was their ability to create a story that reflected current events and made the audience think. Whether it was War, Racism, Gay Rights, Euthanasia, or even the way we treat our Veterans - Those topics found their way into Star Trek and helped the audience consider different points of view. I am sure in today's World, there are plenty topics which could be addressed.

 

[BillJ]

So let me ask how would you make ST, last another 50 years? By keeping it the same as it was? Would you change anything?

Personally, if it were up to me, I wouldn't rewrite the entire backstory. There are so many more directions they could have gone without such drastic changes to the history.

The beautiful thing about TOS and TNG was their ability to create a story that reflected current events and made the audience think. Whether it was War, Racism, Gay Rights, Euthanasia, or even the way we treat our Veterans - Those topics found their way into Star Trek and helped the audience consider different points of view. I am sure in today's World, there are plenty topics which could be addressed.

You must've missed the condemnation of drone warfare and executing criminals without a trial in Star Trek Into Darkness?

 

[KSoldier]

I hope you're not under the misconception that any Star Trek is a vehicle for anything other than profit?

Let me think... TOS was cancelled once due to ratings. Yeah, I am pretty sure profit has something to do with it. (from a studio's standpoint.)

As much as I would like to think that this franchise is created for art's sake, we all know that if it didn't bring in a dime that it wouldn't have been made.

Thankfully, our dedicated following and support will guarantee that the show will thrive for decades more.