Hated it

[Franklin]

As far as "a lot of fans" seeing this as a gimmick goes, please site your source. That is just your opinion or conjecture without a source.

There have been plenty of deconstructions of nuTrek out there that have criticized the framing as a contrivance to try to hide it being a reboot so as not to lose the old fans. There's no need to provide a bibliography.

As for nuTrek making more money, that's also true. Paramount is under no obligation to do anything. Likewise, no Trek fans are under any obligation to like the current direction. And to be fair, we were under no obligation to like the direction it was taking under Rick Berman for that matter. It's "conjecture" to assume that all those who don't like nuTrek heap unconditional praise on Berman-trek. Obviously the franchise was in deep trouble, but JJ's approach wasn't the only way it could have been revived. It would be "conjecture" to assume that any approach other than Star Wars-esque action, rebels without a cause, and lens-flares would have flopped.

Hide that it's a reboot to not lose fans? Wow, conspiracy within the production.

Look, I'm 54. The older I get, the less and less I care about what universe I'm watching and what canon is being contradicted or retconned. I just want to enjoy the ride. I've also never needed Trek to teach me life lessons or give me philosophical pathos any more than I needed it from an episode of "M*A*S*H" or "Hill Street Blues".

There probably is someone other than Abrams who could've taken Trek in a different direction and been successful, too. But this is what we have, and Abrams didn't change much: it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others almost exactly as we remembered them. It is very recognizable as Trek. About all he did was knock the rust off of it. It has energy, life, and a future. No, it hasn't won over every fan from the past, and it has detractors, but it has me and seems to have a lot more others.

 

[fireproof78]

As far as "a lot of fans" seeing this as a gimmick goes, please site your source. That is just your opinion or conjecture without a source.

There have been plenty of deconstructions of nuTrek out there that have criticized the framing as a contrivance to try to hide it being a reboot so as not to lose the old fans. There's no need to provide a bibliography.

As for nuTrek making more money, that's also true. Paramount is under no obligation to do anything. Likewise, no Trek fans are under any obligation to like the current direction. And to be fair, we were under no obligation to like the direction it was taking under Rick Berman for that matter. It's "conjecture" to assume that all those who don't like nuTrek heap unconditional praise on Berman-trek. Obviously the franchise was in deep trouble, but JJ's approach wasn't the only way it could have been revived. It would be "conjecture" to assume that any approach other than Star Wars-esque action, rebels without a cause, and lens-flares would have flopped.

Hide that it's a reboot to not lose fans? Wow, conspiracy within the production.

Look, I'm 54. The older I get, the less and less I care about what universe I'm watching and what canon is being contradicted or retconned. I just want to enjoy the ride. I've also never needed Trek to teach me life lessons or give me philosophical pathos any more than I needed it from an episode of "M*A*S*H" or "Hill Street Blues".

There probably is someone other than Abrams who could've taken Trek in a different direction and been successful, too. But this is what we have, and Abrams didn't change much: it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others almost exactly as we remembered them. It is very recognizable as Trek. About all he did was knock the rust off of it. It has energy, life, and a future. No, it hasn't won over every fan from the past, and it has detractors, but it has me and seems to have a lot more others.

It has also drawn in more people who are expressing an interest in Trek that may not have before. To me, that is a good thing because it means that Trek has a brighter future, for all parts of it.

Also, calling it just an action film is, in my opinion, short changing the work that Abrams and Co. actually did, which was make a film with as much social commentary as any episode of TOS. It didn't kowtow to what Trek has become, but look at the TOS roots and brought that in to the modern era.

Could it have been done? Probably, but Trek now has the future to strive for better

 

[Belz...]

What kind of an answer is that ? If a different house is a different setting, how is it not a different setting when you're in a totally different universe ?

Because the changes presented revolve mostly around pandering to modern youth audiences (as in a reboot) rather than it being more of a genuine exploration of alternative universes (ala the Mirror Universe). Therefore a lot of fans see the framing of nuTrek as an alternative universe as a shallow gimmick to sell new-coke to classic fans (which it is).

And how does this address my question ? How is it not a new setting ?

 

[Orphalesion]

and Abrams didn't change much: it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others almost exactly as we remembered them. It is very recognizable as Trek.

But to me Trek is not Kirk, Spock and McCoy, never has been and I have never liked TOS or any of its characters.

To me Trek is Picard, Worf, Troi, Jadzia, Major Kira, Barclay, Seven of Nine, Kes, K'Ehleyr, Lwaxana, Guinan etc.

That's the reason why I never had interest in the reboot universe. I'm not interested in Kirk, new or old.

 

[Commishsleer]

and Abrams didn't change much: it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others almost exactly as we remembered them. It is very recognizable as Trek.

But to me Trek is not Kirk, Spock and McCoy, never has been and I have never liked TOS or any of its characters.

To me Trek is Picard, Worf, Troi, Jadzia, Major Kira, Barclay, Seven of Nine, Kes, K'Ehleyr, Lwaxana, Guinan etc.

That's the reason why I never had interest in the reboot universe. I'm not interested in Kirk, new or old.

Exactly.
This is why some people (not you in particular) hate the reboot universe. And I can't really blame them for their disappointment.
If the reboot universe consisted of Picard, Worf, Janeway etc - while I would watch it and be interested in it as I am in all Trek I would be disappointed that it wasn't Kirk, Spock, McCoy etc - my favourite Trek.

 

[Franklin]

and Abrams didn't change much: it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others almost exactly as we remembered them. It is very recognizable as Trek.

But to me Trek is not Kirk, Spock and McCoy, never has been and I have never liked TOS or any of its characters.

To me Trek is Picard, Worf, Troi, Jadzia, Major Kira, Barclay, Seven of Nine, Kes, K'Ehleyr, Lwaxana, Guinan etc.

That's the reason why I never had interest in the reboot universe. I'm not interested in Kirk, new or old.

Well, it's a damn good thing some of us liked TOS, or you'd never had your Trek.

There were 21 seasons of the 24th century Trek across three TV series and four movies. That's over 500 episodes. We poor TOS fans had only 79 episodes and while there were six movies, most portrayed our heroes as old and spent.

Still, we were damn glad to have them and we made the most of them. Please don't begrudge us a few hours more.

 

[nightwind1]

and Abrams didn't change much: it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others almost exactly as we remembered them. It is very recognizable as Trek.

But to me Trek is not Kirk, Spock and McCoy, never has been and I have never liked TOS or any of its characters.

To me Trek is Picard, Worf, Troi, Jadzia, Major Kira, Barclay, Seven of Nine, Kes, K'Ehleyr, Lwaxana, Guinan etc.

That's the reason why I never had interest in the reboot universe. I'm not interested in Kirk, new or old.

Ask any random person on the street who the captain and first officer of the starship Enterprise are, and 90% will probably tell you it's Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock.

I like all of Trek (except STV:TFF), but I can tell you that most of the movie-going public is looking for Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

 

[fireproof78]

and Abrams didn't change much: it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others almost exactly as we remembered them. It is very recognizable as Trek.

But to me Trek is not Kirk, Spock and McCoy, never has been and I have never liked TOS or any of its characters.

To me Trek is Picard, Worf, Troi, Jadzia, Major Kira, Barclay, Seven of Nine, Kes, K'Ehleyr, Lwaxana, Guinan etc.

That's the reason why I never had interest in the reboot universe. I'm not interested in Kirk, new or old.

Ask any random person on the street who the captain and first officer of the starship Enterprise are, and 90% will probably tell you it's Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock.

I like all of Trek (except STV:TFF), but I can tell you that most of the movie-going public is looking for Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

You forgot the (often misquoted) "Beam me up, Scotty" and its hold in popular culture.

 

[eyeresist]

^ Also, deriding nerds by calling them "Spock"

 

[Ovation]

and Abrams didn't change much: it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others almost exactly as we remembered them. It is very recognizable as Trek.

But to me Trek is not Kirk, Spock and McCoy, never has been and I have never liked TOS or any of its characters.

To me Trek is Picard, Worf, Troi, Jadzia, Major Kira, Barclay, Seven of Nine, Kes, K'Ehleyr, Lwaxana, Guinan etc.

That's the reason why I never had interest in the reboot universe. I'm not interested in Kirk, new or old.

Well, it's a damn good thing some of us liked TOS, or you'd never had your Trek.

There were 21 seasons of the 24th century Trek across three TV series and four movies. That's over 500 episodes. We poor TOS fans had only 79 episodes and while there were six movies, most portrayed our heroes as old and spent.

Still, we were damn glad to have them and we made the most of them. Please don't begrudge us a few hours more.

Exactly.

 

[The Doctor]

As far as "a lot of fans" seeing this as a gimmick goes, please site your source. That is just your opinion or conjecture without a source.

There have been plenty of deconstructions of nuTrek out there that have criticized the framing as a contrivance to try to hide it being a reboot so as not to lose the old fans. There's no need to provide a bibliography.

I'd love to see that bibliography.

The framing of Abrams' two Trek films was an outstretched hand to fandom. The films could have just as easily told a new Trek story about the origins of the original crew and totally ignored the previous continuity. What they did, instead, was say:

"We're fans too. We loved Star Trek so much that we went out of our way to construct a story that respected what came before while still giving us the freedom to tell new stories."

That's a pretty amazing level of devotion. Both films are littered with minutiae, easter-eggs and overt homages to the Trek of yesteryear. They are love letters to the entire series. We had a major motion picture grossing the better part of half a billion dollars that featured Section 31 as the main antagonist. No fan would have guessed that would be the case after DS9 concluded.

Now you can argue about the quality of the films, the emphasis on action sequences or the casting choices but you can't argue about the intent. The writers have been very open and have conducted long and wide-ranging interviews with fandom about their motivations, inspirations and concepts for their Trek films.

As for nuTrek making more money, that's also true. Paramount is under no obligation to do anything. Likewise, no Trek fans are under any obligation to like the current direction. And to be fair, we were under no obligation to like the direction it was taking under Rick Berman for that matter. It's "conjecture" to assume that all those who don't like nuTrek heap unconditional praise on Berman-trek. Obviously the franchise was in deep trouble, but JJ's approach wasn't the only way it could have been revived. It would be "conjecture" to assume that any approach other than Star Wars-esque action, rebels without a cause, and lens-flares would have flopped.

You don't need to use dick-quotes around conjecture. Your description of the Abrams films could have used a few, though, given how entirely wrong-headed it was.

What we do know is that Abrams' films are the only successful Trek production in a decade. They're the most well-reviewed entries in the franchise and, most importantly of all, they've captured my imagination by showing me the crew of my youth in their prime. Franklin is dead-on. TOS fans never got to see their heroes on the big screen until they were old and used-up. It's a special kind of thrill to see Kirk and Spock go on adventures at the start of their career, rather than the end.

 

[Orphalesion]

Well, it's a damn good thing some of us liked TOS, or you'd never had your Trek.

There were 21 seasons of the 24th century Trek across three TV series and four movies. That's over 500 episodes. We poor TOS fans had only 79 episodes and while there were six movies, most portrayed our heroes as old and spent.

Still, we were damn glad to have them and we made the most of them. Please don't begrudge us a few hours more.

I'm not begrudging you anything and I'm sorry if it came over like that.
And hey, at least the TOS got a couple decent movies. That's more than the TNG crew had. And one of the series "we" got was Voyager...
After seeing Insurrection I didn't even bother to watch Nemesis to this day. Though I wish Enterprise had made it, the special effects and makeup were awesome.

I was just stating why I, personally, didn't really have any interest in the reboot. That doesn't affect anybody else and everybody can like the things they like

I grew up with the 24th century and when it comes down to it, TOS and TNG(and everything that came after) are almost like two entirely different universes linked by a few concepts. One universe I am interested in, one I'm not interested in.

 

[Smellmet]

most importantly of all, they've captured my imagination by showing me the crew of my youth in their prime. Franklin is dead-on. TOS fans never got to see their heroes on the big screen until they were old and used-up. It's a special kind of thrill to see Kirk and Spock go on adventures at the start of their career, rather than the end.

And this is one of the many reasons I've enjoyed the hell out of the two movies and can't wait for the 3rd.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, it's a damn good thing some of us liked TOS, or you'd never had your Trek.

There were 21 seasons of the 24th century Trek across three TV series and four movies. That's over 500 episodes. We poor TOS fans had only 79 episodes and while there were six movies, most portrayed our heroes as old and spent.

Still, we were damn glad to have them and we made the most of them. Please don't begrudge us a few hours more.

I'm not begrudging you anything and I'm sorry if it came over like that.
And hey, at least the TOS got a couple decent movies. That's more than the TNG crew had. And one of the series "we" got was Voyager...
After seeing Insurrection I didn't even bother to watch Nemesis to this day. Though I wish Enterprise had made it, the special effects and makeup were awesome.

I was just stating why I, personally, didn't really have any interest in the reboot. That doesn't affect anybody else and everybody can like the things they like

I grew up with the 24th century and when it comes down to it, TOS and TNG(and everything that came after) are almost like two entirely different universes linked by a few concepts. One universe I am interested in, one I'm not interested in.

It's rather funny and interesting to see people react to different Star Treks and how they identify with them. I can understand that because, while I grew up with TOS and that show is my favorite, TNG got on to my radar because of my friends and I began to warm up to that. Despite my diminished view of Generations, that movie actually did a lot for me in being able to bridge my enjoyment of both, and liking TNG more.

My dad, though, only liked TOS and never got in to any other Trek series, including TNG. Similarly, another friend of mine grew up watching TOS but regarded TNG as "not Trek" for him.

I say all this because I think it was kind of deliberate. GR wanted to move TNG away from the TOS cowboy days and more of a humanity evolved exploration idealization. Kind of NASA on steroids, if you will. Hence the common references to Starfleet not being a military. Also, GR didn't want too many references to TOS, so Klingons, Vulcans and Romulans were muted in their appearance, beyond Worf.

Any case, I just find it fascinating. I enjoy Abrams films, though, because TOS-era Trek is absolutely fascinating to me.

 

[thumbtack]

They're buying new-Trek in MUCH more quantities than old-Trek.

I see the appearance of Q and DS9 really tanked sales on the nuTrek comic. IDW won't do that again.

.

 

[eyeresist]

And hey, at least the TOS got a couple decent movies. That's more than the TNG crew had.

Hey, GEN and FC were pretty "decent".

After seeing Insurrection I didn't even bother to watch Nemesis to this day.

You may like it better - many do.

Though I wish Enterprise had made it, the special effects and makeup were awesome.

I find this odd coming from you, as I thought ENT was much more like TOS than TNG.

 

[fireproof78]

They're buying new-Trek in MUCH more quantities than old-Trek.

I see the appearance of Q and DS9 really tanked sales on the nuTrek comic. IDW won't do that again.

.

Nothing wrong with them trying, but it was a bit heavy handed, in my opinion.

The third part was actually quite interesting, though. The Khitomer Accords were more in line with what I would expect though.

 

[intrinsical]

I wouldn't say I hate the two movies, but I wouldn't say I liked either movies.

For a reboot that's supposed to bring Trek in new and creative directions, there is too much pandering to old fan favorites like The Wrath of Khan. I thought the first movie's use of Kobiyashi Maru as a plot point was borderline acceptable. Into Darkness' direct mirroring of the whole "Khannnnnnnn!!!!!" shout and engine room death scene just broke the fourth wall for me and therefore felt downright distasteful. The death scene simply did not fit well with the plot nor Kirk's motivation. Never in a million years would I believe Kirk would think, "I need to redeem myself as commander of this vessel by sacrificing myself". Even Deanna Troi was taught to sacrifice a friend to save the ship, not sacrifice the ship's captain.

 

[2takesfrakes]

For a reboot that's supposed to bring Trek in new and creative directions, there is too much pandering to old fan favorites like The Wrath of Khan.

... AGREED!!!

If I had any complaint about the reboot, at all, it is that. But Paramount didn't want to reinvent the wheel and I understand that, too. Still, artisitically, it is rather stale to basically keep seeing the same shit over and over. An opportunity was there to take STAR TREK to a whole new level but "they" didn't have an appetite for it. Nevertheless, I am very pleased with their casting choice for Carol Marcus. I am not really into blondes, that much, but Alice Eve is truly exceptional. And Dr. Marcus having that sexy, little British accent clinches it. I can't wait to see her again, in the next STAR TREK offering. What a find Alice Eve was ...

 

[F. King Daniel]

I wouldn't say I hate the two movies, but I wouldn't say I liked either movies.

For a reboot that's supposed to bring Trek in new and creative directions, there is too much pandering to old fan favorites like The Wrath of Khan. I thought the first movie's use of Kobiyashi Maru as a plot point was borderline acceptable. Into Darkness' direct mirroring of the whole "Khannnnnnnn!!!!!" shout and engine room death scene just broke the fourth wall for me and therefore felt downright distasteful. The death scene simply did not fit well with the plot nor Kirk's motivation. Never in a million years would I believe Kirk would think, "I need to redeem myself as commander of this vessel by sacrificing myself". Even Deanna Troi was taught to sacrifice a friend to save the ship, not sacrifice the ship's captain.

Redemption never crossed Kirk's mind. His only thought was saving his crew by any means necessary - something the film built to from the very start.