Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?

[WHF]

Yeah, only the people who hate the films are irrational. What a pretentious post.

Except I didn't say that. Anywhere. I even go out of my way to explain that I don't think merely disliking the film is wrong. I took great pains to make sure the playing field was balanced, that I was only referring to people who hate the films and want to make it seem like those who like the movies are not "real" Trek fans.

I've reread your post that I quoted from and I don't agree that it was balanced.

I don't mind it. It shows that a significant portion of the people who regularly visit these fora like the films (either one or both). That's not to say it shuts down arguments about the quality of the films on a case by case basis (it's a subjective POV), but hopefully it will shut down the arguments that Trek fans didn't like the films, and that only "real" Trek fans hated the films, and before you say anything, I have seen that argument float around here as a popular one.

I just think it's so absurd, the conniption fits that take place over the films. Yeah, we're nerds, we're Trek fans, but I see people arguing themselves into a rage about the notion that J.J. wanted to sabotage Star Trek, or that he didn't care about the films, or that no Trek fan liked the films, or that only "true" Trek fans disliked the films. It's just all whiny bullshit that has no support whatsoever.

Dislike the film, hate the film, burn it in effigy, but that's as far as it gets in terms of the effect it has on the quality and popularity of the film itself. The films exist, they will continue to exist, and they are now a part of the Trek "canon". Moreso, there are now Trek fans who started out on these films, and that makes them no less Trek fans than the ones who started out in 1966.

Yeah, you didn't argue any of this, but seeing the arguments throughout the various Trek fora, well, this whole line of denialism and stubbornness, it takes away from the board. I think it degrades the community.

Again, just to be clear, it's one thing to dislike the films, that's perfectly alright. No film is perfect, these included. It isn't, however, okay to shout people down who do like the films, and it isn't okay to make up shit in order to take away from the legitimacy of the films, and when one is called on that, it is justified.

In short, people are free to make up shit as excuses for not liking the films, but they will be called on it, because the movies did make a lot of money (I can already hear the gnashing of teeth), they did knock it out of the park, critically speaking, there are new fans that have emerged from these films, and there will be more who stand alongside the original fans from the 1960s. Nothing, NOTHING, will change that. No amount of bitter tears, no stomping of feet, no outright denial of reality, no boycotts, no pretend being dragged into the theater by "friends", no protest signatures, NOTHING will change that.

I bolded the parts where you call out the 'haters', and I underlined the parts where you call out the 'zealots' and I feel like I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one. You didn't directly say "only the people who hate the films are irrational" but it seems to me that is what you imply.

I don't expect a post to be balanced, especially from you because you're on the side that loves the films and you probably don't see the 'zealots' who go out of their way to praise them the same way that those of us who dislike the films see them. We all have our points of view, just don't claim a post is balanced when it isn't.

Also, perhaps I shouldn't have been as sarcastic as I was, but because I'm on the side that doesn't like them I let a little of my frustration through at the implication (and not just from you but from many posters on this board who don't just imply it but outright state it) that it's only the people who dislike the films that are the problem when there is plenty of blame to go around for the ranting that go on about these films.

I wonder if in some ways posters like me who dislike the films but never comment on them (at least until this thread) are part of the problem? The majority of the posters that don't like these films remain silent while we let the 'haters' rant. In some ways there might be a hesitancy on the part of posters to come forward with actual criticism because of the cliquish nature of this board which results in tacitly agreed upon orthodox views and unorthodox views.

 

[BillJ]

Yes, because the new movies capture what I remember fondly about watching Trek as a kid: the adventure, the color and the fun.

This.

I think that somewhere along the way, those that were making Star Trek forgot it was suppose to be fun to some degree. The longer it went on, the more serious it got. It turned me off to the spinoffs.

 

[Greg Cox]

Also, perhaps I shouldn't have been as sarcastic as I was, but because I'm on the side that doesn't like them I let a little of my frustration through at the implication (and not just from you but from many posters on this board who don't just imply it but outright state it) that it's only the people who dislike the films that are the problem when there is plenty of blame to go around for the ranting that go on about these films.

After debating this stuff for six years now, I fear that some of us on both sides have gotten a bit touchy and quick to take offense whenever we think we hear the same old accusations and arguments being brought up for the umpteenth time--and may even react preemptively.

"Oh god, here we go again. Star Trek has been 'dumbed down' for the 'masses' and anybody who likes the new movies is shallow, callow, only cares about 'pew-pew' and explosions, and doesn't understand what Star Trek is all about . . . even if they've been a Trekkie for their entire lives."

I confess: I tend to reach for my phaser the minute I see the words "canon" or "masses." You can only hear the same old song so many times before your hackles start to rise every time somebody even hints at going there, so that you're not actually reacting to the post in front of you but to the hundreds of other such posts you've read over the years.

And I'm sure the folks on the other side are equally weary of being dismissed as close-minded, canon-obsessed purists who can't let go of the past or whatever . . . .

 

[BillJ]

After debating this stuff for six years now, I fear that some of us on both sides have gotten a bit touchy and quick to take offense whenever we think we hear the same old accusations and arguments being brought up for the umpteenth time--and may even react preemptively.

"Oh god, here we go again. Star Trek has been 'dumbed down' for the 'masses' and anybody who likes the new movies is shallow, callow, only cares about 'pew-pew' and explosions, and doesn't understand what Star Trek is all about . . . even if they've been a Trekkie for their entire lives."

I confess: I tend to reach for my phaser the minute I see the words "canon" or "masses." You can only hear the same old song so many times before your hackles start to rise every time somebody even hints at going there, so that you're not actually reacting to the post in front of you but to the hundreds of other such posts you've read over the years.

And I'm sure the folks on the other side are equally weary of being dismissed as close-minded, canon-obsessed purists who can't let go of the past or whatever . . . .

+1

 

[Viper78]

I voted no as I didn't think much of the stories or most of the cast in either film. In fact the only things I did like about them were Karl Urban as McCoy and the GCI.

I'm not against remakes/reboots, I loved the new BSG and Planet of the Apes but for some reason the reboot Trek doesn't do it for me. Possibly because I care more about Star Trek and seing a new cast of actors playing a host of my favourite characters is strange.

 

[Cyke101]

Yes, because the new movies capture what I remember fondly about watching Trek as a kid: the adventure, the color and the fun.

This.

I think that somewhere along the way, those that were making Star Trek forgot it was suppose to be fun to some degree. The longer it went on, the more serious it got. It turned me off to the spinoffs.

Yes to both of these. Even if I didn't like STID as a whole, I still prefer it to some of the lesser episodes of TOS. And I appreciate that the reboots are trying to get to the core of TOS.

And so I still voice my support for the reboots. I expect to enjoy myself during the next movie, but even if I don't, the concept of the reboot itself wouldn't be to blame. And the past two movies have shown that vibrant adventure and key character interactions (particularly Kirk and Spock) are very much a part of TOS.

 

[Orphalesion]

I'm not against remakes/reboots, I loved the new BSG and Planet of the Apes but for some reason the reboot Trek doesn't do it for me. Possibly because I care more about Star Trek and seing a new cast of actors playing a host of my favourite characters is strange.

A lot of people say Star Trek needs to be in a TV show format to truly thrive. I agree. That might be part of it?

 

[xvicente]

^on the contrary, I think the new movies feel more like tv episodes (on steroids) then real movies.

But then, I dont go to the movies much anymore.

 

[IrishNero]

Maybe I'm just about as easy-going as it comes when it comes to what I watch but I've enjoyed pretty much everything Star Trek. I have watched episodes of 3 series and two movies in the last few days and I find them all entertaining in their own way. Of course, I have preferences like everyone else, but I'm more inclined to dislike a particular episode or movie vice a whole series or a crew. I can only speak for myself but I don't believe there is a 'real' Star Trek. The 'real' Trek is what you open yourself up to enjoying. It all works for me.

 

[Orphalesion]

^+1

 

[Nerys Myk]

Maybe I'm just about as easy-going as it comes when it comes to what I watch but I've enjoyed pretty much everything Star Trek. I have watched episodes of 3 series and two movies in the last few days and I find them all entertaining in their own way. Of course, I have preferences like everyone else, but I'm more inclined to dislike a particular episode or movie vice a whole series or a crew. I can only speak for myself but I don't believe there is a 'real' Star Trek. The 'real' Trek is what you open yourself up to enjoying. It all works for me.

Well said.

And that avatar is great!

 

[Greg Cox]

Maybe I'm just about as easy-going as it comes when it comes to what I watch but I've enjoyed pretty much everything Star Trek. I have watched episodes of 3 series and two movies in the last few days and I find them all entertaining in their own way. Of course, I have preferences like everyone else, but I'm more inclined to dislike a particular episode or movie vice a whole series or a crew. I can only speak for myself but I don't believe there is a 'real' Star Trek. The 'real' Trek is what you open yourself up to enjoying. It all works for me.

Well said.

And that avatar is great!

Indeed. That seems like a very sensible attitude.

I mean, I generally prefer TOS to VOYAGER, but I'm not dogmatic about it. There are certainly episodes of VOYAGER that I enjoy much more than certain episodes of TOS.

Give me "Relativity" over "The Alternative Factor" anyday!

 

[IrishNero]

Maybe I'm just about as easy-going as it comes when it comes to what I watch but I've enjoyed pretty much everything Star Trek. I have watched episodes of 3 series and two movies in the last few days and I find them all entertaining in their own way. Of course, I have preferences like everyone else, but I'm more inclined to dislike a particular episode or movie vice a whole series or a crew. I can only speak for myself but I don't believe there is a 'real' Star Trek. The 'real' Trek is what you open yourself up to enjoying. It all works for me.

Well said.

And that avatar is great!

 

[Amaris]

Yeah, only the people who hate the films are irrational. What a pretentious post.

Except I didn't say that. Anywhere. I even go out of my way to explain that I don't think merely disliking the film is wrong. I took great pains to make sure the playing field was balanced, that I was only referring to people who hate the films and want to make it seem like those who like the movies are not "real" Trek fans.

I've reread your post that I quoted from and I don't agree that it was balanced.

I don't mind it. It shows that a significant portion of the people who regularly visit these fora like the films (either one or both). That's not to say it shuts down arguments about the quality of the films on a case by case basis (it's a subjective POV), but hopefully it will shut down the arguments that Trek fans didn't like the films, and that only "real" Trek fans hated the films, and before you say anything, I have seen that argument float around here as a popular one.

I just think it's so absurd, the conniption fits that take place over the films. Yeah, we're nerds, we're Trek fans, but I see people arguing themselves into a rage about the notion that J.J. wanted to sabotage Star Trek, or that he didn't care about the films, or that no Trek fan liked the films, or that only "true" Trek fans disliked the films. It's just all whiny bullshit that has no support whatsoever.

Dislike the film, hate the film, burn it in effigy, but that's as far as it gets in terms of the effect it has on the quality and popularity of the film itself. The films exist, they will continue to exist, and they are now a part of the Trek "canon". Moreso, there are now Trek fans who started out on these films, and that makes them no less Trek fans than the ones who started out in 1966.

Yeah, you didn't argue any of this, but seeing the arguments throughout the various Trek fora, well, this whole line of denialism and stubbornness, it takes away from the board. I think it degrades the community.

Again, just to be clear, it's one thing to dislike the films, that's perfectly alright. No film is perfect, these included. It isn't, however, okay to shout people down who do like the films, and it isn't okay to make up shit in order to take away from the legitimacy of the films, and when one is called on that, it is justified.

In short, people are free to make up shit as excuses for not liking the films, but they will be called on it, because the movies did make a lot of money (I can already hear the gnashing of teeth), they did knock it out of the park, critically speaking, there are new fans that have emerged from these films, and there will be more who stand alongside the original fans from the 1960s. Nothing, NOTHING, will change that. No amount of bitter tears, no stomping of feet, no outright denial of reality, no boycotts, no pretend being dragged into the theater by "friends", no protest signatures, NOTHING will change that.

I bolded the parts where you call out the 'haters', and I underlined the parts where you call out the 'zealots' and I feel like I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one. You didn't directly say "only the people who hate the films are irrational" but it seems to me that is what you imply.

I don't expect a post to be balanced, especially from you because you're on the side that loves the films and you probably don't see the 'zealots' who go out of their way to praise them the same way that those of us who dislike the films see them. We all have our points of view, just don't claim a post is balanced when it isn't.

Also, perhaps I shouldn't have been as sarcastic as I was, but because I'm on the side that doesn't like them I let a little of my frustration through at the implication (and not just from you but from many posters on this board who don't just imply it but outright state it) that it's only the people who dislike the films that are the problem when there is plenty of blame to go around for the ranting that go on about these films.

I wonder if in some ways posters like me who dislike the films but never comment on them (at least until this thread) are part of the problem? The majority of the posters that don't like these films remain silent while we let the 'haters' rant. In some ways there might be a hesitancy on the part of posters to come forward with actual criticism because of the cliquish nature of this board which results in tacitly agreed upon orthodox views and unorthodox views.

If I came across as trying to call those who merely disliked the film as irrational, I do apologize for that, because it isn't my intent. I really did try to make it clear, but I have to agree that both sides of the debate get cloudy, and hard to navigate. I bear no ill will towards anyone who dislikes the movie. What bothers me are the people who are determined to make it known to me that I'm not a "true" fan because I do like the movies, that I disrespect these people whom I hold quite dear. That's all that really concerns me, and not because my enjoyment of the show is based on their opinions, but because when we're here having a discussion, I want my opinion to be just as valid as the next person's, without having to qualify it with any kind of silly credentials.

 

[Marsden]

Yes, because the new movies capture what I remember fondly about watching Trek as a kid: the adventure, the color and the fun.

This.

I think that somewhere along the way, those that were making Star Trek forgot it was suppose to be fun to some degree. The longer it went on, the more serious it got. It turned me off to the spinoffs.

The truth is I really wish I felt this way, but I was so disappointed with everything but Karl Urban that I didn't enjoy any of the movie.

But you're right, too much of Star Trek wasn't "fun" it wasn't an adventure. My only problem is these two movies weren't an adventure either any more than Transformers. It was just a lot of sizzle and no steak.

 

[BillJ]

But you're right, too much of Star Trek wasn't "fun" it wasn't an adventure. My only problem is these two movies weren't an adventure either any more than Transformers. It was just a lot of sizzle and no steak.

I thought there was plenty of steak. From Spock and Kirk's individual character arcs to the criticism of U.S. policy on drone warfare and executing criminals without trial and plenty of things in between (including a badass update to the Klingons).

But they suffer from being a compressed version of many events and themes we've seen in the past. I've said it before myself that the movies have been a Cliff Notes version of the Star Trek universe we all love. Certain sacrifices and shortcuts had to be made. It works for some folks, not so much for others.

 

[urbandefault]

I'm not familiar with Lim's directing, or Pegg and Jung as writers, but bringing in a new team can't be a bad thing. A fresh look through different eyes might be enough to satisfy at least a little more of the old fan base.

That's not a poke at the first two movies, by any stretch.

 

[eyeresist]

^ Re these last two posts, I think, as Bill says, there are plenty of great Trek moments in the last two movies. The problem is that for me and some others they tend to get drowned out by the presentation. So I'm hoping the next movie is like the previous ones - except without the ADHD

 

[golddragon71]

I really do enjoy the NuTrek movies.
They may not live up to the legacy of the original series 100% but lets face it...
That's really an impossible standard to match.
and even the series itself wasn't that big a deal in the first place.
Yes it told good stories
Yes it addressed relevant issues.
but at the end of the day it was really (and i say this despite my own personal rabid-dog hardcore classicist fandom) a cheap weekly one hour melodramatic Science fiction series with a guy wearing rubber points on his ears.

 

[Orphalesion]

I've said it before myself that the movies have been a Cliff Notes version of the Star Trek universe we all love.

And I say it again, it is not the Cliff Notes version of the Star Trek Universe I love or perhaps this edition just happened to cut out all the parts I enjoyed.
I see your point, it just doesn't work for me, personally.

As I said before all I would need would be some small acknowledgement of the elements contributed by the 24th century shows; Harry Mudd's half-Bajoran daughter from that comic set in the Abramsverse, a Ferengi background extra, a causal mention of Cardassians anything really to assure me that *quoting Azetbur* "The Abramsverse isn't a TOS-only club!"