Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Though how cool would it be to see her: http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Mudd_(Bajoran) in either another of the movies or as a recurring/one off character in a follow up series?
Though how cool would it be to see her: http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Mudd_(Bajoran) in either another of the movies or as a recurring/one off character in a follow up series?
I completely agree, which the whole captured freighter was supposed to be a nod to, but that requires reading
I completely agree, which the whole captured freighter was supposed to be a nod to, but that requires reading
I was really confused what you meant by that so I googled "Into Darkness" and "Captured Freighter".
To be honest I say ID once and that was before I learned of Bajoran!Mudd I must have forgotten since then that a "Mudd incident" was mentioned in the movie. I can't remember a lot of the dialogue from the movies tbh.
And that is still of course a long way from canonizing a female, half-Bajoran Mudd into the Abramsverse. For most people it would have just been a reference to the guy from TOS, with no indication of anything Bajor-related.
My two favorite 24th century nods in JJTrek are Ambassador Spock (a TNG term) and Section 31 (which was used wayyy more in DS9 than ENT).
For the life of me, I can't think of a single Voyager reference in the JJ-movies. All the other spinoff shows -- including TAS -- have been referenced. And Augments being able to shrug off a stun blast is an ENT concept.
As for the Cardassian Sunrise, I imagine that it's a sweeter version of a Long Island Iced Tea, which is already very yummy.
For the life of me, I can't think of a single Voyager reference in the JJ-movies. All the other spinoff shows -- including TAS -- have been referenced. And Augments being able to shrug off a stun blast is an ENT concept.
As for the Cardassian Sunrise, I imagine that it's a sweeter version of a Long Island Iced Tea, which is already very yummy.
I know! I enjoy hearing the different, even negative, reactions to what I like. It's interesting. But I have struggled with this nuTrek reaction from the loud people because I keep being excluded from 'fandom'.
"Trekkies think..."
"Trekkers think..."
"Real Trekkers say..."
"the Real True hFans know..."
So by de facto, I am not real and true, or even a fan at all since I have diversity of enjoyment. No matter that I have spent 48 years deeply impacted by Trek, loving it dearly. Watching it all. Going to all the movies (although I had to rent one of them because it slipped by me without me even knowing it was released
) But because I also think the nu is also awesome... I am over and over decried in innuendo that I am unfit to be part of fandom.Seriously, this weighed heavily on me. It made me very sad for a longgg time.
I very much wish to be brave enough to:
"you'll get a face full of STFU!"
I think the fact we are members of this forum mean we are all Star Trek fans and lets face it, it would be boring if we all agreed on everything!
As I said before apart from Karl Urban as McCoy and some damn good CGI, I don't like JJTrek. That's my opinion and if other people don't like it or don't think I'm a Star Trek fan because of that then I don't really care.
Also it doesn't bother me in the slightest that others love JJTrek, that's their choice and like other members have already said, it's good to see others opinions of the reboots.
As I said before apart from Karl Urban as McCoy and some damn good CGI, I don't like JJTrek. That's my opinion and if other people don't like it or don't think I'm a Star Trek fan because of that then I don't really care.
Also it doesn't bother me in the slightest that others love JJTrek, that's their choice and like other members have already said, it's good to see others opinions of the reboots.
Last edited:
IrishNero
Commodore
And, again, this isn't just a Trekkie thing. I still remember the guy who told me that I wasn't a "real" Superman fan because we disagreed over a certain comic-book plotline.
Never mind that I was watching George Reeves on television before he was born!
People often tear down anything that's not what they use, or like, or do...because it makes them feel better about themselves at your or another's expense. It's snobbery, hubris, smugness...all rolled into one.
I don't like the reboots. They feel more like action movies than Trek movies.
Wrath of Khan had action, but it was able to balance it with good character moments and interesting dialogue. Wrath of Khan also had the guts to kill off a main character, even if only temporarily. Compare this to Into Darkness which is more of a slideshow of explosions than anything that can be called a visual masterpiece. It feels like watching a generic sci-fi movie whose script had all of its nouns substituted to make it seem more Trek-related. They tried to make the plot more palatable to Trekkies by throwing in old plot lines, but the result looked more like an amorphous blob of Trek references than anything else.
They should have tried their hand at a new series rather than hand the reigns over to Abrams who seems to want to make Star Trek more like Star Wars.
Wrath of Khan had action, but it was able to balance it with good character moments and interesting dialogue. Wrath of Khan also had the guts to kill off a main character, even if only temporarily. Compare this to Into Darkness which is more of a slideshow of explosions than anything that can be called a visual masterpiece. It feels like watching a generic sci-fi movie whose script had all of its nouns substituted to make it seem more Trek-related. They tried to make the plot more palatable to Trekkies by throwing in old plot lines, but the result looked more like an amorphous blob of Trek references than anything else.
They should have tried their hand at a new series rather than hand the reigns over to Abrams who seems to want to make Star Trek more like Star Wars.
That was exactly his intent and he has said so openly.
This happened in Into Darkness as well as Wrath of Khan/Search for Spock.
It's not the same by a wide margin. In 1982 there was talk of Leonard Nimoy no longer interested in playing Spock and killing off his character was seen as a way to give him an out. There was real doubt Spock would ever return. Add in the fact that no one knew with any certainty whether there would even be a third movie.
STID had no intention of Kirk remaining dead and everyone knows it. It was a cheap and completely obvious ploy that no one could fall for particularly since they bring him back soon after in the same movie. They could have at least left him dead until the next film, but even that would still have been obvious as well.
Kirk was only dead in Into Darkness for like 15 minutes.
Wrath of Khan had us convinced that Spock was gone forever.
Kirk's death in Into Darkness was on the same level as any of the other temporary main character deaths in the series.
Wrath of Khan convinced you that Spock was gone forever
Although I will agree Kirk's death was undone too quickly, that he was willing to make it is what makes it work in the movie. Ditto Spock in light of STIII.
Although I will agree Kirk's death was undone too quickly, that he was willing to make it is what makes it work in the movie. Ditto Spock in light of STIII.
Maybe it's because I was never the sort of person who mixed their potatoes with their vegetables, but I'd really like to keep Star Trek and Star Wars separate. They both had their strengths and weaknesses, but trying to bring the two together results in something that feels like neither.
Now I worry that he'll do the same with Star Wars VII. I know that a lot of Star Wars fans will be annoyed if the characters start spouting Treknobabble and talking about the Prime Directive.
Exactly.
That's not exactly true, "if you'll forgive me my saying so."*
Abrams said early on that he was not a fan of Trek growing up, but he was a Star Wars fan. That does not automatically disqualify him from being an effective Trek director. We've seen very good movies done by directors who were not Trekkies.
I've never read anything that suggested that Abrams intended to turn Star Trek into Star Wars. It wouldn't be possible, anyway. What he accomplished was to take a franchise that was tired and worn out and made it exciting again.
As for his taking the director's seat in the revitalized Star Wars franchise, who would turn that down? I certainly wouldn't.
*Orson Welles, in the famous "canned peas" outtakes.
In the ST09 DVD special features he says openly right on camera that he felt Star Trek should be more like Star Wars.
You can't get any plainer than that. So, yeah, he said it and anyone can see it for themselves by watching the DVD or BluRay special features.
Similar threads
