Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
To me, that's what a good reboot should do in the first place; take the source material, everything that made it good, and see where it can go in new directions. To me too many reboots or remakes fail because they're too busy trying to capture lightning in a bottle, rather than adapting classic ideas to modern times and then expanding/exploring accordingly.
Can we be friends until I can form more cogent arguments? I may have led you to believe that most of the things I'm talking about are major reasons for my discomfort, but they are simply things that rub me the wrong way upon re-watching.
For example, if Romulans suddenly lost their cranial ridges, lost their green hue, changed their hairstyle, altered their clothing style, grew stubble and tattooed their faces in, say "The Motion Picture", "Deep Space Nine" or "The Undiscovered Country" (all things that I love), I'd go along with it and just rationalise (as you have) that it's just what some Romulans look like.
For me, I have sentimental (perhaps, irrational) attatchment to this kind of Romulan (my first exposure to them):
They've changed quite a lot since then but, in every instance (until "Nemesis"), I went along with it because I enjoyed the overall product.
Since I, already, don't like this new film, then I'm, of course, going to resent the changes made (for this specific element).
Hell, I might have ended up disliking how they looked in "The Original Series" but I didn't, primarily, because "Balance of Terror" was such a good episode.
The Romulans never forehead implants before, even some of the TNG/ENT characters did not later.
It was an idiotic change that can't be explained by just moving to Romulus, as we'd need to see a whole subset of Vulcans with them too explain why some do and some don't.
The Nero crew look is possibly the best appearance they've taken in Trek and I hope it becomes more widely adopted.
It was an idiotic change that can't be explained by just moving to Romulus, as we'd need to see a whole subset of Vulcans with them too explain why some do and some don't.
The Nero crew look is possibly the best appearance they've taken in Trek and I hope it becomes more widely adopted.
Just for canon/shits and giggles, they should have the Romulan commander played by Ben Cross.
That is a fair statement about Voyager and Enterprise. They did take themselves a bit seriously. What sporadic humor they had, was lame.
DS9 was more serious, in fact a pretty dark show at times, but did have lighter episodes, some well done, some lame. But being serious worked for DS9.
TNG came closes of the spinoffs to TOS, as far as I am concerned.
It's always interesting that some nuTrek proponents are quick to beat down any criticism of their beloved reboots, then turn right around and dump on the "spinoffs". The "spinoffs" are 4 different shows and lumping them all together is just dismissive. If you are going to assert that the reboots are ST, then the "spinoffs" are just as much ST as TOS is, whether you like it or not. The "spinoffs" greatly expanded the ST universe. I can't imagine what ST would be like if it was just TOS, the films and the reboots.
btw, my first ST was TOS as a kid. I saw it as a serious, adult and intellectually stimulating show. There was some humor (usually accompanied by "whaa whaa whaa" musical cues) but I'm just not seeing the "fun"; it was quite serious and a lot of it was pretty dark. Unless you count camp as fun... I'm not seeing the "action" either as the vast majority of TOS was dialogue. That carried over into the TOS films.
Methinks people are retconning the tone of the new movies onto TOS.
IrishNero
Commodore
I think people conceptualize in their mind that certain series or movies were this and that, but it's hard to generalize, for example, that TNG was too serious versus a movie, such as the reboots. You're discussing 178 episodes versus four hours of movie time, give or take: Apples and oranges when you're discussing TV versus movies anyway. There are some light-hearted moments in all of the series or movies. The darkest points I can remember is the Xindi Attack story arc in Enterprise, but it echoed what was going on in the world after 9/11, so I couldn't imagine it being much more light-hearted than it was.
So to, some shows in all the series were very basic, to put it bluntly. We now like to think of Trek as being some cerebral stimulator, but other than vague reference to imaginary tech, there was often no more intellectually challenging moments than you would find in any other adult drama program.
So to, some shows in all the series were very basic, to put it bluntly. We now like to think of Trek as being some cerebral stimulator, but other than vague reference to imaginary tech, there was often no more intellectually challenging moments than you would find in any other adult drama program.
I'm not sure how saying I got turned off is dumping on the spinoffs?
I think TOS, more than any other show, suffers from the generalization of its premise, when it had a variety of modes, from darker, more serious, to light hearted and goofy. TNG actually followed that mold pretty well, and once the characters found their own stride, turned out very well.
I won't disparage the spinoffs in concept because it is something that I think a lot of imaginary worlds should do. I like the idea of expanding out, and learning more about the world and the people inhabiting it. DS9 did it it a different way, but I still liked the concept of a wormhole and that exploration.
As for the reboots, I think they have their place, because they take a part of the franchise and run with it. Was TOS all action and adventure? By modern standards, no. But, it was framed as a Western, and utilized more Western tropes in its storytelling. So, the reboots took those elements and hypercharged them. For some, that's good and others, well not so good.
But, I think my biggest frustration with the reboots is that, like other shows, they are generalized as "mindless action movies." Well, to me, they are no more mindless action than TOS was cerebral television. Both are generalizations that don't accurately capture what the media is actually trying to do.
I might come out and defend the reboots a lot, but that is because I don't see them doing anything differently than what Star Trek has done in the past, save for louder and more intense.
If my friendships were based upon agreeing about Star Trek, my best friend and I would have parted company in 2009, after knowing each other for 37 years!
Can we be friends until I can form more cogent arguments? I may have led you to believe that most of the things I'm talking about are major reasons for my discomfort, but they are simply things that rub me the wrong way upon re-watching.
For example, if Romulans suddenly lost their cranial ridges, lost their green hue, changed their hairstyle, altered their clothing style, grew stubble and tattooed their faces in, say "The Motion Picture", "Deep Space Nine" or "The Undiscovered Country" (all things that I love), I'd go along with it and just rationalise (as you have) that it's just what some Romulans look like.
For me, I have sentimental (perhaps, irrational) attatchment to this kind of Romulan (my first exposure to them):
They've changed quite a lot since then but, in every instance (until "Nemesis"), I went along with it because I enjoyed the overall product.
Since I, already, don't like this new film, then I'm, of course, going to resent the changes made (for this specific element).
Hell, I might have ended up disliking how they looked in "The Original Series" but I didn't, primarily, because "Balance of Terror" was such a good episode.
I do find the idea of disliking the 09 Romulans because you disliked the movie a puzzler. And liking the bad wig/head ridge Romulans is one too . But to each their own.
Well, it's taste. It may be mixed in with some nostalgia, but when I was a kid I really enjoyed their look.
Anyway, I didn't dislike the look of Romulans just because I disliked the film, but the latter fact made me inclined not to let it pass (the same way I probably would have if I'd have liked the film).
So, again, if Nero-type Romulans had shown up during the Dominion War I'd have found a way to deal with it.
If my friendships were based upon agreeing about Star Trek, my best friend and I would have parted company in 2009, after knowing each other for 37 years!
I do find the idea of disliking the 09 Romulans because you disliked the movie a puzzler. And liking the bad wig/head ridge Romulans is one too . But to each their own.
Amen. I've been arguing vociferously with my friends about books, movies, and comics for as long as I've been in fandom. Heck, few things are more boring than a convention panel in which everyone is on the same side. Ditto a discussion thread.
Just yesterday, in fact, I was debating the relative merits of The Flash versus Agents of SHIELD with an old friend I've known for decades. He was wrong, of course, but that's not going to stop us from dissecting next week's episodes.
It's nothing personal, as long as nobody attacks any individual's tastes or intellect. ("Anybody who likes horror movies is sick," that kind of thing.) Heck, it's half the fun.
But cranial ridges on Romulans are just wrong. Romulans are supposed to look exactly like Vulcans, damnit. That was the whole point of "Balance of Terror."
I quite liked the design of Ba'el...
Klingons and Romulans should be friends more often.
Similar threads
