When Will the Penny Drop then...?

[CommanderRaytas]

Exactly - I made the point that the debate is about scale and endeavour. The evidence of this is overwhelming.

Or we could watch another Kes and Neelix love-in.

Is that Trek? Is that what an overwhelming number of the public want?

I agree with most of your points, but I would like to say you're kind of making it sound like we have to be in one of two groups: the Abrams-lovers or the nay-sayers.

Okay some of us seem to think in those dimensions, granted, but the majority doesn't- why can't someone be a fan of Voyager, INS, canon and what have you, and yet still be excited about the new film? No need for us to jump on each other's throats here over such things.

I like VOY, INS and basically all Trek, even the horrible bits of it- I like the dated sets and the canon in-jokes, and if the new movie were like that, I would most probably watch it and try to find something enjoyable in it.

That doesn't mean I don't believe that this new stuff is needed to revive the franchise. I'm one of the whatever, go for it, as long as it's a good film I don't give a damn people.

But we shouldn't get lost in petty bickering, it's not worth it and a bloody waste of time.

Cheers.

Agreed and we can be fans of everything - I love the TOS movies.

But I did not say 'why do we have to change anything' - I said 'why not change everything'.

I do not see Trek confined to some canon defined parameters - I want to see it grow and prosper. It died towards the end of it's last run.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I don't care about canon all too much, I am not in the least bothered about this reboot or whatever people want to call it.

I just think we can actually have it both ways, and just enjoy it for what it is: entertainment. The old stuff is good, and I hope the new film is even better.

 

[Plumster]

I've figured out what pisses off the pedants and it's because this time I don't think the fan base will make or break the film and there's a few of them that HATE that.

Fan power brought it back in 1979 - it did not bring it back this time.

They HATE that.

They HATE the fact that JJ is bigger than they are and that this has a momentum of it's own removed from what they think or want.

They see themselves as Trek and all that surrounds it. It's obvious to anyone who tries to engage with them.

All the major Trek actors allude to it at some point or other in their biographies - the fans and their reaction to the destruction of the Enterprise - the fans and their reaction to Sulu Captaining the Excelsior - the fans and their reaction to the death of Spock - the fans and their reaction to Nimoy/Shatner directing etc.

The fans were the actors allies and little snippits would get released before anything happened if the actors did not approve of what they were asked to do. Roddenberry was the 'brains' behind so much of that - the old letter writing campaign - pressing the flesh at conventions etc.

That core of fans hates the fact that they have nothing to do with or any hold over this movie - and that's why the opinions by certain 'fans' is so negative.


I think fandom may well split after this movie because nothing they do or say has any relevance within the studio today. They cannot make or break this film - only Joe Public can do that now and they hate that- the dirty little secret is out and it will finally be seen for what it is. It's either niche entertainment or it's about to go seriously global in a way that it has not for 20 years. That, of course, was a whole generation ago.

In some ways - the chickens have come home to roost. Trek toward the end of it's last run was not relevent to many at all - it was relevent to a few.

This film is the acid test of that rationale - radical and different production values are being mooted in place of tired and worn out methodology that entertained an undemanding few so long as it had chubby and aging actors turning out for another payday.

Patrick Stewart looked as bored as anyone could possibly look in his last two outings as Picard. What future was there in that?

You will see the future come May 2009.

 

[The Wormhole]

Our children sometimes do things we don't like - it does not mean that we stop loving them.

That's not necessarily true.

 

[Plumster]

Our children sometimes do things we don't like - it does not mean that we stop loving them.

That's not necessarily true.

Issues Dude - Issues.

 

[The Wormhole]

Our children sometimes do things we don't like - it does not mean that we stop loving them.

That's not necessarily true.

Issues Dude - Issues.

All I'm saying is if I had a child and he disappointed me to the extent that this movie is, he'd be changing his last name.

 

[Plumster]

That's not necessarily true.

Issues Dude - Issues.

All I'm saying is if I had a child and he disappointed me to the extent that this movie is, he'd be changing his last name.

Ouch.

There's nothing my children could do that would make me turn away - the same with Trek. I've had Trek longer than I've had the children and whatever it did - I never turned away.

Don't get me wrong - I tried but I always gave it another chance.

I'm correct though I think when I say that much of the issue here is about the fans and the fact they have no ownership with this effort - I beleive they think the studio has turned around and given them the bird.

No bad thing in my opinion.

I'm giving Trek another chance.

 

[The Wormhole]

Regardless of how much Trek disappoints me, I always come back. Star Trek is my blood and my breath, my childhood and my home. But still, when it does disappoint me it hurts me on a vey personal and emotional level. This movie pains me very much.

 

[M'Sharak]

I'm giving Trek another chance.

I think that if you had begun from this, rather than the more confrontational tone you adopted in your first several posts, this thread would have gotten off to a much better start. In spite of it all, and thanks to a few posters who insisted upon being reasonable () about the topic, we seem to have been having a pretty decent discussion down toward the end.

If I might suggest, the somewhat insulting stance which you assumed through the first part of the thread doesn't come off any better when it's in support of change and modernization of Trek than when it's calling for no change and a rigid adherence to the 60s television series in appearance and details. Perhaps that was your point, but I think it was lost for a time in the presentation style.

The repetition of "scale and endeavour, scale and endeavour" fell flat, as well, because it's not a familiar phrase to most and its meaning is unclear -- it appears to be either a peculiarly British expression (public school? dunno) or a sort of professional jargon. I was able to work out what I think you meant, but I might suggest explaining what you mean rather thatn repeating what amounts to a slogan; again, that may have been part of your point, but it falls somewhere below "Enterprise violates continuity! Enterprise violates continuity!" on the self-explanatory yardstick.

As you've found in this thread, there are plenty of reasonable and open-minded people here in the forum who will be perfectly willing to discuss nearly any topic relating to the movie, if you'll only tell them clearly what you want to talk about or what questions you'd like to explore. Again, you may have been making a point -- and, to an extent, you did, whether or not it was the one you intended -- but there may have been a better and less antagonistic way of going about it.

 

[Plumster]

I'm giving Trek another chance.

I think that if you had begun from this, rather than the more confrontational tone you adopted in your first several posts, this thread would have gotten off to a much better start. In spite of it all, and thanks to a few posters who insisted upon being reasonable () about the topic, we seem to have been having a pretty decent discussion down toward the end.

If I might suggest, the somewhat insulting stance which you assumed through the first part of the thread doesn't come off any better when it's in support of change and modernization of Trek than when it's calling for no change and a rigid adherence to the 60s television series in appearance and details. Perhaps that was your point, but I think it was lost for a time in the presentation style.

The repetition of "scale and endeavour, scale and endeavour" fell flat, as well, because it's not a familiar phrase to most and its meaning is unclear -- it appears to be either a peculiarly British expression (public school? dunno) or a sort of professional jargon. I was able to work out what I think you meant, but I might suggest explaining what you mean rather thatn repeating what amounts to a slogan; again, that may have been part of your point, but it falls somewhere below "Enterprise violates continuity! Enterprise violates continuity!" on the self-explanatory yardstick.

As you've found in this thread, there are plenty of reasonable and open-minded people here in the forum who will be perfectly willing to discuss nearly any topic relating to the movie, if you'll only tell them clearly what you want to talk about or what questions you'd like to explore. Again, you may have been making a point -- and, to an extent, you did, whether or not it was the one you intended -- but there may have been a better and less antagonistic way of going about it.

WHAT?!!?

So what if I went to public school - a little buggery never did anyone any harm. No different to being a catholic.

The 'scale and endeavour' of what Abrams is trying to achieve appears to be lost on some - that is the point. I cannot help what the USA did to the Queen's English - our colonial cousins always have trouble keeping up it seems to one.

And yes - nail hit on head - I was making a point in the only language some people understand. What's good for the goose is often good for the gander.

Thank you though and I will moderate my responses for the American audience - post Bush there is so much for them to get up to speed on in terms of dealing with people who disgree with them.

You simply cannot go around dropping bombs on people - it's just not cricket.

God save the Queen.

Hehehehe

 

[Finnegan]

The real campaign should be to 'out' the fuckers who foisted all this canon shite upon us and ran us all down everytime something was slightly out of their imposed kilter - the ones who took something without limits and imposed limits upon it because 'they knew better'.

Two hours of this movie based upon that trailer or two hours of Voyager etc?

Like I said - get the DVD's and lock yourself away from the rest of us - the damage you've done is incalculable.

I'll take the award winning, big budget getting, studio doors opened, Abrams version thanks very much.

The rest of the fanwank scum out there - I suggest you rent your own cinema and watch Insurrection a few times and don't bother us ever again.

Is that contraversial or did it need to be said?

No, it totally needed to be said, and I couldn't agree more with you. No one (I think) is for ridiculous changes, like suddenly making Spock a Klingon, or recasting Kirk as a woman, or radically changing the Enterprise, but the notion that all the minute details and minor references that have gone before are sacrosanct and somehow cast in stone, never to be altered (or ommitted even!), is waay to limiting for writers and directors and producers who want and require mass-market appeal for a trek film.
I actually pity a writer for any new Trek project, with so many rules and in-jokes and expected self-references to decades old tv plotlines, it's a freaking wonder that JJ had the temerity to even accept this new big-screen project. This hyper-vigilant "canon" attitude is what actually bogged down and made a lot of the latter-day Trek seem tired and boring. Because it really WAS tired and boring.
They were practically FORCED to just dust-off and regurgitate what had gone on before, because if it wasn't referenced before-it could not exist in the Trek universe.

 

[Baldus885]

Regardless of how much Trek disappoints me, I always come back. Star Trek is my blood and my breath, my childhood and my home. But still, when it does disappoint me it hurts me on a vey personal and emotional level. This movie pains me very much.

Thanks for that explanation. As much as I don't understand it, I understand why you and others feel the way you do about the movie if that is what Trek overall is to you. Personally I don't feel the same way about Trek - I walked away in disgust halfway through VOY, but it's epic crapness didn't affect me as much as you seem to be affected by the movie.

I actually pity a writer for any new Trek project, with so many rules and in-jokes and expected self-references to decades old tv plotlines, it's a freaking wonder that JJ had the temerity to even accept this new big-screen project. This hyper-vigilant "canon" attitude is what actually bogged down and made a lot of the latter-day Trek seem tired and boring. Because it really WAS tired and boring.
They were practically FORCED to just dust-off and regurgitate what had gone on before, because if it wasn't referenced before-it could not exist in the Trek universe.

QFT. Obviously we want continuity, but even TOS itself wasn't internally consistent. And stuff like nitpicking over when McCoy went to the Academy? Is it that important? This stuff never appeared in TOS, so how can it even BE "canon?"

 

[Saul]

Just to add one piece of info...For what it's worth Orci has said that there will be on screen explanations given for the different looks on the E, the bridge etc etc

I was wondering how detailed that might be. It might be a very simple explaination such as "we were going to launch her 5 years ago but we took longer upgrading her to defend against attacks from Romulan weapons that attacked the Kelvin years ago."

Yes, I was wondering that too.
Though I'd rather they didn't spend a second explaining this.

The fact it's a movie made in 2008 and the designs needed some updating is enough.

However they seem to want to explain it for the fans and some who will question the look that this is still our Star Trek, but just changed. I know at the end of the movie the updated design will still remain though.
Well anyway, the movie was written by Star Trek fans so I wouldn't expect anything less They certainly took inspiration from "Yesterdays Enterprise".

 

[Rabittooth]

Although I am the kinda Trek fan that would give any new Trek a chance and will probably dig it immensely...I don't think you can say that if you don't like what is offered you can not be a true fan as the OP inferred.
Although I am not like this about Trek, I AM a huge fan of Raiders of the Lost Ark and to a smaller extent (much smaller) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
However, it is my humble opinion that it IS possible for subsequent films to ruin a character and seriously damage a true fan's enjoyment of even the original material if you produce such clusterfuckidity as The Lat Crusade and that more recent pile of steaming feces whose title I don't even want to type it was so horrendous.
I don't feel that way a bout Trek. The more the merrier IMO. But I can sympathize a bit with those who feel that something can indeed be "ruined" by the wrong hand in the pot.

-Rabittooth

 

[RAMA]

'You've raped my childhood'

'Canon Violations'

'Abram's is an idiot'

Et al.

When will folks realise that making Star Trek films for a few fanatical fans is what would actually kill it? Stories wrapped up in stories wrapped up in detail is of no interest to anyone other than a few thousand pedants. WHAT STUDIO WILL SPEND MILLIONS TO ENTERTAIN A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE THEN? It's why we got the shit we got for years - IT'S ALL YOUR FRIKKING FAULT.

For those who had the TOS and nothing else for years - what did we have before Trek came along? There was no canon - there was no antecedence - there was nothing bitch about. TNG made one decent film and DS9 soap opera would not make decent cinema viewing IMO so don't even go there.

This trailer is all you've got for the immdiate future - if you don't like it I suggest you buy some DVD's and lock yourself into a room somewhere and fanwank yourself to death over Janeaway and her stupid voice. If this makes money - then you might get something that meets with your approval as a spin off.

I, on the other hand, will be at the cinema with my children introducing them to something, fingers crossed, that will inspire them the same way TOS inspired me all those years ago.

If you don't like it - then how on earth can you be a fan? Our children sometimes do things we don't like - it does not mean that we stop loving them.

Pithy responses incoming.

The intractable ST fans are not really ST fans at all, and for every one of them that doesn't see it, a more general audience friendly movie will probably attract 100 in their place.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

That's not necessarily true.

Issues Dude - Issues.

All I'm saying is if I had a child and he disappointed me to the extent that this movie is, he'd be changing his last name.

WOW you've seen the movie already???

RAMA

 

[Space Lizard]

I'm a Star Trek fan who cares little about canon violations (except really obvious ones) and likes it when it has intelligent writing that doesn't just pander to fans or gets bogged down in its own continuity. TOS had it most of the time. TNG was like TOS, only far more mature. DS9's creators took the risk of rejecting the formula of TOS and TNG, and made the show far more modern. VOY was written by people who assumed the fans would just accept any old crap, so they didn't bother with any sort of intelligent storylines and instead just used the same story over and over, thinking the audiance was too dumb or obsessed to notice. ENT was VOY, only worse, yet the fourth season became "good"...while putting off any new viewers or non-fans with excessive continuity.

Think about it for a second. TOS became a touchstone of pop culture. TNG was so popular Generations made the cover of time magazine and it was nominated for best drama at the Emmys, a amazing accomplishment for a science fiction show. DS9 was not very popular among the public, but criticially acclaimed, with TV Guide and others even going so far as to call it the best Trek series. Its approuch to continuity is best-use it to service a long, serialized story (it and Babylon 5, plus more mainstream shows are probably the precusors of today's Lost and Heroes type shows). VOY was only known among the public for, um, Seven of Nine and ENT...ENT started out with 12 million viewers, and ended with about 2 million. Something went wrong here-and I say it was pandering to the fans instead of the general public.

Star Trek, to me, needs to be updated for the 21st century and made to appeal to non-Trekkies again, and XI seems to be well on its way to accomplishing these twin goals.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They've already violated canon. Kirk can't drive stick-shift! What was he doing in that Mustang!?!?!

Maybe that's why he almost drove off a cliff?

 

[Saul]

Something went wrong here-and I say it was pandering to the fans instead of the general public.

Actually it was the same old character stories, writing, stand alone episodes, camera angles, music. The producers were out of touch with modern Television. There was nothing that hadn't been seen before in TNG or VOY. This has nothing to do with fans or canon. This had more to do with the Producers afraid to take a risk or change because this format had previously been successful to the heights of having two series on at the same time and a movie in Theatres. JJ has a lot to live up to in some ways but considering that he will bring a brand new style of his own in other ways he won't have to live up to the lazyness that brought it down.
I never got how fans, the people who actually watched the show, bought the DVDs and went to the cinema were the ones to blame for the failure of the people in charge. It's a joke to think that we were so great in numbers that we're responsible somehow for failure yet at the same time not responsible enough to make the next movie successful.
Blaming canon is the poorest excuse I have ever seen. No non Trek fan has any idea what canon is. But people won't watch a show that looks the same as one that started 20 years before.

Temis the VortaThey've already violated canon. Kirk can't drive stick-shift! What was he doing in that Mustang!?!?!

Maybe that's why he almost drove off a cliff?

Exactly

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They've already violated canon. Kirk can't drive stick-shift! What was he doing in that Mustang!?!?!

Corvette.

Girl...