HEADLINE- "If not a reboot, then maybe a boo-boot?"

[Qonos]

Movies are not a service. They are an art form. Art is always subjective, and an artist does not owe the public an apology if people don't like his work.

That argument only holds if we're not being charged to see it.

If people are paying for it, it's a service. In this case, an entertainment service.

People who design automobiles are every bit as much "artists" as people who make movies.

You pay admission to an art museum. So if you don't like the exhibits you're going to storm the curators office and demand restitution. That IDEA is idiotic.

 

[RoJoHen]

Movies are not a service. They are an art form. Art is always subjective, and an artist does not owe the public an apology if people don't like his work.

That argument only holds if we're not being charged to see it.

If people are paying for it, it's a service. In this case, an entertainment service.

People who design automobiles are every bit as much "artists" as people who make movies.

And what do you do if you don't like the design of a car? You don't buy that car!

You're not paying for the trailer. If the trailer of a movie or the information you've read so far makes you think the movie won't be very good, don't see it. But it's not Abram's fault if you don't like the movie. He certainly doesn't owe you an apology if you made the choice to buy a ticket.

It's not like you gave him a bad Star Trek movie and said, "Here, fix this," and he failed to do so.

 

[IvosevicJ]

My cynical take is that this IS a reboot, except no one wants to say it for fear of triggering the kind of die hard Trek backlash that will land protesters in Vulcan ears and star fleet uniforms in front of the Paramount parking lot, an image of Star Trek Paramount is desperately trying to avoid.

I have watched everything from the TOS pilot to the lame ass series finale that Enterprise put on for us. And I like that universe, but I recognize that it has financially run its course.

If Abrams' new trek is selling as badly or worse than Nemesis, Paramount will kill it same way they killed further TNG movies and Enterprise. If it can draw new blood, they will keep it. Given how BSG and James Bond have been re-imagined, I can see a potential for Star Trek to go in a similar direction and still be extremely entertaining.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Movies are not a service. They are an art form. Art is always subjective, and an artist does not owe the public an apology if people don't like his work.

That argument only holds if we're not being charged to see it.

If people are paying for it, it's a service. In this case, an entertainment service.

People who design automobiles are every bit as much "artists" as people who make movies.

You pay admission to an art museum. So if you don't like the exhibits you're going to storm the curators office and demand restitution. That IDEA is idiotic.

Have you ever responded to a post on here without being aggressive and hostile? Just curious.

It's not idiotic. And I've been to many museums which did not require a fee. Many have been paid for by tax dollars... more make their income by selling art. Some are funded by donations. And NO art museum I've ever seen charges to see one particular item... it's always to see everything in the museum.

Now... if I went to the art museum, was charged an entry fee, went inside, and found nothing but garbage on the floor, then hell yes, I'd storm the curator's office. And so would everyone else except the really stupid people who'd assume that the empty museum with nothing but McDonalds wrappers on the floor was somehow "making a statement."

 

[Captain X]

Star Trek XI is a "re-introduction," not a reboot, says J.J. Abrams, an effort to "re-introduce these characters in a different way."

Really? That sounds like a reboot to me. Sort of like we were re-introduced to the characters in Batman Begins and in nuBSG in a different way. Does JJ Abrams not understand what a reboot is, or does he think we're all stupid?

 

[RoJoHen]

I want to take the words "reboot" and "canon" and start a bonfire with them.

 

[IvosevicJ]

Star Trek XI is a "re-introduction," not a reboot, says J.J. Abrams, an effort to "re-introduce these characters in a different way."

Really? That sounds like a reboot to me. Sort of like we were re-introduced to the characters in Batman Begins and in nuBSG in a different way. Does JJ Abrams not understand what a reboot is, or does he think we're all stupid?

I think he does. He is doing a reboot without provoking some reactions he and paramount are looking to avoid. Which is why he is denying it.

 

[Captain X]

Too bad he's too late. And I guess that means he thinks we're stupid then.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, technically, he IS reintroducing the characters in a different way simply because this is a prequel. We haven't seen the characters in this kind of environment before. They're young, less experienced, and probably a lot less mature. We're meeting these characters "in a different way" because they're at a different stage in their lives.

 

[Qonos]

That argument only holds if we're not being charged to see it.

If people are paying for it, it's a service. In this case, an entertainment service.

People who design automobiles are every bit as much "artists" as people who make movies.

You pay admission to an art museum. So if you don't like the exhibits you're going to storm the curators office and demand restitution. That IDEA is idiotic.

Have you ever responded to a post on here without being aggressive and hostile? Just curious.

It's not idiotic. And I've been to many museums which did not require a fee. Many have been paid for by tax dollars... more make their income by selling art. Some are funded by donations. And NO art museum I've ever seen charges to see one particular item... it's always to see everything in the museum.

Now... if I went to the art museum, was charged an entry fee, went inside, and found nothing but garbage on the floor, then hell yes, I'd storm the curator's office. And so would everyone else except the really stupid people who'd assume that the empty museum with nothing but McDonalds wrappers on the floor was somehow "making a statement."

Check out the name buddy, Klingon Fan.. because I know I have an aggressive nature. And yes it is Idiotic, because trailers are there for you to get a flavor of the movie. If it sits wrong with you but you shrug and say "I'll give it a chance anyway" than no no one owes you anything. Caveat emptor "Let the buyer Beware" He's never made a promise that'd he'd please everyone. Hell he's only hoping that he can please some people.

 

[Hambone]

Why can't anyone get this word right?

It's not "reboot".. It's "robot". The flying motorcycle cop that chases Kirk in his 'vette is a robot. You'd think that a bunch of sci-fi geeks would know that word by now.

Harrumph. "Reboot"...that's funny.

"I, Reboot"

 

[Captain X]

Well, technically, he IS reintroducing the characters in a different way simply because this is a prequel. We haven't seen the characters in this kind of environment before. They're young, less experienced, and probably a lot less mature. We're meeting these characters "in a different way" because they're at a different stage in their lives.

Wow, that's a load of bullshit if I ever saw one. We were introduced to the characters, we know metric-fuck-tonnes about their backgrounds, so he has to re-introduce them the same way RDM re-introduced us to Adama and the gang with his rebooted BSG. What's the problem with admitting that, especially if you don't actually mind the idea of a reboot?

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, technically, he IS reintroducing the characters in a different way simply because this is a prequel. We haven't seen the characters in this kind of environment before. They're young, less experienced, and probably a lot less mature. We're meeting these characters "in a different way" because they're at a different stage in their lives.

Wow, that's a load of bullshit if I ever saw one. We were introduced to the characters, we know metric-fuck-tonnes about their backgrounds, so he has to re-introduce them the same way RDM re-introduced us to Adama and the gang with his rebooted BSG. What's the problem with admitting that, especially if you don't actually mind the idea of a reboot?

My problem with admitting that is that I have no idea if it's true or not. I know jack shit about the plot of this movie, so I have no idea if it adheres to what's already been established or not. I was just giving a possible interpretation of JJ's comments. I have no feelings about it one way or the other, nor do I give a shit if this a "reboot" or not. If I never hear the word "reboot" again, I'll be a happy man.

 

[gastrof]

I'm excited to see the movie, and I think it will be enjoyed.
There's too many important things in life to worry about the small stuff.
Just enjoy the movie.

J.

Then don't worry about the movie or any other interest you may have.

Dedicate yourself to the serious things in life and perhaps going to third world countries and feeding the poor.

Don't go see the movie.

There are other things far more important.

Don't even come here.

I think Abrams is making a valid and important point with that distinction between his movie and some reboots - such as Moore's Galactica (which I love). James Kirk may meet Pike at the "wrong" point in history or the Enterprise may be built in the "wrong" place, but in the end Captain Kirk is Captain Kirk and Spock is Spock and McCoy is McCoy. Everything looks different - some things a little bit, other things a lot - but the furniture is all still pretty much in place.

Except that it's all in a different location in the room and all but a few small pieces have been reapolstered.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm excited to see the movie, and I think it will be enjoyed.
There's too many important things in life to worry about the small stuff.
Just enjoy the movie.

J.

Then don't worry about the movie or any other interest you may have.

Dedicate yourself to the serious things in life and perhaps going to third world countries and feeding the poor.

Don't go see the movie.

There are other things far more important.

Don't even come here.

Not really helping the cause for the Crazy Trekkies out there.

 

[gastrof]

WE are not entitled to anything.

Sure we are.

We've supported this thing with billions of dollars for 40 fucking years.

If he fucks it up, he should apologize!

No, we're not and no he shouldn't. Completely wrong.

...

Hmmm...

Seems to me the property wouldn't even have the value it does if it wasn't for those who've supported it all this time.

That simple fact remains, and there's nothing you can say to change that.

In a very real sense, they DO owe us, and they, you, and we are stuck with it.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It's only a reboot in the sense that Enterprise was the Blue Screen of Death.

 

[RoJoHen]

Sure we are.

We've supported this thing with billions of dollars for 40 fucking years.

If he fucks it up, he should apologize!

No, we're not and no he shouldn't. Completely wrong.

...

Hmmm...

Seems to me the property wouldn't even have the value it does if it wasn't for those who've supported it all this time.

That simple fact remains, and there's nothing you can say to change that.

In a very real sense, they DO owe us, and they, you, and we are stuck with it.

So let's pretend they weren't making this movie at all.

Would that put Paramount in arrears?

We didn't support the franchise so they would make this movie for us. Our previous theater tickets and Playmates toys and trips the Star Trek: The Experience were not investments for Trek's future.

 

[gastrof]

Not really helping the cause for the Crazy Trekkies out there.

A little unclear on just what you mean. Are you saying my reply blows the expressed point of view (of "crazy Trekkies") out of the water, or are you saying I make myself sound crazy?

My point was a valid one. To sit there and BE a Trek fan who follows the shows and movies, knows the timeline, but then says "It's not important" is a bit self-contradicting.

My point is, if you care enough to even COME here, why claim it's not important to you and that changes to what we know are trivial?

I usually feel those who make such expressions aren't really fans, but rather people who occasionally pick Trek up like an item to consider in a store, but then put it down and walk away, unwilling to make a purchase.

Possibly also similar to people who'll take a pet animal in, but never get attached and easily abandon it at a shelter because "It wasn't the thing for me". You know...animals are sticks of furniture. Not really living or feeling!

If Trek is important to someone, they care about the stories, how they're told, and if all the old ones have been abandoned in favor of a new timeline. Those who DON'T have cares about such.... Maybe they're not really in a position to SAY if it's important or not, because they don't really care.

 

[RoJoHen]

Or maybe it's possible to be a fan of something and yet understand its place in the grand scheme of your life without taking it too seriously.