World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

[urbandk]

I agree that it's possible to pull off a great movie when we are assured of certain success at the end. While I don't like like the movie, I think 300 is a good example... but again, enough uncertainty and liberty with the facts was taken that you couldn't predict the outcome with respect to any particular character. In fact, I'm having a hard time imagining any successful film in which we know everything will turn out alright with respect to individual characters. It's fine to know the world will be alright (although better not to know in my opinion), but to know that everything and everyone will turn out fine makes for a rather tedious story on a large cinematic scale.

You could argue that TV series episodes counter my claim, but that's not a great counterargument, since TV episodes are done on a smaller scale and for a smaller audience.

Perhaps it's just a matter of preference. But if I may make a supposition, I think if you asked a general audience which film would be more captivating, one in which you already knew that everything was going to have a happy ending, or one in which you didn't know what was going to happen until you saw the film, I think it's safe to assume most would prefer the former.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Indeed, the final proof lies in the fact that the vast majority of those who are contributing to the excitement - the non-Trekkie types that so many Trek fans are so excited are beginning to care about Trek - do not even know it’s a reboot. So far as they are aware, it’s the same Trek it always was, just done bigger, better, and with more explosions and sex appeal. Yet they are still extremely excited about the film.
Thus, the biggest tragedy is that this was not in any way necessary! What is it for? What’s the point? The need?

Final proof?

I've been a trek fan for over twenty years, more than two thirds of my life. I love the characters just as much as everyone else. I don't need or want a retread of a story that's already been told. I don't want something that just leads up to a foregone conclusion.

"Oh yeah... everything's gotta work out alright because we already know it works out alright."

This movie dispenses with the obvious and leaves mystery and uncertainty in its place. It is a cinematic triumph, and in my opinion, the best thing that has happened to Star Trek in thirty years.

I love Star Trek. Everyone is entitled to her own opinion, and I respect yours. You will be missed.

This is one of the few arguments in favor of rebooting that actually has some merit, but it ultimately fails. As some have pointed out, IDW has done fine making comics that fit into the pre-established continuity. Beyond that, however, is the simple fact that we watch shows all the time where we know that in the end, everything will basically return to normal. It never makes the show less entertaining. Indeed, everybody sitting down to watch TOS in the 60s knew that at the end of the day, all of the characters would still be alive. The idea of killing off main characters didn't really exist then. Yet nevertheless, it was a great show. It's also a point which fails because movies are not made for single viewings. JJ Abrams et al intend for people to see the film, enjoy it, see it again, but the DVD, watch it when it is broadcast in a few years, etc. etc. Though all will already know what happens, they will still enjoy it if they're watching it a second, third, fourth, etc. time.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Dirk Benedict loves you, Laserlike42.

As much as I completely agree with him insofar as that the new Battlestar Gatlatica is a travesty to a wonderful gem of the 70s, his reasoning criticisms were of an entirely different nature than mine. He had a philisophical/moral objection to the spirit of the series, rather than something like my objection which is about the emotional experience of seeing characters develop, etc.

EDIT: I think it was terrible to have redone BSG the way they did it. My objections to it were that you don't take something that is a classic, like BSG, and change it so dramatically. If they wanted to tell the story they did, they should have made a different series.

The difference in objections I was talking about was the type HE had to BSG and I have to the new Trek film. His objections to BSG were moral, my objections to Trek are about the emotional experience of caring for the characters.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ I always wondered why Vulcan children would do that. Surely it's not "logical" to tease...

You know I was thinking the exact same thing during that scene, the only theory I can come to is that Vulcan children don't yet have mastery over their emotions. I remember the VOY episode with young Tuvok who exhibited a lack of emotional control.

As did adult Spock, as did Sarek, as did T'pol and Sovar in Enterprise...it's a learned skill, and learning it takes a lifetime.

 

[urbandk]

Indeed, the final proof lies in the fact that the vast majority of those who are contributing to the excitement - the non-Trekkie types that so many Trek fans are so excited are beginning to care about Trek - do not even know it’s a reboot. So far as they are aware, it’s the same Trek it always was, just done bigger, better, and with more explosions and sex appeal. Yet they are still extremely excited about the film.
Thus, the biggest tragedy is that this was not in any way necessary! What is it for? What’s the point? The need?

Final proof?

I've been a trek fan for over twenty years, more than two thirds of my life. I love the characters just as much as everyone else. I don't need or want a retread of a story that's already been told. I don't want something that just leads up to a foregone conclusion.

"Oh yeah... everything's gotta work out alright because we already know it works out alright."

This movie dispenses with the obvious and leaves mystery and uncertainty in its place. It is a cinematic triumph, and in my opinion, the best thing that has happened to Star Trek in thirty years.

I love Star Trek. Everyone is entitled to her own opinion, and I respect yours. You will be missed.

This is one of the few arguments in favor of rebooting that actually has some merit, but it ultimately fails. As some have pointed out, IDW has done fine making comics that fit into the pre-established continuity. Beyond that, however, is the simple fact that we watch shows all the time where we know that in the end, everything will basically return to normal. It never makes the show less entertaining. Indeed, everybody sitting down to watch TOS in the 60s knew that at the end of the day, all of the characters would still be alive. The idea of killing off main characters didn't really exist then. Yet nevertheless, it was a great show. It's also a point which fails because movies are not made for single viewings. JJ Abrams et al intend for people to see the film, enjoy it, see it again, but the DVD, watch it when it is broadcast in a few years, etc. etc. Though all will already know what happens, they will still enjoy it if they're watching it a second, third, fourth, etc. time.

in re comics, they are for a much smaller, niche audience.

watching a film is never the same after the first time. the sense of wonder and the unknown is why people avoid spoilers.

and even if you could make a film that way, i wouldn't want them to make a film that way. i know my views are representative of a significant number of fans in this respect. i am of the opinion that i want it to be totally new.

you are of a different opinion. there is no right and wrong. just opinions. they made the movie in a way that happens to sync up with my opinion. i am happy. you are disappointed.

that's the way it goes sometimes.

 

[mswood]

Well for anyone who has a complaint about this film rewriting previous trek (which it does) do you also have that same problem with other forms of entertainment?

Just in film in the last four years we have had 2 Batman films, and lets be absolutely clear. This is not the Batman that was created in the 40's. Not at all (and in many ways the character isn't even that close) Yet in every way I prefer Batman Begins and Dark Knight over every single Batman that have experienced from the 40's to the mid 80's. I thought the first Daniel Craig Bond film was easily the best of the bond films and yet its a reimagination of that universe ( I thought Casino Royale wasn't of the same quality).

Hell in Trek, I have enjoyed many a novel created, but while the shair qualities of TOS (or the later versions of Trek) they truly aren't of the same cloth. Yet that in no way diminishes my enjoyment of (Quality) work on either side.

Trek is the longest entertainment form I have been exposed to (have 8 mili footage of the family watching it in 67, I was just a toddler) and I have loved it (Great, Good, average, bad and awful and there have been plenty of all in every form) for the length of my memory.

THe next closest entertainment form I have loved is comics, and that medium has changed it reality several different times over the decades. It has never, never made me lose my love over stories and characters that I have loved. But I have also opened myself up different versions. And have been blessed by some beautiful works. Theatre (what some find to be the height of serious art, often features new interpretations of the classics (both in lit and music form) and the world (in my opinion) would be a worse place without them.

Mythic works, are large enough (grand enough, good enough) to survive, thrive, and change with the times. And we shouldn't fear them.

Now that doesn't mean they are always improvements or successful. Like all forms of entertainment we often have extremes of all kinds. And I am not making a judgment on the quality of the work here (since I haven't seen it), but on the principle on whether various art forms can be reinvented.

And even if you have the opinion that Trek can't change, what is the harm to the trek you love?

Even if this film is hugely successful, it doesn't erase a single memory or experience you have had with Trek. Odds are highly, highly unlikely that this will lead to an addition 9 other films and 700 episodes of television. It just means taht some people will like elements that you don't like, which by the way happens daily around the world with Trek fans since the very first episode was ever broadcast.

 

[mswood]

Well frankly IDW comics reach an audience of under 12,000. Latest ranking 144th for the most current months sales figures (February). ANd frankly while it nice to see some characters (I did for the most part like the art) I thought the dialogue was terrible. And I certainly wouldn't use this niche market (and poorly performing one at that) as a testament for what is produceable for Viacom as a form of live action media. Or even as a gauge for what general Trek fans are interested in. Oh and their other Trek comic sold a staggering 7000 copies. Thats how to keep the dream alive I tell you.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Well for anyone who has a complaint about this film rewriting previous trek (which it does) do you also have that same problem with other forms of entertainment?

Just in film in the last four years we have had 2 Batman films, and lets be absolutely clear. This is not the Batman that was created in the 40's. Not at all (and in many ways the character isn't even that close) Yet in every way I prefer Batman Begins and Dark Knight over every single Batman that have experienced from the 40's to the mid 80's. I thought the first Daniel Craig Bond film was easily the best of the bond films and yet its a reimagination of that universe ( I thought Casino Royale wasn't of the same quality).

Hell in Trek, I have enjoyed many a novel created, but while the shair qualities of TOS (or the later versions of Trek) they truly aren't of the same cloth. Yet that in no way diminishes my enjoyment of (Quality) work on either side.

Trek is the longest entertainment form I have been exposed to (have 8 mili footage of the family watching it in 67, I was just a toddler) and I have loved it (Great, Good, average, bad and awful and there have been plenty of all in every form) for the length of my memory.

THe next closest entertainment form I have loved is comics, and that medium has changed it reality several different times over the decades. It has never, never made me lose my love over stories and characters that I have loved. But I have also opened myself up different versions. And have been blessed by some beautiful works. Theatre (what some find to be the height of serious art, often features new interpretations of the classics (both in lit and music form) and the world (in my opinion) would be a worse place without them.

Mythic works, are large enough (grand enough, good enough) to survive, thrive, and change with the times. And we shouldn't fear them.

Now that doesn't mean they are always improvements or successful. Like all forms of entertainment we often have extremes of all kinds. And I am not making a judgment on the quality of the work here (since I haven't seen it), but on the principle on whether various art forms can be reinvented.

And even if you have the opinion that Trek can't change, what is the harm to the trek you love?

Even if this film is hugely successful, it doesn't erase a single memory or experience you have had with Trek. Odds are highly, highly unlikely that this will lead to an addition 9 other films and 700 episodes of television. It just means taht some people will like elements that you don't like, which by the way happens daily around the world with Trek fans since the very first episode was ever broadcast.

I like Batman Begins and Dark Night. I also like previous incarnations of Batman. The thing is, Star Trek is not Batman. To me, it has always been a far higher form of entertainment. The single biggest reason I am not into comic books is precisely because of that aspect of the comics world that they have no problem playing fast and loose with continuity, resetting things whenever it's convenient.

See, this film, from my point of view, basically turns Star Trek into a bad comic book. What was an entertaining, cohesive universe has now become fractured. This is basically Crisis on Infinite Earths, Star Trek edition.

 

[od0_ital]

They did, sort of. I was hopin' to get a second poster for Dayton Ward, and hangin' out with a couple of other geeks. After all the folks with wristbands left, there were still posters & t-shirts. Kevin got a signed poster and a t-shirt, while Genevieve & her friend each got a signed poster.

And I got an extra poster that will be en route to Kansas City this weekend.

AWWW! Should've gone with my gut and stuck around.

It almost always pays to stick around when there are freebies available.

How did McCoy get his nickname, 'Bones'? (am I being a pest yet? )

Not at all.

He made a comment to Kirk when they first met on the Cadet shuttle, I don't remember the line but it had something to do with bones, it stuck.

When Kirk & McCoy first meet aboard the shuttle, McCoy has a long ass monologue about all the dangers of space & how easy it is to die in it. Kirk makes the comment that Starfleet operates in outer space. McCoy says that his ex-wife got the whole damned planet in the divorce, and all he, McCoy, has left is his bones.

And, thus, the nickname is born.

The two men share a drink from McCoy's flask, and they introduced themselves to each other.

 

[mswood]

Well for anyone who has a complaint about this film rewriting previous trek (which it does) do you also have that same problem with other forms of entertainment?

Just in film in the last four years we have had 2 Batman films, and lets be absolutely clear. This is not the Batman that was created in the 40's. Not at all (and in many ways the character isn't even that close) Yet in every way I prefer Batman Begins and Dark Knight over every single Batman that have experienced from the 40's to the mid 80's. I thought the first Daniel Craig Bond film was easily the best of the bond films and yet its a reimagination of that universe ( I thought Casino Royale wasn't of the same quality).

Hell in Trek, I have enjoyed many a novel created, but while the shair qualities of TOS (or the later versions of Trek) they truly aren't of the same cloth. Yet that in no way diminishes my enjoyment of (Quality) work on either side.

Trek is the longest entertainment form I have been exposed to (have 8 mili footage of the family watching it in 67, I was just a toddler) and I have loved it (Great, Good, average, bad and awful and there have been plenty of all in every form) for the length of my memory.

THe next closest entertainment form I have loved is comics, and that medium has changed it reality several different times over the decades. It has never, never made me lose my love over stories and characters that I have loved. But I have also opened myself up different versions. And have been blessed by some beautiful works. Theatre (what some find to be the height of serious art, often features new interpretations of the classics (both in lit and music form) and the world (in my opinion) would be a worse place without them.

Mythic works, are large enough (grand enough, good enough) to survive, thrive, and change with the times. And we shouldn't fear them.

Now that doesn't mean they are always improvements or successful. Like all forms of entertainment we often have extremes of all kinds. And I am not making a judgment on the quality of the work here (since I haven't seen it), but on the principle on whether various art forms can be reinvented.

And even if you have the opinion that Trek can't change, what is the harm to the trek you love?

Even if this film is hugely successful, it doesn't erase a single memory or experience you have had with Trek. Odds are highly, highly unlikely that this will lead to an addition 9 other films and 700 episodes of television. It just means taht some people will like elements that you don't like, which by the way happens daily around the world with Trek fans since the very first episode was ever broadcast.

I like Batman Begins and Dark Night. I also like previous incarnations of Batman. The thing is, Star Trek is not Batman. To me, it has always been a far higher form of entertainment. The single biggest reason I am not into comic books is precisely because of that aspect of the comics world that they have no problem playing fast and loose with continuity, resetting things whenever it's convenient.

See, this film, from my point of view, basically turns Star Trek into a bad comic book. What was an entertaining, cohesive universe has now become fractured. This is basically Crisis on Infinite Earths, Star Trek edition.

Well Unfotrunately Trek isn't nor has it ever been a cohesive universe. Just hasn't been. While the vast majority of it does play into each other, there absolutely are things that don't.

As far as comics while some do share the opinion of their lack of quality (but I can certainly say the same is true with all forms of Trek which have produced some staggeringly awful episodes and movies) I also included materials that are considered far more important, cultural significant and long lasting then Trek. And thats the work of theatre, and that is loaded with reinterpretations of classic works. Some awful, some poor, some average, some good and some brilliant.

 

[perigee]

Dirk Benedict loves you, Laserlike42.

As much as I completely agree with him insofar as that the new Battlestar Gatlatica is a travesty to a wonderful gem of the 70s, his reasoning criticisms were of an entirely different nature than mine. He had a philisophical/moral objection to the spirit of the series, rather than something like my objection which is about the emotional experience of seeing characters develop, etc.

EDIT: I think it was terrible to have redone BSG the way they did it. My objections to it were that you don't take something that is a classic, like BSG, and change it so dramatically. If they wanted to tell the story they did, they should have made a different series.

The difference in objections I was talking about was the type HE had to BSG and I have to the new Trek film. His objections to BSG were moral, my objections to Trek are about the emotional experience of caring for the characters.

However, despite your opinion and his, the reboot BSG was Indisputably a success on any possible quantifiable level. Emmy awards. Peabody awards. Critical acclaim. Solid Ratings. Rabid fanbase. The show did not seem to suffer much from his distain, yours, nor anyone else who felt slighted by the reboot. Those opinions stood on the dock of some temporal dock locked in the past, forgotten, unnoted, and uncared for by the contemporary audience. They were dismissed. And rightly so - had the series depended on the favor of those who were enamoured by 30-year-old memories, the series wouldn't have lasted a season. Galactica of old barely managed to do so in its heyday, and hasn't gained many rabid supporters in the intervening years.

A portion of Trek's TOS audience is now in retirement, and eligible for social security - in three years, I will be eligible for AARP. I don't have some kind of Baby Jane desire to capture time in a bell-jar, and I don't understand those who do.

"It's about the future, Madame Chancellor. Some people think the future means the end of history. Well...We haven't run out of history quite yet. Your father called the future...the undiscovered country. People can be very frightened of change."

Amazingly prescient quote, in an entirely ironic context. In the largest sense, the angst about this new incarnation goes against every "Federation" concept of acceptance of the new and strange, the welcoming of new horizons, the challenge of the future. In the end, some fans learned nothing but love of a fairy tale.

Any claim beyond that is belayed by the fear of this new unknown, the anger against change, and the deathgrip on what once was and shall never be again.

We haven't run out of history yet.

It's just going to be different.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Dirk Benedict loves you, Laserlike42.

As much as I completely agree with him insofar as that the new Battlestar Gatlatica is a travesty to a wonderful gem of the 70s, his reasoning criticisms were of an entirely different nature than mine. He had a philisophical/moral objection to the spirit of the series, rather than something like my objection which is about the emotional experience of seeing characters develop, etc.

EDIT: I think it was terrible to have redone BSG the way they did it. My objections to it were that you don't take something that is a classic, like BSG, and change it so dramatically. If they wanted to tell the story they did, they should have made a different series.

The difference in objections I was talking about was the type HE had to BSG and I have to the new Trek film. His objections to BSG were moral, my objections to Trek are about the emotional experience of caring for the characters.

However, despite your opinion and his, the reboot BSG was Indisputably a success on any possible quantifiable level. Emmy awards. Peabody awards. Critical acclaim. Solid Ratings. Rabid fanbase. The show did not seem to suffer much from his distain, yours, nor anyone else who felt slighted by the reboot. Those opinions stood on the dock of some temporal dock locked in the past, forgotten, unnoted, and uncared for by the contemporary audience. They were dismissed. And rightly so - had the series depended on the favor of those who were enamoured by 30-year-old memories, the series wouldn't have lasted a season. Galactica of old barely managed to do so in its heyday, and hasn't gained many rabid supporters in the intervening years.

A portion of Trek's TOS audience is now in retirement, and eligible for social security - in three years, I don't have some kind of Baby Jane desire to capture time in a bell-jar, and I don't understand those who do.

"It's about the future, Madame Chancellor. Some people think the future means the end of history. Well...We haven't run out of history quite yet. Your father called the future...the undiscovered country. People can be very frightened of change."

Amazingly prescient quote, in an entirely ironic context. In the largest sense, the angst about this new incarnation goes against every "Federation" concept of acceptance of the new and strange, the welcoming of new horizons, the challenge of the future. In the end, some fans learned nothing but love of a fairy tale.

Any claim beyond that is belayed by the fear of this new unknown, the anger against change, and the deathgrip on what once was and shall never be again.

We haven't run out of history yet.

It's just going to be different.

Two points. First, just because a whole bunch of people like something and "that's the way it is," that doesn't mean that it's actually any good. This is especially true in this modern age when utter drivel often passes for good entertainment or art. That is not to say that this film is actually not any good. It may simply be that I, and however many others, do not like it because of what it's done to the characters we have grown to care about. If that's so, then that is indeed the way it is, but it doesn't mean that folks can't feel disappointed or saddened by it.

Second, Battlestar Galactica was nothing approaching the level of what Star Trek was. Battlestar Galactica was a show that didn't make it past its first season, and which failed all the more when it was attempted to be brought back in 1980. As much as many think it was a classic, it was a failure and so the idea of taking it and redoing it in a different way makes sense. Star Trek, on the other hand, is a 43 year old cultural icon which has been successful enough over the years to produce 4 spin-offs and 10 feature films. That's a far, far stretch from the failure that BSG was. It's just not the same thing.

Please note that I utterly reject the notion that the franchise was dead and the only way to bring it back was to do a reboot. It was entirely possible, as I and others have said above, to do all of the things that have made this film generate such excitement without creating an alternate universe. However all that said, that's not really my point in differentiating BSG from Star Trek. The point I was making there is simply that it's much more reasonable "ethically" speaking to redo something like BSG which had a scant few episodes and never really established itself, than to redo Star Trek which has such a long and honored history to it. (Ethically is in quotes because it's not the perfect word. I'm not trying to lift changing Star Trek to the level of morality or ethics. It's just the closest word I can think of presently).

 

[Aragorn]

There's another forum which I don't post at because the posters all rip on newbies mercilessly without any repercussions from the mods, who are too busy banning people left and right because they're on total power trips. Anyway, I'm starting to see why they hate newbies.

 

[Captain X]

and even if you could make a film that way, i wouldn't want them to make a film that way. i know my views are representative of a significant number of fans in this respect. i am of the opinion that i want it to be totally new.

you are of a different opinion. there is no right and wrong. just opinions. they made the movie in a way that happens to sync up with my opinion. i am happy. you are disappointed.

that's the way it goes sometimes.

Thank you. Seriously. While we may disagree about everything to do with this movie, I appreciate that you have been civil. Ironically, we do agree on something, which is that when it comes down to it, everything being discussed about this movie is purely personal opinion, and that there is no right or wrong that way. Two people could see the exact same thing and one could like it and the other could hate it, but neither one of them would be right or wrong about whether it was good or bad.

You are a rare breed, sir.

 

[urbandk]

You are a rare breed, sir.

Thanks for the compliment! I hope I live up to it. You're a gentleman, a rare man in the vulgar realm of the internet.

 

[Captain X]

Heh, well, if only the mods agreed with you.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

^ Real change would be welcome. New characters, a new setting, new story ideas..instead we get a retread of old characters in the same basic setting.

A whole galaxy and more is available to Star Trek. Instead we get "sexy-action Trek" with all of the same stuff as before.

So let me know when the change starts, okay?

 

[perigee]

Two points. First, just because a whole bunch of people like something and "that's the way it is," that doesn't mean that it's actually any good. This is especially true in this modern age when utter drivel often passes for good entertainment or art. That is not to say that this film is actually not any good. It may simply be that I, and however many others, do not like it because of what it's done to the characters we have grown to care about. If that's so, then that is indeed the way it is, but it doesn't mean that folks can't feel disappointed or saddened by it.

Second, Battlestar Galactica was nothing approaching the level of what Star Trek was. Battlestar Galactica was a show that didn't make it past its first season, and which failed all the more when it was attempted to be brought back in 1980. As much as many think it was a classic, it was a failure and so the idea of taking it and redoing it in a different way makes sense. Star Trek, on the other hand, is a 43 year old cultural icon which has been successful enough over the years to produce 4 spin-offs and 10 feature films. That's a far, far stretch from the failure that BSG was. It's just not the same thing.

Please note that I utterly reject the notion that the franchise was dead and the only way to bring it back was to do a reboot. It was entirely possible, as I and others have said above, to do all of the things that have made this film generate such excitement without creating an alternate universe. However all that said, that's not really my point in differentiating BSG from Star Trek. The point I was making there is simply that it's much more reasonable "ethically" speaking to redo something like BSG which had a scant few episodes and never really established itself, than to redo Star Trek which has such a long and honored history to it. (Ethically is in quotes because it's not the perfect word. I'm not trying to lift changing Star Trek to the level of morality or ethics. It's just the closest word I can think of presently).

I suppose that's true. Music has sucked since Gabriel left Genesis.
Or The Beatles broke up.
Or Elvis died.
Or the Big Bands disbanded.
Or Mozart went out of style.

The public - and not you or I - are the arbiters of "good." What you actually mean is what is something is not good for you. Your opinion is your own... and carries only the weight of your opinion.

But wait - I thought BSG was a 70's gem? Is it no longer so, so quickly? Do all those Dirk Benedict/Lorne Greene lovers now have a lesser right than you to grieve? All that change in a half an hour... Or does it just help to backpedal and distance yourself from quantifiable proof of positive results in a reboot?

As to Star Trek... Don't play games - I've been watching since you were in diapers.

Three years. Not 43. And that includes "What is Brain?," "Gunfight at the OK Corral," and all the other lovelies of the third season. Let's not mistake output for legacy. After that, you get a viable eight hours: II-IV, and VI.

The 43 years you herald belong to me. I was in New York and Philadelphia in the earliest conventions, I was out there pushing for the space shuttle to be named "Enterprise," I have Lincoln Enterprise's first catalog, I watched Genesis II, Spectre and Questor when they ran, I waited on Phase II, I sat in the theater on that horrible December night when STTMP premiered... You don't get to claim direction on my legacy. Just whatever part of it you had.

And, at the moment, your direction seems to be a minority.

There's another 43 years out there, waiting. The fans held the ship together for the past years, and the fans will hold together the next. And there is no cosmic law that they must be the same fans. In fact, they won't be, unless science suspends old age. No matter what you think of things that aren't "good" for you, it's what is good for the masses that survives. And, as time turns, maybe what is good for the masses turns back to us. I would say you just need to wait it out... but neither you nor I have any choice.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Glancing through this thread both made me happy, and reinforced why I sometimes hate being counted among "Trekkies".

Ugg, it seems as if a few shortsighted fans think that because a movie comes out and establishes an alternate universe from its original source material will some how prevent them and erase their dvds of that source material forevermore.

I honestly feel pity for those fans who lack perspective in this regard. Star Trek is not our future, it is a work of fiction and works of fiction tend to be reinterpreted over time - at least the ones which last over time.

Otherwise I'm thrilled from what I've read this film seems like it will be epic in a way that Star Trek very seldom ever is.

Sharr

 

[Lazerlike42]

Two points. First, just because a whole bunch of people like something and "that's the way it is," that doesn't mean that it's actually any good. This is especially true in this modern age when utter drivel often passes for good entertainment or art. That is not to say that this film is actually not any good. It may simply be that I, and however many others, do not like it because of what it's done to the characters we have grown to care about. If that's so, then that is indeed the way it is, but it doesn't mean that folks can't feel disappointed or saddened by it.

Second, Battlestar Galactica was nothing approaching the level of what Star Trek was. Battlestar Galactica was a show that didn't make it past its first season, and which failed all the more when it was attempted to be brought back in 1980. As much as many think it was a classic, it was a failure and so the idea of taking it and redoing it in a different way makes sense. Star Trek, on the other hand, is a 43 year old cultural icon which has been successful enough over the years to produce 4 spin-offs and 10 feature films. That's a far, far stretch from the failure that BSG was. It's just not the same thing.

Please note that I utterly reject the notion that the franchise was dead and the only way to bring it back was to do a reboot. It was entirely possible, as I and others have said above, to do all of the things that have made this film generate such excitement without creating an alternate universe. However all that said, that's not really my point in differentiating BSG from Star Trek. The point I was making there is simply that it's much more reasonable "ethically" speaking to redo something like BSG which had a scant few episodes and never really established itself, than to redo Star Trek which has such a long and honored history to it. (Ethically is in quotes because it's not the perfect word. I'm not trying to lift changing Star Trek to the level of morality or ethics. It's just the closest word I can think of presently).

I suppose that's true. Music has sucked since Gabriel left Genesis.
Or The Beatles broke up.
Or Elvis died.
Or the Big Bands disbanded.
Or Mozart went out of style.

The public - and not you or I - are the arbiters of "good." What you actually mean is what is something is not good for you. Your opinion is your own... and carries only the weight of your opinion.

But wait - I thought BSG was a 70's gem? Is it no longer so, so quickly? Do all those Dirk Benedict/Lorne Greene lovers now have a lesser right than you to grieve? All that change in a half an hour... Or does it just help to backpedal and distance yourself from quantifiable proof of positive results in a reboot?

As to Star Trek... Don't play games - I've been watching since you were in diapers.

Three years. Not 43. And that includes "What is Brain?," "Gunfight at the OK Corral," and all the other lovelies of the third season. Let's not mistake output for legacy. After that, you get a viable eight hours: II-IV, and V.

The 43 years you herald belong to me. I was in New York and Philadelphia in the earliest conventions, I was out there pushing for the space shuttle to be named "Enterprise," I have Lincoln Enterprise's first catalog, I watched Genesis II, Spectre and Questor when they ran, I waited on Phase II, I sat in the theater on that horrible December night when STTMP premiered... You don't get to claim direction on my legacy. Just whatever part of it you had.

And, at the moment, your direction seems to be a minority.

There's another 43 years out there, waiting. The fans held the ship together for the past years, and the fans will hold together the next. And there is no cosmic law that they must be the same fans. In fact, they won't be, unless science suspends old age. No matter what you think of things that aren't "good" for you, it's what is good for the masses that survives. And, as time turns, maybe what is good for the masses turns back to us. I would say you just need to wait it out... but neither you nor I have any choice.

BSG is a classic. How one defines that is not easy to explain and is rather subjective. Of that, I don't think there's much of an argument. However, my point wasn't about whether BSG was good, was not good, was a classic, or was not. Rather, it was about the understandability of changing BSG vs. Star Trek. While I do not think that SciFi ought to have done what they did to BSG, and while I agree with Mr. Benedict in his ultimate opinion if not in his reasoning, I can still understand objectively the idea of redoing it. It was an unsucessful short-lived program. While I and many consider it a classic, it's very easy to see how others could consider it a good idea that failed, and try to take the good in the idea and fix it up so it would be succesful.

On the other hand, Star Trek succeeded, ultimately. It spawned 39 years of various spin-offs and feature films. When one looks at Star Trek, one doesn't see a single season, but a long legacy. Even if one has never seen Star Trek in his life, he knows that it's got this tremendous legacy, and things of that honor ought not be so easily discarded.

As far as the rest of what you said is concerned, I'm not surer how to respond because I am not certain what you were trying to argue.