World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

[Supervisor 194]

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.

Allow me to introduce you to Superman, Batman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Spider-Man, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Robin Hood...

Anyone with common sense knows that the hero will survive because it is a franchise. If the story is well-told, then suspension of disbelief will allow the viewer to feel 'fear' etc for the character even though the outcome is preordained.

 

[urbandk]

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.

Allow me to introduce you to Superman, Batman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Spider-Man, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Robin Hood...

Anyone with common sense knows that the hero will survive because it is a franchise. If the story is well-told, then suspension of disbelief will allow the viewer to feel 'fear' etc for the character even though the outcome is preordained.

and meet Lois Lane, Gordon, Vesper Lynd, Marion, Harry Osborn, etc... etc... No one knows the fate of these characters. Also, there is not another story set in these movies' futures in the can already told.

and besides, I didn't say it was a sine qua non. I just said it was preferable. and for that matter, everyone knows Kirk, Spock, and McCoy will be o.k. in this new movie. but no one can say, "well, we all know they're going to encounter space hippies in five years."

 

[perigee]

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.

My points are these -

1) What you termed "a travesty" was, in fact a thoughtful, successful, and enduring reboot of a previous series using re imagined versions of the original characters. Personally... meh. But I can't deny that what the reboot achieved was respectable, effective, worthy, and VERY often surpassed the original series by a quantum factor. (I mean, John Steed as the Devil? The Space Nazis?) A re-imagining is not a kiss of death - as time moves forward and tastes change, it can be the kiss of life. NuBSG was not my taste.. but it sure wasn't brainless drivel. NuStar Trek doesn't have to be either. We HAVE our Kirk and Spock, etc. They're not going anywhere. This is not a rape of a series - it is a new birth in a new millenium.

2) Star Trek, as a single legacy? Hardly. That overpowered, conference-call support group that was TNG was not so welcomed by the old schoolers at first - it was a real cat fight for about three years. But we adapted. DS9? Even more stolid, preachy, landlocked and boring. But eventually, the old schoolers and the TNGers adapted. Voyager? Well.. We're working on it. Kinda.

Etcetera.

It's only an unbroken legacy when you look back. While it happened, it was argumentative, fractured and an uphill battle every step of the way. The only Legacy of Star Trek is Fandom. We are what held it together. Otherwise, it would have been a TV Guide footnote. We wrote fanfiction, fanzines, printed them on mimeograph machines and staped them by hand. We formed idiotic litle clubs, built props and sets from cardboard, and looked all the world like the imbeciles we were. But we had our love, and that is why Trek still breathes. That's the Legacy that has been handed to you. And, as a member of that oldest legacy, I would not have it spent to exclude because of fear, or some misguided loyalty to fiction. If we had, you'd never have TNG. Or DS9. Or VOY. or ENT.

This movie IS Star Trek. This IS part of the fan's legacy. No different, in it's own way. from the typewritten stories handed out at conventions in 1974. Maybe not "canon" - a term people only started to worry about in the nineties - and maybe not "Your" show - or Mine. But it is Ours. "STAR TREK LIVES" - a button we wore at conventions in the early seventies, at that time a dream, a concept that only existed in our small cells of fandom. Now it's reality. We didn't get to custom design our child. But it's ours none the less.

 

[Supervisor 194]

but no one can say, "well, we all know they're going to encounter space hippies in five years."

And that's a good thing.

 

[urbandk]

but no one can say, "well, we all know they're going to encounter space hippies in five years."

And that's a good thing.

dude. i hope for the next movie, abrams totally punks paramount. he should start acting like howard hughes, keep everything ultra secret about the new movie. he should revert to the sixties sets, props and uniforms. say they were an upgrade and refit from the previous movie, in keeping with the original timeline. then they should just do a shot for shot remake of "the way to eden" and "spock's brain" and release it together as STXII.

 

[Cky]

Honestly, I can't stand this whole thing. I seem to share the same sentiments, or similar ones, of Jeffries and some others. My reasons are, I think, probably what's really bugging those of us who don't like this on a deep level. It took a while to figure out exactly how to put this all into words, but hopefully it makes sense:

Basically, the characters in the series from now on are not the same characters as in the original series. Now I have no problem with new sets of characters. The problem is that they are alternate versions of the ones we know.

Trek fans have spent decades with these people, just like we have spent decades with our families, friends, and loved ones. Of course the Trek characters are only fiction, and the point is not to try to give them equal value as those real people in our lives - this would be rather disturbing, actually. One similarity, however, is important. We love our family and friends because of all of the shared experiences we have had with them. We were there for the hard times, the good times, the funny times, the sad times, and all the other kinds of times as well. We were there for their births, funerals, marriages, etc. etc. If something happened to your best friend, or to your mother, and he or she were replaced by a clone identical in every single way except for the lack of those same experiences, not only would you not love the clone, but you would probably consider it an abomination and a tremendous offense to the memory of that person who you loved so much.


That’s what these “new” characters are to those we know and love. Not only do I have, in all honesty, less than zero concern for them, but they offend me deeply. They’re not real people, so there is quite obviously a limit here (so please do not accuse me of holding fictional characters as important as real people ), but to the degree that one can care about a fictional character, I am deeply hurt and offended by these facsimiles.



Let me add one more point, which does not so much add to my argument but adds a context to it. That is, why couldn’t the franchise have been re-invigorated without changing things? The only argument I have seen from those who support the reboot is that Star Trek had grown stale and needed to be reinvigorated. That’s a perfectly reasonable stance. However, there is not a single aspect of the excitement that is surrounding this film that could not have been generated without the reboot. Have any of the small canonical changes really contributed to the film’s being highly anticipated? Was it not possible to update the visual style without changing history? Couldn’t the story be just as big, have just as big a production, and just as popular a director if it told the origins of the crew as we knew them?



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?

Wow, you really really don't post here often do you?

I think everyone knows this is a reboot, and if you were a Trek fan you'd give this film a chance. You bring up things like they're different actors - of course they are. What did you expect? To bring back a bald, fat Captain Kirk playing himself as a 20 year old? No.

I think everyone that posts here IS a Trek fan, and not only a Trek fan, but a fan of the TOS series as a whole. For you to come here and bitch and whine proves the point that people really can't let go of the past and embrace something new. The old TOS is still there, it's not going anywhere, it's a very good idea to go back to the start and retell the story, there's nothing new in a TV series they can make, and theres no room for a new story with TNG, or a new cast and nobody would accept that. If you love Trek, and you want it to keep going, then this is the only option. Personally, I love Trek, and I was skeptical about this film, but the more I read the more I really want to watch this because I've heard nothing but good from the people that have watched it, and nothing but bad from the people that don't want to watch it. Who am I going to trust?

Will you stop crying if I give you your bottle back? Shit, I bet you weeped over TOS when TNG came out.

 

[El Chupacabra]

Honestly, I can't stand this whole thing. I seem to share the same sentiments, or similar ones, of Jeffries and some others. My reasons are, I think, probably what's really bugging those of us who don't like this on a deep level. It took a while to figure out exactly how to put this all into words, but hopefully it makes sense:

Basically, the characters in the series from now on are not the same characters as in the original series. Now I have no problem with new sets of characters. The problem is that they are alternate versions of the ones we know.

Trek fans have spent decades with these people, just like we have spent decades with our families, friends, and loved ones. Of course the Trek characters are only fiction, and the point is not to try to give them equal value as those real people in our lives - this would be rather disturbing, actually. One similarity, however, is important. We love our family and friends because of all of the shared experiences we have had with them. We were there for the hard times, the good times, the funny times, the sad times, and all the other kinds of times as well. We were there for their births, funerals, marriages, etc. etc. If something happened to your best friend, or to your mother, and he or she were replaced by a clone identical in every single way except for the lack of those same experiences, not only would you not love the clone, but you would probably consider it an abomination and a tremendous offense to the memory of that person who you loved so much.


That’s what these “new” characters are to those we know and love. Not only do I have, in all honesty, less than zero concern for them, but they offend me deeply. They’re not real people, so there is quite obviously a limit here (so please do not accuse me of holding fictional characters as important as real people ), but to the degree that one can care about a fictional character, I am deeply hurt and offended by these facsimiles.



Let me add one more point, which does not so much add to my argument but adds a context to it. That is, why couldn’t the franchise have been re-invigorated without changing things? The only argument I have seen from those who support the reboot is that Star Trek had grown stale and needed to be reinvigorated. That’s a perfectly reasonable stance. However, there is not a single aspect of the excitement that is surrounding this film that could not have been generated without the reboot. Have any of the small canonical changes really contributed to the film’s being highly anticipated? Was it not possible to update the visual style without changing history? Couldn’t the story be just as big, have just as big a production, and just as popular a director if it told the origins of the crew as we knew them?



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?

I know where you are coming from and I feel the same way about the new characters....although I won't go so far as to say they deeply offend me.

I think things have to be put into perspective. Whilst I wish they had gone with a new crew and made something jazzy and had the TOS ethtics at its core, set in the established universe, it was clear that from the outset Paramount wanted to use the most iconic characters in Trek, Kirk and Spock. If you're gonna reboot Superman you don't do it without Clark Kent and Lois Lane? Right? I think Paramount saw it the same way. If they are going to get any more out of Trek then they would have to go back to its roots. With TOS 45 years old that means a recasting of the original characters.

Now for me a reboot and a recasting was an utterly horrific idea. That was the ultimate disrespect for the characters I loved and had been a part of my life for 30 years. Now given a total reboot, or an alternate universe that preserves the canon of TOS and the subsequent shows, I choose the latter. Why? Because I can now accept the movie as a legitimate continuation of the Star Trek saga, rather than something that stands apart completely from my beloved franchise. I will not view NuKirk and NuSpock as the same characters, and for me that makes the recasting acceptable. I would much rather have it that way that be forced to believe that Chris Pine's upstart is Shatner's Kirk.

Star Trek was dead in the water, no matter how hard I was tried to convince myself otherwise. If it was going to come back it meant reboot. All things considered it could have been much, much worse and I think we must be very grateful that this is born out of canon and that our original Spock features. It could have just as easily gone the other way and we never seen the true Spock on screen again.

Given that the options are this, a total reboot or no more Trek, I'll take this any day of the week.

 

[Procutus]

What is countdown? Never heard of it.

the prequel comics that preceded the film. they're all set in the 24th century and deal with the backstory that sets up the Nero villain and the Nimoy Spock involvement. They've all been released and I think a trade paperback compilation is coming out within days.

Actually, it's out, I picked up my copy last night.


Another question, what is Kirk's rank when he takes over the center chair during the emergency after Pike is injured? IS he just a cadet, or has he achieved rank?

 

[El Chupacabra]

Why is everyone so gang ho on watching an alternate universe anyway? If you hate Star Trek that much go and watch another show! For Christ's sake.

Nah, we get to watch this - and this is Star Trek.

"Alternate universe" my butt - it's a reboot with a little sleight-of-hand, and it's overdue.

And that's what bothers me. Regardless of what the producers say, this film's purpose is to entirely replace the original version of Star Trek, not to honour it. And before anyone starts on about how all these alterations mean new future storylines, let me point you in the direction of IDW Comics and Pocket Books, who produce cool, interesting stories and still remain entirely faithful to what has gone before. In doing away with Vulcan in this fashion, the new film simply cannot be called Star Trek. If Abrams & co. want to do this, they should remove the words Star Trek from the title, change the names of the characters, change the name of the ship, and change the names of the planets. What they are doing to the franchise isn't creative, it's LAZY.

With respect, I think you fail to appreciate that what may sell to Trekkies in limited numbers is not necessarily the type of story that will attract new fans to the franchise and be suitable for a multi-million dollar movie.

As for entirely replacing TOS, if it is set in an alternate universe and features characters (Nero & TOS Spock) directly from the canon of TOS, how can you say that its a direct replacement?

 

[EJA]

Nah, we get to watch this - and this is Star Trek.

"Alternate universe" my butt - it's a reboot with a little sleight-of-hand, and it's overdue.

And that's what bothers me. Regardless of what the producers say, this film's purpose is to entirely replace the original version of Star Trek, not to honour it. And before anyone starts on about how all these alterations mean new future storylines, let me point you in the direction of IDW Comics and Pocket Books, who produce cool, interesting stories and still remain entirely faithful to what has gone before. In doing away with Vulcan in this fashion, the new film simply cannot be called Star Trek. If Abrams & co. want to do this, they should remove the words Star Trek from the title, change the names of the characters, change the name of the ship, and change the names of the planets. What they are doing to the franchise isn't creative, it's LAZY.

With respect, I think you fail to appreciate that what may sell to Trekkies in limited numbers is not necessarily the type of story that will attract new fans to the franchise and be suitable for a multi-million dollar movie.

As for entirely replacing TOS, if it is set in an alternate universe and features characters (Nero & TOS Spock) directly from the canon of TOS, how can you say that its a direct replacement?

It is a total replacement for original TOS (and by extension, the expanded Trek universe) because in creating such things as totally destroying a major planet in the history of the Federation, it fundamentally alters the Trek universe so that very little, if any, of what we saw in the old version can be said to have happened, and therefore, have any merit. And if it's a success, it's quite likely that it will become the dominant version of Trek and the old version will slowly be abandoned and forgotten. That's my fear.

 

[El Chupacabra]

And that's what bothers me. Regardless of what the producers say, this film's purpose is to entirely replace the original version of Star Trek, not to honour it. And before anyone starts on about how all these alterations mean new future storylines, let me point you in the direction of IDW Comics and Pocket Books, who produce cool, interesting stories and still remain entirely faithful to what has gone before. In doing away with Vulcan in this fashion, the new film simply cannot be called Star Trek. If Abrams & co. want to do this, they should remove the words Star Trek from the title, change the names of the characters, change the name of the ship, and change the names of the planets. What they are doing to the franchise isn't creative, it's LAZY.

With respect, I think you fail to appreciate that what may sell to Trekkies in limited numbers is not necessarily the type of story that will attract new fans to the franchise and be suitable for a multi-million dollar movie.

As for entirely replacing TOS, if it is set in an alternate universe and features characters (Nero & TOS Spock) directly from the canon of TOS, how can you say that its a direct replacement?

It is a total replacement for original TOS (and by extension, the expanded Trek universe) because in creating such things as totally destroying a major planet in the history of the Federation, it fundamentally alters the Trek universe so that very little, if any, of what we saw in the old version can be said to have happened, and therefore, have any merit. And if it's a success, it's quite likely that it will become the dominant version of Trek and the old version will slowly be abandoned and forgotten. That's my fear.

There have been, what, 700 hours of Trek in the old universe? How the hell does that get abandoned and forgotten just because of a few movies set in an alternate reality?

 

[Cky]

Okay, you come up with a good new TV series or movie, pitch it to Paramount and you can keep it within the same Trek universe.

Oh wait, they did that and already failed with ENT and Nemesis.

 

[ITL]

With respect, I think you fail to appreciate that what may sell to Trekkies in limited numbers is not necessarily the type of story that will attract new fans to the franchise and be suitable for a multi-million dollar movie.

As for entirely replacing TOS, if it is set in an alternate universe and features characters (Nero & TOS Spock) directly from the canon of TOS, how can you say that its a direct replacement?

It is a total replacement for original TOS (and by extension, the expanded Trek universe) because in creating such things as totally destroying a major planet in the history of the Federation, it fundamentally alters the Trek universe so that very little, if any, of what we saw in the old version can be said to have happened, and therefore, have any merit. And if it's a success, it's quite likely that it will become the dominant version of Trek and the old version will slowly be abandoned and forgotten. That's my fear.

There have been, what, 700 hours of Trek in the old universe? How the hell does that get abandoned and forgotten just because of a few movies set in an alternate reality?

And that's the thing. Alternate reality, folks. ALTERNATE. Existing alongside the "prime" reality. The universe of this new movie DOES NOT replace anything.

Why people are not getting this is beyond me...

 

[StCoop]

It is a total replacement for original TOS (and by extension, the expanded Trek universe) because in creating such things as totally destroying a major planet in the history of the Federation, it fundamentally alters the Trek universe so that very little, if any, of what we saw in the old version can be said to have happened, and therefore, have any merit.

And yet as of today all forthcoming Trek novels and comics are still set in the so-called "replaced" Universe.

And every previous film, TV episode, book and comic are still out there to be rewatched and reread whenever anyone wants to.

 

[Jefferies]

With respect, I think you fail to appreciate that what may sell to Trekkies in limited numbers is not necessarily the type of story that will attract new fans to the franchise and be suitable for a multi-million dollar movie.

As for entirely replacing TOS, if it is set in an alternate universe and features characters (Nero & TOS Spock) directly from the canon of TOS, how can you say that its a direct replacement?

But Star Trek was always a niche thing. Why must it suddenly appeal to everybody? Also it doesn't really need huge budgets. Some of the best Star Trek movies had really small ones like The Wrath of Khan and I doubt you can deny its success?

The reason Nemesis and Enterprise failed wasn't because they were "old" Trek but because they had awful writing and direction. The stories were simply uncompelling and badly executed.

People say nuBSG was hughely successfull yet its viewership was hardly bigger than that of Enterprise. I think there is a bias here towards the new and different. Quite a few people seem to think that a new framework just magically produces better quality or that getting to see new things is in itself a worthy spectacle. And I will admitt novelty has its alure. However, Star Trek is more than its novelty value. Thats the reason it has endured for 43 years. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be updated, but must it be fundementally changed? It seems that all that remains of the original is the names and not much else. As Lazerlike pointed out, we don't know these characters anymore. To me there was a value in the familiarity that will now be absent.

 

[StCoop]

But Star Trek was always a niche thing. Why must it suddenly appeal to everybody?

What a mind-blowingly selfish attitude. A perfect summation of everything that's wrong with (some) Star Trek fans.

 

[EJA]

but no one can say, "well, we all know they're going to encounter space hippies in five years."

And that's a good thing.

dude. i hope for the next movie, abrams totally punks paramount. he should start acting like howard hughes, keep everything ultra secret about the new movie. he should revert to the sixties sets, props and uniforms. say they were an upgrade and refit from the previous movie, in keeping with the original timeline. then they should just do a shot for shot remake of "the way to eden" and "spock's brain" and release it together as STXII.

No, because those two episodes sucked, and a shot for shot remake of them would suck even more. So would going back to the 60s styles. I actually quite like the redesigns for the Enterprise, uniforms and technology (well, mostly). I once said in an earlier post that I wouldn't mind it so much if it purged the Trek universe of some of its more out-dated and embarressing elements. But once you start eradicating entire important planets and the vast majority of their indigenous population so that nearly EVERYTHING changes, I just feel that's taking it too far.

And as for what they've done with Amanda Grayson......NOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

[darkwing_duck1]

And that's the thing. Alternate reality, folks. ALTERNATE. Existing alongside the "prime" reality. The universe of this new movie DOES NOT replace anything.

Why people are not getting this is beyond me...

What YOU aren't getting is that the 'new' Trek will replace the 'old' Trek in the public eye, for one, and in the minds of the executives. Star Trek will become in their eyes what JJ Adams did, not what was done the 40 years previous.

Yes, the 700 hours will still physically exist, but the liklihood of any MORE material being filmed that conforms to that universe drops to virtually ZERO, which is what they are truly complaining about when they talk about the Roddenberryverse Trek as being "forgotten".

 

[darkwing_duck1]

But Star Trek was always a niche thing. Why must it suddenly appeal to everybody?

What a mind-blowingly selfish attitude. A perfect summation of everything that's wrong with (some) Star Trek fans.

Some would argue that it's equally if not MORE mind-blowingly selfish of the "mainstream" to demand that all entertainment be made into dumbed down and sexed up pablum that they can just sit and veg in front of.

 

[StCoop]

Some would argue that it's equally if not MORE mind-blowingly selfish of the "mainstream" to demand that all entertainment be made into dumbed down and sexed up pablum that they can just sit and veg in front of.

Do you want me to start listing all the dumbed down and sexed up episodes of Star Trek pre- this film?

Plus you can add a false sense of superiority to the list of things no Star Trek fan should be proud to possess...