What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[Gepard]

It's been out for three weeks, how is it not "weather time's passage" exactly?

Okay, I should have deleted that part of the quote. The section I was reacting to being the holding up for moments and scenes, but not as a whole.

Though...I was pretty enthusiastic about the movie right after I saw it, but I got less and less fond of it as the days passed and I spent more time reflecting on it. So...

 

[Messianni]

It's been out for three weeks, how is it not "weather time's passage" exactly?

Okay, I should have deleted that part of the quote. The section I was reacting to being the holding up for moments and scenes, but not as a whole.

Though...I was pretty enthusiastic about the movie right after I saw it, but I got less and less fond of it as the days passed and I spent more time reflecting on it. So...

Fair enough, certainly. And yet its gleam waning off for you is more a personal thing than a reflection on the film in the eye of the general consensus.

 

[Gepard]

And yet its gleam waning off for you is more a personal thing than a reflection on the film in the eye of the general consensus.

Oi! A guy can't even make a snarky comment around here.

 

[Warped9]

ABOARD THE USS KELVIN:
GEORGE: Whoa! A thunderstorm in space!
NERO: Hello. I am not Shinzon. But send over your captain, anyway, just like the last movie.
CAPTAIN: You bet.
TRANSPORTER: Zhoooom!
NERO: Hello, again. We are from a future so far advanced beyond your understanding that we keep spears on board.
CAPTAIN: I don’t get your point.
NERO: You do now. Hyah!
BACK ON THE KELVIN:
GEORGE: Where’s Winona?
CREWMAN: She’s not on until a few more scenes.
GEORGE: Not Ryder. I mean my wife.
CREWMAN: She’s about to give birth.
GEORGE: Oh, that’s right. That’s why I didn’t leave her at home, but insisted she come on this dangerous, dangerous mission. Oh well, I am going to ram this ship which is not the Enterprise right into that ship which is not Shinzon’s.
BOOM!
JIM KIRK: Waaah!
ON VULCAN:
BULLY: Hey, Spock. I am going to taunt you so that you beat me up.
SPOCK: Done and done.
POW!
SAREK: Hello, son. You can be whatever you want to be.
SPOCK: Wouldn’t it be more dramatic if, instead, I had to make my own way in the universe alone, without the love and support of my father, until I had so proven my abilities that I found peace within?
SAREK: That’s the old storyline. We’re giving it to Kirk.
SPOCK: Damn! Say, why did you marry mom?
SAREK: Because she’s Winona Freaking Ryder, what do you think?
SPOCK: Ah! Logical!
IOWA:
JIM KIRK: Ha haaaa! Here I am, just like Picard, zooming through Iowa’s famous desert.
POLICE: Pull over!
JIM KIRK: Oh, no, I’m headed right for one of the humongous canyons that Iowa is also so famous for.
BOOM!
JIM KIRK: Oh, no! I am hanging by my fingers on this precipice!
POLICE: What’s your name?
JIM KIRK: Jim Kirk, and you’re supposed to have sympathy for me because I’m an unhappy youth.
LATER IN IOWA:
JIM KIRK: I’m Jim Kirk and now I’m an unhappy 20-year-old.
UHURA: I’m not going to tell you my first name. There is no possible way you can ever find it out, because in the future there is no wiki, facebook, google or myspace.
JIM: Damn! Say, why are all these Starfleet people in this Iowa bar?
UHURA: Because we build Starships in Iowa these days.
JIM: I thought we just grew corn.
UHURA: You still do. Have you read the script?
POW!
PIKE: Kirk, I looked you up. You’re an angry, unbalanced, brooding genius. That’s just what Starfleet is looking for. Starfleet, and the Taliban.
JIM: No way! I will never sign up! NEVER!
NEXT DAY:
JIM: I have changed my mind. Sign me up.
BONES: Hi. My name is McCoy. I just got divorced. Have sympathy for my character.
JIM: Only if you see how angry and brooding I am.
BONE: All right. Say, all I have left are my bones.
JIM: Um . . . Okay.
BONES: Also skin. And some hair. Let’s see -- intestines, spleen-
JIM: Say, I bet you’re a doctor, aren’t you?
LATER:
JIM: Well, I am now graduating. I did it in three years, too! I am a genius. Yet I am still going to cheat. This is yet another positive character trait for an angry, brooding genius.
BONE: Yuh huh.
JIM: Excuse me. I have to go now and "study." By which I mean have strange alien sex.
BONES: What makes it strange? Because she’s green?
JIM: No, because she does it without taking her underwear off. Wow! Look at Uhura’s rib cage!
KOBAYASHI MARU TEST:
JIM: This is one good apple. Mmm! In fact, it might be symbollic of forbidden knowledge. I have discovered that I can win by changing the rules.
SPOCK: I hate you.
JIM: I hate you, too.
STARFLEET: ALERT! ALERT! Vulcan is under attack. We only have five Starships here. We need to send every one of them out, even though Vulcan is now just three minutes away and it might be wise to keep one or two here.
JIM: Wow! Does this mean that all the cadets will have to go, too? Just like in "Wrath of Khan"?
STARFLEET: Yes, but in your case only though a plot contrivance.
UHURA: Don’t send this creep! He’s all hands!
BONES: Not yet, but he will be. Take this shot! Sssssss!
ABOARD THE ENTERPRISE
PIKE: Kirk, you’re not supposed to be here! Get off my ship. Wait -- Kirk, you’re now first officer.
KIRK: What are you, Brett Favre?
PIKE: We’re on our way to Vulcan.
KIRK: No! It’s a trap!
PIKE: For no good reason, I believe you. Well, even if it is the same ship that destroyed your father’s vessel, that antique U.S.S. Kelvin held out and rammed it. There’s no way the intruder can take on FIVE modern Starships.
CHEKOV: Ve are here!
SPOCK: Look! They took out four modern Starships!
PIKE: See? And we’re the fifth and we’re still here. I told you.
NERO: Hello. I am not Shinzon. But send over your captain, anyway, just like before.
PIKE: Hmmm! The last time he did that, he killed the Kelvin’s captain. Therefore, I will go.
TRANSPORTER: ZHHHHOOOOM!
PIKE: You ain’t gonna spear me are you?
NERO: No. Even though we have now completely demolished Starfleet, and even though we have technology at least 100 years more advanced than your own, we are going to keep you alive to, oh, I guess give us some codes or passwords or something.
PIKE: You villain! I sure hope you don’t put a bug in my head.
NERO: Like in "Wrath of Khan"?
PIKE: Say, why don’t you just use the famous Romulan cloaking device and destroy Vulcan and Earth without anyone knowing?
NERO: Um . . . uh . . .
OVER VULCAN:
JIM: Vulcan’s not so bad. In fact, it’s just like Iowa. For example, here I am again, hanging by my fingertips on another precipice.
SULU: Why don’t they just shoot this sucker from orbit instead of lowering it like a fish hook?
JIM: Don’t ask questions! Don’t you want to have a sword fight?
SULU: Oh, no! Vulcan is collapsing! They must have shot red matter into its core!
JIM: Weren’t you watching? It wasn’t red matter. Winona Ryder fell down in there. She’s sucking the entire planet!
SULU: Lucky planet.
ON THE ENTERPRISE:
CHEKOV: I vill now leave my post during this crisis, contrary to all regulations, so dat I ken beam dem oop. Den I vill disappear becuz I only hef three lines and dat is dat.
TRANSPORTER: Zhhhhhoooom!
KIRK: Good work!
SPOCK: Welcome back. Now, goodbye.
ON DELTA VEGA:
KIRK: Holy crap, that bastard Vulcan shot me down here inside a Magic 8-Ball.
GARY MITCHELL: Hello, Jim. Like my contact lenses?
SPOCK: Welcome, old friend. Here, let me touch your mind. I must speak to you of red matter.
KIRK: And I must speak of you of brown matter. In my pants.
SPOCK: Our minds are one.
KIRK: Wow! All these images flashing through my mind. With narration. What a great exposition. Too bad it comes 40 minutes late. So this is really a parallel reality, huh?
SPOCK: Yes. Which means I get to grow a beard and use the Tantalus Field.
KIRK: What?
SPOCK: Never mind. Mr. Scott is marooned here.
KIRK: Like in "Relics"?
SCOTTY: Oot wee yew weall.
KIRK: Wow, and I thought Chekov talked funny. Can we go back to the old accents?
SPOCK: Go, now. I must remain here.
JIM: Why?
SPOCK: You didn’t see the rest of the ice cave. Zarabeth is back in there. Plus meat cubes!
TRANSPORTER: Zhoooom!
JIM: All riiiight! I’m in a brewery! . . . Oh., wait. It’s an engine room. I think. Mr. Scott, why is there so much plumbing on such an advanced ship?
SCOTTY: Aye, blargh, hoot. (Translated: Everyone always complains that they never see a restroom on this ship. Well, here is our sewer plant.)
CHEKOV: Veeveeveewagah. (Translated: Can I use the waterslide next?)
THE BRIDGE:
SPOCK: Wait a minute, here. Nero is incredibly advanced. How do we know that what we see is actually reality? The more I think about it, his fantastic ship just looks like a lot of over-the-top CGI.
SULU: No, Mr. Spock. It’s real. Just look towards the front of the bridge and look out the window.
SPOCK: Ah, yes. Wipers on full.
JIM: Hello, Spock. I am back. Your mom is Winona Ryder and she has a fantastic rack.
SPOCK: You dirty so and so!
POW!
JIM: I’m sorry. But now I am captain! I have taken command through duplicity and betrayal.
SPOCK: Wow, if that’s good captaining then this really is the mirror universe.
JIM: No, it’s just a reboot.
SPOCK: Cool. Then I get the first inter-racial kiss! Uhura?
UHURA: Yummy yum yum! Kirk, are you jealous?
JIM: Nope. But I’ve got bad news. You’re not going to get to second base for seven years.
TRANSPORTER: Zhoooom!
NERO: Kirk! Spock! You have come to my ship to save your captain at the end of the movie, even though I am not Shinzon and you are not Data.
JIM: How come your head is perfectly shaved, but your face is full of stubble?
CHAKOTAY: Nice tatoos, though.
SPOCK: I am taking old Spock’s paddlewheel starship and all of its red matter. Red matter, as everyone knows, is an extremely volatile, dangerous substance. That is why it can only be transported in a special ship that flips around violently.
BANG! ZOOM! POW!
EARTH:
JIM: Well, it all worked out fine.
ADMIRAL PIKE: Except here I am in a wheelchair.
JIM: Like in "The Menagerie"?
ADMIRAL PIKE: Sorta. The last two hours have been a fantasy placed in my mind by the butthead keeper. Next up: Winona Ryder.
BIGSHOT HEAD OF STARFLEET: Ensign James T. Kirk, because you were a stowaway on the Enterprise, disobeyed direct orders and led a mutiny against Commander Spock, we are giving you the Enterprise, our best ship. Congratulations! We’d serve champagne, but you’re not 21 yet.
YOUNG SPOCK: Are you my father?
OLD SPOCK: No, I am old you.
NOMAD: Kirk, are you my father?
JIM: I’m not sure. Reboot and all. Could be.
VADER: Luke, I am your father.
OLD SPOCK: Have fun, young Spock.
YOUNG SPOCK: Nice beard.
THE END.

Fantastic! Reads like a Mad Magazine adaptation.

Now if the film had gone this route it would have been a riot.

 

[Bri]

TOS fan since 1980, and I loved it. Many of my problems with the script and certain choices made have already been expressed by others.

I REALLY would like a better composer for the second one. The last track on the soundtrack, where he reworks the Alex Courage theme is the only track on the entire disc I liked. Cue to them, I really hope they mine all of the awesome Fred Steiner music and do something similar next time, if it must be Michael Giacchino. He's a better arranger than he is a composer.

Bri

 

[Cakes488]

Especially since Dennis is actually engaging with the issue in a reasoned manner rather than making pronuncements from on-high. I'm enjoying this last set of posts--agreeing with a bit, disagreeing with a bit, but enjoying them a lot.

Besides, anyone who knows Dennis knows that TOS is far and away his favorite Trek series. He's just not the type to be blinded by love.

Whatever...I'm not part of the Dennis fan club...and just about every post he makes comes from his "on-high" mount...and everybody let's him get away with it......I think you're all intimidated by him with his fancy schmancy vocabulary and snooty sentences....not me!

And honestly you say this Dennis loves TOS...really...?? Really...??? Well with fans like him...... who the hell needs haters?!!!

Once again he said this that I cut and pasted below that pissed me off -- so you all agree with this statement huh....? Poppycock! Emphasis on Cock!!!

Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully.

He's critical, that's for sure, and he enjoys getting a rise out of folks. But I've often "called him on it," as have many others. (Indeed, he once used a flame of mine as his "Location" handle for a couple of weeks. I could not help but be touched.) We have history and it's not pretty--I've called things he's said "bullshit" and he's called things I've said "idiotic."

But this time (as much as I viscerally sympathize with you), I just don't see it. For all that I've said above, Dennis is also an atsute critic when he actually deigns to engage with us hoi polloi. I may not agree with everything he says in that mode but I appreciate the thought and perspective that goes into it.

In short, don't let him get to you. (Easier said, I know...) It's just a tv show.

I need to address your comment about him not being blinded by love....LOL have you seen his posts about nuTrek? Which according to him...has no flaws...he is also eager to explain away much of the nonsense that occurs in nuTrek ( I liked the movie) ...so he's not blinded by love huh? So he chooses to be astute critic when examining TOS but that goes out the window when he's talking about nuTrek... What exactly do you agree with about what he said...? That TOS is only good for moments or that Balance of Terror is "silly".....and you think that's a valid point??? So I'll ask my question again and I'd like it if you can give a yes or no answer.

Do you agree with this statement:
Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully.

Dennis may not always be right (God knows I disagree with him on a lot of things outside of Trek), but when it comes to Star Trek I generally find myself in agreement with him.

Except for his Top 10 episodes list of course.

Yes he has a lot of knowledge...I agree with that...if only he'd use his evil powers for good....if only! And you're damn skippy he ain't always right...and just as he isn't always right in things outside of Trek...well then he's bound to be wrong when he's talking about Trek too...unless he's not human and never wrong....then that would explain a lot actually.

So I ask you this...do you agree with this statement Mallory:
Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully.

Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully.

Cakes, I consider Dennis to be my friend. I disagree with his opinion above. But I also know of no one in this world that I think loves TOS as much as he does. And believe me, I know a few folks that love TOS. I think he sees what he sees and isn't given to self-delusion to pretend he sees otherwise. Honesty is a virtue, and it might be best to respect it as such.

However wrongheaded it may be at times.

Well if he is your friend....that is your problem and I offer you my sympathy.....LOL LOL I'm just kidding...I just couldn't resist the easy joke. Yes honesty is a wonderful thing.....Like I've said he has valid points at times (I can admit that even when I don't like somebody) ...but the problem (mostly) is the way it's conveyed....which is in a condescending and just plain ole nasty fashion... and usually with disdain...tempered with an inappropriate when most of what's said is not funny......it's almost like it's personal...which it can't possibly be since it's "just a tv show"...but that's the way it comes across to me. Sorry but I'm just being honest. So if he's being honest and he's not deluding himself that actually TOS is kinda ridiculous... are you deluding yourself about the quality of TOS? Then you too agree with this statement:

Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully

Really I'd love to hear from anybody who agrees with this horsecrap about TOS -- of course I'd like to hear more from people who disagree I Note that you're all TOS lovers...so I do love you all...yes yes...even Dennis...but just not that much.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Short answer: No, I do not agree with that statement.

Long answer: No, I do not agree with that statement but I see where he is coming from and he defended his position well.

Relevant answer to this discussion: No, I do not agree with that statement but I'm really glad Dennis took the time and effort to explain and support it rather than, as he often does, tossing it into the discussion like a stink bomb and going off to post un-supported one-liners elsewhere. It's seldom the opinion of the poster that I find offensive but the manner in which that opinion is stated. I find nothing offensive in how Dennis presented this particular opinion.

As far as Nutrek is concerned, Dennis is being seemingly uncritical but that's only because he is countering fans of TOS who are super-critical of it. Since he need not establish his TOS bona fides here, he can afford to yank our chains by pointing out the many flaws in TOS we'd just as soon over-look.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

I really, really enjoyed it, a far greater amount than I expected to. I am not a fan of Abrams' work, either television or movie, other than Cloverfield, which I found quite fun. I was looking forward so much to seeing this film, which generally leaves huge room for disappointment.

However, other than the usual plot idiocy and inconsistency (which you will find in every and all TOS incarnations, tv and film) it was a fabulous film. Seen it twice, going back again, soon, and looking forward to October, when I can get my own, damned DVD.

Great casting, great writing, and lots of fun. Is it An Important Cinematic Event? No, but it's great fun, and a lovely re-boot.

As to whether other TOS fans like it, who really, really gives a shit? It won't affect your enjoyment, will it? There isn't an opinion on this board that will sway what I feel about the movie.

The Mad Magazine plot summary, btw, is genius. Pure genius.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

In a sub the sound expands until it hits the hull, then sets the hull to vibrating. The water conveys the vibrations from the hull to the opposing ship's sonar, where it is picked up.

On a spacecraft, the sound expands out to the hull, the hull vibrates and... that's the end of it. UNLESS the opposing ship has sensors that are more "tactile" and actually reach out and "feel".

We have this technology, now. You shine a laser on a surface in vacuum, which is vibrating to internal sound, the laser's frequency, on return to the sensor/beamer is altered, and can recreate the sound.

Nothing particularly fancy about it.

 

[aridas sofia]

So if he's being honest and he's not deluding himself that actually TOS is kinda ridiculous... are you deluding yourself about the quality of TOS? Then you too agree with this statement:

Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully

Absolutely not. As I've argued on this board for years. As an artist, I believe Matt Jefferies designs are timeless, and only need to be rendered with materials that make them look "substantive" enough for modern methods of presentation. They need to be slightly tweaked in places to reveal abilities that make them as magical to us now as they were to us in 1966. None of this would have been difficult. Toning down the colors of the set to the "Cage" or "TMP" palette would have lifted the designs from any tinge of dated kitschiness more readily than adopting an Apple store motif that is already eight years old. All of this was possible, and more, without dumping the Matt Jefferies-design aesthetic. To think that all of that amazing work was simply discarded, while keeping Bill Theiss' costumes almost wholly intact, leaves me confused. Theiss' work was also stunning, but IMO it was much more a product of its time. The bright colors and cowl necks and miniskirts. The Beatle boots with Cuban heels. C'mon. From a designer's perspective, this wasn't updating. It was a selective overhaul that retained the general forms, while substituting an unspecific, cobbled-together mix of white room-moderne and brewery industrial for a look inspired by the likes of Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and Eero Saarinen. The only way such a joke sells is by virtue of the frenetic pace of the movie, where nothing is seen long enough to be able to tell what video game inspired it.

Nosiree. I think TOS has weathered the test of time just fine. But as you'll note, I've focused on design, where much of the criticism of TOS is often leveled by critics that know not of what they speak. Dennis knowingly criticizes other elements of those episodes that have much more to do with the pacing, editing, and direction. He criticizes the way the episodes were put together sells to contemporary audiences, and I have to admit that is something I haven't considered very much until now. Because, like he says, we are fans and we just accept the way these episodes were put together because we are familiar with them.

So we can disagree on the specific points and I can reserve judgement on his broader point. I certainly can't claim to know a tenth as much as him about film making, so if he says the way the episodes are put together is dated, I'll bow to his expertise. But I'll still assert as strongly as my keyboard will permit that all the talk from fans and non-fans alike about the "look" being dated is ill-informed and just plain wrong.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Abrams said he was afraid of making Galaxy Quest. That alone betrayed his view of Star Trek--that it is primarily kitsch. Thus he kept the arguably kitschy uniforms and kitschified the sets and effects to raise the color quotient rather than tone it down. The movie is Star Trek as seen by a child, with the lens flares evoking that wide-eyed state (it also evokes the literally wide-eyed state associated with certain hallucinogenics--just ask me and Aaron Sorkin). A brewery for engineering? C'mon, that right there gives you some idea of the rigorous thought that went into this movie.

I still really dig it. I had a fucking blast and a half both times I saw it. To paraphrase Dennis, though, I don't pretend it is anything more than it is.

And I'll take the 20 or 30 best TOS episodes and the first two movies--warts, bloat, pretensions and all--over this loud and flashy wad of cotton candy just about any day of the week.

 

[Mallory]

So I ask you this...do you agree with this statement Mallory:
Star Trek TOS holds up for moments, for scenes, sometimes for episodes, but on the whole is weathering time's passage much less successfully.

To a large extent I do. I watched TOS during its original run in the 60s, I watched the butchered syndicated reruns in the 70s, I watched the Sci-Fi broadcasts in the 90s and I enjoyed the remastered episodes this decade. But it always has been, and always will be, a product of the 1960s with all the baggage that entails. Some of the elements are timeless, such as aridas pointed out, as well as the themes of a great number of episodes.

The series has held up far better than virtually any other of its time period, but the more the years pass the more the shortcomings become apparent. I love TOS and I probably always will, but I'm also a realist. Times and styles have moved on.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Trek has aged and it shows its age--it looks very much to be a product of its time but it does so, for the most part, in a way that adds rather than detracts from the experience. Nobody is ever gonna think Citizen Kane or Forbidden Planet were made in 2009 but it takes nothing away from them. (Never cared at all for Casablanca. I was gonna add a "sorry" to that statement but no, I'm not sorry at all.)

 

[Ronald Held]

It will only be approximately 2 years before we argue over the next movie.

 

[Shaw]

I watched the opening showing of the new movie on the 7th of this month, and saw it one more time since then. This is the first time since First Contact that I've seen a Trek film in the theaters more than once. And it qualifies as entertaining (that is, I was entertained by it).

But in that same period of time I've watched a few dozen TOS episodes (mostly first season and the pilots, with a few second season), a half dozen or so DS9 episodes (from the fourth and fifth seasons as I recall), plus both TWoK and Nemesis once each (Nemesis mainly out of curiosity). I've watch Galaxy Quest three times and Forbidden Planet at least twice (I have it set to the same play list as the two TOS pilots).

As Brutal Strudel pointed out, I was well aware of the fact that this new movie wasn't aimed at me, and was made by people who didn't take Trek seriously... so I went into this film not taking it seriously.

Will I spend any of my time worrying about the size of the new Enterprise? Not at all. Why? Because I know that when someone working on the movie tried to define the size of the ship he was summarily dismissed. So I know that if the people working on the movie weren't supposed to look that closely at the tech stuff, then the audience really wasn't supposed to look all that closely. And I'm not worried about the internal consistency of either the story or the science because I know that neither of those things were priorities of the film makers.

Basically, I realized long before the movie opened that it was Trek in name only, and that if I was going to enjoy it I shouldn't hold it to the same standards I have held Trek to for my entire life. And as I said, with that understanding, taking the film for what it really was, I enjoyed my two viewings of it and I might even buy the DVD at some point (though I still need to get TMP at some point).

Nobody is ever gonna think Citizen Kane or Forbidden Planet were made in 2009 but it takes nothing away from them. (Never cared at all for Casablanca. I was gonna add a "sorry" to that statement but no, I'm not sorry at all.)

And I watched Casablanca four times in the last month (but I'm renting it from Netflix) and Citizen Kane three times (as I sometimes get home sick for San Diego and seeing Balboa Park in the beginning helps).

I enjoyed all of those episodes and movies more than the new Trek movie (accept maybe Nemesis), but I still did enjoy it... by not applying any type of standards to it.

But hey, I know that I like bad movies... after all I also watched (and thoroughly enjoyed) Amazon Women on the Moon, Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death and the Lost in Space movie too.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I'm gonna give Casablanca another look based on your opinion of it. It wouldn't be the first time I've changed my opinion about something

 

[Butters]

As Brutal Strudel pointed out, I was well aware of the fact that this new movie wasn't aimed at me, and was made by people who didn't take Trek seriously... so I went into this film not taking it seriously.

Will I spend any of my time worrying about the size of the new Enterprise? Not at all. Why? Because I know that when someone working on the movie tried to define the size of the ship he was summarily dismissed. So I know that if the people working on the movie weren't supposed to look that closely at the tech stuff, then the audience really wasn't supposed to look all that closely. And I'm not worried about the internal consistency of either the story or the science because I know that neither of those things were priorities of the film makers.

Basically, I realized long before the movie opened that it was Trek in name only, and that if I was going to enjoy it I shouldn't hold it to the same standards I have held Trek to for my entire life. And as I said, with that understanding, taking the film for what it really was, I enjoyed my two viewings of it and I might even buy the DVD at some point (though I still need to get TMP at some point)

I'd wager that the makers of the film took Star Trek faar more seriously than any fan ever could. They had the responsibility of a hell of a lot of other peoples money and their reputations and livelihoods were counting on its success. Second to this, to make a film of this magnitude, to the standard they presented takes more than a little love. You have to be the project and live the material. They did this well I feel.
Thirdly. How seriously can you take a film. Its entertainment, and from what I can gather from serious filmgoers, this was good entertainment. You're not going to find any answers in a film.

And so what if we can't pin down the size of the ship. TOS didn't suffer for never giving us a solid date setting, a warpscale, stardate explanation, 3d chess rules or any of the other crap that TOS is revered for but introduced after cancellation. Irrelevant details spoil the story; they're disruptive to the viewer and restrictive to the next story teller. Part of the fresh new start is the new ambiguity, it should be applauded for the mystery, adventure and pure speculative debatability it presents to fandom.

60's trek died in the sixties. Is 40 years not long enough to realise this?

 

[Shaw]

... 60's trek died in the sixties. Is 40 years not long enough to realise this?

That is your opinion... and it is a perfectly valid one.

But I would point out that this thread is in the TOS section and the topic is asking what diehard TOS Fans thought of the new movies. With a comment like that I would have to venture a guess that you don't quite qualify.

Again, your opinion is a valid one, but any discussion of it in this thread would seem to be pulling it off topic. So I hope you'll understand if I don't respond to your points... it is nothing personal.

I'm gonna give Casablanca another look based on your opinion of it. It wouldn't be the first time I've changed my opinion about something

I should point out that I'm a Bogart and Bergman fan. Bogart for roles like The African Queen and The Caine Mutiny, and Bergman in... well, I could watch her in anything.

 

[Butters]

... 60's trek died in the sixties. Is 40 years not long enough to realise this?

That is your opinion... and it is a perfectly valid one.

Just so you know, I'm not refuting the value of TOS, merely stating that it can never ever return. And however I may mourn or deny that fact, it will remain a fact and not an opinion. 60s trek was a product of the sixties and the world has changed.

But I would point out that this thread is in the TOS section and the topic is asking what diehard TOS Fans thought of the new movies. With a comment like that I would have to venture a guess that you don't quite qualify.

Again, your opinion is a valid one, but any discussion of it in this thread would seem to be pulling it off topic. So I hope you'll understand if I don't respond to your points... it is nothing personal.

I rank TOS as a close second in my table of favourite series so I'm not exactly die hard, but take away the critical yet appreciative input of the non diehard but fan nonetheless and you're left with a pretty shallow and repetitive discussion. I didn't realise that the thread was merely intended as a list of status sanctioned opinions.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that opinion is, and always should be, open to challenge. But thankyou for dismissing me politely. I'm usually just ignored.

 

[JustKate]

I rank TOS as a close second in my table of favourite series so I'm not exactly die hard, but take away the critical yet appreciative input of the non diehard but fan nonetheless and you're left with a pretty shallow and repetitive discussion. I didn't realise that the thread was merely intended as a list of status sanctioned opinions.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that opinion is, and always should be, open to challenge. But thankyou for dismissing me politely. I'm usually just ignored.

I also contributed to this thread even though I wondered (and noted this in my post) if I qualify as "diehard," since although I love TOS, I don't generally consider it my favorite Trek (it varies somewhat, depending on my mood). Just how many qualifications does a person have to meet to contribute to a thread anyway?

Besides, who says you can't love something and still notice its flaws? True love is loving something or someone in spite of or even because of those flaws. Love really shouldn't be blind, IMO.