Disillusioned
Commander
Star Trek didn't need to be rebooted. There's nothing they claimed to set out to do with this movie that couldn't have been accomplished without a reboot. The only reason they did it is because it worked for BSG and Batman.
i wish abrams had made a post ds9/voy movie isntead!
- Thread starter dHunter333
- Start date
I think it's safe to say that Ambassador Spock is, as we've known since before the film even came out.
So you're saying this film would have been just as big as if it was about Captain Doohicky and Commander Linux?
Right, basically we didn't have nobodies like Stuart Baird.
And luckily what they got was much better, hence why "Star Trek" is rated quite a bit higher than your typical "popcorn flick" all across the board.
So what are you saying about Star Trek fans?
Critical and financial success from this film compared to that of recent Treks prove this theory wrong.
And the problem with that would be?
Considering all the technology in the TNG era, they needed to reboot to a less technologically advanced period, though update that tech still to fit with the advances in the post modern era (I.E. today). I think that going back to the beginning with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is alright and they did it in a very Trek way without erasing what had already come before.
As a Trekker everything after DS9 was awful to me, I was literally hating Berman and his era after '97, he was a cigar chomping cheap formula/numbers guy by Voyager, they just weren't as careful with the writing and execution of the shows, which also got lazy during this era. I rejoiced when Berman finally left as head producer of Star Trek because he throughly drove the franchise into the ground by '04.
For me Star Trek had been ruined and I was losing all interest but this movie has brought life back into the franchise and I am excited to be a Trekker again.
As a Trekker everything after DS9 was awful to me, I was literally hating Berman and his era after '97, he was a cigar chomping cheap formula/numbers guy by Voyager, they just weren't as careful with the writing and execution of the shows, which also got lazy during this era. I rejoiced when Berman finally left as head producer of Star Trek because he throughly drove the franchise into the ground by '04.
For me Star Trek had been ruined and I was losing all interest but this movie has brought life back into the franchise and I am excited to be a Trekker again.
Great to have you at this forum!
Thanks! It's good to be here!Great to have you at this forum!
This is why they picked up the original crew in the first place: people recognise the names (to a certain extent at least).
While it was the best move to make a TOS film, I don't doubt that JJ and Co. could have produced a successful TNG/new crew film, especially if it had the same effects, marketing drive, and energy of Trek XI.
On a side note, I was casually thinking the other day if the plot of XI could work in a TNG setting. I think it could. Assuming you are bringing a new crew, it could be set years after Nemesis and you could have Picard in the Capt. Pike role, Riker in the Capt. Robau role (sorry Riker fans), and other select TNG characters make a background appearance (if necessary). The rest of the crew could be fresh faces to carry on the franchise. It could work, but that doesn't mean that it should.
Your not making sense here. The OP's initial thought was if JJ and Co. were the ones making a TNG movie. You are suggesting that it was the characters/setting that made TNG-era movies suck. If JJ and Co. approached TNG the same way they did with XI, what makes you think it would have "sucked bit time"?
That strikes me as faulty logic.
On a side note, I was casually thinking the other day if the plot of XI could work in a TNG setting. I think it could. Assuming you are bringing a new crew, it could be set years after Nemesis and you could have Picard in the Capt. Pike role, Riker in the Capt. Robau role (sorry Riker fans), and other select TNG characters make a background appearance (if necessary). The rest of the crew could be fresh faces to carry on the franchise. It could work, but that doesn't mean that it should.
Your not making sense here. The OP's initial thought was if JJ and Co. were the ones making a TNG movie. You are suggesting that it was the characters/setting that made TNG-era movies suck. If JJ and Co. approached TNG the same way they did with XI, what makes you think it would have "sucked bit time"?
That strikes me as faulty logic.
Quite. One could have done a functional reboot just by moving further into the future, at which point things could be redesigned and knowledge of the TNG-era shows is unnecessary. I'm sure Abrams and co. could have done that and it even could have been a big hit.
But that's just not what they wanted to do, because they weren't approaching Star Trek as a universe, but as a 60s TV show. They wanted to make a movie of that - which is by far the most iconic and recognisable thing about Trek anyway - so they did.
It fit the whole attitude of the production, which was tinted oddly enough with some nostalgia and was all about back to basics. Frankly, in the end it was probably the right call for reasons other than the fact it was a more surefire financial strategy - I mean, c'mon, Spock. You want Spock or random new Vulcan who's sorta channeling Nimoy? WELL?
Which is odd as I haven't met a single 'Star Trek fan in general' who liked the movie. However, I've met a few people who literally had no idea what Star Trek was who liked it. They also liked Alien vs Predator and the Fast and the Furious movies.
> Trek XI?
But not from an artisitic or credible one or one that doesn't involve making men in suits as much money as possible? I agree.
Basically saying out loud during your movie "Hey guys! We're not the real Kirk and Spock! They're off somewhere else. I mean, they're great and all but we have more explosions so watch us!" is completely mental. Why should we care about mirror universe variants of characters?
Last edited:
I like the books too much to want true canon to screw with their plot lines 
That sums up how I'd feel entirely.
In TOS and the TOS movies, Kirk and Spock were called upon to save worlds and civilizations. In this movie, they were called upon to save Star Trek itself.
Paramount had a one shot deal to get it right. Fail to reestablish the commercial success of the franchise with this movie, and Star Trek goes quietly into the night.
In that light, the decision to revisit Kirk and Spock was actually a rather conservative one. A safe move. This wasn't the time to experiment or come up with a completely new pitch. Go with your strength. Go with what put Star Trek on the map to begin with. And, they ended up succeeding beautifully.
Detractors will even have to admit that whatever new flavors of Trek do come next (if any), they will owe their existence solely to this movie rekindling the Trek fire.
Not odd; it goes along with the nature of the internet, which is populated by extreme views -- and posters who are more likely to overestimate the mainstream character of them.
LOL No they didn't.
^ Actually, i think they probably did. If they threw a ton of money into a new Star Trek film and it ended up NOT being successful, i seriously doubt we would see another one again.
Similar threads
