I doubt very much that we'll see the end of that notion any time soon, but there's not a lot of evidence to support it. Divisions along lines of age simply don't exist, as far as this movie's appeal (or non-appeal) is concerned.
Question: did the "reboot" *have* to so radically change things?
- Thread starter Cepstrum
- Start date
Exactly so.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Maybe. But only if they actually give the next movie some substance and a plot that makes sense.
Yep. I have to agree with this. I, a long time dedicated TOS fan, would have been much happier with a movie that at least made some effort to attempt to adhere somewhat to established continuity. Unfortunately, I went into the movie expecting to hate it. I came out liking the movie but hating the Abramsverse as a whole. It ain't "my" Star Trek.
Damn skippy! Vulcan's destruction was completely and totally unnecessary. (OPINION ALTER!!!!!) They did it simply as a slap in the face of TOS fans to let us know under no uncertain terms that this new Trek will be nothing like the Trek we grew up with. It made me very sad when I realized that the Abramsverse will be what the next generation of Trek fans consider "theirs". There are so many untapped adventures within the TOS universe. I don't understand why a complete redesign of the entire Star Trek universe was warranted. But that's just me.
YES IT WAS!
Old Trek, or Trek Prime or whatever you want to call it was cheesey! It was made 45 years ago and looked 45 years old! They needed to change things because most people won't go to watch a movie that takes place 200 years in the future when they have thnigs that are completely outdated.
Now the storyline was just kind of a mess (really RED matter?) but as a whole I don't mind the changes.
Old Trek, or Trek Prime or whatever you want to call it was cheesey! It was made 45 years ago and looked 45 years old! They needed to change things because most people won't go to watch a movie that takes place 200 years in the future when they have thnigs that are completely outdated.
Now the storyline was just kind of a mess (really RED matter?) but as a whole I don't mind the changes.
That statement is completely false and there's absolutely no evidence to back that up. And making bold statements like this with the provision that it's "your opinion" does nothing to negate the fact that what you've written isn't true.
No one's forcing you to like it or even watch it. After the first few seasons of ENTERPRISE, I stopped watching it. Why? Because I didn't like it. I didn't keep watching something I didn't like just so I could constantly complain about it later to the people who did.
Nothing done was strictly "necessary", but there are certainly reasons they were done.
- Redesigning the Enterprise, Starfleet etc., was to provide a visual update more in keeping with 2009 than 1969.
- The Alternate Reality was to allow for changes necessary to make a reboot within existing continuity, and to allow for the changes deemed necessary for the movie to succeed beyond the hardcore fanbase.
- The fast pace and rapid editing was done to add a more contemporary style more in keeping with current summer blockbuster tastes.
- Destroying Vulcan was meant to underline the idea that things can permanently change, and that there was no "reset button", as well as dramatic impact.
These decisions were simply not made in a vacuum, or as any kind of "slap in the face" to anyone.
- Redesigning the Enterprise, Starfleet etc., was to provide a visual update more in keeping with 2009 than 1969.
- The Alternate Reality was to allow for changes necessary to make a reboot within existing continuity, and to allow for the changes deemed necessary for the movie to succeed beyond the hardcore fanbase.
- The fast pace and rapid editing was done to add a more contemporary style more in keeping with current summer blockbuster tastes.
- Destroying Vulcan was meant to underline the idea that things can permanently change, and that there was no "reset button", as well as dramatic impact.
These decisions were simply not made in a vacuum, or as any kind of "slap in the face" to anyone.
Cmdr Straker
Ensign
Re: Question: did the "reboot" *have* to so radically change things?
No. It didn't.
No. It didn't.
Which this film does not do.
I-Am-Zim said:
If the above were true, you would have been "much happier" with STXI.
So there must be some other reason for your dislike. What could it be?
sonak said:
Ah, there it is.
number6
Vice Admiral
We all must worship something I guess.
Agreed, although I don't know that anyone has used "raped my childhood" other than ironically for nearly a decade. Well, maybe one guy at AICN Talkback.
Let's retire Thrill Ride and Popcorn Flick as well.
Well, those are idiotic terms used only to bait people.
number6
Vice Admiral
Pretty much all those terms are being used to serve that purpose.
Yes, the new movie did have to change things in just the way it did. Here are the other options and why they would not have worked:
1. Don't use the TOS characters. To the average person, Trek = Kirk, Spock, Enterprise. By far the best chance of success was to use the TOS characters and general setting.
2. Use the remaining TOS actors in the movies. Leaving aside that this approach has a finite lifespan and the reboot happened under the assumption of many, many years of profits, we all know that audiences won't go to see the adventures of senior citizens, unless it's being played for laughs.
3. Set the story in a whole new canon, without any reference or connection to past history besides window dressing elements and proper names. The movie could have made tons of money with this approach. The average viewer understands the basic recognizable elements like "Spock has pointed ears" but doesn't know or care about the minutae Trek canon. I suspect the reason that this option wasn't pursued was because Abrams & the gang didn't feel comfortable using the Trek name while being so utterly disrespectful of Trek lore. The fan rebellion wouldn't have counted for much, but Robert Orci is a Trekkie and it would have been pretty crass of them to cynically make money off the Trek brand name as a mere marketing device.
4. Adhere zealously to Trek canon. That would have put the writers in a creative straightjacket and I don't blame them for refusing to do that. Nobody wants to feel that they're limited in the stories they can tell and that for instance, McCoy's life can never be threatened because we all know he lives to be 120.
So, they chose to set the story in a new universe for the purpose of being free to tell the stories they want. So why not blow up Vulcan? That's not the Prime Universe Vulcan, so if it bugs you that it's been blown up, just remember that the one we've seen in all TV shows and movies other than Trek XI is doing just fine back in its own universe.
Any Trek series on TV is unfortunately a pipe dream right now, but that's because CBS has no motive to take the risk on a space opera series - CBS doesn't show sci fi of any sort - and Trek XI has not made it more or less likely that a TV series would exist.
The reason we won't see a 25th C series is because Trek on TV tanked, and nothing has changed in the TV biz to make it more likely that Trek would do better on TV. Space opera on TV as a genre has died. The movie didn't do that, either.
1. Don't use the TOS characters. To the average person, Trek = Kirk, Spock, Enterprise. By far the best chance of success was to use the TOS characters and general setting.
2. Use the remaining TOS actors in the movies. Leaving aside that this approach has a finite lifespan and the reboot happened under the assumption of many, many years of profits, we all know that audiences won't go to see the adventures of senior citizens, unless it's being played for laughs.
3. Set the story in a whole new canon, without any reference or connection to past history besides window dressing elements and proper names. The movie could have made tons of money with this approach. The average viewer understands the basic recognizable elements like "Spock has pointed ears" but doesn't know or care about the minutae Trek canon. I suspect the reason that this option wasn't pursued was because Abrams & the gang didn't feel comfortable using the Trek name while being so utterly disrespectful of Trek lore. The fan rebellion wouldn't have counted for much, but Robert Orci is a Trekkie and it would have been pretty crass of them to cynically make money off the Trek brand name as a mere marketing device.
4. Adhere zealously to Trek canon. That would have put the writers in a creative straightjacket and I don't blame them for refusing to do that. Nobody wants to feel that they're limited in the stories they can tell and that for instance, McCoy's life can never be threatened because we all know he lives to be 120.
So, they chose to set the story in a new universe for the purpose of being free to tell the stories they want. So why not blow up Vulcan? That's not the Prime Universe Vulcan, so if it bugs you that it's been blown up, just remember that the one we've seen in all TV shows and movies other than Trek XI is doing just fine back in its own universe.
Any Trek series on TV is unfortunately a pipe dream right now, but that's because CBS has no motive to take the risk on a space opera series - CBS doesn't show sci fi of any sort - and Trek XI has not made it more or less likely that a TV series would exist.
The reason we won't see a 25th C series is because Trek on TV tanked, and nothing has changed in the TV biz to make it more likely that Trek would do better on TV. Space opera on TV as a genre has died. The movie didn't do that, either.
That would basically destroy the AICN talkbacks section which would be a good thing.
Had that happened I would be one of these hate-posters heaping scorn.. though if it had been a good film I would have adapted on a certain level. I do feel that the whole alternate timeline was an act of respect. I'm super happy with it. Really, it's quite brilliant.. everything changed in this timeline just enough that we aren't beholden to strict canon timelines but we DO have the same characters and species.
Go back to 1980 and blow up all of Europe. Many of you would still be born, still have the same parents but your life would be quite different because of the changed political and social landscape. It's like that (only cooler).
Similar threads
