Where are we right now??

[You_Will_Fail]

By your own logic, those in charge should've created their own sci-fi universe instead of bringing back what was dead and finished for The Motion Picture

No that reflects your tenuous grasp on logic that you think that's actually comparable. TMP was a TOS based movie following on from the TV show and with the original actors playing the characters they made famous.
As I've said, Star Trek *is* the universe that TOS created, "Roddenberry's vision" or whatever you want to call it. Continuing to tell stories within the universe he created in TOS is not a cynical use of the Star Trek name. Bringing back the characters he created from the dead and trotting them out in some flashy "reimagining/reboot" set in an alternate version of his trek universe is.

 

[F. King Daniel]

By your own logic, those in charge should've created their own sci-fi universe instead of bringing back what was dead and finished for The Motion Picture

No that reflects your tenuous grasp on logic that you think that's actually comparable. TMP was a TOS based movie following on from the TV show and with the original actors playing the characters they made famous.
As I've said, Star Trek *is* the universe that TOS created, "Roddenberry's vision" or whatever you want to call it. Continuing to tell stories within the universe he created in TOS is not a cynical use of the Star Trek name. Bringing back the characters he created from the dead and trotting them out in some flashy "reimagining/reboot" set in an alternate version of his trek universe is.

But Star Trek was about the 5-year mission of the USS Enterprise, not what happened afterward in some reimagined universe where everything looks different and the Klingons suddenly have spines on their heads. That's a cyncal use of the Star Trek name to squeeze more money out of fans.

If bringing back Kirk and Spock and Star Trek itself is wrong now, then it was wrong then, too. It doesn't matter who's playing the characters, it doesn't matter if the continuity meshes up perfectly, it's the same thing.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

The fans were clamoring to see the old TOS crew back again and so they made the movies - continuations of the characters stories from the TV show played by the same actors. ST09 is not a continuation of the TV series, its a reboot/reimagining with completely different actors.

You're like the anti-Spock if you can't get the "logic" of this.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's not an either-or proposition. It's a continuation in the form of a reboot, that's technically continuation under the effects of a temporal incursion, but with different actors. I think most of us participating in this thread are not even remotely taxed by grasping this.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

They're restarting Trek with some familiar names and familiar characters. That's all there is to it. The only "continuation" is the continuation to exploit the Star Trek name, except in this case we're not fed some awful movie that dishonors a show (Like Nemesis) but rather a somewhat well made movie that still manages to dishonor an entire franchise by throwing most of it in the trash and saying "nah, let's do it our own way, continuity and history be damned".

 

[F. King Daniel]

The fans were clamoring to see the old TOS crew back again and so they made the movies - continuations of the characters stories from the TV show played by the same actors. ST09 is not a continuation of the TV series, its a reboot/reimagining with completely different actors.

You're like the anti-Spock if you can't get the "logic" of this.

The "logic" is that you have a very rigid and closed-minded view of what Star Trek should be - continuity porn above all else. You see something disrespectful in the last film, where most of us see a loving tribute to The Original Series.

 

[xortex]

This traps TOS in a discontinuity and doesn't build an or start from GR's vision but clean breaks from it entirely. An AU Kirk means specifically that he's not the OU Kirk. Why would he or anyone want to see him theoretically do TOS differently? A changed timeline means the original still exists elsewhere where a reboot without dumping that would mean that it is existing now with the same starting point trajectory and universe which is much more important than the characters. If both sides are wrong here, J.J. is the most wrong for cynically setting himself up as the new Trek visionary for the next tv show.

 

[Deckerd]

Both sides aren't wrong. Mr Abrams isn't wrong either.

 

[xortex]

When everybody is wrong or guilty, then all of a sudden nobody is.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

ST09 was a highly stylized adaptation/interpretation of the 60s TV show. When it comes down to it, that's not the direction I ever wanted to see Trek go in...back to old characters. The idea to do this and have it be a "reboot" for the franchise was a cynical move.

 

[RandyS]

YWF doesn't read anything anyone writes because they're all wrong. I notice that my post didn't merit an attempt at an answer because presumably YWF couldn't think of one.

Don't sweat it. My post from yesterday was ignored too.

By you as well, incidentally.

Meh. It happens.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

I don't respond to posts I feel I haven't answered already, or that aren't relevant.

 

[Greg Cox]

ST09 was a highly stylized adaptation/interpretation of the 60s TV show. When it comes down to it, that's not the direction I ever wanted to see Trek go in...back to old characters. .

Bingo. That's it right there. That wasn't your personal preference regarding the future of Star Trek. Fair enough.

But that doesn't mean that Star Trek has "sold its soul," been "defiled," and or whatever alarmist, apocalyptic turn of phrase comes to mind.

You keep trying to claim the higher moral ground just because you think that preserving the old continuity is more important than, say, the pleasure of seeing "a highly stylized adaptation/interpretation of the 60's TV show." (Which actually sounds pretty cool to me.)

Again, your priorities don't trump everyone else's. What if I insisted that TOS was the only true Star Trek and that everything else was just a "cynical" attempt to cash in on the name. ("What, they couldn't make up their own show about a space station near a wormhole? They had piggyback on Gene Roddenberry's universe? What a cynical move!")

That would be silly. Again, people watch STAR TREK for lots of different reason, and I'm not going to get righteously indignant just because, god forbid, somebody grew up on Voyager instead of TOS. Or because today's kids are going to grow up thinking Chris Pine is Kirk. That's just the way it goes. Classic stories and characters get retold and reinvented over and over again.

And now, if you don't mind, I'm going to go watch "The Tholian Web" again . . . . .

 

[You_Will_Fail]

Yeah it does.

 

[cooleddie74]

The studio wanted new stories with the most famous STAR TREK characters of all time...those of TOS. They knew they couldn't do so because of the rigid canon and timeline of the original Enterprise's missions and adventures so they took a oft-controversial staple of the franchise(time travel and altering history) to create a new timeline in which to tell fresh stories abot the adventures of James T. Kirk and his friends. It's that simple. Nothing cynical. Nothing that defecates on the memory of Gene Roddenberry. The Prime timeline is preserved in a wholly independent temporal events sequence and is even mentioned quite lovingly in the 2009 film. Hell, the movie BEGINS in the classic, Prime timeline some twenty-one years prior to "The Cage." Robau and the Kelvin existed in the original history of the 23rd century that we are familiar with.

This is still the Roddenberry universe, only told from a new temporal events sequence that commences on stardate 2233.04 on the pre-TOS era stardate calendar. The movie preserves all of the most beloved and important elements of TOS while allowing an exponentially bigger budget and new set and costume designs to create an altered reality that modern filmgoing audiences will accept and enjoy. I don't see why some people can't see all of this unless they are fanatically rigid and orthodox about TOS and the Prime timeline in-general. STAR TREK isn't religious scripture that's been carved in stone, you know. History has been changed plenty of times in the previous series and films and corrected for the sake of the history books. It's just that this time the new timeline isn't being erased but is being allowed to continue for the sake of new stories about Kirk and Company.

Now tell me again...in the light of rational logic...what's the problem again?

 

[You_Will_Fail]

The studio wanted new stories with the most famous STAR TREK characters of all time...those of TOS. They knew they couldn't do so because of the rigid canon and timeline of the original Enterprise's missions and adventures so they took a oft-controversial staple of the franchise(time travel and altering history) to create a new timeline

That's the cynical bit.
Executive A: "Let's do Star Trek again and see if we can squeeze more money out of it"
Executive B: "Yeah but no one cares about TNG anymore, so lets just use the old characters from TOS because the public is stupid and will only go see a film if it has Kirk in it, despite him already dying".


Oh and something that hasn't even been mentioned yet regarding the Prime universe........they blew up Romulus in the prime timeline, probably the final slap in the face of fans of the prime universe.

 

[Miss Lemon]

My post from yesterday was ignored too.

If it makes you feel any better, I completely agreed with your reasoning.

I made the same argument about 10 pages earlier.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

the public is stupid and will only go see a film if it has Kirk in it, despite him already dying".

That's a totally ridiculous characterization.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

the public is stupid and will only go see a film if it has Kirk in it, despite him already dying".

That's a totally ridiculous characterization.

Explain.

 

[cooleddie74]

The studio wanted new stories with the most famous STAR TREK characters of all time...those of TOS. They knew they couldn't do so because of the rigid canon and timeline of the original Enterprise's missions and adventures so they took a oft-controversial staple of the franchise(time travel and altering history) to create a new timeline

That's the cynical bit.
Executive A: "Let's do Star Trek again and see if we can squeeze more money out of it"
Executive B: "Yeah but no one cares about TNG anymore, so lets just use the old characters from TOS because the public is stupid and will only go see a film if it has Kirk in it, despite him already dying".


Oh and something that hasn't even been mentioned yet regarding the Prime universe........they blew up Romulus in the prime timeline, probably the final slap in the face of fans of the prime universe.

How is the destruction of Romulus in 2387 "cynical"? The planet was destroyed by the shockwave of an historically massive supernova. Worlds have been destroyed by supernovas before. Sarpeidon, for one("All Our Yesterdays(TOS)"). And how about the Dominion slaughtering almost 500 million Cardassians in the closing days of the Dominion War to punish the planet for its perceived crimes and treachery against the Founders? Cardassia was laid waste and rendered a mere shell of its former glory. It was one of the most important alien worlds in both TNG and DS9 and was mentioned repeatedly on VOYAGER as well. Was the almost-total destruction of Cardassia "cynical"? No. It was part of the natural storytelling process to show what happens when a fascistic, brutal regime like the Dominion punishes those it deems traitors...a fictional mirror on events that have happened in real life here on Earth. The destruction of Romulus was part of the natural flow of storytelling and, in my opinion, quite ballsy and creative on the part of the franchise. It radically shakes things up for the other powers of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants and creates a new geopolitical reality for the Prime universe. I for one would really love to see more stories that expand upon the death of Romulus and its impact on the galactic balance of power. TREK took a big risk in destroying a major alien homeworld we've known about since 1966 and you know what? Bravo. TREK had largely stopped taking risks in the years after DS9 went off the air. Far too often it played it safe. TREK 2009 upsets the apple cart and in a good way. I want TREK to challenge me and make me gasp...and the decimation of the Romulan civilization and resulting change in the timeline did just that.