Was Star Trek 11 too similar to Star Wars?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
At least not when it's from someone with weird obsessions about zeros in starship registry numbers.
^^Whatever happened to that guy?
Tell that to Luke "I didn't bleed to death" Skywalker.
I think the "not originally" refers Walrus Man or whatever the EU named him in ANH, where you can see blood leaking out of his arm after Obi-Wan sliced it off.
Yeah, there may have been spurting prior to the cauterization sealing stuff up.
We will never see long table meetings again.
We will never see long table meetings again.
Just wait till Star Trek comes back to TV, as a new C-Span series. We'll long for the days of Star Warsification.
And Walrus man comes from a race of hemophiliacs. Mystery...SOLVED!
Hey, you can get all your long table meeting urges fulfilled by Trek fan films! They cannot get enough of them.We will never see long table meetings again.
Meanwhile I'll be over here enjoying crazy action sequences.
Well what the heck, I may as well chime in with my opinion...
Just to get it out of the way... when one steals ideas from another it's plagiarism, when they steal from many it's research. Yes, Abrams stole ideas. But let's face it, there hasn't been an original idea in theaters in decades.
I just don't like what Abrams did with my beloved Trek. It's an OK sci-fi movie but it's not MY Trek. I thought the actors/characters for the most part were spot-on (or at least close enough. Karl Urban's McCoy was awesome even though his part was written so ridiculously), but the script for the most part was goofy. Spock/Uhura? Ug. Enterprise made to look like a Mac fanboy's wet dream? Ug. (my main complaint about the the big E was that the nacelles were too close together) ANOTHER time travel story? Ug. Kirk, Spock AND Scotty just happen to end up on the same planet to which the other Spock arbitrarily dumped Kirk? Ug. Vulcan AND Romulus destroyed? Stupid and Ug.
It seems to me that 1) Abrams is WAY overrated. 2) They couldn't come up with a good story so they just strung together a series of too many WOW moments (contradictions to canon just to shock, not to enhance the story) (BTW, can you say LOST? Same ditsy story baloney where they couldn't come up with a solid story thread). 3) the alternate timeline was a cheat because they couldn't come up with a good story while following existing story guidelines ("we're creative, we can't be limited by last generation rules!" wah, friggin' wah).
In the end, I feel like I got ripped off. Some outsider stole my Trek and now I can never get it back because I am forced to live with their bad choices (because they'll continue along the same boneheaded timeline and because - see previous paragraph).
If you want to like the alternate Trek, feel free to do so but stop trying to change the minds of those who feel otherwise. What we loved was tainted, likely beyond repair. We're never going to be happy about that.
Just to get it out of the way... when one steals ideas from another it's plagiarism, when they steal from many it's research. Yes, Abrams stole ideas. But let's face it, there hasn't been an original idea in theaters in decades.
I just don't like what Abrams did with my beloved Trek. It's an OK sci-fi movie but it's not MY Trek. I thought the actors/characters for the most part were spot-on (or at least close enough. Karl Urban's McCoy was awesome even though his part was written so ridiculously), but the script for the most part was goofy. Spock/Uhura? Ug. Enterprise made to look like a Mac fanboy's wet dream? Ug. (my main complaint about the the big E was that the nacelles were too close together) ANOTHER time travel story? Ug. Kirk, Spock AND Scotty just happen to end up on the same planet to which the other Spock arbitrarily dumped Kirk? Ug. Vulcan AND Romulus destroyed? Stupid and Ug.
It seems to me that 1) Abrams is WAY overrated. 2) They couldn't come up with a good story so they just strung together a series of too many WOW moments (contradictions to canon just to shock, not to enhance the story) (BTW, can you say LOST? Same ditsy story baloney where they couldn't come up with a solid story thread). 3) the alternate timeline was a cheat because they couldn't come up with a good story while following existing story guidelines ("we're creative, we can't be limited by last generation rules!" wah, friggin' wah).
In the end, I feel like I got ripped off. Some outsider stole my Trek and now I can never get it back because I am forced to live with their bad choices (because they'll continue along the same boneheaded timeline and because - see previous paragraph).
If you want to like the alternate Trek, feel free to do so but stop trying to change the minds of those who feel otherwise. What we loved was tainted, likely beyond repair. We're never going to be happy about that.
You can never get it back? Really? So someone is physically forcing you not to watch TOS ever again? And someone else is equally forcing you to go see the movies?
We'll stop trying to change your mind once you stop trying to speak for other Trek fans other than yourself.
Last edited:
"You can never get it back? Really? So someone is physically forcing you not to watch TOS ever again? And someone else is equally forcing you to go see the movies?"
Geez, some people are really touchy. As I stated, I was expressing my opinion which coincidentally happens to be shared by some others, thus my casual use of the word, we.
Of course I can enjoy TOS but that wasn't the point. Like anyone, we enjoy watching that which we love grow and evolve. In MY opinion Abrams took things too far backward in ways that fundamentally change the characters. It wasn't evolution of the characters, it was devolution and destructive of their unique origins.
"We'll stop trying to change your mind once you stop trying to speak for other Trek fans other than yourself."
My intention was not exclude anyone, merely to remind that it was those who came before and watched Trek in syndication for years (on channel 50, Kaiser Broadcasting in Detroit, where it all started) that helped to establish the vast universe of Trek in which you reside. If not for a devotion to TOS and its characters by individuals along with me, YOUR hobby and devotion to Abrams would have no purchase.
I'm entertained by those who purport to have an open mind but clearly cannot stand to hear the opinions of others with whom they disagree.
Geez, some people are really touchy. As I stated, I was expressing my opinion which coincidentally happens to be shared by some others, thus my casual use of the word, we.
Of course I can enjoy TOS but that wasn't the point. Like anyone, we enjoy watching that which we love grow and evolve. In MY opinion Abrams took things too far backward in ways that fundamentally change the characters. It wasn't evolution of the characters, it was devolution and destructive of their unique origins.
"We'll stop trying to change your mind once you stop trying to speak for other Trek fans other than yourself."
My intention was not exclude anyone, merely to remind that it was those who came before and watched Trek in syndication for years (on channel 50, Kaiser Broadcasting in Detroit, where it all started) that helped to establish the vast universe of Trek in which you reside. If not for a devotion to TOS and its characters by individuals along with me, YOUR hobby and devotion to Abrams would have no purchase.
I'm entertained by those who purport to have an open mind but clearly cannot stand to hear the opinions of others with whom they disagree.
Let's not make this a generational thing. I'm an old-timer who got hooked on TOS during its original run on NBC, and also grew up watching the show in syndication. And I still think that the reboot is the best thing to happen to Star Trek since at least DS9 . . . .
It's been my observation that a significant portion of those who enjoyed the latest take on Trek are the same ones who have been watching since Trek's original run (you know: the part which came before 1970s syndication). Further, the notion that a divide exists strictly along the lines of older fans/new fans or older generation/younger generation has been demonstrated again and again to be a faulty assumption - it simply isn't true.
If you didn't like what Abrams & Co. have done, well, then - you didn't like it, and that's your prerogative. Let's not pretend, however, that anyone is owed anything for having been a fan all those years. It's just a TV show and a series of movies, after all.
Again, if you decide to be unhappy, that's your prerogative, and I won't attempt to dissuade you from it. Do try to bear in mind, however, that you're not speaking for all of the old fans, and that not all of us are necessarily of the opinion that anything has been tainted (whether beyond repair or otherwise.)umichigan said:
Exactly. I had no intention to get sucked into this debate again, but this idea that only callow young people like the new movie and us old-timers are all obliged to resent it just keeps popping up no matter how many times we drive a stake through it. Plenty of us first-generation fans love the new movie and think that it actually does a better job of capturing the zest and energy of TOS than some of the later incarnations.
(I actually have a pet theory, based on no solid evidence whatsover, that it's actually the TNG era fans who have the most trouble with the new movie--in part because they expect something more stately and dignified when it comes to Trek.)
I've been noticing something similar at least since the time of Enterprise's original run, if not before: the most energetic disapproval of things new or different in Trek seems to come from those who really identified first with TNG (even though their earliest exposure to Trek may well have come via syndicated showings of TOS episodes during the 1970s and early 1980s.)
Based on no solid evidence, as you say, and I really have no interest in pursuing it any further; I don't have a need to be right about it (nor, by extension, to make someone else be wrong.) It's merely a thing I've noticed on occasion, while slogging through Trek-forum lectures about how "you younger people have no appreciation, blah blah blah... "
Actually, I have no bias one way or the other regarding age or devotion to Trek (except maybe that I prefer Trekkie to Trekker). This is a case of me having a hard time fully expressing myself via text alone.
At the risk of making things worse, let me try to re-state...
Nah, I really can't. Too many thoughts on the subject to organize them properly. Here are a few random thoughts...
I genuinely feel that Trek is a universal phenomenon that could potential be appreciated by just about anyone.
I will always prefer TOS as established and more or less maintained over the last 40-ish years. Abrams re-wrote the book in an unnecessary way that I dislike from a character standpoint. It's not about age, it's that he just doesn't seem to either get it or care to get it.
I understand the value of trying to open up Trek to a new generation, but when he was trying to breathe new life into the series I wish he hadn't been smoking so much.
At the risk of making things worse, let me try to re-state...
Nah, I really can't. Too many thoughts on the subject to organize them properly. Here are a few random thoughts...
I genuinely feel that Trek is a universal phenomenon that could potential be appreciated by just about anyone.
I will always prefer TOS as established and more or less maintained over the last 40-ish years. Abrams re-wrote the book in an unnecessary way that I dislike from a character standpoint. It's not about age, it's that he just doesn't seem to either get it or care to get it.
I understand the value of trying to open up Trek to a new generation, but when he was trying to breathe new life into the series I wish he hadn't been smoking so much.
Similar threads
- Locked
