Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

[The Wormhole]

I agree the Trek XI just presented carricatures of the TOS cast, but especially Scotty and Chekov. Scotty was not a comedic character in TOS, he was a serious character who happened to also be funny. Trek XI overdid the whole V/W reversal with Chekov. Every line of dialogue included a V or a W just so he could pronounce it the opposite way. The V/W reversal wasn't focused on in TOS at all, with the exception of Trek IV. And that's why the Nuclear Wessel line stands out so.

 

[DalekJim]

Pegg is terrible but the character has gone through severe character degradation since TOS anyway. The movies made him increasingly incompetent (Remember Star Trek V?) and in the TNG episode Relics he's just a weird goofy slob.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Never really understood that argument myself. Having a fan who cares about things like continuity is always going to be preferable to me than some random media tool who is doing it for the cash being the writer.

Having fans in charge hasn't done the revived Doctor Who any harm.

I think Doctor Who is a good example. It's not being a fan per se that's a problem, but it's an unwillingness to shake things up that is. RTD killed off all Time Lords and made the show center around modern day Earth. That upset a lot of people. But he also liked the original show and used it as inspiration. Moffat, likewise, hasn't undone those aspects of RTD's time. Nor has he returned to the half-hour serial model. In fact, Moffat is an even bigger fan of an ongoing story arc rather than self-contained stories. Finally, neither one has seemed to care about continuity unless it is useful. So, while the show having a fan in charge hasn't been harmful, it hasn't seen the supposed advantages of having a fan in charge either.

Anyway, I think Abrams takes two elements from the original series and uses them well. One is a sense of adventure, which, admittedly, is in Star Wars as well. However, the other is an established organization and crew. While he breaks the rules to put Kirk quickly in charge, I think he does that well also (and it isn't something that fits Star Wars). The rest was as much fan wishful thinking as true (while there are plenty of good episodes that stand for more, there's also Omega Glory, Let that Be Your Last Battlefield, etc.).

 

[Turtletrekker]

Abrams Trek had some slight themes of friendship and destiny, but largely the story was very thin and Abrams and crew have admitted as much.

The films since TWOK have always been action oriented.

The Voyage Home?

 

[Turtletrekker]

(while there are plenty of good episodes that stand for more, there's also Omega Glory, Let that Be Your Last Battlefield, etc.).

I'm reminded of what Fry from Futurama said about Star Trek--"79 episodes, about 30 good ones".

 

[davejames]

Pegg is terrible but the character has gone through severe character degradation since TOS anyway. The movies made him increasingly incompetent (Remember Star Trek V?) and in the TNG episode Relics he's just a weird goofy slob.

Yeah, Pegg was the only casting that I'm still not crazy about with the new movie. The other actors did a pretty good job blending in with their characters, but Simon Pegg just stood out like a sore thumb, and didn't really feel much at all like Scotty.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Abrams Trek had some slight themes of friendship and destiny, but largely the story was very thin and Abrams and crew have admitted as much.

The films since TWOK have always been action oriented.

The Voyage Home?

An exception, but not without action elements. Whale Probe attacking Earth. Chekov on the Enterprise. The BOP vs the whaler. The BOP landing in the Bay.

 

[BillJ]

What worked so well in Trek '09 was the reverence for the characters. It was literally a love-letter to Trek '66 and it played out with such care and affection that I can scarcely believe it when I see people complain that they cannot recognize the characters.

There are also people here who think the 2009 Enterprise looks 100% different and unrecognizable than what the "real" Enterprise is supposed to look like.

I thought they were close to giving us a really nice looking ship, just some issues with how its proportioned and the nacelles needed a little more space between them.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The Voyage Home was character-driven rather than action driven. I don't think that can be denied. However, I also think it had the thinnest themes of any with the possible exception of The Final Frontier. I don't think it can be a model either unless the audience loves all the characters (it's too soon for that). If not Trouble with Tribbles, it's still reminiscent of one of the lighter TOS episodes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They tried to use TVH as a model for the next film and wound up with the worst Trek movie ever.

 

[Kirby]

You know what would really be funny? If Disney hired Rick Berman and Brannon Braga to make the next few Star Wars films.

Or, would that be ironic?

 

[Set Harth]

I would use the word "catastrophic".

 

[Yminale]

The 'continuity' was always the worst thing about Trek. Once the franchise stopped being about people and became this hide-bound keeper of Trek history, it was finished.

That's just BS. Most fans cared about good characters in good stories. For me continuity was a sign of quality. That the people making Trek actually cared about what they were doing. When people complain about "continuity" the mistake is so blatant a mistake even non-fans notice.

Let's talk about continuity. If it wasn't such a big deal why does JJTrek create an entirely new alternate universe. For some strange reason, this bold filmmaker is afraid of a bunch of online fans.

 

[Yminale]

The Voyage Home was character-driven rather than action driven. I don't think that can be denied. However, I also think it had the thinnest themes of any with the possible exception of The Final Frontier. I don't think it can be a model either unless the audience loves all the characters (it's too soon for that). If not Trouble with Tribbles, it's still reminiscent of one of the lighter TOS episodes.

TVH also worked because the last two films were so dark and depressing. I don't think Trek could get any darker unless Kirk was gang raped by Tribbles.

 

[davejames]

That's just BS. Most fans cared about good characters in good stories. For me continuity was a sign of quality. That the people making Trek actually cared about what they were doing. When people complain about "continuity" the mistake is so blatant a mistake even non-fans notice.

Let's talk about continuity. If it wasn't such a big deal why does JJTrek create an entirely new alternate universe. For some strange reason, this bold filmmaker is afraid of a bunch of online fans.

Certainly, continuity was a huge reason why DS9 worked as well as it did, with all it's complex, interweaving storylines and nods to the past. But by the end of ENT and Nemesis, I think it was starting to feel more like a huge weight on the franchise.

ENT always felt constrained by the history it had to adhere to, and the ongoing drama and politics surrounding the Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, Dominion, etc in the 24th century was starting to become pretty tiresome as well. And then there's 5 series and 10 movies of stories that had to be followed....

As far as I'm concerned, JJ's Trek couldn't have come at a better time, and was a huge breath of fresh air.

 

[JarodRussell]

Certainly, continuity was a huge reason why DS9 worked as well as it did, with all it's complex, interweaving storylines and nods to the past. But by the end of ENT and Nemesis, I think it was starting to feel more like a huge weight on the franchise.

ENT and Nemesis didn't even care for continuity, so there was none of that weight to begin with. ENT and Nemesis failed because they were badly made, it had nothing to do with continuity.

 

[Servo]

I was thinking about the new Star Wars films recently, and who would be a good pick to write and direct, and I had a thought; if you wanted people who are fans of the original trilogy, are aware of what worked and what didn't in the PT, smart enough to not get bogged down with fanwank, have a proven record of good character writing, and are actually in touch with the sci-fi community both personally and professionally, then there are two names that spring to mind who I think would be worth taking a risk on... Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Scotty was never as wacky in the series as Doohan made him later on,

What about Scotty drinking the Kelvan under the table in "By Any Other Name"? Or starting a bar brawl over an insult to the Enterprise in "Tribbles"?

I didn't much remember Scotty being comic relief in the old TV series until I rewatched it last year.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

For me continuity was a sign of quality.

So Sir Arthur Conan Doyle isn't a quality writer to you? because I don't think he really cared that much about it what with Watson's war wound changing every book.

 

[Nerys Myk]

For me continuity was a sign of quality.

How so? It doesn't really improve the quality of the acting, writing, set design, direction, props....well, you get the idea.