Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Squiggy]

Hell yes.

The only thing that can last 40 years is actual human history...and even that is open to interpretation.

Look at Enterprise. It could've been a great addition to the universe, and I think it was a good stand-alone series...however, thanks to the 600 hours of Star Trek that preceded it, it didn't "fit". As others have said, it was weighed down with rules and timelines and what color meant what and fan boys bending over backwards to explain why we've ever heard of the two major villian species until now.

Ergo, thanks to US...the show sort of sucked, we stopped watching, and they spent the last season explaining to us why Klingons in the near future were ridged while the Klingons of the not-so-near future looked like Mexicans. Of course, we can't suspend disbelief for a second and put on our big boy pants and rationally understand or comprehend that makeup, set design, or effects of today are lightyears better than the grease paint, balsa wood, and ships on strings of TOS.

No. In universe explanations or shut up.

We weren't ever going to get another shot at the prime universe. We had been watching series after series after series birthed from the loins of Roddenberry and people were tired of it. We were tired of it. It's not 1987 anymore and television has changed. Things are darker. We weren't ever going to get another movie based on the primes - what would have been the setting? No one cared about Enterprise enough to make a movie and the TNG cast got there horrible curtain call. The other shows had been off the air for a decade.

So, that leaves us with a new ship or crew. Which would've worked swimmingly. Nothing says blockbuster like people you don't care about doing something you don't know in a place that's totally new to you.

Rant off.

 

[Kevin W.]

And yet a movie that stripped away everything that was good about Star Trek in favor of blatant blockbuster mass appeal designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator was not the answer.

That film was not Star Trek. It was a generic blockbuster with the Star Trek name slapped on it, and it was an abomination.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

 

[Kevin W.]

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

They could have rebooted the franchise without falling into the LCD pit Abrams has dropped it into.

 

[Awesome Possum]

And yet a movie that stripped away everything that was good about Star Trek in favor of blatant blockbuster mass appeal designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator was not the answer.

That film was not Star Trek. It was a generic blockbuster with the Star Trek name slapped on it, and it was an abomination.

What was stripped away? We had the Enterprise, a villain obsessed with revenge like half the of the movie villains and Kirk seduced a green woman.

What I say was classic Trek with better pacing and the characters that weren't Kirk, Spock or McCoy contributing to the plot. Uhura does more in the new movie than she did in three seasons and six movies and it isn't repeating what her headphone said or calling someone.

 

[Balrog]

"A stack of book with legs."

Hey, wasn't it in the very same episode a tombstone that read, "James R. Kirk"?

 

[BillJ]

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

They could have rebooted the franchise without falling into the LCD pit Abrams has dropped it into.

I don't even know what this means?

Parts of the movie worked, parts of it didn't. Sounds like much of Trek to me.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

They could have rebooted the franchise without falling into the LCD pit Abrams has dropped it into.

What did you want them use a CRT monitor? I want the Enterprise to look like the future from now, but the future from the 1960s which we currently have better stuff than.

Although if you means lens flare, who cares? It's an absurd detail to get upset about. It's a minor stylist choice that does not add or subtract from the enjoyment of the story. Anyone who complains about that is missing the forest for the shiny trees.

 

[Greg Cox]

And yet a movie that stripped away everything that was good about Star Trek in favor of blatant blockbuster mass appeal designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator was not the answer.

That film was not Star Trek. It was a generic blockbuster with the Star Trek name slapped on it, and it was an abomination.

Well, without rehashing the same old debate for the umpteenth time, let it just be noted that many of us hardcore Trekkies don't feel that away.

Speaking as somebody who has been watching the show since it first aired on NBC, I thought the new movie very much captured the zest and spirit of the original classic series. It felt like TOS to me . . . and is definitely one of the better TREK movies.

You think it's an abomination. I think it's the best thing to happen to STAR TREK in years. But, hey, we're all Trekkies here, even if some of us prefer some iterations over others.

 

[Kevin W.]

Well, without rehashing the same old debate for the umpteenth time, let it just be noted that many of us hardcore Trekkies don't feel that away.

Absolutely. I've never claimed that my opinions are anything more than my own.

I have a problem with JJ Abrams' work that extends beyond Star Trek, though. I don't care for anything he does and I don't believe he deserves the critical acclaim he's gotten.

 

[Awesome Possum]

My dad grew up watching TOS and I grew up watching TNG, the movies and the reruns. I adored the movie and saw it in theaters a second time with my dad. He loved it too. But I guess we aren't real Trekkies because we don't know the name of Spock's pet or the exact stardate McCoy stubbed his toe on the bridge.

 

[Greg Cox]

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

They could have rebooted the franchise without falling into the LCD pit Abrams has dropped it into.

What did you want them use a CRT monitor? .

I think LCD, in this context, refers to Lowest Common Denominator.

Not that I agree, of course.

 

[BillJ]

I have a problem with JJ Abrams' work that extends beyond Star Trek, though. I don't care for anything he does and I don't believe he deserves the critical acclaim he's gotten.

You do realize they're are more people involved in the reboot than just Abrams?

 

[Awesome Possum]

They could have rebooted the franchise without falling into the LCD pit Abrams has dropped it into.

What did you want them use a CRT monitor? .

I think LCD, in this context, refers to Lowest Common Denominator.

Not that I agree, of course.

I truly wonder what he means by it though. TOS had sex (well it was hinted at), battles and phasers. It just looks like it got new coat of paint. There's nothing in the new movie that TOS didn't have other than Vulcan being destroyed and a level of conflict between characters.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I have a problem with JJ Abrams' work that extends beyond Star Trek, though. I don't care for anything he does and I don't believe he deserves the critical acclaim he's gotten.

You do realize they're are more people involved in the reboot than just Abrams?

We can't bring in facts and logic into an absurd personal bias against someone he never met.

 

[Kevin W.]

From my perspective, as I mentioned, it just seemed like a generic summer blockbuster that had a Star Trek veneer applied to it. It didn't have the kinds of things I expect from Trek. It wasn't a smart film. It was just lots of violence and action. I know there is plenty of violence and action in all of Trek but to me, Abrams' film seemed like it was nothing but.

Once again, that's just how I see it. I'm hardly an old curmudgeon who saw TOS firsthand. I was just over 11 years old when Voyager ended so really. The film just doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Awesome Possum]

From my perspective, as I mentioned, it just seemed like a generic summer blockbuster that had a Star Trek veneer applied to it. It didn't have the kinds of things I expect from Trek. It wasn't a smart film. It was just lots of violence and action. I know there is plenty of violence and action in all of Trek but to me, Abrams' film seemed like it was nothing but.

Once again, that's just how I see it. I'm hardly an old curmudgeon who saw TOS firsthand. I was just over 11 years old when Voyager ended so really. The film just doesn't seem right to me.

Did you fall asleep when they explored the dual nature of Spock's human and vulcan sides as well as Kirk going through the hero's journey?

 

[DalekJim]

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

I don't understand this attitude. Couldn't they just... write a story for the movie that didn't require knowledge of continuity? Just have a new ship and crew explore the universe and find a new adventure on a new planet.

The way to avoid getting swamped in continuity is to not write a movie that's premise hinges entirely on rewriting continuity.

 

[BillJ]

The way to avoid getting swamped in continuity is to not write a movie that's premise hinges entirely on rewriting continuity.

I know this doesn't mean anything, but they didn't rewrite continuity.

 

[Greg Cox]

Once again, that's just how I see it. I'm hardly an old curmudgeon who saw TOS firsthand. I was just over 11 years old when Voyager ended so really. The film just doesn't seem right to me.

Whereas I'm an old coot who grew up watching Kirk fight a giant lizard-man on TOS, and loved the fact that the new movie wasn't afraid to get back in touch with the pulpy space-opera side of STAR TREK. I nearly cheered when that space monster lunged out of the ice; when was the last time TREK indulged in some gratuitous space-monster action just for the sheer fun of it?

To my mind, Trek was in danger of forgetting that it was supposed to be fun as well as idealistic and high-minded. As another reviewer put it, the new movie gave TREK a much-needed dose of Viagra!