Yeah I saw it. I thought it was okay. It just didn't seem like normal Star Trek to me. But all in all it didn't suck. It was just... not for me.
Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Yeah I saw it. I thought it was okay. It just didn't seem like normal Star Trek to me. But all in all it didn't suck. It was just... not for me.
I guess the reason it upsets me is on a personal level. I really hate people's obsession with more money. Yes, most people think the franchise would die without a reboot, and I can completely see their point in this. I'm not really against rebooting, what I'm against is making Star Trek into an action packed thrill ride that it never was before. There was action, there were thrills, but there was also lots of substance and life lessons involved too. There were also lots of other things going on that had nothing to do with stunning visual effects. It is possible to have both going on in a Star Trek movie. It seems to me JJ's only concern with his new movies is to get more cash and he doesn't seem too shy about letting you know that. His loyalty is not to the fans, it is to his wallet. Again, understandable, but I find it disgusting. That's where my problem lies.
When Abramstrek gets rebooted, it will be fun to see how many bitch at that reboot. Just like the people who laughed at the Adam West lovers when the Burton Batman's came out, and now they utterly despise the Nolan trilogy.
There will be many of those "Abramstrek is so great and Bermantrek was so lame, and here's why: " folks who will get to hear exactly same thing about their beloved Abramstrek in the future when it's replaced by Whatshisfacetrek, and that will be pretty funny.
There will be many of those "Abramstrek is so great and Bermantrek was so lame, and here's why: " folks who will get to hear exactly same thing about their beloved Abramstrek in the future when it's replaced by Whatshisfacetrek, and that will be pretty funny.
When it came to his wallet or the fans, Roddenberry's first loyalty wasn't exactly to the fans, either. Just saying.
As far as "lots of substance" in TOS goes, meh. Maybe when I was 12 and hearing some of those platitudes for the first time, "I will not kill, today," they sounded profound. But were there really any deeper life lessons in TOS than, say, parenting tips one could get from watching episodes of "The Andy Griffith Show"?
Maybe some episodes were just more poignant to you than for others. There was certainly enough variety in it for all of us to like it and still disagree about what the series "really" was or what it "stood for."
Last edited:
That's not in any way an accurate description of anything Abrams has said, so it's rather peculiar how that could "seem to you" to be the case.
People keep remembering this Roddenberry...
But this is the Roddenberry that created and ran Trek...
My awesome photoshop skills at work!
I'm curious what "life lessons," you gleaned from Star Trek Nemesis?
Nurture FTW!!
That one's easy. Beware an evil clone of you could be lurking anywhere, waiting for the right time to strike!
ST'09 substance and life lesson: Spock comes out of the closet in a blatant TOS-style alegory. I'm straight but I had tears in my eyes when he came out to his father as an "emotional" and Sarek told him "I am grateful for you."
Compare that to the "life lesson" learned in Next Gen's "The Bonding"
Okay, I swore I wasn't going to sucked into this thread again, but a couple of observations:
1) Who cares if Abrams was a fan before? Nicholas Meyer wasn't a Trekkie either. Didn't make a bit of difference. On the other hand, Josh Logan was a huge TREK fan--but that didn't guarantee that NEMESIS would be the best Trek movie ever!
2) Just in general, I wish we could all shake this binary idea that artists can only be motivated by cash OR love, as opposed to, say, healthy amounts of both. Did Abrams (or Roddenberry) want their shows to make money? Of course they did; that's how they paid the bills and got the funding to make more shows. Did they want their work to find a large and appreciative audience? Of course they; nobody wants to produce a flop. Did they also think that working on STAR TREK would be fun and interesting and creatively satisfying? Of course they did, or why put all that time and effort into it?
If you just want to make money, there are much better and far less risky ways to do so than going into show biz! I think we can safely assume that anybody who works on STAR TREK is doing so because they like making movies and tv shows, and that they also hope to make a profit in the end.
Again, it's not an either/or thing.
Last edited:
That one's easy. Beware an evil clone of you could be lurking anywhere, waiting for the right time to strike!
Exactly. And that's the point. The last two films made by Berman Insurrection and Nemesis what 'life lesson,' did we learn:Insurrection: The federation is guided by morons. They give up the opportunity to cure virtually every illness including old age itself because 900 people don't want move.
Let's put that in a modern perspective. Let say the cure for cancer was in some South American tribal rainforest village and to cure cancer for the entire population we refuse to move 900 people. That's patently absurd.
Nemesis: The crew of the Enterprise are easily fooled by a effete French runway model that is allegedly Picard in his youth after the entire Romulan Senate is killed off.
That one's easy. Beware an evil clone of you could be lurking anywhere, waiting for the right time to strike!
Insurrection: The federation is guided by morons. They give up the opportunity to cure virtually every illness including old age itself because 900 people don't want move.
Let's put that in a modern perspective. Let say the cure for cancer was in some South American tribal rainforest village and to cure cancer for the entire population we refuse to move 900 people. That's patently absurd.
Nemesis: The crew of the Enterprise are easily fooled by a effete French runway model that is allegedly Picard in his youth after the entire Romulan Senate is killed off.
Henh? That planet is still in Fed space. True, they've decided not to bottle that shit up, but I didn't hear them say that they wern't going to bring people to the planet and open some hospitals on the other side of the globe.
Also, I don't think Shinzon fooled anyone, Picard et al just have to make sure and tread carefully when he's got The Scimitar to back him up. Get rid of B4, take out some of the dumb mindrape stuff...more character stuff...throw in some final Romulan relations conversations since this is probably the last time we see them..you've got a half-decent movie.
Oh yeah, and get rid of Shinzon being a clone of Picard since that didn't make a lick of sense.
I didn't. I didn't even like Nemesis.
Insurrection: The federation is guided by morons. They give up the opportunity to cure virtually every illness including old age itself because 900 people don't want move.
Nemesis: The crew of the Enterprise are easily fooled by a effete French runway model that is allegedly Picard in his youth after the entire Romulan Senate is killed off.
Trek XI: A Romulan miner blows up a planet after he somehow finds himself in the past after his home planet is destroyed via natural causes in the future after the person who did everything he could to save his planet fails to save the planet. Oh, and he also wants to blow up Earth for some reason.
You'll get no argument from me that under both Berman and Abrams the series [save Kahn] has had a hard time finding decent bad guys. But at least ST X was entertaining. Nemesis was not.
Pssst...STX is Nemesis.
Similar threads
