Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

[CrazyMatt]

For whatever reason, I just can't get into this "re-imagined" or "re-imaged" business, so I simply ignore all of the hype surrounding the new Star Trek movies... in fact, I ignore the new movies period. I can't make myself believe that any actor besides Shatner could ever be Kirk, etc...

I felt the same way about the updated Battlestar Galactica when it aired, even though I love Ron Moore.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I just too closed minded?

 

[Robert Comsol]

Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I just too closed minded?

To answer the thread question: Yes
To answer your question: No

I thought Chris Pine and the actor who plays the new Spock were excellent choices, but I felt this 2009 flick / screenplay to be vastly incompatible with the spirit of TOS which is not about endless action, circus stunts, vengeance and goofy moments.

This flick was something between "Star Trek Troopers" and "Star Trek Academy" ("Police Academy" is on my mind), but nowhere could I find a heart and soul that tells me "Star Trek" other than what's written on the posters and opening credits.

Bob

 

[JoeZhang]

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Just as an aside - I've always thought that this question (which we see a lot on message boards) is the most whiny passive aggressive one in existence - unless your actual point was "I thought Hitler was great and maybe we should build some more gas chambers" when is the answer every going to be "Yes you are the only one".

 

[Deckerd]

Excellent Godwin, sir.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

No.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

No.

Am I just too closed minded?

Probably.

the spirit of TOS which is not about endless action, circus stunts, vengeance and goofy moments.

Lulz. Have you ever seen Star Trek?

 

[Faria]

yes

and i ignore the old star trek too. LOL

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

ALL of Star Trek is my friend.

 

[BillJ]

Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I just too closed minded?

I'm lukewarm on Star Trek 2009 and love Star Trek Into Darkness. But different things work for different people.

So no, I don't ignore it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

For whatever reason, I just can't get into this "re-imagined" or "re-imaged" business, so I simply ignore all of the hype surrounding the new Star Trek movies... in fact, I ignore the new movies period. I can't make myself believe that any actor besides Shatner could ever be Kirk, etc...

I felt the same way about the updated Battlestar Galactica when it aired, even though I love Ron Moore.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I just too closed minded?

I love the new Star Trek, as I love the original. Similarly, I'm was fan of the old Superman movies growing up, I enjoyed Smallville, and now I'm looking forward to Man of Steel. I'm a fan of Sherlock, Elementry and the new Sherlock Holmes movies, when I was never a fan of the old incarnations.

IMO there's some special charm in seeing stories re-imagined and seeing new incarnations of beloved characters.

 

[Shazam!]

Am I just too closed minded?

Regarding this bit...

I can't make myself believe that any actor besides Shatner could ever be Kirk, etc...

...amost definitely.

 

[Infern0]

I don't "ignore" it, I just put it in another category.

To me, "Star Trek" is "The Cage" through to "Nemesis" all episodes and films.

The JJ Trek is cool, I enjoy it but it's not the same series. Not to me at least.

I have the same take on Nu-BSG and Old-BSG, I like both but they are not the same (and in that case i count nu-bsg as the "prime" version as i prefer that one)

 

[Greg Cox]

Nope. Bring on the new versions. And, with all due respect to Shatner, no actor is irreplaceable.

As I've mentioned before, I've lived through umpteen James Bonds, Supermans, Batmans, Draculas, and Sherlock Holmes in my lifetime. What's one more Kirk or Spock?

Heck, if we can have multiple portrayals of Hamlet, for Pete's sake, I think Kirk should be open to new interpretations as well.

And the new Battlestar Galactica was soooo much better than the original, making it practically the poster child for revamping old series and characters. (Along, perhaps, with Hammer Films, who revitalized Dracula And Frankenstein back in the sixties.)

 

[BennieGamali]

I really like the first new movie. It is fun, Spock is Spockish. Bones is a good Bones. And the movie is entertaining.

Spoiler: Spoiler for Into Darkness

I dislike the newest movie. They really did a poor job on Khan.. He is suposed to be a huge, badass guy from somewhere in India. A guy who thinks of himself as a prince and a warrior. A tactician. The new Khan is a skinny ninja with a British accent.. The movie was boring, just action on action. The tribble was a save.

I hated all the quoting of Wrath of Khaan.. that was just sad.

 

[Rarewolf]

I think Kirk should be open to new interpretations as well.

Well you had 25 years on and off of the same actor as Kirk, he was allowed to age.

I simply don't need another actor as Kirk. Nor do I need Kirk as the lead in a Star Trek story.

Truth is though I was weaned off Star Trek by Enterprise - it soured the milk to such a point its no longer so important to me.

I've seen Star Trek XI, but I don't own a copy. I've never spent a penny on it.

Its very rare for a remake to outshine the original. Battlestar did do that.

 

[MarsWeeps]

For whatever reason, I just can't get into this "re-imagined" or "re-imaged" business, so I simply ignore all of the hype surrounding the new Star Trek movies... in fact, I ignore the new movies period.

If you truly "ignored" it as you claim, you wouldn't be starting a thread about it....not to mention putting it in the wrong forum!

 

[Robert Comsol]

Lulz. Have you ever seen Star Trek?

If CrazyMatt comes under fire for asking a rethorical question (an invitation to weigh in, nothing more or less), then yours is most definitely not that much better.

Of course, you may feel free to educate me where in TOS I overlooked endless action, circus stunts (like driving cars over cliffs etc.), vengeance and one goofy moment that is worse than a character being flushed down a toxic fuel pipe and coming out of it unharmed. Well, that wasn't the only thing being flushed down in this flick, metaphorically speaking.

Just because you stick the label of a franchise on a product doesn't mean the content is automatically the same.

And I'd really like to know what made the new BSG "so much better than the original". Characters that do not seem to think and reflect what may be the consequences of their actions?

Bob

 

[TOSalltheway]

Too many changes.
I was looking forward t seeing the original sets and props done "big screen". The news sets look like every other bland overly bright sci-fi set. The new phasers look like toys.

Casting is great, but Abrams does not understand Trek.

And the Enterprise as a submarine ? C'mon......

BSG proved that a remake can be better than the original. Trek movies will hopefully generate more fans for the original.

 

[BillJ]

And the Enterprise as a submarine ? C'mon......

Makes absolutely no sense, but it is one of the "coolest" things I've ever seen in Star Trek.

It was a unique way to introduce a starship.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

in fact, I ignore the new movies period

That statement is false.

Anyone who starts a thread about them isn't ignoring them.

 

[stj]

Nope. Bring on the new versions. And, with all due respect to Shatner, no actor is irreplaceable.

The people who reject the very idea of a remake are outnumbered by the people who believe the remakes cannot be criticized.

As I've mentioned before, I've lived through umpteen James Bonds, Supermans, Batmans, Draculas, and Sherlock Holmes in my lifetime. What's one more Kirk or Spock?

George Lazenby, Brandon Routh, George Clooney, Duncan Regehr and Bill Pullman. You are deceiving yourself if you really think that this is about the mere existence of a remake.

Heck, if we can have multiple portrayals of Hamlet, for Pete's sake, I think Kirk should be open to new interpretations as well.

But we're allowed to criticize a new Hamlet!

And the new Battlestar Galactica was soooo much better than the original, making it practically the poster child for revamping old series and characters. (Along, perhaps, with Hammer Films, who revitalized Dracula And Frankenstein back in the sixties.)

I barely remember any Hammer Dracula and Frankenstein films now that you mention it. But I remember James Whale and Tod Browing movies. I think that says something, if not what you thought.

And it's long past time to put aside 9/11 politics and admit the the new BattleStar Galactica was crap.