Why did they bother...

[M'Sharak]

If I have to use my imagination, they call that a shitty movie.

That... that's the oddest comment I've seen posted here...

To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

This notion seems to be a relatively recent development, however, and certainly doesn't reflect the way most filmmakers in the history of the art have approached their craft. An engaged imagination has typically been a huge and important part of the experience of watching a movie.

TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.

And then some Klingon calls the Enterprise a garbage scow . . .

And, as the sh*t is hitting the fan, you've still got to keep an eye on that scalawag Cyrano Jones, or he'll surely be absconding with all the beverages he can carry.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

I've been on the Star Trek Online forums aka TNG-era central and there seems to be a lot of bashing of the JJ films, so yeah it looks like you guessed right.

It also makes sense because the Abrams movies result from Paramount calling "Time of Death" on modern Trek after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise.

 

[Franklin]

This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.

I've been on the Star Trek Online forums aka TNG-era central and there seems to be a lot of bashing of the JJ films, so yeah it looks like you guessed right.

It also makes sense because the Abrams movies result from Paramount calling "Time of Death" on modern Trek after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise.

Abrams and his magic blood.

 

[Belz...]

To be fair, I have seen that opinion expressed here before: that it's the filmmaker's job to fill in all of the gaps and answer all of the questions, leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination of the viewer.

And also to be fair, I'm someone who complains about 2001 being too cryptic, but I thought that Into Darkness left some questions to our interpretation without making the story a big WTF, so that's good.

Thing is, Robert T April's comment about imagination didn't even seem to be about that at all, so I don't understand Captain Nebula's answer.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hell, trekkies have spent forty-odd years filling in the gaps and trying to bring logic to a lot of what went on in TOS. We can at least extend that courtesy to Trek in the present day.

 

[marksound]

In fact the iconic image of Hamlet is of him holding Yorick's skull. His clothes, his face, all those other little things don't matter. But show a picture of someone kneeling holding a skull in his hand to people all around the world, and they know who it's supposed to be.

Works for me.

 

[Captain Nebula]

It also makes sense because the Abrams movies result from Paramount calling "Time of Death" on modern Trek after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise.

Does that make the new movies "ZombieTrek"?

 

[M'Sharak]

"ZombieTrek"?

But we haven't even seen the Borg yet.

 

[Classic Fan]

Why did they bother with the original Trek crew in these new movies?

Kirk, Spock and "Beam me up, Scotty" is about all the unwashed masses know about Star Trek, and that's who these movies are for. If you don't play into that, there's no need to even call these new movies "Star Trek."

I've always felt that the more fans the merrier. I've lived most of my life liking things most of the people around me didn't and being judged (unfairly) for it. It's nice when things become more mainstream because then I can talk about it to others. But truthfully, TOS didn't age well at all (not many shows from that time did), and I wouldn't expect it to garner many new fans since the cheapest cartoons on tv look 100 times better. You need stories relavent to today, because the newer generation won't understand space hippies. Things have to evolve or die away. And I would rather Star Trek evolve so that my husband and I can watch it with our kids and their kids one day.

This.

I have been speaking to friends and people at work who 'start' a Star Trek conversation because of the two JJ treks. I actually get asked questions about the other movies and shows because they are interested now that they have seen JJ trek. And ten years ago they would never ever start or even participate in a trek conversation.

I feel proud and happy that nuTrek has inspired new fans and just general interest in past trek from people who never gave it the time of day even just a few years ago prior to Trek09.

I'm a big TOS fan, like many, but I love the new interpretations of the characters. A breath of fresh air and an interesting take.

I am grateful to JJ and his cohorts. Fair enough, I have my gripes with their decisions etc but in general, I'm happy they took a gamble with TOS. It worked.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Works for me.

Of course, one of the most prolific Shakespearian actors of the era taking that pose is just a coincidence. Never mind having Picard invoking Hamlet's lament at that exact moment might have thematic importance.

 

[marksound]

Works for me.

Of course, one of the most prolific Shakespearian actors of the era taking that pose is just a coincidence. Never mind having Picard invoking Hamlet's lament at that exact moment might have thematic importance.

If that's a coincidence it couldn't have been better. I tend to think it was at least one of those "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Patrick ... ".

 

[sj4iy]

Works for me.

Of course, one of the most prolific Shakespearian actors of the era taking that pose is just a coincidence. Never mind having Picard invoking Hamlet's lament at that exact moment might have thematic importance.

If that's a coincidence it couldn't have been better. I tend to think it was at least one of those "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Patrick ... ".

...bulked up and wore a tight, sweaty shirt to finally fulfill the wishes of thousands of women?

 

[The Old Mixer]

I liken the current Trek series to Roger Moore. If you were an aficionado of the Fleming novels or a fan of the early Connery films, then you probably thought, as I did at the time, that his wasn't the right approach to the character. But I still found his films highly entertaining in their own right, and they kept the series alive and successful long enough for others to assume the role and bring things back to the basics. Perhaps there's a "Daniel Craig" Enterprise crew somewhere in our future....

It also makes sense because the Abrams movies result from Paramount calling "Time of Death" on modern Trek after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise.

Back when Enterprise was on the air, I used to describe Trek as "brain-dead and on life support."

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Icon as used in popular cultural terms is not limited to a person, image or object with a passing resemblance, but a defined image which made a cultural, artistic and historical impact that is not handed off like a baton in a race.

This should not need to be explained.

Yes, I know it was hard for you to understand.

Back when TNG premiered, the TOS-only fans predicted that it would fail. When it didn't fail, they started predicting instead that no one would remember it in twenty years. Essentially, what happened was that they found themselves on the losing end of the argument where things could be measured quantitatively - current success and public acceptance - so they asserted a position that was based entirely on opinion and speculation and therefore couldn't be factually challenged.

Of course, they turned out to be wrong about that too, twenty years later.

They were not wrong across the board, as the average person on the street does not instantly recognize TNG characters or the people behind them. As a performer, Stewart is more well known thanks to being a part of the X-Men franchise (and one can argue that many in the population only know him from that). Burton was already famous to older audiences thanks to Roots, and two younger generations recall his being the well loved host of Reading Rainbow, so ST may not be the reason they are recognized.

On the other hand, any random shot of Takei, Doohan, Nichols, et al, is strikes a cultural chord as they were hammered into memory in a way that does not need a screening of TOS in order for the light of recognition to glow.

The facts remain. Star Trek, the original series and it's characters, did in fact play a large part in influencing culture and the paths of many hundreds if not thousands of people over the decades. This, to many of those inspired, was attributed specifically to the actors. (Kelley, Takei, Nichols, Doohan, and Koenig have all relayed stories on this manner time and again.

 

[M'Sharak]

TREK_GOD_1, please remember to use Multi-Quote

or the Edit button

in order to keep from posting more than twice in a row in any given thread. (I'll fix these for you.)

Also:

Icon as used in popular cultural terms is not limited to a person, image or object with a passing resemblance, but a defined image which made a cultural, artistic and historical impact that is not handed off like a baton in a race.

This should not need to be explained.

Yes, I know it was hard for you to understand.

While CorporalClegg's post leaves something to be desired in the way of detail and elaboration, a personal dig is almost never the correct response. Avoid those in the future, if you would, please.

 

[Dar70]

I would have preferred an actual reboot. BUT NO they just had to shoehorn the original universe in there somewhere and stick Nimoy in both films. Its causes a ton of continuity errors, especially if they do not adhere to the prime universes History before the kelvin was destroyed. (ie: Khans accent)

A complete reboot would have been better and it would have been no problem at all buying these actors as said characters.

 

[Belz...]

I would have preferred an actual reboot. BUT NO they just had to shoehorn the original universe in there somewhere and stick Nimoy in both films.

That's the brilliance of this reboot, in my opinion. It resets pretty much everything without ignoring that things used to be different and that it existed. Not bad for a single movie.

Its causes a ton of continuity errors, especially if they do not adhere to the prime universes History before the kelvin was destroyed. (ie: Khans accent)

Old Trek was never particularily strong on continuity anyway, so I've let that go somewhat.

You're basically saying that new actors can't possibly play older characters, which is not very pragmatic.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It also makes sense because the Abrams movies result from Paramount calling "Time of Death" on modern Trek after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise.

Does that make the new movies "ZombieTrek"?

No.

 

[Commishsleer]

I believe the Picard face palm is quite iconic.

Somehow a reboot of TNG/DS9/VOY with Picard as a young man, serving with the Crushers and DAX perhaps having Janeway aboard his ship as a young science officer appeals to me if done well.
Maybe its too soon for this though.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I believe the Picard face palm is quite iconic.

Somehow a reboot of TNG/DS9/VOY with Picard as a young man, serving with the Crushers and DAX perhaps having Janeway aboard his ship as a young science officer appeals to me if done well.
Maybe its too soon for this though.

Throw in Sisko as the Chief Engineer and you've got a deal.