Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?
- Thread starter CrazyMatt
- Start date
- Status
I can understand someone not particularly liking a continuation/update of a series they loved. Hell, I've had a hard time with both the Futurama and Arrested Development continuations. I just hate when they hammer on it for things that were actually in abundance in the originals.
It really comes down to nothing more than does it feel right/wrong to an individual viewer. I'm lukewarm on Star Trek 2009, it feels both right and wrong at the same time in comparison to the original Star Trek. I find myself loving Star Trek Into Darkness a little more every time I see it because it simply feels right.
It really comes down to nothing more than does it feel right/wrong to an individual viewer. I'm lukewarm on Star Trek 2009, it feels both right and wrong at the same time in comparison to the original Star Trek. I find myself loving Star Trek Into Darkness a little more every time I see it because it simply feels right.
To me, Abrams' Trek has more in common with the Transformers films than it does with Star Trek. But I am glad he's at least doing Kirk and Spock instead of yet another crew on another ship nobody gives two craps about.
The new BSG was a breath of fresh air. The first couple years were interesting, but then it stumbled and it seemed that, if the writers knew the ultimate destination of the series, they were unclear on exactly how to get there.
The series began as sort of the anti-Trek. Firmly established limitations to the technology. Fallible characters who don't always get along. Prejudice. Religious beliefs. Ambiguity. Separate classes of people. Limited ammo and supplies. That stuff was all great. Can anyone imagining Scotty trying to take over the ship and then Kirk having him executed in front of a firing squad?
Then it all went to crap and turned into a show about ghosts and Judeo-Christian-style angels.
The new BSG was a breath of fresh air. The first couple years were interesting, but then it stumbled and it seemed that, if the writers knew the ultimate destination of the series, they were unclear on exactly how to get there.
The series began as sort of the anti-Trek. Firmly established limitations to the technology. Fallible characters who don't always get along. Prejudice. Religious beliefs. Ambiguity. Separate classes of people. Limited ammo and supplies. That stuff was all great. Can anyone imagining Scotty trying to take over the ship and then Kirk having him executed in front of a firing squad?
Then it all went to crap and turned into a show about ghosts and Judeo-Christian-style angels.
If you're a Trek fan then anything with Trek's name on it could likely pique your curiosity. Whether you end up liking it or not is another thing altogether.
You cannot really ignore "new" Trek because eventually you'll find yourself talking about it in one way or another and either for or against.
I didn't at all like ST09, but having seen it my dislike comes more honestly rather than just rebelling against it without having seen it.
Now, do I "ignore" it in terms of continuity? Hell yeah! But then I also ignore absurdities like FC and (all of) ENT and VOY time travel episodes in that regard as well.
Nowhere is it written that you have to accept anything and everything labeled Trek. So in that regard you are certainly not alone.
Are you being narrow minded? Well, you like what you like and if you've given the "new" a look and it doesn't work for you then I don't see what the problem is.
You cannot really ignore "new" Trek because eventually you'll find yourself talking about it in one way or another and either for or against.
I didn't at all like ST09, but having seen it my dislike comes more honestly rather than just rebelling against it without having seen it.
Now, do I "ignore" it in terms of continuity? Hell yeah! But then I also ignore absurdities like FC and (all of) ENT and VOY time travel episodes in that regard as well.
Nowhere is it written that you have to accept anything and everything labeled Trek. So in that regard you are certainly not alone.
Are you being narrow minded? Well, you like what you like and if you've given the "new" a look and it doesn't work for you then I don't see what the problem is.
Bravo! Well said.
See I am different to many of your opinions, I really quite like the new Trek movies (as you can tell by my avatar, and in case I change it by the time your reading this its the USS Kelvin).
Yes there not perfect but I find them enjoyable, exciting and much more in the spirit of the Original Star Trek than any series that came after, including the TOS movies (personal opinion).
My favourite series, the one I grew up watching and loved, was TOS, as someone born in the 80's you would normally expect TNG or maybe DS9 to be my show, but for me it was all about Kirk, Spock and the first Enterprise crew.
To me it was a forgone conclusion I would like this new take on the classic crew, yes its not the same but I am fine with that as I can enjoy them separately, after all the first 6 movies didint 'feel' the same as Star Trek and how could it they were filmed 2-3 decades later and things change.
I think Star Trek is different to BSG, I liked the original the first time around but now love the remake. With Star Trek however I can find enjoyment (admittedly to varying degrees) in all its iterations, but the crew I most enjoy seeing is Kirks, be it in a post Nero Bad Robot timeline or the original Gene Roddenberry universe no matter their own flaws.
Yes there not perfect but I find them enjoyable, exciting and much more in the spirit of the Original Star Trek than any series that came after, including the TOS movies (personal opinion).
My favourite series, the one I grew up watching and loved, was TOS, as someone born in the 80's you would normally expect TNG or maybe DS9 to be my show, but for me it was all about Kirk, Spock and the first Enterprise crew.
To me it was a forgone conclusion I would like this new take on the classic crew, yes its not the same but I am fine with that as I can enjoy them separately, after all the first 6 movies didint 'feel' the same as Star Trek and how could it they were filmed 2-3 decades later and things change.
I think Star Trek is different to BSG, I liked the original the first time around but now love the remake. With Star Trek however I can find enjoyment (admittedly to varying degrees) in all its iterations, but the crew I most enjoy seeing is Kirks, be it in a post Nero Bad Robot timeline or the original Gene Roddenberry universe no matter their own flaws.
I enjoy the new movies, just wish we had something in the way of a series (even an animated one) to fill in the gaps between movies. I would like to know more about the new timeline, source material, differences in the timeline, alien race bios, etc.
When someone gets around to producing a new Trek TV series, I'm hoping it's a new Kirk/Spock reboot standing on its own.
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
One more time for the hard of thinking....
Actually, Star Trek was an action franchise from the original pilot episode, but I guess that people forget.
Last edited:
I was worried about the reimagined Battlestar while it was in development (a lady playing Starbuck - WTF?), but once I saw the miniseries, I was hooked.
I am trying to like the NuTrek. There are times when that is more difficult than others.
What do I like about it? The pacing, energy, effects, spectacle, score, acting.
What do I dislike about it? It's derivative, has stupid science, and still, after two films, seems not to know what kind of world it is.
And it only took 3 posts!
I couldn't disagree more. If you want that, there's those youtube fanwank movies. Knock yerself out.
I didn't think there were enough changes in Abrams' Trek. I wish they'd gone in a different direction with Spock instead of trying so hard to be Leonard Nimoy's version. They should have ditched the lame Nimoy time travel plot and just did an honest unapologetic reboot.
"Moby Dick" then was just a story about a crazy guy and a whale.
No one is against the inclusion of action in a Trek film. To suggest otherwise is silly.
Last edited:
Kara was, hands down, the most compelling, interesting and fully-realized character on BSG. Of all the things that RDM got right, she was the best.
As for ignoring the new Trek, most assuredly not. It's by far the most faithful rendition of the TOS formula in all of the subsequent Trek productions.
One member said this thread should be in the movie section discussing the film. I disagree.
Since it's labelled "Star Trek" and presumably uses characters of TOS, TOS fans are entitled to discuss the films in a TOS-devoted thread.
My best friend came over the other night and asked me why I wouldn't go and see the movie.
He accused me of being biased because of my preference for the original TOS.
I told him that while this is correct and would definitely weigh in watching this "Darkness" flick, I would nevertheless be able to enjoy a good science fiction film regardless and switch off the "TOS mode" in my brain.
Therefore I asked him whether it's a good science fiction film to watch, regardless of the "Star Trek" letters on the package or not.
His reply: "No"
Apparently, that was the wrong answer to attract me to this movie.
Bob
Since it's labelled "Star Trek" and presumably uses characters of TOS, TOS fans are entitled to discuss the films in a TOS-devoted thread.
My best friend came over the other night and asked me why I wouldn't go and see the movie.
He accused me of being biased because of my preference for the original TOS.
I told him that while this is correct and would definitely weigh in watching this "Darkness" flick, I would nevertheless be able to enjoy a good science fiction film regardless and switch off the "TOS mode" in my brain.
Therefore I asked him whether it's a good science fiction film to watch, regardless of the "Star Trek" letters on the package or not.
His reply: "No"
Apparently, that was the wrong answer to attract me to this movie.
Bob
It's not uncommon for roles to be recast, lets examine some
How many actors have played Sherlock Holmes? Hasn't he been played by more actors than any other character? For me Jeremy Brett is Holmes, that doesn't mean I can't enjoy other portrayals.
What about James Bond?
And of course The Doctor, gets recasts every few years.
How many actors have played Sherlock Holmes? Hasn't he been played by more actors than any other character? For me Jeremy Brett is Holmes, that doesn't mean I can't enjoy other portrayals.
What about James Bond?
And of course The Doctor, gets recasts every few years.
One member said this thread should be in the movie section discussing the film. I disagree.
Since it's labelled "Star Trek" and presumably uses characters of TOS, TOS fans are entitled to discuss the films in a TOS-devoted thread.
My best friend came over the other night and asked me why I wouldn't go and see the movie.
He accused me of being biased because of my preference for the original TOS.
I told him that while this is correct and would definitely weigh in watching this "Darkness" flick, I would nevertheless be able to enjoy a good science fiction film regardless and switch off the "TOS mode" in my brain.
Therefore I asked him whether it's a good science fiction film to watch, regardless of the "Star Trek" letters on the package or not.
His reply: "No"
Apparently, that was the wrong answer to attract me to this movie.
Bob
I don't think it's a bad sci-fi film. Certainly no worse than the bulk of TOS sci-fi.
This whole bit about being put off or insulted by the new Star Trek, that it denigrates the "purity" of the original series, is simply way over the top.
If you're someone who watches TOS, over and over, never sampling the other Star Trek series because it's nothing like the original, then fine... stay in your box and be happy there. Most everyone on TBBS has embraced the 4 series that followed (or a subset of them).
However, if you've seen the other Star Trek series and enjoyed them, but won't dare view the 2009 or 2013 JJ Abrams versions of Star Trek, then you're a hypocrite. Really. This is just another incarnation of Star Trek. Yes, it reuses the original TOS characters but it is clearly a "reboot", a modern day version. It is not invalidating TOS, but simply telling an alternate story. Is it perfect? No. Heck no. But it has plenty of good qualities.
[RANT]And yeah, count me in as someone who is getting REALLY DAMNED SICK of the super saturated eye choking CGI that pervades every action shot in an attempt to assault your senses and make you feel "wowed". My eyes feel like they get diabetes from these kinds of flicks, because of the endless eye candy.
Hopefully someday soon somebody will come up with a sci-fi action flick that is much more sensible with the use of CGI and set a new gold standard. Until then, the money making it too great for current production houses to stop doing what they've been doing. Why do they make money? Because of many reasons, including drone audience members and the lack of useful channels to give feedback to the movie producers. "Well they came to see it and made us rich, so let's keep doing it!" [/RANT]
So with the success of the 2nd movie, there will likely be a third but I suspect that will be it due to Abrams moving on to Star Wars (maybe he'll try action saturation formula once again and this time make a dud).
If you're someone who watches TOS, over and over, never sampling the other Star Trek series because it's nothing like the original, then fine... stay in your box and be happy there. Most everyone on TBBS has embraced the 4 series that followed (or a subset of them).
However, if you've seen the other Star Trek series and enjoyed them, but won't dare view the 2009 or 2013 JJ Abrams versions of Star Trek, then you're a hypocrite. Really. This is just another incarnation of Star Trek. Yes, it reuses the original TOS characters but it is clearly a "reboot", a modern day version. It is not invalidating TOS, but simply telling an alternate story. Is it perfect? No. Heck no. But it has plenty of good qualities.
[RANT]And yeah, count me in as someone who is getting REALLY DAMNED SICK of the super saturated eye choking CGI that pervades every action shot in an attempt to assault your senses and make you feel "wowed". My eyes feel like they get diabetes from these kinds of flicks, because of the endless eye candy.
Hopefully someday soon somebody will come up with a sci-fi action flick that is much more sensible with the use of CGI and set a new gold standard. Until then, the money making it too great for current production houses to stop doing what they've been doing. Why do they make money? Because of many reasons, including drone audience members and the lack of useful channels to give feedback to the movie producers. "Well they came to see it and made us rich, so let's keep doing it!" [/RANT]
So with the success of the 2nd movie, there will likely be a third but I suspect that will be it due to Abrams moving on to Star Wars (maybe he'll try action saturation formula once again and this time make a dud).
I ignore anything since VOY: Endgame. No Nemesis, no Enterprise, and of course no Abramstrek.
I'm curious, do you similarly ignore the TOS episodes that are bad science fiction?My best friend came over the other night and asked me why I wouldn't go and see the movie.
He accused me of being biased because of my preference for the original TOS.
I told him that while this is correct and would definitely weigh in watching this "Darkness" flick, I would nevertheless be able to enjoy a good science fiction film regardless and switch off the "TOS mode" in my brain.
Therefore I asked him whether it's a good science fiction film to watch, regardless of the "Star Trek" letters on the package or not.
His reply: "No"
Apparently, that was the wrong answer to attract me to this movie.
Bob
Maybe you should give it a shot, instead of thinking you won't like it.
I won't lie, though: it's different.
- Status
Similar threads
