The difference being that I saw lots of non-Trekkies reacting emotionally in the theater to the pre-credit sequence of Abrams's first Trek movie. The only strong reaction I'd seen to oldTrek movies by non fans was laughter.
Abrams: Expect To Cry
- Thread starter TrekToday
- Start date
Yeah, Star Trek IV worked really well.
No, what I meant was this article on Trekweb:
http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=504335ac19a1f
It seems that I have misremembered what he said. Reading it now, there seems to be no hint of a cliffhanger:
Crying, Abrams said. Not whining.
They got old, fat, and dull. Stuffy and boring. …
They're not "running around," "doing fine," or being at all interesting. These new guys are a lot more fun now.
So, I guess we can consider you one of those non-fans at this point? I mean, for someone who apparently watched a ton of Trek, knows a lot, and works on fan films, you sure bash the crap out of it.
Sometimes both happen simultaneously.
Exactly my point.
I think the fact that I see AbramsTrek as mostly a reboot makes me able to feel connections with ST2009's characters that are totally separate with the connections I feel for the TOS characters.
I cared about what happened to Shatner's Kirk and Nimoy's Spock...AND I care what happens to Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock. However, I don't relate Pine's Kirk to Shatner's Kirk (nor do I the two Spocks). Of course I realize that Pine is "Kirk", just like Shatner was "Kirk", and I know what the idea of "Kirk" is supposed to be in the overall mythology known as "Star Trek", but I can still keep separate the specificities of the two versions.
...That is to say, I can have a memory of everything TOS Kirk went through as the character grew and developed over the years and still care about how Abrams' re-imagined version of Kirk may also grow and develop.
I still don't understand why caring about TOS Kirk means I can't care about the different things that may happen to this different AbramsTrek Kirk. This may sound like a paradox, but I can separate the two specific interpretations of the character while still knowing they are generally the same character.
I mean, these characters are works of fiction that are virtually in the public domain (although I mean figuratively, not legally). Different interpretations of the same character can enhance the overall mythology/establishment known as "Star Trek". The character of Kirk has a certain catalogue of personality traits, and the character is hanging out there for future story writers to use. I don't care about the specific history of the character, as long as the character continues to have those traits.
Last edited:
No, they're not.
They got old, fat, and dull. Stuffy and boring. Kirk fell off a rickety bridge before delivering one of his bizarre line readings ("It was...fun") and croaking. Spock was last seen shuffling through a kind of aimless story about Romulus with a bunch of old guys and Denise Crosby wearing bumpy foam rubber heads. McCoy was wearing a garotte-like ascot for vanity's sake to hide his wattle, Scotty and Uhura were fumbling around with various unappealing menepausal sexual hijinks, Chekov had evolved from Bad Accent/Haircut to Bad Accent/Toupee and Sulu...who gives a fuck about Sulu?
They're not "running around," "doing fine," or being at all interesting. These new guys are a lot more fun now.
Just change the names, and that sounded like my 30th high school reunion.In stark contrast to all the youngins who don't give a shit about anything that may or may not have happened in the prime universe.
I guess it all comes down to which demographic is preferable to CBS/Paramount.
That doesn't work in my case, barbecue I've been watching Star Trek since 1972 or 1973 -- I can't quite remember, but it was around that time. The first time I saw an episode of Star Trek (it was Space Seed) was the first time I had even HEARD of Star Trek; I just happened upon it by accident, not knowing what it was...
...I was turning the channels on my parents TV one day and saw them materializing after being transported to the Botany Bay. That caught my attention at first, but what really got me wanting to see more was the first time I saw Spock.
My brothers and I used to play Star Trek at home in the mid-1970s. We would move the recliner chair (comfy-chair) into the middle of the living room as the captain's chair, and we would face the painting on the wall above the sofa a treat it like the view screen. I would often play Scotty, and go into the garage with my walkie-talkie, talking to my brother, who was Kirk, on his walkie talkie. My other brother would be Spock. When I wasn't Scotty, I would be Chekov, and sit at the coffee table (which was between the recliner/captains chair and the sofa painting/view screen). The Coffee table would be the helm and Nav console.
So I am an old-time TOS fan, and I still can separate Pines Kirk from Shatner's Kirk -- while still considering BOTH of them as being Kirk. Two versions, but the same character traits.
I care about the prime universe, but only from a "basic character trait" perspective, and not from a "specific events that transpired" perspective. Abrams' Kirk can still be a valid Kirk, with Kirk-like character traits, even if the events that happened to prime universe Kirk never happen to him.
Is it really going to be that bad?Abrams said:
I love Star Trek.
Star Trek fandom, I can take or leave.
Fandom seems so often to involve pretending Trek's something it's not.
Gotta love autocorrect...
I love Star Trek.
Star Trek fandom, I can take or leave.
Fandom seems so often to involve pretending Trek's something it's not.
Why they would never do such a thing!
I didn't believe for a second that it was really the end. And indeed, most of the characters popped up again here and there in TNG and others. Chekov and Uhura were back as recently as a few years ago in the fan film Of Gods and Men!I don't know about anybody else, but I was stirred by the 'signing off' at the end of The Undiscovered Country.
At that very moment though, I assumed that there would be no more ensemble movies and/or cameo appearances by a cast of people I grew to know. So I was saddened to see Star Trek; as I knew it, end.
Last edited by a moderator:
"our" Star Trek characters?
What you mean "we?"
What you mean "we?"
I didn't see the need for the whole reboot concept for Star Trek in the first place. The gods all know there's enough continuity problems already. The adventures of young Kirk and friends could have been done without excessive wackiness like Spock's mini ship full of strawberry jam and blowing up Vulcan. I don't think an adventure together in the academy days in and of itself required such drastic changes.
Similar threads
