Any other TOSers give up post-Abrams?

[Jetfire]

I started watching Trek in 1966, and I saw the recent movie 21 times. So, no problem with J.J. here. I loved it.

I still haven't seen Star Trek 2009.

Just in-case you were wondering...hope to get to it before another one comes out.

I like TOS...but in order it goes like this; TNG, VOY, ENT, TOS & DS9.

No matter what happens we can enjoy ST for years to come.

 

[KarmicCurse]

For those who lack the initiative to click my sig, my latest blog entry:

I keep going back to a complaint Harlan Ellison had about TOS, that fits like a freakin' glove to this movie.

Not only was it mediocre, it was deliberately intended to be mediocre.

They didn't strive to make something great and fail (that's the saving grace of some of the worst episodes, at least they tried something different and it didn't work). They targeted this film to hit that lowest common denominator and get the biggest bang for the buck. From the ubiquitous lens flares to the shaky cam to the MTV rapid edits to the pandering to every Star Trek stereotype in the book, both real and imagined, this film was plotted and made solely to suck in as many people as possible and separate them from their money (nothing wrong with that, in and of itself), and (here's the real crime) BE AS UTTERLY NONCHALLENGING AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE!

And for Star Trek, any incarnation of Star Trek, that is completely unforgivable. Star Trek is supposed to make you think. That this film not only doesn't make you think, but actually requires you to not think, lest the whole house of cards falls apart, is far worse than just another bad installment in the franchise, but a fundamental betrayal of the very idea behind Star Trek that Roddenberry tried to instill in the production and the writing, summed up by his favorite saying on the subject, "There is an intelligent life form on the other side of that television tube!" Eye candy is not enough, you have to appeal to the mind, to the intelligence of the viewer. Short change that, and you sell out the whole thing and reduce Star Trek to "just a movie."

Understand why I'm so angry over this thing now?

Thank you! That's exactly how I feel. I'm still stunned at how many Trekkies found that lowest common denominator movie satisfying. It's just another Transformers, although ST actually did have a few, fleeting good moments.

 

[Warped9]

A handful of fans are still living in 1979, though.

Yeah, that would be me apparently...

It wasn't addressed to you.

Once again, get over yourself.

I've nothing to get over. And you didn't specify who you were putting down and I've had this sig for a very long time. Only one other person I know around here has anything remotely the same. You're also not the first to take a shot at me for it.

So next time you indulge in a drive by swipe you should be more specific about who your target is. As it is you are certainly living up to being an apologetic arsehole.

 

[Joker]

If your signature is causing you to take offense and feel victimised everytime someone mentions Star Trek fans and 1979 in the same sentence, might I suggest changing it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't lack the initiative; I've read previous entries and therefore know that this blog is a badly designed, poorly written collection of victimized rationalizations. If one holds opinions in lock step with the writer it might be tolerable, but even that is generous.

 

[T'Bonz]

elton and Warped9, you've both been warned for continuing the personal stuff/fighting after I told everyone to stop.

Don't bother appealing. I won't reverse these.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Why reanimate a corpse?

Why not let it be?

Seriously.

You may not want to see any more new "Star Trek", but plenty of us do. I attended a premiere screening of JJ's movie with fan friends who given up on ST - in disgust - after ST IV (which they called "dumbing down Star Trek for the masses") and about Season Five of TNG ("Picard has become a Boring Old Fart").

And they loved this movie.

They cried, they laughed, they gasped - and returned to the cinema multiple times to do it all again. And many avid ST fans (like me) and total novices went with them. They bought the DVD and the BluRay. And many avid ST fans (like me) and total novices did the same.

If anyone was going to hate this movie with a vengeance, I expected it to be them.

 

[Dukhat]

For those who lack the initiative to click my sig, my latest blog entry:

I keep going back to a complaint Harlan Ellison had about TOS, that fits like a freakin' glove to this movie.

Not only was it mediocre, it was deliberately intended to be mediocre.

They didn't strive to make something great and fail (that's the saving grace of some of the worst episodes, at least they tried something different and it didn't work). They targeted this film to hit that lowest common denominator and get the biggest bang for the buck. From the ubiquitous lens flares to the shaky cam to the MTV rapid edits to the pandering to every Star Trek stereotype in the book, both real and imagined, this film was plotted and made solely to suck in as many people as possible and separate them from their money (nothing wrong with that, in and of itself), and (here's the real crime) BE AS UTTERLY NONCHALLENGING AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE!

And for Star Trek, any incarnation of Star Trek, that is completely unforgivable. Star Trek is supposed to make you think. That this film not only doesn't make you think, but actually requires you to not think, lest the whole house of cards falls apart, is far worse than just another bad installment in the franchise, but a fundamental betrayal of the very idea behind Star Trek that Roddenberry tried to instill in the production and the writing, summed up by his favorite saying on the subject, "There is an intelligent life form on the other side of that television tube!" Eye candy is not enough, you have to appeal to the mind, to the intelligence of the viewer. Short change that, and you sell out the whole thing and reduce Star Trek to "just a movie."

Understand why I'm so angry over this thing now?

This rant of yours is entirely, ENTIRELY your own opinion, an opinion I dare say is incorrect.

The whole point of what you're saying here is that the new movie catered to the lowest common denominator. Well, I'm pretty sure I'm as big a fan of Star Trek as you are, and know it forwards and backwards (but I don't feel that I have to acknowledge that fact with every post I make). I am a 37 year old, intelligent, college educated professional who has money in the bank, owns his own home, has a great job narrating books on tape for the blind, and enjoys a wide variety of interests. I am hardly what you would label "the lowest common denominator." And yet I loved this movie. I didn't go into the theater with the intention to pick the movie apart just because it didn't fit my own personal definition of what "Star Trek" is supposed the be about. Or even Roddenberry's definition, because frankly I couldn't give a shit about Roddenberry.

ENTERPRISE is my least favorite Star Trek show. I just don't like it. It is not how I personally envisioned the birth of the Federation to have been portrayed. I thought the producers took far more interest in trying to show the cast members in their underwear than trying to write an intelligent science fiction show. Everything you're spouting about what you hate about this movie could be equally applied to ENTERPRISE. And I had to sit through four years of it, not just two-and-a-half hours. Four years of having my intelligence insulted. But you know what? It is what it is, and I'm over it. (I'm not going to say "it's just a TV show," because true Trek fans don't want to hear that annoying phrase.) I'm not going to barge into the ENTERPRISE forum and start bitching to all the fans there about how much I think the show sucks and how anyone who even remotely likes it, or doesn't agree with my way of thinking about it, is an absolute moronic asshole. Sound familiar?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Gee, looks like I touched a nerve...

 

[Dukhat]

Gee, looks like I touched a nerve...

What else is new?

 

[Nerys Myk]

"Never give up! Never SURRENDER!!!-Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

 

[Kirk1980]

*starts singing NEVER SURRENDER....

Oh, I'm sorry, was this supposed to be insulting to people who happen to not like JJ's masterwork? Yes, there is definite sarcasm intended in that assessment.

 

[Nerys Myk]

*starts singing NEVER SURRENDER....

Oh, I'm sorry, was this supposed to be insulting to people who happen to not like JJ's masterwork? Yes, there is definite sarcasm intended in that assessment.

No, its just a joke. A line that popped in my head when reading the thread title and I thought I'd share.

 

[Warped9]

Actually comparing Galaxy Quest and ST09 isn't a stretch...except that Galaxy Quest was an honest spoof.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I found GQ to be an excellent spoof of fandom and the cast of Star Trek. The parts that mimiced the show were pretty straight forward.

 

[Joker]

Galaxy Quest was pretty good.

As was Star Trek.

Fancy that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This rant of yours is entirely, ENTIRELY your own opinion, an opinion I dare say is incorrect.

The whole point of what you're saying here is that the new movie catered to the lowest common denominator. Well, I'm pretty sure I'm as big a fan of Star Trek as you are, and know it forwards and backwards (but I don't feel that I have to acknowledge that fact with every post I make)...

Exactly. The world - hell, this forum - is filled with people who are as smart or smarter than the OP, know more about Trek than the OP, and don't agree with the OP at all. That is reality.

Gee, looks like I touched a nerve...

No, you don't. You simply piss people off. Even a stubborn child can do that. And that is reality as well.

 

[Warped9]

Gee, looks like I touched a nerve...

No, you don't. You simply piss people off. Even a stubborn child can do that. And that is reality as well.

Dennis, you should be careful what words you throw around. Because many people could say the very same thing about you. In fact I suspect a lot of people think the very same thing about you. I see you as a very intelligent individual, but you're just as guilty of throwing around your opinion as if it's fact when it's really no more opinion than anyone else's.

You (and others) like to make the charge that many TOS fans are essentially hallucinating when they say they see something deeper in TOS and don't see it in the film. Well the exact same charge can be made about those who say they see something in ST09 that others can't see. It's just your opinion.

 

[number6]

Maybe not hallucinating, but definitely looking at TOS through a 40 year old fog of nostalgia. In fact, a lot of criticisms levelled at ST09 can be equally applied to TOS as well. TOS also was written during a different era of Television and pre Moon landing sci-fi had a much different flavor back then. No one suggests that TOS wasn't great and ahead of its time and no one is suggesting that the new film is intended to replace that, but merely to find a way to tell stories with those characters--something that the films haven't been able to do without recasting.

Want to give up on Star Trek because someone decided to follow a different set of rules? That's your choice, but don't speak for the rest of us or insult our intelligence because you've decided to close the door on the new stuff.

 

[Warped9]

My intention is not to insult anyone. But the point is people bring different experiences and expectations to their entertainment. Some will see value in something and others won't. Who is right? It's highly subjective.

If we don't embrace Abrams' film because we don't see value in it that doesn't necessarily mean we're turning our back on new stuff. It means we don't see value in the film. It means that as far as we're concerned Abrams failed to reach us with his choices. On the other hand he succeeded in reaching others with his choices.

I don't call it a forty year fog of nostalgia, not when I can immediately compare it with more recent work. I have the original subject matter immediately at hand on dvd. I don't have to rely on foggy memory for something I haven't seen firsthand in decades.

When I look at TOS now I can see many things I would try to emulate to maintain a certain feel and sensibility. Yet there are other things I would change or modify to be more effective in telling the story, things that might not have been possible before or we can simply do better now.