Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Warped9, May 23, 2013.
Reboots are at the heart of human storytelling. In the Greek myths, there's multiple versions of all the characters' origins.
I don't have a problem with people making new versions of Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Dracula, James Bond, Batman, etc. Why is it such a big deal with Star Trek? Trek has transcended being about one particular group of actors, or writers, or directors, etc. It's passed into modern day myth, a story to be passed down through the ages, to the next generation. And we better get used to it. They're likely to reboot it again, and again. And then again.
As a James Bond fan, and a Doctor Who fan, as well as a Trekkie, I am well accustomed to change, and new actors, and reboots. Sometimes fresh blood, and a fresh start is a good thing. God knows Bond needed to be rebooted after Die Another Day.
No one complains when someone stages a new production of Hamlet. They do compare the different versions, of course. That is inevitable. Some will prefer the Olivier, some will prefer the Branagh, and so on.
Heck, how many times has King Arthur been rebooted?
Last time I checked, nobody was complaining that the TV show Merlin violated the canon laid down by Monty Python . . .
Any version of Arthur that doesn't have Brave Sir Robin in it, is not canon!!!!!!!
Haha! 'This is NOT my MERLIN! It is by HACKS! It is NOT CANNON!(sic)'
I never made an assumption one way or the other about how it would've turned out.
Excalibur (1981) violated the "no plate armor in Arthur's day" canon! That didn't seem to hurt the film at all (probably helped it).
JJ Abrams saved Star Trek.
This seems like an awful lot to read, but...save the franchise from what?
Being forgotten? No, people remembering Star Trek became a world phenomenon before Abrams congratulated himself on being too cool to watch.
Being too unprofitable? Those who are not stockholders yet give a shit about the box office are idiots.
Being scifi instead of quality drama? All Star Trek has been vulnerable to cheap shots from the peanut gallery from day one, and this hasn't changed.
Being uncool? Adults couldn't care less.
The only important question about "Abrams" (i.e., the collective effort that made the two movies) is whether the movies are good? If they are, then Abrams saved Star Trek from DVD libraries, temporarily.
Saved it from stagnation as a media franchise.
Now show me on that doll where that naughty JJ Abrams touched your Star Trek?
Let it go. Or get someone who has stories to tell, not retread pastiche. These movies remind me of those oldies greatest hits concerts on public television. Now . . . a tribble! Now . . . the engine room death scene!
I'm surprised by some of the people here I respect who are wowed or blinded by the fact that there is Product called Trek again in the theaters. It is Transformers 2 in spaceships and Trek names. What does it profiteth you if you gain all the ticket sales in the world and lose your soul?
Let it go.
Well, you know that's like, your opinion, man.
Let what go? My soul? My enjoyment? Star Trek?
Here's another qoute;www.tv3.ie/entertainment_article.php?locID=1.803.874&article=103783
Wikipedia also makes the claim:
They're claiming studio execs themselves are disappointed though it is hard to swallow with 70 million in the US so far.
This is common with big budget movies now. That's why I see the danger in 'blockbusters' in that no matter how much money they make, it's not enough.
Then you eventually get corporate meddling.
There is a huge difference in Abram's style and the television style. You don't see any real cerebral stuff in I.T.D or even the 2009 movie.
It's all action, little "science fiction", but it works money wise.
When Star Trek became popular: there was no 500-channel universe, no internet, no video-games, not much in the way of "adult" sci-fi. Star Trek had little competition. In this day and age, it would've quickly became an entertainment footnote.
And if anyone would actually watch the special features available on the Blu-ray edition they would understand exactly how much Abrams respected the material he was working with. But that would be too much effort and would contradict the nerdrage regarding Abrams.
You don't actually have the power to assign me homework on the Blu-ray edition. Even more to the point, nobody should have to do the homework. We all know what it took to avoid seeing Star Trek at some point, which was to turn your nose up at it. And we all know what motivated that. If your point was that Abrams is cool and Star Trek fans are nerds, posting on another bbs would be a good idea.
When Star Trek became a phenomenon, it was in spite of the obstacles, not because of them. Your point about accessibility today is really rather twisted reasoning.
Whether Abrams' movies are ever going to more than a footnote remains to be seen. You are way premature there.
You forget that we're talking about periods 40+ years apart.
My point being, you can dislike the new movies without denigrating the man behind them. Roddenberry and Berman and others made questionable choices over the years when it came to storytelling as well.
Abrams personal likes or dislikes have nothing to do with his ability to make a Star Trek movie. People use his "I was never a fan of Star Trek" comment as a reason to dismiss the movies he makes. And if one was to watch the special features, they would realize that quote was part of Abrams much larger views of Star Trek.
Truth hurts. Star Trek (as much as I love it) would've never became a cultural icon if it didn't have the playing field to itself for much of the 70's and 80's.
Separate names with a comma.