Did the filmmakers even watch TOS?

[Thrall]

The series was stale as moldy bread and needed a revamp. Star Trek had become a stale, stagnant, pop-culture joke. The sensibilities of the viewing public had changed a lot since the the 1960's(or even the 1990's) and one can't get by on name recognition alone. I see this as being no different then say, when Russell T. Davies revamped Doctor Who. Sure it was more hip and modern and stylish then the old series, and it didn't have as much of the endearing camp factor that the old series did, but the basic premise and message was there. Or one could look on this as being similar to DC Comics revamping their continuity every 20 years or so to go back to basics and keep things modern and fresh.

Canon works if a rich universe and a rich backstory is what you are going for. JJ obviously isn't going for that. He just wants to make a good, fun movie on his own terms that is faithful in spirit to the message of the original. He doesn't want to constantly hear people bitch at him because something contradicts so-and-so from some episode none of the viewing public care about. Brannon Bragga ran into trouble because, well for starters he's a mediocre and very uncreative writer, but also because he wanted the rich universe of the franchise but didn't want to follow that universe's rules and in order to get around it he always used First Contact or The Temporal Cold War or some bullshit like that as an excuse. JJ doesn't have to follow the universe's rules because it's a revamp and the rules aren't written yet, so he gets a lot more freedom to do what he wants. And he is a great writer, so I have perfect faith he'll have the restraint and maturity that Bragga never did.

 

[Shatterhand]

If you're Paramount and you're looking at the franchise and seeing the declining returns you have to say to yourself, "how much more money do we sink into this if we're going to continue to do things the way we've always done them?" It's been a downward slide in the ratings and box office since the back half of Voyager, into Enterprise and also from First Contact (which did well) into Insurrection and then Nemesis.

You can't beat your head against a brick wall forever hoping that "this time I'll break through". You have to change your approach. Love it or hate it, you have to figure the studio felt it had to be this way in order to shake things up.

You can't say it isn't bold at the very least.

THIS. Oh, so very much THIS.

You are exactly right, and I'm so glad at least one other person sees it from this point of view.

Star Trek in its current form (as in, not including this new movie) isn't going anywhere. Save for Star Trek Online, the new MMORPG set 30 years after Nemesis, there's no desire for Paramount to invest any time or money in a Trek that has failed to prove itself viable since the latter half of Voyager. Enterprise was the closest thing to a radical change that Star Trek had seen before now, and it still didn't work because it had the same old creative staff running it.

 

[Sharr Khan]

So far... and based only on the trailer of course, this movie seems the most ToSish yet made. If nothing else its got its adventurous spirit.

Trek fundamentalists give me a migraine.


Sharr

 

[davejames]

If you're Paramount and you're looking at the franchise and seeing the declining returns you have to say to yourself, "how much more money do we sink into this if we're going to continue to do things the way we've always done them?" It's been a downward slide in the ratings and box office since the back half of Voyager, into Enterprise and also from First Contact (which did well) into Insurrection and then Nemesis.

You can't beat your head against a brick wall forever hoping that "this time I'll break through". You have to change your approach. Love it or hate it, you have to figure the studio felt it had to be this way in order to shake things up.

You can't say it isn't bold at the very least.

THIS. Oh, so very much THIS.

You are exactly right, and I'm so glad at least one other person sees it from this point of view.

Star Trek in its current form (as in, not including this new movie) isn't going anywhere. Save for Star Trek Online, the new MMORPG set 30 years after Nemesis, there's no desire for Paramount to invest any time or money in a Trek that has failed to prove itself viable since the latter half of Voyager. Enterprise was the closest thing to a radical change that Star Trek had seen before now, and it still didn't work because it had the same old creative staff running it.

Frankly I don't even think better writers could have done much with Trek in it's current state. The 24th century Trek universe is just completely tired and played out by now. Does anybody really care about the Cardassians anymore? Or the Borg? Or whatever the hell the Ferengi or Klingons or Romulans were last up to? I sure don't.

 

[urbandk]

Did the filmmakers even watch Star Trek V??? Spock's birth must be kept sacred. Where is my laughing Vulcan brother?

 

[cynical dreamer]

Did the filmmakers even watch Star Trek V??? Spock's birth must be kept sacred. Where is my laughing Vulcan brother?

As long as Spock shouts at least once in the movie that's all the canon I need ...

... I'm a simple man with simple needs

 

[Captain X]

It just seems to me that with each new piece of this gigantic puzzle we call STXI that we get, it more and more feels like this movie is set in an alternate universe created by the events of First Contact and involving ENT. I mean the bridge looks like it's from TMP, the uniforms don't match up with The Cage or even WNMHGB, Chekov doesn't have the Monkees hairdo....the list goes on and is getting longer. Don't get me wrong, I am very interested in this movie and fully intend to see it in theaters or buy the DVD whichever comes first. I just feel that this movie will not only please a lot of people, but also tick off a whole bunch of the canon freaks at the same time.

Yes but they decided that a film made in 2009 had to look like it was made in 2009.

Quite a radical concept, no? Modernize Star Trek? Psshaw!

Sorry, naysayers. Retro has its place, but not in Star Trek; not anymore. Star Trek needs to evolve if it wants to survive, even if it means a radical metamorphosis.

It actually looks '50s retro to me, personally. I like though how some of you seem to think that the only two options were to do a reboot and radically change everything or to bring back the plywood and cardboard from the '60s.

 

[section9]

As a matter of fact, they deliberately didn't watch TOS.

Paramount gave JJ Abrams $150 million dollars to play with so he could recreate cardboard sets, bad makeup, papier-mache rock faces, and people who fall out their chairs when their ship maneuvers in Zero Gravity.

Did I mention Fat Shat?

Jeeeesssusss wept. Some people want canon maintained at all costs! Here's to ya! Is this what you bastards want?......

Some of you people won't stop until you absolutely drive a mass audience away from theaters with a cat o' nine-tails and a mace!

JJ is trying to make big time money for Paramount and the franchise. The only way to do that is with new thinking and new ideas.

New thinking and new ideas are not this....

"Usually, this is where Tom Hanks steps in and saves the day, but the scriptwriters had to recycle old World War II villians in the 23rd Century...."

Please. Stop the madness. Accept the fact that by the Grace of God the Paramount goons gave JJ loads of money to rebirth the franchise.

Not that we deserve it.

But I know that some here won't be satisfied until Chris Pine steps under a cargo hold door, opens it up, and has three thousand tribbles fall on him.

 

[Thomas Riker]

Frankly I don't even think better writers could have done much with Trek in it's current state. The 24th century Trek universe is just completely tired and played out by now. Does anybody really care about the Cardassians anymore? Or the Borg? Or whatever the hell the Ferengi or Klingons or Romulans were last up to? I sure don't.

I do!, I love the 24th Century as much any of the other centuries potrayed in trek, and I don't believe in a universe getting completely tired and played out. Its writers that get completely tired and played out. If trek is stagnating fire the writers and employ new ones (repeat until you have a hit).

 

[cynical dreamer]

Frankly I don't even think better writers could have done much with Trek in it's current state. The 24th century Trek universe is just completely tired and played out by now. Does anybody really care about the Cardassians anymore? Or the Borg? Or whatever the hell the Ferengi or Klingons or Romulans were last up to? I sure don't.

I do!, I love the 24th Century as much any of the other centuries potrayed in trek, and I don't believe in a universe getting completely tired and played out. Its writers that get completely tired and played out. If trek is stagnating fire the writers and employ new ones (repeat until you have a hit).

That's fine if you have an infinite supply of money to throw at the thing. But Paramount aren't running Trek as a charity. Why keep throwing money at a thing just to keep it afloat until something "hits". Because the money (and patience of the studio) is finite, it's not surprising they decided on a radical departure from the norm.

 

[Thomas Riker]

Frankly I don't even think better writers could have done much with Trek in it's current state. The 24th century Trek universe is just completely tired and played out by now. Does anybody really care about the Cardassians anymore? Or the Borg? Or whatever the hell the Ferengi or Klingons or Romulans were last up to? I sure don't.

I do!, I love the 24th Century as much any of the other centuries potrayed in trek, and I don't believe in a universe getting completely tired and played out. Its writers that get completely tired and played out. If trek is stagnating fire the writers and employ new ones (repeat until you have a hit).

That's fine if you have an infinite supply of money to throw at the thing. But Paramount aren't running Trek as a charity. Why keep throwing money at a thing just to keep it afloat until something "hits". Because the money (and patience of the studio) is finite, it's not surprising they decided on a radical departure from the norm.

I agree with you. In terms of I have no problem with any sort of radical departure, as I believe it will only enrich the star trek universe. Hell even if it didn't we'd all find some way of fitting into canon. and I know this is going to sound trite, but Trek is too important to let die, now I know that isn't going to make a damn bit of difference in a business sense, but it does to me and every other star trek fan out there.

 

[Shatterhand]

Yes but they decided that a film made in 2009 had to look like it was made in 2009.

Quite a radical concept, no? Modernize Star Trek? Psshaw!

Sorry, naysayers. Retro has its place, but not in Star Trek; not anymore. Star Trek needs to evolve if it wants to survive, even if it means a radical metamorphosis.

It actually looks '50s retro to me, personally. I like though how some of you seem to think that the only two options were to do a reboot and radically change everything or to bring back the plywood and cardboard from the '60s.

Well, what would you consider a fair middle-ground for this? Even if they tried to do a bit of both, you'd still have people complaining about the changes.

 

[Captain X]

I'd detail up the old designs, and make them look like they were made out of metal and polymers. The furthest I would stray would be to slightly redesign the uniforms so it opens down the front, and I'd ditch the miniskirt variant the women are wearing. I might do a nod to them with a longer blouse worn over dress pants, though.

 

[Ethros]

I just wish the makers of this film would simply say "yes it's a reboot." Then I'd have zero problem whatsoever with it.

But as it is... hmm

 

[RAMA]

No, they did not.
They are a bunch of scam artists trying to tell Trek fans what they want to hear.

Yeah we're all fooled! Oh no help us!

RAMA

 

[Sharr Khan]

I just wish the makers of this film would simply say "yes it's a reboot." Then I'd have zero problem whatsoever with it.

But as it is... hmm

Maybe the answer isn't as cut and dry as you seem to like for it to be? I think that's why you're not getting a straight answer to what you assume is a simple answer - the answers a bit more complicated.

Sharr

 

[M'Sharak]

...

...

Wasn't he a nice guy yesterday? oh wait, he told you to stop stalking him..

Please, no more stalker comments.

On the reverse:

No, they did not.
They are a bunch of scam artists trying to tell Trek fans what they want to hear.

...

No, they're not
They're ripping off Roddenberry's idea.
I'd be very surprised if assholes Orci had an original idea in his head.

Matt, you're not helping yourself by going back to beating that drum.

 

[Thrall]

I just wish the makers of this film would simply say "yes it's a reboot." Then I'd have zero problem whatsoever with it.

But as it is... hmm

Maybe the answer isn't as cut and dry as you seem to like for it to be? I think that's why you're not getting a straight answer to what you assume is a simple answer - the answers a bit more complicated.

Sharr

Spoiler

This is a rumor, so take it for what it is. It's sort of a reboot. Nero goes back in time to kill Kirk a la The Terminator and Old Spock goes back to stop him. The plot fails but something happens where an all new timeline is created. Thus explaining the characters and the ship looking different. Thus JJ can do whatever the hell he wants now.

 

[DeafPoet]

No, they're not
They're ripping off Roddenberry's idea.
I'd be very surprised if assholes Orci had an original idea in his head.

How do you do a Star Trek movie without ripping off Rddenberry's idea? I would think that would be a plus.

 

[Sharr Khan]

No, they're not
They're ripping off Roddenberry's idea.
I'd be very surprised if assholes Orci had an original idea in his head.

How do you do a Star Trek movie without ripping off Roddenberry's idea? I would think that would be a plus.

If one is contracted to make a Star Trek film by Paramount Pictures, it becomes impossible to 'rip off' the legally owned property of said studio. To be a rip off this film would need to be made by a rival studio and haven a title completely lacking the words "Star Trek" in it. This is a nonsensical assertion given B&B as well as a few others have been playing in GR sandbox for many, many, years now.

Sharr