Do fans want the prime timeline back?

[R. Star]

It's common for many people to say "my opinion is the majority, therefore it must be right." As if numbers somehow validates the right choice. On a matter that's an opinion to start with, thereby subjective and subject to individual taste. Funny thing is the numbers don't even matter. Everyone always has the silent majority on their side in these debates.

 

[Greg Cox]

It had to be more than 100 fans were polled in that worst Star Trek movie poll or else it wouldn't have been news. Most Star Trek fans don't like the reboot franchise, like it or not.

No, as I understand it, it was only about a hundred fans. The media made too much of it because "Fans Hate New Movie!" is a much better headline that "Fans Have Wide Ranges of Opinions Regarding New Movie." (A similar poll, held at a Seattle convention a few weeks later, yielded very different results.)

And can we please drive a stake through this stubborn myth that "most" Trek fans don't like the reboot? Hell, the endless debates on this very board prove that isn't the case.

The "fans" have never spoken with one voice and they never will. And the people who adamantly reject the reboot are a vocal minority at best. Like it or not.

It's not a myth, I see people bash the reboot all of the time. I've personally seen countless people bashing this version of Trek. Too many to count.

Yes. I'm sure there are people who object to the reboot, but they don't speak for all of us. What I'm objecting to the insistence that "the fans" or "the real fans" or "the true fans" or "most fans" are united in their opinion.

In my experience, this usually translates to "me and all the people who agree with me" . . . .

Contrary to myth, there is no huge fan backlash.

 

[BillJ]

Even Star Wars didn't retread over already established incidents.

I could have sworn I saw them blow up Death Stars in both A New Hope and Return of the Jedi. But I'm getting old and the memory tends to play tricks. Maybe you can correct my memory?

 

[BillJ]

Funny thing is the numbers don't even matter.

Numbers always matter, especially when it comes to studios spending a hundred-million plus dollars on a product.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It had to be more than 100 fans were polled in that worst Star Trek movie poll or else it wouldn't have been news. Most Star Trek fans don't like the reboot franchise, like it or not.

Why would it have to be more than 100 fans to make the news? It made the news because it was a good sound byte.

Most? Based on what? People you've talked to? Even polls on this site show that the reboot is popular.

 

[Captain_Q]

In response to all of the Star Trek being super violent stuff. I really don't consider Star Trek as violent compared to today's TV shows. There wasn't blood and guts spraying everywhere with viewers looking into the dead person's opened bloody chest. I've never had to close to my eyes and put my fingers in my ears while watching Star Trek because Khan was cracking someone's head like an egg. That sound bothered me so freaking much. Here is something I found that basically describes my exact feelings about Star Trek (with TNG in mind since I grew up with it and new Trek doesn't feel like this):
"In the media, Star Trek has always been portrayed as a sad and confusing show for nerds, but for me, Star Trek has always been about hope. Hope that someday things like racism, sexism, war and poverty will no longer exist. I watch TNG because the world it portrays is infinitely better than the one in which we currently reside."

Now there are many things in Star Trek that I would not like to live with. And now there will be fifty million posts about how racist and sexist Star Trek actually is. So have at it and basically ruin everything Star Trek is with arguing, that pretty much takes all the joy away from it. And that's what Star Trek is to a lot of people. Joy. I turn into a five year old happy child when I watch Star Trek and I don't give a crap about every single minute detail. Moffet didn't write it!

 

[R. Star]

Funny thing is the numbers don't even matter.

Numbers always matter, especially when it comes to studios spending a hundred-million plus dollars on a product.

Way to take a snippet out of a longer post out of context.

 

[Brainsucker]

That silly Vegas poll by no means represented the majority of fans. It was a hundred people at the convention attended by thousands. (Just to put things in perspective, there are currently over five hundred fans online at this very board.)

And the "Hardcore Fans" are only a tiny segment of the movie-going audience to begin with . . .

The problem is that they bark louder than the fans here, so Paramount and maybe Abram will hear their voice more than from the invisible fans in here.

To tell the truth, Star Trek's survival as a franchise is in danger nowadays So a failed single Star Trek Movie in the market will cause Paramount to move on and forget it. Yet there are still hardcore fans who want to kill this franchise in the name of "Prime Dimension". But well, maybe they right, Star Trek as a franchise should die, so we all can move on and return to reality again.

 

[Belz...]

As fas as I know, the discovery of Khan and the bit with Spock and Kirk in the engine core are the only portions of the story that are similar in any way. There's nothing else in the story that's lifted from any other Trek story.

This is almost a parody post.

Then by all means, list all the things that are lifted from other movies or episodes.

You were the one who challenged my comment in the first place so surely it's you that has to put in the effort to prove me wrong? Not just say I'm wrong by saying its about a younger Kirk and Spock etc.

First, could you please learn to use the quote function properly so the name of the person you are replying to appears with the link to the original post ? It's very difficult to spot posts replying to me, the way you're doing it.

Second, you're the one who is making a positive claim. Proving a negative is almost impossible, which is why the burden of proof in court is on the prosecution, same in science where it's on the person trying to overthrow existing theories, etc.. I am challenging you to support your claim.

Wow, So as far as you know SECTION 31 has never been mentioned in any other trek story?

I think you are confused. Mentioning an element isn't the same as lifting it from previous things. Otherwise the third episode of TOS would've ripped off the second pilot because Spock and Kirk were in it, too.

I can go on but hopefully you get the point.

No, I don't get the point. None of that qualifies. Here's the original claim:

I'm all for going back personally, rather than sitting through another Into Darkness, which basically used the same story and just switched characters when it came to 'Who dies of radiation poisoning' and piled in a load of CGI explosions etc.

This poster said that it used the same story, presumably as Star Trek II. Same story. Not same characters or the SAME UNIVERSE. Of course Section 31 can be there: they're part of the Star Trek universe. DS9 used them more than once, does that mean the second episode in whichi they did was the same story as the first ? That makes no sense.

You guys are going to have to do better than just list individual elements. We are talking about "the same story".

 

[Belz...]

You can't dismiss two huge examples of 'lifted' elements by saying "yeah, but apart from that..." and expect your point to be taken seriously in any way.

Why not ? That scene takes up about five minutes of a two hour movie, so it's reasonable to ask why those five minutes suddenly make the whole movie a rip-off. You are dodging the question.

 

[Kirk the Jerk]

As fas as I know, the discovery of Khan and the bit with Spock and Kirk in the engine core are the only portions of the story that are similar in any way. There's nothing else in the story that's lifted from any other Trek story.

First, could you please learn to use the quote function properly so the name of the person you are replying to appears with the link to the original post ? It's very difficult to spot posts replying to me, the way you're doing it.

Second, you're the one who is making a positive claim. Proving a negative is almost impossible

I'm on an iPhone, so manually editing everything you write is a ball ache, so apologies for not using the 'quote function' to your liking. I suppose you write that much that you can't remember what you've written.

Yes I did say Story but I meant that in a different way, with more than just the action we were watching on screen, so the term I meant was back story, as i later said.

My original point, was that I felt that this film was Lazy, unimaginative. You said it lifted NOTHING else from any other trek story so I agree my attempt to disagree with that by using Section 31 was a weak comment to make but it does undeniably lift elements from other Trek stories.

Hopefully the use of the 'quote function' on this post will more to your liking but honestly if it's not then my heart goes out to you.

 

[anh165]

It's common for many people to say "my opinion is the majority, therefore it must be right." As if numbers somehow validates the right choice. On a matter that's an opinion to start with, thereby subjective and subject to individual taste. Funny thing is the numbers don't even matter. Everyone always has the silent majority on their side in these debates.

Of course the numbers validates!

The film studios, the companies and individuals will only invest their money into a film or TV series providing there is an actual sizable audience out there. The market needs to be sufficient so that their is a strong chance for financial return from ticket sales, merchandising and sponsors.

An audience of a few hundred people who can quote every line of Homefront of WYLB is of no interest.

 

[bbjeg]

I can go on but hopefully you get the point.

No, I don't get the point. None of that qualifies.

My post wasn't in regards to the original claim. It was to your statement that "Into Darkness has almost NONE of the story of any other Trek movie" and smart move just stating "None of that qualifies" instead of saying how it doesn't. I would love for you to explain how what I posted doesn't count as lifting from previous stories. I'll re-post it just encase you forgot where it was. ↓

I liked Into Darkness. I took it as a homage movie for seasoned trekkies and a catch up for newbies. With that said, you say it has almost NONE of the story of any Trek movies, as if NuKirk wasn't following TOS Kirk's style, or that Klingon/Human relations weren't shaky, or that section 31 didn't exist, or that Carol wasn't standing up there, or that Starfleet Headquarters wasn't in San Fransisco, or that the Admirals weren't using the same Admiral outfits we've seen before, or that Spock didn't do a mind meld, or that they didn't quickly bring up Harcourt Mudd and that Mudd incident (I caught that in theaters, me and another.). I can go on but hopefully you get the point.

 

[BillJ]

Now there are many things in Star Trek that I would not like to live with. And now there will be fifty million posts about how racist and sexist Star Trek actually is. So have at it and basically ruin everything Star Trek is with arguing, that pretty much takes all the joy away from it. And that's what Star Trek is to a lot of people. Joy. I turn into a five year old happy child when I watch Star Trek and I don't give a crap about every single minute detail. Moffet didn't write it!

If you're going to hold the Abrams films to a certain standard, isn't it fair to hold all of Star Trek to that same standard?

 

[Belz...]

I'm on an iPhone, so manually editing everything you write is a ball ache, so apologies for not using the 'quote function' to your liking. I suppose you write that much that you can't remember what you've written.

I made a polite request of you and you now resort to snark ? That's very telling. I don't necessarily read every post in a thread, so if your post isn't marked as answering me, I might miss it.

Yes I did say Story but I meant that in a different way, with more than just the action we were watching on screen, so the term I meant was back story, as i later said.

Well that sure expands the meaning of your post, then. Still, aside from individual characters, minor plot points and a single scene from the movie, I don't see how one could argue that Into Darkness or the 2009 movie lifted much from any previous installment.

You said it lifted NOTHING else from any other trek story

That's not true. I made specific exceptions qualifying my nothing.

 

[Belz...]

My post wasn't in regards to the original claim. It was to your statement that "Into Darkness has almost NONE of the story of any other Trek movie" and smart move just stating "None of that qualifies" instead of saying how it doesn't.

I didn't think it was necessary, since none of those elements you cited are stories. Having a character in a movie that was on the show previously isn't lifting a story from a previous show. I don't see how any of the elements on your list qualifies.

 

[bbjeg]

Still, aside from individual characters, minor plot points and a single scene from the movie, I don't see how one could argue that Into Darkness or the 2009 movie lifted much from any previous installment.

You're absolutely right. Aside from all the stuff they lifted no one can argue they lifted anything.

My post wasn't in regards to the original claim. It was to your statement that "Into Darkness has almost NONE of the story of any other Trek movie" and smart move just stating "None of that qualifies" instead of saying how it doesn't.

I didn't think it was necessary, since none of those elements you cited are stories. Having a character in a movie that was on the show previously isn't lifting a story from a previous show. I don't see how any of the elements on your list qualifies.

The relationship between the Federation and the Klingons is a story. NuTrek could of easily made the Klingons already an ally, or have them not use TOS' Klingon language (used in previous stories), or created a whole new alien race. I also stated more than character references. My post covered locations, factions, attire, and abilities but I'll save you the effort and remove Spock's mind melding abilities since it was used in the first movie (I won't count that as "any other Trek movie").

 

[Belz...]

You're absolutely right. Aside from all the stuff they lifted no one can argue they lifted anything.

Pay attention, and stop trying to score silly points in a game only you are playing: STORY. Individual characters and elements are not STORY.

The relationship between the Federation and the Klingons is a story. NuTrek could of easily made the Klingons already an ally

That would've sent the fans into an even more hysterical outrage, as the Klingons were NOT allies of the federation at that point, and I don't see how they'd explain it using Nero's arrival.

 

[bbjeg]

You're absolutely right. Aside from all the stuff they lifted no one can argue they lifted anything.

Pay attention, and stop trying to score silly points in a game only you are playing: STORY. Individual characters and elements are not STORY.

I was paying attention.

The relationship between the Federation and the Klingons is a story. NuTrek could of easily made the Klingons already an ally

That would've sent the fans into an even more hysterical outrage, as the Klingons were NOT allies of the federation at that point, and I don't see how they'd explain it using Nero's arrival.

You say elements isn't a story yet "the Klingons were NOT allies of the federation at that point". Where did you find that information if not from a previous non-nutrek story? Nero's appearance, an advanced Romulan, able to destroy planets unopposed could get the Klingons to join starfleet. I won't even count that partially deleted scene involving the Klingons (when Prime Spock mind-melds with Kirk that shot of Nero was suppose to be a deceiving plot within the Klingon empire) as a entry point.

 

[bbjeg]

I'll link this here for those who want to poll their choices.

Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition
www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=224932