I'll admit that it took me three viewings of ST '09 to warm up to the nuTrek. Now I love it.
Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?
- Thread starter CrazyMatt
- Start date
- Status
I like to think of Nutrek as a completely separate series which happens to have the same title.
But I enjoy it.
But I enjoy it.
You should enjoy the Phase II/New Voyages and Star Trek Continues fan series, then; they excel at that!
What I do successfully ignore is CBS's ongoing attempt to see me the episodes of TOS over and over and over, as well as their chintzy merchandise with Shatner and Nimoy's images stamped all over it. nuTrek is a breath of fresh air compared to all that.
I don't ignore nuTrek at all--I take it for exactly what it is, a distilled remake of TOS for today's audiences. It'll never replace TOS, but that doesn't mean that it isn't fun.
No, you're not closed minded. I can completely understand being resistant to change. At least, on some things.
That said, while I don't hold the current films, VOYAGER, or ENTERPRISE in the same high regard that I do with TOS, TNG and DS9, I still like them simply because of their association with Star Trek (although, the story logic of hiding the Enterprise under water in the current film was a bit much. Why couldn't they simply have stayed in orbit? It's not like the natives had scanners, or telescopes (that we saw anyway. Real world answer: the special effect of the take-off was "cool".).
And, just because I can NEVER resist a dig at it, I COMPLETELY agree with your dislike of New Galactica. I personally see it as an insult to both sci-fi and television, and it actually caused me to lose respect for Ron Moore's writing to the point that I hope he NEVER writes for Star Trek again. Not that that's likely.
At least I hope not.
Last edited:
This is what I hate about modern action films. Instead of coming up with a story and then a script in order to tell a story, the producers. writers, and/or the director often begin with ideas for cool action set pieces, then try to build a story around that. In that case, the writing of the story simply becomes the glue to hold the set pieces together and is no longer the natural result of an author who has something to say.
Then the finished product, rather than being something that builds up interest and suspense, peaking at specific plot points, ends up being a pretty flat movie experience. You just move from one set piece to another (build up, adrenaline rush, wind down; build up, adrenaline rush, wind down; build up, adrenaline rush, wind down...). In trying to make the whole movie exciting it becomes one-note, predictable, and, ultimately, a passive experience. Characters act not naturally out of their own natures and in response to the events, but simply to set up the next set piece.
And, just because I can't resist picking up the gauntlet. I thought the original BSG was dreadful when it first aired and the passing of time has not been kind to it. Frankly, from where I'm sitting, anything would have been an improvement but the new show, although bleak as hell, was often powerful and engaging television, with fine acting and flawed, fascinating, complicated characters. It was quantum levels above the original and a poster child for how to reboot an old property.
It actually made me a fan of BSG--which I had never been before.
(Although, to be fair, I can see where people who actually liked the original show might be taken aback by the new version, which was indeed very different in tone. I had a similar response to that gawdawful reboot of THE NIGHT STALKER a couple seasons ago. I think I gave up after one episode.)
Last edited:
Details?
Nope, not ignoring nuTrek. Love my TOS, but this is a good ride, as well. What I really enjoy is my own kids are now really embracing Trek.
Yep. My reaction to BSG in 1978 was that it looked pretty for a couple of hours, but basically sucked. - the usual brain-dead fare that the networks had bought as science fiction from Irwin Allen in the pre-Star Trek days, dressed up to look like Star Wars.
Just saw the new film in a crowded theater (10 days after it's release and the theater is still crowded) ..I liked it but I realize it was a good action movie first, and Trek second..
And to appeal to Joe Sixpack and family, that's what it had to be.. in order to make money.
If the powers that be tried to make a film for the Trek fans only, it would have ended up like the TNG films...Trek first and good movie second...and we all saw how that turned out with FF, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis.. I'll take JJ Trek over those sad films any day.
Plinket of Red Letter Media says it best at the following..in regards to Star Trek 2009..
and I agree with his assessment and his critical opinions on the film..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dCJWr40raQ
And to appeal to Joe Sixpack and family, that's what it had to be.. in order to make money.
If the powers that be tried to make a film for the Trek fans only, it would have ended up like the TNG films...Trek first and good movie second...and we all saw how that turned out with FF, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis.. I'll take JJ Trek over those sad films any day.
Plinket of Red Letter Media says it best at the following..in regards to Star Trek 2009..
and I agree with his assessment and his critical opinions on the film..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dCJWr40raQ
Because you know, if there is anything TOS is famous for, it's for having no action (Doomsday machine), its amazing stuntwork (Space seed), avoidance of silly plots (Spock's brain), and no slapstick at all (Troubles with tribbles).
You mean, like real people? Instead wanking off to the casino planet after your entire civilization is blown to bits, that's completely believable.
Last edited:
No goofy<snip>
I hate you.
I haven't ignored any Star Trek before now--see no reason to start.
I revisit TOS more than the rest, but each has entertained me well enough. I'm not too demanding of things I came to like in childhood, though, as long as they offer me something as an adult.
Abrams Trek is closer to TOS in spirit than any of the other films--so I'll likely revisit them more than the others. But hey, no big deal to me if others don't view it the same way. There's enough other stuff out there to keep people entertained.
I revisit TOS more than the rest, but each has entertained me well enough. I'm not too demanding of things I came to like in childhood, though, as long as they offer me something as an adult.
Abrams Trek is closer to TOS in spirit than any of the other films--so I'll likely revisit them more than the others. But hey, no big deal to me if others don't view it the same way. There's enough other stuff out there to keep people entertained.
Well, my dislike of New Galactica wasn't motivated by special loyalty to the original. I watched it in the first place BECAUSE of my loyalty to the original, and, at first anyway, was looking forward to a new take on a story I liked as a kid. It was the tone of the new show that turned me off almost immediately.
That, and the fact that I HATED Kara with a passion. No, I didn't mind that they made Starbuck a woman. I hated that they made her a whiny little bitch that did nothing that whine and bitch. If they had killed her in a different way at the end of every episode, I might have like the show a little more.
- Status
Similar threads
