Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

[BeatleJWOL]

I want the parachuting Spock!

Clearly Abrams and company jumped the gun not having Spock parachute into the volcano...

 

[Kirk1980]

Ignore it? Yeah, pretty much. People enjoy the new Trek stuff. I don't like it and think it's pretty much compost. But it doesn't bother me that people like it these days. If the people who like it end up watching more of TOS as a result then... well, bravo

 

[newtontomato539]

To the creator of this thread:

Thank you.

Thank you for not saying racist and sexist things about nuUhura.

Thank you for not calling me a "moron".

Thank you for not calling me "not a true fan".

Thank you for not saying I've "never watched Star Trek".

Thank you for not complaining that physical models should be used instead of cgi models.

Thank you for not making stuff up.

Thank you.

I want a parachuting Spock.

 

[DCR]

For me, the casting was for the most part good, but not perfect. I liked Karl Urban the most, and Simon Pegg the least.

I used to agree with you; however, the more I thought about it, the more I think my problems with Scotty lay with the script and not with Simon Pegg. Into Darkness only furthered that theory, since I liked his role there.

You may have a very good point there (I haven't seen Into Darkness yet, so I can't comment on it). However, whether it's the script or the performance that's the underlying cause, and I'm perfectly willing to believe it's the script, I still have to say that I did not enjoy the interpretation of Scotty I saw in the 2009 film.

To the creator of this thread:

Thank you.

Thank you for not saying racist and sexist things about nuUhura.

Thank you for not calling me a "moron".

Thank you for not calling me "not a true fan".

Thank you for not saying I've "never watched Star Trek".

Thank you for not complaining that physical models should be used instead of cgi models.

Thank you for not making stuff up.

Thank you.

I want a parachuting Spock.

I think we all want a parachuting Spock.

And you're absolutely right, there are more than enough real things to like or dislike about the 2009 reboot that no one should have to resort to making stuff up.

I guess it's a side-effect of the idea that everything has to be justified. I don't get it, why can't people either like or dislike things just because they don't appeal to them? There's nothing wrong with saying that you don't care for something without making any judgments of its quality.

 

[Sector 7]

Wow! Thanks for the memories, KingDaniel... I had one of these!!

To answer the OP:

No, you are not alone.
Yes, I believe the new Star Trek movies ARE Star Trek.
Yes, I grew up on TOS. I was introduced to Trek through The Animated Series, then reruns of TOS.
Yes, I enjoyed all the other series, except DS9 [Because of a personal reason, I was never willing to give it a chance... and because I prefer episodic television over long story arcs.]

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Hey kids be sure to tell your parents to buy you Sugar Smacks cereal.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Yes, I enjoyed all the other series, except DS9 [Because of a personal reason, I was never willing to give it a chance...]

Oh, come on, you've got to elaborate that.

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek WAS originally aimed at adults.

It was picked up by kids (like me, Generation X) in reruns.

The figures didn't come along until 1975, but Gold Key began publishing Star Trek comic books (which the Parachuting Spock box borrows art from) in 1967. They were most definitely not aimed at adults.

Trek was a family show.

I wouldn't call it a family show, but there were elements that as a kid I liked. ( fights, spaceships, aliens) GR intent was to do a SF spin on Adult Westerns ( Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Have Gun Will Travel) and "free" the genre from the kiddieland ghetto.

I wonder: has anyone ever gotten hooked on Trek as an adult, or did we all catch the bug when we were kids?

I was probably seven when I first caught "Mantrap" on NBC. Been a Trekkie ever since . . ..

 

[CaptJimboJones]

The figures didn't come along until 1975, but Gold Key began publishing Star Trek comic books (which the Parachuting Spock box borrows art from) in 1967. They were most definitely not aimed at adults.

Trek was a family show.

I wouldn't call it a family show, but there were elements that as a kid I liked. ( fights, spaceships, aliens) GR intent was to do a SF spin on Adult Westerns ( Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Have Gun Will Travel) and "free" the genre from the kiddieland ghetto.

I wonder: has anyone ever gotten hooked on Trek as an adult, or did we all catch the bug when we were kids?

I was probably seven when I first caught "Mantrap" on NBC. Been a Trekkie ever since . . ..

I did watch the show as a kid, but completely ignored it in my teens and 20s - I returned and started watching again when I was in my early 30s or so. Not sure if that counts ...

 

[RandyS]

I wonder: has anyone ever gotten hooked on Trek as an adult, or did we all catch the bug when we were kids?

I was probably seven when I first caught "Mantrap" on NBC. Been a Trekkie ever since . . ..

Well, I don't want to make you feel old (even though I'm an old man now....) but the answer to your question in my case is "yes". I was born a little less than four years after that first airing of "The Man Trap", and the original NBC run of TOS is the only part of of Star Trek that I was not there for when it was new.

 

[Athena28]

I don't ignore it, but don't feel about it the way I do the older stuff. I watch it but not as the Star Trek I know & love.

 

[ralfy]

Yet you'll find few fans talking about the FX - have a read through the XI+ forum. I've read hundreds of comments about the crew, their interactions and the drone weapon allegory.

The fact that you have a "few fans talking about the FX" proves my argument.

You never answered me in the Future of Trek thread - do you similarly dislike Wrath of Khan? It has very similar nitpicky complaints and plot holes your articles point out in Into Darkness, like the Reliant somehow confusing Ceti Alpha VI for V (when V exploded, leaving the system without a sixth planet), Khan remembering Chekov who hadn't yet joined the crew, Kirk's overwhelming incompetence (if he'd raised the shields when he should have, Khan's entire scheme would have failed), victory hinging on Khan failing to understand the worst code of all time ("Hours will seem like days"), and Khan somehow not realizing that space is a three-dimensional battleground (which is frankly impossible to believe for a layman, let alone a character with a supposed superior intellect). Not to mention the Genesis Device which briefly elevated Federation science to the level of Q and somehow turned a nebula into a planet, completely unlike it's earlier stated programming.

I did not argue that I dislike Wrath, and I think it's a lot better than the new ST. Reasons are given in various reviews, but I think the one that stands out does not involve plot holes but heavy reliance on spectacular reliance on action scenes. The same problems appear in various sci-fi and even superhero movies today.

 

[JimZipCode]

Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

Yep.

Don't get me wrong: I've seen them. #2 had some good stuff in them.

But it certainly isn't Star Trek. On the AV Club comment threads, when Zach Handlen was reviewing TOS, we called #1 "Star Trek 90210". That's how I think of them.

 

[Last Redshirt]

I've seen the Lensflare Universe movies but I just can't get into them like I can with the Prime Universe stuff. It's hard to explain, but, I just feel like it's a bastardization of Star Trek. It gets the concepts of the characters, it has a ship called the Enterprise, but, it just doesn't feel like Trek.

 

[Cyke101]

Do you ignore the "new" Star Trek?

On the AV Club comment threads, when Zach Handlen was reviewing TOS, we called #1 "Star Trek 90210". That's how I think of them.

Which still seems awfully silly to me, frankly. Who had the romantic drama? Two consenting adults, not high school teenagers. And it was only two of them. And in a nice twist to convention, Kirk was the third wheel. There was no competition whatsoever, and Kirk and Spock never dueled for anyone's affections.

 

[Maurice]

This thread was dead for almost 13 months, ralfy. The moderators prefer us to start new threads instead of bringing back the dead.

 

[Mudd]

I'm quite sure that the fifteen year olds who hadn't seen any U-boat movies didn't fully appreciate (for better or for worse!) Balance of Terror.

Of course we did.

Equally any fifteen year olds who didn't follow the critiques of Robert MacNamara didn't fully appreciate A Taste of Armageddon.

Anyone facing the prospect of the Vietnam era draft appreciated and understood that episode better than much older viewers.

And most of all, fifteen year olds didn't fully appreciate Spock's role as a fantasy figure who mastered sexual feelings.

Are you kidding? That character couldn't have been any more perfect a "fantasy figure" for pubescent males if he'd been designed by demographic research.


In other words - nope, nope, and nope.

 

[Warped9]

There's been new Star Trek??? When??

The only new Star Trek I know of is online. And I think they're done by devoted fans.

 

[doubleohfive]

Am I just too closed minded?

If you can ignore these things existing and not use every opportunity to bitch and complain about every little thing for years on end (lens flares, anyone?) then no, you are not.

If you use any chance you can to rail against anything new or different, then yes. You are.

 

[BillJ]

Am I just too closed minded?

If you can ignore these things existing and not use every opportunity to bitch and complain about every little thing for years on end (lens flares, anyone?) then no, you are not.

If you use any chance you can to rail against anything new or different, then yes. You are.

+1