Hated it

[Robert D. Robot]

I don't believe you are grasping the concept of 'alternative timeline' surely you have seen Back to the Future II?

As a fan of the Trek book series' I have accepted the alternate timelines a while ago, I was just taking into consideration that the movies defined that which was canon, and therefore, rewrote all that was Trek.

What can I say? I really miss Amanda.

Sarek missed her, too. But he did go on and marry Perrin after Amanda died. At least he did back over in the Prime Universe...

For the record, I enjoyed the JJ movies, along with TOS and the rest. As Smellmet said, for me they are all 'different flavors' of something I like.

 

[xavier]

Am I one of the only ones who hated the Trek reboot?

It isn't my lack of devotion to the world of Trek that brings me to this intense dislike, but exactly the opposite. In my opinion, the reboot killed all that is Star Trek.

These movies pretty much destroyed all the stories that led up to it. Every bit of TOS was built upon the foundation of the Kirk, Spock, McCoy relationship, which in the reboot, has been totally redefined. Oh yes, a "new" foundation has been created, but don't fool yourselves, it is not the same.

Because of this (as well as the destruction of physical plot devices, planets, ships, characters, etc.) every bit of Trek has been erased. What were they thinking?

I love the reboot star trek 2009, I did not like STID much and I hope for the best for star trek 2016. thats all I can say.

you are not the only one who hated the reboot although I do genuinely think you are in a loud minority.

 

[Melakon]

I love the reboot star trek 2009, I did not like STID much and I hope for the best for star trek 2016. thats all I can say.

you are not the only one who hated reboot although I do genuinely think you are in a loud minoroity.

As an example to OP on how fans can differ, I'm sort of the opposite. I grew up with TOS during first run. I didn't care for TNG and its 24th century but I got used to it. I disliked ST2009, and think STID is the better film because it doesn't waste an hour introducing us to everybody, it just drops us into the story and says 'try to keep up'.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Am I one of the only ones who hated the Trek reboot?

Of course not.

I disliked ("hated" is too strong) the first Abrams movie. Watched it again, in hopes that I would like it better the second time. Nope. So I didn't bother with the second one. And I don't expect to watch any more of that timeline.

But so what? I don't watch every series of the original timeline either. I doubt anyone likes every Trek series and movie equally.

 

[Cyke101]

I doubt anyone likes every Trek series and movie equally.

Right. If they did, I'd have to question their sanity, frankly. There's loyalty, and then there's obsession. But most diehard Trekkies would agree that, no matter their opinion on whatever era is being discussed, the quality of Trek tends to ebb and flow.

 

[Mudd]

...but don't fool yourselves, it is not the same.

I don't care.

 

[KSoldier]

So the problem isn't actually the new films. It's that you don't understand the definition of the word "reboot."

Wow, pretty harsh. Yes, I know very well what a reboot means. No need to be insulting, no matter how subtle you imply it.

Do you understand the definition of the word "opinion?"

The point I am trying to make is that IN MY OPINION this alternate reality has taken center stage of the prime reality.

Yes, I favor TOS and TNG a bit more and get a little grumpy when I see the new blood at Paramount contradict Trek canon with new and improved stories, no matter what excuse is given.

I apologize for my negative reaction towards what I feel is blasphemy against the book of Roddenberry.

IN MY OPINION, it would have been so much better had they stuck with the original timeline/reality and expanded the storyline. After all, there were two whole years left of that 5-year mission.

But that is just my opinion.

 

[doubleohfive]

Cool story, brah.

 

[Amaris]

Am I one of the only ones who hated the Trek reboot?

Nope.

But come on, "every bit of Trek has been erased" is totally hyperbolic. They didn't "erase" anything, they're just (for some of us) less than great as films / Trek go.

I was going to mention this earlier, but I snuck into your house and erased all of your DVDs.

 

[BillJ]

IN MY OPINION, it would have been so much better had they stuck with the original timeline/reality and expanded the storyline. After all, there were two whole years left of that 5-year mission.

I don't think so. You're putting stories right in the middle of a narrative that everyone knows the ending to. Plus, you're putting new actors and look right in the middle of an already told tale.

They had to reset the clock.

 

[KSoldier]

I would hope that in the spirit of civil conversation that supporters of the re-boot would try and provide a list of redeeming qualities as opposed to just suggesting that I keep my opinions to myself.

Nobody is suggesting that you keep your opinions to yourself, they are however questioning the points you are making and your understanding of the concept behind the reboot and alternate universes etc, as your posts so far seem to point to a lack of understanding of it. I'm not having a go, I'm just trying to play devils advocate.

Prime Trek up to and including Nemesis is one of the biggest passions in my life, so I totally get people who don't like these new movies. I adore the TOS movies, I don't even mind the TNG ones that much.

JJ Trek is just another flavour of it that has come along, just like TNG, and DS9 were both new 'flavours'. I have found both movies to be massively entertaining. Are they perfect? Absolutely not. Some of the writing, plot holes and choices they have made have been a little shoddy at times in both films, but I've still enjoyed the hell out of them and can't wait to see what they come up with for the next one.

I respect that, thank you for clearing it up. I can tell I hit a nerve with some people.

I had the opportunity to work on an episode of DS9 years ago and have since worked with many of the crew on several different productions. One thing that was made very clear is that after Gene Roddenberry's passing, there was a lot of effort made into deconstructing much of what he had created.

Being a lifelong fan of the series, I was able to grit my teeth and deal with a lot of the smaller re-writes, changes, and blatant contradictions... but going back to the beginning of TOS and scrambling the timeline really disappointed me.

Yes, I know, I know it is an "alternate reality/timeline" but re-painting an alternate version of the Mona Lisa - then hanging it in front of the original version of the Mona Lisa will garner the same reaction from traditional art lovers.

Besides all that, I guess I can find a few good points to compliment the re-boots. The casting was phenomenal, and the special effects impressive!

But I still miss Amanda.

 

[Timby]

I apologize for my negative reaction towards what I feel is blasphemy against the book of Roddenberry.

Blaspheming against the book of a drug- and drink-addled, misogynistic, philandering, conniving and scheming asshole isn't the worst thing in the world.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

this alternate reality has taken center stage of the prime reality.

Well, actually, yeah it has. The prime "reality" is only being advanced in the expanded universe at the moment. On the upside, that means loooooots of Star Trek books you may not have read yet, some even written by a couple of members here.

contradict Trek canon

How can you understand that it is an alternate reality and still claim that it contradicts canon?

 

[BillJ]

Yes, I know, I know it is an "alternate reality/timeline" but re-painting an alternate version of the Mona Lisa - then hanging it in front of the original version of the Mona Lisa will garner the same reaction from traditional art lovers.

Did you feel the same way about TNG? Gene thought much of TOS apocryphal and was trying to correct what he thought he did wrong?

The Abrams films are just the next chapter, just like The Motion Picture and TNG.

 

[KSoldier]

Am I one of the only ones who hated the Trek reboot?

Nope.

But come on, "every bit of Trek has been erased" is totally hyperbolic. They didn't "erase" anything, they're just (for some of us) less than great as films / Trek go.

I was going to mention this earlier, but I snuck into your house and erased all of your DVDs.

That was YOU?? Curses!

 

[Amaris]

Nope.

But come on, "every bit of Trek has been erased" is totally hyperbolic. They didn't "erase" anything, they're just (for some of us) less than great as films / Trek go.

I was going to mention this earlier, but I snuck into your house and erased all of your DVDs.

That was YOU?? Curses!

Mine is an evil laugh!

Seriously, though, it's fine if you don't like the new movies. I love them, I'm a big fan, and I can't wait for the 3rd film, but I understand that not everyone is going to share my opinion. Still, I do see them as homages to the original series, and to the spirit of Star Trek. I'm actually in the majority on that one, but don't think that's why I, or others, enjoy the films. I mean, I love Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and will defend it to the death, even knowing I'm in a very small minority of people who enjoy that film, so it's not popularity I'm after.

 

[drt]

Shoot, Roddenberry himself effectively rebooted Star Trek the first time with TMP then again with TNG. It was later productions after he passed that felt the need to tie everything together with cross-over episodes, etc.

 

[Cyke101]

So the problem isn't actually the new films. It's that you don't understand the definition of the word "reboot."

Wow, pretty harsh. Yes, I know very well what a reboot means. No need to be insulting, no matter how subtle you imply it.

Do you understand the definition of the word "opinion?"

The point I am trying to make is that IN MY OPINION this alternate reality has taken center stage of the prime reality.

Yes, I favor TOS and TNG a bit more and get a little grumpy when I see the new blood at Paramount contradict Trek canon with new and improved stories, no matter what excuse is given.

I apologize for my negative reaction towards what I feel is blasphemy against the book of Roddenberry.

IN MY OPINION, it would have been so much better had they stuck with the original timeline/reality and expanded the storyline. After all, there were two whole years left of that 5-year mission.

But that is just my opinion.

Liking/not liking the movie is an opinion. However, the definition of reboot is set in stone. And the fact of the matter is that the JJ movies were rebooted so that they could be in an alternate universe so that they'd take place separate from the original TV show.

(One of my biggest pet peeves is when people confuse fact and opinion, and then TYPE IN CAPS to dig the hole even deeper. People are entitled to their own opinions. They're not entitled to their own facts.)

 

[KSoldier]

Yes, I know, I know it is an "alternate reality/timeline" but re-painting an alternate version of the Mona Lisa - then hanging it in front of the original version of the Mona Lisa will garner the same reaction from traditional art lovers.

Did you feel the same way about TNG? Gene thought much of TOS apocryphal and was trying to correct what he thought he did wrong?

The Abrams films are just the next chapter, just like The Motion Picture and TNG.

I disagree that the Abrams films are the next chapter and are, instead, a complete re-write of the existing chapters. You see because if this re-write, Star Trek:The Motion Picture and many of TNG episodes can never exist in their original form.

As for Roddenberry's "corrections", I guess I can accept them since they originated from the creator, himself.

Gosh, I am really sounding like an old fart now... these darn kids with their new re-boots!

 

[BillJ]

I disagree that the Abrams films are the next chapter and are, instead, a complete re-write of the existing chapters. You see because if this re-write, Star Trek:The Motion Picture and many of TNG episodes can never exist in their original form.

You seem to miss the whole alternate timeline that can't exist unless the originals played out exactly as we saw them part of the film. All the events that happened, happened or else there'd be no Spock Prime to come back in time.

Gosh, I am really sounding like an old fart now... these darn kids with their new re-boots!

I'm 43 and have no issues with understanding the intent of the films.

Essentially, the universe branches in 2233 when Nero destroys the Kelvin. In the Prime timeline, the Kelvin never encountered him. In the Abramsverse, Nero destroys the Kelvin and changes the course of Federation history.