I think he may have been banned.I'm withholding judgment until MattJC chimes in.
HEADLINE- "If not a reboot, then maybe a boo-boot?"
- Thread starter gastrof
- Start date
Reading between JJ's lines I sense that he cannot put everyone minds at ease without spoiling the movie.
While the trailer and the reviews of the other clips haven't encouraged me, I'm willing to concede that what we haven't seen may make all these pieces fit together satisfactorily. I'm willing to keep an open mind even as I'm losing a bit of optimism.
---------------
That is good news. The man himself said its not a reboot. I still have feeling people still wont be happy saying its a reboot.
That is exactly why Abrams will not confirm this as a reboot. It would spoil the surprise.
No, we're not and no he shouldn't. Completely wrong.
If the movie bombs at the box office someone may owe Paramount's stockholders an explanation of some kind.
Minor changes like that, I don't mind - "canon" itself was open to interpretation when TOS started (James R. Kirk, anyone?
). I don't mind the fact the ships are more TMP than TOS - it's a motion picture, I want to see a motion picture-like ship. I don't even mind the number of nacelles, or how many zeroes are in the registry. I can even look past the new Enterprise's iBridge...The big "BUT" is that I will be a bit disappointed if it's so different that I can't marry it up to TOS and the rest of the franchise that followed it. It's the history of 40 years of Trek that is important to me, and that's the bit I want to stay in tact. If that needs some funky time travel/reset button device to do it, then so be it. (I never thought I'd approve of a reset button... I feel a bit dirty now)
If it does turn out to be the start of an alternate timeline... then meh, I suppose I can live with it. It's not ideal, but it's not the end of the world
That's what I'm struggling with. It's not a reboot but we're "changing what you know" about ST. Ok, so which is it?
That's what I'm struggling with. It's not a reboot but we're "changing what you know" about ST. Ok, so which is it?
There are holes in any story, which if filled may drastically change what one thought the story was about.
I know I'm tired of it.
I'm also getting tired of seeing chickenshit jabs like this. I'd like to see it stop.I'm withholding judgment until MattJC chimes in.
Agreed.
Sure, PPC owns the name "Star Trek." But PPC isn't the CONSUMER, they (like Abrams) are the PROVIDER.
If a service provider messes up a service they're providing to a particular market, it's not the fault of the marketplace, nor is it the fault of only one part of the supply-chain.
That argument would be like saying, when you buy a new Ford auto, and the radio doesn't work, it's not really Ford's fault, it's the radio-maker's fault... and they should owe an apology to Ford, but not to the person who just bought the car.
If the movie is a disaster (not sayin' it will be, just saying IF it is) then the people who made it (studio and production staff alike) will collectively owe an apology to the marketplace. Doesn't mean they'll give it, of course...
If the movie IS a disaster, Trek as a film production will be dead for the foreseeable future, of course. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
That's what I'm struggling with. It's not a reboot but we're "changing what you know" about ST. Ok, so which is it?
There are holes in any story, which if filled may drastically change what one thought the story was about.
Yeah but the quote, if quoted properly, said this movie "would change what we KNOW" about Star Trek. Not what we think happened, but what we know.
Now maybe Abrams or whoever it was that said that misspoke, maybe they were misquoted, but for now I can only take the quote at face value. They're changing something we KNOW. What does that mean exactly if this isn't some form of a reboot/reimagining/whatever?
I don't know what a "boo-boot" is, but lurking around here, it looks like more of a "boo-hoo-boot."
Why not wait and see the film first before making such bold statements about the film's imminent failure?
Why not wait and see the film first before making such bold statements about the film's imminent failure?
And I was just thinking how the presence of Nimoy even makes it more fuzzy. On the one hand you have the link to TOS as we remember it in the form of Nimoy. But the movie will then mix that link with the newly updated bridge, ship, etc, that respresent some from of reboot/reimagining/whatever.
Fuzzy indeed.
DontFeedPhil
Fleet Captain
Who really cares what type of a boot it is? Oh wait. I know. Its us obsessed trek fans on the net. Which make up about 5% of the viewing audience. JJ Abrams doesnt owe us a thing. He was chosen by the studio for this project and if anything he owes the studio an explaination...Not us.
And besides. For those trek-nerds (myself included(Im a trek nerd...But I dont consider it sacred)) who think that TOS and Kirk and Spock are "Sacred" Get a grip. So because most fans on this board have a real hard on for TOS it can never be touched again? Now that most of the Original actors are dead or close to dead they can never make another story about TOS cause that would be sacrelige? No. And for those who think that this movie will ruin TOS. Really? I mean you dont have the complete TOS seasons 1-3 and all the other movies? You can watch them at anytime and stay stuck in the past.
This movie is for people who have a slightly open mind and people who like change and the optimism of the future. Thats kinda what trek and its fans are supposed to be all about.
Dont be sad when this movie blows away any records held by all previous Trek Movies and when it ends up being considered TRUE TOS and most people forget about the Shat...Dont be sad...
And besides. For those trek-nerds (myself included(Im a trek nerd...But I dont consider it sacred)) who think that TOS and Kirk and Spock are "Sacred" Get a grip. So because most fans on this board have a real hard on for TOS it can never be touched again? Now that most of the Original actors are dead or close to dead they can never make another story about TOS cause that would be sacrelige? No. And for those who think that this movie will ruin TOS. Really? I mean you dont have the complete TOS seasons 1-3 and all the other movies? You can watch them at anytime and stay stuck in the past.
This movie is for people who have a slightly open mind and people who like change and the optimism of the future. Thats kinda what trek and its fans are supposed to be all about.
Dont be sad when this movie blows away any records held by all previous Trek Movies and when it ends up being considered TRUE TOS and most people forget about the Shat...Dont be sad...
After fans have bitched and moaned it to death everytime they put a new show out....
TNG: Fans: NO WE DON'T WANT A DIFFERENT CREW..
DS9: FANS: TREK WITH NO SHIP WHAT THE FUCK
VOY FANS: A FEMALE CAPTAIN? WTF
ENT FANS: CAPTAIN BECKET? WHAT IS HE GOING TO LEAP THE ROMULANS HOME???
And I saw every one of those...
Paramount owes us shit because the fans kicked trek and left it bleeding to death in the Jeffries Tube of Mediocrity. You want to see who's resposible for Trek being bad go look in the fucking mirror.
That argument only holds if we're not being charged to see it.
If people are paying for it, it's a service. In this case, an entertainment service.
People who design automobiles are every bit as much "artists" as people who make movies.
Dont be sad when this movie blows away any records held by all previous Trek Movies and when it ends up being considered TRUE TOS and most people forget about the Shat...Dont be sad...
Well I guess if that happens, I'm okay with a new generation of fans having their version of Star Trek. I've had my 40+ years so I guess it's time to pass the torch. Hopefully the new fans will have as much enjoyment with Trek as it used to bring me.
Similar threads
