• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

HEADLINE- "If not a reboot, then maybe a boo-boot?"

It became Formulaic because it had to adhere to certain rules, it had to be such and such a way or the hard core fans got bitchy. It had to remain in the constraints of a certain set of ideals. IT LOST IT'S CREATIVITY TO FAN BELLY-ACHING. The people watching wouldn't LET them be UNCLICHED because they have this mentality of "WHAT TREK IS"

No, the fans had been bitching for years and years that formulaic crap should go, it's the reason why the hardcore fans for years have been complaining about how bad Voyager and Enterprise was, and even they more and more quit watching the junk. Which is ultimately the reason why this movie had to be made.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a long time fan I want to see this franchise do well. Often, franchises do this through reinvention. Like it or not, almost everything that has come after TOS reinvented Trek in its own way. The movies took us away from the 60's-esque tone of the show, DS9 was set on an alien space station, Voyager took us out of familiar Starfleet territory etc. I grant the success of these various reinventions can be debated, but fact is Trek has always been about reinventing itself.

Me, I'm the exact opposite. If the only way Star Trek can be "successful" is to turn it into meaningless, popcorn, action fantasy bullshit, with not even a flicker that is worthwhile in it; than I do NOT want the franchise to be successful.

Like I said: better end a franchise than continue it with crap, so that crap gets dumped on the good stuff that came before.
 
It became Formulaic because it had to adhere to certain rules, it had to be such and such a way or the hard core fans got bitchy. It had to remain in the constraints of a certain set of ideals. IT LOST IT'S CREATIVITY TO FAN BELLY-ACHING. The people watching wouldn't LET them be UNCLICHED because they have this mentality of "WHAT TREK IS"

No, the fans had been bitching for years and years that formulaic crap should go, it's the reason why the hardcore fans for years have been complaining about how bad Voyager and Enterprise was, and even they more and more quit watching the junk. Which is ultimately the reason why this movie had to be made.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a long time fan I want to see this franchise do well. Often, franchises do this through reinvention. Like it or not, almost everything that has come after TOS reinvented Trek in its own way. The movies took us away from the 60's-esque tone of the show, DS9 was set on an alien space station, Voyager took us out of familiar Starfleet territory etc. I grant the success of these various reinventions can be debated, but fact is Trek has always been about reinventing itself.

Me, I'm the exact opposite. If the only way Star Trek can be "successful" is to turn it into meaningless, popcorn, action fantasy bullshit, with not even a flicker that is worthwhile in it; than I do NOT want the franchise to be successful.

Like I said: better end a franchise than continue it with crap, so that crap gets dumped on the good stuff that came before.
Hardcore fans were bitching before TNG ever got aired. Kinda kills your damn point now don't it.
 
Hardcore fans were bitching before TNG ever got aired. Kinda kills your damn point now don't it.

No.
Really, you don't find it a point breaker that the hardcore fans were against The Next Generation before it ever aired?

That's your problem then, I'm off to the bar to sing Karaoke and get drunk..

Lates all.
See? We should totally be friends. The only reason I'm still here is because I have clothes in the dryer. Once they're done, it's off the bars for me as well!

Yay REAL WORLD!
 
Movies are not a service. They are an art form. Art is always subjective, and an artist does not owe the public an apology if people don't like his work.
He may if he charges admission.
Abrams isn't charging admission and when you buy a ticket from the theater you are buying a license to see a produce work. They make no guarantee on the door or on the ticket that you are going to enjoy said work. You can though try and get a refund from the theater, because The money isn't going to Abrams, it's going to Paramount and the Theater, they may reimburse you, they may not, but you take it to court and the judge will laugh you out of there.
All true, but irrelevant to the question of whether or not an apology may be due.

---------------
 
Abrams, next May: "I'm sorry you didn't like my movie. To make up for it, I won't make you buy the DVD."
 
He may if he charges admission.
Abrams isn't charging admission and when you buy a ticket from the theater you are buying a license to see a produce work. They make no guarantee on the door or on the ticket that you are going to enjoy said work. You can though try and get a refund from the theater, because The money isn't going to Abrams, it's going to Paramount and the Theater, they may reimburse you, they may not, but you take it to court and the judge will laugh you out of there.
All true, but irrelevant to the question of whether or not an apology may be due.

---------------
The idea that Abrams would owe anyone an apology (apart from his financial backers) if the film tanks is absurd. I cannot believe this is still being discussed. If filmmakers who make shitty movies have to apologize to people disappointed by the films, I await an EXTRAORDINARILY PROFOUND AND PROFUSE apology from the makers of The Blair Witch Project. I expect it by next June 31st. :lol:
 
If filmmakers who make shitty movies have to apologize to people disappointed by the films, I await an EXTRAORDINARILY PROFOUND AND PROFUSE apology from the makers of The Blair Witch Project.
Expecting an apology, and deserving an apology are of course two very different things.

---------------
 
It became Formulaic because it had to adhere to certain rules, it had to be such and such a way or the hard core fans got bitchy. It had to remain in the constraints of a certain set of ideals. IT LOST IT'S CREATIVITY TO FAN BELLY-ACHING. The people watching wouldn't LET them be UNCLICHED because they have this mentality of "WHAT TREK IS" (You've seen it over and over again the self-appointed guardians of canon who look to everything that doesn't fit there idea of canon. You see the old guard who don't acknowledge TNG, you see the one who refuse to accept DS9. The people who hate VOY and refuse to see it as trek, and all the people who are anti-enterprise and wish it never came along.) What is Trek??? Trek has always been the optimistic spirit of hope that we can put aside our differences and do anything. It talked about rascism and hate, War and it's uselessness. It tried to move us beyond stereotyping. It was stories about how revenge was pointless, or scheming to get what you want and getting it doesn't always leave you happy. Trek was so much more than it's "CANON" it's set of rules that it became bound to by myopic fans who couldn't see the forest for the trees. When those "rules" got set aside that's when Trek did it's best and had it's best. When it got bogged down in the minutia and the anal retentiveness of it's hard core fan base it was at it's worst. Space Seed was one of the best TOS episodes ever. City on the Edge of forever one if the best of the bunch. Best of Both Worlds a great suspensful two parter. The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage home, The Undiscovered country and First Contact, all great flicks which set Canon aside to tell great stories.

I sumbit it's you who fails to see that the canon all though it is fun to keep track of ISN'T what made Trek a success. It never was and never will be, it's an afterthought. A thing for the mental acrobats to waddle through and piece together so some 45 yr old living in colorado can put up a website about the great men in the future like Kirk, Picard, or Sisco. It's not there to strangle and deaden the story, like it's been allowed to do for the past ten years. It's not there to get in the way of storytelling. And anyone who thinks you have to stick to a made up history just because it's been around for Fourty years gah I can't end this sentence without making an attack so I'll just end here....
Agreed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If filmmakers who make shitty movies have to apologize to people disappointed by the films, I await an EXTRAORDINARILY PROFOUND AND PROFUSE apology from the makers of The Blair Witch Project.
Expecting an apology, and deserving an apology are of course two very different things.

---------------
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it" (William Munny--Unforgiven)
"The fans" (nor anyone else for that matter) DESERVES an apology if the film does not meet their personal expectations. To believe otherwise is the height of hubris and exemplifies the kind of asinine attitude of "ownership" that some fans have--as if they are the true "owners" of Trek. Such "fans" need to get over themselves.
 
To JJ:

keeptalking1gg6.jpg


With Luv,

Nick
 
Hardcore fans were bitching before TNG ever got aired. Kinda kills your damn point now don't it.

No.
Really, you don't find it a point breaker that the hardcore fans were against The Next Generation before it ever aired?

That's your problem then, I'm off to the bar to sing Karaoke and get drunk..

Lates all.
I'm a "hard core Trek fan."

I wasn't bitching about TNG before it ever got aired.

I know a fair number of "hard core Trek fans."

Nobody I personally know was bitching about TNG before it ever got aired. Most were pretty stoked, actually.

Admittedly, anecdotal, but 100% consistent in my personal anecdotal experience.

Of course, there were undoubtedly SOME folks who were up in arms, but I get the feeling that they were a lot less prevalent than the press reports of the time might've led you to believe. It's always the fringe types that get the press... because conflict makes for interesting news, right? Nobody wants to read a newspaper about happy puppies... they want to read about death, destruction, mayhem and bloodshed... preferably all combined in a story involving puppies. :rolleyes:

Actually, the reaction to TNG went negative only after the pretty pathetic first few episodes. And honestly, the first season was VERY weak... the show only really started picking up midway through the second season, and finally became really worth watching (for the non-"ready-made-audience" out there) in the third season.

The real complaint was the poor scriptwriting, overly preachy storytelling, cardboard-cutout characterization (with characters who were all designed not as people but as "gimmicks" that were attached to generic characters) and "straight to video-tape" production quality. This improved over time... but at first... it was really bad. Seriously... go back and watch a first-season episode. Cringe-worthy, almost universally.

But most "fans" were excited about it and gave it a chance initially, were then driven away, and finally came back when it got better (only to leave again, in droves, with Voyager and the first two seasons of Enterprise.)
 
Abrams, next May: "I'm sorry you didn't like my movie. To make up for it, I won't make you buy the DVD."
I'm going to see this movie. Probably at a matinee... and if it sucks, it'll be the second Trek production I'll decide not to buy (I have a big "Voyager-shaped" opening in my DVD cabinet that I plan to never fill!)

If it only partially sucks, I'll wait 'til someone does a fan-made "re-edit" with a decent-quality model of the TOS ship (exteriors only, but still might be enough to make it "viewable").
 
Me, I'm the exact opposite. If the only way Star Trek can be "successful" is to turn it into meaningless, popcorn, action fantasy bullshit, with not even a flicker that is worthwhile in it; than I do NOT want the franchise to be successful.
I never said I wanted a "meaningless" film. When I say "reinvent", I mean that JJ is clearly changing some things such as the look of the bridge, the design of the ship and maybe even some "canon" such as when a Starfleet officer first saw a Romulan. Those things I can accept. I still want a good story with heart PLUS action and excitement. Good Trek has always had those elements, and I'm hoping his does too.
 
It became Formulaic because it had to adhere to certain rules,
No, it got formulaic because the people running it lacked imagination to think of anything really different, and they lacked the balls to stand up to the studio's demands that they try to recapture the old formula that had made TNG so popular.

it had to be such and such a way or the hard core fans got bitchy.
B&B never gave a rats ass about what the fans said, beyond trying to shut them up by saying "we're all very pleased".

It had to remain in the constraints of a certain set of ideals. IT LOST IT'S CREATIVITY TO FAN BELLY-ACHING. The people watching wouldn't LET them be UNCLICHED because they have this mentality of "WHAT TREK IS" (You've seen it over and over again the self-appointed guardians of canon who look to everything that doesn't fit there idea of canon.
Yeah, it's not like the studio had anything to do with it, what with their demands that the shows be episodic and as close to the TNG formula as possible, or that they inject as much sex into the show as possible, or that they bring in the TCW storyline and all the other familiar Star Trek technologies because they didn't think the original ENT concepts were futuristic enough. Yup, it was all just the fans bitching, yup, yup, yup...

You see the old guard who don't acknowledge TNG, you see the one who refuse to accept DS9. The people who hate VOY and refuse to see it as trek, and all the people who are anti-enterprise and wish it never came along.)
Which has nothing to do with actual continuity.

What is Trek???
That's a largely subjective topic that continues to be discussed endlessly.

Trek was so much more than it's "CANON" it's set of rules that it became bound to by myopic fans who couldn't see the forest for the trees.
It's not so much that as I'd rather not have some Star Wars fan boy ruin a franchise I've become attached to.

When those "rules" got set aside that's when Trek did it's best and had it's best.
Actually continuity is a good thing within a show. Some of DS9's best early episodes used events from TOS and TNG as jumping off points, like their first MU episode. If all you're interested is being entertained for an hour and don't give a shit about continuity or character development, the Twilight Zone would probably be a better show for you.

When it got bogged down in the minutia and the anal retentiveness of it's hard core fan base it was at it's worst.
Uh, no, the fans just buy shit, and that's all anyone at the studio has ever cared about. The writers and the people who make the show like kudos from the fans as much as anyone else, but every series has its own group of dedicated fans, even if they aren't necessarily made up of the same people.

Space Seed was one of the best TOS episodes ever. City on the Edge of forever one if the best of the bunch. Best of Both Worlds a great suspensful two parter. The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage home, The Undiscovered country and First Contact, all great flicks which set Canon aside to tell great stories.
I don't really see how any of those examples skew from continuity very much, aside from Khan thinking that he'd seen Chekov before.

I sumbit it's you who fails to see that the canon all though it is fun to keep track of ISN'T what made Trek a success.
Good continuity is like quality control, and it can only add to its success.

It never was and never will be, it's an afterthought. A thing for the mental acrobats to waddle through and piece together so some 45 yr old living in colorado can put up a website about the great men in the future like Kirk, Picard, or Sisco. It's not there to strangle and deaden the story, like it's been allowed to do for the past ten years. It's not there to get in the way of storytelling. And anyone who thinks you have to stick to a made up history just because it's been around for Fourty years gah I can't end this sentence without making an attack so I'll just end here....

:rolleyes: Again, I like how the people who say they like the movie can't help but attack the people who say they don't like it, rather than arguing reasons why they support the movie just as those who don't argue reasons why they don't like it.
 
If filmmakers who make shitty movies have to apologize to people disappointed by the films, I await an EXTRAORDINARILY PROFOUND AND PROFUSE apology from the makers of The Blair Witch Project.
Expecting an apology, and deserving an apology are of course two very different things.

---------------
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it" (William Munny--Unforgiven)
"The fans" (nor anyone else for that matter) DESERVES an apology if the film does not meet their personal expectations. To believe otherwise is the height of hubris and exemplifies the kind of asinine attitude of "ownership" that some fans have--as if they are the true "owners" of Trek. Such "fans" need to get over themselves.
You know, it's one thing to argue why a movie sucks, but it's another to whine about how the person who's directing it somehow owes them an apology. I really don't think much of ST5, but I've certainly never demanded that William Shatner apologize for that steaming pile, and as much as I hate TATV and question just what the hell B&B were smoking when they wrote that episode (and why I can't have any), but I've never once demanded an apology from either of them. Stuff like that just makes critics look bad.
 
Again, I like how the people who say they like the movie can't help but attack the people who say they don't like it, rather than arguing reasons why they support the movie just as those who don't argue reasons why they don't like it.
I like that people like and dislike a movie they've still NEVER SEEN!!!
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top