I don't like how Abrams approached this... *spoilers*

[joe40001]

This board is called "Abrams' Star Trek" and that's what bothers me. It's an accurate name. This is not Star Trek XI or Star Trek anything it's Abrams Star Trek.

It's a difficult to articulate feeling but it's like this.

"This is the Star Trek franchise"
"I'm JJ and I'm going to make a new Star Trek franchise and it's going to be better because I made it and I'm great."

And it's like everybody loves it, and if you don't like it you are just a stubborn nerd geek who is what's wrong with Star Trek, and JJ Abrams is what's right with it.

It's like it's a veiled reboot but everybody is going to love it because it has mass appeal. But that means you aren't continuing the franchise but rather saying the franchise is bad and you are going to make a better one.

Abrams is like Quentin Tarantino in that he doesn't make movies he makes HIS movies, movies that are possessed by him. And so Abrams didn't make a star trek movie he made an Abrams brand Star Trek movie.

This whole thing just made me leave the theater feeling weird because I didn't know what I had really just seen.



And now for the really scary question: In the future are we going to have to call the Star Trek we knew "Star Trek:TOU" (The Original Universe) and if so are the new Star Trek movies really even Star Trek movies anymore?

 

[StarTrek1701]

Dude... just enjoy the entertainment, ok? It's just a fuckin' movie.. and a very entertaining one at that. Can't you just take that?

 

[Roshi]

I guess you're not very pleased by this Valentine...

 

[Phantassm]

Dude... just enjoy the entertainment, ok? It's just a fuckin' movie.. and a very entertaining one at that. Can't you just take that?

Yeah-what he said although I would not have said it that way. I think a lot of fans take trek way to seriously. My favorite series is the original series and I got 79 episodes and 6 films featuring those characters so I am content with that part of my past that loves the original show. It's time to let all those comparisons go because the trek that I loved is there but its gone as well. Star Trek will always be in my heart as I have so many fond memoirs of the show, those characters and the actors but nothing lasts forever. Fans need to love their special show and stop comparing everything that comes out trek next to it. You know, you can like both.

 

[clint g]

Well it would have been nice if he threw the fans a bone and gave us a title that's just a littttttle bit more descriptive than Star Trek. But theres certainly more important things in the world

 

[joe40001]

Dude... just enjoy the entertainment, ok? It's just a fuckin' movie.. and a very entertaining one at that. Can't you just take that?

I came to talk on this forum because my other forum is usually rude when somebody is just trying to speak their mind. I'd hope there wouldn't be that here.

Look, no I can't just enjoy it because I don't know what it was, was it a Star Trek movie or wasn't it? I don't go to the theater like it's a fireworks show to just watch and then leave ignoring the story of the thing I just watched because that was never the point.

No, I watch it as a story. And as a story it matters to me whether or not this was a Star Trek movie and I really don't know if it was or not.

 

[-Brett-]

And now for the really scary question: In the future are we going to have to call the Star Trek we knew "Star Trek:TOU" (The Original Universe) and if so are the new Star Trek movies really even Star Trek movies anymore?

Yes and yes.

 

[joe40001]

Well it would have been nice if he threw the fans a bone and gave us a title that's just a littttttle bit more descriptive than Star Trek. But theres certainly more important things in the world

Well that title is just evidence that this isn't a Star Trek movie, but a "new type" Star Trek movie which is both embracing and rejecting of the original franchise at the same time. Which is what makes me feel weird about the movie, and when I feel weird about a movie I can't really feel good about it. Thus I didn't really feel good about this movie.

 

[StarTrek1701]

I came to talk on this forum because my other forum is usually rude when somebody is just trying to speak their mind. I'd hope there wouldn't be that here.

Whut?

Look, no I can't just enjoy it because I don't know what it was, was it a Star Trek movie or wasn't it? I don't go to the theater like it's a fireworks show to just watch and then leave ignoring the story of the thing I just watched because that was never the point.

No, I watch it as a story. And as a story it matters to me whether or not this was a Star Trek movie and I really don't know if it was or not.

Jesus Freakkin Christ.

 

[joe40001]

I came to talk on this forum because my other forum is usually rude when somebody is just trying to speak their mind. I'd hope there wouldn't be that here.

Whut?

Look, no I can't just enjoy it because I don't know what it was, was it a Star Trek movie or wasn't it? I don't go to the theater like it's a fireworks show to just watch and then leave ignoring the story of the thing I just watched because that was never the point.

No, I watch it as a story. And as a story it matters to me whether or not this was a Star Trek movie and I really don't know if it was or not.

Jesus Freakkin Christ.

The first quote is me saying that you are being rude. Your response to the second quote is evidence. And since when did caring about story earn ?

 

[tauntme]

They threw you a bone with the references to other Trek works. This IS Star Trek. It's optimistic, it's boldly going where no one's gone before.

 

[clint g]

They threw you a bone with the references to other Trek works. This IS Star Trek. It's optimistic, it's boldly going where no one's gone before.

Besides the previous shows of course

I kid, I kid, it really is an excellent film and while it can be a little jarring at times with all the changes they made, the beauty of sci-fi is anything can (and in the case of Star Trek XI) will happen. Im still shocked that they offed Vulcan

 

[Jptrekker]

Here's the thing...most of the real world out there...are you sitting down...this may be a shock...doesn't give a rat's ass about Star Trek. They don't care that Delta Vega was an unmanned lithium cracking station in some episode 40 years ago. They don't care about where scotty got a tribble. They don't care that Sam Kirk and Gary Mitchell are nowhere to be seen.

What they do care about is being entertained for an hour or two. Star Trek has been entertaining people for over 40 years now, and honestly, most of them don't think about it much past the hour or so they are watching it.

Paramount and CBS wanted to revive a 40 year moneymaker and they thought the best way was to turn it over to a director and producer and writer that could infuse new life into a franchise that was in a coma at best.

And they did just that. Star Trek is getting great reviews. It's filling theater seats. It's entertaining not only Trekkies but average people, who will come back for a sequel.

This has been going on for decades with other franchises, new actors playing familiar roles, undoing what has been previously done, and opening up adventures for a new generation of viewers.

Here's the question: Did you like the movie? You don't have to stop liking the past 40 years of Star Trek to like this new movie, it's not like you're being unfaithful to a lover, after all, It's just a TV show dammit! We trekkies get much more entertainment out of our favorite program than most people, but when it comes down to brass tacks, its still just a TV show. Don't like it, don't participate in it, but it's not sacred, it can be changed.

It's kind of like comic book movies. The comics have their own canon which works in the comics, but usually doesn't translate to movies. When movie producers are allowed to take license with the canon, they can get a great movie, on the other hand when they are not given license, the movie version is usually crap.

Star Trek has this 40 year canon that has served it well, but we're getting to the point where most of the stories have been told, at least stories that will appeal to an audience outside of the core of trekdom. The producers needed to be given some license to take the best elements of Star Trek and make something new from them, the result is the new movie which is being enjoyed by many many people as I type these words.

and yes, it's Star Trek, just like Casino Royale is James Bond and Batman Begins, is well, Batman.

Enjoy it, run with it, have fun trying to fold it into the existing canon or into its own new alternate universe. Either way the whole point of this is to have fun.

 

[Amaris]

This board is called "Abrams' Star Trek" and that's what bothers me. It's an accurate name. This is not Star Trek XI or Star Trek anything it's Abrams Star Trek.

It's a difficult to articulate feeling but it's like this.

"This is the Star Trek franchise"
"I'm JJ and I'm going to make a new Star Trek franchise and it's going to be better because I made it and I'm great."

And it's like everybody loves it, and if you don't like it you are just a stubborn nerd geek who is what's wrong with Star Trek, and JJ Abrams is what's right with it.

It's like it's a veiled reboot but everybody is going to love it because it has mass appeal. But that means you aren't continuing the franchise but rather saying the franchise is bad and you are going to make a better one.

Abrams is like Quentin Tarantino in that he doesn't make movies he makes HIS movies, movies that are possessed by him. And so Abrams didn't make a star trek movie he made an Abrams brand Star Trek movie.

This whole thing just made me leave the theater feeling weird because I didn't know what I had really just seen.



And now for the really scary question: In the future are we going to have to call the Star Trek we knew "Star Trek:TOU" (The Original Universe) and if so are the new Star Trek movies really even Star Trek movies anymore?

Whether you like it, or do not like it, it is still a Star Trek movie. It is Star Trek. That does not change. Not AbramsTrek, not NuTrek, Star Trek. Any revisions will be in your imagination, not onscreen.


J.

 

[joe40001]

Here's the thing...most of the real world out there...are you sitting down...this may be a shock...doesn't give a rat's ass about Star Trek. They don't care that Delta Vega was an unmanned lithium cracking station in some episode 40 years ago. They don't care about where scotty got a tribble. They don't care that Sam Kirk and Gary Mitchell are nowhere to be seen.

What they do care about is being entertained for an hour or two. Star Trek has been entertaining people for over 40 years now, and honestly, most of them don't think about it much past the hour or so they are watching it.

Paramount and CBS wanted to revive a 40 year moneymaker and they thought the best way was to turn it over to a director and producer and writer that could infuse new life into a franchise that was in a coma at best.

And they did just that. Star Trek is getting great reviews. It's filling theater seats. It's entertaining not only Trekkies but average people, who will come back for a sequel.

This has been going on for decades with other franchises, new actors playing familiar roles, undoing what has been previously done, and opening up adventures for a new generation of viewers.

Here's the question: Did you like the movie? You don't have to stop liking the past 40 years of Star Trek to like this new movie, it's not like you're being unfaithful to a lover, after all, It's just a TV show dammit! We trekkies get much more entertainment out of our favorite program than most people, but when it comes down to brass tacks, its still just a TV show. Don't like it, don't participate in it, but it's not sacred, it can be changed.

It's kind of like comic book movies. The comics have their own canon which works in the comics, but usually doesn't translate to movies. When movie producers are allowed to take license with the canon, they can get a great movie, on the other hand when they are not given license, the movie version is usually crap.

Star Trek has this 40 year canon that has served it well, but we're getting to the point where most of the stories have been told, at least stories that will appeal to an audience outside of the core of trekdom. The producers needed to be given some license to take the best elements of Star Trek and make something new from them, the result is the new movie which is being enjoyed by many many people as I type these words.

and yes, it's Star Trek, just like Casino Royale is James Bond and Batman Begins, is well, Batman.

Enjoy it, run with it, have fun trying to fold it into the existing canon or into its own new alternate universe. Either way the whole point of this is to have fun.

I am not denying that this movie will be successful, I am not denying in the minds of many it will be liked. But you can sit and watch a fireworks show and be entertained. Sure it's called Star Trek, but I really don't know if it is.

I think I know where the confusion comes from: I am saying "Star Trek" to refer to the sum of the previous tv series and movies, and I don't know if this is part of that or not.

I don't like a movie I can't make up my mind on, I can't make up my mind on this movie because I don't know if it's part of "Star Trek" as defined earlier, so I don't like this movie.

Chapter 2 in a story follows Chapter 1, and chapter 2 is different if chapter 1 happened or not. So if this movie is chapter 2, than the sum of the previous shows and movies is chapter 1 and so you can't really make any conclusions about chapter 2 until you figure out if chapter 1 happened or not.

 

[Jptrekker]

well good luck with that

 

[IndyJones]

Chapter 2 in a story follows Chapter 1, and chapter 2 is different if chapter 1 happened or not. So if this movie is chapter 2, than the sum of the previous shows and movies is chapter 1 and so you can't really make any conclusions about chapter 2 until you figure out if chapter 1 happened or not.

We got the time travel aspect to please people like you.

All that you know as Star Trek happened before Ambassador Spock went back in time to the events in this movie. Events will diverge now, but all that we knew as Star Trek before this movie had to happen for Spock to end up in that place and go back in time.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I can understand your problem with all this (though I don't feel like that at all), but honestly, isn't getting annoyed with the forum's name taking it a step too far? You have every right to be upset about the story and whatnot, because if you didn't like it, you didn't like it.

But getting angry because people are calling it "Abram's Trek" and because they think Abram's is cool and has made Trek hip again? Lighten up a little.

 

[Orac Zen]

The "Abrams' Star Trek" forum subtitle was in fact an April Fool's gag by the site's manager (she re-labelled almost every other forum on this site as well). People liked the gag and so the subtitle was kept after April Fool's.

That's its entire significance right there.

While I see what the OP is getting at, I reserve the right to disagree. For mine, this movie is Star Trek. Parallel universe, same Trek.

However, that's me. To each their own.

 

[lawman]

Here's the thing...most of the real world out there...are you sitting down...this may be a shock...doesn't give a rat's ass about Star Trek. They don't care that Delta Vega was an unmanned lithium cracking station in some episode 40 years ago. They don't care about where scotty got a tribble. They don't care that Sam Kirk and Gary Mitchell are nowhere to be seen.

What they do care about is being entertained for an hour or two. Star Trek has been entertaining people for over 40 years now, and honestly, most of them don't think about it much past the hour or so they are watching it.

Wow, what a bizarre attitude. Why do you think this is relevant? Why should I or anyone who does care about a fictional creation, Trek or otherwise, give a rat's ass what "most of the world" cares about, or what entertains them just enough to not provoke any lasting thoughts? You're explicitly positing lowest-common-denominator viewers as the standard for aesthetic judgment.

Paramount and CBS wanted to revive a 40 year moneymaker...
And they did just that.

Commercial success has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Unless you own a lot of stock in Paramount, why should you care? Transformers earned gobs of cash too; doesn't make it a good movie.

Here's the question: Did you like the movie?

Now, that's a relevant question. The answer is no.

and yes, it's Star Trek, just like Casino Royale is James Bond and Batman Begins, is well, Batman.

Well, no. James Bond is what's in the novels by Ian Fleming; Batman is what's in the comics. What you're talking about are screen adaptations, which may be entertaining, but were never intended to supplant the original source material.

With Trek, OTOH, the original source material was always on screen from the start. This new Trek, then, although it's essentially a loose adaptation, nevertheless has the practical effect of taking the place of the original. Surely you can see why some people might take exception to that? Whether it succeeds on its own (debatable) merits or not, it can't be judged solely as a freestanding work.